IS HE GUILTY?

Craig Eudey Wrote:

---

> Prosecutor is probably the top one in SA. Defence
> advocate is considered one of the best in the
> country and is said to be a brilliant strategist.
> We will see. Was said to be like a woodpecker
> chipping away at a block of wood until it
> collapses.

It is amazing that he (defence adv) has this reputation. Useless.

Roux is about to discredit the states best witness. Far from useless.OP gonna end up walking away with a fine

mr hawaii Wrote:

---

> How on earth does he plead not guilty to firing a
> gun in a public place if I understand that charge
> correctly - He was obviously negligent with the
> firearm in that restaurant and the mere fact that
> the gun was passed UNDER the table suggests he
> knew his actions were wrong before it was fired
> negligently. He already demonstrated then that he
> did not understand or did not care about gun
> safety. Further allowing his friend to take the
> rap points to his character and questions his
> honesty. He unfortunately will be convicted of
> something but of what needs to be seen

I am not biased but why would you always blame him for everything, surely the responsibility to make sure the gun is safe before you pass it on rest on the owner of the gun, he should be charged because he was negligent not OP?
he was angry because the bullets were not removed and loaded, surely it is not illegal for me to look at my friends gun if it is not loaded? but is it my responsibility to make sure it is not loaded or my friend the owner of the gun 's responsibility?

JAMES BLOND Wrote:

---

> mr hawaii Wrote:
>

---

>

---

> > How on earth does he plead not guilty to firing
> a
> > gun in a public place if I understand that
> charge
> > correctly - He was obviously negligent with the
> > firearm in that restaurant and the mere fact
> that
> > the gun was passed UNDER the table suggests he
> > knew his actions were wrong before it was fired
> > negligently. He already demonstrated then that
> he
> > did not understand or did not care about gun
> > safety. Further allowing his friend to take the
> > rap points to his character and questions his
> > honesty. He unfortunately will be convicted
> of
> > something but of what needs to be seen
>
> I am not biased but why would you always blame him
> for everything, surely the responsibility to make
> sure the gun is safe before you pass it on rest on
> the owner of the gun, he should be charged because
> he was negligent not OP?
> he was angry because the bullets were not removed
> and loaded, surely it is not illegal for me to
> look at my friends gun if it is not loaded? but is
> it my responsibility to make sure it is not loaded
> or my friend the owner of the gun 's
> responsibility?


Did you not hear the testimony("one up" re Lerena)? He was told there was a bullet in the chamber - He, according to what i read then took out that bullet and put the mag back into the gun and a new bullet went into the chamber - Did the owner of the gun fire the shot? Both should be charged

onyerway Wrote:

---

> Roux is about to discredit the states best
> witness. Far from useless.OP gonna end up walking
> away with a fine


He is brilliant at his job - Johnson is all at sea - In the legal profession you earn your rep and he obviously has

I know nothing about the law and the case....but science has shown that the best eye witness...is a little better than useless....so eye (or any other) witness opinion should count for very little....

His word against hers.

onyerway Wrote:

---

> His word against hers.


sadly...yes it would appear that way....

Haupie I am no attorney however I disagree with you, I cannot see Oscar walking free from this...no chance at all imho.

agree totally Oscar

It is circumstancle evidence which means he has an opertunity to state his case and if it is regarded as possibly true he will be found not guilty

Not a fan of this soap opera...

My two cents worth...if majority of shots fired randomly into bathroom, indicative that he didn't know where in bathroom "intruder" was...if shots concentrated to small part of bathroom / door, indicative that he knew where in bathroom "intruder" was and therefore more indicative of intent to harm / injure / kill whoever was behind that portion of door / in that part of bathroom...

Will see in three weeks what verdict is...guilty or not, of no interest to me...only view I have of OP is as an athlete and that his lack of sportsmanship showed when the athlete from Brazil beat him...