I agree -- but my point is that, in technical terms, the DE conviction means that the identity of the deceased shouldn't matter. What matters is that the accused knowingly acted in an unlawful manner and failed to meet the standards of PPD. The part of Masipa's decision that accepted that it was "reasonably possible" that OP believed an intruder was present has not been overturned, so the SCA is obliged to rule on DE vs. CH on the assumption that Oscar legitimately thought Reeva was in bed and an intruder was in the bathroom.
That he turned out to be mistaken in the identity of the person in the toilet is no longer at issue. If a person uses lethal force on what appears to be an armed assailant, he or she will likely have a valid self-defense claim even if it turns out the gun was fake, or that the whole thing was a supremely ill-advised prank and the assailant was actually the person's best friend wearing a mask and toting a realistic-looking water pistol. What matters is that the accused acted on a reasonable (if mistaken) belief that his or her life was in danger.
Similarly, if it it is NOT legitimate self-defense to shoot an intruder through a bathroom door, it shouldn't matter, legally speaking, whether the "intruder" was a gun-toting maniac or a local teenager breaking in on a dare. What matters is that OP acted in a way that was likely to result in the unknown person's death in a situation that does not meet the legal criteria for PPD. His truthfulness matters only to the extent that it led the court to reject his claim that he wasn't intending to kill the person in the toilet.
The point I'm making is that I think that whatever the law actually says, the court DOES seem to be taking the identity of the deceased into account, because it seems clear to me that Oscar would not be facing the same kind of penalty if the person he had killed had indeed been an armed intruder. Personally, I'm glad that take these kinds of things into account -- but it is also important, I think, to acknowledge that that is what is happening. Instead, the SCA is framing its decision AS IF the person who actually killed an armed intruder under the same circumstances would be equally guilty, and I don't think that is true in any practical sense.
I can't agree that Pistorius has been treated harshly or that a verdict of DE is the State's consolation prize for failing on DD.
Had there been an armed intruder in the bathroom, Pistorius's credibility wouldn't have been shot to pieces.
When Masipa made a finding that it was reasonably possibly true that Pistorius had believed an intruder was in the toilet, she omitted to make a finding on unlawful intent. As a result, the door was left wide open for the SCA to find that he must have known that he was not entitled to kill the person behind the door, based on their assessment of the evidence, and, indeed, hers.
Had they found him to be an honest witness, IMO, they may well have been more sympathetic and made a finding that he
should have known that his conduct in firing four high calibre bullets into a confined space was unlawful, (CH); however, given that they found his evidence to be unreliable, they drew the conclusion, quite justifiably, in my opinion, that he intended to kill and
must have known that he was behaving unlawfully, (DE).
Whatever the academics may have to say about the legal position, the bottom line is that it is for the Court to assess credibility and this is exactly what the SCA did, within their own, fairly narrow, remit. Put simply, they didn't accept that he was so scared that he thought he was entitled to fire, which, is, in fact, a pretty accurate assessment of the evidence, IMO.
And, in practice, I don't think this case sets a dangerous precedent for real intruder cases either because, in such cases, the perpetrator is very likely to be able to provide a much better evidenciary foundation to support his or her erroneous belief than the wood moving sound and open window.
