The following is worth reading.
http://constitutionallyspeaking.co.za/category/oscar-pistorius/
Using his clever lawyers maybe he will get away with murder. If so, the law is an *advertiser censored*.
This is an excellent and long article so I have paraphrased it. It talks about:
Specific Legal Principles
Based on the version of events provided by Pistorius and his lawyers at the bail hearing,
the disputed element of the crime will be fault.
1. You can only be found guilty of murder if you
unlawfully and intentionally killed another person. You can be found guilty of culpable homicide if you unlawfully and negligently killed another person.
2. There is no dispute that the killing of Reeva Steenkamp was
unlawful as it would be impossible to argue that Pistorius acted in self-defence (or private defence, as it is known in law). No such attack occurred or was imminent in this case.
3. The question then is whether the accused had the
requisite intention to kill another person. Intention must not be confused with motive. The persons motive is the reason why he acted in the manner he did and is usually thought of as irrelevant for determining guilt. Motive can explain why an accused formed the intention to kill another person, but is separate from that intention.
4. The state can prove the
direct intention by proving that the accused actually meant to kill the deceased.
a) Evidence that the accused and the victim were involved in a stormy argument before the killing or
b) that the accused had previously threatened the life of the victim could be important.
5. The state can also prove intention via the concept of dolus eventualis.
a) This form of intention exists where the state can prove that while the accused might not have meant to kill the victim, he nevertheless foresaw the possibility and nevertheless proceeded with his actions.
b) Forensic evidence about the trajectory of the bullets and the other evidence at the crime scene could be important especially if this contradicted the version of events put up by the accused.
c) it would be difficult to escape conviction for murder unless the accused is found to have acted in
putative self-defence. Where an accused is found to have genuinely believed that his life was in danger and that he was using reasonable means to avert an attack on himself or his property, he may escape conviction for murder on the grounds that he lacked the requisite intention.
d) As intention is tested subjectively, the pivotal question would be what the
actual state of mind of the accused was at the time when he killed the victim.
e) If an accused genuinely but mistakenly believed that an attack was imminent or that his life was in danger, the court will find that he lacked the intention to be convicted of murder.
f) It commences from the premise that no reasonable man in the circumstances in which the appellant found himself would have believed that his life or property was in imminent danger.
g) the accused must testify in his own defence. There has to be prima facie proof that the appellant could not have entertained an honest belief that he was entitled to act in private defence. If the appellant fails to testify as to his state of mind and to refute this prima facie proof, his silence weighs heavily against him.
h) If the State can makes out a prima facie case that a reasonable person in Oscar Pistorius position could not honestly have believed that he was acting in self-defence, that a defence of putative self-defence would not easily succeed unless Pistorius himself testified as to his state of mind.
If this defence of putative private defence succeeds, that would not, however, be the end of the matter.
6. A court could still find that a reasonable person would have foreseen that his actions would have caused the death of a person and would not have proceeded with his actions despite foreseeing the consequences. In such a case the accused can be convicted of culpable homicide. In other words if a court finds that a reasonable person would not have proceeded with the conduct, then he would be found
guilty of culpable homicide.