RSBM
He shot through that door knowing Reeva was behind it. She died and that makes him her murderer whatever was running though his mind at that moment.
BIB, this is wrong based on the findings of the SCA.
The SCA found Oscar guilty of the intentional unlawful death of an intruder, NOT Reeva. This of course is not the final outcome of this trial and may just change for a second time pending the outcome of the CC hearing.
The SCA did not find him guilty of the intentional unlawful death of an intruder.
From the SCA Judgment
[4] It is necessary at the outset to clear a technical issue out of the way. The appeal to this court relates solely to count 1 of the indictment, namely,
the alleged murder of the deceased.
[14] It was common cause at his trial that the accused was responsible for
the death of the deceased in that he had fatally injured
her when he fired four shots with a 9mm pistol through the door of a toilet cubicle in the bathroom adjacent to his bedroom.
[17]
He later changed this to say that he had never intended to shoot at all; that he had not fired at the door on purpose and
that he had not wanted to shoot at any intruder coming out of the toilet.
[32] What was in issue, therefore, was not whether the accused had foreseen that
Reeva might be in the cubicle when he fired the fatal shots at the toilet door but whether there was
a person behind the door who might possibly be killed by his actions. The accuseds incorrect appreciation as to who was in the cubicle is not determinative of whether he had the requisite criminal intent. Consequently, by confining its assessment of dolus eventualis to whether
the accused had foreseen that it was Reeva behind the door, the trial court misdirected itself as to the appropriate legal issue.
[48] In arguing that the State had failed to show that the accused lacked the necessary subjective intention in respect of both elements of dolus eventualis,
counsel for the accused emphasised the accuseds physical disabilities, the fact that he had not been wearing his prostheses at the time and
that he had thus been particularly vulnerable to any aggression directed at him by an intruder.
[49] In my view this cannot be accepted.
On his own version, when he thought there was an intruder in the toilet, the accused armed himself with a heavy calibre firearm loaded with ammunition specifically designed for self-defence,
screamed at the intruder to get out of his house, and proceeded forward to the bathroom in order to confront whoever might be there. He is a person well-trained in the use of firearms and was holding his weapon at the ready in order to shoot. He paused at the entrance to the bathroom and when he became aware that there was
a person in the toilet cubicle, he fired four shots through the door. And he never offered an acceptable explanation for having done so.
[53] The immediate difficulty that I have with the accuseds reliance upon putative private defence is that
when he testified, he stated that he had not intended to shoot the person whom he felt was an intruder.
The only time the Judgment refers to an intruder is when it is referring to what OP thought, what Roux said or what the trial Court found.
Perhaps you can direct me to the part I've missed where the SCA found him guilty of killing an intruder.
