Intentional/ premeditated....big difference in sentencing apparently
Not sure I understand.
SA criminal law has only two charges pertinent to killing a human being, "intentional", i.e. murder, and "negligent", i.e. "culpable homicide". So, yes a big difference in sentencing between "murder" and "culpable homicide" but there can be none between "intentional" and "premeditated" murder not least because under SA law "premeditated" is included within "intentional murder". It's the same in the UK, whereby "murder" is premeditated murder, the most serious charge, and "voluntary" and "involuntary" manslaughter as lesser charges, (I presume more or less murder 1, 2 and 3 in the US).
From my readings for all three countries "intention" is key. In the UK, the same as in the US, if a perpetrator intends to kill someone but kills another by mistake it is charged under the most serious, i.e. "murder" in the UK, murder 1 in the US, despite there neither being "premeditation" nor "intention" to kill that person. The position in SA gets there via a different logic, i.e. in SA the mere fact that death is a "foreseeable possibility" of an act is sufficient for a charge of "intentional murder" so intending to kill one person but killing another by mistake would, it seems, be included under murder.
In all, from my readings at least, I can't see how OP can ever get out of murder, because:
1) even if the state failed to prove BARD OP knew Reeva was behind the door,
2) even if the state failed to prove BARD OP's intention was to kill the burglar/intruder and not just scare them as he claims
unless in SA it is
lawful to shoot/kill a burglar/intruder OP would still be left with:
a) he shot at an intruder/burglar
b) death was a foreseeable consequence shooting through a closed door
c) he had less deadly options available to him (unreasonable response)
d) he went towards the danger he claims to have been in fear of
all of which, imo, can only add up to murder.
