Ok, for real last post on the subject, lol.
Again, this is all to do with various diagnoses and whether they affect the level of culpability of an individual or affects their understanding of right from wrong. However, a diagnosis alone of schizophrenia or psychosis, which I believe you are saying you believe OP has, meets the legal requirements for insanity. By definition. Anyone diagnoses with these, genuinely diagnosed, will be found not guilty by reason of insanity, every time. None of this applies to those illnesses, but others that do not involve a break from reality.
It's not even relevant to this case because the defense is not arguing a diminishment in culpability due to mental illness or a lack of understanding of right and wrong due to psychosis. Clearly, OP is completely sane. They are using any potential illnesses or non official issues he may have as an explanation for some of the irrational actions and thoughts he had that night that led to him shooting through a door. The psychosis would come in if he irrationally thought there was an intruder i.e. hallucinated that Reeva was someone else or hallucinated he saw someone he did not or heard someone that wasn't there or the voices in his head told him Reeva was a stranger trying to rob him. Clearly, there was someone in bathroom, making noises so, clearly, in OP's story, he did not hallucinate those.
The defense is not saying he's insane, just that he makes poor choices that are a result of deep seeded, non psychotic issues. The judge will have to use the law to weigh his culpability due to these issues.
OK, very last post on the subject, I promise lol.
