How is it possible for OP to have intentionally shot the person in the toilet without having foreseen the possibility of their death?
This point was certainly not clear in the judgement - that is precisely why an appeal is on the cards
First it was not clear what exactly was held
1. Did he intentionally shoot? HELD YES
2. Did he intend to shoot the person? UNCLEAR WHAT WAS HELD (UNTIL TODAY)
3. If he did intend to shoot the person, how was it that he did not foresee the possibility of death? UNCLEAR WHAT WAS HELD
Instead we just have this weird finding that he did not intend to kill reeva or anyone else for that matter.
Puzzling to say the least.
In any event - it is hard to see how any sentient adult, let alone one with extensive firearms experience, can intentionally shoot someone without foreseeing death.
The judgement was farcical and I doubt any judge could really be so incompetent. It is laughable to suggest that shooting into that toilet was not intent to kill, but then to go further and say the shooter could not even possibly foresee death is beyond all bounds of logic and reason, even for a child. This decision was corrupt imo.