The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in the Pistorius case

The conviction of Oscar Pistorius for committing culpable homicide in relation to the shooting of his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp made worldwide news.
In this video Professor Christopher Forsyth reflects on his previous comments (see www.law.cam.ac.uk/press/news/...) about the original conviction, and describes how the Supreme Court of Appeal interpreted the South African law on intent to kill. Although the Court complimented Ms Justice Thokozile Masipa on her handling of the case under intense media scrutiny, they reversed her decision (as Professor Forsyth originally suggested they might), and and replaced the verdict with one of murder.
Professor Christopher Forsyth is Professor of Public Law and Private International Law in the University of Cambridge, and Extraordinary Professor of Law in the University of Stellenbosch. For more information about Professor Forsyth, please refer to his profile at www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/acade....
Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

[@7ethereal719]

Something still doesn't sit right though. Oscar thought Reeva was in bed when he shouted for her to call the police. There obviously was NO intruder so the possibility of Oscar KNOWING there is an intruder is 0%. What are we dealing with then?

[@adobemastr]

This is very confusing. Let's forget, for a moment, that Reeva Steenkamp was the victim and completely put her out of this case. Let's assume Oscar Pistorius lives by himself, has no girlfriend, and is happily single, dating no one. He hears what he believes is an intruder breaking into his residence through the bathroom window and, fearing for his life, fires through the door, killing the intruder.
Would he then be found guilty of murder? He certainly could "forsee" that firing through the door would kill the intruder, but this would not constitute murder, would it? Of course not...he was defending his life and property from someone out to harm him and steal his property.
At 8:49, this gentleman says, "The blow struck and killed the person behind the door. The fact that the person behind the door turned out to be the deceased and not an intruder is irrelevant." Irrelevant? I disagree (and please, I believe Pistorius is guilty of first-degree murder). It makes all the relevance in the world, for shooting at someone who one believes is coming to commit bodily harm against them is very relevant.
Either I am misunderstanding something here (and probably am), or this legal ruling is convoluted, unnecessarily complicating what clearly seems to be an open and shut case: Pistorius murdered his girlfriend after an argument. He should hang.

[@ccbeemine]

It was in OP's mind that he thought there was an intruder. He did not fire a warning shot; the person in the toilet was trapped; the person in the toilet did not show aggression; a single shot would have sufficed. He basically executed that person. Yes you may defend yourself but he was merciless by firing four black-talon shots.
An intruder would not run into the toilet and trap himself to defend himself. He would start shooting through the toilet door. But at what?
OP wanted to be the hero and kill someone. Dolus eventualis. That's murder. But his version is so far- fetched and unreasonable.
Conclusion: he knew she was in there and wanted her dead. That's premeditated murder.
But Masipa did not convict him of Murder One (her right) and missed it on Dolus Eventualis.

[@markweatherill]

...after the good Professor calls him PITTORIUS twice and fumbles his reading a little, surely someone could have realised, before he gets too far into it, that a retake would be worthwhile?

[@AvaWinchester]

+markweatherill Yes indeed. He seems to be getting Oscar's surname mixed up with the area in which he lived. I believe that the area was Pretoria, but that Oscar's last name is indeed Pistorius. It's rather sad, because I think the rest of the "lecture" is probably correct!