So far, no one has tried to figure out what SA law is. Presumably he tried to kill SOMEONE in the toilet. Under Canadian law, the identity of the person killed would not be legally relevant to guilt. There was no immediate issue of self defence and in any event, undue force was used. So murder is murder - whether it was an intruder who was killed or Steenkamp. And it was certainly premeditated in the sense that it was a deliberate and calculated attempt to shoot another human.
So the only legally relevant fact is whether SA has a variant of Florida's law justifying shooting of ANY intruder, regardless of the degree of risk posed by that person. If it does, then Pistorius is attempting to raise a valid legal defence. If not, then whatever he says re Steenkap is not legally relevant.
Cape Town South Africa Newspaper article
Is shooting an intruder justified?
May 25 2004 at 09:59am
By David Yutar
It's the middle of the night and you and your family are fast asleep.
You awaken to the sound of glass breaking, grab your firearm and go to investigate. In the kitchen you find a masked man and point your gun at him, asking him what he's doing. He doesn't answer but approaches you and you shoot and wound him.
Is your action justified in South African law?
Our law says that you are permitted to defend yourself, or another person, against an unlawful attack that has already begun or is imminent.
The attack may be against your life or body, or even against property, either your own or that of somebody else such as a family member or even a complete stranger.
Since this defence allows for more than merely protecting yourself, it is called private defence, rather than self-defence.
The law also allows you to shoot in private defence.
Where, for example, a person breaks into your home and points a firearm at you, you would be entitled to shoot, if there is no other less harmful way to ward off the attack.
If you don't know whether he is armed or not, whether you are allowed to shoot depends on the circumstances.
Whether you would be entitled to shoot to kill is a matter of much debate among lawyers.
Even where there is a real attack against you or a member of your family or a stranger, the right to shoot to wound or kill is not an absolute right.
Even where only your property is being threatened, in very limited circumstances you may be justified in shooting to kill and there are older cases in our law that support such a right.
However, since the advent of the Constitution and its emphasis on the right to life, the right to shoot to kill in order to defend property alone has become more problematic.
Although there need be no absolute proportionality between the harm threatened and the defence measures you take, where there is a clear disproportionality, your action would in all likelihood be unlawful.
Even unlawful conduct may go unpunished if it is established that the accused was unaware that he was acting unlawfully.
