Just some interesting reading from legal city:

Warning - When shooting an attacker is justified

The question of when you may use a firearm on an intruder is an extremely hazy one that even lawyers approach with caution. Generally, a firearm may not be fired in a municipal area although its use in self-defence is sometimes considered justifiable.

Note, however, that you would not necessarily be justified in shooting someone who enters your house illegally, even if you believe that the intruder is a thief who may harm you. The fact that a suspected thief or burglar runs away and refuses to heed your command to stop is not sufficient reason for you to shoot at him or her.

The courts decide each case according to the circumstances and might therefore call on you to convince them that your action was justified. It is generally accepted that you may fire if you genuinely believe your life is in danger. However, it is unlikely that the courts would consider the shooting of a small, unarmed intruder that you could easily have overpowered physically as justifiable.

Now apply it to the facts of the case, I am entering into a bathroom where I believe the to be an intruder, is my life now in imminent danger, what can I do to reduce the risk? How about leave, how about set off the alarm system.

This case actually is quite simple to call, when do you not shoot, when you do not reasonably know what or who you are shooting at, and btw when you shoot, you shoot to kill, no other way.

It does not matter who was in the toilet, the judge should have found for murder, there were to many other options that Oscar could have resorted to other than shooting

Oscar, being a high profile perpetrator, would always make for a high profile, highly debated case, unlike the many unknown (to the public but not to the loved ones) victims of gun violence in, not just our country but in many around the world.
The furore and outrage, fuelled by the media hype, is there for all to see, and the call for 'justice' is heard loud and afar.
This can be likened to the furore and outrage for the innocent victims of the Paris attacks, and the contrastingly relatively low key reaction to the killings of the innocents in
Beirut, Garissa and the many that occur daily around the world.
There are those that call for George W Bush to be tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity while there are others who say he was justified as he was defending his country (and others?)
People call for justice. Justice ? As seen through who's eyes ?Reeva's family ? Oscar's family ? Oscar's fans ? The ANCWL ?
Everyone has an opinion, which they are entitled to have, and no amount of cajoling will convince most otherwise. Having spoken to a few legal persons before Oscar's first sentencing, they were generally of the opinion, that based on the evidence produced, Oscar should be convicted and sentenced for murder. Having said that, there were those of the opinion that due to the high profile nature of the case and the perpetrator, coupled with the mass hysteria of people and the the unprecedented media hype, that might count in Oscar's 'favour' and subconsciously sway the presiding Judge.
One would like to think that Oscar's conviction was overturned because our justice system is strong and intact and not because of the high profile nature of the case and perpetrator, public outcry or not.

@deamonza,

I fully support what you are saying and there are clearly others on this forum that actually know very little about firearms and the laws regarding the usage of firearms.

Savanna clearly thinks that she knows the laws because her ex husband carried one, a really stupid way of thinking, she actually knows nothing about the firearm laws, she said Oscar should have fired a warning shot, firstly where would he fired the shot towards, out the window and have a round hitting someone else and injuring or killing another person, fire it into a wall and have a chance of the round ricochet off the wall and then end up hitting who knows what or who?

The most important aspect that Savanna is missing here is that the Firearms Act does not ALLOW for a warning shot to be fired. The discharging of a firearm without due necessary sufficient reason is actually punishable in a court of law. Perhaps Savanna should go and attend a firearms course to learn the merits of firearm controls and usage.

I am not going to take sides as with regards to the merits of this case, I am not a criminal expert but I am very familiar with firearms and the law regarding the usage and storage of firearms. After all it is part of my profession and my daily life.

www.enca.com/south-africa/pistorius-free-man-now

This should help.

On 2015-12-03 16:52:20 Milo40 said:
@deamonza, the difference between the blue bull player was this,(just my opinion) he manned up and admitted guilt, oscar didn't .

Erm, OP has clearly said he shot from the first second it happened... he has never denied it.

On 2015-12-04 16:15:06 deamonza said:
On 2015-12-03 16:52:20 .

Erm, OP has clearly said he shot from the first second it happened... he has never denied it.

Pettifoggery and semantics my dear Deamonza!

Yes he admits he fired a shot, but not at Reeva.
But he denies guilt

No, he denies cold blooded murder, not firing the shots that killed her.

On 2015-12-04 19:38:41 deamonza said:
No, he denies cold blooded murder, not firing the shots that killed her.

throughout the whole trail he insisted that he did not or could not remember that he fired or his other defence was, the gun just went off and fired all by it self or by accident.

We are wandering around in ever widening circles here... and I for one have other plans for this evening.

So in parting I will say this... not a single one of us were there, not a single one of us can say absolutely what happened. We can speculate, we can guess and we can take a shot in the dark and hope we are right, do we really think basing our laws on that type of decision making is in our interest ?

Just some food for thought.

A shot in the dark......, sounds like that is what caused the whole problem in the first place