I clicked on the BBC feed briefly and it happened to have this quote from the judge:
He cannot have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door
That ends any interest I had in the case (which wasn't that much) right there. I'm thinking if I think a human is the other side of a door, and I pump a hail of bullets at point blank range through the door - because I apparently fear for my own life - then yes, i think I could forsee that one likely outcome is they will die. Like, er, if my bullets hit them?
I also know it's not unique to South Africa, but find it unsavoury and cruel, whatever you may think of the defendant, to have this X-factor style pregnant pause verdict. He should have been told what he was found innocent or guilty of, and then given the reasoning. There's no need to make him sit there and sweat trying to second-guess what's coming for a couple of hours.
EDIT: some time later, back at the court:
"The accused knew there was a person behind the toilet door, he chose to use a firearm. Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances as the accused have foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet might be struck and die as a result?
She said the answer was yes.
"I am of the view that the accused acted too hastily and used excessive force. In the circumstances, it is clear that his conduct was negligent," she said, before abruptly adjourning for the day.
So, on the one hand:
"
He cannot have foreseen killing whoever was behind the toilet door"
... but on the other hand a reasonable person
would...
"have foreseen the possibility that if he fired four shots whoever was behind the toilet might be struck and die".
So he cannot have foreseen killing them, but should have foreseen they might die. Okaaaaay.
And then why not adjourn in the early afternoon, so the defendant has another night to stew. Weird.
