[MrWong]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't know, for dolus eventualis it has to be established that the consequences were a known possibility at the time of the incident, even if that's a tiny possibility, what's important is that it was "known"... i.e. when he shot at the apparent intruder he would have KNOWN that it was possibly an innocent victim. Based on his version of events, he was 100% convinced that it was a home invasion... he didn't think "it might not be but I'll shoot anyway"... which would be the important factor.

An example often used is if someone was to try to burn down their home to make an insurance claim, and their neighbour's house was then to catch fire and cause a death. The fire-starter didn't intend to kill anyone, but would definitely have known that death or injury was a possibility when they struck the match, and therefore dolus eventualis would apply.

I suppose it depends on SA's self/home defense laws? Is it "legal" to kill an intruder?

I've been reading a number of comments on twitter saying that say the judge has made an error in law by the way she restricted dolus eventualis to Reeva only, when it's irrelevant who was behind the door.

Can't find a more detailed explanation though. Do you know if there's any truth to it?