I'll say this for you; you don't mind hanging your stupidity out there for everyone to see.
Let me walk you through the story: Pistorius hears a noise and gets out of bed to investigate, he realizes that someone is in the bathroom, GOES BACK INTO THE BEDROOM TO GET HIS GUN, returns to the bathroom door and FIRES THROUGH THE DOOR hitting and killing his girlfriend.
Look at the two parts of that sentence in caps. Lets discuss them in reverse order: if you intentionally kill someone who is not posing an immediate and inescapable threat to you, and about whom you cannot reasonably hold the mistaken belief that they pose an immediate and inescapable threat to you, then that is murder. For the first part, premeditation is defined as "planning, plotting OR deliberating before doing something" (notice the OR).
Now lets apply them to the facts as we know them Pistorius hears a noise, investigates then GOES BACK INTO THE BEDROOM TO GET HIS GUN - this constitutes two types of premeditation - he DELIBERATED and decided to return to the bedroom, PLANNING to arm himself with a lethal weapon. He then shoots through the door at his supposed burglar - shooting at someone is well established as an intention to kill that person. The fact that he fired through a closed door indicates that he could not reasonably hold the opinion that his life was in immediate danger.
So I'm not sure what it is about the case that would be laughed out of court?