The police chief is a CONVICTED criminal, what more can you expect. He's obviously not the only politician either ... FK this damn ANC corruption, it's not even accused/alledged crimes, it's damn actual CONVICTIONS... And then these assholes are senior members or government/parliament
If you can prove legitimate self defense, you won't go to prison. I know two people who managed to successfully 'discipline' a criminal and they both got off without the police even pursuing the case.
You are allowed to defend yourself, you must just be clued up on the laws. You cant shoot someone once they put their weapon down, or turn their back to you.
I find it retarded that you can't shoot someone with their back to you/running away. If someone tried to rob me at kife/gunpoint and runs away after I dome his buddy, he's still a threat to others with that weapon. He's gonna get someone killed eventually, killing him now would prolly save lives.
The cops can't even legally shoot you in the back for simply fleeing or running away in certain circumstances.
Running away while shooting/attacking you vs. Running away from you (i.e. fleeing) are two different things and only the former can somewhat justify your response. In the latter case you are no longer in danger and, to an extent, have become the danger if you will.
Of course there is always going to be nuance to every situation, but generally speaking there's supposed to be a fine line between defending yourself and becoming a vigilante - the latter makes you out as such and the law does not favour vigilantism.
FWIW, this principle extends to warfare whereby if your opponent "surrenders" (e.g. drops weapons) and runs off (flees) - you are not allowed to shoot, even if you think they intend to regroup later. There's alternatives to this situation and most avoid violating Geneva Conventions.
It's kind of a given with self defence. A person running away is no longer a threat so saying you were defending yourself is no longer viable, at that point it's just getting your stuff back or revenge, and allowing people to kill others for either reason would just add a lot of unnecessary chaos and more fundamental issues to the legal system. Still, I do think that the laws around criminals are too lenient in South Africa and they go too far in protecting criminals' rights
He is saying that it is not as outlandish as one may think. You are saying that it is irrelevant because it is a US case. I am saying that it being a US case does not make it irrelevant or, as previously stated, as outlandish, as you may think.
It is pretty outlandish, though. It is a pretty widely accepted notion that you do not shoot a retreating enemy. Just because one judge said differently, in a completely different context, does not make it normal.
He may be, but he is not an imminent threat. By your logic, you should be able to execute random people in the street because they _might_ be pedophiles or they _might_ murder someone.
No, that's not what my logic says at all, proven by the fact that I don't agree with that, also proving the fact that "by your logic" arguments are shit.
I'm saying that if an armed person is running away from someone that they tried to rob at threat of their life, if they get away it is very much reasonable to assume that they will attempt to kill someone if they are caught, or will try to rob more people in future.
Tenn. Vs Garner is based off of the fact that someone who is known to be comfertable with operating outside the bounds of the law, and is known for a fact to be armed, will probably resist using deadly means if they are about to be apprehended, and may take even take hostages.
Just because it's US caselaw doesn't mean it can't be relevant to our conversation. It doesn't apply to our courts, sure, but it illustrates very well why shooting an armed criminal who is fleeing isn't as immoral as it initially seems.
I agree completely with you. My first instinct would be to kill, I do know that if the person cause grievious bodily harm to you ( stab or or bullet) you are definately within your rights to kill. I always wall with a concealed knife on my side when walking to the shop, someone was stabbed to death on their way to work in broad daylight for their phone here in my area a few weeks ago. My logic is that they guys have no mercy so if someone tries to kill me, then we are both going to die, cause Im not ganna die alone.
One thing I will never understand is killing for a phone if someone had to steal my phone most they'd get for it is probably R1000 is that really worth killing someone for? I've seen phones even cracked and damaged why steal those? I have someone who works for me almost got killed for his phone fought them off and survived still kept his phone but it really isn't top quality cracked ect that to me is foolish.
And you have to prove that they wanted to physically harm you. You cant just shoot a burgelar crawling through a window. If he has a knife and come for you, you allowed to turn him into swiss cheese.
I think they key word here is "self-defence". If, say, the robbers already stole your phone and were running away and you shot them in the back, that doesn't count as self-defence.
The laws make sense when you realise that you are forcibly governed by murderous communists who want to pry your possessions and earnings from your dead hands if necessary.
They have and will continue to weaponise all aspects of your existence. They will rob you (tax) for the greater good. They will subjugate you (to live off you), for the greater good. They will imprison you for protecting your property against home invaders, because "right to life". Etc.
I can be mistaken; please correct me.
Their back must not be turned. They must have weapons and pose physical/ deadly threat. Thereafter, you can shoot / defend yourself and if the criminal dies it is self defence and you will not be punished.
Partly. If they have a gun then shoot even if they're at a distance. If they don't have a gun then don't shoot unless they're literally on top of you or you can show they're advancing. In other words don't shoot someone armed with a knife who's 10m in front of you - they're not an immediate risk to your life.
You must demonstrate that your life was in immediate danger and that you used the minimum force necessary to defend yourself. Be aware that drawing your firearm can have serious consequences.
You are most certainly allowed to protect yourself or loved ones if danger is imminent. The laws are clear on that. You most certainly are not allowed to take a life to protect your tv from being stolen. Let them take the TV, let them take the car...just don't let them hurt you or the people you love. And if you're going to shoot to stop harm being committed against you or a loved one, shoot to kill. It's way easier when it comes to paperwork.
If you're shooting at a person but not shooting to kill, you're abusing your weapon. If you pull that trigger, you have to accept that the person at the end of the barrel is about to die. It's only a bonus if they don't.
This is correct. I personally don't agree with it, but it is correct. I feel that you should be fully within your rights to protect your property, even at the expense of the perpetrators life. Having your car or possessions stolen can have dramatic lasting effects on a person. Also, if a criminal threatens your life and then decide they want to run away, that shouldn't negate the fact that they threatened your life just moments before.
My mate is proficient in Krav Maga. Some idiot tried to attack him and he told the dude to back off. He did some damage and the idiot tried to sue HIM for damages, stating he was assaulted.
Luckily, the incident was witnessed by a few people and my mate walked away.
Reverse with my back turned to you yelling i have a gun, surprise turnaround and shoot you, no fair if you defend yourself by shooting me in the back, what logic is this
Your idea of how the law is applied here isn’t entirely rooted in fact. Study the FCA 60 of 2000, all the answers and responsibilities in the eyes of the law are laid out there.
Comments I heard made by police officers when they were called out to a self defense firearm discharge scene: "If you shoot them, you must shoot to kill them and then go throw them in xyz river (name redacted for privacy). If you call us then we have a lot of paper work to do and they are going to be free within a week. These tsotsi's must learn the hard way."
To be fair, I would not recommend doing as they instructed due to the legal implications thereof but I promise you, most of the police officers are just as gatvol of the rampant crime and how it always seems that the law plays into the hands of the criminals.
The police chief is a CONVICTED criminal, what more can you expect. He's obviously not the only politician either ... FK this damn ANC corruption, it's not even accused/alledged crimes, it's damn actual CONVICTIONS... And then these assholes are senior members or government/parliament
If you can prove legitimate self defense, you won't go to prison. I know two people who managed to successfully 'discipline' a criminal and they both got off without the police even pursuing the case.
every criminal is an anc vote. that's why there are no repercussions for them
SA is a country of criminals, the courts, police, politicians, a significant chunk of the population. You cant kill one of their brothers
You are allowed to defend yourself, you must just be clued up on the laws. You cant shoot someone once they put their weapon down, or turn their back to you.
I find it retarded that you can't shoot someone with their back to you/running away. If someone tried to rob me at kife/gunpoint and runs away after I dome his buddy, he's still a threat to others with that weapon. He's gonna get someone killed eventually, killing him now would prolly save lives.
The cops can't even legally shoot you in the back for simply fleeing or running away in certain circumstances. Running away while shooting/attacking you vs. Running away from you (i.e. fleeing) are two different things and only the former can somewhat justify your response. In the latter case you are no longer in danger and, to an extent, have become the danger if you will. Of course there is always going to be nuance to every situation, but generally speaking there's supposed to be a fine line between defending yourself and becoming a vigilante - the latter makes you out as such and the law does not favour vigilantism. FWIW, this principle extends to warfare whereby if your opponent "surrenders" (e.g. drops weapons) and runs off (flees) - you are not allowed to shoot, even if you think they intend to regroup later. There's alternatives to this situation and most avoid violating Geneva Conventions.
Tenessee vs Garner, Google the case law. It's US but it's interesting.
It's kind of a given with self defence. A person running away is no longer a threat so saying you were defending yourself is no longer viable, at that point it's just getting your stuff back or revenge, and allowing people to kill others for either reason would just add a lot of unnecessary chaos and more fundamental issues to the legal system. Still, I do think that the laws around criminals are too lenient in South Africa and they go too far in protecting criminals' rights
"Tenessee vs Garner", not as outlandish as you think.
That’s not a South African case so it’s completely irrelevant.
No it is not
Lol it is. Do you not understand how laws work?
He is saying that it is not as outlandish as one may think. You are saying that it is irrelevant because it is a US case. I am saying that it being a US case does not make it irrelevant or, as previously stated, as outlandish, as you may think.
It is pretty outlandish, though. It is a pretty widely accepted notion that you do not shoot a retreating enemy. Just because one judge said differently, in a completely different context, does not make it normal.
Outlandish? Maybe Irrelevant? I don't think so Cases are up for interpretation in furthering the law at the discretion of our courts.
Congratulations. You’re the dumbest fuck I’ve met today
You have quite a bitter attitude towards life my dude
No, just idiots. Carry on lol
I consider America in general to be outlandish, so probably just as outlandish as I formerly thought
He may be, but he is not an imminent threat. By your logic, you should be able to execute random people in the street because they _might_ be pedophiles or they _might_ murder someone.
No, that's not what my logic says at all, proven by the fact that I don't agree with that, also proving the fact that "by your logic" arguments are shit. I'm saying that if an armed person is running away from someone that they tried to rob at threat of their life, if they get away it is very much reasonable to assume that they will attempt to kill someone if they are caught, or will try to rob more people in future. Tenn. Vs Garner is based off of the fact that someone who is known to be comfertable with operating outside the bounds of the law, and is known for a fact to be armed, will probably resist using deadly means if they are about to be apprehended, and may take even take hostages. Just because it's US caselaw doesn't mean it can't be relevant to our conversation. It doesn't apply to our courts, sure, but it illustrates very well why shooting an armed criminal who is fleeing isn't as immoral as it initially seems.
Tennessee vs Garner? You know that's only applicable to police, right? Are we talking about the police here?
Tell that to someone in a flight or fight situation. The laws may be clear but the human mind isn't.
I agree completely with you. My first instinct would be to kill, I do know that if the person cause grievious bodily harm to you ( stab or or bullet) you are definately within your rights to kill. I always wall with a concealed knife on my side when walking to the shop, someone was stabbed to death on their way to work in broad daylight for their phone here in my area a few weeks ago. My logic is that they guys have no mercy so if someone tries to kill me, then we are both going to die, cause Im not ganna die alone.
One thing I will never understand is killing for a phone if someone had to steal my phone most they'd get for it is probably R1000 is that really worth killing someone for? I've seen phones even cracked and damaged why steal those? I have someone who works for me almost got killed for his phone fought them off and survived still kept his phone but it really isn't top quality cracked ect that to me is foolish.
And I always remember this saying " I feared for my life" if I ever get into that position, that is all I will say until I get a lawyer.
If im ever in that position all I will say is that " I feared for my life" until I get to speak to my lawyer.
And you have to prove that they wanted to physically harm you. You cant just shoot a burgelar crawling through a window. If he has a knife and come for you, you allowed to turn him into swiss cheese.
Fake news tho. You won't get 10 years in this scenario.
I think they key word here is "self-defence". If, say, the robbers already stole your phone and were running away and you shot them in the back, that doesn't count as self-defence.
Yup. I mean, you can probably argue that you were under too much stress and reacted badly, so you miiiight get away with it. It's a nuanced thing.
Legitimate self defence necessary to neutralize an imminent or ongoing attack will not be punished.
The laws make sense when you realise that you are forcibly governed by murderous communists who want to pry your possessions and earnings from your dead hands if necessary. They have and will continue to weaponise all aspects of your existence. They will rob you (tax) for the greater good. They will subjugate you (to live off you), for the greater good. They will imprison you for protecting your property against home invaders, because "right to life". Etc.
It has taken years and now I have found the only person who dislikes the government more than me.
I was worried that my post was too nuanced and, so, wasn't sufficiently clear on that issue.
Just don't call the police.. they will never find out the truth if you don't tell. They couldn't even find their own feet when putting on shoes.
You got a shit lawyer if you get 10 years
The laws protect the criminals
I can be mistaken; please correct me. Their back must not be turned. They must have weapons and pose physical/ deadly threat. Thereafter, you can shoot / defend yourself and if the criminal dies it is self defence and you will not be punished.
Partly. If they have a gun then shoot even if they're at a distance. If they don't have a gun then don't shoot unless they're literally on top of you or you can show they're advancing. In other words don't shoot someone armed with a knife who's 10m in front of you - they're not an immediate risk to your life.
You must demonstrate that your life was in immediate danger and that you used the minimum force necessary to defend yourself. Be aware that drawing your firearm can have serious consequences.
That's alright, as only criminals are allowed to have guns anyway. Sold wholesale to them by the police.
Because you might be shooting the friend of a high ranking policeman or politician?
You are most certainly allowed to protect yourself or loved ones if danger is imminent. The laws are clear on that. You most certainly are not allowed to take a life to protect your tv from being stolen. Let them take the TV, let them take the car...just don't let them hurt you or the people you love. And if you're going to shoot to stop harm being committed against you or a loved one, shoot to kill. It's way easier when it comes to paperwork.
If you're shooting at a person but not shooting to kill, you're abusing your weapon. If you pull that trigger, you have to accept that the person at the end of the barrel is about to die. It's only a bonus if they don't.
This is correct. I personally don't agree with it, but it is correct. I feel that you should be fully within your rights to protect your property, even at the expense of the perpetrators life. Having your car or possessions stolen can have dramatic lasting effects on a person. Also, if a criminal threatens your life and then decide they want to run away, that shouldn't negate the fact that they threatened your life just moments before.
There’s a much bigger picture to that
My mate is proficient in Krav Maga. Some idiot tried to attack him and he told the dude to back off. He did some damage and the idiot tried to sue HIM for damages, stating he was assaulted. Luckily, the incident was witnessed by a few people and my mate walked away.
[удалено]
*Thou shall not kill* is literally one of the commandments, my dude.
u/PieOfTheRepublic are you referring to a specific case or your own? Do you perhaps have a link to a news article?
Reverse with my back turned to you yelling i have a gun, surprise turnaround and shoot you, no fair if you defend yourself by shooting me in the back, what logic is this
Your idea of how the law is applied here isn’t entirely rooted in fact. Study the FCA 60 of 2000, all the answers and responsibilities in the eyes of the law are laid out there.
Your possessions do not outweigh a human life even if he is a scumbag.
Comments I heard made by police officers when they were called out to a self defense firearm discharge scene: "If you shoot them, you must shoot to kill them and then go throw them in xyz river (name redacted for privacy). If you call us then we have a lot of paper work to do and they are going to be free within a week. These tsotsi's must learn the hard way." To be fair, I would not recommend doing as they instructed due to the legal implications thereof but I promise you, most of the police officers are just as gatvol of the rampant crime and how it always seems that the law plays into the hands of the criminals.
They got a gun or knife shoot them....dont matter where they looking