Minimum force being used.....the more things change the more they stay the same...

**IMHO** · 01-Sep-12, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Dave A

Chris, I think there's a permission problem with the URL you posted.

Jip, you can log in with your Google account, but then have to request permission from the owner to view the doc. You can do so right on the login page, but it is a slept.

**ChrisNG53** · 01-Sep-12, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by IMHO

Jip, you can log in with your Google account, but then have to request permission from the owner to view the doc. You can do so right on the login page, but it is a slept.

Have given perimission.. Please try again.

**ChrisNG53** · 01-Sep-12, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by IMHO

Jip, you can log in with your Google account, but then have to request permission from the owner to view the doc. You can do so right on the login page, but it is a slept.

Have sorted it. Please try again.

**ChrisNG53** · 01-Sep-12, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Dave A

Chris, I think there's a permission problem with the URL you posted.

Have sorted it.

**IMHO** · 01-Sep-12, 09:09 PM

ChrisNG53, the case demonstrate that police must prove self defense like any other citizen, but does not illustrate how police can bring a case of murder against the 270 people in jail.

I do not understand the point you are making. The current discussion is not whether the police acted in self defense, but rather if they can bring a murder charge against the 270 in custody. But, you refer to "our good friend Kevinb", who did not make a single post in this thread? Did he somewhere made a claim that police acted in self defense and you are now reacting on it here, at this stage?

**Dave A** · 02-Sep-12, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by IMHO

ChrisNG53, the case demonstrate that police must prove self defense like any other citizen,

And beyond, and in pretty plain language I thought (at least for a judgement).

The glaring aspect of lawful shooting that I saw missing was defending the life of another citizen under imminent threat - but that was not relevant to that particular case.

Originally Posted by IMHO

but does not illustrate how police can bring a case of murder against the 270 people in jail.

True - but the judgement remains relevant to earlier discusion and I found the insights instructive.

**ChrisNG53** · 02-Sep-12, 12:03 PM

Originally Posted by IMHO

ChrisNG53, the case demonstrate that police must prove self defense like any other citizen, but does not illustrate how police can bring a case of murder against the 270 people in jail.

I do not understand the point you are making. The current discussion is not whether the police acted in self defense, but rather if they can bring a murder charge against the 270 in custody. But, you refer to "our good friend Kevinb", who did not make a single post in this thread? Did he somewhere made a claim that police acted in self defense and you are now reacting on it here, at this stage?

IMHO -- never mind about Kevin. I think the judgement is useful because it is cioncerned with a situation in which:-
1. a man is belligerant;
2. he is violent;
3. he is armed;
4. he uses a dangerous weapong to actually seriously injure another human being;
5. the police are called to intervene;
6. he continues to be belligerent, uncooperative and threatening;
7. a police officer shoots him dead;
8. claiming that he was being attacked;
9. and that he was therefor acting in self defence.

There are obvious parallels with the Marikana situation. If one declines to see them and glean some learning on what our law is in this type of situation, from this judgement, that becomes a matter of personal choice.

**tec0** · 02-Sep-12, 06:32 PM

The law is clear if a person is armed with a weapon "any weapon" and attacks another person that person has the legal right to protect her/his own life.

Click image for larger version.

Name: Picture.jpg
Views: 196
Size: 82.3 KB
ID: 2816

Source

You need only do a simple net search on the subject and you will find more examples like the one above. People where armed now there reasons may be innocent enough but that doesn’t change the fact.

**ChrisNG53** · 02-Sep-12, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by tec0

The law is clear if a person is armed with a weapon "any weapon" and attacks another person that person has the legal right to protect her/his own life.

Source

You need only do a simple net search on the subject and you will find more examples like the one above. People where armed now there reasons may be innocent enough but that doesn’t change the fact.

tecoO - -with great respect, it is not that straight forward, ONCE killing is involved, and it is claimed that this was done in self defence.
That is why I posted my judgment which I contend is useful in promoting understanding on the matter.
Note that this "an Appeal Court" judgement in which the State itself was seeking to contend that the killing by the police officer was justified because the officer was under attack by an armed, dangerous, belligerent man who had already seriously injured another human being.
The State lost the argument. The judgement represents the law on the issue.
It binds all our High Courts until and if my (our) approach is reversed by a higher court.

It follows that, as regards Marikana, the State is going to have its work cut out, in order to prove "justifiable homicide".
On what I have seen on the video footage my "educated guess" is that it will fail!!!

**adrianh** · 02-Sep-12, 08:01 PM

Chris - what about these situations?

Scenario 1:
I get home and find 5 guys in my house stealing my stuff and one points a gun at me:

Do I have the right to wound him?
Do I have the right to kill him?
Do I have the right to kill all 5 of them?
Do I have the right to kill the one with the gun outright and the others while they are laying on the floor ducking my bullets?

Scenario 2:
I get home and find 5 guys in my house stealing my stuff (no weapons):

Do I have the right to shoot at all 5 of them?
Do I have the right to kill all 5 of them?