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

[ChrisNG53]

Just a question from another angle.
If the POIB had been law, would any of this been in the public domain?
Would we be able to view the footage hear the arguments and draw our own conclusions?

I think R2K should be shouting this from the rooftops right now.

Would have been classified as a "security" issue and that would have been that!!!!!!!

[tec0]

... and which police officer was injured .. or even suffered a scratch?>??

Now I am sure that you know that it is illegal to shoot at people? Yes it is true that the person shooting at the police might not have hit his target BUT that doesn’t change the fact that his intend was to do bodily harm. It doesn’t change the fact that he used his fellow workers as a human shield. It doesn’t change the fact that he provoked the police and caused a massacre.

The fact that no one was injured "on the police side/general public side" doesn't change the severity of the situation, it remains attempted murder.

[Citizen X]

The patients are running the asylum.

The Doctrine of common purpose: Unpacking a controversial matter1
Firstly, the legal definition of murder is extremely wide. One of the most wide definitions of a crime that actually exists in criminal law!
The definitional elements(which must be proved in court) of murder are:
(1) the causing of the death
(2) of another person,
(3) unlawfully
(4) intentionally[1]
The source of this definition is Prof Snyman.[2] The leading case on the doctrine of common purpose is Safatsa 1988 (1) SA 868 (A).
In this case the facts were the following: A crowd of about one hundred people attacked Y, who was in his house, by pelting the house with stones, hurling petrol bombs through the windows, catching him as he was fleeing from his burning house, stoning him, pouring petrol over him and setting him alight. The six appellants formed part of the crowd. The court found that their conduct consisted inter alia of grabbing hold of Y, wrestling with him, throwing stones at him, exhorting the crowd to kill him, forming part of the crowd which attacked
him, making petrol bombs, disarming him and setting his house alight.
In a unanimous judgment delivered by Botha JA, the Appellate Division confirmed the six appellants' convictions of murder by applying the doctrine of common purpose, since it was clear that they all had had the common purpose to kill Y. It was argued on behalf of the accused that they could be convicted of murder only if a causal connection had been proved between each individual accused's conduct and Y's death, but the court held that where, as in this case, a common purpose to kill had been proved, each accused could be convicted of
murder without proof of a causal connection between each one's individual
conduct and Y's death. If there is no clear evidence that the participants had agreed beforehand to commit the crime together, the existence of a common purpose between a certain participant and the others may be proven by the fact that he actively associated
himself with the actions of the other members of the group.[3]
The existence of a common purpose between two or more participants is proved
in the following ways:
. On the basis of an express or implied prior agreement to commit an offence.
Since people mostly conspire in secret it is very difficult for the state to prove a
common purpose based on a prior agreement.
. Where no prior agreement can be proved, the liability arises from an active
association and participation in a common criminal design (Thebus 2003 (2)
SACR 319 (CC) 336).[4]
My thoughts, whilst the NPA can still charge anyone with this crime, whether a court finds such an accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is quite another situation! The loss of life under any circumstances will always remain tragic. Protestors should learn that in a Constitutional democracy you can’t damage property, assault and intimidate non striking employees, block roads etc. They should protest peacefully. If you shoot at the police, you most certainly not protesting peacefully? Why were some miners armed? This concept of ‘human shield,’ comes to mind, a group of people agree to protest, a few takes guns( presumably unlicensed), the police arrive, they try to control the crowd, a few people in that crowd start shoting at the police, surely the police can’t still use water cannons! They should not return fire indiscriminately, they should ideally have sharp shooters who can take out the criminal elements of this crowd i.e. the ones shooting at police1 Just my 2 cents!

---

[1]Vide Criminal Law: Specific Crime Study. Muckleneuk, Pretoria. University of South Africa. 2010.Page 131

[2]Vide Criminal Law. Cr Snyman. Lexis Nexus Butterworths. 2007. Page 421.

[3]Op Cit n 1. Page 11. Taken verbatim.

[4] Op Cit n 1 Page 9. Taken verbatim

[Nickolai Naydenov]

All of you that were blaming the police and felt bad for the poor miners, what do you say now that the miners have treathened to kill again??? Should police just go there with water pistols and wait for the miners to kill people AGAIN???

[adrianh]

Nobody feels bad for the miners - they are also a bunch of idiots. We simply stated that the police did not react appropriately under the cicumstance.

The police should go there and do the jobs that they are paid to do. They are not paid to murder people. If the police are unable to control a riot without resorting to murdering 34 people then they should rather stay home and play tiddlywinks....if the police are unable to operate weapon loaded with live ammunition then I fully agree with you that they should be issued with water pistols...I commend you on a really good idea...

[Dave A]

All of you that were blaming the police and felt bad for the poor miners, what do you say now that the miners have treathened to kill again???

Certainly grounds for instant dismissal (after due process, of course).

It's time to draw at least one line in the sand - violent intimidation will not be tolerated under any circumstances. (Long overdue, probably). It needs to be emminently clear that when this is all over (whenever that may be) those guilty of intimidation shall not be returning.

They may as well start perusing the "staff wanted" ads now.

[Nickolai Naydenov]

Good point Dave, I recon they should have fired them all anyway and get new staff, there are many people looking for job out there.

[tec0]

I can see a lot of bitterness but it is understandable. On the one end we see our Police force behaving like gangs like it was shown again on the news tonight where the reporter was attacked and there equipment illegally confiscated by the police???

This must not be tolerated at all and yet it is not new... That said the government must take a legal stand against any group that wants to force violence. The fact is that groups are being formed for the purpose of intimidation and violence then that group's actions can be seen as a "terrorist" actions and thus the need for military intervention rather than police.

The moment these people “masses” start to plan to attack, intimidate and murder civilians it becomes a matter national security and the government must act accordingly. I agree the military is a blunt instrument and is hardly delicate but thousands of people planning to commit criminal acts it is no longer a matter for the police. It is by all means a "terrorist" act and herein is a danger for massive loss of life by all sides involved.

Scary stuff

[Blurock]

the government must take a legal stand against any group that wants to force violence. The fact is that groups are being formed for the purpose of intimidation and violence then that group's actions can be seen as a "terrorist" actions and thus the need for military intervention rather than police.

Scary stuff

Agreed. Scary stuff indeed. Where will we find the military to intervene? A once proud and respected army has been reduced to a bunch of ill disciplined rabble-rousers...

[tec0]

Agreed. Scary stuff indeed. Where will we find the military to intervene? A once proud and respected army has been reduced to a bunch of ill disciplined rabble-rousers...

Well you can always just arm the general public... Results may vary but overall it a lot harder to intimidate the public if every capable person was armed.

I have to say this; our police needs to look at their public image or rather what is left of it. The people of this country have no reason to trust the police anymore. How many news reports showed excessive and unlawful intimidation/violence?

They really need to address this because when the public view shifts from “police officer” to “Criminal armed with a gun” then people will need to protect themselves against these criminals... And the moment that happens, all kinds of crap will hit the fan.