~Expenses will eat you alive! - My first Boss~
Let us have the conversation!
Blog: http://coginito.blogspot.com Cognito ergo sum
Let us have the conversation!
Blog: http://coginito.blogspot.com Cognito ergo sum
Let us have the conversation!
Blog: http://coginito.blogspot.com Cognito ergo sum
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?
~Expenses will eat you alive! - My first Boss~
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.
True - but the judgement remains relevant to earlier discusion and I found the insights instructive.
Participation is voluntary.
Alcocks Electrical Services | Alcocks Pest Control & Entomological Services | Alcocks Hygiene Services
ChrisNG53 (02-Sep-12)
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.
Let us have the conversation!
Blog: http://coginito.blogspot.com Cognito ergo sum
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.
peace is a state of mind
Disclaimer: everything written by me can be considered as fictional.
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!!!
Let us have the conversation!
Blog: http://coginito.blogspot.com Cognito ergo sum
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?
ChrisNG53 (02-Sep-12)
Did you like this article? Share it with your favourite social network.