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

**IMHO** · 22-Aug-12, 11:06 AM

In the case of Andries Tatane, it had nothing to do with 'riot control'. Police surrounded him, about 7 of them, with batons, they started hitting him and he fought back bare handed. He got out of the circle and they surrounded him again. Then some police officer shot him a single shot in the chest, from outside of this circle. It was said that it was a rubber bullet, but never confirmed and the autopsy never revealed. On the video it looked like sharp point ammo wound. As far as I know rubber bullets is only fired from shotgun. This entry wound was very small and either an R rifle or handgun. In any case, rubber or not, it was never necessary to fire at him. He was totally outnumbered, knew it and just wanted the police to focus on him so the older people could escape the water canon. A very sad story really. Caused by a trigger happy policeman. Nothing happened to him... Probably been excused due to lack of training.

The video is on this page
http://takebacksa.wordpress.com/

Scroll down to the bottom.

**wynn** · 22-Aug-12, 11:13 AM

Steve Friedman had this to say in BD
http://www.bdlive.co.za/opinion/colu...s-for-marikana

Now there is more trouble at Royal Bafokeng, don't say I didn't tell you so!

"OUTRAGE at the Marikana killings is justified. The usual attempts to turn them into a crude morality play with only one villain are not. Much of the reaction has taken two forms, both of which lead away from solutions. The first treats the tragedy as a ghastly error so out of keeping with the norms of our society that an inquiry must be held to find someone to blame. The other does not need an inquiry — it has already found only the governing party and its president guilty, absolving everyone else from responsibility.

Marikana was not an aberration. It was an accident waiting to happen because it was a symptom of longstanding problems about which our mainstream debate has been in denial. And, while the government must take responsibility, the killings should prompt some serious reflection from others too.

The first cause of the tragedy is that police were not trained to deal with the situation. Violence on police and by police did not begin at Marikana — it has been a constant feature of our society for years. Ten people died in the Lonmin dispute in the week before the tragedy alone. And this surely speaks to the reality that our police are not trained to deal with the violence endemic in our society.

Researcher Janine Rauch points out that, in the first few years of democracy, police knew how to prevent demonstrations becoming violent because public-order police were specially trained to do this. But they were considered too costly and were too rarely used. So they were closed down and demonstrations are now handled by ordinary police who are not trained for the task.

But why, after eight years of protests, were the public-order police not revived a long time ago? Because voices calling for humane and democratic policing have been drowned out by those demanding more force. If we think this is a problem only in the government, in how many of our suburbs are residents demanding measures that see most South Africans as a security threat?

Our police will be trained to prevent rather than cause violence when the voices recognising that we need police trained to respect democratic rules become louder than those that we can rely on police powers.

Second, the tragedy was triggered when the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) lost touch with its members, signing agreements that fell short of their demands. This opened the door to a breakaway union, which promised workers it could get for them what NUM could not. The lesson is clear: trade unions that look after their members do not cause conflict, they prevent it.

The NUM must take responsibility for its failings just as its rival must take responsibility for its demagoguery. But if the NUM had stayed in touch with its members and engaged in tough bargaining on their behalf, we would not be mourning now.

Part of the problem is the way in which unionism developed on the mines.

Because mines were sealed off to outsiders, union organisers could not gain access until employers agreed to allow unions. And so, unlike unions in other industries, mining unions did not build their organised strength in order to win recognition from employers. Links between unions and workers have therefore often been weaker.

This is important in the light of the campaign to weaken unions and their bargaining rights. The platinum industry today — and Marikana — show in stark terms what would happen if the union-bashers had their way. Preventing strong unions from bargaining hard on behalf of workers will not create jobs, it will create chaos because worker demands will lead to more Impalas and Lonmins.

Third, we need to look at why labour disputes seem more violent on the mines. Much of the reason surely lies in the nature of mining here — in most cases, ore deposits are deep under the ground, making mining them tougher and more dangerous.

One miner said last week that he did not fear police bullets because he risked his life by working underground every day.

We have made some progress in turning our mines into safer, healthier, more humane places, but Marikana suggests that we need to do more.

Finally, one reason union rivalries are so heated here is that so much is at stake. Unionism has become a way for people who win elections to live middle-class lifestyles: bitter union rivalries are thus a symptom of the glass ceilings that face ambitious people in business. The mines cannot be expected to solve this wider problem alone, but they could look at ways in which opportunities for advancement can be created that offer options other than union leadership, making battles for union control less desperate.

Marikana did not pop out of thin air. It is a symptom of problems that go much deeper than the search for scapegoats suggests.

And it requires a debate on our failings that goes well beyond the desire to find someone else to blame."

**Dave A** · 22-Aug-12, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by wynn

Second, the tragedy was triggered when the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM) lost touch with its members, signing agreements that fell short of their demands.

Now that is what I call creative writing

**vieome** · 22-Aug-12, 01:26 PM

Interesting Article from mindhacks.com written on the riots in England but no doubt should shed some light on how these things go wrong.

But what we do know about is the interaction between large crowds and the police and you could do much worse than check out the work of psychologist Clifford Stott who researches how crowds react to policing and what triggers violence.

In his 2009 report on the scientific evidence behind ‘Crowd Psychology and Public Order Policing,’ commissioned by the UK constabulary, he summarises what we know about public disorder and how the authorities can best manage it (you can download it as a pdf).

He notes that the old ideas about the ‘mob mentality’, deindividuation and the loss of individual responsibility are still popular, but completely unsupported by what we know about how crowds react.

People don’t become irrational and they do keep thinking for themselves, but that doesn’t mean that the influence of the crowd has no effect.

In terms of policing, one of the clearest effects to emerge from studies of riots and crowd control is that an indiscriminate kicking from riot police can massively increase the number of people in the crowd who become violent.

This is probably because the social identity of people in a group is fluid and changes according to the relationship with other groups.

For those into academic jargon, this is known as the Elaborated Social Identity Model of crowd behaviour – a well-supported theory with an overly complicated name but which is surprisingly easy to understand.

Imagine you’ve just got on a bus. It’s full of people and you have to jam into an uncomfortable seat at the back. There are people going to work, some vacant students heading home after a night on the beers, some annoying teenagers playing dance music through their tinny mobile phone speakers and some old folks heading off to buy their groceries.

You’re late and you missed your train. You feel nothing in common with anyone on the bus and, to be honest, those teenagers are really pissing you off.

Suddenly, two of the windows smash and you realise that a group of people are attacking the bus and trying to steal bags through the broken windows.

Equally as quickly, you begin to feel like one of a group. A make-shift social identity is formed (‘the passengers’) and you all begin to work together to fend off the thieves and keep each other safe.

You didn’t lose your identity, you gained a new one in reaction to a threat.

The problem police face is that in most large threatening crowds only a minority of people are engaging in anti-social acts. Lots of people ‘go along for the ride’ but aren’t the hardcore that kick-off without provocation.

If the police wade in with batons indiscriminately, lots of these riot wannabes suddenly start to feel like they’re part of the bigger group and feel justified in ripping the place apart, mostly to throw at the coppers.

Suddenly, it’s ‘them’ against ‘us’ and a small policing problem just got much much bigger – like attacking a beehive because you just got stung.

The trick for the police is to make sure they’re perceived as a legitimate force. When they have to charge in, they’re doing so for a reason – to target specific criminals. The ‘them and us’ feeling doesn’t kick in because most individuals don’t feel that the police are targeting them. It’s the other idiots the police are after.

And herein lies the problem. The psychology of crowd control is largely based on the policing of demonstrations and sports events where the majority of people will give the police the benefit of the doubt and assume their status as a legitimate force.

**adrianh** · 22-Aug-12, 01:47 PM

In honour of the miners that were shot and killed by Police Forces a few days ago the suggestion is that next years OppiKoppi weekend be held on die Lonmin Koppie, in honour of them, with the theme being Guns & Roses...featuring FokkofPolisieKar as the main band.

**ians** · 22-Aug-12, 04:09 PM

Listening to the news a short while ago, the news reader indicated that people say that police should never be allowed to use live ammo for crowd control, i would agree, if this was the UK for exmple, where the crowds dont have spears and guns.

How would the police protect themselves from the crowd, if the people in the crowd start shooting at the police, or the crowd attacks the police with spears?

**Citizen X** · 22-Aug-12, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by adrianh

You'e joking right....

How about the police leave the live ammo at home and take along all the riot gear that they already have. You know, the shields, batons, water canons, and why don't they add dagga bombs (I'm actually being serious - its a good way to mellow the people out) Its not as if they have never had to deal with riots before....

Adrian, tear gas, water cannons and stun grenades are non lethal but very effective. It's a simple case of not wanting to buy the appropriate equipment. A sonic sound truck is very effective, it bursts the ear drums but doesn't kill, it will disperse a crowd in minutes! Yes, if police are fired upon, they well with the criminal procedure act to return fire. Our protestors must also learn that in a Constitutional democracry your manner of protest must also change from the way it was during apartheid. You don't damage property, you don't intimidate, assualt or kill non striking members. You can protest but do it peacefully. I can't see police shooting at a peaceful demonstration!

**Blurock** · 25-Aug-12, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Blurock

If that is so, we will see a new CEO and top management within the next month. :

http://business.iafrica.com/news/812988.html

So Lonmin has appointed a new CEO. Now we are still waiting for the resignation of the Ministers of Police and Mining. What about JZ? I suppose they are too callous to admit any wrongdoing and to resign.