Yesterday a policeman allegedly shot and killed a three year old child sitting in the back of a car. Atlegang Phalane, 3, was hit by a bullet while seated in the backseat of a white Hyundai with his uncle, Bongani Mchunu, around 6pm on Saturday. The car was parked outside a relative’s house in Klipfontein View Extension 2, north-east of Johannesburg. Atlegang died instantly.
We all knew this kind of tragedy would happen. In fact, it has been happening for generations in our violent society. But for a while after the advent of our democracy and the renaming of the Police Force to the Police Service, most of us thought that it would come to an end. After all, members of a Police Service operating under the discipline of the Constitution are supposed to catch the criminals and not to shoot and kill innocent civilians. Everybody – so our Constitution promises us – has a right to life, bodily integrity and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty before a court of law.
Maybe we should thank the politicians who, with their careless talk, have alerted the media to the fact that the Police often shoot innocent civilians. They have been killing our mothers and fathers, our sons and daughters and brothers and sisters, our boyfriends and girlfriends, our community leaders and social movement activists in the name of upholding “law and order”.
Now, many of us are squeamish to confront the fact of widespread extra-judicial killing by our stressed and trigger happy police officers because we fear that pointing this out might embarrass the ANC government or give sustenance to the real criminals. As long as one of our own is not killed, we turn a blind eye to extra-judicial killings by the Police. This is either because we want to believe the Police behaves much better now than during the apartheid era (and to some extent they do) or because we want to cheer on the killings by the Police for teaching the “criminals a lesson” (if we fear “the criminals” and want to protect our lives and the wealth we amassed during apartheid).
But suddenly this complicit silence about the abuses of the Police have been shattered by the politicians. No wonder the chattering classes are so cross with the ANC politicians for blabbering on about the need for the Police to “shoot and kill the bastards”. They have disturbed our hypocritical and complacent silence on this sensitive topic.
It all started last April when then Deputy Minister of Safety and Security, Susan Shabangu, told cops: “You must kill the bastards if they threaten you or the community. You must not worry about the regulations. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to serve and protect.” Ever since, politicians have spoken about the need for the police to shoot “criminals” (by which they mean civilians suspected of committing crime and hence – like President Zuma – entitled to be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law) and members of the media have been reporting on horrific incidents where innocents civilians have been killed by the Police.
Of course, some politicians have been particularly brazen and stupid. Instead of allowing us to continue pretending the Police only shoot criminals and not innocent victims, the politicians have spoken about the need to amend section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act to beef up the powers of the Police to defend themselves against armed criminals. To be fair, this talk of a need to amend section 49 is such nonsense that one wonders whether the politicians and the police commissioner who indulge in it have been smoking something they should not have. (Or maybe they indulge in one cup of tea too many before they speak on these matters?)
First, in terms of the common law, anyone (including cops and ordinary South Africans) acts lawfully if he or she shoots and kills somebody in self-defense. This means that if one’s life is actually threatened by someone else, one can shoot and kill the person endangering one’s life in order to save your own life. If one does so one would not have acted unlawfully and would thus not be guilty of any crime.
Second, section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides the police with wide powers to shoot and even kill criminal suspects. The section reads as follows:
- If any cop attempts to arrest a suspect and the suspect resists the attempt, or flees, when it is clear that an attempt to arrest him or her is being made, and the suspect cannot be arrested without the use of force, the arrestor may, in order to effect the arrest, use the reasonable force necessary and proportional in the circumstances to overcome the resistance or to prevent the suspect from fleeing.
- A cop is also justified to shoot and kill a suspect when he or she believes on reasonable grounds (a) that the force is immediately necessary for the purposes of protecting the arrestor, any person lawfully assisting the arrestor or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; (b) that there is a substantial risk that the suspect will cause imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm if the arrest is delayed; or (c) that the offence for which the arrest is sought is in progress and is of a forcible and serious nature and involves the use of life threatening violence or a strong likelihood that it will cause grievous bodily harm.
This means that if a cop arrests a suspect he or she can use appropriate force (short of killing the suspect) to effect the arrest if the suspect resists arrests or flees. It also means that he or she can shoot and kill a person reasonably suspected of committing violent crime if the Police officer reasonably believes that the suspect was dangerous and was likely to cause harm to someone if he or she was not arrested.
Cops cannot randomly shoot and kill civilians suspected of trivial non-violent crimes. Cops can definitely not shoot and kill anyone who was not made aware that the cop was trying to arrest him or her. When the police opens fire on the passengers in a car without having indicated to the passengers that they had to stop and that they were the subject of a potential arrest the individual member of the police is acting unlawfully and can be prosecuted.
But section 49 provides quite wide cover to Police officers to shoot anyone as long as a member of the Police can show that he or she had some suspicion that the individual had committed a crime, that the officer wanted to arrest the person and that the person fled or resisted arrest. Long before the politicians started nattering on about the need for the Police to be able to shoot and kill “criminals”, the Police killed hundreds of innocent South Africans every year. Those of us not killed by the Police have just not noticed. As long as the Police officer “only” shot poor and black men or women without friends in the media, and as long as the Police left the political VIP’s, the blond American tourists and the rich and well-connected alone, they would hardly ever be prosecuted for murder.
Maybe something good will still come out of this irresponsible talk by the politicians. Now that members of the media have discovered the shocking fact that us ordinary South Africans who are not blond and studying Actuarial Science at Stellenbosch University, are not related to Rugby players or the President, are not famous or well connected, that we are the regular targets of extra-judicial Police killings, maybe the Police will be trained to act like a Police Service and not like the members of a Police Force in a fascist state.
This will only happen if us ordinary citizens – the one’s who are the potential victims of Police violence – stand up and demand a responsible Police Service who are not trigger happy. Now, maybe if the Police accidentally kill a few Fifa representative speeding along the highway, or a few blond American tourists or USA consular officials, the media will really come to the party and something will be done. Meanwhile, be afraid, be very afraid. Our Police officers have guns (and bullets) and they are ready to shoot YOU.
Print 
PDF
Pierre – do you have a link re the hundreds of innocent killings per year?
Peter. there was a report about this in the Mail & Guardian three weeks ago. I do not have it at hand.
The responsible police officers should face a disciplinary hearing. We on the other hand should continue to call for a gun free society. Perhaps the trigger happy police will cease to be so, since there will be no one owing a gun.
owning a gun
Pierre De Vos says:
November 11, 2009 at 0:48 am
“Peter. there was a report about this in the Mail & Guardian three weeks ago. I do not have it at hand”.
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-10-16-killings-by-cops-at-10year-high
King Zwakala says:
November 11, 2009 at 7:55 am
“The responsible police officers should face a disciplinary hearing”. This is the problem – we will keep seeing individual policemen disciplined or prosecuted, but not see the those responsible accout for their words.
Maybe somebody should assist the victims in suing the Minister and the Police Commisioner for a large sum of money, and lead evidence that their statements have influenced the policemen on te street.
“‘Police can beat crime by using less force’
11 November 2009
Nichola de Havilland
“If our leaders are serious about beating crime, they should set a non-violent example by rather ensuring that our police are properly trained and equipped.”
http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1086906
I am probably going to be extremely unpopular, but I think the Police service should perhaps given a break.
Yes, prosecute those individuals that kill a three year old etc. But let’s not forget the South African Police is under extreme pressure. They get it from all directions.
Middle class whites demand the old apartheid SAP force, politicians are putting pressure on them to “shoot criminals”, township folk have almost no trust in the Police (still see them as good old SAP) and university professors stand ready to criticise every single mistake. Not to mention that the police is extremely underfunded (ironically Trevor Manual gave the middleclass four consecutive tax cuts instead of spending it on law and order)
While in the meantime crime is riding roughshod over any degree of law and order and most armed “criminals” would probably not think twice about shooting a policeman in order to get away.
By no means am I saying the mistakes should be swept under the carpet. But blaming the police service as a whole for the mistakes of the individual is disingenuous.
Unfortunately the buck stops with the president.
Or for that matter the ANC government. They had 15 years to turn a largely trigger happy police force into a civilian police service with a lot of 1st world countries (with effective police services) willing to offer advice, money and time.
But all that the ANC government did was further radicalise the police service, appointed their buddies to run the service while at the same time demanding more and underfunding the police.
No wonder most police officers are highly strung, ready to shoot at anything that moves.
George Gildenhuys says:
November 11, 2009 at 10:33 am
“But all that the ANC government did was further radicalise the police service, appointed their buddies to run the service while at the same time demanding more and underfunding the police”.
I think the appointments of the executive heads of government departments from outside the ranks of career civil servants is unwise.
It must be very depressing for dedicated people to know that they can never ever achieve the highest office.
Bringing in the head honcho from the ranks of the clueless is really unwise.
We are seeing the consequences of having appointed an education professional to lead health – http://www.mg.co.za/article/2009-11-10-minister-reveals-shocking-figures-on-aidsrelated-deaths
On another but somewhat related matter, the Huntley application: http://politicsweb.co.za/politicsweb/view/politicsweb/en/page71619?oid=150409&sn=Detail
: D. J. Mullan, “Establishing the Standard of Review: The Struggle for Complexity?’ (2004), 17 C.J44.L.F. 59, at p. 93. “In short, deference requires respect for the legislative choices to leave some matters in the hands of administrative decision makers, for the processes and determinations that draw on particular expertise and experiences, and for the different roles of the courts and administrative bodies within the Canadian constitutional system.”
Note the separation of state and administrative bodies. True Democracy.
This application says a lot about South Africa.
@ Maggs Naidu
I agree with you. One of the things I dismally fail to understand about the ANC government is why they like to appoint people in portfolios that such people know zilch about. In the appointment of cadres to the relevant portfolios at least the relevant experience and/or knowledge should be considered in the interests of not crippling the relevant ministries and/or other bodies.
This problem can only be solved by eradicating poverty. Poverty leads to desperation that leads to crime that leads to lethal retaliation to these crimes. The new government is much the same as the old in that most of the government officials only cared about the poor until their own poverty was something of the past. As soon as the problem is no longer theirs, they truly no longer make it their problem. When you drive a million rand mercedes you somehow tend to forget that you too were poor, had to battle the elements and wonder where your next meal was going to come from. This sickens me. The police shoot to kill the products of a dysfunctional society. Unfortunately I dont believe there is a precise approach to this problem. If the police are too soft on crime, criminals feel invincible and tend to flourish ( in a bad way) in this environment. If the police follow a stricter approach and shoot to kill, the criminals might be deterred, or they might arm themselves heavier and be more trigger friendly, leading to even more collateral civilian damage.
What to do , what to do.
Sne says:
November 11, 2009 at 13:09 pm
Cele is a dedicated and determined activist who I think has a sound mindset towards dealing with crime.
However I grapple with the wisdom of the appointment.
There is a lot more to addressing crime than the bad guys shooting at the good guys.
Unless someone in charge understands that our failure to materially arrest and successfully prosecute and sentence the criminals, lies at the heart of the horrific levels of crime, not much will change.
Of course when people in high places flaunt their positions of power in the face of the law, it just makes things worse.
“Don’t you know who I am?” is not from a wanker with an identity crisis – it seems to be a way in the corridors of power.
And according to some media reports it’s spreading to their families too – http://www.timeslive.co.za/news/article185275.ece
The police often reflect society. Example: in the US, the police have a robust approach to crime and criminals, the idea often is retribution. In Germany – and most other parts of Central Europe – the police is basically seen as your friend, someone who is there to help and someone who is to be respected, the idea being rehabilitation (And yes, there is still something like mutual respect of police vis-á-vis citizens and vice versa! I’ve seen and experienced this!). My point is: the violent nature of police caprice in SA is clearly a reflection of the violent nature of the SA society generally. I think the issue is not banning guns to make society safer (this will never happen anyway!) or appropriately amending specific sections of Acts (to protect police from vile gun-wielding criminals) or whatever. I think the issue is a paradigm shift is needed in a move towards a more non-violent and respectful society. So what if we had all the necessary laws banning guns to ensure a safer society; so what if we had all the laws protecting the police and people when the very core of society is violent by nature and when the point of departure is a “survival of the fittest”? We’re clearly missing the point here. Regrettably the spiral in SA has gone down too far to repair this basic premise as it would take a helluva lot of money to invest into re-educating people of all races to mutually respect life, limb and property. On a light-hearted tone, my suggestion is: the government should simply sponsor every citizen (respectively all criminals) a trip to Central Europe and Scandinavia to see what it means to live in a normal society free of social terror. South Africans are so caught up in their own world of violence that they don’t even realise that there is a world outside which also functions without violence. But how can they know what non-violence is when they’ve only been used to or exposed to violence only? It’s quite a frightening experience to take the tube, bus, train in Europe and Scandinavia and NOT be worried that someone would rob, steal from or kill you. It’s quite frightening to experience that in many European cities a woman (many of them older women) and people are perfectly able to take a stroll at midnight without the least of fear that they will be mugged, attacked or something similar. This has nothing to do with whether or not a society is gun-free or whatever – it has all to do with a basic and simple common respect and this is really what is missing in the SA society.
ROB says:
November 11, 2009 at 13:54 pm
Indeed.
I am however not convinced that the type of crimes that have reduced us to one of the most dangerous societies in the world has a direct link to poverty.
This for example has nothing to do with poverty – http://www.sowetan.co.za/News/Article.aspx?id=1087036
I just wish I knew how the polititians want to amend sec 49 to give the police wider powers to shoot, and get past the Walters case.
Poverty, coupled with a radical gap between rich and poor and the destruction by the migrant labour system of social structures (like the family) which otherwise would have fulfilled an important stabilising function in society all contribute to a high crime rate. A dysfunctional criminal justice system which leads criminals to believe that they will seldom be caught does not help either. But this does not mean it is inevitable that the police will kill 900 people every year. Many experts believe that the Police, who are confronted daily with split-second decisions in stressful circumstances, will continue killing large numbers of civilians (no matter what the law says) until they are better trained. The better trained police officers are, the better they will deal with such situations and the fewer innocent civilians will be killed. But training costs money and requires skills, so its easier for politicians to make populist statements on “shoot to kill”, than for them to fix the skills and training deficit in the police. Sadly many voters fall for this red-herring.
@ king zwakala. How many incidents can you name where a law abiding citizen shot at police? A ban on guns will only disarm the law abiding. Criminals on the otherhand, ignore the law in any case. So cops will still get shot at, ironically by the same firearms they sold/hired to the thugs. An armed citizen is far more likely to be an asset to a well trained and managed police force. An unarmed citizenry are nothing more than victims in waiting.
Pierre De Vos says:
November 11, 2009 at 14:41 pm
“Poverty, coupled with a radical gap between rich and poor and the destruction by the migrant labour system of social structures (like the family) which otherwise would have fulfilled an important stabilising function in society all contribute to a high crime rate”.
The likes of Tannebaum and Brown are not poor.
Certainly poor people steal – stealing clothes off a washing line or shoplifting bread is hardly the type of crime that we are troubled by.
Maybe poor people are more likely to be caught and jailed but the troublesome violent and brutal crimes is hardly a consequence of poverty.
Maggs Naidu:
Nonsense! It’s a sociological and statistical fact that poorer people tend to steal more is precisely because they’re poor. This fact does not justify their stealing, it merely explains the likelihood that they’d steal. The fact that they are caught more readily (than the rich) is a different argument altogether. It is also a sociological fact that the poorer a community, the lower the level of education, the higher the rate of unemployment, the higher the level of crime, the higher the leel of violence. The argument is not that all rich communities are crime free. The argument (and reality) is precisely the opposite to what you’re maintaining: troublesome violent and brutal crimes is hardly a consequence of poverty.
@Bushboy
I see where you are coming from; you are trying to defend gun ownership. It is indeed a difficult choice to make between allowing gun ownership and a gun free society. Especially if you take into accounts the facts – I know of an instance where a law abiding citizen was dispossessed of his firearm and then got killed through it. At the end of the day we need to weigh the pros and cons and then come up with the best solution for our situation.
Prof,
Much as I have become accustomed to disagreeing with you (sometimes vehemently), I find myself in agreement with much of the Blog here.
Stranger yet, I am in agreement also with Maggs when he points out that poverty alone is not the sole cause, nor an excuse for crime.
Andy says:
November 11, 2009 at 15:20 pm
Poor people are those who struggle to find food.
It’s hardly likely that they are the ones running around with some seriously hectic firepower robbing cash-in-transit vehicles!
@ King Zwakala
Hmm, this is not really on-topic here, but nonetheless…
You (and society) ‘allow’ gun ownership in the same way that you are reliant on society’s approval to draw breath.
Proffie’s probably going to go all apoplectic on me again, but I choose to derive my right to arm myself from my natural law right to life and self defence. Whilst I bend my knee to the State (only because I have to, mind) in terms of a legislative framework for ownership, I would challenge the State if they were to try to prevent me from exercising what I see as my right to defend my life, those of others close to me, and my property by the most effective means possible.
Agree, Maggs (again!). Is it not Jennifer Irish-Qhobosheane of SAIIA who did research among the CIT gangs and reached the conclusion that the CIT heisters were unlikely to quit short of being stopped forcibly because the lifestyle is SO rewarding for them?
Paul says:
November 11, 2009 at 15:46 pm
Indeed.
Crime and criminality seems to more a function of lifestyle.
And that is fed by the pathetic excuse for a criminal justice system that we have.
Add to the the disregard that the rich and powerful show to the rule of law.
It seems that most of our windows are broken!
@ Maggs: “The rich are different to you and I,” said Scott Fitzgerald…
Prof De Vos – I have raised this issue before during similar debates – but, don’t get me wrong, the killing(s) you refer to were wrong, dead wrong, and the guilty should be punished so that unscrupulous police officials can be deterred from ‘gunslinging. However, the current s 49, has a flaw. You have sumarised / paraphrased the current s 49 thus:
“A cop is also justified to shoot and kill a suspect when he or she believes on reasonable grounds (a) that the force is immediately necessary for the purposes of protecting the arrestor, any person lawfully assisting the arrestor or any other person from imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm; (b) that there is a substantial risk that the suspect will cause imminent or future death or grievous bodily harm if the arrest is delayed; or (c) that the offence for which the arrest is sought is in progress and is of a forcible and serious nature and involves the use of life threatening violence or a strong likelihood that it will cause grievous bodily harm.”
Now, carefully read through this paraphrasal and tell us, what exactly distinguishes s 49 from the common law concept of private defence (also coloquially referred to as self-defence, which is a misnomer because one can also kill in defence of another or of property)? I don’t believe there is a difference at all, except that s 49′s limitations are a bit narrower than the common law defence. Police officials will be much better off to rely on the common law exception where they killed someone – in terms of the common law defence of private defence, the killing of a fellow human being wold not be unlawful where the killing is committed in order to ward off an unlawful attack (whether already begun or iminent), which has been directed against oneself, someone else, one’s own property or the property of anyone else; when the killing (use of force) was, objectively judged, necessary for the warding off of such an attack. Each of (a), (b), and (c) in s 49 fall in this definition, but obviously, the definition of private defence goes much wider. In other words, s 49 is totally unnecessary.
The CC judgment, which wrote finis to the previous s 49, foresaw a possibility that it might pass constitutional muster if s 49 provided that a police killing would not be unlawful where it was either committed in private defence, or where the fleeing suspect was sought for a crime involving serious violence. The CC did not add the limitation that “that the offence for which the arrest is sought is in progress “, which makes the current s 49 at par with private defence in similar circumstances.
Therefore, while I agree that the last killing (and others) were clearly unlawful and should not go unpunished, I would also argue that s 49 as it currently reads does not place the police in a better posistion than at common law. It should go wider, albeit only a little bit.
This would not necessarily lead to an increase of police killings, it would only make it possible for the police to know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, in what circumstances lethal force may be used.
I must however agree with this quote of what Johan Burger has said to News24:
‘ “One almost wants to ask the question: What will come first? Will crime get out of control first, or will the police get out of control first?”
These options are “equally dangerous”, said Burger of the Pretoria-based Institute of Security Studies.’
But, an amendment to s 49 along the lines suggested by the CC judgment alluded to above will not necessarily lead to “the police getting out of control”, since that is a matter of training, which is obviously seriously lacking at this stage.
I also do not like the qway the Top Brass among politicians, including Jacob Zuma, telling the police to ‘shoot to kill’ without qualifying their statements. A more balanced approach is necessary, including better training and lecturing of police officials on legal aspects surrounding the arrest of suspected criminals.
@ King Zwakala, true that happens (armed citizen being disarmed) but it more often happens the other way around. In addition, I also know of incedents where a private citizen has saved the lives of police by deploying his firearm. This discussion is really about the S49 and proposed changes. To my mind, the police have always enjoyed the right to “shoot to kill” in the appropriate circumstances. we as private citizens enjoy the same rights under this law if Im not mistaken. No one should have the right to use deadly force without just cause. Every firearm owner (should) knows, “Identify your target before shooting”. It seems this cop did not.
I do however believe that the utterances of the populists in power are more likely to do more harm than good. I also agree that crime is not only due to poverty. Much of the violence is as a direct result of the lack of respect for law and order that pervades the country. To be fair, the criminals have gotten the message that what they do is acceptable and infact they rae seen as “cool” in thier social set. the ruling elite have raved on on how they got power through defeating the apartheid regime. They did this through promoting the destruction of law and order and promoting gratuitous violence. This ugly side of human nature was innitiated and cannot be just switched off, especially if the perpertrators dont have good examples to follow. The criminals say “I want my share of the pie and will take it like our leaders took power.
Excellent thread!
Establishment, structuring and conduct of security services
“199
The security services must act, and must teach and require their members to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law, including customary international law and international agreements binding on the Republic.
and
No member of any security service may obey a manifestly illegal order. ”
Pierre has done a brilliant job of explaining S49 in language most people can understand. That has not happened until now. No-one is training cops on the beat – semi literate cops – in language they can understand. The SAPS spokespersons – senior ranking (whether they deserve those ranks is another debate) always conflate private defence and S49 in their public utterances. If they do not understand what they are saying, what are the chances the cops on the beat understand what is required of them? We see the results.
This is another constitutional obligation the incompetent deployed cadres have failed to meet.
Personal experience that is germane here – writing the unit standards for Designated Firearms Officers: The senior SAPS ranks cheated their way out of it after we objected to the fact that an SAPS member without a matric could impose penalties exceeding the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court. The SAPS even managed to finesse their way out of the Batho Pele courses that were the fad of the moment.
Pierre, I have been thinking about this since before the weekend, thinking mainly of the Hammanskraal incident. If we wait for SAPS management to take the lead, we’ll wait for ever – they’re useless.
If change is going to take place it takes place in spite of SAPS management.
Is it not possible for senior lecturers in constitutional and criminal law from across the country to brainstorm, to devise practical workshops on issues like S49 and train facillitators to workshop with the SAPS rank and file to meet the constitutional obligation the godless, shameless ANC is not? As a public service?
Brett, we are starting to get to grips with this problem here.
The problems of the SAPS are manifold and crippling to the organisation – and I use the word ‘organisation’ advisedly and in a chaos theory sense. Most of the solution will evolve through leadership and training.
I have recently become (formally) involved in my sectoral CPF – for about a year now I have been establishing a neighbourhood emailing list concerned with keeping the neighbourhood in touch on security matters, at her own request the local Station Commissioner was added to the mailing list. She now has communications with the 40 odd households I have managed to recruit so far, and we have direct comms with her. I believe this will empower us all.
Further, after watchiung her and a Captain from Crime Intelligence argue in the CPF meeting about their interpretation of the Firearms Control Act (neither displaying a definitive or convincing knowledge of the Act), and taking cognisance of the almost total lack of decent training and practice the average cop on the street receives in firearm handling, I am putting together an initiative to train (on a regular and ongoing basis) the cops from my local Police Station in firearms handling (I have been involved in military and civilian firearms training for almost 30 years).
I am working on a funding model for this that will involve local residents and businesses so we are independent of the constrained SAPS budget which must be saved to pay out the many billions of rands the cops are going to have to find for the recent cases which have gone against them.
The important thing to see is that:
I/we/none of us is anti-police. We all wish to see a functioning and fair police force/service.
Paul says:
November 12, 2009 at 7:07 am
“I am working on a funding model for this that will involve local residents and businesses so we are independent of the constrained SAPS budget which must be saved to pay out the many billions of rands the cops are going to have to find for the recent cases which have gone against them”.
Some years ago there was an attempt to get a portion of fines, I think it was 10%, to be allocated to a police training fund.
That seems to have stalled.
@ Paul and Andy.
“As the bullets tore through the silver Mercedes-Benz, Kelvin Ludidi had no other option but to jump out of the moving vehicle and try his luck on foot.
“He had already run down a police superintendent – sending him flying over his bonnet – bumped five cars and sped into oncoming traffic with the speedometer needle hurtling towards 200km/h.
“As he leapt out onto West Street in the Sandton CBD, a bullet slammed into his left arm. Defeated, he went down and was immediately handcuffed. His car was still rolling and an officer jumped in to stop it.”
The problem seems to be with the courts :
“Ludidi is currently out on R10 000 bail for a 2007 case of armed robbery in which a gang followed a couple from the Sandton City shopping mall. The suspects were later arrested with the aid of CCTV footage at the centre. At the time, it seems Ludidi was also on bail for another armed robbery.”
It’s getting increasingly difficult to have faith in our courts.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091112041221720C817999
@ Maggs
November 12, 2009 at 7:56 am
“My hands are sore from clapping.”
The cops almost let him get away.
Now he is going to appear in Court represented by a white attorney who cut her teeth in the same Court – as a prosecutor! Until, because of the ANC’s disastrous ‘transformation’ of the criminal justice system, a constant culture of it being made clear she was not really wanted there, workpressure, being paid a pittance, a colleague was was mugged in the Court passages, a violent escape from the Court holding cells, she quit and set up shop on her own because she has small children at home. She will go to three or four bail-hearings facing a black prosecutor whose experience is a couple of months at the Justice College, the prosecutor being horrified at the thought of going up against a veteran asks for postponements every time because the investigating officer is not there, in Court, said investigating officer having told her a few minutes before when she finally got hold of him on his cell (having 40 murder dockets on his desk) to tell the Magistrate the investigation is still proceeding. The Magistrate – depending on how nicely the prosecutor spoke to him, tells her he is not postponing proceedings a 5th time – she either proceeds NOW, she agrees to bail or she withdraws charges and the suspect walks.
at the anti’s gun ownership and civilian firearms ownership have ZERO link to crime rate increase!
I will however say this, as a retired police officer.
There is very little problem with the Law as it governs the use of force the problem is how the police are trained to enforce that law, they have far to little knowledge of the law and they also have far to little training in how to enforce the law in a tactical aspect, once the larger LEO organizations distance themselves from the institutional arrogance and start realizing that the body of knowledge contained within their ranks is behind the current learning curve and that external agencies have got the updated knowledge, in transferrable format, which would allow the upskilling of the general members, then the law can be enforced, tactically where needed (and yes it is needed, for all the fuzzy bunnies who cry for unarmed police, please name me a working example of that?) and non tactically where appropriate! The US example is far more legislatively restrictive the difference in it that the individual officer is better trained and the INTERPRETATION of the law far better conducted! the answer lies in the upskilling not the act!
@ Brett Nortje
November 12, 2009 at 8:45 am
“Until, because of the ANC’s disastrous ‘transformation’ of the criminal justice system, a constant culture of it being made clear she was not really wanted there, workpressure, being paid a pittance, a colleague was was mugged in the Court passages, a violent escape from the Court holding cells, she quit and set up shop on her own because she has small children at home.”
If that is what it will take to ensure that transformation takes its full course then the suspect will go free. Transformation, in particular, of the justice system will continue until such time as it is complete or the ANC no longer gets the mandate from the majority of South Africans. The longer you resist transformation instead of aiding it, the longer it will take to complete. The winds of change are already blowing in that direction and it is up to you to (1) stand in front of such winds and be blown away, (2) help by channeling or altering the direction of the winds to speed up the change and allow it to occur in a reasonable manner. You have a choice to be a part of the solution or part of the problem. There is no middle gound!
Exactly! Sne, why do you not start phoning the relatives of the 300 000 South Africans murdered since 1994 and tell them that 1 in 12 of the murderers of their loved ones was caught, prosecuted, tried and locked away because the object of the criminal justice system is really ‘transformation’, not to prevent them from resorting to self-help by ensuring that they get justice for the murder of their loved ones?
You can also tell them that the Constitutional Court had it wrong in Makwanyane, who cares whether crime is deterred by the certainty that criminals are caught, prosecuted, tried and locked away because the object of the criminal justice system is really ‘transformation’, not to deter crime!
I hope Sne has made it abundantly clear that governance is too important to be left to the dumbasses from the ANC, that democracy is not one feast day every 5 years when we render unto Caesar, that everyone better jump in and get their hands dirty if they want safe streets for their kids to play in and streetlights that actually come on now and then?
@ Brett Nortje
November 12, 2009 at 11:35 am
No necessary to do that at all Brett.
In giving ‘hardcore’ cases to “a black prosecutor whose experience is a couple of months at the Justice College” against a “veteran” (quoting you on both instances) we’re trying to do away with the “historical structural limitations lopsided in favour of recipients of privileges doled out by the apartheid system to offspring of the architect of the system and their ilk.” (quoting Ishmael Malale) This is the only realistic manner in which a black prosecutor can be a veteran and stop “being horrified at the thought of going up against a veteran (and) ask(s) for postponements every time because the investigating officer is not there…” (quoting you though brackets are supplied)
This resistance to transformation intended to stifle the move to equally distribute the wealth and resources of our country is unfounded and scary as it may betray an ugly side of those who are so resisting.
Find something else to do like defending private gun-owners and you will have my support.
Sne says:
November 12, 2009 at 11:50 am
“In giving ‘hardcore’ cases to “a black prosecutor whose experience is a couple of months at the Justice College” against a “veteran””
Would the ratio change if hardcore cases were given to a white prosecutor “whose experience is a couple of months “?
BTW I am wondering how veterans become so (like some are born veterans, some inherit the status and some have it thrust upon them).
Sne, Confucius say:”He who have tongue in cheek may bite it!”
Maggs, how does that strengthen your case?
How many young white prosecutors do you see in any given Magistrates Court?
Brett Nortje says:
November 12, 2009 at 12:05 pm
“Maggs, how does that strengthen your case?”
I am not clear what you mean.
“How many young white prosecutors do you see in any given Magistrates Court?”
None.
I have been in the inside of a magistrates court once in the last two decades and then it was a Black prosecutor who was very good at what he did and the way he conducted himself (I was the complainant) – so I guess my experience is not wide enough to assess the demographics.
@ Maggs
The ratio would greatly change! It would be tantamount to the “black prosecutor/novice and white prosecutor/veteran” scenario which scenario is the status quo.
Worse, if that could continue for a couple of years, it would lead us all to the dreaded status quo ante (the Apartheid era), thereby reversing all the strides that have been made on the justice system front since the advent of the Constitutional dispensation.
@ Brett Nortje
Nice quote from Confucios. You may also like this one from Winston Churchill;
“It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations.”
Sne says:
November 12, 2009 at 12:30 pm
LOL!
The dreaded transformation monster.
Well, Sne, I hope you take Winston Churchill’s advice!
Exactly, Maggs, the reaction that most of your non-sequiturs engender!
@ Brett and Sne,
Now that tempers are rising it’s best at this time to remember Confucius when he said “It’s better to be pissed off than pissed on”!
Brett Nortje says:
November 12, 2009 at 12:51 pm
“non-sequiturs engender!”
That sounds serious – is it contagious?
Should I call Dr Mathias Rath?
@ Maggs
LOL! All sorts of non-sequiturs are engendered the moment transformation, especially on the justice front, is broached.
People really need to understand this dreaded word and make peace with it since it is not going anywhere. We are not advocating for racism in reverse but merely trying to effect equality as per the Constitution and as carefully interpreted by our Constitutional Court.
As for rising tempers, I think it was more of a manifestation of the strong opinions that each side has on the subject…
Sne says:
November 12, 2009 at 13:05 pm
“People really need to understand this dreaded word and make peace with it since it is not going anywhere. We are not advocating for racism in reverse but merely trying to effect equality as per the Constitution and as carefully interpreted by our Constitutional Court.”
Did you watch “The Big Debate” last night?
“non-sequiturs” appear highly contagious, Maggs. Perhaps you should contact Dr. Manto Tshabalala in this regard? I believe, a specialist in this field?
She transformed the Department of Health, as well, I think you might recall.
@ Maggs
I did not watch it sorry. What was the big debate about?
Sne says:
November 12, 2009 at 13:51 pm
Transformation and the complexities, the truth and lies, the bullshit and the consequences on people generally.
A few interesting things for me stood out.
- Pierre does not wear green pants.
- Redi Direko is phenomenal
- Moletsi Mbeki got a huge construction tender when he returned from exile – I always thought the guy was an academic or policy specialist.
- Adv Ngoako Ramathlodi ????????????????????????????????????????? – Eish!
- It’s ok by the BMF for companies to outsource exploitation of workers to Black enterprises.
- Transformation means that some Black people get rich.
- Black judges can be corrupt as long as during some stage in the past they have raised the issue of racism in the judiciary. Motata got smacked because he did not know this cardinal rule (ask F-O-M chair Dworky).
- Transformation of the judiciary = the number of Black judges.
- it’s ok for people to wait for fresh water, homes, schools, health care, roads, houses etc – it’s critically important for the state to ensure the creation a strong wealthy Black class.
- MTN is a wholly owned Black company (the astronomical charges that equates to gross exploitation of especially poor people is irrelevant).
There’s more but that’s as best as I can remember for now.
But then as Brett says I am infected with this non-sequiturs thingy.
@ Maggs
Thanks for the info? Gee, I must get back to my legal work. Politics are for politicians!
Prof. What was the point about Redi and the short dress? LOL
Maggs, I watched the debate and I was also disappointed by Adv Ramathlodi may be he had no choice but to concede to most of the points.
It was hillarious that MTN is a BEE company that benefited the poor and that living in Sandhurst is transformation.
Jimmy Manyi must also stop justifying occupying two positions there is no one planning coup.
I am no fan of Ramphele but she had good moments.
It was a brilliant debate.
Gwebecimele says:
November 12, 2009 at 15:25 pm
Ditto on all.
I dunno how Manyi can do justice to both positions (like referee and player at the same time) – BMF probably have a plan, but it does add to the notion that there is a shortage of leadership.
Ramathlodi conceding would have been ok – I thought he suffers from that infectious thingy that I contacted from Brett, only he’s at the terminally ill stage.
I thought, as you did that Ramphele, was on a roll and that Ramathlodi was really weak to suggest that she is anti-transformational (it seems like the guy has a neural connectivity issue, must be that damn cellular networks).
Shoot to kill!! Shoot the bastards! And if the innocent get caught in the cross fire that’s just too bad. We’ll just call it collateral damage.
If only the solution to South Africa’s crime problem was this simple. Its this kind of rhetoric that has finally convinced me that our government does not have a clue how to tackle the real challenges that we face.
I’m sorry to join the party so late…
I’m just shocked at Sne’s stupidity, Goerge Gildenhuys and Bushboy’s comments. Yes, george is very unpopular with me right now.
I did an assignment on this very topic a few months ago, it was interesting and the solution is greater than changing wording. It may help to develop policy to help the police understand what they should do, when and how. More intensive training, as suggested in the M&G, would also help.
I was shot at by the Police two weeks ago. I had not stolen anything but was driving away from unmarked cars parked on the path leading to my home. They pursued, used blue lights – who doesn’t have those nowadays – and I did not stop. My car was shot at, at least 7 times – most bullrtd aimed at the driver. I survived without a scratch but I was so close to being a dead man. I stopped when the police vehicle was parallel to mine and I saw the gun being waved at me as well as the uniform.
I doubt that those were circumstances which justified the use of force. Force should be reasonably necessary. I was alone, driving a vehicle, no weapons and I never shot at anyone. They thought I was a hijacker as they were expecting members of a hijacking syndicate.
I wonder what they could have done to avoid shooting at me, and I think there is a lot. I don’t think we should be the sacrificial lambs in the pursuit of crime. The police should start using their brains (if they have any).
The value of human lives is too great to be bartered in such a manner. Yes, it angered me before I was shot that fellow citizens were shot for no good reason. Even the criminals should not be shot or shot at UNLESS it is necessary to do so. We should stand up and fight for the rights of both our friends and enemies because one day it might be us who are on the “wrong side of the law”.
nkululeko says:
November 20, 2009 at 16:33 pm
Perhaps this is apt.
http://www.mg.co.za/zapiro/all/1
Maggs
I think you may be right. The failure to do what is required and sensible is what endangers the rest of us. And that cartoon is more realistic than we would like to admit.
@ Nkululeko
If it would justify calling me stupid I’d ask that you cite instances which made you think so.
However, it would still not be justified so let me rather stick to this;
Kindly refrain from using personal attacks when you want to engage in a meaningful discussion.
Sne says:
November 22, 2009 at 5:55 am
Kindly refrain from using personal attacks when you want to engage in a meaningful discussion.
———————————————————————————————————–
http://www.timeslive.co.za/sundaytimes/article203843.ece
“Young Communist League leader Buti Manamela yesterday said Malema’s comments breached the protocols of engagement agreed to by the alliance.
“He said Malema’s outbursts ‘are part of a tendency of misinterpreting being brave about views and being disrespectful’.
“‘We are concerned that reasoning is now substituted with insults,’ Manamela said.”
Wherever this is going, it is worrisome :
“Zuma praised Malema as a ‘leader in the making’ and someone who would be worthy of inheriting the ANC”.
“Zuma, who has never before spoken so openly and boldly about his support for Malema, said older ANC leaders were ‘happy’ to leave the party to leaders like Malema.”
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=13&set_id=1&art_id=vn20091026041652454C814638
Apart from your views on transformation – numbers game – I can’t remember. If you agreed that guns and violence should be used readily I would have called you stupid. I’m not about to check.
I will make any statement or submit any opinion I want to. Why? Because they generally have reasons behind them
As the job discription of the police is to protect and serve the community, in some mere cases the police are forced to use amunation. Looking at hte nature of our country which has high crime rates, roughly there are 43policemen killed in every month by armed robbers and since 2 years ago, the police has took stance to go further and use guns as a means of protecting their lives. However this does not guarantee them using guns unnecessarily.
Musa
I think the SAPS have created a vicious cycle of their own making. Ever since the “shoot to kill” command (if you can call it that) was given and the police believed they had political authority to shoot first and ask questions later, this has been waiting to happen.
Police killings of suspects – suspects not criminals – has doubled year-on-year as a direct result. Shootings of police are also now climbing and there is a direct relationship there too.
The police have always, always, had the ability to use force when required to save themselves or another person – just like you and me. Cele’s statements just show how ignorant he is of the legal position regarding the use of force. Unfortunately, this situation has encouraged the police to become judge, jury and executioner for members of the public and not just criminals.
By Cele referring to the police shooting to kill criminals he is unconsciously prejudging the suspect as guilty. Judge Dredd, as cool as he is, should never get off the comic book pages!
If the police show up for a domestic disturbance in your neighbourhood will you go out to them or hide behind your wall in case they shoot you for being a “suspect”?
What we have now is suspects (a suspect only becomes a criminal after successful prosecution) knowing that if they surrender their safety cannot be guaranteed and the suspect faces, in his mind, almost certain death. Who in that suspect’s position would hesitate to kill the police in your way?
Cele, Nthethwa, Shabangu before, have been cultivating the image of a police as a force out to destroy criminals and anybody and anything that gets in their way and not the protection service it is supposed to be.
Now Cele is attending more police funerals because suspects have taken the fight to the police. The police are now the enemy of the citizenry instead of a place of refuge and safety like they should be. No wonder Cele has received no support from communities and they have little sympathy for dead policemen and women. Instead of mourning the loss of a protector, the communities are instead relieved that there is one less gun pointed at their loved ones.
Nkululeko’s excellent example of the “shoot first” is undeniably the prime reason why the police are losing to criminals because the citizens who are supposed to help are too terrified of the police and don’t trust them.
The only way out is the long hard way. Police have to be trained really well and the law must be clear that the use of force must only be in extreme circumstances. No shots should be fired unless there is a clear and present danger (other than a warning shot, if at al possible but there is no legal requirement that this has to be done if the situation is beyond redemption).
Any death at police hands should be dealt with as a murder investigation with a specialised internal unit, which publicises its results.
This is the only way for the police to regain the trust and become the community protectors they are supposed to be, instead of the threat to life and limb if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
The job of the police is a really, really tough one. But it would end up being easier if this route was taken because it would increase public support, sympathy and respect. Suspects would give themselves up easier because they will only risk being shot in extreme situations. Communities would open up to the police more and cop-shooters would be bust by the community almost instantly.
The police had only just begun regaining trust after the damage Apartheid did to their image, and now the leadership seems determined, perhaps unwittingly so, to drag us all back there.
One hopes they’ll see reason and many innocent lives of police and citizen will not be needlessly lost in future. The police can get back on top of crime investigation and therefore prevention but only if they change tack.
We all want safe communities, but we also need to be kept safe from the guards.
Well put!
The only thing I would add is the SAPS should aim at using dogs whenever wherever they can in patrol work – dogs are a highly visible non-lethal deterrent.
http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Padvalk-skiet-man-dood-op-ongeluktoneel-20110519
Padvalk skiet man dood op ongeluktoneel
2011-05-19 23:24
Buks Viljoen
”n Lewe is vir hulle niks werd nie. Skiet die man dood en laat
hom net daar lê.” So beskryf mnr. Gerrit van Heerden van
Middelburg in Bethal sy belewenis eergisternag op ‘n
ongelukstoneel toe ‘n verkeersbeampte ‘n motoris doodgeskiet het.
Die verkeersman het ten aanskoue van verskeie polisiemanne, ander
verkeersbeamptes, nooddienspersoneel en ander omstanders sy
pistool uitgepluk en mnr. Majika Gadebe (36) in die rug geskiet.
Gadebe is op slag dood.
Die verkeersman het daarna glo sy pistool in die skede teruggesit
en saam met kollegas by sy voertuig gaan staan.
Van Heerden het gesê een van sy steenkoolvragmotors het vroeër
die aand in Bethal omgeslaan.
“Ek is van Middelburg deur na die toneel. Steenkool, diesel en
olie het oor die pad geloop en die verkeerspolisie het die pad
gesluit,” vertel hy.
In ‘n stadium het ‘n motoris glo probeer om agter die omgeslane
vragmotor verby te ry.
Hy is glo deur ‘n vroueverkeersbeampte voorgekeer.
Volgens Van Heerden het die motoris en die verkeersbeampte in ‘n
woordewisseling betrokke geraak.
“Die man het uit sy motor geklim en na haar geloop. Die volgende
oomblik het ‘n skoot geklap.
“Die motoris is van agter geskiet en het net daar inmekaargesak.
“Niemand het iets gedoen om die slagoffer te help nie!” vertel
Van Heerden.
Van Heerden en van die omstanders het in ‘n stadium gaan wegkruip
omdat hulle bang was daar word ook op hulle geskiet.
Een van die brandweermanne op die toneel het later na die
slagoffer gegaan en gesien hy is dood.
“Ek kan nie glo dat hulle so min respek het vir ‘n lewe nie,” het
Van Heerden gesê.
Lt.kol. Leonard Hlathi, polisiewoordvoerder, het gesê ‘n klag van
moord word ondersoek.
Die verkeersman is gistermiddag in hegtenis geneem.
Brett
Your last story is exactly why Cele is attending more funerals.
How can citizens have any faith in police if this is a stock story about their operations?
Cele should not be unhappy about communities having no sympathy for murdered policemen and women. He should be working around the clock to get the communities back on side. No doubt this incident was sparked in part because the policewoman felt she could do it without repercussions, or a light reprimand.
I hope this investigation is concluded quickly, but its of no help to victim or his family.
This reminds me of the 80s. I remember going through a police logbook for a case and seeing the following: “I saw Mr X standing on the side of the road. So I shot him because I suspected him.” That was all that was logged for the night – a man shot in the stomach for standing on the corner. He survived and sued the police successfully. But it didn’t give him half his intestines back.
The police have to accept that their lot is to serve an ungrateful and often rude populace. The police have to be trained to deal with difficult members of the public. Surely its in the job description?
Theirs is definitely the hardest job, the respect has to be earned the hard way. Cele is unfortunately trying to demand respect by the use of force. All its going to do is make the situation worse.
We need the lot of the police to be improved, but with that comes a heck of a lot of hard work from the top.
Yes, it is almost as if everyone has abandoned the idea of institutional legitimacy-buidling because we have a democratically-elected government.
We have to reconcile ourselves to the idea that a lot of people are only ever going to acquire knowledge by example – including drivers, cops….
What really shocked me about this story is the cop that shot Gadebe rejoined the other cops and everyone carried on like nothing happened. Murder? Small beer!
It says a lot about the other cops present too.
Brett
Lack of action could conceivably lead to a charge of common purpose. Those cops better hope the prosecution is off their game.
Sad story all round though.
Cops have it bad enough as it is but this makes it worse for the good guys out there who shoulder the blame for their colleagues. I feel terrible for the good cops.
It is encumbent on every single SAPS member to actively weed out the bad cops.
And yet in almost every single instance they do their very best to shelter and protect the guilty in their own ranks. Right up to Provincial Commissioner level if the report from the Weirdabrug CPF Chairman has any credence.
Andy: in my opinion it has everything to do with poverty; it’s that initial growing up in the sub-existence of poverty with all the existing evolutionary primary drives, survival, pleasure, me versus them, that produces such violence. Poverty doesn’t allow for all our wonderful influences (attentive capable parent(s) for example, food on the table in abundance and daily, pocket money for the big date, can I borrow the car dad?) which have allowed we of privilege while being raised, freedom from becoming desperate and violent, exceptions naturally. Since poverty is the troubled venue for the poor’s development, perhaps you can see that yes, poverty is the root problem.
Its not being saintly to care for others less fortunate, its being practical. Everyone effects everyone else in one manner or the other.
King Zwakala
November 11, 2009 at 15:22 pm
@Bushboy
“I see where you are coming from; you are trying to defend gun ownership. It is indeed a difficult choice to make…”
Difficult for a thinking man, indeed. I’m a Canadian, king King Zwakala, living in SA for more than a decade, married to a South African. In Canada, its gun free, I gave up mine following an eureka, ‘I didn’t want to kill anymore’. But South Africa is a different planet from Canada, also the US, Europe, Scandinavia and the rest of Europe. There, crime is not such a level to worry about attack while you go about your days and nights.
Here, I have no way of protecting my partner or child, she, the former, having been raped as a child and virgin, attacked on three other occasions, living fearful much of the time.
I’m not a boere, but I sympathize with their tribe and all SA’s minorities. And with a nod to Brett, he’s right in my mind. SA law abiding citizens need the freedom to protect their loved ones. The government typically is neglecting this duty, which is first and foremost both protecting and supporting their citizens to protect themselves.
I personally won’t handle a gun again, I swore to pacifism as a path to sanity.
Sirjay, Canada has a much higher per capita rate of gun ownership than SA.
Granted, mostly they are rifles and shotguns.
My mom’s friends at work used to tease her that she always had a handgun on her but they knew her well enough to doubt she could ever shoot anyone. She told them that she would not hesitate for a moment to shoot to protect her children or pets. When her friends told me that I went balistic. I asked her how she thought we would feel for the rest of our lives if something happened to her, and she could have stopped it happening. She had not thought of the need to fight for her life that way. For us.
The crux is though that guns for ‘self-protection’ are not really there to protect ‘self’. You have them to protect society, the driver in front of you.
My dad.
sirjay jonson says:
May 25, 2011 at 18:55 pm
Last night I just felt like getting out and I went to the local Kentucky to snack on hotwings. There was an old codger there who would grab people’s trays as soon as they got up to leave and suck the scraps off the bones.
Yesterday I decided two baby pigeons I nursed along for weeks were not making any progress. This morning first thing I put the dustbin out. When I left I saw someone had gone through all the dustbins in the street. The baby pigeons were gone. So, someone has eaten two pigeons I killed because they were sick. I’ve been treating them with furasol for a week. I’ve seen a guy stiff as a board where he’d been sleeping on cardboard on the pavement in JHB in weather like this.
Sirjay, I have no doubt you are right to a large extent. In countries with a social security safety net people do not suffer the same desperate lows that sometimes translate to violence. But – it is not the whole answer. Not only the people in many third world countries but also preceding generations in those first world countries that now provide a comprehensive social security safetynet also suffered desperate poverty without the violence that we have seen in this country.
Brett, sorry to go off topic, but I was fascinated to hear about your use of furasol on the pigeons. Reminded me of a time when Matilda was very young, perhaps six weeks or so. She was suddenly afflicted with a potent avian virus. I had nearly lost hope when Belgian colleague sent me a small vial of furasol – to be administered under each wing twice a day, using an eye-dropper. Worked like a charm!
Maggs, have you ever had such an experience?
Mikhail Dworkin Fassbinder says:
May 25, 2011 at 22:53 pm
Hey Dworky,
“Maggs, have you ever had such an experience?”
Sadly, no.
But I was thinking of suggesting that Brett should donate a very large vial of Furasol to the ACDP.
Do you think it will help them recover from near death?
Or will Brett have to put them in the dustbin too?
Interesting! It would explain a lot if you consumed Matilda just after treating her with furasol….
Great job the ICD is doing!
http://www.beeld.com/Suid-Afrika/Nuus/Polisiegeweld-90-kan-nie-bewys-word-20110525
Polisiegeweld: 90% kan nie bewys word
2011-05-25 22:20
Hilda Fourie en Jacques Steenkamp
Byna 90% van die klagte oor polisiehardhandigheid wat aanhangig gemaak word, kan nie bewys word nie.
Van die 3 159 klagte wat in die 2009-’10-boekjaar teen polisiebeamptes aangemeld is, kon 2 763 klagtes (87%) nie gestaaf word nie.
Nog 100 klagte is teruggetrek.
Só het mnr. Moses Dlamini van die onafhanklike klagtedirektoraat (OKD) gister by die Instituut vir Sekerheidstudie in Pretoria gesê.
Dlamini het gesê in die meeste gevalle is daar te min bewyse teen die betrokke polisiebeamptes en kan die slagoffers nie hul aanvallers uitken nie.
As voorbeeld het Dlamini die betogings teen dienslewering in die Nyibe-township buite Ermelo vroeër vanjaar gebruik waar die polisie daarvan beskuldig is dat hulle met skerp ammunisie op betogers geskiet het toe hul rubberkoeëls opgeraak het.
Dié skerp ammunisie het glo die lewe van mnr. Mphikeleli Solomon Madonsela (41) geëis.
Volgens Dlamini is daar tydens dié betogings minstens 30 aanrandingsklagte teen polisielede ingedien.
Nie een kon bewys word nie omdat die slagoffers nie hul aanvallers in die minstens sewe nasionale, provinsiale en plaaslike polisie-eenhede wat daar was, kon uitken nie.
Tog is die polisie nie daarop uit om die publiek seer te maak of te vermoor nie, het Dlamini gesê. Van al die mense wat in 2009-’10 weens polisie-optrede dood is, was 82% verdagtes.
Mnr. David Bruce, senior navorser by die Sentrum vir die Studie van Geweld en Versoening, het gesê Suid-Afrika het ’n “krisis oor die gebruik van geweld”.
“Aan die een kant is daar gewelddadige polisie-optrede, en aan die ander kant gewelddadige optrede téénoor die polisie,” het Bruce gesê.
Volgens Bruce was die meeste vermoorde polisielede van diens af ten tyde van hul dood.
Bruce het gesê van die 101 polisiebeamptes wat in 2009-’10 vermoor is, was 39 ten tyde van hul dood aan diens en 62 nie.
Minstens 36 polisielede is sedert Januarie vanjaar vermoor, het brig. Sally de Beer, nasionale polisiewoordvoerder, aan Beeld gesê. Tien van dié polisielede is in Gauteng vermoor en vier van hulle was aan diens, het lt.kol. Lungelo Dlamini, Gautengse polisiewoordvoerder, gesê.
Prof. Anthony Minnaar van Unisa se departement kriminologie en sekerheidswetenskappe het gesê misdadigers skiet polisiebeamptes eerstens dood om hul vuurwapens te kry.
Hulle skiet ook omdat hulle beter bewapen as polisielede is en beter kan skiet.
“Die probleem lê by polisiebeamptes se swak opleiding wat hulle nie voorberei vir ’n operasionele situasie nie. Hulle weet nie hoe om die wet oor minimum geweld toe te pas nie.”
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Boy-dies-many-ill-after-eating-dodgy-beef-20110523
Boy dies, many ill after eating dodgy beef
Johannesburg – A teenage boy has died after eating meat from a
cow that died at his village of Mthombetsipsa in the Eastern
Cape, the provincial health department said on Monday.
“He was declared dead at the Makhotyane clinic in Libode today
[Monday] after eating the cow on Sunday afternoon,” spokesperson
Sizwe Kupelo said.
“Him and other villagers found the dead cow in their kraal and
decided to eat it… without knowing what caused its death.”
About 40 villagers arrived at the clinic with symptoms including
diarrhoea, severe stomach cramps and headaches. They were taken
to St Barnabas Hospital.
“We have more people who are being transported to the clinic for
stabilisation… we will investigate the cause.”
The department advised people not to eat animals that had died
from unknown causes.
- SAPA