Good show, the thugs got what they deserved.
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2111894,00.html
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2111894,00.html
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How do you normally pay for purchases in stores?
Man who killed 3 'road-ragers' walks
- Thread starter Sneeky
- Start date
killadoob
Honorary Master
nice one
finally the criminals dont get the last laugh
finally the criminals dont get the last laugh
Skeptik
Banned
From what transpired, I'm surprised the charges weren't
kicked into touch long ago.
kicked into touch long ago.
Bona Botse
A little insight goes a long way
ok, so most of u guys think his actions were justified and all, but come on, couldnt he have shot them in the legs/knees or somewhere else not so fatal to render them immobile and used that chance to escape rather than KILLING them? 
it would have made more sense to KILL them if they also had guns or knives or similar, and i'm assuming they didnt have these because they probably would have produced them. and did he have to KILL all 3 of them?
heh, its a good thing i wasnt the judge presiding that case, for him anyways.
it would have made more sense to KILL them if they also had guns or knives or similar, and i'm assuming they didnt have these because they probably would have produced them. and did he have to KILL all 3 of them?
heh, its a good thing i wasnt the judge presiding that case, for him anyways.
Moederloos
Honorary Master
ok, so most of u guys think his actions were justified and all, but come on, couldnt he have shot them in the legs/knees or somewhere else not so fatal to render them immobile and used that chance to escape rather than KILLING them?
it would have made more sense to KILL them if they also had guns or knives or similar, and i'm assuming they didnt have these because they probably would have produced them. and did he have to KILL all 3 of them?
heh, its a good thing i wasnt the judge presiding that case, for him anyways.
I dont know the circumstances, but feel up to a discussion. lol.
Imagine - different case: Some miscreant breaks into your house, you shoot him in the leg, police come, take him away, he gets out in 2 months because of a bungle, he comes after you, kills you and rapes and kills your wife and kids.
That is the reality.
Bona Botse
A little insight goes a long way
okay, i hear what ur saying, but in that case it isnt exactly self defence anymore, and probably wouldnt stand in court...
Its justified - he was protecting his family. It happened right outside one of his family members homes. He had his wife and kids in the car. I would have done exactly the same thing. If anyone messes with my family, I would kill the bast_rds.
Bona Botse
A little insight goes a long way
protect != kill
ok, so most of u guys think his actions were justified and all, but come on, couldnt he have shot them in the legs/knees or somewhere else not so fatal to render them immobile and used that chance to escape rather than KILLING them?
Legs are a small target, difficult to aim at due to angle, move too much and move too fast. Training universally focuses on Center Of Mass, because that's what you're most likely to hit. Also, people on drugs - and this includes alcohol - will keep fighting unless you put them down. If you wound them they may back off, they may not notice it, or they may become even more agressive. There's almost no such thing as a quick stop that doesn't result in death.
Make no mistake about the lethal capacity of 'unarmed' people. Fists and feet can effectively beat a person to death. People see these 'action hero' shows where guys get beaten bloody and then still save the day. If you've ever been badly beaten by multiple attackers - and I have - you know exactly how difficult it is to fight back and how little time you have before you're unable to fight back.
A large rock or a wheelspanner makes a deadly weapon. So does a glass bottle. I'm going to guess they had at least those weapons available. Knife's even better.
If he had to shoot all three before they gave up, they probably would have tried to kill him regardless. Don't forget, alcohol and adrenaline impair judgement and increase agression - they may not have known when to stop.
This is a classic example of why guns are a good thing. He tried to get away and was pursued. The agressive criminals had the advantage of strength and numbers, but the innocent victim's firearm gave him a chance to overcome their brutality.
Last edited:
Then why are police officers, security guards, bodyguards and soldiers all armed with firearms?
killadoob
Honorary Master
why shoot for the legs then they pull out their guns and pop you
rather aim for the head lol
rather aim for the head lol
Moederloos
Honorary Master
I've been shooting since I was kid and I would not risk my life on the hope that I could even hit the legs of three guys who have already beaten me once.ok, so most of u guys think his actions were justified and all, but come on, couldnt he have shot them in the legs/knees or somewhere else not so fatal to render them immobile and used that chance to escape rather than KILLING them?
Stopping them is the immediate goal - killing them was probably incidental.
Bona Botse
A little insight goes a long way
i was talking about a situation where the other party or parties is/are not armed.
police etc carry guns in case these situations arise. and also to instill a bit of fear into would be law breakers.
i don't know hey, i guess its just the thought of consciously ending someone else's life. i'm not sure i'd be able to live with myself afterwards. so by killing my would be attacker, i would have killed 2 people: that person, and myself
Would you prefer to be the only one dead?i don't know hey, i guess its just the thought of consciously ending someone else's life. i'm not sure i'd be able to live with myself afterwards. so by killing my would be attacker, i would have killed 2 people: that person, and myself
EDIT - and it's not a "would be attacker" - in this instance they were actively beating the guy.