South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
You should N O T be arrested for self defense, you should be read a warning and told to appear in court at a later date.
Chief Clark's Chirp on the same, he posted this morning
Murder part II
(I dont like to quote newspapers but in this case they confirm my knowlege)
Have a look at the Tribune today. Not the first page, but page 9 where there is the follow up to the arrest of Mr Webber for apparent self defence. At the time of his arrest I was questioned and there was the hysterical party quoting anonymous lawyers telling everyone that if you shoot someone in self defence you WILL be arrested.
I said you would not, and explained that there would have to be conflicting evidence on the scene to what was claimed for a person to be arrested. I explained that it is not in the mandate of the SAPS to re-afflict a victim by placing them under arrest for protecting themselves. I further commented that at the time of the incident, even the Shadow Minister for the Police, Mrs Dianne Kohler-Barnard had reported that she was satisfied with the actions of the Police. I commented that if she was satisfied then there was more to the story than what the general public was led to believe at the time. Remember, what is printed in the media is by no means the whole story, let alone truth.
Now it has been confirmed that there was more to the story. For those who do not get the Tribune, here is why the unfortunate Mr Webber was arrested:
1)He claimed he fired a warning shot which ricocheted off the wall and struck his attacker. The forensic investigators have not found any marks on any walls or surfaces indicating a ricochet. The intruder was struck once in the back, indicating he had been shot from the back. A post mortem and recovery of the bullet will indicate for sure if the bullet did hit anything before the person.
2) Mr Webber alleged he had been attacked with a knife. No knife was found on the scene by the body.
3) The placement of the spent cartridge is contradictory to where Mr Webber stated he was at the time of the shot. Remember, pistols eject spent cases to the right.
4) There is a discrepancy with the call and response time. Webber claims he waited 30 minutes. Radio recordings and vehicle tracking report the responding officers arrived within 10 minutes. I fully understand that when people are under stress, time perception is distorted.
5) There was no forced entry.
Four of these factors would have been evident at the time of and at the scene of the crime. There were comments made that with a serious case like this, the "constable" responding shouldn't make the call to arrest the "victim". The person who made that comment alleged he was an ex-policeman. Which I disputed as any policeman or ex- would have known that at the scene of a serious crime like a murder senior detectives, including station officers on call would have been present, examined all the evidence in situ and made a call based on a collective 60-70 years of policing experience.
Ultimately, this case is long from over, and I plead for people not to leap to conclusions without knowing nearly half the information. We get ourselves so worked up over what a newspaper editor has available to him, minus what he thinks is not fit to print.
My friend and comrade, Peter Burke, had the same to say to several people questioning the facts of the story at its time of release. Everything he said was 100% correct.
If you defend yourself within the boundry of the law you have nothing to fear. As the front few pages of the same Tribune report there had been several violent attacks in the upper Highway area. My question is how different would any of those ended if the homeowners had been fit and trained firearm owners, not with a "revolver" in the safe somewhere, but at hand, ready to defend yourself against an unlawful and mortal threat?
[video=youtube;CyEBXTL1Y3U]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=CyEBXTL1Y3U[/video]
