Blue light attempted murder charges dropped

LazyLion

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
107,590
Reaction score
10,235
Location
District 9
Attempted murder charges against two mayoral bodyguards who allegedly shot at a motorist on the N3 two months ago, have been dropped, the Pinetown Magistrate's Court was told on Thursday.

The court was given no details about the dropping of the charges, and Magistrate Chris Annamalai transferred the case to another court.

Thulasizwe Mbanjwa and Sthembiso Mokoena are expected back in court on Wednesday, when they will face only two charges of unlawfully discharging a firearm and discharging a firearm in a public place.

The two bodyguards allegedly shot at a motorist on the N3 last month, while escorting Umgungundlovu district mayor Yusuf Bhamjee.

The two men were seen smiling and shaking hands with friends and family after they left court.


Source : Sapa /js/cls/rod/jk
Date : 12 Dec 2013 13:10
 
The NPA need to be brought to task on this, what is the rationale behind dropping those charges.
 
This country is really starting to make me sick. Nothing will be done about this and we won't hear about it again.
 
The court made the right call (imo).
In a criminal prosecution, guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I cannot see any way the prosecutor would have been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these 2 morons were indeed attempting to murder the victim.
In all probability, on a charge of attempted murder, they would be found not guilty & walk away scott free.

On the altered charges:
unlawfully discharging a firearm
&
discharging a firearm in a public place

there is a much higher probability of a guilty verdict.
 
grantza said:
The court made the right call (imo).

In a criminal prosecution, guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I cannot see any way the prosecutor would have been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these 2 morons were indeed attempting to murder the victim.

In all probability, on a charge of attempted murder, they would be found not guilty & walk away scott free.



On the altered charges:

unlawfully discharging a firearm

&

discharging a firearm in a public place



there is a much higher probability of a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...






I haven't really been following this case, but what evidence is required for successful conviction on attempted murder charges. Surely an eyewitness that can identify the accused and saw them open fire at the victim or bullet holes on the victims car and proven to have come from the accused weapon would/should be sufficient. What defense would there if the above is proven? "I was shooting at him to get him out of the way."
 
grantza said:
The court made the right call (imo).
In a criminal prosecution, guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
I cannot see any way the prosecutor would have been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these 2 morons were indeed attempting to murder the victim.
In all probability, on a charge of attempted murder, they would be found not guilty & walk away scott free.

On the altered charges:
unlawfully discharging a firearm
&
discharging a firearm in a public place

there is a much higher probability of a guilty verdict.
Click to expand...

It is possible to look at it from that perspective. They discharged their weapon, didn't hit the guy, there were no injuries, and they achieved the result they were intending. BUT:

I don't think that they have to prove that their intention was to murder him. They should only need to prove that they fired their weapons with a high likelihood of the recipient of their bullets dying. And if they do so without cause, then they can be had up on attempted murder charges. It's like driving drunk and killing someone, or bashing someone's head in with a bat and them dying as a result. Your intent might not have been to kill, but your actions had every likelihood of actually killing someone and you'd be up for murder. Likewise, if you discharge your weapon at someone without reason, then your intent kinda becomes null and void. Did they take aim specifically away from him? No. Did they fire warning shots? No. They committed an offence that could have resulted in the death of an individual. From where I stand, that's kinda the epitome of attempted murder.

Let's assume the victim was shot and killed in this incident? I cannot fathom how the shooters could be put up on anything but murder charges...
 
DJ... said:
It is possible to look at it from that perspective. They discharged their weapon, didn't hit the guy, there were no injuries, and they achieved the result they were intending. BUT:

I don't think that they have to prove that their intention was to murder him. They should only need to prove that they fired their weapons with a high likelihood of the recipient of their bullets dying. And if they do so without cause, then they can be had up on attempted murder charges. It's like driving drunk and killing someone, or bashing someone's head in with a bat and them dying as a result. Your intent might not have been to kill, but your actions had every likelihood of actually killing someone and you'd be up for murder. Likewise, if you discharge your weapon at someone without reason, then your intent kinda becomes null and void. Did they take aim specifically away from him? No. Did they fire warning shots? No. They committed an offence that could have resulted in the death of an individual. From where I stand, that's kinda the epitome of attempted murder.

Let's assume the victim was shot and killed in this incident? I cannot fathom how the shooters could be put up on anything but murder charges...
Click to expand...

As I understand the law, with a charge of attempted murder, the onus would be on the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cops set out with the specific intent & purpose of killing the victim.
The chances of a successful prosecution on that particular charge would be somewhat remote.

Had the victim been killed as a result of their actions, they would probably initially have been charged with murder & at a later point the charges dropped to culpable homicide in the interests of a successful prosecution, as they did not specifically set with the express & common purpose of killing the victim in question.
 
Well why else would one fire a weapon at a person then, multiple times? What other intent is there, other than to kill them? And the outcome of hitting them is death. Any sane individual knows this...
 
This could set a wrong precedent not only for the blue lights but for all gun owners. We could start seeing most ppl firing their guns on other grounds.
 
DJ... said:
Well why else would one fire a weapon at a person then, multiple times? What other intent is there, other than to kill them? And the outcome of hitting them is death. Any sane individual knows this...
Click to expand...

Intimidation. To scare them ****less. I pointed this out at the time so Im not surprised those charges have been dropped
 
conduct sufficiently reckless and unlawful as to cause the death of another may result in a murder conviction, especially where the accused was in a position of authority or control over the deceased

that has been the position in our law for quite some time and there is ample recent precedent of murder convictions for: drivers whose unlawful driving causes the death of passengers, "traditional surgeons" who violate provincial laws relating to circumcision etc ...

I don't see a leap in existing precedent to apply the principle to attempted murder - the intent is established by the same principle: the accused with special knowledge and foresight did conduct himself criminally knowing that such conduct would result in the death of another over whom the accused had a special position of control or authority. The accused wielded guns, acted as being in a special position of control by virtue of escorting the mayor. Chances of conviction on attempted murder was more than a reasonable shot and the remaining offenses would have remained intact so the decision to drop the charges was a bad call and is entirely unjustified.
The burden for attempted murder is not higher than murder - that would be an absurdity - you need to prove a murder that was not successful.

My money is that the charge was dropped because the person in the NPA who made the call doesn't want to set precedent that will bite gun-ho cops and which will upset the ****wads.
 
grantza said:
As I understand the law, with a charge of attempted murder, the onus would be on the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cops set out with the specific intent & purpose of killing the victim.
The chances of a successful prosecution on that particular charge would be somewhat remote.

Had the victim been killed as a result of their actions, they would probably initially have been charged with murder & at a later point the charges dropped to culpable homicide in the interests of a successful prosecution, as they did not specifically set with the express & common purpose of killing the victim in question.
Click to expand...

You are right.

When the charge was laid with the SAPS it was done by people who were angry and traumatized. The charges were based on emotion and totally wrong. The NPA was 100% correct in their decision.

Proving attempted murder is not that easy, especially since state of mind will also play a role - something not always easy or possible to prove in a court of law. The intention must be proved above all reasonable doubt.

Had any of the people been wounded, a case of attempted murder would have sufficed. However, they were not. Proving that the suspects had intend to murder (their state of mind at the time) will not be possible. They can merely claim they fired warning shots and the state would have had to prove them wrong.

Had any person been killed, then murder charges would have been laid.

Nothing wrong with the court's decision. It was a good legal decision, not wasting the court's time and resources on charges that would not stand in a court of law.
 
grantza said:
As I understand the law, with a charge of attempted murder, the onus would be on the state to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cops set out with the specific intent & purpose of killing the victim.
The chances of a successful prosecution on that particular charge would be somewhat remote.

Had the victim been killed as a result of their actions, they would probably initially have been charged with murder & at a later point the charges dropped to culpable homicide in the interests of a successful prosecution, as they did not specifically set with the express & common purpose of killing the victim in question.
Click to expand...

Are the bodyguards even cops? I don't think so.

Anyway. travesty of justice. Our justice system is pretty useless.
 
House said:
You are right.

When the charge was laid with the SAPS it was done by people who were angry and traumatized. The charges were based on emotion and totally wrong. The NPA was 100% correct in their decision.

Proving attempted murder is not that easy, especially since state of mind will also play a role - something not always easy or possible to prove in a court of law. The intention must be proved above all reasonable doubt.

Had any of the people been wounded, a case of attempted murder would have sufficed. However, they were not. Proving that the suspects had intend to murder (their state of mind at the time) will not be possible. They can merely claim they fired warning shots and the state would have had to prove them wrong.

Had any person been killed, then murder charges would have been laid.

Nothing wrong with the court's decision. It was a good legal decision, not wasting the court's time and resources on charges that would not stand in a court of law.
Click to expand...

BULL****
the court didn't make any decision the prosecutor didn't afford it an opportunity.
 
supersunbird said:
Are the bodyguards even cops? I don't think so.

Anyway. travesty of justice. Our justice system is pretty useless.
Click to expand...

Yep, only suits certain people in certain circumstances, as with anywhere else in the world, but totally disagree with this, the decision was correct. By the way, it is not only cops who are allowed to discharge firearms.
 
Paul Hjul said:
BULL****
the court didn't make any decision the prosecutor didn't afford it an opportunity.
Click to expand...

The prosecutor did indeed make the decision on behalf of the prosecuting authorities. It was, however, the correct decision.
 
House said:
The prosecutor did indeed make the decision on behalf of the prosecuting authorities. It was, however, the correct decision.
Click to expand...
you need to learn the meaning of "prosecuting authority" but anyway

It wasn't the correct decision as it does not accord with recent decisions by the NPA in similar matters. Mr Humphreys of the Western Cape most certainly can feel aggrieved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X