DA demands blue-light 'accomplice' be charged

Necuno

Necuno

Court Jester
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
58,566
Reaction score
3,437
wonder if anything will come of this in the end, even if the guy being charge is the actual person who have taken the shot :rolleyes:

Ahead of the court appearance of a VIP protection team member of KwaZulu-Natal's social welfare minister Meschack Hadebe, the Democratic Alliance has called for the prosecution of "his accomplice".

Radley Keys, the party's provincial spokesperson for transport, said the VIP driver should face the same charges as the accused because he was an "accessory to the fact".

Constable Hlanganani Nxumalo (28) faces eight attempted murder charges after allegedly shooting the tyre of a Mazda on the N3 highway near Camperdown on Saturday morning.

The driver lost control of the car, veered into oncoming traffic and collided head-on with a bakkie. There were six people in each car. Eight of them were injured.

Said Keys: "While the driver was arrested for not stopping at the scene of the crime, he has not been charged as an accomplice. He and the VIP member must have been in cahoots as the driver would have had to slow down to allow the VIP member to fire the shots at the vehicle driven on the N3 near Pietermaritzburg."

He said the incident was indicative of the "arrogant attitude" displayed by the provincial ministers and their VIP staff.

"The DA demands an explanation as to why the VIP driver has not been charged with attempted murder as well the other charges his accomplice is facing."

Nxumalo, who is in police custody, is expected to appear at the Camperdown Magistrate's Court on Wednesday. - Sapa
Click to expand...
http://www.mg.co.za/article/2008-11-19-da-demands-bluelight-accomplice-be-charged
 
All I can say is why!!!
Why on earth would he do that?
The VIP was not even in the car at the time.

They should be charged to the max!
 
It is clear that the DA (or the person demanding the driver to be charged with Attempted Murder) does not understand how criminal charges work.

If they want to make a point by charging the driver with a crime too then fine, but they should at least try and understand how this stuff works instead of making themselves look stupid.

Maybe the driver telepathically communicated with the shooter to try and kill the occupants in the other car. If they can prove that then they can.

He can be charged with a lot of crimes though.
 
The guy shot out the window at another car. If you continue to drive, and its not to the police station to report the incident, me thinks you are an accomplice.
 
If you continue to drive and fail to report the incident you can be charged with "Failure to stop at the scene of an accident", but the state will have to prove that they both had clear intentions to kill the guys in the car if they want an Attempted Murder case to fly.
 
slowcheetah said:
If you continue to drive and fail to report the incident you can be charged with "Failure to stop at the scene of an accident", but the state will have to prove that they both had clear intentions to kill the guys in the car if they want an Attempted Murder case to fly.
Click to expand...

Being an accomplice to attempted murder ie not trying in any way to stop it (if possible) is a criminal offence. The driver is also a criminal here, not just for refusing to stop after he caused an accident (and reckless driving) but for bringing the gunman into police custody.

Not knowing basic physics, that a burst (shot out) tire at high speed will lead to an accident and accidents at speed are serious, is not defence against
attempted murder charges. Come on....
 
slowcheetah said:
It is clear that the DA (or the person demanding the driver to be charged with Attempted Murder) does not understand how criminal charges work.

If they want to make a point by charging the driver with a crime too then fine, but they should at least try and understand how this stuff works instead of making themselves look stupid.

Maybe the driver telepathically communicated with the shooter to try and kill the occupants in the other car. If they can prove that then they can.

He can be charged with a lot of crimes though.
Click to expand...

sigh
of course he is an accomplice.
 
But it still does not prove that he (or the driver) had the intension of killing them.

If you loose control of your car through speeding and drive though a brick wall and almost kill someone who is busy having a braai in his yard, will you accept an Attempted Murder charge against you? I mean the chances are good that someone might be behind the wall in their yard and your speeding could cause that person to almost be killed.
 
Slowcheetah : thats not really a correct analogy...

Because the driver would have seen his passenger draw the weapon, and lower the window and point his weapon out the window... All of this affording the driver plenty of time to stop him.. Plus there is more than a good chance the driver had to slow down to allow his passenger time to shoot, which makes him complicit in the crime.
 
slowcheetah said:
It is clear that the DA (or the person demanding the driver to be charged with Attempted Murder) does not understand how criminal charges work.

If they want to make a point by charging the driver with a crime too then fine, but they should at least try and understand how this stuff works instead of making themselves look stupid.

Maybe the driver telepathically communicated with the shooter to try and kill the occupants in the other car. If they can prove that then they can.

He can be charged with a lot of crimes though.
Click to expand...

What? no, sorry. wrong. He is indeed an accomplice. The DA has not made themselves look stupid... the only person who has made themselves look silly is.... nuff said.
 
Garyvdh said:
What? no, sorry. wrong. He is indeed an accomplice. The DA has not made themselves look stupid... the only person who has made themselves look silly is.... nuff said.
Click to expand...

Oooookay!

You are clearly not understanding what I'm saying here. He IS INDEED an accomplice, to whatever crimes the shooter gets convicted of. I never said anything about him not being an accomplice.

btw, is this the kind of name-calling you were referring to in the PD section earlier?
 
lol your comparrison is not fair.

For it to be fair, the guy behind the wheel would first have to KNOW that people are on the other side of that wall, he would then have to purposefully crash into them. Ofcourse thats not man slaughter, thats attempted murder, as you made the conscious decision to drive into them knowing the risks of what was likely to happen.

And your reasoning is like the guy behind the wheel telling the judge that he watches alot of cartoons, and didn't believe it was likely that crashing into people could kill them. Well, if they actually buy that rubbish, they will send you to a loony bin for the rest of your life, because clearly you can't grasp the most basic of concepts.
 
HumanoidTyphoon said:
lol your comparrison is not fair.

For it to be fair, the guy behind the wheel would first have to KNOW that people are on the other side of that wall, he would then have to purposefully crash into them. Ofcourse thats not man slaughter, thats attempted murder, as you made the conscious decision to drive into them knowing the risks of what was likely to happen.

And your reasoning is like the guy behind the wheel telling the judge that he watches alot of cartoons, and didn't believe it was likely that crashing into people could kill them. Well, if they actually buy that rubbish, they will send you to a loony bin for the rest of your life, because clearly you can't grasp the most basic of concepts.
Click to expand...

If he purposefully crashed into them then yes it will be AM.

In the analogy the driver could have foreseen that there might be someone behind the wall as it is a residential dwelling, just as the shooter could have foreseen that shooting at the wheels of a moving car could cause it to loose control. But there has to be clarity as to what the shooters' (or drivers') intentions were.
 
I predict a suspended sentence - time will tell.

Strangely, this lunatic may have done us all a favour. I get the idea that there will be a change in the blue-light brigade rules ...
 
slowcheetah said:
Oooookay!

You are clearly not understanding what I'm saying here. He IS INDEED an accomplice, to whatever crimes the shooter gets convicted of. I never said anything about him not being an accomplice.

btw, is this the kind of name-calling you were referring to in the PD section earlier?
Click to expand...

Hey, you started with the "stupid" ... don't get all uppity when you can call people stupid but woe betide anyone who criticizes you. Yes, this exactly the kind of name calling I was talking about. If you don't like it then don't do it to others. I think enough people chimed to point out you were wrong. Not a major train smash. and btw, what makes you think I was referring to you as being silly. Maybe I was talking about the person laying the charges. :rolleyes: Did I address you directly?
 
Garyvdh said:
Hey, you started with the "stupid" ... don't get all uppity when you can call people stupid but woe betide anyone who criticizes you. Yes, this exactly the kind of name calling I was talking about. If you don't like it then don't do it to others. I think enough people chimed to point out you were wrong. Not a major train smash. and btw, what makes you think I was referring to you as being silly. Maybe I was talking about the person laying the charges. :rolleyes: Did I address you directly?
Click to expand...

Oh come on...a retarded jellyfish could figure out that you were referring to me. And I was not calling anyone on the board stupid, unless you are the spokesperson for the DA?

But lets wait and see when the case goes on trial. I don't mind if people think I'm wrong in my opinion.
 
slowcheetah said:
Oh come on...a retarded jellyfish could figure out that you were referring to me. And I was not calling anyone on the board stupid, unless you are the spokesperson for the DA?

But lets wait and see when the case goes on trial. I don't mind if people think I'm wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Oh, so the DA is made up of inanimate objects, not people? .. and the fact that we agree with their call for a similar charge would make us stupid as well? I think that is why ppl jumped on your post, just because of that one comment. The court case will have little do with reality.
 
Garyvdh said:
Oh, so the DA is made up of inanimate objects, not people? .. and the fact that we agree with their call for a similar charge would make us stupid as well? I think that is why ppl jumped on your post, just because of that one comment. The court case will have little do with reality.
Click to expand...

Ok for the record and to make you feel better, I was not talking about the constituency of the DA but rather to the spokesperson, who make voters like you look like an angry mob. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X