Deadly force bill passed

B

b_crazy

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
3,338
Reaction score
23
Location
Jo'burg
The National Council of Provinces unanimously approved the Criminal Procedure Act Amendment Bill without debate on Thursday.

The bill provides guidelines on why and how force, and deadly force, may be used to carry out an arrest.

It is intended to bring section 49 of the Act in line with the Constitution.

Parliament passed a new section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act in 1998.

The old section provided that killing someone suspected of committing a schedule one offence - which includes treason, sedition, public violence, murder, culpable homicide, and rape - would constitute justifiable homicide if the person could not be arrested or prevented from fleeing in any other way.

However, the new section 49 did not commence for five years because the SA Police Service (SAPS), and others, had problems interpreting it.

The Supreme Court of Appeal and then the Constitutional Court, in 2001 and 2002 respectively, ruled on the old section 49.

In the Constitutional Court case of the State v Walters, former Constitutional Court judge Johann Kriegler, for a unanimous court, explained in plain terms when, why, and how force and deadly force could be used when making an arrest.

These guidelines were incorporated into the amendment bill, providing legal certainty.

During debate on the bill in the National Assembly, which also passed it unanimously on May 23, Dene Smuts of the Democratic Alliance said the bill was a true reflection of the Kriegler judgment for the Constitutional Court, and was in part verbatim.

"Force must always be reasonably necessary and proportional in the circumstances, and deadly force, including shooting, may in addition be used only if the suspect poses a threat of serious violence to the arrester or another person or persons; or if the suspect is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime involving serious bodily harm, and there are no other reasonable means of arresting him at that time or later," she said.

It was necessary to remember that the purpose of arrest was to bring a suspect before court for trial, that the arrest was not the only means of achieving that purpose, nor always the best, and that arrest could never be used to punish a suspect.

"That is what the judge said, and that is what we therefore need our police, and ourselves, to observe," Smuts said then.

The bill now goes to President Jacob Zuma to be signed into law.
Click to expand...

http://news.iafrica.com/sa/811503.html
 
I am not understanding this, so is the amended watered down section 49 now law?
So basically, you have to be completely in danger before defending yourself?

There was much talk about this act after it was amended by the ANC as it stopped police and citizens from defending themselves as they were to afraid to use deadly force.
So basically this is now cementing the the amended law that you cannot shoot to effect an arrest?
 
marine1 said:
I am not understanding this, so is the amended watered down section 49 now law?
So basically, you have to be completely in danger before defending yourself?
Click to expand...

No. It just says you may only kill someone if its the last resort. All other "reasonable" alternatives have to be tried first and if they fail you may shoot to kill. (Of course that's if the crime or offence or actions of the criminal warrant deadly force. If a kid won't stop puffing from a joint of MJ, you are still not allowed to kill him.)

Makes sense.
 
which includes treason, sedition...
Click to expand...

Now I have a problem with this. It essentially says that someone that goes against the goverment can be fscked up by the state.
 
ponder said:
Now I have a problem with this. It essentially says that someone that goes against the goverment can be fscked up by the state.
Click to expand...

Well that's the case with any government. Treason and sedition always carry the highest penalties, you'll see ;-)
 
I have never liked the idea of our power hungry, corrupt police force having a shoot to kill badge. Especially the part where it is their judgement that decides whether you are a suspect. I see far too many bad situations in this.
 
What is the big deal this has been the criteria for quite a while

Force must always be reasonably necessary and proportional in the circumstances, deadly force, including shooting, may in addition be used only if the suspect poses a threat of serious violence to the arrester or another person or persons; or if the suspect is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime involving serious bodily harm, and there are no other reasonable means of arresting him at that time or later,"

Reasonadble and proportional force to be used - What is wrong with this?

Deadly force only if the suspect poses a threat of serious violence to the arrester or another person or persons What is wrong with this?

Deadly force only if the suspect is reasonably suspected of having committed a crime involving serious bodily harm, and there are no other reasonable means of arresting him at that time or later What is wrong with this?
 
SoulTax said:
I have never liked the idea of our power hungry, corrupt police force having a shoot to kill badge. Especially the part where it is their judgement that decides whether you are a suspect. I see far too many bad situations in this.
Click to expand...

Generally when you have to shoot you shoot to kill there is no time for fancy shooting and the officer needs to be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the situation required the use of deadly force.

Bad situations will occur which is regrettable, but looking at the number of SAPS member’s vs the deaths as a result of police action it is not as endemic as you put forward
 
Mila said:
Does this help the police in the mine saga or make it worse for them?
Click to expand...

It would depend. Did the police at the time of the shooting have no alternative but to shoot in order to defend either their life or someone else's...from what I saw (despite the fact the police were clearly inept and unprepared and should be punished for that in some way) I think they acted in self-defense.

However, what I saw, doesn't take into account 2 days beforehand, two policeman were hacked to death and their guns stolen and by all accounts those police guns were used by members of the crowd to fire on the police.

If the police went there with the idea of potentially avenging their comrades and were trigger happy, then maybe they did commit some sort of crime, in my mind you can't go around looking for a fight hoping to kill people...however police were needed to disperse the illegal crowd...

In other words, the issue is more complicated than what is seen on TV.
 
The bill now goes to President Jacob Zuma to be signed into law.

Zoomster now have to decide whether or not he will shoot himself in the foot if he passes this law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X