Eden Park SAPS robbed at knifepoint

R.V said:
Funny when we had the death penalty in South Africa, and way back when police officers were still allowed to shoot and kill someone who committed a robbery, how we never read in newspapers about one or two criminals walking into a police station and robbing all the policemen at knife-point and then get away too..... just goes to show how the ANC managed to turn these bunch of people into playful pu$$ies.
Click to expand...

The police were never allowed to just shoot and kill someone who had committed a robbery. Crawl back into your deranged alternate reality
 
And then law-abiding citizens will get blamed for all of the guns used to commit a crime.
 
ToxicBunny said:
The police were never allowed to just shoot and kill someone who had committed a robbery. Crawl back into your deranged alternate reality
Click to expand...

Oh yes, they were. It was a schedule 1 offence.

Either if you were in the act of a robbery, or simply fleeing, or simply resisting arrest, the police had the right, in terms of section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act to legally kill you without being prosecuted.

Among the listed crimes were things such as Fraud, Assault, Vehicle Theft, and more for which they could kill you.

Stop thinking you are a Mr. Know it All. You are not! You are mostly thumbsucking from Internet information in most of your posts.
 
R.V said:
Oh yes, they were. It was a schedule 1 offence.

Either if you were in the act of a robbery, or simply fleeing, or simply resisting arrest, the police had the right, in terms of section 49(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act to legally kill you without being prosecuted.

Among the listed crimes were things such as Fraud, Assault, Vehicle Theft, and more for which they could kill you.

Stop thinking you are a Mr. Know it All. You are not! You are mostly thumbsucking from Internet information in most of your posts.
Click to expand...

Total and unutterable BULLSHYTE....

So you clearly can't actually read...

49 Use of force in effecting arrest

(1) For the purposes of this section-
(a) 'arrestor' means any person authorised under this Act to arrest or to assist
in arresting a suspect;
(b) 'suspect' means any person in respect of whom an arrestor has a
reasonable suspicion that such person is committing or has committed an
offence; and
(c) 'deadly force' means force that is likely to cause serious bodily harm or
death and includes, but is not limited to, shooting at a suspect with a
firearm.

(2) If any arrestor attempts to arrest a suspect and the suspect resists the attempt,
or flees, or resists the attempt and flees, when it is clear that an attempt to arrest him
or her is being made, and the suspect cannot be arrested without the use of force, the
arrestor may, in order to effect the arrest, use such force as may be reasonably
necessary and proportional in the circumstances to overcome the resistance or to
prevent the suspect from fleeing, but, in addition to the requirement that the force
must be reasonably necessary and proportional in the circumstances, the arrestor may
use deadly force only if-
(a) the suspect poses a threat of serious violence to the arrestor or any other
person; or
(b) the suspect is suspected on reasonable grounds of having committed a
crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm
and there are no other reasonable means of effecting the arrest, whether at
that time or later.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The responsible people who the constitutional court want to look after the guns of the country.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Total and unutterable BULLSHYTE....

So you clearly can't actually read...
Click to expand...

Like I said you are uttering thumbsucking nonesense from the Internet in your posts.

Here are the old Section 49 (2):

49. Use of force in effecting arrest

(1) If any person authorised under this Act to arrest or to assist in arresting another, attempts to arrest such person and such person-

(a) resists the attempt and cannot be arrested without the use of force; or

(b) flees when it is clear that an attempt to arrest him is being made, or resists such attempt and flees;

the person so authorised may, in order to effect the arrest, use such force as may in the circumstances be reasonably necessary to overcome the resistance or to prevent the person concerned from fleeing.

(2) Where the person concerned is to be arrested for an offence referred to in Schedule 1 or is to be arrested on the ground that he is reasonably suspected of having committed such an offence, and the person authorised under this Act to arrest or to assist in arresting him cannot arrest him or prevent him from fleeing by other means than by killing him, the killing shall be deemed justifiable.
Click to expand...

Want me to list the Schedule 1 offences too?
 
To think you can arrive at a police station with a knife and leave with an R5 rifle. SA really is the land of endless opportunity.
 
R.V said:
Like I said you are uttering thumbsucking nonesense from the Internet in your posts.

Here are the old Section 49 (2):



Want me to list the Schedule 1 offences too?
Click to expand...

Still can't read can you... They can't just kill them, it has to be the LAST resort...
 
R.V said:
Like I said you are uttering thumbsucking nonesense from the Internet in your posts.

Here are the old Section 49 (2):

Want me to list the Schedule 1 offences too?
Click to expand...

Let me do it for you:

Here are some things the police were allowed to shoot and kill you for if you committed the offence in their presence, or even were suspected of committing and they want to arrest you and you either flee or resist...

Schedule 1 offences include amongst others: treason, sedition, public violence, murder, culpable homicide, rape, indecent assault, bestiality, robbery, kidnapping, child-stealing, assault when a dangerous wound is inflicted, arson, malicious damage to property, breaking with intent to commit an offence, theft, consciously receiving stolen property, fraud, forgery, escaping from lawful custody as well as any conspiracy or incitement to commit any of the above offences.
Click to expand...

https://issafrica.org/01-jul-2002-s...n-of-section-49-of-the-criminal-procedure-act
 
ToxicBunny said:
Still can't read can you... They can't just kill them, it has to be the LAST resort...
Click to expand...

Draw the line at last resort.....

Guy stands with a knife shoot straight away.... was it a last resort as I did not want to be stabbed? Probably yes.
Guy turns around and run. Shoot him in the back... is it a last resort because he ran faster then me? Yes.
Guy wrestles me because he does not want to be arrested. Shoot him in the head. Was it a last resort because we struggled? Yes.
 
R.V said:
Let me do it for you:

Here are some things the police were allowed to shoot and kill you for if you committed the offence in their presence, or even were suspected of committing and they want to arrest you and you either flee or resist...



https://issafrica.org/01-jul-2002-s...n-of-section-49-of-the-criminal-procedure-act
Click to expand...

English is not your forte is it?

Where the person concerned is to be arrested for an offence referred to in Schedule 1 or is to be arrested on the ground that he is reasonably suspected of having committed such an offence, and the person authorised under this Act to arrest or to assist in arresting him cannot arrest him or prevent him from fleeing by other means than by killing him, the killing shall be deemed justifiable.
Click to expand...
 
R.V said:
Draw the line at last resort.....

Guy stands with a knife shoot straight away.... was it a last resort as I did not want to be stabbed? Probably yes.
Guy turns around and run. Shoot him in the back... is it a last resort because he ran faster then me? Yes.
Guy wrestles me because he does not want to be arrested. Shoot him in the head. Was it a last resort because we struggled? Yes.
Click to expand...

Right...
 
ToxicBunny said:
English is not your forte is it?
Click to expand...

Again, define last resort.

Remember, back then it was not the courts who decided. It was a shift commander or the station commander who made that call on behalf of his members.

You cannot seem to interpret laws correctly.
 
R.V said:
Again, define last resort.

Remember, back then it was not the courts who decided. It was a shift commander or the station commander who made that call on behalf of his members.

You cannot seem to interpret laws correctly.
Click to expand...

Dude.. keep living in your little bubble of a world..

A prosecutor will have decided after evidence, not some random shift commander...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X