Eugene Terre'blanche murdered

[lexity]

Not sure what you are actually referencing here, or referring to, but that's not how self-defense is determined.

An example, you arrive home, in your driveway and you are confronted by an attacker with a knife a few meters away from you, if you have a firearm in your possession you are within your right to use deadly force as in self-defense, furthermore even if it was a pickaxe, shovel etc.

I'm speaking theoretically.

In today's courts there are many shades of self-defense, from one jurisdiction to another... and even arbitrary decision-making where citizens have failed to maintain moral clarity from one generation to the next.

To me, disproportionate force is immoral and should be illegal.

You can say this area is what is known as 'the continuum problem'. It has been debated for a long time. Where there are no hard clear boundaries.

But multiple, competing jurisdictions is the answer to that supposedly unsolvable riddle.

Over time, with many openly competing rule-sets, we will all see which one works and which ones don't.

p.s. if you point your gun at a guy with a knife, standing a few meters from you, you are about to find out if you can use it.... how? By watching his response.

If he runs towards you he has escalated the immediacy of the mortal threat. You would have no trouble finding a jury to back you in that case. (in jurisdictions that still use a jury system, ofc... RSA isn't one of those).

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

p.s. if you point your gun at a guy with a knife, standing a few meters from you, you are about to find out if you can use it.... how? By watching his response.

When I said confronted, I meant he demanded your belongings using the knife to threaten you.

 

[MirageF1]

An example, you arrive home, in your driveway and you are confronted by an attacker with a knife a few meters away from you, if you have a firearm in your possession you are within your right to use deadly force as in self-defense, furthermore even if it was a pickaxe, shovel etc.

That's how it always was and always should be, to any sane, logical thinking individual, but not in the effed up world we find ourselves in today..where everything has been turned upside down.. where wrong is right, and right wrong, and the perpetrator has more rights than the victim( deceased or not) !!

 

[lexity]

When I said confronted, I meant he demanded your belongings using the knife to threaten you.

He threatened you with a knife..... from a few meters away.

Ok. Let's paint a clearer picture, then.

What did he do when you pointed your glock at him?

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

That's how it always was and always should be, to any sane, logical thinking individual, but not in the effed up world we find ourselves in today..where everything has been turned upside down.. where wrong is right, and right wrong, and the perpetrator has more rights than the victim( deceased or not) !!

There's many recent cases, even in South Africa that still holds up in court, yes of course there will always be complications which isn't always black and white, but for the vast majority I haven't seen injustice against the defenders in such cases.

 

[MirageF1]

There's many recent cases, even in South Africa that still holds up in court, yes of course there will always be complications which isn't always black and white, but for the vast majority I haven't seen injustice against the defenders in such cases.

I wasn't referring to any country in particular.. for the record, I spent 15 years living in the UK and what I witnessed in terms of justice was a bl00dy farce.. you clearly wearing rose tainted glasses, take them off and look around this planet, it's not just the UK, it's infected most of Western civilization!

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

He threatened you with a knife..... from a few meters away.

Ok let's make it clear, I would hope you've drawn your firearm, which hopefully was carried with condition 1 (round in chamber) aimed center mass and shot the attacker until he was no longer a threat, that could be one round or ten.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

I wasn't referring to any country in particular.. for the record, I spent 15 years living in the UK and what I witnessed in terms of justice was a bl00dy farce.. you clearly wearing rose tainted glasses, take them off and look around this planet, it's not just the UK, it's infected most of Western civilization!

I agree with you, the UK has some serious flawed laws when it comes to self-defense, or just protecting yourself, family, loved ones etc... as has many other European countries.

 

[lexity]

Ok let's make it clear, I would hope you've drawn your firearm, which hopefully was carried with condition 1 (round in chamber) aimed center mass and shot the attacker until he was no longer a threat, that could be one round or ten.

A threat has to be defined objectively.

It can't be subjectively based i.e. on your feelings at the time, how threatened you felt, on your level of fear at the time.

If it was, we'd all be totally dependent on arbitrary decision-makers, as though we were overgrown children standing in court before adults.

As we can see some people are petrified when they are called a name, and will have you jailed, today.... it's called 'hate-speech' law.

HS law is completely based on feelings.

 

[lexity]

A bee wanders into your living room while you are relaxing, watching a movie.

What is your reaction?:

a) kill it immediately,

b) open the sliding door and windows wide open, and sit back down and carry on watching your movie.

I'm an option-b guy, myself.

Same with spiders, snakes etc.

Obviously, 99 times out of 100 these animals are lost.... as opposed to hunting you down.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

A threat has to be defined objectively.

It can't be subjectively based i.e. on your feelings at the time, how threatened you felt, on your level of fear at the time.

If it was, we'd all be totally dependent on arbitrary decision-makers, as though we were overgrown children standing in court before adults.

As we can see some people are petrified when they are called a name, and will have you jailed, today.... it's called 'hate=speech' law.

HS law is completely based on feelings.

Not sure where you're going with this, but the scenario above is quite clear, imminent threat and an unlawful attack.

 

[lexity]

Not sure where you're going with this, but the scenario above is quite clear, imminent threat and an unlawful attack.

Just to belabour the point...

Imminent threat... with a shovel, you said.... a few meters away.

You said even if it's a shovel. Are you sticking with that? You will take the life of someone you know practically nothing about why he's there. All you see is someone holding a garden spade, whilst standing on your property in your drive-way... not even anywhere near your family or pets.

You wouldn't even shoot him in the front of one leg? (To prove he wasn't running way at the time)

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

A bee wanders into your living room while you are relaxing, watching a movie.

What is your reaction?:

a) kill it immediately,

b) open the sliding door and windows wide open, and sit back down and carry on watching your movie.

I'm an option-b guy, myself.

Same with spiders, snakes etc.

Obviously, 99 times out of 100 these animals are lost.... as opposed to hunting you down.

@lexity I would hope most people are option B types.

Sorry to say, however you're bee hypothetical scenario doesn't belong in the same discussion as self-defense they're not interchangeable.

There's a lot of braai stories that would say but if you surrender or fully comply everything will be fine, to that I say those people have never experienced any form of violence in their lives or are living in lalaa land...

 

[lexity]

@lexity I would hope most people are option B types.

Sorry to say, however you're bee hypothetical scenario doesn't belong in the same discussion as self-defense they're not interchangeable.

I didn't say they were interchangeable. At least not completely.

But I've known option-a guys. And I have taken note of how the same level of chronic fear causes them to over-react.... in just about every other area in life.

And you know what? Those are the guys who insist on loosey-goosey arbitrary rule in the courts, and spend all their time chasing/respecting cronies who have arbitrary decision-making power over their fellow citizens.

It translates.

I consider an option-b person worthy of engaging, on these topics, because they are not in constant fear for their lives i.e. you can reason with them.

There's a lot of braai stories that would say but if you surrender or fully comply everything will be fine, to that I say those people have never experienced any form of violence in their lives or are living in lalaa land...

In the US they have proper discussions on self-defense and what qualifies as such.

Here in SA we are treated - and act - like little children when it comes to self-defense. SAns are sadly rather infantilized, in general.

 

[lexity]

You hate politics as much as Trump hates money.

Trump fears open competition more than he loves money.

 

[lexity]

When I said confronted, I meant he demanded your belongings using the knife to threaten you.

And then you pulled out your glock and pointed at him and said gtf off my property or I will shoot you!

Then what happened?

 

[Brian_G]

Can't blame people for wanting to arm themselves in a country like this. There is something though in the idea of live by the sword, die by the sword.

We had a house break in early morning about a year ago, fortunately they didn't harm us. We're still not armed.
Yesterday I was tailgated by someone with road-rage, hitting the breaks helped but it could have gone the other way. Suggested to my passenger that maybe we need a realistic toy gun, decided not.

Yes, there's a danger not having a defensive weapon, but wouldn't really consider it unless we were living on a farm.

 

[NoStepOnSnek88]

Just to belabour the point...

Imminent threat... with a shovel, you said.... a few meters away.

You said even if it's a shovel. Are you sticking with that? You will take the life of someone you know practically nothing about why he's there. All you see is someone holding a garden spade, whilst standing on your property in your drive-way... not even anywhere near your family or pets.

You wouldn't even shoot him in the front of one leg? (To prove he wasn't running way at the time)

@lexity you're slightly twisting my words and the scenario now.

I've said he confronted you, demanding your belongings in a threatening manner with a knife, shovel ,pickaxe etc in his hands a few meters away.

I'm happy to walk you through this scenario, but it will get dark and gruesome, kind of of like the real world, not fantasy land.

 

[lexity]

Oh boy.... I just found this (via chatgpt, so it could be contradicted in the next follow-up question)...

Q: [Did ETB seek secession?]

A: [yes]

Q: [Was a referendum to determine where his support lay part of his secession attempts?]

A:
Terre'Blanche explicitly proposed using a referendum to establish where support for an independent Boer/Afrikaner state actually existed geographically.


In a 1990 interview, he described his preferred referendum in very specific terms. He said he had challenged F.W. de Klerk to hold a referendum in the areas he claimed for a Boer state, rather than a referendum of the entire white electorate. He identified those areas as roughly the old Transvaal, Orange Free State, northern Natal and northern Cape—about 25% of South Africa. Crucially, he said he would accept the result of such a referendum.

Very interesting.

That sounds similar to my advocacy for every independence movement. Don't force your rules onto others. Work to determine where your support lies, geographically, and hold the referendum there only.

 

[vigras rojara]

And then you pulled out your glock and pointed at him and said gtf off my property or I will shoot you!

Then what happened?

The intruder said "this isn't a spade, it's a shovel", to which Snek replied "I call a spade a spade!"

They then sat down and discussed clichés over a lovely cup of Earl Grey tea.