Man disappears: Farmer held

L

lsuacner

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
1,659
Reaction score
3
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2153608,00.html
Marietie Louw-Carstens, Beeld

Gravelotte - A Limpopo farmer is behind bars following the disappearance of a man who allegedly had been hunting on his farm illegally.

Johan van Niekerk, 69, of Vygeboom farm near Gravelotte was scheduled to appear in Phalaborwa Magistrate's Court on Thursday on a charge of abduction.

This follows the disappearance 12 days ago of Richard Mkhari, who had apparently been hunting illegally with his dogs on Van Niekerk's game farm.

Beeld has been told that his family suspected that Mkhari had died. He lives about 10km from the farm and they say he would have come home long ago if he were still alive.

Provincial police spokesperson Motlafela Mojapelo said Van Niekerk had found Mkhari on his farm on July 15 while he had allegedly been hunting illegally with his dogs.

Mojapelo said Van Niekerk had reportedly shot and killed four of the six dogs.

Van Niekerk apparently told the police that he had tied a man to a tree while he went to fetch a vehicle to take him to the nearest police station. When he returned, the man had disappeared without a trace.

Van Niekerk was arrested on Wednesday and spent the night in the local police cells.

Mojapelo said he expected more arrests to follow.

"The farmer was apparently not the only one involved when Mkhari was caught."

The search for Mkhari continues.
Click to expand...

What a novel way to take a farmer's land. Steal his game and livelihood, then disappear to have the police, who are so diligent in their workings of late that they arrest people on suspicion only, haul him away from his home. This man is old, let him live in peace.

**** this country and its racist policies pushed down on us.
 
All depends what has happened to Mkhari.

Not so long ago a farmer fed some oke to the lions.

As far as the dogs are concerned it is a non event really if they have caused the farmer loss.
A colleague that lives on a small farm out of town has shot a good few of his neighbours dogs. He chased the one and shot it with a .45 on the owners own stoep!.
The dogs kill his sheep so he feels nothing getting rid of the vermin, as you would do with rooikat.
 
He hasn't been charged with murder yet.

Reason:

No body no murder. That is just the way the Law works :rolleyes:
 
Is there even any evidence for these charges except that the guy disappeared?
 
Evidence is unneccessary when the person in custody is a white landowner. Had this happened on a black MP's land, there wouldn't even have been an inquest.
 
lsuacner said:
http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2153608,00.html


What a novel way to take a farmer's land. Steal his game and livelihood, then disappear to have the police, who are so diligent in their workings of late that they arrest people on suspicion only, haul him away from his home. This man is old, let him live in peace.

**** this country and its racist policies pushed down on us.
Click to expand...

Lets see, he admits to shooting the four of the dogs, tied the man up to a tree, and he "dissapears". Mmmm, I thought when a person goes missing, standard procedure would be to interogate the last person to see/have contact with the missing person?

This sounds like the cops doing their job and not some great conspiracy to "get the White man":D
 
sox63 said:
Lets see, he admits to shooting the four of the dogs, tied the man up to a tree, and he "dissapears". Mmmm, I thought when a person goes missing, standard procedure would be to interogate the last person to see/have contact with the missing person?

This sounds like the cops doing their job and not some great conspiracy to "get the White man":D
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with investigating but to arrest and charge him with what seems like little to no evidence is another matter.
 
sox63 said:
Lets see, he admits to shooting the four of the dogs, tied the man up to a tree, and he "dissapears". Mmmm, I thought when a person goes missing, standard procedure would be to interogate the last person to see/have contact with the missing person?

This sounds like the cops doing their job and not some great conspiracy to "get the White man":D
Click to expand...
So investigate. It's not on to arrest someone under suspicion only. You have rights - a little thing called Innocent until proven guilty.
 
BobbyMac said:
So investigate. It's not on to arrest someone under suspicion only. You have rights - a little thing called Innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

If the Cops don't have any proof, then the case will more than likely be thrown out. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove if he did anything to the dude. If they are unable to do this then he will be found not guilty. That is the way the judicial system works.

I was just pointing out that it is not a conspiracy thought up to target the farmer.
 
sox63 said:
If the Cops don't have any proof, then the case will more than likely be thrown out. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove if he did anything to the dude. If they are unable to do this then he will be found not guilty. That is the way the judicial system works.

I was just pointing out that it is not a conspiracy thought up to target the farmer.
Click to expand...
All of that is irrelevant. They arrested the man under suspicion without evidence.
 
sox63 said:
If the Cops don't have any proof, then the case will more than likely be thrown out. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove if he did anything to the dude. If they are unable to do this then he will be found not guilty. That is the way the judicial system works.
Click to expand...

True but he still shouldn't have been arrested without any evidence and have had to spend time in jail etc.
 
BobbyMac said:
So investigate. It's not on to arrest someone under suspicion only. You have rights - a little thing called Innocent until proven guilty.
Click to expand...

Of course one can be arrested on suspicion and before being found guilty!

One is arrested on reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The "innocent until proven guilty" is for when you are charged and brought before court.

Think first.

If you are driving drunk, you are arrested (no breatalyser). Proof of the offence only comes with the testing of your blood and that evidence is only given in court.
 
Omac said:
Of course one can be arrested on suspicion and before being found guilty!

One is arrested on reasonable grounds for suspicion.

The "innocent until proven guilty" is for when you are charged and brought before court.

Think first.

If you are driving drunk, you are arrested (no breatalyser). Proof of the offence only comes with the testing of your blood and that evidence is only given in court.
Click to expand...
'On reasonable grounds' rests entirely on evidence that a crime has in fact been committed. No such evidence here, so no arrest was warranted.
 
Omac said:
If you are driving drunk, you are arrested (no breatalyser). Proof of the offence only comes with the testing of your blood and that evidence is only given in court.
Click to expand...
Actually you are wrong here - you have to be at the very least 'breathalyzed' - and a subsequent blood test must be done. They can't arrest you on suspicion of being drunk.
 
Omac said:
If you are driving drunk, you are arrested (no breatalyser). Proof of the offence only comes with the testing of your blood and that evidence is only given in court.
Click to expand...

Actually AFAIK usually you are breathalysed, although a blood test is taken because the breathalyser result isn't admissible in court. Point is there has to be some evidence or they'd be arresting everybody on the road.

BobbyMac said:
'On reasonable grounds' rests entirely on evidence that a crime has in fact been committed. No such evidence here, so no arrest was warranted.
Click to expand...

That's the way it seems.
 
BobbyMac said:
'On reasonable grounds' rests entirely on evidence that a crime has in fact been committed. No such evidence here, so no arrest was warranted.
Click to expand...

One of the provisions of Section 40 of the Criminal Procedures Act concerining the arrest of a person without a warrent states that:

A peace officer may without warrant arrest anyone whom he/she reasonably suspects of commiting an offence.

http://www.kzntransport.gov.za/reading_room/acts/national/Criminal Procedure Act & Regulations.pdf

Not only was this guy the last person to see the missing person, he admits to having tied him to a tree! If you guys think there is no reasonable suspicion there, then who would you charge for the abduction of this guy?
 
sox63 said:
One of the provisions of Section 40 of the Criminal Procedures Act concerining the arrest of a person without a warrent states that:

A peace officer may without warrant arrest anyone whom he/she reasonably suspects of commiting an offence.

http://www.kzntransport.gov.za/reading_room/acts/national/Criminal Procedure Act & Regulations.pdf

Not only was this guy the last person to see the missing person, he admits to having tied him to a tree! If you guys think there is no reasonable suspicion there, then who would you charge for the abduction of this guy?
Click to expand...

Still not enough evidence that a crime was committed. Find a gun, a hole, blood anything, till then, all evidence is entirely suspicion and circumspect.
 
BobbyMac said:
Still not enough evidence that a crime was committed. Find a gun, a hole, blood anything, till then, all evidence is entirely suspicion and circumspect.
Click to expand...

Maybe you did not read the Act, but he/she does NOT need evidence, the officer may arrest on pure suspicion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X