Man held for killing intruder

Shouldn't they investigate first, then make an arrest? Is this guy a flight risk if they don't arrest him until they have evidence that a crime has been committed?

evilstebunny said:
The guy came at him with a knife and he fired off a warning shot first?

In that situation I would have aimed & shot for the head or the chest, multiple times. The only good attacker-with-a-knife is a dead attacker-with-a-knife!
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
"If a person kills another person the police have to arrest them and then they appear in court when they can apply for bail.

"They did the right thing."
Click to expand...

Only a brainless idiot is a lawless society can make comments like these if the facts of this case is true. What a f-up this country and the law system became.
 
unskinnybob said:
Don't bother firing a warning shot. If an intruder is in your house, shoot. And shoot to kill - saves on court proceedings and legal fees.

http://m.news24.com/beeld/In-Diepte/Nuus/Dan-skiet-jy-n-inbreker-20130319
Click to expand...

Unfortunately many idiots on this forum think like the ANC and support our [-]out[/-]law system and the link provided will just get you deeper in shiite. The problem is that with criminals in power then the criminal activities get protected and the law abiding citizen wanting to protect his family and belongings become the disadvantaged entity.
 
Last edited:
Seriously said:
Only a brainless idiot is a lawless society can make comments like these if the facts of this case is true. What a f-up this country and the law system became.
Click to expand...

Quite ironic that you're complaining about how lawless society is while complaining about the law being followed.
 
... and yet a group of roid junkies kill a man outside a stadium by beating him to death, they are known to SAPS and many others - and yet they have the long weekend free?
 
Unfortunately they need to investigate so the arrest is according to the law. It could be someone wanted to murder someone and made it look like an accident. However if not a "flight risk" I don't see why they go to jail.

If a gun is not on your person (the license holder) it needs to be in the prescribed safe or armory (accredited).

He is a tw@t for keeping the gun in the kitchen - had there been 2 or more of them he would have probably bought the farm. Keep the gun on your person or very very close at all times.

This guy should have shot to kill - I would have.

Well done give the man a case of Bells.
 
Dolby said:
... and yet a group of roid junkies kill a man outside a stadium by beating him to death, they are known to SAPS and many others - and yet they have the long weekend free?
Click to expand...

They should have been arrested then and there but either the police or the lawyers have a card up their sleeve and are waiting to play it.
 
Hemi300c said:
Unfortunately they need to investigate so the arrest is according to the law. It could be someone wanted to murder someone and made it look like an accident. However if not a "flight risk" I don't see why they go to jail.

If a gun is not on your person (the license holder) it needs to be in the prescribed safe or armory (accredited).

He is a tw@t for keeping the gun in the kitchen - had there been 2 or more of them he would have probably bought the farm. Keep the gun on your person or very very close at all times.

This guy should have shot to kill - I would have.

Well done give the man a case of Bells.
Click to expand...

Yeah heavy gun negligence, thankfully he didn't have to pay school fees for it.
 
Seriously said:
Only a brainless idiot is a lawless society can make comments like these if the facts of this case is true. What a f-up this country and the law system became.
Click to expand...

Big if. Just out of interest, how would you ascertain the facts of the case without an investigation and judgement? Or do you just think the police should have the discretion to decide and only arrest based on what they think happened?
 
joelus said:
Big if. Just out of interest, how would you ascertain the facts of the case without an investigation and judgement? Or do you just think the police should have the discretion to decide and only arrest based on what they think happened?
Click to expand...

It's in the terminology.

Was the oke 'arrested' or 'held for questioning'?

Is there a difference?
 
I've heard people saying that if someone breaks into their house, they will shoot him and then put a knife in his hand and claim self-defense.
Killing someone and then spinning a story is not un-heard of!

The story in the article is just that though, A story. We don't know the full circumstances.

There have been other stories on the news where robbers were shot dead by the home owner, and no arrests were made. So I don't think it's written in stone that the cops MUST arrest someone in a fatal incident.

But anyway /GiveThatManABells
 
Celine said:
Police have been criticised for their actions but DA police spokesperson Dianne Kohler Barnard commended the police.

"If a person kills another person the police have to arrest them and then they appear in court when they can apply for bail.

"They did the right thing."
Click to expand...

porchrat said:
If you shoot someone surely you still need to appear in court and an investigation still needs to happen?

I mean even if the courts simply drop the charges straight off the bat surely whether it constitutes a case of self defence or murder or whatever should be decided by the justice system and not be left up to the police?

or am I wrong in thinking this way?
Click to expand...
Is that you Dianne?
 
Budza said:
It's in the terminology.

Was the oke 'arrested' or 'held for questioning'?

Is there a difference?
Click to expand...
If you are held for questioning in that you are deprived of liberty then you have been arrested. Same thing.

I don't see a problem with holding everyone involved until they can at least get some idea of what happened. I certainly wouldn't want some cop that barely got through high school to be making the judgement call if it were me that had been shot and deciding to let the guy who shot me go as opposed to grabbing him and questioning him.
 
Last edited:
GazWrack said:
I've heard people saying that if someone breaks into their house, they will shoot him and then put a knife in his hand and claim self-defense.
Killing someone and then spinning a story is not un-heard of!

The story in the article is just that though, A story. We don't know the full circumstances.

There have been other stories on the news where robbers were shot dead by the home owner, and no arrests were made. So I don't think it's written in stone that the cops MUST arrest someone in a fatal incident.

But anyway /GiveThatManABells
Click to expand...

I'd be interested if you could point to such stories, I can't find any using google. AFAIK it is written in stone that the cops MUST arrest someone in a fatal incident.
 
joelus said:
I'd be interested if you could point to such stories, I can't find any using google. AFAIK it is written in stone that the cops MUST arrest someone in a fatal incident.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. One would be taken into custody for questioning, but not necessarily charged.
The article doesn't actually say if he was charged...
 
of course there needs to be an investigation... but unless its clear that the person is a flight risk, i would've guessed that the investigation can be done without treating the "crime victim, protecting his home and family" like a criminal himself.
If i was protecting my family and my property, and the SOB, willfully and deliberately intruding on my property, got off'ed in the process, and i would be arrested, as the cops do, chucked in jail with other criminals, who unfortunately did not get shot up, and the investigation proves that i was just acting on my rights to protect my own, then i'd be very much inclined to sue the cr#p out of all police ministry and government.
As has happened before, where the police dept. had to cough up quite the fortune.
So, one would think it in everybody's best interest to investigate first, then arrest?

otherwise one might get to the impression that, if somebody intrudes on your property at night, the best advice is to take all steps to snuff the bastard, and chuck his body out on the street. "i didnt see nothin" :-)
who needs the agrevation from the justice system when they couldnt protect your property!
of course... thats not the way to go, but.....
 
Yeah the follow up stories indicate he was charged but I doubt they'll stick. One has to wonder how many murders have been covered up as 'self-defence' in cases where the suspect isn't charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X