Man Shot robber in the back

[mercurial]

That is the thing. There is a huge difference between things like murder and rape and simple theft. Suggesting that the punishment for all these crimes should be equally harsh is very difficult to justify.

In my opinion, when it comes to things like murder(especially in such completely unnecessary instances as house break-ins where the residents are completely compliant with the thieves) and repeated rape or child rape, I am morally not against having those people killed. The law is against it, but the law changes over time and is not failsafe.

i agree, but eventually these "petty" crimes do not suffice for these criminals anymore. eventually, inevitably, they move on to bigger, far more serious crimes.

I'm looking at the general circumstances of the crime. The fact the person was attacked in the street by thugs. IMO that innocent person has a right to get his property back even if it puts like criminal’s life at risk. But to that one must also add other circumstances. For example if it's a crowded area and other innocent people lives are exposed then obviously you don't have the right to shoot IMO.

All I'm saying is a person has a right to get his property back. I'm not saying you can blow a guys head off from point blank range over a cigarette Obviously there are far better alternatives.

I don't think it's civilized if a innocent person can't take the necessary steps to defend his property. While the criminal enjoys protection from the law at the victim’s expense. I find that rather barbaric

I agree.

 

[hj2k_x]

I'm looking at the general circumstances of the crime. The fact the person was attacked in the street by thugs. IMO that innocent person has a right to get his property back even if it puts like criminal’s life at risk. But to that one must also add other circumstances. For example if it's a crowded area and other innocent people lives are exposed then obviously you don't have the right to shoot IMO.

All I'm saying is a person has a right to get his property back. I'm not saying you can blow a guys head off from point blank range over a cigarette Obviously there are far better alternatives.

I don't think it's civilized if a innocent person can't take the necessary steps to defend his property. While the criminal enjoys protection from the law at the victim’s expense. I find that rather barbaric

I can understand your point of view and your frustrations, as many South Africans, myself included are sickened and frustrated by the crime in this country and the apparent protection that the law seems to afford the criminals rather than the victims.

I still cannot agree with your stance on protecting one's property on the street with lethal force. When it comes to attackers in your own home, on your own property I believe you should be able to take whatever measures necessary to protect yourself, your property and your loved ones.

 

[Cataphract]

So, he actually hit the thief and killed him - cool. But what if he had hit and killed an innocent bystander? Would we still be as happy with his decision to pull the trigger over a piece of crap cellphone?

 

[supersunbird]

no merc, shooting someone who running away in the back is murder man

the oke was running away, he pulled his gun and murdered him

simple straight forward

i understand the need to protect yourself but someone running is no harm

but yea criminals do get protected in this country no doubt about it, but i would never shoot someone in back and face jail for my cellphone which my insurance would replace

He is protecting someone. The future people that would have been robbed and whatnot by the now dead criminal scum...

 

[hj2k_x]

i agree, but eventually these "petty" crimes do not suffice for these criminals anymore. eventually, inevitably, they move on to bigger, far more serious crimes.

Whilst I am confident that this may well be the case, you have to wait until the more serious crimes are actually committed before you go around punishing people accordingly.

 

[semiautomatix]

What I think the message here is: people are angry. The police aren't doing enough to protect us; this situation is going to only get worse if it continues on this downward spiral. Many feel there only retaliation is shoot-to-kill as that way they (and their friends and family) are now safe from their attacker. Sorry state of affairs but this country has allowed this situation to happen.

 

[mercurial]

Whilst I am confident that this may well be the case, you have to wait until the more serious crimes are actually committed before you go around punishing people accordingly.

i hear ya.

He is protecting someone. The future people that would have been robbed and whatnot by the now dead criminal scum...

agreed.

no merc, shooting someone who running away in the back is murder man

the oke was running away, he pulled his gun and murdered him

simple straight forward

i understand the need to protect yourself but someone running is no harm

but yea criminals do get protected in this country no doubt about it, but i would never shoot someone in back and face jail for my cellphone which my insurance would replace

you just contradicted yourself

 

[Alan]

I still cannot agree with your stance on protecting one's property on the street with lethal force. When it comes to attackers in your own home, on your own property I believe you should be able to take whatever measures necessary to protect yourself, your property and your loved ones.

We agree to disagree

 

[Ricard]

http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2251737,00.html



Right or Wrong?

Give the guy a slap on the wrist and tell him to stop playing with guns, itll get himself killed. But dont charge him for killing some thieving scum - if the cops arent doing anything about crime, the people will take it into their own hands, except then the cops turn on them instead of the actual criminals. This system is f*&ked up.

Thats 1/2 the story... the other half is dead.

-What if- The person with the gun owed money to the 18year old... and he went and asked for it.. got some flak and grabbed the phone and ran away (and was subsequently shot)

Who's phone was it? Who is to be judge and Executioner? I agree with the police.

-what if- you walking down the street and someone who thinks you are trying to woo their wife/girlfriend away from them. An argument starts and to avoid the fist fight, you run away... you then get shot in the back.

'He stole my cell phone' was the reason given to the police. The police have NO IDEA if this is true or not and have to open a case of Murder. Unless otherwise proven, or the lesser Manslaughter will be charged.

Who promoted every Gun owner in SA to be the 'RIGHTS enforcer and executioner'

 

[mercurial]

What I think the message here is: people are angry. The police aren't doing enough to protect us; this situation is going to only get worse if it continues on this downward spiral. Many feel there only retaliation is shoot-to-kill as that way they (and their friends and family) are now safe from their attacker. Sorry state of affairs but this country has allowed this situation to happen.

exactly

 

[koffiejunkie]

If the thieves were dumb enough to rob him and *not* take his gun, they'll probably get themselves killed sooner or later anyway...

 

[killadoob]

how so merc?

mugabe is starving his country

millions live in poor conditions, every death in zim is down to mugabe

he is a murder

he did not steal someone's cellphone

mugabe deserves to die because he aint a good person

who knows that 18 year old was not a good person and just did something stupid which got him killed

dont try and say an oke stealing a cellphone and mugabe are the same thing

 

[hj2k_x]

We agree to disagree

Indeed. Sometimes it is the only way

 

[Slooth]

Thank you. The legal eagle has spoken. Case closed

You're arguing two points:

#1 It illegal to shoot someone in the back
#2 The death of the criminal

I agree with you on #1, however #2 is an opinion and one I don't share with you.

 

[Ricard]

You're arguing two points:

#1 It illegal to shoot someone in the back
#2 The death of the criminal

I agree with you on #1, however #2 is an opinion and one I don't share with you.

#2 The death of the Alleged criminal

Tried and executed by one person in a rage of anger ... thats a pretty fair trial.

 

[Slooth]

#2 The death of the Alleged criminal

Tried and executed by one person in a rage of anger ... thats a pretty fair trial.

Nice, there's a preddy good chance he won't be making a living from killing others for their possessions now.

 

[dyanamo]

This is why people got to learn to double tap there fire arms. Generally the first shot spins a person around especially if they running and results in a bullet in the front and back of the person. O yeah always shoot to kill. Aim for the head. Dead men tell no tales.

 

[BCO]

This is why people got to learn to double tap there fire arms. Generally the first shot spins a person around especially if they running and results in a bullet in the front and back of the person. O yeah always shoot to kill. Aim for the head. Dead men tell no tales.

Scary that you talk of killing another human being so glibly.

 

[killadoob]

Nice, there's a preddy good chance he won't be making a living from killing others for their possessions now.

do you think every robber in this country kills ppl

yes it happens alot but to assume this guy could not get his life together and kill him over a cellphone is retarded

when i was caught shoplifting a packet of sweets at age 13, lets say i had to start running and got shot and killed would this be fine?

i mean i did steal so i should die right?

 

[dyanamo]

Scary that you talk of killing another human being so glibly.

Was a police reservist for 5 years. We look after ourselves as we do the state and public a favour for free. We dont have time to go to court as we work just like you do. The unsaid rule is if you have to shoot someone, you kill them. Its a sad truth.