Pietermaritzburg homeowner charged with murder of a suspected intruder

Should you kill home invaders?

  • Yes

    Votes: 129 80.1%
  • No

    Votes: 3 1.9%
  • Depends on the circumstances

    Votes: 35 21.7%

  • Total voters
    161

LCBXX

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 11, 2006
Messages
15,747
It shouldn't be difficult for a 62 year-old to justify that he feared for his life when a 30 year-old assailant entered his home, and he used deadly force in defence.
 

dusi

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2017
Messages
877
So what's the rule if someone is breaking into your house at night? You can defend yourself but do it carefully as to not kill your intruder? How do we know they don't have a concealed deadly weapon? First wait for them to shoot you, then you shoot back?
 
Last edited:

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
30,264
What if I put up signs that reads "Trespassers will be shot on sight" in all African languages.


Court cant say sh*t.
Yes they can, they will say you are being a white supremacist for expecting a home invader to be able to read.
 

Grep

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2006
Messages
941
So what's the rule if someone is breaking into your house at night? You can defend yourself but do it carefully as to not kill your intruder? How do we know they don't have a concealed deadly weapon? First wait for them to shoot you, then you shoot back?
Pretty much
 

Hellhound105

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2018
Messages
6,905
Proof that Karma is a b*tch for the POS to be stuck on the fence and having his last breath in absolute agony! Crime shouldn't pay but when it comes to shooting someone in self-defence, you better be sure to know the law before you pull that trigger! Much better to try and remove yourself from the situation and scare the fckers off unless they are a direct and immediate threat that needs corresponding force to neutralise.

TL;DR - bring in the Castle Doctrine
Exactly. But I see this does not sink in with people.

Everyone should just remember "Person on MyBB said I can" is not a valid excuse in a court.
When poef hits the fan, that same person wont pay your laywer's fees and won't help you in court.
 

Ghost64

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2021
Messages
1,844
So what's the rule if someone is breaking into your house at night? You can defend yourself but do it carefully as to not kill your intruder? How do we know they don't have a concealed deadly weapon? First wait for them to shoot you, then you shoot back?
My understanding:

First you shout and make noise and scream voetsek!
“Then scream take whatever you want and leave!”
If he doesn’t leave you fire 3 warning shots and hope he doesn’t fire back.
If he still comes for you, then you shoot, but not in his back.
 
Last edited:

Mista_Mobsta

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
2,444
Exactly. But I see this does not sink in with people.

Everyone should just remember "Person on MyBB said I can" is not a valid excuse in a court.
When poef hits the fan, that same person wont pay your laywer's fees and won't help you in court.
The "cowboy and crook" defense won't hold up in court unless the crook has a visible firearm that will be imminently used against someone in your household.
 

Mista_Mobsta

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
2,444
My understanding:

First you shout and make noise and scream voetsek!
If he doesn’t leave you fire 3 warning shots and hope he doesn’t fire back.
If he still comes for you, then you shoot, but not in his back.
As far as I understand the law, you aren't legally obliged to fire a warning shot nor are you obliged to inform an intruder that you have a firearm. It will definitely count in your favor in court if you fired a warning shot to try and ward off the attacker but, as always with the law, every situation is different. If you have multiple threats that you are aware of, neutralising the threat as early as possible is the best. In the end, you have to prove without reasonable doubt that you did everything in your power to ward off the attack and protect right-to-life.
 

Rickster

EVGA Fanatic
Joined
Jul 31, 2012
Messages
19,111
My understanding:

First you shout and make noise and scream voetsek!
If he doesn’t leave you fire 3 warning shots and hope he doesn’t fire back.
If he still comes for you, then you shoot, but not in his back.

The kak issue with this warning shot BS is that if they are unarmed and flee they could come back with and armed group and they might have more info about the house due to one of them being inside it. IE where the master bedroom is, how many people are there, etc.
 

Ghost64

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2021
Messages
1,844
As far as I understand the law, you aren't legally obliged to fire a warning shot nor are you obliged to inform an intruder that you have a firearm. It will definitely count in your favor in court if you fired a warning shot to try and ward off the attacker but, as always with the law, every situation is different. If you have multiple threats that you are aware of, neutralising the threat as early as possible is the best. In the end, you have to prove without reasonable doubt that you did everything in your power to ward off the attack and protect right-to-life.
Ahhh yes, you need to throw in the “take whatever you want and leave!” The shots to the intruder should be the last option.
 

Ghost64

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2021
Messages
1,844
The kak issue with this warning shot BS is that if they are unarmed and flee they could come back with and armed group and they might have more info about the house due to one of them being inside it. IE where the master bedroom is, how many people are there, etc.
Yes but you would be aware of their point of entry and sort that out.
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
99,821
The "cowboy and crook" defense won't hold up in court unless the crook has a visible firearm that will be imminently used against someone in your household.

Doesn't need to be a visible firearm, just needs to be a weapon so a knife/panga/screwdriver etc would be sufficient for them to potentially pose a threat to your life.

And regardless, even if its a legit kill on your property and your life was in danger, you would still be charged and it would be investigated.
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,677
DURBAN: A Pietermaritzburg homeowner has been charged with the murder of a suspected intruder.

The 62-year-old man made his first appearance in the Pietermaritzburg Magistrate’s Court on Monday.

KZN police spokesperson Captain Nqobile Gwala said Mountain Rise SAPS officers responded to a report of a shooting in Stork Road on October 7 at 9.30am.

“Upon arrival at the scene, they noticed a 31-year-old man with two gunshot wounds on the arm and lower abdomen.
“He was stuck on the fence, still breathing, and an ambulance was called.

“They certified him dead at the scene. Police were informed that the deceased was an intruder and was shot by the owner of the house.”
Gwala confirmed the 62-year-old suspect was arrested and charged for murder.



This whole thing is a political and racist oppressive move by the SAPS. This is naturally a white man, who shot a black intruder. It was most likely a friend of some police officers and they are now using their powers to oppress the victim.

If there is an intruder in your house, you shoot and kill him or her. No questions asked. Armed or not. A judge already gave his views on this.

Chances are 0.0001% for a conviction here. This old man would likely have the chances for a civil claim too and will be set for the rest of his life.
 

Mista_Mobsta

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2015
Messages
2,444
Doesn't need to be a visible firearm, just needs to be a weapon so a knife/panga/screwdriver etc would be sufficient for them to potentially pose a threat to your life.

And regardless, even if its a legit kill on your property and your life was in danger, you would still be charged and it would be investigated.
Not true - even if you caught them in your property with the above mentioned weapons, they have to be an imminent threat and the attack has to be ongoing (IE they have to either be within striking distance AND be busy performing the attack) before you are "lawfully" allowed to self defense. You have to demonstrate that you used 'appropriate force'. It sucks but the right-to-life law in SA is a non-negotiable and applies to the POS that invades your home, unfortunately.
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
99,821
Not true - even if you caught them in your property with the above mentioned weapons, they have to be an imminent threat and the attack has to be ongoing (IE they have to either be within striking distance AND be busy performing the attack) before you are "lawfully" allowed to self defense. You have to demonstrate that you used 'appropriate force'. It sucks but the right-to-life law in SA is a non-negotiable and applies to the POS that invades your home, unfortunately.

Oh I'm aware of that, but it doesn't just have to be a firearm visible for you to be able to shoot an intruder into your property. I would even hazard a guess that a perp having a firearm on them is not necessarily enough of a justification to shoot them, they'd have to have it drawn or something of that sort.

Its a very complicated set of circumstances that generally would enable to you to legally kill someone on your property.
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,677
Not true - even if you caught them in your property with the above mentioned weapons, they have to be an imminent threat and the attack has to be ongoing (IE they have to either be within striking distance AND be busy performing the attack) before you are "lawfully" allowed to self defense. You have to demonstrate that you used 'appropriate force'. It sucks but the right-to-life law in SA is a non-negotiable and applies to the POS that invades your home, unfortunately.

A judge previously gave his opinion on this matter. If you wake up at 02:00 in the morning and there is an intruder in your living room and you are walking down the hall to approach him, there is no legal requirement for you to first speak to the intruder, introduce yourself, find out if he is armed and with what, offering him a cup of coffee, speaking to him and asking him what he wants.

According to the judge, your life is already in imminent danger when that intruder enters your house. You cannot know his state of mind, what his intentions are and you have the immediate right to defend both yourself, your family and your property.
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
99,821
A judge previously gave his opinion on this matter. If you wake up at 02:00 in the morning and there is an intruder in your living room and you are walking down the hall to approach him, there is no legal requirement for you to first speak to the intruder, introduce yourself, find out if he is armed and with what, offering him a cup of coffee, speaking to him and asking him what he wants.

According to the judge, your life is already in imminent danger when that intruder enters your house. You cannot know his state of mind, what his intentions are and you have the immediate right to defend both yourself, your family and your property.

Would you mind posting that judgement please? I'd love to read it. Or was it just an opinion of a judge without a court case setting any precedent?
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,677
Would you mind posting that judgement please? I'd love to read it. Or was it just an opinion of a judge without a court case setting any precedent?

It was not a judgment. If I remember correctly it was a News24 interview with a judge about self-defence.
 

Ghost64

Expert Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2021
Messages
1,844
Not true - even if you caught them in your property with the above mentioned weapons, they have to be an imminent threat and the attack has to be ongoing (IE they have to either be within striking distance AND be busy performing the attack) before you are "lawfully" allowed to self defense. You have to demonstrate that you used 'appropriate force'. It sucks but the right-to-life law in SA is a non-negotiable and applies to the POS that invades your home, unfortunately.
Size also matters, if you under 1.75m tall with no muscle mass or any weight for that matter your only defence is to shoot if you’re face to face with the intruder and he is unarmed.
Or as in this case, a pensioner.

If you’re a big burley muscle guy and you shoot an unarmed skinny kid you could be in trouble.
 
Top