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

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
99,730
It was not a judgment. If I remember correctly it was a News24 interview with a judge about self-defence.

Ahhh, would still be interesting to see the interview, but its a pity it wasn't a judgement as that judgement would be pretty earth shattering in terms of establishing a sort of castle doctrine in this country.
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,560
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?

Over and above this, I have yet to see the case where an intruder broke into a house, armed or unarmed, was shot and killed by the home owner and the home owner was jailed for murder.

I know many have been arrested, investigated, prosecuted, but all those cases were either closed or NPA refused to prosecute or cases withdrawn or lead to a not guilty verdict.

Anyone who do have a case where a home owner were sent to jail for murder for shooting and killing an armed or unarmed home intruder, and the court felt your life was not in danger based on the mere fact that they broke into your house, are free to post the case.
 

JohnMao

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
8,719
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?
Intruders with guns and knives have rights too according to the courts. If I remember correctly, it was outlined a couple of years ago...simply put, don't use a gun if your attacker had a knife otherwise you'd be in the poo.
However. a gun is also the fastest way to stop someone or scare them.

The courts couldn't care less about the inhabitants fearing for their lives. Or certainly some political parties couldn't care for the inhabitants which is why they pitch up at courts protesting the actions of some.
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,560
Intruders with guns and knives have rights too according to the courts. If I remember correctly, it was outlined a couple of years ago...simply put, don't use a gun if your attacker had a knife otherwise you'd be in the poo.
However. a gun is also the fastest way to stop someone or scare them.

The courts couldn't care less about the inhabitants fearing for their lives. Or certainly some political parties couldn't care for the inhabitants which is why they pitch up at courts protesting the actions of some.

Not true.

Not only can you defend your own life, that of other people, but in some cases you may even defend your property. There is a legal precedent in Ex Parte Minister van Justisie: in re S v Van Wyk, where the court held that a person may in extreme circumstances kill an intruder in order to protect his/her property.

This nonesense about when you can shoot, someone needs to be armed, is all fearmongering. If you wake up in the morning, there is someone in your house and you feel threatened, you take your gun and you shoot to kill.
 
Last edited:

SykomantiS

Expert Member
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
3,435
Intruders with guns and knives have rights too according to the courts. If I remember correctly, it was outlined a couple of years ago...simply put, don't use a gun if your attacker had a knife otherwise you'd be in the poo.
However. a gun is also the fastest way to stop someone or scare them.

The courts couldn't care less about the inhabitants fearing for their lives. Or certainly some political parties couldn't care for the inhabitants which is why they pitch up at courts protesting the actions of some.
This is BS. There is no such thing as proportionate force in self defence or private defence. There are simply 3 requirements. The attack should be unlawful and against a person and not property, it should be imminent or already in progress, and you should have exhausted all other options (such as retreat).
 

ToxicBunny

Oi! Leave me out of this...
Joined
Apr 8, 2006
Messages
99,730
Over and above this, I have yet to see the case where an intruder broke into a house, armed or unarmed, was shot and killed by the home owner and the home owner was jailed for murder.

I know many have been arrested, investigated, prosecuted, but all those cases were either closed or NPA refused to prosecute or cases withdrawn or lead to a not guilty verdict.

Anyone who do have a case where a home owner were sent to jail for murder for shooting and killing an armed or unarmed home intruder, and the court felt your life was not in danger based on the mere fact that they broke into your house, are free to post the case.

I'm personally not aware of any cases either, but I've had a few acquaintances who have been through this and whilst they've been acquitted or the case was withdrawn, it was still 2 years of their life that was hellishly stressful while the process wound its way through the Police/NPA and Courts.
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,560
I'm personally not aware of any cases either, but I've had a few acquaintances who have been through this and whilst they've been acquitted or the case was withdrawn, it was still 2 years of their life that was hellishly stressful while the process wound its way through the Police/NPA and Courts.

This is very true. You should always remember that you took a life. You killed a person. You cannot expect simply nothing to happen. There must be an investigation into the incident. They must determine if you acted legally. Unfortunately, I agree, it is a stressful period. But, when someone breaks into your house and you find yourself in such position, then it is a total different story.
 

JohnMao

Executive Member
Joined
May 21, 2018
Messages
8,719
Not true.

Not only can you defend your own life, that of other people, but in some cases you may even defend your property. There is a legal precedent in Ex Parte Minister van Justisie: in re S v Van Wyk, where the court held that a person may in extreme circumstances kill an intruder in order to protect his/her property.

This nonesense about when you can shoot, someone needs to be armed, is all fearmongering. If you wake up in the morning, there is someone in your house and you feel threatened, you take your gun and you shoot to kill.
Look I'd defend my family with whatever I had in hand, including a gun. I won't ask quesitons when it comes to the safety of my wife and kids.
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,560
Look I'd defend my family with whatever I had in hand, including a gun. I won't ask quesitons when it comes to the safety of my wife and kids.

Absolutely. Same here. If I have to wake up at night and there is someone in my house, the bullets would fly. I would not look to see if the person is armed. I will not warn him at all. If I see him, or any other person with him, I will gun them all down with 15 bullets. My life is already in danger the moment they break a window and enter my premises. From there it is not only self-defence, but defending the lives of my family too. In addition to this, I have many, extremely valuable items that, according to both law and the precedent case I gave you, I need to protect too.
 

SykomantiS

Expert Member
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
3,435
Absolutely. Same here. If I have to wake up at night and there is someone in my house, the bullets would fly. I would not look to see if the person is armed. I will not warn him at all. If I see him, or any other person with him, I will gun them all down with 15 bullets. My life is already in danger the moment they break a window and enter my premises. From there it is not only self-defence, but defending the lives of my family too. In addition to this, I have many, extremely valuable items that, according to both law and the precedent case I gave you, I need to protect too.
The only issue I see with that judgement is that it is from 1967- well before the new constitutional era.
I'm not saying you're wrong to bring up this judgement, I'm just saying I would be very, very, careful to rely on it to justify defence of property in the modern day.

 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,560
The only issue I see with that judgement is that it is from 1967- well before the new constitutional era.
I'm not saying you're wrong to bring up this judgement, I'm just saying I would be very, very, careful to rely on it to justify defence of property in the modern day.


That is the precedent and have not been changed as yet. You can rely on it. Courts still rely on it, until it is changed. Again, a lot of confusion is caused by people not understanding how law and courts work. In addition many cause confusion to make money.

Things are pretty simple when it comes to taking a life in our laws.
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,560
Madness, Now the good people get prosecuted, what is up with that.

It happens. It happened before too. It even happened in the old SA. Nothing really new. Being prosecuted does not mean you will go to jail. All these cases eventually ends up being withdrawn or in a not guilty verdict. Unless, of course, if you overstepped the boundaries of the laws.
 

Senor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
204
Poor guy moved from Phoenix to Pmb and still they coming at him..what do you expect him to do....peacefully protest??
 

The Trutherizer

Executive Member
Joined
May 20, 2010
Messages
5,095
The real question is if jail time is even a deterrent when you consider what sometimes happens during home invasions in SA.
I mean heck. I refuse to blame anybody who makes that calculation in the heat of the moment.
It's like they expect citizens to have the judgement and discipline of police officers on duty, ex the training, and ex the equipment.
When in reality it is a fearful situation ordinary people find themselves in.
 

Dan C

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
29,717
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.
According to the police their first observation was that the assailant was in fact 31 years old.
 

Big Rat

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2015
Messages
869
You all make is sound so easy to take a life. question, who here has shot and killed an intruder before???
No matter of you are in the right or wrong, it sticks to you.
 

rvZA

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Messages
6,560
You all make is sound so easy to take a life. question, who here has shot and killed an intruder before???
No matter of you are in the right or wrong, it sticks to you.

I admit, I have. Couple times. Have been investigated. Lost my firearm for two weeks, but it was returned after a forensics investigation. My first shooting involved a normal judicial inquest which was investigated by the local detective unit of the SAPS. A magistrate did the inquest and found no grounds for prosecution and the case was closed. I also had a criminal charge of murder and attempted murder opened on another shooting. This matter was investigated and sent to the NPA. It returned with a Nolle Prosequi result from the NPA. Never saw the inside of a court room.

Yes, killing a person does stick to you, but is no water off one's back if it was done during a home invasion, a robbery or when someone shoots at you. Lost no sleep and neither does it bother me. Will I shoot and take another person's life again? Yes, in a blink if I have to.
 
Top