Report: Cop killings almost double

N

Nicko

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
1,048
Reaction score
1
Location
Cape Town
Johannesburg - The number of people shot dead by police officers has nearly doubled since 2006, Beeld reported on Friday.

It quoted figures released by Gareth Newham, head of the crime and justice programme at the Institute for Security Studies.

Newham said 281 people were shot dead by the police in 2005/2006.

That number increased to 568 in 2008/2009 and 524 in 2010.

"Many more people get shot dead by police than what we hear about," said Newham.

"Andries Tatane's death was the trigger that turned the attention to police brutality. The difference between Tatane and somebody else who was killed by police, is that Tatane's death was captured on camera."

SABC television news footage shocked the country last month when it showed a group of policemen beating Tatane at a protest in Ficksburg in the Free State, before shooting him dead.

Eight policemen are currently on trial for the assault and murder.
Click to expand...
http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/Report-Cop-killings-almost-double-20110506

And in other news, the number of criminals being released back onto the streets have almost halved.
 
Last edited:
How many of those were suspected of or found to have been involved in a serious crime?
 
When dangerous crims are making up those numbers - good! Innocent people - not so good.

I'd like to see the percentage of valid cases vs. accidents and other more sinister cases of cops fatally shooting people. To be clear, I don't mean to come across as cynical here.
 
Flanders said:
When dangerous crims are making up those numbers - good! Innocent people - not so good.

I'd like to see the percentage of valid cases vs. accidents and other more sinister cases of cops fatally shooting people. To be clear, I don't mean to come across as cynical here.
Click to expand...

The stats should indicate which were legal and which were criminal.
 
DreamKing said:
no matter it is legal or illegal, people were killed by police it only implied police failure.
Cops have to arrest criminals, not killing them.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the use of deadly force is warranted in certain cases whether we like it or not.

In these cases there is no failure on the part of the police, the criminals have brought it on themselves.

You should also look at the number of officer who are killed in the line of duty.

I have a friend who had to use deadly force while chasing suspects in the township he came round a corner to find the suspect waiting with his gun aimed at my friends head. The suspect fired but the round jammed and my friend was able to kill him before he could shoot again. The suspect turned out to be a CIT robber with five murder warrants against his name and a witness said he had heard the suspects planning to ambush my two friends and kill them for their weapons.

What would you have done??
 
Personally I am lucky I never had to fire my gun once during my 8 years even though I was shot at quite a few times. But those required judgment calls on my part as the suspects were hidden or my shots could have hit bystanders.
 
R/SGT said:
Unfortunately the use of deadly force is warranted in certain cases whether we like it or not.

In these cases there is no failure on the part of the police, the criminals have brought it on themselves.

You should also look at the number of officer who are killed in the line of duty.

I have a friend who had to use deadly force while chasing suspects in the township he came round a corner to find the suspect waiting with his gun aimed at my friends head. The suspect fired but the round jammed and my friend was able to kill him before he could shoot again. The suspect turned out to be a CIT robber with five murder warrants against his name and a witness said he had heard the suspects planning to ambush my two friends and kill them for their weapons.

What would you have done??
Click to expand...

it is true. it is more difficult to catch suspects alive rather than kill them on spot. But you have to know you are "police", not judge. If you killed them, it is your failure even by law you can kill them legally. but undorturately you should not kill them it is because by law, those people you are chasing they are "suspects". Even they proved they were guilty, the sentencing will be from the judge, not police. You as a policeman, you don't have the right to give them "death penalty".

In my heart, I would say I love to see those animals to be killed on spot, but rationally it is wrong.
 
DreamKing said:
In my heart, I would say I love to see those animals to be killed on spot, but rationally it is wrong.
Click to expand...

I get what you mean but it really is "right" when the criminal is shooting at police or others himself, he simply has to be taken out. There is no way to arrest a guy with a gun pointed at you, it's his own choice to go down shooting.
 
DreamKing said:
it is true. it is more difficult to catch suspects alive rather than kill them on spot. But you have to know you are "police", not judge. If you killed them, it is your failure even by law you can kill them legally. but undorturately you should not kill them it is because by law, those people you are chasing they are "suspects". Even they proved they were guilty, the sentencing will be from the judge, not police. You as a policeman, you don't have the right to give them "death penalty".

In my heart, I would say I love to see those animals to be killed on spot, but rationally it is wrong.
Click to expand...

So you are saying the police should do nothing and let the criminals shoot at them?

Once someone shoots at the police, they are no longer 'suspects'. They become threats and it is the job of the police to take out those threats.

I personally think SAPS should start to equip the police with tazers, but those are useless in a firefight.
 
DreamKing said:
it is true. it is more difficult to catch suspects alive rather than kill them on spot. But you have to know you are "police", not judge. If you killed them, it is your failure even by law you can kill them legally. but undorturately you should not kill them it is because by law, those people you are chasing they are "suspects". Even they proved they were guilty, the sentencing will be from the judge, not police. You as a policeman, you don't have the right to give them "death penalty".

In my heart, I would say I love to see those animals to be killed on spot, but rationally it is wrong.
Click to expand...

Dude you are talking in circles, how is it my failure if the shoot at me and I then defend myself?

Should I wait for them to run out of ammo and then arrest them?

Defending myself and members of the public whose lives are in imminent danger, takes precedence over the suspect’s right to life as he has forfeited it as a result of HIS actions.
 
R/SGT said:
Dude you are talking in circles, how is it my failure if the shoot at me and I then defend myself?

Should I wait for them to run out of ammo and then arrest them?

Defending myself and members of the public whose lives are in imminent danger, takes precedence over the suspect’s right to life as he has forfeited it as a result of HIS actions.
Click to expand...

I think you are talking in circle. No one said "you cannot fire to defend yourself." but "if you killed someone you suppose to arrest him, you fail." Can't you see the different?

for example:
your mission => capture person A alive.
process: person A resists to arrest, so you shot and killed him.
your mission is fail!

is that easier to understand?

the problem is SAPS members are not willing to arrest people "alive". Their intention is to kill people rather than "arrest" them.
 
DreamKing said:
I think you are talking in circle. No one said "you cannot fire to defend yourself." but "if you killed someone you suppose to arrest him, you fail." Can't you see the different?

for example:
your mission => capture person A alive.
process: person A resists to arrest, so you shot and killed him.
your mission is fail!

is that easier to understand?

the problem is SAPS members are not willing to arrest people "alive". Their intention is to kill people rather than "arrest" them.
Click to expand...

Dream that is an incredible generalization. I am sure many of SAPS members would prefer to arrest people alive, but once you in the line of duty its a whole different story.

I don't understand how you can regard policemen defending their lives from a criminal as a failure. Yes, its the police's duty to capture them, but if the criminal starts firing, they have to respond appropriately. The blame can't be put on the policemen, if the criminal dies as a result of this, as there wasn't anything else he could have done.

Btw, I know your point was that if the mission was "capture person A alive." In that sense they have "failed", but you make it sound as if its the policemen who is at fault, but that isn't the case.
 
Nicko said:
Dream that is an incredible generalization. I am sure many of SAPS members would prefer to arrest people alive, but once you in the line of duty its a whole different story.

I don't understand how you can regard policemen defending their lives from a criminal as a failure. Yes, its the police's duty to capture them, but if the criminal starts firing, they have to respond appropriately. The blame can't be put on the policemen, if the criminal dies as a result of this, as there wasn't anything else he could have done.

Btw, I know your point was that if the mission was "capture person A alive." In that sense they have "failed", but you make it sound as if its the policemen who is at fault, but that isn't the case.
Click to expand...

First, I didn't said "policemen defend themselves = failure". The failure is because they can't perform the way the police suppose to be.

second, if you still remember last year, how many cases of "shoot-to-kill" against the civilians published in the newspapers? Some cases, the police just shot people from behind, which not even one of the policemen was in danger. That is the reason why I said SAPS did not have any intention to arrest people rather than killing people. We don’t need so many policemen act like psycho killers. One is more than enough! :mad:
 
The last couple of posts have been discussing the justified use of lethal force, when it comes to an unjustified shooting we all agree that the perpetrator needs to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

However, even when you are making an arrest it may become necessary to use lethal force and very often that choice is forced on us by the suspect or suspects. When I say this I am not talking about people running away or fighting back, I am talking about when the suspect or suspects do their best to kill you. They often carry knives hidden on their person and can and will use them, we were involved in a fight trying to arrest a suspect and some idiot tried to stab me in the back, luckily I was wearing my bullet proof. I could have shot him but my friend clubbed him down with the butt of a shotgun.

There is no pass or fail, this is not a game but real life and it is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

I and most other officers would happily arrest people rather than kill them it looks good on our stats and I have witnessed thousands of arrests were no suspects were killed so were you get you info I don’t know
 
DreamKing said:
First, I didn't said "policemen defend themselves = failure". The failure is because they can't perform the way the police suppose to be.

second, if you still remember last year, how many cases of "shoot-to-kill" against the civilians published in the newspapers? Some cases, the police just shot people from behind, which not even one of the policemen was in danger. That is the reason why I said SAPS did not have any intention to arrest people rather than killing people. We don’t need so many policemen act like psycho killers. One is more than enough! :mad:
Click to expand...

OMFW. This is hopeless!
 
DreamKing;6073100]First, I didn't said "policemen defend themselves = failure". The failure is because they can't perform the way the police suppose to be.
Click to expand...

How exactly are police supposed to perform, maybe like british bobbies?

second, if you still remember last year, how many cases of "shoot-to-kill" against the civilians published in the newspapers? Some cases, the police just shot people from behind, which not even one of the policemen was in danger. That is the reason why I said SAPS did not have any intention to arrest people rather than killing people. We don’t need so many policemen act like psycho killers. One is more than enough! :mad:
Click to expand...

If it was in the paper then it is more than likely that those officers were been investigated and would have been prosecuted if necessary.

Why don’t you just say shoot, Shoot to kill is overly dramatic.
If I am forced to defend myself I sure as hell am going to shoot to kill as would most officers.

This isn’t Hollywood, it is fast and dirty you aim for the center mass and keep shooting till the suspect goes down or drops their gun. The aim is to keep yourself alive the suspect can worry about himself.

You must be scared to put a foot outside with all these psycho killers roaming the streets
 
Mila said:
Might not be a bad Idea. You have to study to be a cop over there.
Click to expand...

Here to, you go to college for a year before they send you to a station where you spend another year as a Student there to watch and learn, Not touch.

Unfortunately the policing environments are completely different, so what works over there won’t necessarily work over here.

There are diploma and post grad courses available in policing if the officers are interested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X