Unconfirmed: Matrix Warehouse Robbery

R4ziel said:
This was sorted out as far as I know, he bought the Ferarri when I was working for them years ago, a lot of internal comms went around regarding this, but as far as I know it was a small thing that got made huge by involving the courts. The case was dropped or settled, not too sure
Click to expand...

Yeah i think it was dropped.
 
Looked like a leisurely stroll until near the end, was it an armed robbery or people just not giving a ****?
 
Arg I feel sorry of the poor souls that are going to buy that crap stolen goods. Not even worth the wear on the shock absorbers on the get away bakkie :cautious:
 
Weird this building has good security, I worked in that complex and thor still does. Park in the wrong place for 2 seconds then they want clamp me, but these guys get away lol
 
S.Claus said:
Let be honest is R6000 a month worth getting shot to protect insured stock?
Click to expand...
Nope it isnt , to be more accurate , this is covered in the FCA , you may not shoot people in the defense of property .
Now thats all good n well , then why are cash in transit vans protected by armed security ?
If its insured write it off , you can log serial numbers and flag them in a database.
 
LazyLion said:
What? Source plz?
Click to expand...
I worked for a distributor who had a truck hijacked and it was recovered at a property owned by one of the owners of Matrix. They were busy offloading stock (computer equipment). The guy got away with some minor buying stolen goods charges and apparently is still part of the business (or was at the time about 15 years ago).

I heard this from the owner of the distributor so take it as anecdotal but he would never deal with them and if he heard that you were reselling to them he would close the account.
 
Ja I think you have the wrong owner here. The current owner Justin was screwed over by his previous business partner when they were still operating as MTR computers in the early 90's. The stolen stock was actually just one of many problems. But Justin came through it, rebranded and reopened as Matrix. Not sure what ever happened to the other dude who went to prison.
 
Jabulani22 said:
Nope it isnt , to be more accurate , this is covered in the FCA , you may not shoot people in the defense of property .
Now thats all good n well , then why are cash in transit vans protected by armed security ?
If its insured write it off , you can log serial numbers and flag them in a database.
Click to expand...
You are talking BS. You can use Private Defence for property, the rules are just a bit different.
 
LazyLion said:
Ja I think you have the wrong owner here. The current owner Justin was screwed over by his previous business partner when they were still operating as MTR computers in the early 90's. The stolen stock was actually just one of many problems. But Justin came through it, rebranded and reopened as Matrix. Not sure what ever happened to the other dude who went to prison.
Click to expand...
Oh OK.


Its possible that my ex boss just didn't see it that way though. Even though it was the one partner that was caught he saw them as in cahoots.
 
Nibiru said:
You are talking BS. You can use Private Defence for property, the rules are just a bit different.
Click to expand...
Do show where it says you can legally defend property then .
Most of the proficiency books iv read advise against it .
 
Jabulani22 said:
Do show where it says you can legally defend property then .
Most of the proficiency books iv read advise against it .
Click to expand...
Go read our Common law. I have passed Criminal law and Crim Procedure and have worked on case law that discusses the technicalities of self (our law defines it as Private Defense) defense. I do agree, killing someone over a laptop will be hard to prove. It depends on the fact of the case, was the attacker wielding a weapon etc etc. Reasonable person's test will be used so the courts do adopt a subjective and objective approach.

Quick copy paste from Wikipedia, I am at work.

This defense is available when a person uses force to defend an interest in property: for example,

  • to prevent a would-be thief or robber from taking his own property, or that of another;
  • to prevent someone from damaging or destroying his own or another’s property; or
  • to prevent an intruder from entering his own or another’s property. This would include the use of such preventive devices as spiked fences and electrified fencing.
The requirements for private defence of property are similar in many respects to those for private defence of persons, but there are certain differences. The following are conditions relating to the attack. There must be evidence that

  • the property was
  • presently
  • in danger of damage or destruction
  • that was unlawful.
The defence of property must be

  • directed against the attacker;
  • necessary to avert the danger; and
  • a reasonable response to the attack.
 
Last edited:
Nibiru said:
Go read our Common law. I have passed Criminal law and Crim Procedure and have worked on case law that discusses the technicalities of self (our law defines it as Private Defense) defense. I do agree, killing someone over a laptop will be hard to prove. It depends on the fact of the case, was the attacker wielding a weapon etc etc. Reasonable person's test will be used so the courts do adopt a subjective and objective approach.

Quick copy paste from Wikipedia, I am at work.

This defense is available when a person uses force to defend an interest in property: for example,

  • to prevent a would-be thief or robber from taking his own property, or that of another;
  • to prevent someone from damaging or destroying his own or another’s property; or
  • to prevent an intruder from entering his own or another’s property. This would include the use of such preventive devices as spiked fences and electrified fencing.
The requirements for private defence of property are similar in many respects to those for private defence of persons, but there are certain differences. The following are conditions relating to the attack. There must be evidence that

  • the property was
  • presently
  • in danger of damage or destruction
  • that was unlawful.
The defence of property must be

  • directed against the attacker;
  • necessary to avert the danger; and
  • a reasonable response to the attack.
Click to expand...
I defo dont want you on my case should i ever have one , one of our requirements for SELF DEFENSE is an unlawful attack is imminent or underway , you are joining pollsmoor card club if you shoot someone who is unarmed or just stealing.
 
Jabulani22 said:
I defo dont want you on my case should i ever have one , one of our requirements for SELF DEFENSE is an unlawful attack is imminent or underway , you are joining pollsmoor card club if you shoot someone who is unarmed or just stealing.
Click to expand...

So are you telling me someone grabbing your laptop from your person (this attacker most probably wielding a knife or pipe or whatever, this is Africa) is not classified as an UNLAWFUL IMMINENT or ONGOING attack.

Like i said, it depends on the facts of the case. Go read some cases on this, you will find many cases where property was defended with severe force.

I am not here to tutor you on the law. But you are spreading false information.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X