Victims shoot dead 2 robbers

[Brenden_E]

I can just see it, the headline would read, "SABC TV license inspector shot dead by paranoid home owner"

What on earth is an SABC TV license inspector doing hiding in some bushes in your yard, in the middle of the night?

 

[bishop145]

In South Africa we can all assume that a group of men in your house in the middle of the night are not there to ensure you sleep with all your blankets on in case it is cold.

loled

 

[hj2k_x]

Excellent news.

 

[lsuacner]

What on earth is an SABC TV license inspector doing hiding in some bushes in your yard, in the middle of the night?

lol.
After scouting your home, in the process of trying to kill you and steal your belongings.
I did not allow the inspector in my house. If he comes back he has to bring the Police and I will verify that they are indeed Police officers.

 

[Fudzy]

You don't suppose a rational person like me would imply that? All South Africans (meeting the criteria) should own a gun and should be encouraged by the government to do so. Trespassers should be shot on sight without question, people have a right to pro-actively with severe force defend themselves.
Where I live there is a man who started to tell me a sob story of how he needs money. I usually respond positively but I was in a hurry and had no cash on me. I told the man to get to his point, as I needed to walk on. He continued on the same trend and I told him, "If you want money, I won't give any to you today". He then started swearing at me and then insulting me as a white person. I walked away though.
Later I was waiting outside for friends, he walked up to me and I told him to back off as I did not feel comfortable with him next to me. I told him that I don't trust him. I moved to the other side of the road. He then came over and told me he would hurt me and that he wasn't afraid of me. Then he accused me of selling Mandrax. I called the Police and he ran off.
The problem is he has threatened my girlfriend before in the same area and I saw him while walking back from the cafe tonight. (She did not want to give him money for nothing (she does not own a car) and he said he would get her when she returned that way). He is one of those people looking after cars. ffs.
I am now forced to carry pepper spray with me as I don't own a gun, I will however spray him immediately if he approaches me. I should have a right to do so but thanks to the ANC, criminals are the victims.
My community now has to wait for him to violently attack someone and then we have a 1/20 chance that he would be caught.

I have a good mind to hire people to mug him and move him to another town.

I would agree with the use of non-lethal protection devices but look at the case of that chap (ex rugby player if i remember correctly) who shot his daughter when he mistook her for someone trying to steal his car? This notion of shoot first, ask questions later will not only make the criminals more violent but end in a lot more unnecessary tragedies.

 

[Nick333]

I would agree with the use of non-lethal protection devices but look at the case of that chap (ex rugby player if i remember correctly) who shot his daughter when he mistook her for someone trying to steal his car? This notion of shoot first, ask questions later will not only make the criminals more violent but end in a lot more unnecessary tragedies.

You're using one example of criminal stupidity to make a case against people having the right to defend themselves.
Theres a huge difference between shooting at someone you believe to be stealing your car (and who poses no direct threat to your and your families safety) and shooting someone who is in your house. Someone who comes into your house while you are asleep is quite clearly prepared to harm you even if only when he is confronted.
You would have to be a complete idiot to not shoot a house breaker on site given the chance.
And what do you mean more violent? Do you think these fccks are breaking into occupied houses without being willing to kill the occupants? Non-violent criminals break in during the day when no-one is at home.

 

[Fudzy]

How do you know that nobody is at home? Spare a thought for the domestic workers and more worrisome, the stay-at-home moms.

Well we've established so far that the majority of criminals out there are stupid animals, they use weapons and tactics of fear to achieve what they want to accomplish. There are a few out there that don't think twice about killing someone to get what they want and carry through the act regardless of how many families they force into emigration/mortuaries. The problem here is the more violent the defensive to the offensive the higher the body count will get on both sides.

Anyone who applauds shooting someone in their residence have been playing too much Counter-Strike, it's a traumatic event which should be a last resort, not the first.

 

[Brenden_E]

How do you know that nobody is at home? Spare a thought for the domestic workers and more worrisome, the stay-at-home moms.

Well we've established so far that the majority of criminals out there are stupid animals, they use weapons and tactics of fear to achieve what they want to accomplish. There are a few out there that don't think twice about killing someone to get what they want and carry through the act regardless of how many families they force into emigration/mortuaries. The problem here is the more violent the defensive to the offensive the higher the body count will get on both sides.

Anyone who applauds shooting someone in their residence have been playing too much Counter-Strike, it's a traumatic event which should be a last resort, not the first.

I think you confused traumatic event with victory dance!

 

[Nick333]

How do you know that nobody is at home? Spare a thought for the domestic workers and more worrisome, the stay-at-home moms.

Non-violent criminals break in during the day when no-one is at home.

Let me rephrase: non-violent criminals break into houses where no one is home, usually during the day when that is most likely to be the case.

Well we've established so far that the majority of criminals out there are stupid animals, they use weapons and tactics of fear to achieve what they want to accomplish. There are a few out there that don't think twice about killing someone to get what they want and carry through the act regardless of how many families they force into emigration/mortuaries. The problem here is the more violent the defensive to the offensive the higher the body count will get on both sides.

What is an appropriate defense against armed home invaders in your oppinion? Your argument only holds water if we assume that the vast majority of house breakers will only harm the occupants if they feel threatened. The high incidence of severe beatings, rape and murder of defenseless home occupants shows that a significant number of criminals are more than prepared to harm defenseless citizens for sport.

The problem here is the more violent the defensive to the offensive the higher the body count will get on both sides.

Nonsense. It would appear that a well armed, trained and alert citizen with the willingness to pull the trigger has a clear advantage.
The body count is already skewed in favour of the criminal. What you appear to be saying is that law-abiding citizen's should rather take their rather poor chances of surviving a home invasion than fight back. That is a victim mentality and unless we see some serious action against crime from the authorities (which seems unlikely ) the body count of innocent victims will only rise.

Anyone who applauds shooting someone in their residence have been playing too much Counter-Strike, it's a traumatic event which should be a last resort, not the first.

What you fail to realise is that the option of shooting someone in your residence becomes smaller the longer you put it off. The longer you take to pull the trigger the greater the chance that you will be shot or disarmed.

The trauma (if any) of killing an armed psychopath who came into your home (who would clearly have to be at least willing to harm you or your family) would far out way the trauma of being victimised in your home.

 

[lilGr]

This story makes me smile.

 

[Devill]

I can just see it, the headline would read, "SABC TV license inspector shot dead by paranoid home owner"

Sure they just come in, dont ring the bell, call for someone, and visit you between 1am and 4am(maybe in groups of three and always armed for incase you dont have a tv license)

 

[Devill]

I would agree with the use of non-lethal protection devices but look at the case of that chap (ex rugby player if i remember correctly) who shot his daughter when he mistook her for someone trying to steal his car? This notion of shoot first, ask questions later will not only make the criminals more violent but end in a lot more unnecessary tragedies.

Also thats why our crime rate is the lowest in all of dream land....

Yes some people will get hurt / killed by accident....But would it be even 10% of the lives that could be saved?

And no im not for it because commiting a "smaller" evil to avoid a "bigger" evil is still wrong