Police have no time to fire warning shots- Zuma

D

DigitalSoldier

Honorary Master
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Messages
10,180
Reaction score
11
Location
South Africa.
The war on crime took on a deadly serious note when President Jacob Zuma threatened criminals with a shoot-to-kill policy - reigniting the debate on the rights of criminals in a country where 50 people are murdered every day.

"Criminals don't take an oath to do warning shots," Zuma told about 1 000 police station commanders at the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria yesterday.

"If you take a gun out to me, that intent is more than clear: the next thing, the criminal is going to shoot at me. That intent is very clear.

"My thinking is once a criminal takes out their gun, the intent is clear ... Police must then act to protect themselves and the innocents.
Click to expand...

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20090930041654924C585421

This is a radical change from the 'what crime' Mbeki stance.
 
haha... what about that guy who had his house invaded by plain clothes cops. The police had the wrong address and he thought he was being attacked and shot at the "home invaders". He is lucky he was not shot dead, and the cops are lucky they did not shoot an innocent man. His home was a mess though.
 
Garyvdh said:
haha... what about that guy who had his house invaded by plain clothes cops. The police had the wrong address and he thought he was being attacked and shot at the "home invaders". He is lucky he was not shot dead, and the cops are lucky they did not shoot an innocent man. His home was a mess though.
Click to expand...

That is true. But, what would you rather have: somebody shot dead in a freak accident, or cops shot dead by criminals?

Loose-loose situation :(
 
"The war on crime" ? Are we turning into America where we declare war on everything? This is stupid.
 
I'm loving Pres. Zuma more and more everyday !!!!

This is the kind of President SA needed after Mandela, not the Mbeki type.
 
psichron said:
"The war on crime" ? Are we turning into America where we declare war on everything? This is stupid.
Click to expand...

50 murders a day. it sure as hell resembles a war zone so why not call a spade a spade?
 
Because it's not a war? If you really want to call a spade a spade, you'd not call it a war anyway.
 
psichron said:
Because it's not a war? If you really want to call a spade a spade, you'd not call it a war anyway.
Click to expand...

are you arguing for the sake of arguing?

do you not admit a tougher stance needs to be taken against crime in general? The words "War on crime" is just a term to highlight the need to take aggressive action against criminals.

The new SAPF (South African police force) needs to deal with the threat to public security, this can be termed a war against criminals.
 
It is a freaking war, people are dying and superior firepower is being used to force the upper hand.
You simply cannot have a powerless police force, they will be demotivated and downright scared, a situation that is not desirable.
 
And No one is mentioning the need to attend to police case work, and investigations, rather lets just shoot all the bad guys, then we don't have to worry about court dockets and evidence, or even having to keep them locked up. Sure, we may kill a few that are innocent or have crimes that do not warrant a shotgun blast to the face, but you have to break eggs to make an omelet ??

Hey here's an idea, you think we can get away with sending the cops into the prisons and offing all the bad guys, cause we know they will return to crime once they bribe their way out. That would solve a lot of the problems. You know, maybe we could expand this to other folk that piss us off, what do you think ?
 
The idea of corrupt trigger happy cops running around with a licence to kill doesn't much appeal to me.
 
Drake2007 said:
The idea of corrupt trigger happy cops running around with a licence to kill doesn't much appeal to me.
Click to expand...

What Zuma said was that if and if only the criminals pull out a gun, police have the right to take him out. Which is fair dont you think?

not corrupt and trigger happy... if this is the case they will be prosecuted, or should be by law. I think its very fair, if the guy pulls out a gun, shoot the bastard before he shoots somebody else.
 
No, I'm trying to point out that "The war on X" is a stupid Americanism that is fueling the fires of fear and paranoia all over the world. A good example is the UK where they are starting to have wars on everything.

Our situation might be quite bad, but we're not involved in a war of any kind. Much more than 50 people per day die in a war. This is not a "freakin war" like davemc thinks.

I almost don't even want to comment on how everybody saying "shoot to kill" is a good thing. This actually puts the police officer in a much much more dangerous position when he is out in the field and could result in a lot of unnecessary or accidental deaths or injuries.

Yes we need a stronger position against crime, but we must keep in mind that every action has a large number of reactions that might not be immediately apparent.

Why are we not also focusing more on the cause of crime instead of trying to treat the symptoms. Would a doctor be a good doctor if he only did that? Then why do we get so rallied up when there's talk of killing criminals, but we don't give a damn about what causes them to be criminals.

Thanks for getting out your pitchfork so quickly the moment somebody seems to step in against the public mob demanding blood. But I do agree that we need a tougher stance to be taken against violent crime and crime in general.

But no, the point is that the words "War on crime" is not just a term. It is an emotionally thick phrase designed to get us worked up about something without thinking about it. We are fighting a war! yea!

A more aggressive approach will not necessarily solve our problems, but it guarantees a more aggressive response from the criminals.
 
Surv0 said:
What Zuma said was that if and if only the criminals pull out a gun, police have the right to take him out. Which is fair dont you think?

not corrupt and trigger happy... if this is the case they will be prosecuted, or should be by law. I think its very fair, if the guy pulls out a gun, shoot the bastard before he shoots somebody else.
Click to expand...

So who is going to investigate the case? The corrupt cops buddies.. nice.
 
This should not be a story, it should be part of police training and procedure. There should be no need to mention it in the media, it should just be part of the police's tools. Like collecting evidence and preparing a prefect case for prosecution. It's only because shooting bad guys is sexy and looks good on tv, that everyone is for it.
 
Garyvdh said:
haha... what about that guy who had his house invaded by plain clothes cops. The police had the wrong address and he thought he was being attacked and shot at the "home invaders". He is lucky he was not shot dead, and the cops are lucky they did not shoot an innocent man. His home was a mess though.
Click to expand...

Collateral damage?

psichron said:
Because it's not a war? If you really want to call a spade a spade, you'd not call it a war anyway.
Click to expand...
More people die here that in Iraq. So its a war against criminals. What did you not get?:confused:
 
Last edited:
Drake2007 said:
So who is going to investigate the case? The corrupt cops buddies.. nice.
Click to expand...

what a stupid comment, u obviously have no trust in the police system - well im suspect as well, but we cannot resort to just bringing down the whole system on the assumption that the cops will abuse the right to shoot. We must still believe that if they do wrong they will be prosecuted. If we do not, it could very well go that way as nobody would care anymore.
 
Mila said:
More people die here that in Irak. So its a war against criminals. What did you not get?:confused:
Click to expand...

I was gonna say that but couldnt be sure... dont have the exact numbers, but if they add up, its a good comparison...

i cant help but think of all the civilians getting killed in iraq/afghanistan by road side bombs, suicide bombers and stray bullets/rockets....
 
Mila said:
Collateral damage?


More people die here that in Irak. So its a war against criminals. What did you not get?:confused:
Click to expand...

Can you back up your claim? A war is a large scale military operation, a police officer doing his job is not involved in a war. What did you not get? :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X