Giba Gorge Attack

[scotty]

 

 

5. The defence must be a reasonable response to the attack. The force used to defend against the attack must be proportional to the attack.  Excessive force will render the victim subject to prosecution / conviction.

6. The means used by the victim must not be more damaging than is necessary to prevent the danger / assault. 

As the far the protection of one’s property is concerned, one may use force (including, where appropriate, deadly force) in order to protect ones property. However, the use of deadly force to protect property is highly controversial and problematic. The right to life is constitutionally protected - so I would say that it not reasonable or proportionate to kill a thief to protect your ownership in your bike and your  IPhone, if your life is not at imminent risk.

 

Acknowledgment:: the legal requirements for private defence as set out above are as stipulated by Jonathan Burchell in his book, Principles of Criminal Law (4th edition, 2015, Juta) at pages  117 – 135.

 

The law is a funny thing. A while back an ex rugby player tragically shot and killed his own daughter who he mistook for someone stealing his car. Whoever was in the car would not have been a threat but no action was taken.

[davetapson]

Just as an observation: my perception of the prevailing attitude is 'give it up, it's not worth the risk'.

 

What has this lead to?  An expectation that you can take folks stuff and they won't resist.  So some folk take stuff - and why not, it's risk free.

 

If folk put up some resistance (yes, which comes with some risk) those folk who currently feel they can take stuff risk free would think twice.

 

Before you jump on your keyboard in high indignation, some sense of balance is required.  If you are on your bike with a 9mm in your face, give up the damn phone/whatever.  

 

However, if this is not the case, then do something, esp. if the 9mm is potentially in your hand.

 

Once again, before you jump on your keyboard in high indignation, some sense of balance is required.  You don't have to shoot everyone dead.  

 

Most folks who are trying to take your bike / tv aren't about to die over it.  They do have the option of the next cyclist / the house 3 doors down and will be quite happy to do it, given suitable motivation. 

 

The whole 'be a victim, it's the right thing to do' thing is engendering the reality in which we find ourselves in, and we deserve better.

 

How many folk are the first to tell their kids to stand up to the school yard bully yet roll over at the first sign of risk?

Edited September 9, 2016 by davetapson

[davetapson]

Would love to hear if there are hubbers willing to post their experience from successfully defending their property AND the subsequent legal battle for taking a life...

 

Most of life (and this includes lawyers facing lawyers) is about making the bigger threat.

 

You don't have to shoot everyone, you just have to show you have the bigger threat.  

 

If they choose to take that threat on, then you probably won't have any issues with the law as to the results.

[Sepia]

Anybody know the latest on this incident?

[KingTJ]

Still ongoing...but as far a i know, he hasnt heard much from police. Ill ask him when i see next.

[lechatnoir]

In light of what happened in Jozi earlier today, does anyone have an update on this older incident?