# Social Category > The Whistleblower Forum >  SHOOT TO KILL OR BE KILLED?

## JanChris

I was earlier this month a victim of having a car (That I inherited from my father) stolen from my premises. There were 7 bastards, they placed a chemical near my bedroom room window so that we could not wake up. I have two Jack Russel dogs that sleep with us in the room. I am now trying to hunt the bastards down, and I will get them. The car is most likely changed by now but we all have little unique marks or changes that you can identify the cars with.

If I was awake, there would have been shots fired as the bastards would have been armed.

There are so many versions of when you can shoot to kill, that I would like to here from the forum there opinion of any incidents where a thief was shot and killed. I WILL shoot to kill if anyone enters my property uninvited as the SAPS has no more teeth to protect the citizens.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

It is reasonable force.
Self defence requires that there is an imminent threat to a person.

----------


## HR Solutions

> It is reasonable force.
> Self defence requires that there is an imminent threat to a person.



Yep......just like Oscar .....

----------


## JanChris

> It is reasonable force.
> Self defence requires that there is an imminent threat to a person.


So if I shout and say "Leave the car" and a bastard turns around and I am not sure if he is armed, but with all the violent crimes happening now, I end up shooting and killing the bastard. What will that be?

----------


## BusFact

Its straight forward ... but not easy. Your life or someone else's has to be in imminent danger. If you shoot someone trying to protect your property, you'll run in to trouble with the law. If you are not sure if he is armed then you are not in imminent danger and so cannot shoot. So in the above example you just mentioned you'll be charged with culpable homicide or maybe even murder if he is not armed and about to attack you.

In real life though, there is quite a grey area. You will have to convince a court that you thought your life was in imminent danger (that means you were about to be hurt or killed).

----------


## flaker

Just to go further from JanChris's post, what if he shot not to kill but to somewhat to wound/stop the intruders so they can be arrested? what would be the position then?

----------


## BusFact

A warning shot into nearby soft ground would be acceptable. Shoot to wound is incredibly difficult and prone to error. A leg wound to an artery can cause death for example. A gun is a lethal weapon. A taser would be better at disabling and apprehending a criminal.

I would suggest that you ever only fire a gun in a real situation if you intend to kill, with the exception being a safe warning shot.

----------


## ians

After reading the incident were a man was tied up and his wife dragged around the house by her hair then stabbed multiple times in the head, put back with her husband to die, she suffered severe head injuries for almost an hour before she died. It is better i dont respond to this type of incident on social media for fear of getting myself into trouble.

However i will say, it is about time we started protecting our families. The only way to protect your family is to make sure that these friendly loving South Africans who choose to show their affection to other South Africans in the manner in which they do are prevented from showing their affection to other South Africans. Too often we leave it to other people to look after our families. We wait till something bad happens to us and only then do we join neighbourhood watch groups etc. That time of living in Coco land thinking that this place will become a rainbow nation where we all living in peace and harmony is is pipe dream, if you havent figued that out yet then shame i feel sorry for you and hope for your sake that you are one of the few who havent yet been involved in some form violent crime yet. Unfortunately I am not one of those fortunate people, my daughter has already experienced to incidents of violent crime where they have beaten her and dragged her around the house while at home alone.

Just when i thought our neighbourhood watch was working effectively we had 7 incidents in 1 day starting at 10 in the morning going on until 11 pm. 

We need to stick together and pool our resources with a fund to make sure that when there is an incident to any of our families, a competent team of investigators who can look after themselves go looking for these people and make sure they a caught.

We are using prehistoric methods of protecting our families. Armed response companies which have 1 armed guard in a vehicle driving around is about as old fashion as using a 386 computer. We need to start directing the money to neighbourhood watch groups which have a combination of 
armed response, 
cctv positioned in key locations with cameras which can actually identify friendlies, with control rooms which have access to road side cameras
private investigators,
competent heavily armed task teams,
drones for fence jumpers,
K9 unit,
Thermal imagers.

Some people are going to say but where will all the money come from, think of it this way if 7 of them raid your house tie you up and gang rape your mother or wife and daughters while you hear them screaming for help how much would you be prepared to pay to bring justice to those friendlies? Just remember once it happened to you it is already tooo late, you could help prevent kind of loving attitude they have towards your family by getting involved before it happens to you rather than waiting to become a victim. Get involved before it is too late, the only colour in this rainbow nation at present is red.

----------


## JanChris

> After reading the incident were a man was tied up and his wife dragged around the house by her hair then stabbed multiple times in the head, put back with her husband to die, she suffered severe head injuries for almost an hour before she died. It is better i dont respond to this type of incident on social media for fear of getting myself into trouble.
> 
> However i will say, it is about time we started protecting our families. The only way to protect your family is to make sure that these friendly loving South Africans who choose to show their affection to other South Africans in the manner in which they do are prevented from showing their affection to other South Africans. Too often we leave it to other people to look after our families. We wait till something bad happens to us and only then do we join neighbourhood watch groups etc. That time of living in Coco land thinking that this place will become a rainbow nation where we all living in peace and harmony is is pipe dream, if you havent figued that out yet then shame i feel sorry for you and hope for your sake that you are one of the few who havent yet been involved in some form violent crime yet. Unfortunately I am not one of those fortunate people, my daughter has already experienced to incidents of violent crime where they have beaten her and dragged her around the house while at home alone.
> 
> Just when i thought our neighbourhood watch was working effectively we had 7 incidents in 1 day starting at 10 in the morning going on until 11 pm. 
> 
> We need to stick together and pool our resources with a fund to make sure that when there is an incident to any of our families, a competent team of investigators who can look after themselves go looking for these people and make sure they a caught.
> 
> We are using prehistoric methods of protecting our families. Armed response companies which have 1 armed guard in a vehicle driving around is about as old fashion as using a 386 computer. We need to start directing the money to neighbourhood watch groups which have a combination of 
> ...


If any person has ever spoken sense about our "Rainbow Nation", you have spoken wisely. I have made a promise, that should ANYONE enter my premises uninvited, they will remove that person in a body bag. The police are not just helpless, they are useless. They can only intimidate law abiding citizens and those who commit minor crimes.

----------


## sterne.law@gmail.com

> Just to go further from JanChris's post, what if he shot not to kill but to somewhat to wound/stop the intruders so they can be arrested? what would be the position then?


Assault with intent to do GBH.
Shooting g only justified if threat of harm or reasonable suspicion of further harm, thereby necessitating that an arrest is essential.

----------

flaker (14-Dec-14)

----------


## wynn

I have always thought that if I was ever in the unlucky position of having to shoot an intruder I would not call the cops but firstly cut out and remove the bullet and then just take his body to a far away deserted area and dump it.

If the cops are so clever they will find me and besides murder/culpable homicide I will be charged with the extra offense of trying to defeat the ends of justice, that means I will be no deeper in the s#!t than if I had called them in the first place.

If they don't find me so what?

----------


## JanChris

> I have always thought that if I was ever in the unlucky position of having to shoot an intruder I would not call the cops but firstly cut out and remove the bullet and then just take his body to a far away deserted area and dump it.
> 
> If the cops are so clever they will find me and besides murder/culpable homicide I will be charged with the extra offense of trying to defeat the ends of justice, that means I will be no deeper in the s#!t than if I had called them in the first place.
> 
> If they don't find me so what?


Hi, I see that you are from my home town. I am so livid at what is happening to the country and that nothing is done about it. Too many "citizens" have the "Ostrich Syndrome" they choose not to see it. We are going backwards, and anyone who sees it differently is living in a dream. However, I made a promise that if anyone enters my property uninvited, they will remove that in a body bag. If Oscar can murder Reeva and only get 5 years because of money, I will most likely get away with it. I am familiar with the law but it appears to be "applied" differently depending on your status or race.

----------


## Mike C

Serious question to stern.law and any other lawyers/magistrates/judges out there.  

Does the court ever take the criminal's intention into account?  i.e. What was he doing trespassing in the first place?  What was his intention of breaking and entering?  Surely that already puts the negative weight onto the "criminal's" side.

And we know that when criminals are confronted these days, their reaction is generally not to flee.

I know that we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but the victim is also innocent here ... minding their own business, on their own property, in their own house.

The actions of a "normal person" in that position is surely not to submit to the bully and just give them what they want!  The mere unauthorised presence of the criminal in a person's home should be regarded as constituting some kind of threat, and there is no way in hell that you can predict whether the intruder is going to use "excessive force" in getting what he wants.

It seems to me as though the law is no longer interested in recognising the rights of a law-abiding citizen, but more interested in protecting the "rights" of the criminal

The whole scenario of right and wrong seems to be so "turned on it's head" at the moment.

----------


## wynn

I understand where the law is coming from on this, a few years ago, prior to the 'Rainbow Nation', there was a security guard in East London who lured passing pedestrians or even went looking for them in his bakkie, he would take them inside a premises that had been broken into an hour or so earlier, once he had lured them inside he just shot them.

I assume the law is there to prevent this sort of abuse.

The locals called him 'Jesus' besides having a beard it was said that he was the last thing you saw if he caught you.

Ironically he only got a few years behind bars when he was charged and tried in the new 'Rainbow Nation'.

----------


## Blurock

> Serious question to stern.law and any other lawyers/magistrates/judges out there.  
> 
> Does the court ever take the criminal's intention into account?  i.e. What was he doing trespassing in the first place?  What was his intention of breaking and entering?  Surely that already puts the negative weight onto the "criminal's" side.
> 
> And we know that when criminals are confronted these days, their reaction is generally not to flee.
> 
> I know that we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but the victim is also innocent here ... minding their own business, on their own property, in their own house.
> 
> The actions of a "normal person" in that position is surely not to submit to the bully and just give them what they want!  The mere unauthorised presence of the criminal in a person's home should be regarded as constituting some kind of threat, and there is no way in hell that you can predict whether the intruder is going to use "excessive force" in getting what he wants.
> ...


The righteous have no rights. Human rights is only for criminals and terrorists.

I have often wondered why people decide to study law. Is it because of their sense of justice, wanting to serve the "good" or is it to defy justice and build a name for themselves?

----------


## BusFact

> Serious question to stern.law and any other lawyers/magistrates/judges out there.  
> 
> Does the court ever take the criminal's intention into account?  i.e. What was he doing trespassing in the first place?  What was his intention of breaking and entering?  Surely that already puts the negative weight onto the "criminal's" side.
> 
> And we know that when criminals are confronted these days, their reaction is generally not to flee.
> 
> I know that we are all supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but the victim is also innocent here ... minding their own business, on their own property, in their own house.
> 
> The actions of a "normal person" in that position is surely not to submit to the bully and just give them what they want!  The mere unauthorised presence of the criminal in a person's home should be regarded as constituting some kind of threat, and there is no way in hell that you can predict whether the intruder is going to use "excessive force" in getting what he wants.
> ...


Question not directed at me, but here is my answer anyway  :Smile: 

Firstly, what a well written, level headed post from the point of view of the victim. Often this point of view is written with a lot of bravado or emotion. Both are perfectly understandable, but none the less, its pleasing to see the argument put forward calmly and adds to its effectiveness.

Secondly, yes I do believe the courts will take in to account the circumstances of the shooting. For example a person in your home is more of a threat than someone in your garden. A gang of three more a threat than an individual, etc. The biggest problem is that this is going to have to be argued before a magistrate, with all their preconceived ideas and biases, just like any other human. This may be to your advantage .... or not. You will need to convince them that your life or your safety was in danger.

----------

Mike C (20-Dec-14)

----------


## BusFact

> I understand where the law is coming from on this, a few years ago, prior to the 'Rainbow Nation', there was a security guard in East London who lured passing pedestrians or even went looking for them in his bakkie, he would take them inside a premises that had been broken into an hour or so earlier, once he had lured them inside he just shot them.
> 
> I assume the law is there to prevent this sort of abuse.
> 
> The locals called him 'Jesus' besides having a beard it was said that he was the last thing you saw if he caught you.
> 
> Ironically he only got a few years behind bars when he was charged and tried in the new 'Rainbow Nation'.


That sounds like a bit of an extreme example. I think its more to stop trespassers and thieves getting the death sentence for their crimes. There are a few well known examples of a parent killing their child by mistake, thinking they were intruders. Another example was of an individual who supposedly took it upon himself to chase off repeated trespassers on his property, which they used as a short cut. This probably went part and parcel with some minor vandalism and possibly petty theft. The end result was a young teenage girl being shot dead for trespassing.

What about the risk of some young pranksters egging your house, or painting some graffiti. Bloody annoying yes, but shoot them? This particular law is there to prevent reckless use of a firearm. Its asking us to be sure that its really necessary before making a mistake. Nice in theory anyway.

In my opinion the law pendulum has swung too far to the side of the criminal at the moment. If we could be reasonably sure that thieves, burglars and robbers would be caught by the police and suitably punished by the justice system, I would suspect that we would be prepared to let them leave our property with our shooting them. It would quite simply be the easier path. But, we do not have that faith in the police or the justice system, and with good reason.

I don't think there should be any risk to someone who shoots a stranger in their house at 2am in the morning. Yes there will be unfortunate situations such as when it turns out be a 12 year old boy, but I don't think its reasonable to expect Joe Average to make those sort of decisions in the stressful situation of your home being invaded at that time. 

Unfortunately there are so many variations on this that the grey area becomes extensive.

----------


## JanChris

All the comments make sense. When there is an intruder in your home and your family could be at risk of being maimed or killed, I am sure as hell not going to ask the bastard what he is doing in my home. I will first shoot, and as I am the head of the home, it is my responsibility to protect my family and at that stage I could not be bothered whether I kill the intruder or wound him. The possessions we have accumulated over the years were not given to me nor have I stolen them, I obtained them by paying for the items with hard earned cash. I think that my extensive military training will stand me in good stead in such a situation but what about those who have had no training? I discovered that when the bastards took my late Dad's car, they had sprayed or burned some chemical near our window so that we ( and 3 dogs) could not wake up. A scary thought for someone who leaves his family while he works away from home. I would not even comment about the SAPS as they have become clerical staff and do very little to prevent crime. They only seem to act after the event and do VERY little to prevent it. Like a 38 yr old guy who had his bakkie stolen by JMPD officers while being stopped at a so called road block at 6 in the afternoon.

----------


## Brett Nortje

> I have always thought that if I was ever in the unlucky position of having to shoot an intruder I would not call the cops but firstly cut out and remove the bullet and then just take his body to a far away deserted area and dump it.
> 
> If the cops are so clever they will find me and besides murder/culpable homicide I will be charged with the extra offense of trying to defeat the ends of justice, that means I will be no deeper in the s#!t than if I had called them in the first place.
> 
> If they don't find me so what?


That is taking a chance! if i were in this sort of situation, they are the perp and you are the prey, and if you can explain that, shoot to kill. if you cannot, shoot anyways. this will give you time to make peace with yourself in jail or whatever, if you know what i mean...

----------


## JanChris

What I am noticing (not just at this platform, but in the media and the community) is that the law abiding citizen with balls are getting very tired of being the victim. The powers must be very careful that the law abiding citizens do not take the law into their own hands. The criminals have access to weapons and they wear uniforms pretending to be cops. I am pretty sure many law abiding citizens are going to adopt the "shoot now and ask questions later" attitude. Many have had bad experiences while reporting a criminal incident at a "charge office".

----------


## HR Solutions

> I am pretty sure many law abiding citizens are going to adopt the "shoot now and ask questions later" attitude



I don't believe that this is going to be the case.  SA has not got totally out of control as yet.

----------


## JanChris

> I don't believe that this is going to be the case.  SA has not got totally out of control as yet.


I am so glad you said "yet". I do not think we can stop the rot as the powers cannot stop the corruption.
Believe it or not but I am not a pessimist, I want to make the public aware of all the "Bad" things happening in our once beautiful country. The foreigners are streaming into this country looking for work and if they don't find work, they become criminals together with the locals.

----------


## HR Solutions

Therefore we have it in our power to make sure our vote counts and vote for the correct political party right now.  Cape Town is being run pretty well at the mo.

----------


## Justloadit

> Therefore we have it in our power to make sure our vote counts and vote for the correct political party right now.  Cape Town is being run pretty well at the mo.


With the current ANC festivities in the mother city, the ANC is adamant to change that

----------


## JanChris

> Therefore we have it in our power to make sure our vote counts and vote for the correct political party right now.  Cape Town is being run pretty well at the mo.


You are correct, Cape Town is a much better place at the moment. My in-laws were in that area a month ago from the eastern cape and what a difference. I just hope that the DA keeps that part of the country. If the ANC do get their grubby paws on Cape Town, they will change it for the worse, THAT IS A GIVEN.

----------

