Let me join this debate by offering my personal perspective on the impact that "shoot to kill" obsession which is tantamount to state-sanctioned "death sentence without trial" could have. Perhaps, I must begin by fully agreeing with Cde Gugu's well written argument. Moreover, I must from the onset say- without saying this justifies my argument- that I allude was born in Mt Elias/Sokheni Village (although attended schooling in the nearest township) where a weekend hardly passes without a funeral of a once good ex-matric-pupil, tertiary institution or high-school-drop out-cum-'criminal' or where "homes have become permanent funeral tents". Most of them, so the night vigil is usually told, are shot by police without warning or any provocation which is a contradiction of the very same bourgeois law. Without giving to much details but 2 (a Zondi and his cousin) men who were "sentenced to death without trail" (.i.e. executed in ambush) by the police in the so-called Jeppe Massacre of 2006 and 1 man (currently convicted) live within the same ward as I. My own little unarmed blood brother was shot to death by police in August 2004. Back to the argument, I think the issue here should not be shooting criminals but will be to investigate as to why people engage in crime? Who are these people that are willing to carry unlicenced automatic fire arms in broad daylight? Where do they gather this courage? Is it not the same police that provide them with these guns and ammunition? How do they know that a given cash in transit vehicle or store etc will be having so much money at a given point? Is shooting them going to prevent a highly indebted and poorly paid store or bank cashier, security guard etc from giving or 'selling' the same inside information to other unemployed, crass materialist-minded and school-drop out-cum-robber? Is shooting to kill going to address the corrupt mentality of both the police and the people in general who usually praise these criminals during holidays when they come driving an expense car followed by a fleet of recently bought or stolen taxis? Don't we perhaps need to redefine the concept of crime itself? Is it not a crime to take somebody's life despite the justification? Is it not a crime against humanity to have people living in poverty despite the available resources in SA? While the above questions might seem rhetorical but they need to be investigated and I think investigating them forms part of searching for a multifaceted strategy to fight crime contrary to publicity seeking and 'populist' statements of "shoot to kill" aimed pleasing the (minority) business sector which Cde Steve (sub)consciously elevate to the majority. Comrades, crime is will never be addressed for as long as we do not have a revolutionary programmed aimed at instilling the culture or spirit of "I am my brothers' and sister's keeper". Crime will never be addressed if the psyche that is filled with high thoughts and feelings of love is not instilled in the people. This should be coupled with a program that seeks to change the socio-economic status of our people that could propel them to assuming that crime is a shortest route to bailing oneself out of Prison of Poverty. However this is impossible under a capitalist system that judges people on the basis of their material possession rather than the content of their character. This does not mean that criminal elements will not be experienced under a lower stage of communism en route to a higher one. But the impact will be minimized given that people will understand that they exist not merely accumulate for individual consumption but the society as a whole. Therefore the question of wanting more by hook or crook will begin to wane. Moreover, while noting that there are 'good cops' but the majority of the police force themselves are main contributors to crime. Perhaps, this is because of their working conditions but most important they are also not i mmune from the influence of a culture of crass materialism and living beyond ones means hence alternative ways to fund their expense lifestyles includes taking bribes etc. These bribes also taking from those wanting to join the police force. Having joined the force through corrupt means, corruption and accepting of bribes (sub)consciousness becomes an acceptable thing to the new recruit. I wonder how the "shoot to kill" obsession would address this one amongst manner methods of how corrupt mentality within the police force reproduces itself. Bribery within the police force is an open secret hence you find policy mingling with 'petty' criminals in down and up town searching for their private cars petrol money, air time and "cool drink etc. Once again, the shoot to kill approach will not address this. I therefore reaffirm Cde Gudu view that amending section 49 could only assist police in shooting people that could expose them. By the way, many of the tip offs are as a result of disagreement amongst crime collaborators and the police that claims to have received tip offs usually know more than they tell. So for me, fighting crime must, in the main, deal with changing the people mentality coupled with a program aimed at fundamentally altering our people's socio-economic status. Less much said above Comrade Steve's so-called twisted premise "...that our people are increasingly feeling insecure" the better. Suffice to say that his statement remains me of Fanon's argument in the Pitfalls of National Consciousness that "(the middle class including Cde Steve)...is bereft of ideas, because it lives to itself and cuts itself off from the people, (is) undermined by its hereditary incapacity to think in terms of all the problems of the nation as seen from the point of view of the whole of that nation". By the way Cde Steve, which are these people? because that last time I checked most 'praise' thugs and their style of living (the case of the King of Bling serves as proof) partially because "...(the) hope of alleviating poverty, is still a myth..." Away with Section 49 Amendment Away T.S. Zondi Ukzn student and kz221 ward 3 ANC branch dept Sec and ANCYL branch Sec writting in personal capacity. "English grammar specialist will grapple with the form while other engage the content" -Former Friend of mine.
>>> Dominic Tweedie <[email protected]> 9/30/2009 2:54 PM >>> Cde Cedric, I am sorry that I have not found the article you refer to. Google brings up hundreds of articles related to this matter. Perhaps if you could give me more clues? What I must say I have never seen, is any allegation that there are police officers in prison for shooting criminals, or for shooting anybody else for that matter. I suspect that the number of police officers inside prison for homicide is very few, although we know that police do frequently shoot people in South Africa, whether alleged criminals or strikers or demonstrators. Police have not succeeded to eradicate crime. Now they say they need extra permission to shoot people, using the firearms that have long since been issued to them as a matter of course. I personally don't see where there was a problem for them, before. We don't know of numbers of police officers in jail for shooting criminals. There is a credibility problem with these police when they say it is our fault that they have not stopped crime, because we did not give them an extra permission to kill more people. It is always going to be a problem to kill people. Even a hardened, experienced old police-person will not take lightly the killing of another human being. The only people who can take such things in their stride are those kind of people who are called psychopaths, because they feel nothing. The police are nearly all very human and not psychopaths. We understand that, but we can't give them a constitutional pill to make the problem of criminals go away from the police. No such pill exists. When it comes to c riminals, the police have a hell of a job. No doubt about it. But there is no constitutional pill to make it better. Changing the law changes nothing, in my opinion. Changing the law will not un-confuse a confused police-person. President Zuma said enough, when he said that if a suspect draws a gun in clear crime situation, then armed police will presume that the gun is drawn with lethal intent, and will act accordingly. The law will not change that. Even now, no judge will complain about police shooting armed aggressors. But then it had better not be a striker, or an innocent person, or a little girl like the one Cde Gugu wrote about. The constitution cannot be changed to say it is all right to kill just anybody. It's not all right. It's already too easy to pull out a gun. Cde Gugu wrote nearly 1200 well-argued words, and signed it with her name and who she is. I personally think that is fine. I don't think Cde Ggugu is going to do this every day. It's obviously part of her make-up to feel strongly about this "shoot-to-kill" thing, and in that case, we should know about it. It does not detract from her job. She is not a statue or a ventriloquist's dummy. She is a political subject like any other one. I think Gugu's message should give us a sign, too, that not everybody identifies with the police. Not everybody, when hearing the words "shoot to kill" assumes that they will not be the ones in the gun-sights of the police. Some imagine themselves in front of the police and in the line of their fire and not behind them, and it is not because they are criminals. "Shoot-to-kill" divides us in that way. It is not only the same constitution we had a few weeks ago, but it is the same problem, Cde Cedric. The basic political problem is that both army and police are part of the "special bodies of armed men" (and now women) who are mustered, fed and equipped for the fundamental intended purpose of defending the ruling class against revolution. The question then arises, which side are the actually-existing armed men on? Is ours a revolutionary army - a red army? Or not? Is it a people's police, a citizen force, indistinguishable, politically, from the popular masses? Or is it the "thin blue line" that protects the oppressor bourgeoisie from the justified fury of the working masses? These are the real questions. Tinkering with the wording of the constitution will not solve these revolutionary problems. In this political context, the question of "shoot-to-kill" is just a dangerous diversion, in my opinion. The question should be: How are we going to politicise the police more, and better? The political problem is also the solution to the crime problem, by the way. When there is class unity between police and people, then there will be true co-operation between them both to eradicate crime. VC sabelo gina wrote: Comrades, Over the weekend I read the newspaper article on this matter that was talking about a section that is vague in the Act, which confuses police when faced with danger of an armed fleeing criminal. Can we reflect on that in the light of what police face and the number of deaths that have happened in our country both of police and ordinary citizens in the hands of the armed criminals. The moderator must get us that article here in the forum then we engage. There is also a constitutional decision on the matter, can we use the same constitution that we were using few weeks ago in defence of the unionisation in the army to argue this point rather than this style from all of you including Dominic.It is a known fact that when I present my personal views, I must say so. Let us engage! Cedric On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Gugu Ndima <[email protected]> wrote: Shoot to kill-death sentence without trial Having grown up in a township where young boys and girls yearned for role models to give them direction; a place where inadequacies of education illustrated themselves in our communities more especially in January where matriculants now wonder what*s next for them, has made me understand the causations of crime within our society. A place where hope of alleviating poverty, is still a myth. Unfortunately choices and options that avail themselves to people that are subjected to such social ills have horrendous pathways that tend to end one*s life or lead them to the cold corridors of South African prisons. For most women the alternatives are inclusive of options such as prostitution, shop-lifting and gambling in township games known as *U-Mchina* or cards. Some have found minimal salvation in grant money and subject themselves to retail exploitation in stores such as Shoprite which have found a magnificent and loyal market in our townships despite their disgusting service to our people. These are some of the social ills that still characterise urban poverty; poverty that is mostly over looked, due to the illusion that poverty is minimal in areas of urbanisation. Unfortunately such areas are those that are more susceptible to it (poverty) and it*s increasing as a result of the perpetual divisions between the rich and the poor. These divisions have become more ailing due to the fact that they are now class divisions between the black elite and the poor black majority. When South Africans went to the polling stations for the first democratic elections in 1994, they voted with the hope that the transformation of government would yield economic and political relief and moreover bring the promise land to the masses in the form of a better life. Most saw this as a new beginning for them and the newly elected government would by default be a government that would be more sympathetic and understanding towards the conditions that still terrorise the black majority of this country; until today, the masses still loyally vote for the liberation movement as options are non-existent in real terms in South Africa. It becomes a sad case when the very same government now unilaterally decides to set a blind eye on the conditions that ail the poor and opt to use military methods to deal with problems in our society. When I first heard the utterance *shoot to kill* by Commissioner Bheki Cele, I could not help but question the logic or obscure ideological connotation from which this mentality stems from. This route or manner of approach for addressing crime manifests lawlessness and violence amongst the people. It potentially has the element of destruction in society as this will encourage retaliation or retribution from those that will fight against the abuse of this *shoot to kill* tactic by the police force. In the place of respect, fear will emerge from the members of our society. It*s blatantly clear that such statements are pre-mature and cannot be condoned. The justification that was mumbled by the Police ministry brigade for this *shoot to kill* tactic was that it*s the best form of method to deal with thugs that choose to execute cops in a gun-battle. Now unfortunately you cannot implement such a law in South Africa due the short-comings of the whole SAPS. For one corruption in the SAPS is horrifically the major characteristics of the force, most people that join the force tend to buy their way in through bribery. Secondly skills are serious concern within the SAPS and sometimes it*s embarrassing that you find police officers that cannot even properly draft an affidavit let alone an official statement. Thirdly we have officers that tend to think by virtue of their uniform they are above the law. The abuse hawkers, commuters in roadblocks, they take bribes as opposed to dealing with cases. They abuse civilians in holding cells, the SAPS has been implicated in numerous cases where prostitutes were held in holding cells and raped by men in blue; deaths under police custody have increased. Lest we forget that organised crime cases tend to have the men in blue implicated highly. Now we ask where does the shoot to kill fit in from the above, well for any police officer that could pote ntially be implicated in the above can easily utilise the *shoot to kill* tact to get rid of evidence. The Independent Complaints Directorate has recently complaint that it has limited powers to deal with complaints bought against police officers in our country. We can*t have a police force that will be a law unto themselves. Yes there is a serious crime issue but unfortunately we cannot look at crime unilaterally without simultaneously addressing the causations. The SAPS has no clear transformation policy in place and racism is still an issue. We have a serious influx of foreigners for example, but that is no lee-way for police officers to abuse them as they please and this is exactly what is happening around the country; at the rate the Police ministry is going with the whole shoot to kill debacle, you would swear that there is a new award for the number of body bags that police officers bring in. The amendment of section 49 will not resolve anything instead it will create animosity between civilians and police officers. Let*s first achieve an environment that will curb young people from resorting to violent crimes. Some of the men that have resorted to such criminal activities, are men that strongly defended the revolution during trying times in the early nineties unfortunately the government has never had a plan in place to absorb them. They sacrificed their education in order to see political emancipation and now they have become statistics within our prisons or are buried by the bullet of the SAPS. This whole debacle reminds me of a sad story in the township where a Fidelity guard was parked outside a petrol station, due to the inadequate recreational activities that are minimal in the township, young children play in the street. A young girl mistakenly rolled her tennis ball under the van as she ran to go get it quickly, she was greeted with a rain of bullets and until today the family never got compensation for that. Now this is just Fidelity, a private security company, what more if law enforcers have been given a blank cheque to murder people equally just like criminals. A well-trained officer of the law will know exactly when to shoot and does not need the law to be amended for that. We have worked hard to eradicate injustice in our country and the process of transforming the law is far from over. Introducing a new form of death sentence will just take us back to the dark years of apartheid, the difference will now be that this will be sanctioned by our very own people.Phansi with the amendment of Section 49 phansi!! I remain Gugu Ndima National spokesperson (YCLSA) 076 783 1516 Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/ --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You are subscribed. This footer can help you. Please POST your comments to [email protected] or reply to this message. You can visit the group WEB SITE at http://groups.google.com/group/yclsa-eom-forum for different delivery options, pages, files and membership. To UNSUBSCRIBE, please email [email protected] . You don't have to put anything in the "Subject:" field. You don't have to put anything in the message part. All you have to do is to send an e-mail to this address (repeat): [email protected] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
