 To shoot or not to shoot - the law is clear IN the articles in The Star on September 28, compiled by Louise Flanagan, it is stated that Assistant Commissioner Tertius Geldenhuys, who is attached to the SAPS Legal Service Department, is quoted as having said, and I quote: "under the current law, it is illegal to shoot a bank robber who is fleeing with a gun in his hand, even though he might suddenly stop, turn around and shoot a pursuing police officer or member of the public". According to the
To me, the courts are saying quite clearly: if an armed suspect has for instance, opened fire or injured anybody during the commission or attempted commission of their crime and flees, and the police officer has no other alternative but to use deadly force, he may. Second, any suspect running or driving away from a scene armed, in my opinion poses a grave and immediate threat of serious bodily harm to law-abiding citizens who get in his way. Also, pursuing police or traffic personnel may be shot. This in my book obviously means the following: The threat and nature of the crime must be taken into consideration. For example, if a drunk armed with a knife attempts to stab a police officer who is attempting to arrest him for being drunk in public, there are obviously numerous other methods open to the officer for subduing such a drunk without shooting him. If, however, a police officer is confronted with a house robbery suspect who has just raped and stabbed a defenceless female complainant and who comes at him with the knife and the police officer has no knowledge of who the suspect is, that is, his name and address, so as to be able to arrest him later,. At the same time he is also not able to make use of a police dog, pepper spray or baton, at that instance, he may use deadly force to either effect arrest or defend himself against serious harm. Once again, obviously in my opinion, if the assailant is shot more than once in the back, there will certainly be questions asked in court as to why this was necessary. Wth more than 43 years law-enforcement experience, and in that time only having had to discharge my firearm on six occasions, resulting in no deaths on any occasion, the shootings were found to be justified. I believe that no law-enforcement officer carrying out his/her lawful duties needs to hesitate in regards to the above-mentioned situations. The law was changed, as far as I am concerned, due to the fact that, in the past far too often suspects were shot for petty offences, or riddled with bullets, even though they posed no further threat. So, to clarify any confusion, the court states quite clearly that a police officer may shoot a suspect if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect either poses an immediate threat of serious bodily harm to him or any member of the public, or has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily harm, and a suspect fleeing the scene armed has fallen into the category of these two rulings. Declan Condon, Reserve Inspector, SAPS Primrose, Germiston --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] . -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
