Marikana murder charges: South Africa minister wants explanation
-
BTW, we 'inherited' the common cause law from England.
England, Wales and NIreland got rid of it in '57 (but E & W have partially reinstated it, sort of, in some circumstances). Canada is all blurry on it. The US has it in some jurisdictions in some circumstances. However, according to most US TV cop shows, it is usually used to coerce accomplices into ratting out their co-criminals.
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
England, Wales and NIreland got rid of it in '57 (but E & W have partially reinstated it, sort of, in some circumstances). Canada is all blurry on it. The US has it in some jurisdictions in some circumstances. However, according to most US TV cop shows, it is usually used to coerce accomplices into ratting out their co-criminals.
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
GenJerDan wrote:
However, according to most US TV cop shows, it is usually used to coerce accomplices into ratting out their co-criminals.
I suspect this may be a motive in threatening innocent miners with murder; rat out your union leaders and get to keep your precarious and underpaid job.
-
South Africa's justice minister has demanded an explanation after 270 miners were charged with the murder of their colleagues who were shot by police.
:wtf: Seriously, W.T.F? Police shoot 34 miners and then charge their fellow miners with the deaths? How in the name of elephanted up stupid inbreeding mother-lovers did they even think they'd get away with this? Please, can anyone explain this to me, I would really like to know.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Police shoot 34 miners and then charge their fellow miners with the deaths?
Can't speak to that jurisdiction but as one explanation in the US many places have what is called "Felony Murder". Basic idea is the if you commit a serious crime and during the commission of that crime someone dies, regardless of how, then you get charged with murder. As an example, if you jump the counter in a bank (so no gun), grab some cash, flee in a car and a police car chases you and the police car runs over a pedestrian then you would be charged with felony murder.
-
Fun game, let me do some more analogies. Those miners wouldn't have gotten shot if they hadn't been miners (even if they would have been shot, it wouldn't be miners getting shot), so it's really their employers fault for hiring them. They wouldn't have gotten shot if they hadn't been born, so it's really their parents fault. They wouldn't have gotten shot if they had had no reason to riot, so it's really the employer/govt/dunno's fault. If someone had dragged them away from the riot, they wouldn't have gotten shot, so it's really everyone's fault.
harold aptroot wrote:
Fun game, let me do some more analogies.
It isn't an analogy - but more likely a law. Yours on the other hand are not. And many people find such laws just when a loved one of theirs is killed, regardless of how, when someone else is committing a crime.
-
sucram wrote:
what are 40 or so cops supposed to do when an angry mob of 3000 + workers approach them waving machettes?
They are supposed to behave as professionals, not as panicked and uncoordinated idiots with machine guns.
Brady Kelly wrote:
They are supposed to behave as professionals, not as panicked and uncoordinated idiots with machine guns.
What? Exactly what country do you live in where armed police would not open fire when someone runs at them waving a machete? Much less a large group? Shooting is exactly what "professional" police officers would do.
-
They are supposed to shoot them one at a time in the hope that their mates pull back. I understand the cops' pov but I thing that a bunch of urban street constables were deployed against an angry and violent crowd. I do not for one second blame the policemen on the ground when this took place. I blame the people that deployed only average cops into what could have been and did become a proper combat situation.
Brady Kelly wrote:
They are supposed to shoot them one at a time in the hope that their mates pull back.
Again what? In the footage I saw, a group of men was RUNNING at the police officers. And it wasn't a long distance either. Have you ever shot a gun? Have you participated in a combat exercise with a gun? Have you looked at any police or military training materials?
Brady Kelly wrote:
and did become a proper combat situation.
And you think that regular military would have done what exactly to this running mob? Military troops might be able to shoot single shot but in it takes very little time to go full auto and I have never seen anything to suggest that a military force in the same situation would have not have reacted in exactly the same way. Oh wait, there might have been one difference...a military force might have killed MORE people.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Fun game, let me do some more analogies.
It isn't an analogy - but more likely a law. Yours on the other hand are not. And many people find such laws just when a loved one of theirs is killed, regardless of how, when someone else is committing a crime.
-
In SA we have an extremely egalitarian constitution and very fair courts. This is a pathetic gesture by government to justify their collusion with capitalist machines. I am confident justice will prevail and our courts will find this as laughable as we do.
Brady Kelly wrote:
In SA we have an extremely egalitarian constitution and very fair courts. This is a pathetic gesture by government to justify their collusion with capitalist machines.
I am confident justice will prevail and our courts will find this as laughable as we do.Good luck with that. In the US in such a situation the legal system would be more than willing to put others behind bars if they could show that they encouraged those that were killed into attacking the police. There are laws specifically about that.
-
I think it goes something along the lines of They were rioting We had to shoot them to get them to stop rioting If they hadn't been rioting, we wouldn't have shot them Therefore it is their fault we shot them Makes perfect sense to me. Think of it in terms of alcohol, it isn't your fault if you drink to much, it is the gin maker's fault for making it for you to drink. OT: Speaking of gin, had a fantastic martini last night. Gin, twist of lemon, stirred, nice and cold without the flakes of ice, and shown a picture of vermouth for just a few seconds.
-
England, Wales and NIreland got rid of it in '57 (but E & W have partially reinstated it, sort of, in some circumstances). Canada is all blurry on it. The US has it in some jurisdictions in some circumstances. However, according to most US TV cop shows, it is usually used to coerce accomplices into ratting out their co-criminals.
No dogs or cats are in the classroom. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
Nagy Vilmos wrote:
Police shoot 34 miners and then charge their fellow miners with the deaths?
Can't speak to that jurisdiction but as one explanation in the US many places have what is called "Felony Murder". Basic idea is the if you commit a serious crime and during the commission of that crime someone dies, regardless of how, then you get charged with murder. As an example, if you jump the counter in a bank (so no gun), grab some cash, flee in a car and a police car chases you and the police car runs over a pedestrian then you would be charged with felony murder.
Regardless how? That would mean that if someone robbed a bank, and 100 miles away someone dies of old age, the bank robber killed them. Even for a law, that makes very little sense. Surely the law is not "regardless how", but more like "if it otherwise wouldn't have happened"?
-
Some thoughts from a very good friend of mine: I've been biting my tongue now since it happened so that i can get a better perspective. Here is my take: I was trained and taught riot control in the SADF. I've been on both sides, although not comparative, are similar. I was sjambokked and gassed and hosed down at Wit's when Winnie Mandela spoke there in 1987. I've also been in riot control via SADF in later years and have been in control of social unrest in various places including where we were ambushed in Thembisa and Alex. This is what I think happened: There was clearly no Command and Control on the SAPS side. The commander never anticipated a change in direction of an impi style battle formation and obviously had no plan to counter it. If you look at the video footage, the SAPS were caught off guard by being outflanked. Emotions were very high. Both unions have since the start, distanced themselves from what was happening. Now, I know from experience, no public protests are as random as us whitey liberals want to think. The fact that the protesters initiated movement on the police line, armed and aggressive meant it was not a peaceful protest.Escalation! However, the Amaberete should NOT have been there. When the firing took place, there were cops firing from BEHIND each other, no fire disciple, no secondaries, no support where they were outflanked. Please explain to me that the movements of the strikers were NOT planned? I was trained to respond like this. Form a line, show of force.a designed marksman gets a command if a firearm is spotted: " Marksman 1 (or 2 or 3 or whomever), man in green jacket, 2 o clock, armed, one shot only, FIRE. Send in a capture squad. These procedures were not in place and probably not even trained for. The marksman was there, the white cop with a scope on his rifle. With a panicking idiot behind him returning fire on full auto. Did anyone see the shots fired at the police? I did. AT the end of the day, this was a staged, well orchestrated disaster that has BOTH parties to blame.One side was inept, the other ruthless and cunning. At the end of the day, this was not a random event IMO. This was political and planned.
Brady Kelly wrote:
There was clearly no Command and Control on the SAPS side
Which might or might not have prevented it. However it doesn't excuse the actions of the protesters once they took the initiative. Attempting to do that is doing nothing better than attempting to claim that they are children and not adults responsible for their owns actions.
Brady Kelly wrote:
These procedures were not in place and probably not even trained for.
The marksman was there, the white cop with a scope on his rifle. With
a panicking idiot behind him returning fire on full auto. Did anyone
see the shots fired at the police?So you shoot one person. And the mob continues to come. Then you shoot two? Exactly what distance did your practice exercise have the protesters at? And what do you mean by "a scope"? What does a scope have to do with a distance of perhaps 40 ft?
Brady Kelly wrote:
AT the end of the day,
At the end of the day a group of adults made the decision to attack another group and was shot for it. Adults can make such decisions. But you don't get to blame the other group for shooting them.
Brady Kelly wrote:
this was not a random event IMO
I can only suppose that you think that someone was hoping that something would happen rather than suggesting that this specific event was planned.
-
Regardless how? That would mean that if someone robbed a bank, and 100 miles away someone dies of old age, the bank robber killed them. Even for a law, that makes very little sense. Surely the law is not "regardless how", but more like "if it otherwise wouldn't have happened"?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
Regardless how?
My statement was preceded with "during the commission of that crime someone dies".
harold aptroot wrote:
but more like "if it otherwise wouldn't have happened"?
Incorrect. Google "Lisl Auman".
jschell wrote:
My statement was preceded with "during the commission of that crime someone dies".
During implies a relation, not just a time? That's not rhetorical, I'd like to know for sure. I tried to look it up but I found nothing conclusive.
jschell wrote:
Google "Lisl Auman".
Ok, the first hit is that that weird-ass conviction was reversed by the supreme court. It didn't happen "during" any crime either (but after one), unless sitting in the back of a police car is now a crime.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
They are supposed to shoot them one at a time in the hope that their mates pull back.
Again what? In the footage I saw, a group of men was RUNNING at the police officers. And it wasn't a long distance either. Have you ever shot a gun? Have you participated in a combat exercise with a gun? Have you looked at any police or military training materials?
Brady Kelly wrote:
and did become a proper combat situation.
And you think that regular military would have done what exactly to this running mob? Military troops might be able to shoot single shot but in it takes very little time to go full auto and I have never seen anything to suggest that a military force in the same situation would have not have reacted in exactly the same way. Oh wait, there might have been one difference...a military force might have killed MORE people.
jschell wrote:
Have you ever shot a gun? Have you participated in a combat exercise with a gun? Have you looked at any police or military training materials?
Yes, yes, and yes. And the friend of mine whose view I posted, which you seem to have mistaken for my personal input despite my stating it wasn't, was actively involved in live combat during much of his military conscription, where I was lucky enough to only have ever been involved in training.
-
jschell wrote:
My statement was preceded with "during the commission of that crime someone dies".
During implies a relation, not just a time? That's not rhetorical, I'd like to know for sure. I tried to look it up but I found nothing conclusive.
jschell wrote:
Google "Lisl Auman".
Ok, the first hit is that that weird-ass conviction was reversed by the supreme court. It didn't happen "during" any crime either (but after one), unless sitting in the back of a police car is now a crime.
-
How is "it isn't your fault if you drink to much, it is the gin maker's fault for making it for you to drink" not an analogy?
-
jschell wrote:
Have you ever shot a gun? Have you participated in a combat exercise with a gun? Have you looked at any police or military training materials?
Yes, yes, and yes. And the friend of mine whose view I posted, which you seem to have mistaken for my personal input despite my stating it wasn't, was actively involved in live combat during much of his military conscription, where I was lucky enough to only have ever been involved in training.
Brady Kelly wrote:
Yes, yes, and yes.
And so with a running mob at 40 ft you were trained, as a group, for a single member to shoot a single runner? And wait to see if the rest of them stopped?
Brady Kelly wrote:
And the friend of mine whose view I posted, which you seem to have mistaken for my personal input despite my stating it wasn't,
I quoted exactly what I was responding to. And there was no qualification from you, for what I quoted, that suggested that it wasn't your opinion.
Brady Kelly wrote:
And the friend of mine
And my friend, also in the military and with combat experience, has no problem taking careful aim and delivering a single shot to stop a target. Of course that happened when he was acting a sniper and doing his shooting from a lot further away than 40 ft.
-
harold aptroot wrote:
How is "it isn't your fault if you drink to much, it is the gin maker's fault for making it for you to drink" not an analogy?
Because drinking isn't a crime. While robbing a bank is.
-
Brady Kelly wrote:
Yes, yes, and yes.
And so with a running mob at 40 ft you were trained, as a group, for a single member to shoot a single runner? And wait to see if the rest of them stopped?
Brady Kelly wrote:
And the friend of mine whose view I posted, which you seem to have mistaken for my personal input despite my stating it wasn't,
I quoted exactly what I was responding to. And there was no qualification from you, for what I quoted, that suggested that it wasn't your opinion.
Brady Kelly wrote:
And the friend of mine
And my friend, also in the military and with combat experience, has no problem taking careful aim and delivering a single shot to stop a target. Of course that happened when he was acting a sniper and doing his shooting from a lot further away than 40 ft.
jschell wrote:
I quoted exactly what I was responding to. And there was no qualification from you, for what I quoted, that suggested that it wasn't your opinion.
Pardon me, I intended the heading of "Some thoughts from a very good friend of mine:" to convey that. I don't know how, but next time I will try my best to make it more explicit.