Tuesday, 24 June 2008

No right to self-defence

24/06/2008 13:00  - (SA)

Blood Doll, News24 User

A report posted on News24 today states that a Rustenburg man will be charged with attempted murder and murder. This after he had wounded one intruder and killed another who had invaded his home and tied up his young daughters and domestic worker.

The question is this: has South Africa denigrated from the land of milk and honey into the land of crime and irony? You can now be charged with murder for defending those you love and that which is yours.

This is not a new occurrence, of course. The new dispensation has placed the rights of the criminal over those of law abiding citizens since its inception. That baby should have been thrown out with the bathwater. It seems its views of equality has become somewhat skewed; for at one stage human rights were the backbone of the ANC government's constitution, the unalienable right of every individual to live without bias or oppression.

It seems those rights also extend to animals, if not more so. They shoot horses, don't they? So, why may we not shoot the animals that rape our children and invade our homes? Has self defence and the right to security been omitted from their so-called Freedom Charter? It seems so.

Setting a prededent

The right to rape and pillage seems to have taken precedence and us, as law abiding citizens, have but one right - to do nothing. The government has turned us into voyeurs, forcing us to watch some sick snuff movie with those we love as the participants. Thanks, Thabo.

It seems ironic that the government can spend billions of rands on weapons to defend our country's borders against and unseen enemy yet it will not allow us, the tax-payer who funded it, to do the very same: to defend our borders. Moreover, our enemy is not an imaginary or future threat; they are very real and they're invading our borders, our homes, now. And, thanks to our government's derisory laws, we are left helpless.

Not one to regard the Americans as doyens of civil society, I have to admit sometimes they get it right. The state of Ohio has just passed a bill, Senate Bill 184, aptly referred to as the "Castle Doctrine". It purports to: "...establish a presumption that a person acted in self-defence when shooting someone who unlawfully enters his or her home or occupied vehicle."

Does that sound familiar? Of course it does, it happens everyday in good old SA. The UK has a similar if watered down version called the Intruder Law. This is exactly the type of legislation we need in this beautiful country to avoid law abiding citizens from being charged as common criminals just because we defended our own.


Legalcity.net posts this warning: The question of when you may use a firearm on an intruder is an extremely hazy one that even lawyers approach with caution. Generally, a firearm may not be fired in a municipal area although its use in self-defence is sometimes considered justifiable.

Note, however, that you would not necessarily be justified in shooting someone who enters your house illegally, even if you believe that the intruder is a thief who may harm you. The fact that a suspected thief or burglar runs away and refuses to heed your command to stop is not sufficient reason for you to shoot at him or her.

The right to defend oneself against threats both foreign and domestic have become a misnomer. Are you listening, Thabo Mbeki?

Perhaps if you stayed in the country a bit longer you'd notice the invasion.


No comments: