Police: We've been shooting civilians for years

Den how the h*ll do you let the police shoot to kill if you knew that they cant shoot?
How does "shoot to kill" help in this regard?
Why dont you subject the criminals to death penalty instead of doubling the death rate of the civilians? At least criminals might be scared that they will be hanged to death.
It is not fair for anyone to lose their loved one due to incompetency and its not even fair for us for our taxes to be used to compensate the bereaved families.
Discontinue shoot to kill immediately and take the force for training. How do you implement something that you do not have the skill for?

awesome. doesn't get better than this.

Shooting us for years? Oh, so it's all OK then...

Hey South Africa, just think of it as acting in our own Dirty Hary movie.
Without the popcorn and the sticky coke container.

Such arrogance!!!!!! And then if they are sued they have the cheek to close ranks and let the law suit run for years and years. That way they can wear you down and drag you down financially. (personal experience) They know how the system works hence the "I don't give a sh.t attitude). Even better is they disarm the law abiding citizens sothat the POWER can be theirs and theirs alone. This is The Wild West and sadly not just the movie!!!

It is to be hoped that all will heed the wise words above of Deputy Justice Minister Andries Nell.

The death of innocent people caught in crossfire is to be regretted but the choice is between these relatively few and the many potential casualties arising from escalating violent crime. This trend must be reversed in the general good.

All lives, except those of criminals, count and the police are reasonably entitled to employ minimum force to achieve law and order and to protect themselves, if necessary, by opening fire. Criminals bring their vulnerability upon themselves.

The essential problem seems to be inadequate training and perhaps, a need for better selection procedures when recruiting.

It is actually not such a problem, it's just the way that they show very little remorse at the problems and absolutely no empathy to the victims that is criminal of the justice people.

Sure tell that to the mother who's bureying her three year old this week end. Oops! is what this sounds like. Just becasue its been happening does not make it right. Any police officer who is incapable of disarming a three year old child. Is perhaps mentily retarded and should not be allowed out in sociaty for a VERY long time. Enough is enough.

This is the sensationalist rubbish that is being referred to regarding media reports. And this goes beyond incompetence on the side of journalists. The journalists here at M&G display utter disdain for the truth and would say anything to sell newspapers (or generate online clicks).

The journalist’s interpretation of comments is completely nonsensical, misleading and NOT true. What was said is clear, “… Over the last three years the ministry has noticed an increased number of shootings of civilians by police…” The journalist takes this to mean. The shooting of civilians …started at least 3 years ago.

The title is based on a deliberate misinterpretation of comments made and is really unjustifiable.

And you have the guts to call this rubbish public interest.

Police do not shoot civilians intentionally. It's one of the occupational hazards that civilians will be caught in the crossfire.

Would you rather have dead police officers because they did not shoot at criminals. Amid the confused comments in this site, we should see the bigger picture and rest assured that at least criminals are being pursued.

ephraim, no crossfire here dude - cops aimed specifically at: a 3 year old infant. dead. a female driver. dead. a dude smoking a peaceful blunt. dead.
no crossfire.
that obscures the bigger picture a touch.

It would appear then that section 49 is irrelevant if the police are already shooting at will. If bystanders are being caught in police cross-fire it is evident they are already shooting first and asking questions later.

My guess is that this whole thing is about legally covering the police rather than enabling them to counter crime.

Psychological research has repeatedly shown that statements that are PERCEIVED to give permission to aggression and violence lead to most human beings (not just police officers) acting more violently. The point is that exactly what is said, is far less important than the message that is received.

Leaders need to unambiguously condemn the abuse of police powers!

South Africans--all South Africans--must reject the shoot-to-kill stance; the job of police officers is always to apprehend criminals and charge them in courts of law. They, as such, have no right to kill anyone, save for those rare instances when their own lives are in danger, and, hence, have to use deadly force. Otherwise, this is a sleepery slope stance that even those whoare wont to applaud what some in the Zuma government are saying should think twice about this; specifically, once police officers embark on this route, where do they stop?

So, do we accept this? Is this the price we pay for an unthinking, gut reaction, incomprehensible reponses to crime. Isn't there a better approach. Surely! The best doctors, the best dentists, the best in so many areas... South Africans, and this is the approach to crime we come up with.

Give me a break. We can do better!

Yes this is the price WE pay for the idiots who 4 times have voted in the ANC that encouraged crime before taking power. Then were lax on enforceing the law. Fired left right and centre in the name of political expediency and transformation. The SAPS a model of transformatiuon.

Worried about police brutality? The Canadian police are apparently licensed to kill people by electrocution and with guns!

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Shocking+arrest+video+shown+coroner+inquiry/2230191/story.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DsWmue9ixN00

http://jonathanturley.org/2009/05/29/police-tase-and-kill-16-year-old-boy-after-he-runs-from-traffic-stop/

And for good measure, compare the corruption indexes of South Africa and Canada!

Just one moment. What the hell do they mean by 'civilians'? This implies that the police are not civilians. This is either just crass stupidity (borrowed from the USA) or very frightening news.

The only people in SA who are not civilians are members of the armed forces - the army, navy and air force. Policemen and women are ordinary citizens, they are civilians. Consult the Act and you will see that.

I am sick and tired of hearing and reading lies that insidiously turn into truisms through false usage. In this case it is a damned dangerous thing. That Afro-Irish policewoman should bloody well know better.

Screen the potential policmanwoman before engaging, train them well and get the courts up and running and make the prisons scary places that are not deemed 3 meals a day, no work, no worries and plasma tv oh and if you have aids - you are guaranteed antiretrovirals, holiday venues. That should scare them off.
Chain gangs would be better usage of their time and our money as well. Let them work for a living - they might enjoy it.

@ Sue Topham. Just so. And I recommend deportation to the Guano Islands for corrupt public officials -- from the TOP down.