Police spreading misinformation on Self Defence

[ArmedSandwich]

Came across this tik tok video of a Nelspruit cop giving a “lecture” on self defense at a school in Nelspruit to parents. I couldn’t get through the entire thing because he is just patently wrong on a whole number of things and straight up lies about what an attack constitutes (I still have my competency books and can send them to him to upskill a bit).

Please find it here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...ibextid=RUbZ1f

Hopefully Paul sees this or someone from GOSA because this sort of nonsense leads to people deciding that having a firearm for self defense isn’t worth the effort and then give them up (my own dad has said he won’t use his FA in a self defense situation because he is worried the police will react like this cop has stated they will).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul]

Yeah. He's not entirely wrong.

The first scenario he sketches may be technically correct although I wonder which court would convict a stabbing victim of shooting the stabber?

The actual problem is the reliance on 'false authority'... having a police officer pronounce on possible outcomes of a legal process.

[Daaf Malan]

The first scenario he sketches may be technically correct although I wonder which court would convict a stabbing victim of shooting the stabber?

What that Colonel describes is a stabbed victim who shoots an attacker with a knife. Bearing in mind that there that there is no other circumstantial evidence illustrated, like motive, place of incident, premeditation ect, that Colonel is 100% incorrect.

[oafpatroll]

I don't think that achieving the rank of Colonel in SAPS means one has cleared an enormously high competence threshold. Taking the advice of one on the interpretation of the law seems imprudent for that reason let alone how bad SAPS brass are at conducting their business within it.

[SSP]

I will take medical advice from a pot plant before I take legal advice from the police.

[1911 Guy]

Its a tough one but to put it into spoken terms, he is not completely incorrect, it depends on the scenario. The law , well South African law, has many loop holes on justification of crimes and scenarios, if that scenario is in a restaurant with a knife and gun, the attacker with the knife has to proceed to stab you in order to find it self defense. De-escalation of the situation would be first preference from a courts point of view. Criminal law and firearm competency are two different things although it supposed to be in the same basket.

[oafpatroll]

Its a tough one but to put it into spoken terms, he is not completely incorrect, it depends on the scenario. The law , well South African law, has many loop holes on justification of crimes and scenarios, if that scenario is in a restaurant with a knife and gun, the attacker with the knife has to proceed to stab you in order to find it self defense. De-escalation of the situation would be first preference from a courts point of view. Criminal law and firearm competency are two different things although it supposed to be in the same basket.

That is completely untrue. Neither the (in)competency training material nor any act supports what you are saying. Waiting to get stabbed before you engage the threat with a firearm isn't just not required but it would also be quite far past the 'rather stupid' line.

[lloydb]

So in this situation I should let the assailant stab me first before I can defend myself by using deadly force?

[lloydb]

That is completely untrue. Neither the (in)competency training material nor any act supports what you are saying. Waiting to get stabbed before you engage the threat with a firearm isn't just not required but it would also be quite far past the 'rather stupid' line.

Exactly what I was thinking and taught.

[DaavG]

WHAT CONSTITUTES SELF-DEFENSE IN THE EYES OF THE LAW?

• The attack against you must be unlawful. The attacker must be entering your property illegally, for example, a home invasion or house burglary.
• The attack must occur when the defensive act is committed. Your response to the attack must be while the attack is still occurring. You cannot go to your attacker the day after the attack occurred to attack him/her. This will amount to assault and self-defence cannot be used as a legal defence in Court.
• Your defensive act must be directed towards your attacker. You cannot attack a third party related to your attacker as a means of self-defence.
• Your defensive action must be proportionate to the attack received. Therefore, when applying deadly force, the attack received must also be deadly. For example, when somebody slaps you, you cannot shoot the person and claim it was self-defence.

https://www.bbplaw.attorney/unlawful...%20be%20deadly.

Colonel is full of shite, me thinks...