Robber shot dead at funeral parlour

[camouflage762]

Robber shot dead at funeral parlour

2010-09-29 22:36









Related Links

• Suspected robber shot dead
• Mob beats robber to death
• Man arrested over murdered robber

Johannesburg - A man was shot dead when he attempted to steal a bag containing money at a funeral parlour in Edenvale on Wednesday, Gauteng police said.

Warrant Officer Cobus Holloway said four men in a white Polo followed a man and his mother, who had withdrawn a substantial amount of money from a bank, to the funeral parlour.

Three of the men tried to snatch the handbag containing money.


A scuffle ensued as the woman attempted to hold on to her bag.

One of the men pointed a firearm at the people wrestling for the bag.

The robbers then grabbed another bag which did not contain money.

As they fled towards their getaway car, a member of the public fired a shot killing one of them instantly.


The others sped away in the Polo.

Police gave chase and arrested two of them while one managed to run away.
Three firearms were found in the car. The car was linked to two robbery incidents in Johannesburg, Holloway said.

- SAPA

[G-force]

Very convenient place to die!Well done to the shooter.

[shooter]

Very convenient place to die!Well done to the shooter.

Bwhahaha! +1

[Scuba Steve]

my only concern is: will the civilian who fired at fleeing criminals go with a simple pat on the back - or is he going to be in serious trouble?

[b20]

my only concern is: will the civilian who fired at fleeing criminals go with a simple pat on the back - or is he going to be in serious trouble?

Unfortunately, I reckon he is going to need to prove that a life threatening attack was happening, or immediately about to happen. Might be difficult if they were fleeing.

What do our legal sages have to say?

[G-force]

The Cops are allowed to "shoot to kill",so why can't we?

[Skietgat]

Thats good shooting.

[b20]

The Cops are allowed to "shoot to kill",so why can't we?

It's not about whether he "shot to kill". Its about whether any shot was (legally) justified.

I am happy as anyone that we have one less armed criminal out there. My concern, however, is how the law will be applied to this case. As I see it, the law is clear that ANYONE (police or civilian) may shoot (and kill) in order to stop a life threatening attack that is imminent.

"Shooting to kill" is an unnecessary repetition, because any shot should be meant to kill. If it is not necessary to kill, then do NOT shoot.

[G-force]

It's not about whether he "shot to kill". Its about whether any shot was (legally) justified.

I am happy as anyone that we have one less armed criminal out there. My concern, however, is how the law will be applied to this case. As I see it, the law is clear that ANYONE (police or civilian) may shoot (and kill) in order to stop a life threatening attack that is imminent.

"Shooting to kill" is an unnecessary repetition, because any shot should be meant to kill. If it is not necessary to kill, then do NOT shoot.

I understand,was attempting to be sarcastic.

[b20]

I understand,was attempting to be sarcastic.

Sorry mate. My bad.