Article: "Sandton restaurant shooting claims three lives, leaves 4 people wounded"

[Toxxyc]

The police actually cowered when the shooting broke out at the restaurant.
https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-t...andton-eatery/

I am not shocked or surprised. Just disappointed and pissed off.

Yeah shocked or surprised would have been shocking and surprising. These days the vast majority of SAPS members are there to issue case numbers for insurance, and very little more.

[Branden88]

https://firearmsguardian.co.za/2025/...rant-shootout/

[vinmarvin]

https://firearmsguardian.co.za/2025/...rant-shootout/

I read a few references in their article about protecting property. Is that even still a thing or must there be special circumstances?

[BBCT]

I read a few references in their article about protecting property. Is that even still a thing or must there be special circumstances?

If it's your job to protect other people and their property (eg if you're an armed security guard) that's fine. If you're in your own home preventing someone from stealing your 56 inch TV set, not so fine. In between there is a whole lot of grey area that will be be debated at length in court.

[Branden88]

If it's your job to protect other people and their property (eg if you're an armed security guard) that's fine. If you're in your own home preventing someone from stealing your 56 inch TV set, not so fine. In between there is a whole lot of grey area that will be be debated at length in court.

Exactly as for one example if there's a riot in your suburb and one of the rioter's starts throwing "petrol bombs" over walls towards the houses, and you're home inside the house.

[Bobz_1989]

I read a few references in their article about protecting property. Is that even still a thing or must there be special circumstances?

Lets put it like this, the FCA says that the ATTACK needs to be imminent, illegal, and directed at you or your legal interest. If someone breaks in or whatever and threatens to harm people the attack is imminent and directed. If someone breaks in and tries to steal your tv there in no attack and hence no shooting, however if you legally try to stop them without deadly force and they turn and direct an attack at you the whole situation changes into an illegal attack directed at a person/you, respond as necessary. Do not pursue them beyond stopping the attack.

[SSP]

Lets put it like this, the FCA says that the ATTACK needs to be imminent, illegal, and directed at you or your legal interest. If someone breaks in or whatever and threatens to harm people the attack is imminent and directed. If someone breaks in and tries to steal your tv there in no attack and hence no shooting, however if you legally try to stop them without deadly force and they turn and direct an attack at you the whole situation changes into an illegal attack directed at a person/you, respond as necessary. Do not pursue them beyond stopping the attack.

The Firearms Control Act says no such thing.

[Bobz_1989]

The Firearms Control Act says no such thing.

I thought it was defined there but I stand to be corrected, however my point still stands no matter where the legal definition is derived from. Those are the criteria spelt out for private defence.