Our Courts on the Right to Life and Self Defence to Give Effect to That Right

[Wanderin' Zero]

"Self-defence is recognised by all legal systems. Where a choice has to be made between the lives of two or more people, the life of the innocent is given preference over the life of the aggressor. This is consistent with s 33(1). To deny the innocent person the right to act in self-defence would deny to that individual his or her right to life."

Per the Constitutional Court in S v Makwanyana & another 1995 (3) SA 391 (CC) para 138 and quoted today with approval by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Maimela v Makhado Municipality (269/10) [2011] ZASCA 69 (20 May 2011).

[Bushboy]

Excellent!

[Skaaphaas]

Zero, what was the Maimela matter about? Does not seem to be a criminal matter?

[Wanderin' Zero]

Zero, what was the Maimela matter about? Does not seem to be a criminal matter?

It was about the defence of necessity - which is not the same as self defence. You can find the whole judgement here: http://www.justice.gov.za/sca/judgme...ca2011-069.pdf

[Bushboy]

The judgement makes interesting reading, neatly explaining the difference between "self defence" legal defence and the defence of necessity. The bottom line is, a firearm saved the defendant's life.

[Rudes]

Thanx for the headsup WZ!

As a layman I was never aware of the original 1995 CC judgment. It is actually quite a significant judgment in my opinion.

One often hear the GunFree loonies base their case on the right to life parts in the constitution (The constitution guarantees the right to life which means you are not allowed to kill someone in self defence which means you should not be allowed to own firearms to defend yourself)

Even the FCA uses the right to life as one of its pillars as to why firearms should be controlled (The availability of firearms lead to violence and violence threatens your right to life and security of the person)

In my opinion every application for a SD firearm should include a reference to the 1995 CC judgement as part of the motivation (The constitution gives me the right to life and this judgement upholds my right to defend that life. Then motivate why the firearm you want is the best tool you can use for defending your life)

I found an electronic copy of the original 1995 CC judgement here: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/1995/3.pdf

Paragraph 138 on page 89 is the important bit.

[Wanderin' Zero]

Thanx for the headsup WZ!

As a layman I was never aware of the original 1995 CC judgment. It is actually quite a significant judgment in my opinion.

One often hear the GunFree loonies base their case on the right to life parts in the constitution (The constitution guarantees the right to life which means you are not allowed to kill someone in self defence which means you should not be allowed to own firearms to defend yourself)

Even the FCA uses the right to life as one of its pillars as to why firearms should be controlled (The availability of firearms lead to violence and violence threatens your right to life and security of the person)

In my opinion every application for a SD firearm should include a reference to the 1995 CC judgement as part of the motivation (The constitution gives me the right to life and this judgement upholds my right to defend that life. Then motivate why the firearm you want is the best tool you can use for defending your life)

I found an electronic copy of the original 1995 CC judgement here: http://www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/1995/3.pdf

Paragraph 138 on page 89 is the important bit.

The Constitutional Court has also said that a right without the means to give effect to that right is meaningless. If I have some time at some point I will look for the citation. In the meantime I am sure that everyone here can connect the conceptual dots.

[Emilio]

in the document it says :

"It suffices to say that
necessity, unlike self-defence, does not require the defendant’s action to have been
directed at the perpetrator of an unlawful attack. It is invoked where the action, or conduct,
of the defendant was ‘directed against an innocent person for the purpose of protecting an
interest of the actor or a third party (including the innocent person) against a dangerous
situation’.

hhhhmmmm... verrrry veerrrrryyyy interesting....

---------- Post added at 11:55 ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 ----------

HEY! BIG T!!!

Quote from the document:
"In these circumstances, I fail to see how it could be argued that it
was not reasonable for him to have fired randomly in the direction of the crowd, if indeed
he did, when people in that very crowd were perpetrating the murderous attack on him. It
may well be, and in all probability is so, that most of the crowd were not close enough to
physically participate in the assault. But it is precisely these situations that the defence of
necessity seeks to cover."

Now I am not saying we should be randomly shooting Big T's 12 yr old sprog, but somebody does agree with me that if you cant get a "target lock" on a troll and you MUST fire to stop an unlawful attack that will result in your death, then you ought to fire away. In this case it was a mob...

Interesting....

---------- Post added at 11:57 ---------- Previous post was at 11:55 ----------

Footnote: It is Big Ts responsibility to move his famous 12 yr old away from murderous mobs Make a U turn if you see a municipal mob

[BigT]

Dude when you kill your own child I promise to laugh and dance.

[Wismit]

Dude when you kill your own child I promise to laugh and dance.

OUCH !!!!

Thats not nice !!