|
JOBS | TENDERS | DATING |
|
|
THE SMART NEWS SOURCE | Feb 10 2012 06:28 | LAST UPDATED Feb 10 2012 06:28 |
|
The police are dealing with mixed messages from their superiors, write Ilham Rawoot, Sello S Alcock and Monako Dibetle What the experts say South Africa’s police officers are insecure and uncertain after more than a decade of mixed messages from their superiors. The lives of civilians and of police are now severely at risk because of a “climate of confusion”, said Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation researcher David Bruce this week following the killing of three-year-old Atlegang Phalane by police last Saturday. Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which regulates the use of firearms during arrests, needs to be “articulated in clear and concrete terms so that police officers can better understand it”, Bruce said. Police National Commissioner Bheki Cele continues to take a hard line, saying in a radio interview on Wednesday that criminals should be spoken to “in the language they understand”. Concerning the messages police have been receiving from their political masters, Institute of Security Studies researcher Johan Burger said the climate is akin to an “irresponsible parent” giving car keys to a teenager and saying “go out and if you get stopped by police ‘let me worry about that’”. Police unions say officers resent haphazard political statements that seemingly feed into what the public wants to hear. Oscar Skommere, general secretary of the South African Policing Union, said: “The statements, like ‘shoot to kill’, are confusing and disturb our officers.” Lebogang Phepheng, deputy general secretary of the Police and Prisons Civil Rights Unions, said a single policy statement on the use of force would help to “clear [confusion] up”.  CONTINUES BELOW Skommere said there is a “grey area” in legislation on the police’s use of firearms. “After [an officer] fires, he is left alone to go through hell. There needs to be something in Section 49 about the state protecting police officers.” Security experts said police have had to reverse what they have been told for the past 15 years. “The move from a force to a service in the early Nineties, and continuing restructurings, have had an impact on the morale and discipline of the police,” said Sean Tait, coordinator of the African Policing Civilian Oversight Forum, a non-profit organisation. Phepheng said police know that “shoot to kill is not the answer” and that it leads to low morale and demotivation. “People forget that a police officer is a parent, a sister, a brother. We don’t have a human face. We are the outcasts in the public service.”
Junior police officers say they are anxious and confused A member of the Langlaagte dog unit: “Shoot to kill” statements are very misleading. Today you shoot to kill and tomorrow you are in trouble. So long as this policy is not put on paper I don’t think we as policemen and women should get excited. If you kill a person you will have to provide evidence in court that your life was in danger. We do get orders from our superiors to exert maximum force but only when it is necessary. So some people tend to overdo it and recent incidents are proof. A Muldersdrift police zonal patroller: “Shoot to kill” depends on how volatile the situation is. But what I’ve learned in recent times is that a lot of police officials don’t understand sections 40 and 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act. This is because a lot of candidates fail the training course but they are still made to pass and rushed into the streets with guns and handcuffs. A lot of police officials behave like thugs during operations and are always ready to shoot … not always to kill, but just to shoot. Recent incidents of police shooting innocent civilians and even children are because we misunderstand the “shoot to kill” orders. A Krugersdorp peace official (police in training): I support the idea of applying maximum force when dealing with criminals, especially those who tend to be violent towards the police. Generally, the police are triggerhappy … look at what happens when there are service delivery protests: the police shoot retreating protesters from the back. I think this “shoot to kill” thing is being deliberately misunderstood and I think a lot of innocent people will die because of it. We need to try out non-violent approaches when instilling order, but, because criminals in the township and surrounding squatter camps are violent, we end up applying maximum force. And unfortunately some people end up getting seriously hurt. TOPICS IN THIS ARTICLE
comment guidelines
|
Client Media Releases
IN THIS WEEK'S PAPER
SUBSCRIBE: - Paper edition - iPad edition (NEW!) - Kindle edition - Digital edition Read stories online  @mailandguardian - Top stories & newsflashes @NicDawes - M&G editor Nic Dawes @ChrisRoperZA - Editor, M&G Online @amabhungane - M&G Centre for Investigative Journ @mgfeed - Our whole news feed Advertisements |
Contact Us | About Us | Story Tip-offs | Social media policy | Online Advertising | Print Advertising | Subscriptions | Topics A-Z | Mobile Sites | Privacy Policy | RSS Feed
All material © Mail & Guardian Online. Material may not be published or reproduced in any form without prior written permission.
 |
 |