I was haunted all day by the story of Atlegang Phalane’s death. The three-year-old was killed by a police bullet while he was sitting in the back of a car with his uncle. Police claimed the uncle was a suspect but of what we don’t know.

The most chilling line I read was in The Star. The little boy’s mother was quoted saying “I stood there watching the man who had just shot my son sucking a lollipop as if nothing had happened…”

Sucking a lollipop! If not Kojak, who is this guy?

A confused cop perhaps.

The Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation today released a statement saying that “it is reasonable to believe that this breakdown of control is due to a climate of confusion which has been created by statements which have been made over the last year, and particularly in the last couple of months, by senior politicians and police leaders.”

Here is the CSVR statement:

Killing of Atlegang Aphane – Urgent steps needed to address SAPS lethal force crisis of control
The killing of a three year old boy, Atlegang Aphane by a police officer in another apparent case of police recklessness confirms that there is a crisis of control in the SAPS relating to the use of lethal force. Saturday’s killing is one of numerous incidents that have followed the killing of Olga Kekana on October 11 in which police have allegedly been implicated in the reckless, or flagrantly unlawful, use of lethal force.
These incidents are not random events but reflect an overall breakdown of control over the use of lethal force within the SAPS. It is reasonable to believe that this breakdown of control is due to a climate of confusion which has been created by statements which have been made over the last year, and particularly in the last couple of months, by senior politicians and police leaders.
CSVR recognises that there is a serious problem of violent crime in South Africa and believe that SAPS members need to be provided with the appropriate support to enable them to deal professionally with situations of danger in which they confront violent, and in some cases heavily armed, criminals. However heated political rhetoric which encourages the reckless or unlawful use of lethal force does not serve to support police officers but rather feeds into confusing them and potentially placing them in legal jeopardy.

The amendment to Section 49 of the Criminal Procedure Act
CSVR is of the opinion that the current law on the use of lethal force for arrest is difficult to interpret and may be a contributing factor to the current climate of confusion. The worthy principles which are embodied in the current law need to be articulated in clear and concrete terms so that police officers can better understand them. We support the need for amendment of the current legislation so long as the amendments contribute to greater legal clarity and are within the parameters of the constitution.
The amendment of the legislation needs to be regarded as a priority. But such amendment also needs to follow the necessary processes of consultation and therefore cannot address the current urgent and pressing need for clarity.

Need for urgent use of force policy statement
In addition the legal amendment will not clarify numerous issues around which there is currently confusion and which contribute not only to unreasonable or unjustified shootings but to placing members of the public, and police officers, in danger. These issues include:
• Warning shots – it is our understanding that many professional police agencies forbid the use of warning shots on the basis of the danger which these pose to members of the public. Statement by the President and the Commissioner of Police have alluded to the issue of warning shots but unfortunately not contributed to clarity around when if at all they should be used.
• Verbal warnings – in situations where police officers are legally justified in using lethal force against a fleeing suspect police officers should where possible give verbal warnings to fleeing suspects prior to the use of lethal force against them.
• The use of lethal force against moving vehicles – our understanding is that many professional police agencies discourage the use of lethal force against a moving vehicle.
• The expectation that police officers carry firearms while off-duty and that they use they intervene in crimes in progress when they are off duty – we understand that interventions by police officers when they are off duty are a major cause of the killings of police. Many professional police agencies advise their members against such interventions motivating that they should see their obligations in such situations as, where possible, to call in support.
CSVR therefore believes that there is an urgent need for the SAPS to put forward an overall statement of current policy relating to the use of lethal force. In addition to ensuring that there is greater clarity on the issues listed such a policy should emphasise the high level principles which should guide police officers at all times in situations of potential use of lethal force. Most importantly this should emphasise that police officers need to be guided by a reverence for human life which implies taking the necessary steps to optimise their own safety and avoiding the use of lethal force if it is likely to place the lives of innocent people in danger. Furthermore it also implies that the principle justification for using lethal force should be to protect human life.
Such a policy will enable political and police leaders to provide clarity and direction to police officers relating to how they should use their firearms. This is important as police preparedness and professionalism in the use of lethal force is critical in the current climate of serious violent crime.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.