12 dead, 14 arrested in huge shoot-out in South Africa


PDA






Preacherman
June 25, 2006, 08:40 PM
From News24 ( http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1957850,00.html ):

Four cops die in bloody gang flush-out

25/06/2006 23:11 - (SA)

Borrie la Grange , Beeld

Johannesburg - Four policemen were killed in Jeppestown on Sunday afternoon when they were ambushed by a gang of robbers who had hit a Pick 'n Pay supermarket earlier in the day.

Police followed the gang to a hide-out in Jeppestown, Johannesburg, and a wild shoot-out ensued.

Police shot dead eight robbers and arrested 14 suspects

Inspector Frikkie van Heerden, sergeant Gert Schoeman, constable Victor Mateya and an unnamed sergeant died in the shooting that erupted in and around the house.

Van Heerden's wife, inspector Leonie van Heerden, who was on duty with him, was hit by shrapnel. Another policeman who survived the bloodbath, sergeant Wimpie van Niekerk, was wounded in the leg.

20 robbers hit supermarket

Two members of the West Rand dog unit survived the shoot-out, while 14 members of the gang, which may have carried out several attacks in Johannesburg, eventually gave themselves up.

The drama began about 09:30 when a gang of more than 20 robbers descended on the supermarket in Honeydew on the West Rand.

Robbers held up cashiers and stole tens of thousands of rands, and also wounded a shopper.

One of the robbers was wounded when police tried to stop the gang from escaping, but the others made their getaway in a BMW and minibus taxi.

Saw people with AK-47s

Members of the dog unit questioned the wounded man, and then drove to the gang's hide-out, joined by a Johannesburg flying-squad car.

When they arrived at the Jeppestown house, bullets started flying.

A witness, Emil Coxen, said he turned into the street, and saw people with AK-47s - and then the shots rang out.

Guateng police commissioner Perumal Naidoo praised the policemen's courage.

He said they died to make Gauteng a safer place in which to stay.

"They were brave guys. The robbers were heavily armed and obviously knew what they were doing."

Naidoo said police suspected the gang had been involved in other robberies in the area.

Police spokesperson captain Dennis Adriao said the trapped police were able to call reinforcements. When they arrived, they were also shot at.

The police's intervention unit and the task force were called in to try to get the robbers out of the house.

Sharpshooters and police were deployed all over the suburb and around the nearby Bertha Solomon Hall.

Must have 'small operation'

Police negotiators convinced the gangsters to surrender and task force members entered the house just after 16:30.

The injured Van Heerden and Van Niekerk, who are being treated at Milpark Hospital in Auckland Park, were in a stable condition last night, reports Waldimar Pelser.

Hospital spokesperson Amelda Swartz said Van Heerden was in a general ward, and Van Niekerk was to undergo a "small operation" on Monday morning.

She said Van Niekerk very upset by the deaths of his colleagues.


To put the weapons into perspective: AK-47's and a magazine of bullets can be bought on the streets of many South African townships for the equivalent of $50-$100 - and those are full-auto AK's, rather than the semi-auto clones we're limited to here. One can also buy heavier weapons if desired: there was a robbery a year or two back where RPG's were used to take out a cash delivery vehicle, IIRC.

The "Pick 'n Pay" supermarket chain is basically a South African version of Wal-Mart.

If you enjoyed reading about "12 dead, 14 arrested in huge shoot-out in South Africa" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
BIGDADDYLONGSTROKE
June 25, 2006, 09:05 PM
So robbers were using Aks what were the police using? And do the police have acces to the same type of arsenal that is found of the street? Just wonderin.

ProficientRifleman
June 25, 2006, 09:23 PM
Twenty years ago, before the ANC/communists took over in the R.S.A., this wouldn't have happened. Honest law abiding citizens carried guns routinely at that time and would have stopped the robbery in progress. The little scumbag gangbanger wannabe's knew this also.

Ain't it wonderful now that they have "Peace in South Africa"? The honest law abiding citizens are largely disarmed. They have to apply for a license to possess and register all firearms. Of course you know, self defense is no legitimate reason to own a weapon. They have peace now and only cops and the military should have weapons.

God help us.

1 old 0311
June 25, 2006, 09:26 PM
Well that is close to corect. I understand LEGAL GUN OWNERS are limited to 50 rounds of ammo per year. Sounds like they have the same problem we do: Gun laws only effect the honest.

Kevin

Stand_Watie
June 25, 2006, 10:59 PM
We have peace now ..Twenty years ago, before the ANC/communists took over in the R.S.A., this wouldn't have happened. Honest law abiding citizens carried guns routinely at that time and would have stopped the robbery in progress. The little scumbag gangbanger wannabe's knew this also.

Ain't it wonderful now that they have "Peace in South Africa"? The honest law abiding citizens are largely disarmed. They have to apply for a license to possess and register all firearms. Of course you know, self defense is no legitimate reason to own a weapon. They have peace now and only cops and the military should have weapons.

God help us.

My understanding is that the anti -gun nuts in south africa want to disarm the police while off duty "for their own safety".

American By Blood
June 25, 2006, 11:45 PM
You are correct, Stand_Watie. However, much of this has to do with the corruption that post-apartheid ZA's police force is rife with.

Folks there do not trust the cops (often with good reason) and see every hour they are legally barred from carrying as a safer hour for the common people. Of course, the flawed anti logic about scofflaws obeying firearms regulations applies here.

This is not to say that the fallen LEOs in the above article were crooks. Given the abundance of Dutch surnames it's safe to assume that they were just honest officers trying to preserve some semblance of order in the downward spiral of chaos that their country is trapped in. Sad as it may be, the out of control corruption in ZA's public sector is largely among post-apartheid hires and appointees.

Tory
June 25, 2006, 11:47 PM
"shrapnel?"

Unless the robbers had artillery, this is crap.:scrutiny:

Preacherman
June 26, 2006, 09:43 AM
From News24 ( http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_1958036,00.html ):

Joburg massacre: 3 released

26/06/2006 08:24 - (SA)

Johannesburg - Three of the 14 suspects arrested after a massive shoot-out with police in Jeppestown on Sunday have been released and a weapons cache discovered, police said on Monday.

Four police officers and eight suspects were killed in the shoot-out. Police had tracked the group to the house hours after an armed robbery at a Honeydew Pick 'n Pay store.

Captain Dennis Adriao said the three, two men and a woman, were held for questioning for a few hours then released when police were able to confirm that they weren't connected to the shoot-out group.

"They were staying next door."

Eleven men remain in custody and are expected to appear in court on Tuesday, said Adriao.

He said police were still at the house and early on Monday found a weapons cache.

"We found a large amount of weaponry, high calibre weaponry including AK-47s."

Adriao said the police had been deliberately ambushed by the gang, who'd hidden in different parts of the house.

"They waited for the police to come into the house before opening fire ... It was a real massacre."

He said a policewoman injured in the clash, Inspector Leonie van Heerden, was part of the same dog unit as her husband, Frikkie, who was killed by the gang.

Adriao said she'd been outside helping to secure the area.

"The others, including her husband, went inside looking for suspects."

The names of the other three police officers who died will be released once their next-of-kin have been informed.

The dead suspects have not yet been identified.

Dmack_901
June 26, 2006, 10:25 AM
"shrapnel?"
I assume they mean a ricochet of some sort. But even still, a grenade is not out of the question.

roo_ster
June 26, 2006, 11:31 AM
"shrapnel?"

Unless the robbers had artillery, this is crap.


"We found a large amount of weaponry, high calibre weaponry including AK-47s."
"High caliber weaponry." The commonest military "calibers" higher than 7.62mm are 12.7mm (.50cal) & 14.5mm...both of which can be stoked with explosive/fragmenting rounds.

Of course, the "shrapnel" could very well have been a ricochet or splintering fragments from cover that has been shot and injures the one using the cover.

Serendipity
June 26, 2006, 11:32 AM
A piece of bullet jacket would be properly described as "shrapnel."

HankB
June 26, 2006, 12:43 PM
I had occasion to visit RSA in the late '80s, during their much-publicized "State of Emergency" . . . I really enjoyed my stay. No problems, low crime rate, carried my sidearm concealed . . . on my one encounter with RSA police officers (at a roadblock near the Botswana border) one of them politely inquired whether he might buy my sidearm.

Today, "majority rule" RSA has oppressive gun laws, and I've read that official crime statistics are now considered "secret."

By most accounts, if you want to see RSA's future some 10-15 years hence, just look to Zimbabwe today . . . sad to see civilization eroding. :(

Tory
June 26, 2006, 03:01 PM
"A piece of bullet jacket would be properly described as 'shrapnel.'"

Wrong. :scrutiny:

From the Army website:

This edited version of Major General H. W. Blakely's classic article, "Shrapnel, Semantics and Such," reprinted from the March 1952 Combat Forces Journal, explains in layman's terms the differences between artillery shrapnel and shell fragments.

SEMANTICS, the science of the meaning of words, makes a strange bedfellow for those two old veterans of many wars, ordnance and gunnery. The editors of the Combat Forces Journal brought the three together recently when they commented on the growing use of the word "shrapnel" when actually "shell fragments" is meant.

To start with the ordnance and gunnery side of the picture, the simple fact is that today's journalists, historians, doughboys, and maybe even young artillery shavetails don't know what shrapnel is. It must sound like a good name for shell fragments. But that is speculation; Let's get the facts first.

Line drawing, Shrapnel, Mk 1 for 155 mm gun

Shrapnel, and if anyone can find an essentially different definition anywhere he is ahead of me, is "an artillery projectile provided with a bursting charge, and filled with lead balls, exploded in flight by a time fuze." It was named for its inventor, General Henry Shrapnel of the British Army, who died in l842, so it is no Johnny-come-lately in the fields of ordnance and gunnery...

In pre-World War II days, shrapnel was regarded as the most efficient type of ammunition against troops in the open. The 75mm shrapnel projectile contained 270 lead balls, each about a half-inch in diameter, in a smoke-producing matrix. The 155mm shrapnel packed a lethal load of 800 balls. Each projectile was practically a shotgun which was fired, by means of the time fuze, ideally at the height which would produce the maximum effect on the enemy. At the moment of burst, the bullets shot forward with increased velocity, normally without fracturing the case. The result was a cone of bullets which swept an area generally much larger than the area made dangerous by the burst of a high explosive shell of the same caliber. Even for the relatively small 75mm gun, the effective area at a range of 4,000 yards was about 35 yards wide and 50 yards long. In addition, some balls with equally effective velocity were scattered less densely over a zone roughly twice as wide and several times as long. The height of burst had to be adjusted by observation of the smoke puff produced at the moment of explosion, and by proper changes in the setting of the time fuze...

It was not very effective in trench warfare of the World War I type, and that fact influenced our decision to abandon it. But shrapnel was abandoned primarily because it was difficult to get the height of burst adjusted properly even under conditions of good visibility, and impossible to do this in darkness or bad weather. It also added to the complications of ammunition manufacture and supply. With the proximity fuzes now available the problem of adjustment of the height of burst could be overcome; the need for a smoke producing matrix to permit observation of height of burst would be eliminated; and sharp hard-metal missiles, not unlike small shell fragments, might replace the round lead balls. The complication of ammunition supply would remain as an objection.

My first experience with the use of the word "shrapnel" to mean shell fragments was in Normandy about D plus 2. The 4th Infantry Division had landed on Utah Beach on D-day with surprisingly light opposition, but as we turned north toward Cherbourg we ran into rough going that was to cost the division over 5,000 battle casualties in the next three weeks. A surgeon mentioned to me that one of our regiments, the 22d Infantry, was having particularly high losses from shrapnel wounds. As division artillery commander, I was very much interested. Were the Germans using what we regarded as an obsolescent type of ammunition? Or did they have an improved variant of it? I visited the regiment and asked questions everywhere. No one knew of anyone wounded by shrapnel. When I hunted up the surgeon who had first mentioned shrapnel, and told him that practically all the casualties in the 22d were from shell fragments, he said, "That's what I told you."

Since then I have frequently noticed the misuse of "shrapnel" by newspaper men, radio commentators and historians...

Rotorflyr
June 26, 2006, 03:12 PM
Tory,
Not exactly wrong:
While the original defination may have been as related in the article

Merriam-Webster defines sharpanel as:
(pay attention to #2)
Main Entry: shrap·nel
Pronunciation: 'shrap-n&l, esp Southern 'srap-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural shrapnel
Etymology: Henry Shrapnel died 1842 English artillery officer
1 : a projectile that consists of a case provided with a powder charge and a large number of usually lead balls and that is exploded in flight
2 : bomb, mine, or shell fragments

Words meanings sometimes evolve, the second defination may not be the original defination, but it doesn't make it wrong.

ProficientRifleman
June 26, 2006, 03:21 PM
A piece of bullet jacket would be properly described as "shrapnel."

You are wrong, Sir. Shrapnel was a man's name. He designed a type of artillery round which had, for lack of a better way to describe it, a grapeshot charge inside it. This "shot" was dispersed when the artillery round exploded on impact. These were known as "Shrapnel rounds".

What you are referring to are fragments. Almost all artillery rounds and grenades now disperse fragments of their own casing (either steel or aluminum). These are grenade or artillery fragments, not "shrapnel".

cordex
June 26, 2006, 04:02 PM
Almost all artillery rounds and grenades now disperse fragments of their own casing (either steel or aluminum).
What about the M61 fragmentation grenade? It has a serrated wire coil between the outer shell and the charge designed for - though, as I recall, not tremendously effective as - additional fragmentation effect.

Would pieces of that wire coil be considered Shrapnel or simply grenade fragments?

TallPine
June 26, 2006, 09:02 PM
Pretty much confirms my theory that if guns are (mostly) outlawed, then criminals will have automatic weapons instead of just pea shooters. :uhoh:

Tory
June 27, 2006, 12:57 AM
Tory,
Not exactly wrong:
While the original defination [sic] may have been as related in the article

Merriam-Webster defines sharpanel [sic] as:
(pay attention to #2)
Main Entry: shrap·nel
Pronunciation: 'shrap-n&l, esp Southern 'srap-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural shrapnel
Etymology: Henry Shrapnel died 1842 English artillery officer
1 : a projectile that consists of a case provided with a powder charge and a large number of usually lead balls and that is exploded in flight
2 : bomb, mine, or shell fragments

So, just what part of "...provided with a POWDER CHARGE" or "EXPLODED in flight" did you miss? :scrutiny:

For that matter, how is a ricochet from a BULLET a "bomb, mine or shell fragment?" :scrutiny:

"Shrapnel" is what its designer designed; not what someone attempting to sound informed mutates the term into. :rolleyes:

Marnoot
June 27, 2006, 02:37 AM
"Shrapnel" is what its designer designed; not what someone attempting to sound informed mutates the term into.Yes, heaven forbid language should evolve and change. If we were to limit all words to their absolute original meaning, what a crappy, worthless language we'd have. No longer using the word "car" to refer to your motorized conveyance device in the garage. Unless of course it's a two-wheeled Celtic war chariot. That thing you're moving your pointer with is a pointing device not a mouse, which we know of course is a small rodent not a pointing device.

roscoe
June 27, 2006, 02:54 AM
Twenty years ago, before the ANC/communists took over in the R.S.A., this wouldn't have happened. Honest law abiding citizens carried guns routinely at that time and would have stopped the robbery in progress. The little scumbag gangbanger wannabe's knew this also.

Ain't it wonderful now that they have "Peace in South Africa"? The honest law abiding citizens are largely disarmed. They have to apply for a license to possess and register all firearms. Of course you know, self defense is no legitimate reason to own a weapon. They have peace now and only cops and the military should have weapons.

God help us.
I couldn't let this one get away - just so you know you are defending a country that had a purely oligarchic political system and NO civil rights for the majority.

Yes, the gun laws are bad. But remember, back in the day, no one who was not white could own a firearm.

No, it is not worse - freedom sometimes is messy.

ProficientRifleman
June 27, 2006, 04:23 AM
Is it better now that a once prosperous society has descended into barbarity and butchery?

Is it better now that the Gangsters are in charge and the organised criminals operate most of the organs of state?

Look at Zimbabwe if you want a snapshot of what South Africa will look like soon. It is not a question of IF. It is WHEN.

You might say that White Europeans should never have colonized Sub-Saharan Africa. That is a legitimate argument. It would have been better for both peoples that way.

Nightcrawler
June 27, 2006, 05:34 AM
I abhor racism. However, I can't hate South Africa for having apartheid. The US had simliar laws in many States right until the 1960s. Did that make the US and evil country with evil people?

The problem is, instead of simply making sure that the blacks were guaranteed equal rights as whites, the post-apartheid SA governments have allowed to country to spiral into chaos and self-destruction. At the same time, the pass every more intrusive laws in the name of reducing crime and restoring order.

The ANC types that took over aren't poor leaders because they're black people. They're poor leaders because they're a bunch of corrupt criminals with communist leanings. And as we all well know, white people invented communism.

Tyranny is tyranny, regardless of the color of the tyrant. SA has gone from an undesirable situation to a "hell in a handbasket" situation, it seems.

Tory
June 27, 2006, 09:40 AM
Yes, heaven forbid language should evolve and change. If we were to limit all words to their absolute original meaning, what a crappy, worthless language we'd have.

You confuse Evolution with DEvolution (which brings us back to South Africa, the source of this thread).

Is that how you rationalize the borderline illiterates who use "loose" for "lose;" "than" for "then" (or vice-versa); "were" for "where;" "they're" for "their" and think any word is pluralized by tacking on an " 's ?"

Or do you limit your "evolution of language" alibi to the poseurs who call cartridges "bullets;" bullets "heads" and magazines "clips?" :scrutiny:

roo_ster
June 27, 2006, 11:40 AM
Tory:
If I were your doctor, I would recommend a high-fiber diet...and a pair of reading glasses. ;)

If you recall, the original article included the following sentence:
"We found a large amount of weaponry, high calibre weaponry including AK-47s."
We do not know the nature of that "high caliber weaponry" and thus can not confirm the (im)possibility of the aforementioned weaponry chambering a round capable of delivering shrapnel. There is just not enough data in the article.

Given that cartridges as small as 12.7mm can have exploding & fragmenting payloads, attributing the wound sustained to "shrapnel" is not necessarily an outlandish use of the term.

Yes, the term "fragments" would likely be more apt, but then we'd have some yahoo complaining that the "high caliber weaponry" might have included a weapon capable of delivering a shrapnel round, thus making the use of the term "fragments" problematic.

Tory
June 27, 2006, 11:57 AM
We do not know the nature of that "high caliber weaponry" and thus can not confirm the (im)possibility of the aforementioned weaponry chambering a round capable of delivering shrapnel. There is just not enough data in the article.

We do not need to know the details of the alleged (and highly unlikely) "high caliber weaponry" involved. Had you followed the thread, you would have seen that:

1. An incorrect definition of "shrapnel" was posted;

2. Said incorrect definition was refuted;

3. Said incorrect definition was rationalized as "evolving language;" and

4. Said rationalization was refuted.

Thus, the newpaper article itself is now irrelevent to the more recent discussion of what the true definition of "shrapnel" is.

Instead of playing doctor, perhaps you should just try to keep up. :scrutiny:

Preacherman
June 27, 2006, 11:58 AM
Tory, take a chill pill. This thread is NOT a debating forum about semantics. If you want to debate that subject, please start another thread that is dedicated to the subject, rather than hi-jack this thread.

carterbeauford
June 27, 2006, 12:59 PM
...so you would advise against moving to South Africa? :scrutiny:

AndyC
June 27, 2006, 02:20 PM
Having moved to Texas from South Africa a year ago - yes :D

roscoe
June 27, 2006, 04:10 PM
Is it better now that a once prosperous society has descended into barbarity and butchery?

Is it better now that the Gangsters are in charge and the organised criminals operate most of the organs of state?

Look at Zimbabwe if you want a snapshot of what South Africa will look like soon. It is not a question of IF. It is WHEN.
It was a corrupt, oligarchic, racist, oppressive system before.
It is a chaotic, corrupt system now.

Pick your poison.
No one is saying it is good, but to defend the old regime - well, that is a reach. It was no garden of eden.

Will it become Zimbabwe? Maybe, but it is not inevitable. They lack anyone remotely like Mugabe, and don't have a military like Zimbabwes, that is beholden to a dictator. Even Zimbabwe was a decent place before he went nuts.

Certainly SA is not degrading in a linear fashion. Five to seven years ago, Johhanesberg was much worse than it is today.

HankB
June 27, 2006, 07:36 PM
No one is saying it is good, but to defend the old regime - well, that is a reach. It was no garden of eden.The old analogy about a frying pan and the fire comes to mind . . . and note that RSA under the old racist apartheid regime, for all it's faults, still experienced a net positive flow of immigrants from surrounding "majority rule" nations.

It says a lot more about relative conditions than anything that can be said on this board when people vote with their feet that way.

roscoe
June 27, 2006, 07:50 PM
SA still a serious inflow of immigrants. In fact, they have an immigration problem.

Tory
June 27, 2006, 08:47 PM
SA still a serious inflow of immigrants. In fact, they have an immigration problem.

YES; refuges from that paragon of self-determination, Zimbabwe.

When caucasians begin emigrating to South Africa, I'll be impressed.:scrutiny:

mordechaianiliewicz
June 27, 2006, 08:55 PM
In Britain and Australia there are already enclaves of former SA white folk. Also, they are spread out through America, although i noticed quite a few in Texas in comparison to other areas.

What I'm surprised at is that the Indians and bi-racial folks are still there. This is really a tribal war. (Back when it was the Afrikaners it was tribal, it's just that the dominant tribe happened to have fair skin). The Xhousa controlled ANC is now beginning to give all the non-blacks problems.

Won't be long until civil war.

I'd bet that most of the whites have learned their mistakes, or weren't a party to apartheid (that are younger), and since they are about to be wiped out, I think it wouldn't be horrible to offer asylum.

We've done it for Somali, and Sudanese refugees, we shouldn't turn the Afrikaners away for their skin colour. Amnesty to all those 30 and younger? What do you think?

ProficientRifleman
June 27, 2006, 09:56 PM
Will it become Zimbabwe? Maybe, but it is not inevitable. They lack anyone remotely like Mugabe, and don't have a military like Zimbabwes, that is beholden to a dictator. Even Zimbabwe was a decent place before he went nuts.

Mr. Mugabe didn't "go nuts". He reverted to type. He was a hoodlum and a gangster before he took power. It took a good fifteen years for the organs of state to default into the hands of the gangsters to such a degree as to facilitate the ultimate fruition of his original designs.

You might say that Idi Amin wasn't "nuts" at first. I would propose that he was the man he was going to be from an early age. He only lacked the opportunity to express himself fully. The better he entrenched himself, the more fully he could enlighten the world with his political phylosophy.

Like most "communist" rulers, Mugabe is a thug and bully FIRST. The closer he gets to absolute power, the more he will steal from, rape and murder his subjects.

As for the RSA lacking anyone like Mugabe, you are wrong sir. Winnie Mandella comes to mind. That Paragon of Virtue had her minions murder her political opponents by "necklacing" them. There are plenty of murderous thugs in the ANC. They are only awaiting their opportunity to "govern".

If you ever read the Ada Parker newsletter, you would know that in the late 90's white South African farmers were being murdered at the rate of about 1000 a year.

mordechaianiliewicz
June 27, 2006, 11:20 PM
Actually, Thabo Mbeki is such a man. Earlier, I saw it posted both that White Europeans should never have gone to subsaharan Africa. I also saw posted that the way in which apartheid was dismantled is the problem.

If you studied SA history, you would know the Dutch were refugees. They were seeking a new land bc they couldn't practice their religion in the Netherlands. (same with the few French Heugenots). I would contend that Apartheid could not have come apart any other way.

Where the Boers erred is that their close-minded racism kept them from ever allying themselves to any black tribal group as equals. Had they combined with the Zulus (many of whom would later become Christian, like the Dutch), they wouldn't be having these problems. Granted, then they would be tannish and brown instead of lily white, and the racist Boers just couldn't have that.

If you enjoyed reading about "12 dead, 14 arrested in huge shoot-out in South Africa" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!