A police officer’s belt was allegedly found around the neck of senior Auditor-General South Africa (AGSA) auditor Bonke Meyile, who died in custody at Gonubie police station in East London in May.
https://t.co/61BV2qUiAY
🚨🏆🐅 #NEW: Ernie Els says Tiger should come play on the Champions tour in 2026: “I've said, please come play. And I think it can only be beneficial to him. He will get himself in golf shape. You can ride a cart without any shame and if there was one guy that should be able to drive a cart, it's him…And he can get his a$$ back in shape."
"Beat us again… if you can…”
"It doesn't help him to finish 70th on the regular tour, not really getting proper reps….He can shoot 66 (on the Champions tour). Get your confidence up, make those birdie putts under the gun." (Via: @golfweek)
Do you want to see Tiger play on the Champions Tour?
Vincent, jou onderrok hang uit!
The Daily Maverick article of 26 August 2025 reads almost like satire. According to the author, Vincent Cruywagen, we should apparently have invited our attackers for a polite cup of tea to discuss their true motives, and perhaps even asked the blood itself to pause for a few seconds while we debated whether it was appropriate to defend ourselves.
This was not a philosophical exercise. It was a fight for survival. We were boxed in, trapped inside the vehicle. At one point, my colleague lost consciousness, covered in blood, collapsed into his lap. I had teeth broken out from the beating. Perhaps, in the author’s view, I should have politely asked the attackers to help me look for those teeth on the floor of the car hidden amongst all the pieces of glass.
Let me be very clear, these were not “misunderstood victims” who happened to lob a brick or two. They beat us with bricks. One eyewitness compared it to hyenas attacking the car. That is not an ethical grey zone. It is an unlawful, violent, life-threatening attack.
South African criminal law could not be clearer. Snyman identifies four essential requirements for private defence:
1. Unlawful attack – satisfied. Bricks used as weapons against people are unlawful.
2. Directed at the defender but may equally act in private defence to protect a third person – satisfied. The car and its occupants were the target.
3. Necessary to avert danger – satisfied. There was no safe retreat.
4. Reasonable means used – satisfied. Defensive force ended the attack.
Snyman makes it clear that the law does not demand proportionality in self-defence. To insist that victims respond with the same weapon would hand the attacker the upper hand. In reality, an unarmed but stronger attacker can kill with their bare hands, and it is precisely the vulnerable, the weaker, the trapped, the outnumbered who would be left defenceless if such a rule were imposed.
The law does not require citizens to martyr themselves. It requires necessity and proportionality. Both were present.
Context matters. Between January and March 2025 alone, South Africa recorded 5,727 murders (most committed with firearms) and more than 31,000 aggravated robberies. Citizens are being attacked daily, and the state is failing to shield them.
The attackers in this incident were not victims. They were aggressors who initiated unlawful violence, and the law recognises that in such circumstances, self-defence is legitimate.
What is truly pathetic about this so-called “ethical debate” is that it is one-sided. The hand-wringers rush to question the ethics of defending oneself but never pause for a second to ask about the ethics of the unlawful attacker who initiated the violence.
What moral high ground exists in trying to beat people to death with bricks? Where is the outrage about the deliberate, unlawful choice to endanger lives? To suggest that the ethics of the defender are more suspect than the ethics of the aggressor is to invert reality: the attacker abandoned morality the moment they struck; the defender acted within the law to preserve life.
In such an environment, to lecture victims about restraint while ignoring the choices of aggressors is not only tone-deaf, it is dangerous.
The real debate is not whether South Africans may defend themselves. The law is clear that they can.
And then finally, to the Daily Maverick, your motto is that you defend truth but in this case your journalist is doing exactly the opposite.
IC
https://t.co/JzHEmEp5lX Attack on parliamentary police committee chair raises questions on self-defence
@MohanKu33379226@MaBlerh Semantics...makes no difference to me. These spam call centres are crying foul that TrueCaller is so good at screening calls. Admit it, spam calls have gotten worse since the introduction of POPI. The same POPI that was supposed to keep our details private from these mongrels.