- A man was killed in Soweto this week, allegedly after refusing to obey an instruction from a cash-in-transit security guard who wanted to load money into a mall ATM.
- One expert said the guard could have been justified in using deadly force if he felt his life was in danger.
- Another countered this, insisting that there could be no justification for the guard’s action, and that he should have asked for backup when he encountered problems.
A cash-in-transit (CIT) security guard is now on the wrong side of the law after he shot a man dead in a scuffle at a Soweto shopping mall.
Violent cash heists and the bombing of armoured vehicles are on the rise, with 217 attacks across the country between January and August, according to statistics from the Cash-In-Transit Association of SA (Citasa).
With gangs of heavily armed robbers targeting both cash vans in transit and security officials when they carry boxes of money to and from ATMs, guards remain on high-alert.
In this case, experts are divided on the use of deadly force which saw the unarmed man gunned down.
News24 previously reported that the altercation played out at Jabulani Mall in Soweto when a man allegedly refused to give way to a security guard loading money into an ATM.
The incident happened on Wednesday, and the security guard was arrested and charged with murder.
READ | ‘Police ship is at the bottom of the sea’: Expert says cops are losing cash-in-transit heist battle
Independent crime and policing expert Dr Johan Burger said it would be difficult to judge the security guard’s use of deadly force without having all the facts.
“The use of deadly force in this situation is covered by our common law, the principle of private defence. If the security official was attacked or directly threatened with serious injury or possible death, he would have to show why he felt that way.
“He will also have to be able to show that the threat was imminent, that he had no other choice and that his use of force was proportional to the threat he faced,” Burger told News24.
Forensic and crime expert Calvin Rafadi said his view was that the security guard could have explored other avenues.
Rafadi said:
He should have called for backup and assistance to deal with this man. There are so many things that could have made the man not cooperate. He could have been deaf or had mental issues. So, the guard was wrong in electing to shoot. I don’t think his life was in danger unless the other one was armed. You can’t be trigger-happy on ordinary civilians.
According to Gauteng police spokesperson Colonel Dimakatso Nevhuhulwi, the security guard asked people queueing at the ATM to make way for him.
“One of them refused, leading to a scuffle between the two. In the process, the trigger of the firearm was pulled, and the bullet hit the patron,” Nevhuhulwi said.
The victim was declared dead on the scene.
ALSO READ | ATM bombings on the rise as gangs carry off bags of dye-stained banknotes
Private security officials usually have little authority to instruct persons to act in any way, such as moving from a particular area, Burger said.
However, they have a contractual obligation to protect property, such as cash, under their control, he added.
The 44-year-old security guard was expected to make his first appearance at the Protea Magistrate’s Court in Soweto on Friday.
But by midday, the docket for the matter had not been brought to court.
It is unclear if he eventually appeared.
Rafadi urged people to always give CIT guards space to do their work. He said people should avoid being near them, especially at this time when, he said, there is an increase in CIT heists.