Three alleged kidnappers shot and killed by police in Parktown

"Suspect linked to a case that happened in 2003" ??? 😅 aah

I hate when they show pics of cars and everything else rather than the suspects, lets see their face for a change.

How many foreigners were involved in that shooting?

The woman interviewing is just wishing there should be a Zimbabwean involved,they say she keep insisting she wants to know the nationality of criminals,My sister they are South African, kidnappers

Reply

I have just got back from JHB, and went through Parktown and down Jan Smuts Ave a few times in the last three weeks. I was a bit nervous and concerned that I would be involved in something like this. Well done to SA Police but they need a few more and numerous arrests to get the message out, Don’t mess with the police in SA. EXCELLENT job done to the police.
I was with Police in the UK for 22 years. So very proud of the boys in Blue in JHB.

Reply

3 low Lives eliminated well done officers 👌

Reply

Ans the police responded 😂 . That's all we needed my brother say no more❤

Reply

why these criminals always fight a loosing battle ,they know once they start shooting at police game is over

Reply

We need more of these lowlifes in coffins. We need to give the police more powers to use deadly force and be exempt from prosecution.

Reply

Congratulations SA Police Force🎉

Reply

This is encouraging to see 👏

Reply

Great!

Reply

the criminal that shooting the police th Gorvment must make example with them

Reply

Well done SAPS..

Reply

It looks this is the only justice this country will live to, courts are not doing the work busy looking for evidence when it's very easy to commit crime and hide evidence.

Reply

SAPS members need to protect themselves

Reply

BEWARE
THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC BRAIN DATA PRIVACY LAWS IN SOUTH AFRICA.
Ethical concerns
Invasion of mental privacy: Neural data can reveal deeply personal and intimate information, including thoughts, emotions, fears, and memories. Unauthorized collection is a direct intrusion into a person's "inner realm of cognition," which is considered fundamental to personal freedom.
Erosion of autonomy and free will: Neural monitoring has the potential to influence a person's decisions or thoughts, intentionally or unintentionally. This can undermine individual agency by potentially triggering actions based on subconscious signals or by shaping an individual's thoughts to align with an external agenda.
Increased surveillance and control: With advancing technology, the prospect of mass neuro-surveillance by governments or corporations becomes a new frontier for monitoring and social control. This could lead to a "chilling effect," where individuals self-censor their thoughts and expressions out of fear of constant monitoring.
Threat to identity: The line between a person and a brain-computer interface (BCI) can become blurred. If a BCI's activity is hacked or manipulated, it could change a person's cognition, behavior, or sense of self, creating profound identity and responsibility issues.
Potential for bias and discrimination: Algorithms used to analyze neural data can be trained on biased data, leading to unfair conclusions about a person's mental state, performance, or future behavior. This data could then be used for discriminatory purposes in hiring, promotions, or law enforcement.
Commercial exploitation: Companies may seek to use neural data for advertising or marketing to create "irresistible" products or influence purchasing decisions. The "opt-in" consent for neural data use is often not robust enough to counter the potential for manipulation.
Legal and regulatory landscape
Existing laws were not designed for the unique nature of neural data, leading to a fragmented regulatory approach that is inconsistent and evolving. Some governments and international bodies are beginning to address this gap.
Efforts at neuro-rights protections
"Neuro-rights" movement: A movement has emerged advocating for fundamental human rights to protect the brain and its activity from misuse by neurotechnology. These proposed rights include the right to mental privacy and cognitive liberty.
International recommendations: In 2025, a UN human rights expert called on states to develop specific regulatory frameworks for neurotechnologies, incorporate the right to mental privacy, and promote ethical practices. UNESCO has also advocated for guidelines to prevent neurotechnology from intervening in mental states without consent.
Regional regulations (EU): The EU's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) may apply to neural data under its protections for biometric and health data, requiring strict explicit consent and transparency. The EU AI Act also prohibits AI systems that use subliminal techniques to manipulate behavior.

Reply

I don't promote violence, but this is the best outcome no more stress about wasting state resources on criminals who are not worthy of the mercy of the correctional system.