A VICTIMOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF FARM ATTACKS WITH

SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO FARMERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR

SUSCEPTIBILITY, THE CONSEQUENCES OF ATTACKS FOR
FARMERS AND THE COPING STRATEGIES APPLIED BY THEM
AFTER VICTIMISATION

By

VERONICA HORNSCHUH

For the degree

MAGISTER ARTIUM

In the Faculty of Humanities

UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA
PRETORIA

APRIL 2007
 IN MEMORY OF MY PARENTS
CLEM AND HANNETJIE HARVEY
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My sincere thanks and appreciation to the following individuals, groups and institutions that made
this research possible:

• My supervisor, Prof. Linda Davis for her dedicated help and guidance, and particularly her
patience and encouragement at times when progress was hard and slow. She never gave up
on me.

• Prof. Ronelle Pretorius, Prof. Aubrey Theron and other colleagues all at the Department of
Social Work and Criminology for their interest, encouragement and constant enquiries about
my progress.

• My daughters, Dr Tanya Hornschuh and Dr Renèe van Rheede van Oudtshoorn for their faith
in me, continuous encouragement and help.

• My son-in-law, Stef van Rheede van Oudtshoorn, and my young friends Carl Smith and Conrad
and Shannon van Onselen who spent hours solving my computer problems.

• Rev. Retha Prinsloo, her family members and prayer group who saw me through difficult times.
You taught me the power of prayer.

• The respondents without whom this study would not have been possible.

• The Centre for Science Development (CSD) and the University of Pretoria for funding the
study.

• My Creator who gave me good health, strength and the will to persevere throughout the long
and arduous study.
 CONTENTS
PAGE
TABLES……………………...……………….………………...……………………………………………IX
FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………………...……………… X
SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………...……...…………XI
OPSOMMING……………...………………...………………………………………………….…………XIII

1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, DEFINITIONS AND RESEARCH PROBLEM…….….1

1.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND…………..…………………………………………………1

1.2 DEFINITIONS……………………………………………………..………………………….5
1.2.1 Farmer…………..……………………….……………………………………...……………...……5
1.2.2 Farm……………….………...…………………………………………………..…….……..………8
1.2.3 Farm attack……………….………………………………………………………………………….8
1.2.4 Victim……………………………….……...……………………………….………………..……..13

1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM…………………………………………………………….……..14

1.3.1 Farm attacks as a national problem………….……………………………………..…….……..14
1.3.2 Consequences of farm attacks…………………………….……………………………….….…16
1.3.2.1 Negative consequences for victims of farm attacks….…...…………...……………………..16
1.3.2.2 Loss of production………..……..……………………..…….………………………………..…19
1.3.2.3 Loss of foreign revenue………..……………………….……………………………………….21
1.3.2.4 Increased unemployment…………..………....…………………………………………….…..21
1.3.2.5 Vigilantism…………………………………..………………………………………………….…23
1.3.2.6 Destabilisation of the country……………..………………………………………………...…..24
1.3.3 Limited empirical data with regard to victims’ personal perceptions………..…..……………25

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES….…………………………………………………………....30

1.5 SUMMARY………..……………….…………………………………………………..……30

2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES…………..………..………..…………………………..32

I
2.1 THE LIFESTYLE/EXPOSURE MODEL OF PERSONAL VICTIMISATION…………32
2.1.1 Historical development of the lifestyle/exposure model…..……………………………………32
2.1.2 Prerequisites for victimisation…….…………………………………………………………..…..34
2.1.3 Elements of the model……………………………………………………………………………..34
2.1.3.1 Role expectations………………………………………………………………………..……….34
2.1.3.2 Structural constraints…………….………………………………………………………………36
2.1.3.3 Adaptations……………………………………………………………………………..……..….37
2.1.3.4 Lifestyle……………………………………...…………………………………………………….38
2.1.3.5 Exposure………………..………………………………………………………………………...38
2.1.3.6 Associations………………………..……………………………………………………………..39
2.1.3.7 Personal victimisation.…………………..……………………………………………………….39
2.1.3.8 Perceptions about crime………..………………………………………………………….……39
2.1.3.9 Reactions to crime…….…………………………………………………………………………40
2.1.3.10 Target attractiveness……………………..…………………………………………………….40
2.1.3.11 Individual differences…………………..……………………………………………………....41
2.1.4 Relevance of the lifestyle/exposure model to attacks on farmers………..…………………...41
2.1.4.1 Role expectations………..………………………………………………………………….……41
2.1.4.2 Structural constraints…………………….………………………………………………………45
2.1.4.3 Adaptations..…………………….…………………………………………………..……………46
2.1.4.4 Lifestyle…..……………………….………………………………………………….……………47
2.1.4.5 Exposure..……………………….………………………………………………..………………48
2.1.4.6 Associations………..………….………………………………………………………………….49
2.1.4.7 Personal victimisation……………………………………………………………………………50
2.1.4.8 Perceptions about crime……..………………………………………………………………….50
2.1.4.9 Reactions to crime………..………………………………………………………………...……50
2.1.4.10 Target attractiveness…………..……………………………………………………………….51
2.1.4.11 Individual differences……..……….…………………………………………………………...51
2.1.5 Evaluation of the lifestyle/exposure model of personal victimisation.………..……………….52

2.2 THE ROUTINE ACTIVITY THEORY……………………………………………………..58

2.2.1 Historical development of the routine activity theory……………...………….………….…..58
2.2.2 Circumstances surrounding direct contact predatory victimisation….…………….…….…59
2.2.2.1 Motivated offender…………….……………………………………………….………………...59
2.2.2.2 Suitable target…………………………………………………………….……………….….….60

II
2.2.2.3 Guardianship……….……………….………………………………….………………………...64
2.2.3 Relevance of the routine activity theory to attacks on farmers……………………………..…64
2.2.3.1 Motivated offenders……………………………………………………...…………………...….66
2.2.3.2 Suitable targets……..………………………………………………..……………………….….67
2.2.3.3 Guardianship………….…………………………………………..…………………………..….68
2.2.4 Evaluation of the routine activity theory of criminal victimisation…………...…………….…..69

2.3 THE DOMAIN-SPECIFIC MODEL OF CRIMINAL VICTIMISATION ………….…....74

2.3.1 Historical development of the domain-specific model...……………….…………………….…75
2.3.2 Elements of the model……………………………………………...…………………….……….75
2.3.2.1 Exposure……….…………………………………………………..…………………………….75
2.3.2.2 Guardianship…….………….……………………………………..…………………..……...…75
2.3.2.3 Preconceived dangerousness….……………………………………..………………………..76
2.3.2.4 Target attractiveness….……………………….…………………..………………………..….76
2.3.3 Analysis of the elements……..……………………………………..………………………….....76
2.3.4 Relevance of the domain-specific model to attacks on farmers………..…….……………….77
2.3.4.1 Exposure and accessibility to the public……….………………………..…………………….77
2.3.4.2 Mobility………………………………………………………………..…………………..………79
2.3.4.3 Handling of money……………………………………………………..……………….……….80
2.3.5 Evaluation of the domain-specific model of criminal victimisation…….……………………...81

2.4 SUMMARY…..……..………………………………………………………………………..84

3. INCIDENCE AND NATURE OF FARM ATTACKS…….……..…………………..……..85

3.1 INCIDENCE OF FARM ATTACKS……..…………………………………….…………..85

3.1.1 Provincial distribution of farm attacks……………………………………………………………87

3.2 NATURE OF ATTACKS…………..……………………………………………………….88

3.2.1 Modus operandi employed by attackers…………..………..………………………..………….88
3.2.1.1 Reconnaissance phase…..………………………..…………………………..………………..89
3.2.1.2 Operational phase (the attack).…………………..…………………………….………………92
3.2.1.2.1 Getting close to the victim(s)..…………………..……………………………………..……..93
3.2.1.2.2 Time of the attack……..…………………………..………………………………….………..95
3.2.1.2.3 Location of the attack………………………………...……………………………………….97

III
3.2.1.2.4 Crimes committed during attacks..………………..…………………………………..……..98
3.2.1.2.5 Weapons used….…………………………………...………………………………………..104
3.2.1.3 Escape phase (or departure from crime scene)…………....…………………………...…..104
3.2.2 Violence associated with farm attacks..……………………..………………………..………..105
3.2.2.1 Possible reasons for the violent nature of farm attacks in SA……………………………..106

3.3 MOTIVES ASSOCIATED WITH FARM ATTACKS…….…………………...………..108

3.4 SUSPECTED REASONS FOR TARGETING OF SPECIFIC FARMS..…………….111

3.5 PROFILE OF VICTIMS……………………………………………………………….…..114

3.5.1 Status of victims……………....………………………………………………..…………………114
3.5.2 Race of victims.….…………..…………………………………………………...……………….115
3.5.3 Gender of victims…………..……..………………………………………………………………115
3.5.4 Age of victims…..…………..…………………………………………………………….……….115
3.5.5 Relationship between victims and known suspects..…………………………………….….116

3.6 PROFILE OF SUSPECTS INVOLVED…………………………………………….….116

3.6.1 Gender……………………………………………………………………………………………..117
3.6.2 Race………………..………………………………………..……………………………..………117
3.6.3 Citizenship………..………………………………………..………………………………………118
3.6.4 Age…………..……………………………………………..…………………………..…………..118
3.6.5 Level of education………….……………………………...…………………………...…………118
3.6.6 Backgrounds…,,…………………………………………..………………………………………118
3.6.7 Occupation……..…………………………………………..……………………..……………….119
3.6.8 Groups/gangs……..………………………………………..……………………………………..119
3.6.9 Previous convictions…….………………………………...…………………………………...…119
3.6.10 Place of origin of attackers.…….……………………….……………………………………..120

3.7 SUMMARY……..…………..…………………………………………….………………..120

4. RESPONSES TO VICTIMISATION…..……………………………………..……………121

IV
4.1 UNDERSTANDING VICTIMS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIMISATION……….….……..121
4.1.1 Common assumptions….………………..………………………………………………………121
4.1.1.1 Assumption of invulnerability……………....………………………………………………….122
4.1.1.2 Assumption of the world as a meaningful place……….……………………………….……123
4.1.1.3 Assumption of self-worth….…………………………………...………………………...…….124
4.1.2 Coping strategies.………………………………………………...………………………..……..125
4.1.2.1 Redefining the event…..………………………………………..………………………….…..125
4.1.2.2 Adapting psychologically.…………………………...………………………………..………..126
4.1.2.3 Making behavioural changes….………………..………………………………………...…..127

4.2 RELEVANCE OF JANOFF-BULMAN AND FRIEZE THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE

OF PERSONAL VICTIMISATION TO ATTACKS ON FARMERS……………..……128
4.2.1 Assumptions………………..…….……………………………………………………………….129
4.2.1.1 Assumption of invulnerability…….……………..…………………………………………..…129
4.2.1.2 Assumption of the world as meaningful…..…………..………………………………...……133
4.2.1.3 Assumption of self-worth….……………………...………………………………………..…..136
4.2.2 Coping strategies………..…………………………..……………………………………………137
4.2.2.1 Redefining the event………..…………………..……………………………………………...138
4.2.2.2 Adapting psychologically……………………...………………………………………..……..139
4.2.2.3 Making behavioural changes….……………..……………………………………….………143

4.3 EVALUATION OF JANOFF-BULMAN AND FRIEZE’S THEORETICAL

PERSPECTIVE OF PERSONAL VICTIMISATION…………………………..……….148

4.4 SUMMARY….…….……………………………………………………………………....151

5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY…..…………………..………………….152

5.1 METHODOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION……..………………………………………….152

5.1.1 Qualitative research methodology……..…………..…………………………..……………….152

5.2 PROCEDURE.…………………………………………………………..…….…………..155
5.2.1 Orientation…………..………………….……………………………………………….…………155
5.2.2 Pilot study…………..……………..…………………………………………………….…………156
5.2.2.1 Tracing farm attack victims for pilot study…………….………………………………..…….156
V
5.2.2.2 Pilot interviews……………..………………..………………………………………………160
5.2.2.3 Outcome of pilot study……………………….………………………………………………..160

5.3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES……………..…………………………………………..……162

5.4 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE…………………………………………..…………165

5.4.1 Measures of control……………..…..……………………………………………………………167
5.4.2 Conducting the interviews…………..…..………………………………………………….……168

5.5 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS………….………………….…………………170

5.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS…….…………………………………….………………171

5.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY……………..………………………….……………….172

5.7.1 Small sample………………………………………………………………………..…………….172
5.7.2 Inclusion of (mainly) smallholders in Nokeng Tsa Taemane……………….….…………….173
5.7.3 The enlargement of the time frame………………………………..……………………………174
5.7.4 Respondent known to the researcher……………..………………………………...…………174
5.7.5 Closed community…..………………………………..……………………………………….….174
5.7.6 Brevity of interviews………..……………………….……………………………………………175
5.7.7 Outdated theme………….…….…………………………………………………………………175

5.8 SUMMARY………………………………………………………………………………..176

6. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS…….……………..….……….175

6.1 CIRCUMSTANCES OF ATTACKS……………………………………………………..177

6.1.1 Respondent 1…………..……………….….……………………………………………………..178
6.1.2 Respondent 2………...……………………..…………………………………….………………180
6.1.3 Respondent 3………..……………………..………………………………………..……………183
6.1.4 Respondent 4……………………………..……….……………………………………..……….185
6.1.5 Respondent 5…..…..……………………..………………………………………………………187
6.1.6 Respondent 6……………………………..……………...……………………………….………190
6.1.7 Respondent 7………………..…………..………………………………………………..………192

VI
6.1.8 Respondent 8……………..……………..…………………………………………….………….194
6.1.9 Respondent 9……………….….……..……………………………………………………….….195
6.1.10 Respondent 10…………...…….….…………………………………………………………….200
6.1.11 Respondent 11…………....……………………………………………………………………..203
6.1.12 Respondent 12…………...………….……………………………………………………..……208
6.1.13 Respondent 13….……………...………………………………………………………………..215
6.1.14 Respondent 14………………...…….……………………………………………………….….218
6.1.15 Respondent 15……………….…………………..…………………………………..…….…..221

6.2 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION……………………….…………….……..……..223

6.2.1 Respondents’ perceptions of susceptibility to attacks.…………..…..……………………….223
6.2.2 Reactions, avoidance and target hardening strategies……….…………..…….…………….254
6.2.2.1 Immediate reactions……………….…………….………………………..………………..…..254
6.2.2.2 Avoidance tactics…………………………….…………………………..…………………….262
6.2.2.3 Target hardening.…….……………………….….…………….…………………………..…..268
6.2.3 Consequences……….…………….……………………………...………………………………272
6.2.3.1 Physical consequences………...…………..………………………………………………….272
6.2.3.2 Emotional consequences……..……………..……………………………………………...…276
6.2.3.3 Social consequences.…………..……………………..………………....……………….……297
6.2.3.4 Financial loss, expenses, damage and inconvenience……………..…………………...…301
6.2.4 Coping strategies…….………………………………………...……………………………..…..312
6.2.4.1 During the attacks…….…………………………...……………………………………………312
6.2.4.2 After the attacks…………..……………………..……………………………………..……….314

6.3 SUMMARY……..…………………………………..………………………………………327

7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION…...………………………………..……..328

7.1 ATTAINMENT OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVES……………..………………...………328

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………..………………………….……………333
7.2.1 Recommendations with regard to further research…………..…..……………………….…..333
7.2.1.1 Larger samples…………………….………..…………………...……….……………….……333
7.2.1.2 Typology of victims of farm attacks……………………………………………………….….334
7.2.1.3 Brutality and violence used…………..……………………..…………………………………339

VII
7.2.1.4 Other aspects……..…………………………..……………………………………………..….340
7.2.2 Recommendations with regard to combating farm attacks……………..…..………………..343
7.2.2.1 Recommendations related to government.……..……………………..…………………….343
7.2.2.1.1 Condemnation of inflammatory statements…..……….……………..……………………343
7.2.2.1.2. Acceleration of land distribution……….……….…….……………..………………..…..…345
7.2.2.1.3 Reducing the number of illegal firearms………...…….…………..……………………....345
7.2.2.1.4 Socio-economic conditions……….……………...………………..…………………….…..346
7.2.2.1.5 Education…………..……………….…………………………..………………………..……346
7.2.2.1.6 Criminal justice system…………….……..………………….………………………..…….348
7.2.2.2 Recommendations related to farmers…...……………….…………………………………..352
7.2.2.2 1 Change of beliefs about crime………………….……………………………………..…….353
7.2.2.2 2 Black culture………..…….…………….….……………………………………………….…353
7.2.2.2.3 Psychological preparedness……………..…..……………………………………………..354
7.2.2.2.4 Preconceived plan of action………………...………….……………………………………358
7.2.2.2.5 Target hardening strategies……………...….………………………………………………364
7.2.3 Recommendations…………………....………………………………………………………....368

7.3 SUMMARY……………………………………………………..…………………………..370

VIII
 TABLES
Table Page
1 Incidence per Province: 2001 to 2006 (CIAC)………………..…………………………………… 85
2 Murders Committed during Farm Attacks per Province: 2001/2002 to 2005/2006………….....102

IX
 FIGURES
Figure Page
1 The original lifestyle/exposure model of personal victimisation of Hindelang,
Gottfredson and Garofalo (1978:243) as well as elements introduced by
Garofalo (1987:37) as indicated with the dotted lines……………………………………………….35
2 Attacks on farms and smallholdings 1991-2001 (SAAU & CIAC, in Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:5)………………………………………………..…86

X
TITLE: A victimological investigation of farm attacks with specific reference to
farmers’ perceptions of their susceptibility, the consequences of attacks
for farmers and the coping strategies applied by them after victimization.

BY: Veronica Hornschuh

SUPERVISOR: Professor Linda Davis

DEPARTMENT: Social work and Criminology

DEGREE: Magister Artium

SUMMARY

Acts of violence on farms and smallholdings are continuing unabated in spite of the efforts of the
government and the agricultural unions to quell attacks on members of the farming community.
Although research has been done on various aspects of farm attacks, empirical information
regarding farmers’ perceptions of their susceptibility to attacks, the consequences that are suffered
and the coping strategies that farmers apply after victimisation, is limited to that contained in the
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks.

In order to gain first-hand information with regard to this phenomenon, the researcher interviewed
15 direct victims of attacks on a one-on-one basis. All the attacks occurred in the Mpumalanga
Province and the adjoining Nokeng Tsa Taemane region in the Gauteng Province.

Based on the analysis and interpretation of the data, it was found that most of the respondents felt
unsafe on their farms. In spite of this, they were all taken by surprise by their attackers. While the
majority of the respondents believed that their homes were reasonably secure, financial and
familial constraints prevented some from improving the guardianship on their farms. Those who
had good security systems in their homes, were attacked outside or in the early evening before the
systems were activated.

The findings also revealed that the immediate reactions of victims of farm attacks do not differ
fundamentally from those of other victims of crime. Reactions include surprise, fear of being killed,
injured and/or raped and powerlessness. After the attacks they often experienced anger and
bitterness.

xi
Analysis of the data furthermore indicated that physical injuries ranged from minor to serious
injuries that necessitated hospitalisation. Emotional and social harm were also experienced by
victims, causing them to be fearful and distrustful of black persons, as the attacks were all black on
white. Farm attacks also had negative financial consequences for the victims. Capital that might
have been used for other purposes had to be used to pay medical and funeral bills and upgrade
security, especially since most victims feared re-victimisation.

After the attacks some respondents preferred to relocate. While many of the respondents found it
too costly to implement the necessary target hardening measures, avoidance behaviour in the form
of alertness was identified as the most effective means of preventing victimisation in the future.
Other avoidance tactics included feeding dogs in the afternoon when visibility is still good and
sending employees out to establish the reason for the visit of black strangers who arrive on the
farm without an appointment.

Erroneous perceptions with regard to the motives for attacks and the profile of attackers, as well as
complacency about security which often sets in because of the routine nature of farmers’ lifestyle,
were identified as the main reasons for farmers’ susceptibility to victimisation. It was also found
that the respondents’ coping strategies varied. While some relied on their Christian faith and the
support of family and friends, others exerted their inner strength to regain their emotional
equilibrium.

On the basis of the above findings, recommendations were made regarding further research and
measures that might be implemented by both the government and farmers to reduce the number of
farm attacks. It was highlighted that factors such as hate speech, socio-economic conditions in
rural areas, the acceleration of land reform and education deserve further attention. Farmers must
guard against complacency and make informed decisions about security on the farms. As coping
strategies vary, it was furthermore stated that victimised farmers need to persevere until they have
assimilated the negative experience.

KEY TERMS

Farm, Farmer, Farm Attack, Victim, Susceptibility, Modus operandi, Complacency, Constraints,
Violence, Distrust, Coping strategies.

xii
TITEL: ’n Viktimologiese ondersoek na plaasaanvalle met spesifieke verwysing na
Plaasboere se perepsies rakende hul slagoffervatbaarheid, die gevolge van
die aanvalle vir plaasboere en die oorlewingstrategieë wat hulle aanwend
nadat hulle geviktimiseer is.

DEUR: Veronica Hornschuh

STUDIELEIER: Professor Linda Davis

DEPARTEMENT: Maatskaplike Werk en Kriminologie

GRAAD: Magister Artium

OPSOMMING

Geweldsdade op plase en kleinhoewes gaan onverpoos voort ten spyte van die pogings van die
regering en die landbou-unies om aanvalle op lede van die landelike gemeenskap te stuit. Hoewel
navorsing gedoen is oor verskeie aspekte van plaasaanvalle, is empiriese inligting rakende
plaasboere se persepsies van hul vatbaarheid vir plaasaanvalle, die gevolge wat gely word en die
oorlewingstrategieë wat plaasboere toepas na vikitisasie, beperk tot dit wat bevat is in die Report
of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks.

Ten einde eerstehandse inligting te bekom met betrekking tot hierdie verskynsel, het die navorser
onderhoude gevoer met 15 direkte slagoffers van plaasaanvalle op ’n een-tot-een basis. Al die
plaasaanvalle het plaasgevind in die Mpumalangaprovinsie en in die aangrensende Nokeng Tsa
Taemane-gebied van die Gautengprovinsie.

Gebaseer op die analise en interpretasie van die data, is daar bevind dat die meeste respondente
onveilig gevoel het op hul plase. Ten spyte hiervan, is hulle almal verras deur hul aanvallers.
Hoewel die meeste van die respondente geglo het dat hul huise redelik veilig is, het finansiële- en
gesinsomstandighede sommige verhinder om beskerming op hul plase te verbeter. Dié wat goeie
sekuriteitsisteme in hul huise gehad het, is buite hul huise of vroegaand aangeval voordat die
sisteme geaktiveer is.

Die bevindings het ook getoon dat die onmiddellike reaksie van slagoffers van plaasaanvalle nie
wesenlik verskil van dié van ander slagoffers van misdaad nie. Reaksies sluit in verrassing, vrees

xiii
om gedood, beseer en/of verkrag te word en magteloosheid. Na die aanvalle het hulle dikwels
woede en bitterheid ervaar.

Analise van die data het verder aangedui dat liggaamlike beserings gewissel het van geringe tot
ernstige beserings wat hospitalisasie genoodsaak het. Emosionele en sosiale skade is ook ervaar
deur die slagoffers, wat veroorsaak dat hulle swartmense vrees en wantrou, want die aanvalle was
almal swart op wit. Plaasaanvalle het ook negatiewe finansiële gevolge vir die slagoffers gehad.
Kapitaal wat vir ander doeleindes aangewend kon gewees het, moes gebruik word om mediese-
en begrafnisrekeninge te vereffen en om sekuriteit op te knap, veral aangesien die meeste
slagoffers gevrees het om weer gevikimiseer te word.

Na die aanvalle het sommige respondente verkies om te verhuis. Hoewel baie van die
respondente dit te duur gevind het om die nodige beveiligingsmaatreëls uit te voer, is
vermydingsgedrag in die vorm van waaksaamheid geïdentifiseer as die effektiefste manier om
viktimisasie in die toekoms te voorkom. Ander vermydingstaktieke het ingesluit die voer van honde
smiddags terwyl sigbaarheid nog goed is en om werkers uit te stuur om die rede te gaan vasstel vir
die besoek van swart vreemdeling wat op die plaas aankom sonder afspraak.

Verkeerde persepsies rakende die motiewe vir aanvalle en die profiel van aanvallers, asook
gerustheid oor sekuritet wat dikwels kom van die roetine aard van boere se leefstyl, is
geïdentifiseer as die hoof redes vir plaasboere se vatbaarheid vir viktimisasie. Daar is ook bevind
die respondente se oorlewingstrategieë verskil. Hoewel sommiges op hulle Christelike geloof en
die ondersteuning van familie en vriende staatgemaak het, het ander hul innerlike krag ingespan
om hul emosionele balans te herwin.

Na aanleiding van bogenoemde bevindings, is aanbevelings gedoen rakende verdere navorsing en

stappe wat geneem kan word deur beide die regering en die plaasboere om plaasaanvalle te
verminder. Daar is uitgelig dat faktore soos haatspraak, die bespoediging van grondhervorming en
opvoeding verdere aandag verdien. Plaasboere moet waak teen valse gemoedsrus en ingeligte
besluite neem rakende sekuriteit op plase. Aangesien oorlewingsstrategieë verskil, is dit verder
gemeld dat gevikitimiseerde plaasboere moet volhou tot hulle die negatiewe ondervinding verwerk
het.

xiv
 SLEUTELWOORDE

Plaas, Plaasboer, Plaasaanval, Slagoffer, Slagoffervatbaarheid, Modus operandi, Gerustheid,

Beperkinge, Geweld, Wantroue, Oorlewingstrategieë.

xv
1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND, DEFINITIONS AND RESEARCH
PROBLEM

Farm attacks or acts of violence against farms and smallholdings as they are more recently termed,
have been a national issue since 1997 (Beukman, 2001:4; Van Burick, 2003a:69). Both Government
and Agri South Africa (Agri SA), the former South African Agricultural Union (SAAU), have been
treating the attacking of farmers with the highest priority (Agri SA eis dringende ondersoeke na
moorde, 2001:1; Agri SA opnuut toegespits op projekte om plaasveiligheid te bevorder, 2001:2; Agri
Securitas geld vir navorsing oor plaasaanval misdadigers, 2001:3; Cilliers, 1999g:91-92; Cilliers,
2000:73: Fourie, 1997a:4; Manie, 1998:73). At the Rural Safety Summit held at Midrand in October
1998, the problem of farm attacks was recognised as ‘complex and multifaceted’ (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003a:31). While the majority of attacks have been on white
farmers, farmers of all cultural groups are targets of attacks (Crime Information Analysis Centre,
1998:9; Engelbrecht, 1998:10; Swart, 2003:13; Van der Westhuizen, 1997b:4). The rate of attacks
increased out of proportion to the general rise in crime figures from the beginning of 1997 to October
1998 when the Rural Safety Summit was held (Fourie, 1998b:8). Thereupon the number of attacks
declined for a short period. In February 1999 attacks on farmers began to increase again (Britz,
1998:6; Cilliers, 1999a:68, 70; Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1999b:3, 7).They reached a peak in
2001/2002 and began a slow decline to 2005/2006 (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 2006:70; Van
Greunen, 2001:32-35). Motives for attacking farmers, for example robbery, revenge or land issues,
seem to differ from case to case (Cilliers, 1998b:81; Lochner, 1998b:44, 46: Malan, 2007:4; Manie,
1999a:73-74; Politiek is dalk wel faktor by plaasmoorde, 1998:72; Rohendahl, 1998:67). However,
while the motives may vary, the fact that attacks on farmers change the lives of the victims in one way
or another, remains constant (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003f:11, 27-29).

Before attention is devoted to issues relevant to farm attacks and problems experienced by direct
victims of such attacks, the historical background of attacks on farmers in South Africa (SA) will be
discussed briefly.

1.1 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Although farm attacks have been receiving extensive coverage in the media since 1997, the killing of
farmers is not a new phenomenon. The first reference to the murder of a farmer is a Biblical one. In

1 Page numbering commences in Part 10 of the Report. For the sake of consistency, the 18 parts are numbered separately.

1
Genesis 4:8 it is stated that Cain, a grain farmer murdered his brother Abel, a stock farmer. This he did
out of jealousy because the Lord accepted an offering of the first born of Abel’s flock while rejecting his
offering of grain.

In SA the attacking of farmers can be traced back to the days of the first Dutch settlers. Although
Dutch East India Company officials and free burghers do not strictly comply with the operational
definition of a farmer as used in this study (see next section), it is necessary to point out that there are
records of attacks on persons engaged in farming activities dating back three centuries (Böeseken,
1952:8; Grüttner & Van Zyl, 1981:11).

In her book on the history of SA from 1652 to 1952, Böeseken (1952:8, 146) refers to a number of
newspaper reports that highlight the occurrence of such attacks. The first report (Böeseken, 1952:8)
refers to the murder of a young Dutch herdsman, David Jansz by Herry, Jan van Riebeeck’s English-
speaking interpreter and his followers. This murder occurred on 19 October 1653 while the boy’s
parents and other officials were attending a church service in the Fort. During this attack 42, head of
cattle were stolen, leaving the Dutch garrison and officials without dairy products or a means of hauling
heavy logs, necessary for timber, out of the forests.

The second incident referred to above is the murder of a bookkeeper and deacon of the church and
his family in their home on the slopes of Table Mountain (Böeseken, 1952:146). Michiel Smuts, his
wife and child were attacked on 14 July 1761 between eight and nine o’clock at night by slaves who
had escaped from their owners and taken refuge on the mountain. Böeseken records that the whole
community was deeply shocked at the death of the respected and loved family.

Various motives have played a role in attacks on South African farms. Robbery, revenge and personal
disputes can be singled out as being the most common. Marauding Khoikhoi (Hottentots) and San
(Bushmen) often robbed Dutch settlers to gain possession of their animals. Slaves were also
responsible for attacks, presumably for revenge. Xhosa and Zulu tribes on the other hand, often
clashed with white farmers over grazing land for their respective herds of livestock (Böeseken, 1952:8,
146, 189; Butler & Benyon, 1974:247; Grüttner & Van Zyl, 1981:11).

Throughout recorded history, attacks on persons in the isolation of their farms have been met with
outrage. In some cases mass action by fellow farmers followed an attack. In certain instances the
government of the time either promulgated new regulations in a bid to curb this type of crime, or
attempted to enforce existing laws and regulations more strictly as a means of deterrence.

2
The murder of the Smuts family is a case in point (Böeseken, 1952:146). Governor Rijk Tulbagh
summoned the Political Council the day after the murder in order to discuss the stricter implementation
of some of the slave laws contained in an edict published in 1756. A large number of the 29
regulations were aimed at preventing situations from arising that could lead to conflict and the
commission of crime. In terms of the edict, slaves were prohibited from roaming the streets in groups
or from gambling. In order to identify slaves using the streets at night, they were required to carry a
lighted lantern. Furthermore, they were forbidden to carry knives or firearms. To curb drunkenness and
disorderliness, the edict regulated the making and selling of liquor. The fine for selling liquor to slaves
was set at 150 riksdaalders. This was increased to 200 riksdaalders if a settler used a Khoikhoi or
slave to make or sell the liquor for him or her. After the Smuts murders, the Governor forbade the
collecting of firewood on the slopes of Table Mountain where some settlers had their homes.
Presumably this measure was to distinguish slaves going about their legitimate duties from run-away
slaves and vagrants. Wood had in future to be collected on the other side of the Salt River. A slave
caught on the slopes of Table Mountain was to receive corporal punishment and his master a fine of
100 riksdaalders. Furthermore, the regulation regarding the carrying of a lighted lantern at night was
henceforth to be more strictly enforced. In order to encourage compliance with this regulation, a fine of
25 riksdaalders was set for the owners of offending slaves.

Attacks on farmers in the isolation of their farms continued into the twentieth century. Details of attacks
on two farms in the Eastern Cape and one in the Free State will now follow.

On 17 May 1936 a farmer was brutally murdered near Hofmeyr in the Eastern Cape in front of his wife
by a black male. He died from a forceful blow to his forehead and stab wounds. According to a
newspaper correspondent “great excitement followed” and 300 enraged farmers organised an
intensive manhunt for the killer who was later arrested approximately 70 kilometres from the crime
scene (Murdered in front of his wife, 1936:2).

In the adjacent district of Cradock, a farm attack occurred in December 1956. In this case the farmer
who lived alone approximately 90 kilometres outside the town, was held up at pistol point by three
men. His house was ransacked and he was left tied up with bedclothes torn into strips (Armed robbers,
1956:18).

In September 1984 a farm attack that involved the abduction of one of the victims, took place on the
farm Dunse in the district of Hobhouse in the Free State Province. A 70-year old grandmother was

3
attacked and abducted from the farm by a young farm labourer after he had gunned down and killed
her husband. She was later found with a broken leg and gashes to her face after the vehicle he had
driven from the farm crashed near Dewetsdorp (Granny’s night of horror, 1984:7).

From these newspaper reports (Armed robbers, 1956:18; Granny’s night of horror, 1984:7; Murdered
in front of his wife, 1936:2), it can be deduced that attacks that took place on farms up to 1984 were
similar to those reported since that date. Weapons used also ranged from blunt instruments and
knives to firearms. As often happens today, there were instances in which farmers’ vehicles were used
as a means of escape. The abduction of farmers’ family members also took place.

In all three cases quoted above, the perpetrators were black males and the victims white males and
females. Police statistics on perpetrators and victims of attacks in 20012 confirm that the majority of the
perpetrators of farm attacks were black (96,5%) and almost exclusively male (99%), while the majority
of victims were white (61,6%), with males (59,2%) falling victim to offenders more often than females
(40,8%) (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003n:17; Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:25). Most victims were either elderly or persons living in isolation. The
reasons for this might be that the elderly are generally more vulnerable than younger persons who are
physically more able to defend themselves (Fattah & Sacco, 1989:158). Living in an isolated area also
decreases the chances of receiving help in time to ward off death or injury and increases the chances
of the attackers’ successful escape (Britz, 1998:41).

Most of the investigating officers that were interviewed by the Commission of Inquiry into Farm Attacks
first started noticing the phenomenon of farm attacks, as defined in the section that follows, around
1993 and 1994 (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:1). One of the
differences between attacks prior to 1993 when attacks on farmers began to come to the attention of
the investigating officers, is that perpetrators are now more violent and use sophisticated weapons
such as firearms most of the times (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:20).
Another difference is that offenders are no longer content to steal only food and/or valuables that they
are able to lay their hands on. Firearms and motor vehicles have become highly sought after
commodities (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:20). As more farmers now
own safes, firearms and valuables are usually locked away. Investigating officers believe this often
makes it necessary for offenders who enter farmers’ homes in their absence to await their return.
Forcing farmers to unlock their safes has the potential of increasing the violence necessary for the
successful completion of the crime (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:2).

2 Throughout the text, reference will, out of necessity, be made to 1998-2001 statistics for detailed information that is not available in the
2005-2006 statistics.

4
1.2 DEFINITIONS

Before more recent attacks are discussed, it is necessary to examine and also construct operational
definitions of relevant key terms such as farmer, farm, farm attack and victim. It is of importance that
terms be defined clearly so that they may be interpreted uniformly. While definitions enhance the
accuracy of research, they also facilitate the collection, assimilation and evaluation of data necessary
to complete the study.

1.2.1 Farmer

The term farmer is derived from the Latin word agricola which according to Cassell’s New Latin
Dictionary (1962:30) is defined as a ‘tiller of the fields’. However, defining the term in this way is
inadequate. Firstly it fails to include the pastoral breeding and rearing of livestock. Both these
categories of farmers existed as early as Biblical times. In Genesis 4:8 Cain and Abel referred to in
section 1.1, were a tiller of the soil and a livestock farmer respectively.

Secondly, the definition gives no indication that a farmer can be male or female. From references in
the Bible one can conclude that farmers during that period were male. In Genesis 13:2 one reads that
Abraham was very rich in cattle; in Genesis 30:35 Laban took sheep and goats from his flocks and
placed them in the care of his sons [my italics]; in Numbers 32:1 one learns that Reuben and Gad had
large herds of cattle and in Amos 7:14 that Amos farmed with cattle and wild figs before he became a
prophet. In the New Testament the Lord often used parables relating to farming activities while
teaching the people. He told about good trees bearing good fruit (Matthew 12:33-37; Luke 6:43-45),
the sower of seeds sowing his seed in fertile soil (Matthew 13:1-9; Luke 8:4-8) and the farmer leaving
his flock to search for one lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14; Luke 15:1-7), yet nowhere can a reference
be traced relating to female farmers.

In SA, presumably because of the dangers posed by hostile tribes and wild animals, farming was for a
long time also regarded as a male occupation. Böeseken (1952:13) records that the first free burghers
were males. These were nine officials of the Dutch East India Company who had requested to be
released from their official posts in order to farm independently. They were Steven Jansz Botma,
Hendrik Elbertz, Otto Jansz, Jacob Cornelisz, Harmen Remajenne, Maertens de Wacht, Jan van
Passel, Warnaer Cornelisz and Roelof Jansz.

5
Butler and Benyon (1974:135-155), in their description of the allocation of land to the British Settlers in
1820, recount anecdotes of hardships endured by men such as John Stubbs, Thomas Pringle, James
Thomas and others who had received land of 100 acres on which to commence their farming activities.
Nowhere is mention made of land being allocated to women. The size of the farms referred to above
was deliberately limited by the Colonial Office to discourage stock farming that requires larger areas
for grazing. The officials believed bigger farms would present ‘an irresistible temptation’ to cattle-
keeping tribesmen who would attack the farmers in order to gain possession of their livestock.

In the twenty-first century a definition that excludes females would, however, be inaccurate. A number
of female farmers have won awards for their contributions to agriculture (Female farmers add value to
agriculture in South Africa, 2001:9; Prinsloo, 1999:89). A female farmer from Vryburg who farms with
Santa Gertrudis cattle and American Saddler horses won the Farmer of the Year Award of the Central
Area Agricultural Writers’ Association of SA (Jooste, 1999b:90). One of the country’s most successful
asparagus farmers is a female farmer. She also does commercial beef farming and exports sweet corn
which is only one of the many crops grown on her 2 600 hectare farm (Jooste, 1999d:62). A black
female farmer is the second largest commercial cotton farmer in Natal. The quality of her cotton has
been of such a high grade for a number of consecutive years that she has been approached to
produce cottonseed for other farmers (Jooste, 1999c:63). In 2006 a black female farmer who farms
with sugar cane in the Nkomazi area of the Mpumalanga Province, was voted the Developing Farmer
of the Year by the Agricultural Writers’ Association (Skrywers vereer top-boere, 2006:24).

Thirdly, the definition fails to define the occupational status of a farmer. In many instances farmers own
the land, but many farmers manage farms for the owners or lease land for farming purposes. While
both The South African Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1994:33) and the Collins
Paperback English Dictionary (1999:286) define a farmer as an owner or a manager of a farm, they do
not specifically include a lessee in their definition. Chambers’ Twentieth Century Dictionary (1981:474)
defines a farmer as one who farms land or is the tenant of a farm. This definition therefore specifically
includes lessee farmers. Often farmers retire on their own property while leasing their land to younger
farmers either residing on the leased property or on their own farms in the same area.

Traditionally, at least one of the farmers’ sons was expected to carry on with the farming activities
when the farmer retired. It was thus not unusual to find a second homestead on a farm and two males
farming on the same land. Although persons now have greater freedom in the choice of careers than
in the past, the high unemployment rate of white South African males is forcing some farmers’ sons to
remain on their parents’ property where they assist with the farming activities. While they are not

6
owners, lessees or managers of the farms where they spend their working hours, they normally have
prospects of becoming the future owners. As such they in time generally acquire a number of farm
implements, flocks or herds of their own that might also suffer damage or be destroyed during an
attack. Farmers’ sons in this way can thus operationally be regarded as extensions of the owner-
farmers and if they meet all the other criteria, fall within the definition of a farmer. By the same token
this also applies to farmers’ daughters and/or their husbands.

While the Income Tax Act (Act No. 58 of 1962) does not provide a definition of a farming enterprise, it
does lay down certain guidelines by way of court decisions (Huxham & Haupt, 1995:221). Firstly, it
should be the individual’s intention to farm the land and there should be an expectation of making a
profit from the farming activities. Secondly, the prospect of making a profit from farming the tract of
land should be based on reasonable grounds, such as the size of the land, the viability of the property
and the intensity of the farmer’s activities. Bearing the above in mind, a minimum area cannot be laid
down when defining a farm. While size generally plays a role, the test is rather whether the farmer has
a reasonable expectation of making a profit from the land. This then would not exclude smallholders.
Many smallholders, for example those who cultivate flowers and/or vegetables for the flower and fresh
produce markets in hydroponics rather than in large open fields, might have a reasonable expectation
of making a profit in spite of the fact that the area available for the agricultural activities is limited.
Including smallholders who use the smallholdings for agricultural purposes in the definition of farmers,
makes the distinction between smallholders and farmers unnecessary. Another reason is that police
statistics on farm attacks also include attacks on smallholders.

Living in close proximity to towns and cities might make it convenient for many smallholders to be
employed or self-employed away from the smallholdings. Farming activities would then be performed
on a part-time basis only, but at the same time possibly also with the object of making a profit. These
persons might therefore too be termed farmers, irrespective of the time spent engaged in other
occupations or professions. Furthermore, some farmers who perform farming activities on a part-time
basis are already being included in Agri SA’s figures of the farmers they represent (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:2). This being so, there appears to be no valid reason to
exclude part-time farmers, whether engaged in farming activities on smallholdings in close proximity to
urban areas or on large farms some distance from urban areas, if they are also at risk of being
attacked by offenders.

For the same reason, tenants of a second house on a farm or smallholding can also not be excluded
from the definition. For security purposes and/or an additional income, many farmers are renting out

7
the older of two farmhouses on their properties to retired couples or persons engaged in other
occupations.

The prerequisites to qualify as a farmer as used in this study are thus that he3 resides on the farm or
smallholding; that he is either the owner or an adult family member of the owner, the manager or
lessee of the farm or smallholding or lessee of only the second residence on the farm or smallholding;
that with the exception of a retired farmer and a lessee, that he is engaged in the cultivation of crops
and/or the breeding and rearing of animals on a full- or part-time basis with the prospect of making a
profit either as his main income or as an additional source of income.

1.2.2 Farm

The Chambers’ Twentieth Century Dictionary (1981:474) defines a farm as a tract of land used for
cultivation, a house and other necessary buildings. No mention is made of boundaries, thus it could
also include communal farmland under one headman or chief. Farmland such as this is used mainly in
the former homelands by subsistence farmers where a number of families are engaged in farming
activities where no barriers in the form of fences demarcate each farmer’s field or separate his
livestock from that of the rest of the community.

While the following reference is much older, the definition in Nuttall’s Standard Dictionary of the
English Language (1945:n.p.) is broader. Here a farm is defined as a portion of land, both arable and
pasture, set within definite boundaries and including buildings necessary for the business of farming.

For the purpose of this study, a farm is thus land - irrespective of whether it is classified as a farm or
smallholding because of its dimensions - including all buildings necessary for residential purposes as
well as for cultivation and pastoral farming activities, set within definite boundaries, which is leased,
owned or managed by the farmer and farmed with a reasonable prospect of making a profit from the
land, whether on a full-time or part time basis.

1.2.3 Farm attack

Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Basic English (1995:12) defines ‘to attack’ as to take strong action
against someone or something. Since Collins’ Paperback English Dictionary (1999:42) defines the
term as ‘to launch a physical assault against’ a person or an object, it is evident that the action referred

3 For convenience the masculine gender will be used for farmer, victim and offender unless otherwise intended.

8
to is physical action. In conjunction to this, The New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (1976:91) states that
it is the attacker that begins the attack by taking the initiative in fighting or acting destructively on an
object.

These definitions are however inadequate for the purposes of this study. They fail to clarify a number
of points, such as the possible goals or rewards the attacker envisages by his behaviour, the factors
that instigate or enhance attacks and/or the type of harm caused by violent and/or destructive acts
perpetrated during attacks on the farming community. It therefore becomes necessary to consider
other definitions such as that of aggression, high levels of which are usually evident during the
victimisation of farmers (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1999b:10; Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:10).

• Role of aggression

The word ‘aggression’ is derived from the Latin term ad gradi, which literally means ‘steps towards’
(The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 1964:25). While aggression is generally
recognised as an emotion and the physical acts resulting from the emotion, as violence, Berkowitz
(1993:3) defines aggression as “any form of behavior that is intended to injure someone physically or
psychologically”. Bartol (1995:184) includes behaviour that is perpetrated or attempted with the
intention of destroying an object. Resistance by the victim is one of a number of factors that could
cause a situation in which aggression is used to become so dynamic that serious harm and/or damage
is caused to the victim and/or his possessions. It sometimes also becomes difficult to distinguish
between the aggressor and the victim. However, both The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current
English (1964:18) defines aggression as an act of beginning a quarrel or an unprovoked attack. From
this definition and that of The New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (1976:91), it becomes evident that the
terms aggressor and attacker might be used interchangeably as both refer to the party that takes the
first step towards inflicting injury or initiating hostilities by some visible offensive act.

• Types of aggression

Several types of aggression have been identified (A Student’s Dictionary of Psychology, 1993:5;
Bartol, 1995:183). However, hostile (expressive) aggression and instrumental aggression appear to be
most relevant to the attacking of farmers. The two kinds are distinguished according to the goals or
rewards envisaged by the aggressor. Hostile aggression is “motivated by antagonistic feelings and
emotions” (A Student’s Dictionary of Psychology, 1993:5) and has as goal the injury or death of the

9
victim whereas instrumental aggression has some extrinsic goal such as the acquisition of a valuable
object. Zillmann (1979:41) distinguishes instrumental aggression from hostile aggression by stating
that angry or hostile aggression is annoyance motivated and instrumental aggression is incentive
motivated.

Hostile aggression in an attacker might be instigated or enhanced by any one or more of a number of
factors (e.g. pain, frustration or anger). According to Feldman (1993:298-300), pain and physical
assaults suffered by the aggressor are likely to enhance aggressive behaviour. He maintains that prior
anger arousal and strong modelling also facilitate overt aggression. He states further that stimuli
associated with aversive experiences (e.g. threats and/or insults) might also instigate aggressive
responses.

Berkowitz (1993:34-41) claims that both insults and frustrations evoke aggression as they are
unpleasant experiences. He is of the opinion that frustrations, and in particular those caused by unfair
interference, arbitrary or legitimate, might lead to aggression usually directed at the person believed to
be responsible. He further maintains that interpreting the thwarting of a goal as a personal attack,
might lead to fairly strong aggressive inclinations. Spear, Penrod and Baker (1988:520) who believe
that aggression is frequently the product of an attribution of blame, support this view. Berkowitz
(1993:36) further states that the greater the difference between what the individual expected to receive
and what he actually obtained, the greater the hostility will be. He also refers to the failure of obtaining
anticipated satisfactions and links this to the social unrest that sometimes occurs when rapidly rising
expectations are not met.

While Spear et al. (1988:819) support Feldman and Berkowitz with regard to the effect of pain and
frustration on the level of aggression, they maintain that observation of aggression by others (e.g.
accomplices) might increase the likelihood of further aggressive acts. Even objects associated with
aggression (e.g. a firearm) can lead to increased aggressive behaviour.

Megargee (1982:128, 131) states that instrumental aggression is inspired by a broad spectrum of
incentives, the main one possibly being that of personal gain (e.g. the acquisition of cash or a valuable
item). An offender might also anticipate experiencing personal satisfaction (e.g. enhancing his self
concept, proving his manhood, excitement, demonstrating courage and/or obtaining attention). In
some instances the use of aggression might eliminate possible obstructions to the successful
completion of the crime (e.g. the elimination of persons who offer resistance, interfere or witness the
crime). Instrumental aggression might also be perceived as a means of achieving certain social goals

10
(e.g. winning the approval or acceptance of a group, maintaining group solidarity and/or gaining power
control or dominance over others). In certain cases aggression might be used to fulfil political goals
(e.g. to enhance the established political structure).

According to Livingston (1996:160) any crime combines both expressive and instrumental motives.
Thus it is sometimes difficult to gauge how much violence is expressive and how much is instrumental.
An offender might also find himself referred to in the media by different terms, depending on the motive
attributed to his aggressive acts. A farm attacker motivated by hostile aggression, who injures or kills
his victim, is often referred to as an assailant or a murderer, while another who also injures or murders
his victim, but for the purpose of personal gain, as a robber.

• Attack

In the light of the above, The South African Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1994:50)
extends the above definitions of an attack to include an attempt to harm or defeat the victim(s). This
source defines the term to attack as “to try to hurt or defeat by using force”. Both Bartol’s definition of
aggression (1995:184) and that of A Student’s Dictionary of Psychology (1993:5) already referred to in
this section, also include attempts to harm another. Physical action (e.g. the forceful breaking down of
a door or removal of burglar proofing) with the intention of causing death, injury, psychological harm or
damage to the owner of the building and/or its occupants at the time of the forceful acts, also qualifies
as an attack. Although no physical injury might be inflicted on the victim during the course of such an
attempt, considerable damage might be caused to the victim’s property before the attackers abandon
their attempt. Psychological harm might also be suffered by the occupants of the homestead at the
time of the offenders’ violent behaviour. Intensive fear of being tortured, seriously injured or even killed
might cause farmers and/or the members of their families who genuinely fear for their lives to be so
traumatised by the event that they suffer psychological harm. Intimidation of farmers, their families and
workers by acts of violence plays an important role in farm attacks (Moolman, 1999a:83). Many attacks
have also followed threatening telephone calls, the posting of threatening and inciting notices along
farm boundaries and verbal threats against farmers and their families. According to Moolman
(1999a:81), the use of excess violence during the course of attacks (e.g. the torturing of husbands in
front of their wives and parents in front of their children) might be regarded as a form of mass
intimidation of the farming community in order to scare them off their property. These acts of
intimidation are sometimes accompanied by acts of sabotage such as the poisoning or hacking to
death of cattle, arson and malicious damage to property - all of which might cause victims to believe
that their lives will not be spared if the offenders should succeed in gaining entry to their homes.

11
In 1998 when former President Mandela appointed Assistant Commissioner Britz and Director Siyesi
to co-ordinate the investigation of crimes against the farming community, the South African Police
Crime Information Management Centre (CIMC) defined a farm attack as follows: “acts aimed against
the residents, workers and/or visitors to farms or smallholdings, whether with the intent to murder,
rape, rob or inflict bodily harm” (Britz, 1998:2) The CIMC qualified the definition by stating that certain
acts were excluded from the definition, namely acts between individuals known to each other, for
example actions related to domestic violence, drunkenness and what may be termed ‘normal’ social
interaction between individuals. Crimes such as murder, attempted murder, rape, assault with the
intent to commit grievous bodily harm, robbery and armed robbery, vehicle hijacking, malicious
damage to property where the damage exceeded R10 000 and arson, were mentioned specifically.
Both personal and property crimes were therefore included in the definition - all of which might result in
death, physical injury, psychological harm and/or financial loss to farmers. A number of points of
criticism have, however since been levelled at the definition (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into
Farm Attacks, 2003a:8-11). One of the points of criticism by the Human Rights Watch (HRW), was that
the term ‘attack’ has a military connotation. This might lead persons to believe that the crimes
committed have “a military or terrorist basis rather than a criminal basis” (Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003a:10). A point of criticism raised by the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks (2003a:11) was the stipulation of a minimum of R10 000 pecuniary damage in the case of
arson. The Committee stated that the definition did not take into account the cases where the actual
damage was less than R10 000, but the potential damage exceeded this amount. More recently farm
attacks are referred to as “acts of violence against farms and smallholdings” and the stipulation of a
minimum of R10 000 damage has fallen away (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 2005:73). In spite
of criticism of the definition, the CIMC (now the Crime Information Analysis Centre) and National
Operational Co-ordinating Committee (NOCOC) definition remains one of the most advanced
definitions of a farm attack.

While it is the intent to adhere as closely as possible to the above definition for the CIAC and NOCOC
statistics to remain meaningful, the definition is too wide for the purposes of this study. Visitors to
farms, workers and their family members who do not fall within the scope of the definition of a farmer
as defined in this section, are included in the NOCOC and CIAC definition as they are also victims of
the on-going violence in rural areas (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:43).
In terms of the NOCOC and CIAC definition the rape and/or robbery of individuals walking to
neighbouring farms or farm shops would be classified as farm attacks if the perpetrators were
strangers to the victims.

12
For the purpose of this study, the operational definition of a farm attack is therefore deliberate,
unprovoked, overtly accomplished, attempted or threatened violent behaviour directed at a particular
farmer, or farmers in general, irrespective of race, as well as their immediate families and/or
possessions within the boundaries of their farms. These acts of aggression are carried out with the aid
of firearms, sharp objects such as knives or axes, blunt objects such as stones, brute force, arson
and/or sabotage and may result in negative effects to the victims. The illegal physical aggression,
whether annoyance or incentive motivated, is instigated and exhibited by one or more individuals, one
or more of whom might be acquainted with the farmer(s), but not members of their families or circle of
friends.

1.2.4 Victim

The term victim is derived from the Latin word victima meaning “a beast for sacrifice” (Nuttall’s
Standard Dictionary of the English Language, 1945:n.p.). A victim was seen as a person or an animal
put to death during a ceremony in order to appease some supernatural power or deity. However, with
the passage of time, the term has acquired some additional meanings (Karmen, 1990:2-3). According
to Schurink, Snyman, Krugel and Slabbert (1992:5), contemporary lay use of the term is subjective,
multi-dimensional and refers to a variety of situations and people (e.g. hostages, homosexuals,
patients of therapists or laid-off employees).

The New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary (1976:1844) defines a victim as a person who is killed or made
to suffer by cruel or oppressive treatment, or a person who suffers injury, hardship or loss. One might
therefore expect all victims to be persons who would be treated with compassion, sympathy and
kindness by members of their communities. While Collins Paperback English Dictionary (1999:941)
defines a victim as a person tricked or swindled, both The New Collins’ Thesaurus (1984:732) and The
South African Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English (1994:50) use synonyms such as ‘dupe’,
‘prey’ and ‘sucker’ (slang). All these are an indication of the negative perception many non-victims
have of those victimised by other human beings (Taylor, Wood & Lichtman, 1983:23).

These definitions are, however, inadequate as they omit to specify the cause of injury or damage
suffered by the victim. It can therefore be linked to any number of events. Examples are natural
disasters like disease, floods or even man-made disasters such as airline crashes where technology,
human error or negligence often play a role. Relevant to this study, is harm and/or damage caused by
the criminal acts of offenders. Therefore, only individuals or groups who suffer as a result of these acts

13
might be termed victims. While this narrows down the scope of the definition, it is clear that besides
victims such as the farmer, his family members and/or workers who are directly involved in the attack,
a whole spectrum of persons might rightly claim to be victims of farm attacks. Persons summoned to
the scene after an attack has taken place (e.g. neighbours, police officials as well as ambulance and
hospital staff) who witness the evidence of torture and brutality, might also experience negative
emotional consequences as a result of an attack. Even a member of the general public who learns of
an attack through the media and suffers from fear to such an extent that he modifies or changes his
lifestyle (e.g. stays indoors after dark and/or spends large sums of money on security devices) might
be termed a victim of attacks. In order to further limit the scope of the term victim, it is necessary to
draw a distinction between persons who were directly involved in the attack and those victims who
were not present, yet suffered emotional and/or financial harm as a result of the farm attack.

For the purpose of the study, the operational definition of a victim is therefore any farmer or members
of his family who suffer physical injury, psychological and/or social harm at experiencing or witnessing
the attack and/or financial harm, irrespective of the amount, as a result of the violent actions of the
attacker(s).

1.3 RESEARCH PROBLEM

Attacks on members of the farming community affect all layers of the South African society. While
many of those who experience an attack at first hand are either killed, maimed or suffer physical injury,
psychological consequences and/or economic losses, other persons fear for the lives and safety of
their friends and relatives on farms (Tempelhoff, 2007:1). Some anticipate the loss of job and business
opportunities, an increase in racial tension and instability in the country in general and therefore a loss
of foreign revenue (Skok-uitlatings oor moorde op boere walglik, 1997:113). Referring to attacks on
farmers, a Strydenburg farmer is quoted: “Crime is like a cancer, brutalising our economy, stability and
order. In addition to the heartache, physical and psychological suffering, damage, poverty, hate, desire
for revenge, radicalisation and destabilisation are incalculable” (Frean, 1998b:17).

1.3.1 Farm attacks as a national problem

Although farm attacks account for a small percentage of all murders, rapes and armed robberies
reported to the South African Police Service (SAPS), the fact that they are premeditated like other
‘headline’ crimes (e.g. hijackings, bank robberies, cash-in-transit robberies and gang related conflict),
is a cause of great concern to the SAPS and agricultural unions (Crime Information Management

14
Centre, 1998:20; Pelser, 2001b:18; Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:11).
Decisive actions taken by Government and non-governmental organisations serve to highlight the fact
that the attacking of farmers has become a national problem.

Former State President Nelson Mandela and President Thabo Mbeki have taken the initiative on a
number of occasions to ascertain why farmers are being targeted and to improve the plight of potential
victims. Some of the Government initiatives include the implementation of the Rural Protection Plan,
the commissioning of a special investigation into the motives behind farm attacks, the convening of a
Summit on Rural Safety (see section 1) and the appointment of a Special Committee of Inquiry into
Farm Attacks. The Rural Protection Plan, that was aimed at enhancing the efficacy of the security
forces in rural areas, was implemented on 1 December 1997 (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into
Farm Attacks, 2003a:3). Its objective was to encourage the security structures to co-ordinate rural
safety operations by engaging in joint planning and action as well as the monitoring of criminal
incidents. An evaluation of the Rural Protection Plan five years later by Schönteich, senior researcher
of the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), showed that it worked better in some areas than in others. In
the Piet Retief district it was effective because a large number of farmers belong to a security cell
system while its success in the Greytown area may be attributed to efforts made by Kwanalu, a strong
agricultural union, to liase with traditional leaders, officials of the Department of Land Affairs as well as
with members of the security forces (Schönteich, 2000a:83-84). The Plan was later replaced by
Operation Akantus, which was to serve as the first line of defence for farmers (Cornelissen, 2001a:18;
Pelser, 2001b:18).

The investigation into farm and smallholding attacks was conducted by Assistant Commissioner Britz
and Director Seyisi from 1 January to 31 May 1998 (Fourie, 1997b:4). The team was instructed to
investigate “all actions aimed at disrupting commercial farming, whether for motives related to
ideology, labour disputes, land issues, revenge, grievances or racist concerns” (Britz, 1998:3). As farm
attacks were being politicised, it also had to determine whether crimes committed against the farming
community were organised in any way (e.g. by a political party). The finding of the investigation was
that while there were a number of motives behind attacks, the main motive was robbery.

The objective of the Summit on Rural Safety held at Midrand on 31 October 1998 was to reach
agreement on how to deal with the problem of farm and smallholding attacks. At the meeting, which
was attended by a number of role players including officials of agricultural unions, a ten-point
declaration was adopted in which attacks on farmers and smallholders were condemned and in which
all the participants committed themselves to the development of a long-term policy framework for rural

15
safety (All sectors committed to fight crime, 1998:3; Cilliers, 1998f:76, 78; Groenewald, 1998a:99;
Groenewald & Cilliers, 1998:92; Schönteich, 2000a:19, 23-25).

A major initiative of the government was the appointment of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks on 5 April 2001 in terms of Section 34(1)(1) of the South African Police Service Act (Act No 68
of 1995). The Committee of eight members from diverse backgrounds was composed of experts from
a variety of fields relevant to the attacking of farmers. The 18-part document that covers a wide range
of issues concerning farm attacks, was released in 2003.

Agri SA, which is the largest representative of commercial farmers in SA, in turn focussed attention on
the plight of members of the farming community and on the detrimental effect attacks had on food
production. It publicly condemned attacks on farmers, held talks with Government representatives on a
regular basis, drew up petitions and organised protests against farm attacks in all nine provinces (Agri
SA pleads with members and politicians to act responsibly, 2000:1; Cilliers, 1998g:93; Du Toit, 1998:1;
Ons is keelvol vir misdaad, 1998:1; Petisie-aksie teen plaasaanvalle geloods, 2000:1; Van heinde en
ver kom steun vir petisie-aksie, 2001:4). In May 1998, Agri SA discussed the serious implications of
farm attacks at the 33rd General Conference of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers
(IFAP) held in Manila. This prompted the President of the international organisation to warn against the
negative effect that social unrest might have on farmers’ ability to produce sufficient food in the future
(Blight, 1998:1; Du Toit, 1998:1). Agri SA was also successful in focussing the attention of many
business undertakings on rural security. While many South African companies such as Sanlam and
Sentrasure have contributed in a number of ways to enhancing the security of rural communities,
international firms such as Daimler Chrysler Aerospace and American International General have also
become involved by making large contributions, for example to the Agri Securitas Trust Fund which
was established in February 1998 to improve security in rural areas (Agri SA opnuut toegespits op
projekte om plaasveiligheid te bevorder, 2001:2; Agri Securitas – hoop vir beter toestande in
veiligheidsituasie, 1998:2; Agri Securitas project to generate money to protect communities, 1999:4;
Voorstes in Suid-Afrika wil boere help teen misdaad, 1999:1).

1.3.2 Consequences of farm attacks

Farm attacks have a negative influence on the lives of all South Africans. While destabilisation of the
country, loss of production and loss of foreign revenue might affect the South African public in general,
the Committee of Inquiry into Farm attacks described the financial impact of farm attacks on members

16
of the farming community as ’tremendous’ and the consequences of such attacks on the victims as
‘traumatic’ (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003q:1).

1.3.2.1 Negative consequences for victims of farm attacks

Many victims of farm attacks lose their lives each year, leaving a number of children orphaned and
many families without breadwinners. Statistics released by the CIAC reveal that in 2001, the number of
farmers murdered in the Mpumalanga Province was well above the average for the nine provinces
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:18).

Physical injuries that sometimes require costly medical treatment and/or hospitalisation are often
inflicted on victims during farm attacks. In 2001, 484 individuals were injured during farm attacks. The
largest number of victims, namely 145, were injured in the Mpumalanga Province (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:18). Injuries suffered by victims of farm attacks are
sometimes so serious that it is impossible or difficult for them to continue with the tasks required of
them on the farms. In one case cited by the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, a victim had to
have one hand amputated as a direct result of injuries sustained during an attack. In another, a victim
still suffers from a motor neuron disability as a result of brain damage inflicted on him by his attackers
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003q:1). In cases where farmers or members
of their families are raped by their assailants, they also have to live and cope with the additional fear of
having been infected with Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) (Toerien, 2002:1). In one
case of rape during a farm attack, a 21-year old victim who was infected with the disease after being
raped five times, now has a life expectancy of approximately 15 years and has also been declared
unfit for employment which makes her dependant on others for support (Van Niekerk, 1999:3). Fear of
having contracted the disease might also seriously affect the quality of life of the victims and their
families for long periods after victimisation, as infection by this life-threatening disease cannot be
established immediately on examination.

Psychological harm is sometimes suffered by victims who witnessed or were confronted with actual or
threatened death or serious injury that caused them to experience intense fear, helplessness and/or
horror (Barlow & Durand, 1995:190). Specific psychological problems that occur as a result of an
attack are anxiety and an increase in irritability and anger. Often extreme anxiety also goes hand in
hand with an increase in somatic problems such as gastrointestinal discomfort. In addition, it gives rise
to persons apprehensively anticipating further danger or misfortune. In some cases this disorder is
also characterised by an exaggerated startle response and a loss of control over anger. This could

17
lead to violent outbursts that might be harmful to the individual or others who are erroneously identified
as offenders. Difficulty in falling asleep, nightmares about the attack and/or constant waking, might
make it difficult for victims to concentrate on their daily tasks. This could result in a loss in production
or in bad farm management that might be detrimental to the future success of the farming enterprise.
Victims might also avoid stimuli associated with the attack (e.g. young black males). As young black
men normally make up the majority of the workforce on South African farms, victims might find it
stressful to spend a large part of the working day supervising the employees. These responses are all
indicative of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) (Barlow & Durand, 1995:190) and might have a
negative effect on both racial relations and productivity on the farms. Besides significant impairment in
occupational areas of functioning, PTSD also results in distress or impairment in social or other
important areas of functioning.

Social impairment might be evidenced by withdrawal from recreational, cultural and/or religious
activities in the community. As victims are sometimes also blamed for their victimisation, the negative
attitude of some members of the community might cause some individuals to deliberately avoid
possible contact with unsympathetic non-victims. The general feeling is often that victims precipitated
the crime in one or more ways (e.g. by keeping large sums of money on the premises and/or trusting
strangers). While some victims might be blamed and/or made to feel like losers deserving reactions
such as derogation or rebuke, others are often pitied for their helplessness. This might also cause
some measure of discomfort. As it is not always easy to determine the extent of social harm caused by
acts of criminal victimisation, some social psychologists propagate the use of a more subjective
approach (Feldman, 1993:290). According to Feldman (1993:291), factors such as the intentions that
may be attributed to the aggressor and also the relationship of the aggressor to the recipient (e.g. an
employer and dismissed employee) should be taken into consideration. Some victims might feel that
the offenders wished to embarrass or shame them (e.g. by tricking them), humiliate them (e.g. by
causing them to suffer verbal, physical and/or sexual abuse in the presence of others) and/or make
them feel inadequate (e.g. by their failure to protect themselves and their loved ones). Of significance,
therefore, is the victim’s perception of the harm caused to his self-concept.

Many victims feel that attacks on them have made them prisoners in their own homes. They no longer
go out at night and instruct workers to stay away from the homesteads after dark (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003f:11). This might result in the deterioration of the quality
of life of some victims, increase their vulnerability to further criminal victimisation and also exacerbate
racial tensions. Some of the victims interviewed by the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks stated
that they had lost their trust in people, including their own workers (Report of the Committee of Inquiry

18
into Farm Attacks, 2003f:11). Fear of re-victimisation, perceived and/or suspected disloyalty of workers
as well as derogatory statements and allegations (e.g. about carelessness or racism) might further
cause some farmers to mechanise their farming activities and reduce the number of labourers they
employ.

Farmers also suffer a great deal of direct financial loss during an attack. Besides the customary loss of
hard cash, firearms, electrical appliances and sometimes motor vehicles, arson and malicious damage
to property during attacks also result in substantial financial losses (De Nysschen, 2003a:13). It is not
uncommon for offenders to sabotage vehicles and/or machinery in ways that cause permanent
mechanical damage (Meyer, 2001a:10). Outbuildings, fodder, implements and livestock that are
destroyed have to be replaced at current prices. The replacement of items that have been stolen,
damaged or destroyed during attacks might prove so costly that the farmers are forced to recoup the
losses in other ways such as by selling off assets like livestock or reducing staff. Both these measures
could have a detrimental effect on the economy and stability in rural areas as well as the country as a
whole. Financial losses might also result in smaller financial input and in decreased production on
farms.

Besides having to bear financial losses, victims often find that they have to incur additional expenses.
Hospitalisation as well as medical and psychiatric treatment might prove to be costly. Treatment of
victims often also entails substantial travelling costs to and from hospitals in the larger cities, which are
better equipped to deal with injuries of such a serious nature as those sometimes inflicted during farm
attacks. Injury to farmers might also make it necessary for their families to find safer accommodation
elsewhere until they have recovered sufficiently to protect their family members should they suffer
another attack. This too could involve travelling costs, as the farms would have to be visited on a daily
basis to ensure that farming activities are performed according to schedule. If certain routines such as
irrigation, the spraying of crops with insecticides and the reaping or harvesting of fresh produce does
not take place on time, farmers could suffer further financial losses.

After attacks, surviving victims usually also seek ways of enhancing their safety and security. They
might need to invest in costly items such as security gates and fencing, security doors, burglar bars
and alarms, additional lighting and possibly guards and/or trained guard dogs (Chandler, 1998:17). In
order to feel safer, one victim of a farm attack hired the services of a former Koevoet soldier as a
security guard for six months after an attack (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003f:11). Revenue that might have been put to more productive use on farms or saved for retirement,
is therefore often being spent on security equipment.

19
1.3.2.2 Loss of production

On average every farmer supports 24 families (or 118 individuals) directly or indirectly (Swart,
2003:12). According to this author, it takes a farmer who has been attacked approximately 18 months
before he can resume normal production. Furthermore, if the farmer is murdered during the attack, it
takes five to eight years before the same level of production is attained on the farm as before the
attack.

Physical injury to the farmer and/or his family members sometimes also affects productivity. Prolonged
or regular absences from farms during periods of hospitalisation or treatment, inadequate or no
supervision of workers as well as apathy or loss of interest which might set in (e.g. after the serious
injury or death of a family member during an attack), might lead to a loss of production on targeted
farms. Certain tasks might also be rendered impossible to perform (e.g. the ploughing or irrigation of
fields) before destroyed implements or machinery (e.g. tractors or water pumps) have been replaced
or repaired.

While many farmers might not be deterred from carrying on with the normal farming activities after an
attack, some might be distracted in a number of ways from the main task of producing food (Geweld lei
boere se aandag af van hooftaak, 1998:8; KZN cabinet ‘outraged at farm violence’, 1998:4; ‘Ons kan
nie heeldag in loopgrawe lê, ons moet boer!’, 1998:3). As already mentioned, one way is that victims
might find it necessary to spend money that might have been used to increase productivity on
improving security on the farms. Another way is that farmers might have to curtail daily working hours
in order that they and the workers might reach the relative safety of their homes before darkness sets
in.

Decreased production by the agricultural sector could have a negative effect on the country as a whole
as the farming community in SA has proven in the past decade that it has a very important role to play
as a producer of food and other commodities (Agriculture more important to South Africa than gold,
1999:9; Boere ‘kan trots voel oor 1998’, 1999:3; Cilliers, 1998a:69-70; Cilliers, 1999h:84, 86; Cilliers,
1999i:76; Van Rooyen, 1999:72). While the loss of production might reduce the volume of products
that might be exported to earn foreign revenue for SA, the loss of production might also have serious
repercussions for other countries. Food shortages caused by disasters such as droughts and internal
conflicts in the rest of Africa might in future not be replenished by donations (e.g. of maize) from SA if
food production on farms cannot be sustained. Shortages of some agricultural products (e.g. milk)

20
might also arise within SA itself if farmers find dairy farming, which often entails working at night, too
dangerous.

A prevailing feeling of being unsafe, may also result in decreased productivity. According to Swart
(2003:109), fear of being attacked negatively affects the energy that farmers need to put into their
farming activities. Some farmers might give up farming and move to a town or city where they and their
families might feel safer. In 11% of the 18 incidents investigated by the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks in Gauteng, North West Province, KwaZulu-Natal and the Mpumalanga Province, the victims
or members of their families sold the farm or smallholding on which the attack occurred (Mandela
supports SAAU initiatives for rural safety, 1999:5; Report of The Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks, 2003e:11). While this does not necessarily mean that farming activities will not continue on
the property, factors such as financial input, experience and the dedication of the buyer or lessee often
determine if the undertaking remains viable. Furthermore, some individuals wishing to sell the land
after an attack might have difficulty in finding a buyer for a number of reasons (e.g. the farm might
again be perceived as a more suitable target by offenders than neighbouring farms or the farm is
situated in close proximity to an informal settlement). Where a farmer moves off the property before a
buyer or lessee takes over the farming activities, decreased guardianship might provide the
opportunity for some individuals to erect temporary shelters on the farm. This too could affect the
seller’s chances of selling the land to a bona fide farmer whose aim is to keep up the production of
agricultural products.

Some persons might even decide to emigrate from SA to other countries where they might feel less
threatened by violent crime. The high crime levels are already one of the key causes of emigration of
expertise and entrepreneurial spirit in the country (Crime and pressure from abroad, 1998:12; Frean,
1998b:17). Emigration in turn leads to a lack of investor confidence, which is detrimental to the growth
and stability of the economy (Groenewald, 1998b:99; Van Rooyen, 1999:1).

1.3.2.3 Loss of foreign revenue

Income generated by the agricultural sector in SA is becoming increasingly significant and attacks on
farmers might have a negative influence on both long-standing and potential international traders and
investors. According to Swart (2003:11), the average turnover of a farmer is approximately R2 million
per annum. The impact is more serious when some sugar, maize, fruit and some vegetable farmers
are attacked as many of these farmers’ turnover is higher than that of many smaller farmers. To
ensure continued economic growth, it is necessary that a climate conducive to foreign investment be

21
maintained. Reports of rural crime such as farm attacks might arouse scepticism about the wisdom of
trading with or investing in SA. Concern about the effect of farm attacks on foreign investment was
already expressed on numerous occasions in the last decade (Blight, 1998:1; Du Toit, 1998:1;
Moolman, 1999a:3). The importance of foreign revenue generated by the farming sector is
emphasised by Government’s attempts to find means of facilitating the marketing of agricultural
products abroad and efforts to find new markets for farmers in countries outside the United States of
America (USA) and the European Union (EU) (De Lange, 2006a:3).

Although farming does not have a direct bearing on tourism, media reports of attacks on farms have a
negative influence on potential tourists. Tourism is an important source of income for SA. While it
generates foreign revenue, tourism is estimated to create at least one employment opportunity for
every eight tourists that visit the country (‘Ons verwag nog groter poging van regering’, 1999:2).

1.3.2.4 Increased unemployment

Farm attacks also have an effect on the job security of many unskilled and semi-skilled labourers and
their families who normally find it difficult to compete meaningfully on the labour market with their
skilled counterparts in the cities. This could lead to even greater unemployment and the escalation of
crime in rural areas (Ál minder plaaswerkers, 2000:3; ‘Boere huiwerig oor aanstellings’, 1998:13;
Molefe gee SAPD in Noordwes ’n pluimpie, 1998:8).

The abandonment of farming as a result of farm attacks is one factor that could further raise the
unemployment rate that has been high in rural areas for several decades. Proof of the seriousness of
the matter is that a large number of the protesters that led a march to the Union Buildings in Pretoria
on 2 October 1998, were individuals who had already lost their jobs as a direct result of farm attacks
(Boere ‘keelvol’ oor moorde, 1998:4; Ons is keelvol vir misdaad, 1998:1). According to the Report of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks the greatest concern of farm workers after an attack, is unemployment. After
the death of a farmer they ‘know’ that surviving family members will sell the farm (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003f:22). Another factor is fear of victimisation or re-
victimisation (see section 1.3.2.1). Distrust of black persons, who comprise the majority of farm
attackers, might induce some farmers to mechanise their farming activities as far as possible in an
attempt to reduce the number of black employees on the farms.

Many farmers have already changed to less labour-intensive farming in an attempt to reduce the risk of
an attack on themselves and their possessions. An example of such a change is reported by Moolman

22
(1999a:50). He points out that large livestock and forestry have replaced small animals such as sheep
and chickens, which are more easily stolen. This change in production patterns might also lead to
economic losses, especially if the farmers making the changes have no previous experience in that
particular field of farming.

There is already evidence of a decrease in the employment rate in rural areas. Concern was
expressed by the chairman of the Transvaal Agricultural Union (TAU) at a meeting held in Ermelo in
1997 that both farmers and employment opportunities on farms were being lost as a result of attacks
on farming communities (‘Die reg gaan in eie hande geneem word’, sê TLU-man, 1997:4). According
to Moolman (1999a:50), it is estimated that the labour force has decreased in the agricultural sector
from 1,2 million to 900 000. This affects the unemployment rate in SA as well as that in neighbouring
countries. Many farmers have been employing persons from countries such as Malawi and Zimbabwe
on their farms as these immigrants have been found to be more productive and cheaper labour than
many South African workers (Meyer, 2001a:8; Taylor, 2002:27-29).

In 2000, the number of persons working on farms had already decreased by one-third. The Free State
is an example of a province where it has become necessary to reduce the number of workers in order
to survive economically (Skerp afname van werkers op plase, 2000:15). According to a newspaper
report (Ál minder plaaswerkers, 2000:3), labour laws that came into effect in 2003 and natural as well
as economic factors were expected to cause 35% of the farmers in the country to give up farming
altogether. From other media reports it does appear that complex and cumbersome labour legislation
is affecting farmers’ willingness to expand their labour forces. Minimum wages as well as regulations
regarding working hours and living conditions make it difficult for farmers to increase or even to keep
the same number of workers in their employ as they had done in the past (Cilliers, 1999b:101;
Claassen & Cilliers, 1999:84, 86; Dairy group warns about labour legislation, 1999:25; Goeie raad aan
boere, 1998:19; Halstarrige arbeidsbeleid, 1999:65; Manie, 1999b:57; Monster-arbeidswet, 1998:97).

1.3.2.5 Vigilantism

In terms of the Police Services Act (Act 68 of 1995) the first two objectives of the SAPS are to ensure
the safety and security of all persons and property, and to uphold and protect the fundamental rights of
each person as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act No. 108 of 1996).
However, mainly as a result of economic restrictions and the shortage of human resources, it is neither
possible for the SAPS to guarantee the safety of every farmer in SA nor to uphold the fundamental

23
rights of every person living in rural areas (Crime and pressure from abroad, 1998:12; Van Burick,
1999:19).

Feelings of insecurity generated by the knowledge that assistance might not be forthcoming from the
police in cases of an emergency as well as the fact that many farmers have become suspicious of
members of the SAPS and South African National Defence Force (SANDF), might lead to paranoia
(e.g. e-mails about Uhuru night/night of the long blades) and vigilante action by some farmers (Moses,
2007:15). Farmers sometimes suspect members of these security forces of conspiring with the
‘enemy’. Attacks by persons pretending to be security force members have also been reported on
occasion. On 3 December 1997, a farmer was shot in the Mpumalanga Province by attackers wearing
SAPS and SANDF uniforms (Moolman, 1999a:42). Furthermore, some farmers who are continuously
under threat of attack or angered by economic losses sustained during regular raids on their livestock,
might have come to believe that offenders caught in the act have no rights to protection by the State.
They might also believe that handing alleged offenders over to the authorities after they have been
apprehended, serves no purpose as many suspects escape, are released on bail never to appear on
the trial date, while others are given suspended sentences or sent back to the same area on parole.
Therefore, in spite of statements in the media from time to time by police officials urging farmers to
take more responsibility for their own safety by becoming members of the SAP Reserve Service
(Roestoff, 2006b:12), some farmers might prefer acting on their own, within or outside the bounds of
the law, in a bid to ensure the safety of their families, workers and possessions (Magnus, 2007:1). A
number of instances have been reported where farmers have threatened to take direct action against
perpetrators of attacks should they apprehend them before the police do. The inability of the police to
attend to all complaints furthermore places the onus on farmers to deal with such situations
themselves (Jordaan, 2006a:7; Kotzé, 1998:1; Zastron-boer se moordenaar kry 38 jaar, 1997:7). This
might also lead to vigilante action at individual and/or group level or to injury and/or death to the
farmers or the offenders (Selfbeheersing bepleit by boere ná moord op Roos, 2006:12). The possibility
therefore exists that innocent persons might be beaten up or seriously injured by mistake. Van der
Merwe, President of the Northern Cape Agricultural Union, stated at a conference in Kimberley that he
feared that co-operation from farmers might not be forthcoming in the future, possibly implying that
farmers might henceforth prefer acting outside the framework of legal structures (Boere in Noord-Kaap
in ‘n ‘sitting duck’-situasie, 1998:10).

The formation of vigilante groups might have profound negative effects on the country as a whole.
Vigilantism might contribute to the culture of violence already existing in SA (Boere beplan eie
beskerming, 1997:1). Revenge and retaliation might result in a vicious circle of escalating violence,

24
which might be difficult to quell once it has reached momentum. According to Moolman (1999a:51)
action inspired by political motives might even take place. This could lead to increased racial tensions
on a particular farm, which might spread to other rural areas and possibly even further to some urban
areas. An editorial in a daily newspaper sketches the situation on farms as follows:

Private reaction forces, farmers constantly armed like frontiersmen, reactivated alert systems and vicious
incidents - isolated up to now - are signs of pressure build up. Unless the farmstead killings are stopped, and
the government wins the confidence of a sector of the community which is feeling coldly targeted, it will all
erupt (Heed the farmers’ alert, 1998:13).

1.3.2.6 Destabilisation of the country

Racial polarisation as a result of farm attacks might also cause destabilisation in rural areas (Cilliers,
1998h:79; Petisie-aksie teen plaasaanvalle geloods, 2000:1; Van Burick, 2004:94). At the least,
attacks on farmers contribute to a hardening of attitudes. Stanton, a retired American professor and
head of Genocide Watch, is of the opinion that SA is currently experiencing the fifth of the eight stages
leading to genocide, namely racial polarisation. During this stage, extremists on both sides endeavour
to divide the population into two groups (Selfbeheersing bepleit by boere ná moord op Roos, 2006:12;
Van Burick, 2003a:69;). This could result in an escalation of attacks by black persons on white farmers
and also in the increase of vigilante activities by white farmers against black people whom they might
believe are involved in farm attacks.

The destabilisation of SA, both by farm attacks and vigilante activity, might cause setbacks not only in
agriculture, but also in almost all aspects of the economy of the country. A stable farming community is
also particularly important for the stability of a young democracy (Agri Securitas - hoop vir beter
toestande in veiligheidsituasie, 1998:2; Veiligheid, wet en orde - SALU gooi nie handdoek in nie,
1998:20).

1.3.3 Limited empirical data with regard to victims’ personal perceptions

Significant studies have been completed on farm attacks, each covering a different aspect of attacks
on farmers. While many farmers were interviewed during the course of these studies, none of the five
deals specifically with farmers’ perceptions of their susceptibility to attacks and the negative
consequences of farm attacks.

25
Moolman, Head of the Department of Criminology of the University of the North did research in 1999
that focuses on the political and social background of farm attacks. In an extended report entitled
Bloodstains on your food (Moolman,1999a:1-118), he deals with black people’s perceptions and
experiences of apartheid and links this with many farmers being attacked. Moolman found that hatred
that developed during the apartheid era still has a negative effect on relations between black and white
people in the country. According to him, hatred might therefore be the motive behind many farm
attacks.

Late 1999, a research project was made possible by the Secretariat for Safety and Security and the
Agri Securitas Trust Fund to evaluate the effectiveness of the Rural Protection Plan that was put into
operation at the request of the former president Nelson Mandela in 1997. The Rural Safety Task team
requested the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) to conduct the study in selected areas in the three
provinces with the highest incidence of attacks, namely Mpumalanga, KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng.
The project also had as its aim the development of a better understanding of the nature of crime on
farms and smallholdings.

The findings of the research undertaken in the Wierdabrug, Piet Retief and KwaZulu-Natal Midlands
areas were published in a monograph by Schönteich entitled Attacks on Farm and Smallholdings: an
evaluation of the rural protection plan (2000a:1-98). It was found that the effectiveness of the Rural
Protection Plan to combat attacks varied from area to area. The apprehension of offenders depended
largely on the level of community involvement in safety structures such as the commando system of
the SANDF and the SAPS reservist system. Another finding was that the police and the security forces
need to improve their intelligence gathering capabilities, particularly in rural informal settlements and in
squatter camps where farm attacks are often planned and where offenders seek refuge from the
security forces after an attack. As shebeens and illegal taverns are often the places where attacks are
planned and intelligence is gathered about farmers, Schönteich suggested that these be raided and
closed down. Bearing in mind that the activities of the security forces are constrained by a lack of
resources, operations should be focussed where they are needed most, namely in areas where
farmers are known to be threatened by attacks.

Mistry and Dhlamini of the Institute for Human Rights and Criminal Justice Studies, Technicon South
Africa, now the Tshwane University of Technology (TUT), published a study on the profile of
perpetrators of farm attacks in 2001, entitled Perpetrators of farm attacks: an offender profile (Mistry &
Dhlamini, 2001:1-45). The aims of the study were to develop a profile of farm attackers and to
establish their motives. Like the project undertaken by the ISS, they also aimed at developing a better

26
understanding of crime committed in rural areas. Lastly they wished to gauge initiatives used to reduce
attacks on farms and make recommendations in this regard for the Rural Protection Plan (Agri
Securitas geld vir navorsing oor plaasaanval misdadigers, 2001:3).

The study revealed that the majority of the offenders in farm attacks are young, unmarried,
unemployed black males between 15 and 35 years of age. They also found that 56% of the offenders
that they interviewed had been raised by a single parent, grandparents or relatives. They therefore did
not have a stable family background during their formative years. Mistry and Dhlamini’s research also
confirmed police statistics that robbery is the main motive for approximately 90% of farm attacks. To
unemployed persons, farmers are targets with relative wealth. While 6% of the offenders indicated that
they had a grudge against the farmers, some of the offenders did not know why they selected the
farms. Information about the availability of money and the lack of security, prompted 48% of the
respondents to attack farmers. Although they did not hesitate to kill or injure the victims if they did not
co-operate, if they retaliated or if they might have been able to identify them, money provided the
incentive for the crimes, while the lack of security measures on farms provided the opportunity for the
crimes. As most of the perpetrators had kept the potential victims under surveillance for periods of
three to five days, the victims’ routines could be established, which facilitated effective planning of the
crimes committed against them.

Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:43) recommended that farms should be made less attractive as targets, for
example, by improving security and by removing incentives such as money currently believed by many
offenders to be kept in safes on farms. Farmers should also enlist farm workers to report suspicious
persons and warn them to guard against giving away information about security on farms that might
lead to attacks. In the long term, poverty and unemployment in rural areas should be addressed and
the youth should be provided with lifeskills training.

Swart, who was a member of the Permanent Force and later of the General Staff of Chief Joint
Operations of the SANDF, studied and tested more than 3 700 farm attacks for the use of battle
indicators. He found that indicators were present before the attacks in all the cases. Swart then set
about finding effective ways in which all individuals, young and old, male and female, may ward off
attacks on them without the use of force. Besides preparing potential victims psychologically for
attacks on them, his study provided valuable information on the secret Africa language and on battle
indicators that might give warning of planned attacks to informed persons who recognise the signs. He
also dealt with culture differences that determine the outlook on life of black people who comprise the
majority of farm attackers. As this also influences the manner in which perpetrators think and plan,

27
potential victims who have knowledge of the culture of black South Africans, might strategise and
avoid being victimised. An understanding of factors that increase aggression is also helpful in diffusing
potentially dangerous situations. Swart illustrated by means of case studies, the errors made by some
victims, which resulted in the escalation of the violence that was used against them. Some case
studies showed that the plans implemented by some victims enabled them to avoid being killed or
even to escape unscathed (Swart, 2003:1-202).

The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003a-r:1-487) is a comprehensive
document comprising 18 chapters each of which deals with different aspects of farm attacks. The
Committee comprised of Advocates Du Plessis and Schönteich, Mesdames De Haas, Dhlamini, Mistry
and Van Wyk, Professor Moolman and Mister Rasegatla. Motives behind farm attacks were to be
investigated and recommendations made on the findings. Interviews were held, among others, with
sentenced persons, members of the farming community, prosecutors, investigating officers and
several agricultural organisations, including Agri SA, the TAU and the National African Farmers’ Union
(NAFU). Oral submissions from 32 persons and 23 written submissions were studied. These included
submissions made by members of the security forces, other government departments and non-
governmental organisations. The main points of the submissions are contained in the summary.
According to the submissions there is no evidence of an organised campaign against farmers and
most farm attacks have robbery as the motive.

Unlike the completed studies referred to above, research needs to be undertaken that will focus on the
subjective perceptions of farmers who have already been attacked and whose experiences might be
informative to other farmers, all of whom might be regarded as potential victims of farm attackers. By
restricting a study to farmers residing in the Mpumalanga Province – the province that reported more
than the average number of murders - and the Nokeng Tsa Taemane area of Gauteng Province – the
province with a large number of smallholders - a fairly accurate assessment might be made of farmers’
feelings of susceptibility to farm attacks. As persons’ beliefs about the risk of criminal victimisation
usually determine the measures that they implement or fail to implement to safeguard themselves and
their family members against being attacked, information regarding the measures that were
successful, might be useful to other potential victims of farm attacks to aid them in assessing what
means of protection would be most suitable in their own particular circumstances. They might also find
that only slight adaptations to their existing security measures might improve the level of their safety
considerably.

28
While the inadequate security measures of some of the farmers who fell prey to farm attackers might
have been out of choice, the study might also reveal that certain constraints play a role in the time,
money and effort farmers spend or fail to spend on securing their homes. Perceptions about both the
motives and the calibre of the individuals or groups that perpetrate attacks might also be significant. As
there are many misconceptions about farm attacks (Kotzé, 2001a:29), the information provided by the
study might guide farmers to concentrate on specific aspects of their security that they might
previously have neglected as a result of these misconceptions. Information about the dangerousness
of certain tasks and/or leisure activities might also come to the fore. Unsafe areas on farms,
dangerous times and deception strategies often used by offenders might be identified. Potential
victims might also be alerted to certain circumstances that prevail on farms or incidents that occur on
farms that enable attackers to choose one of a number of possible strategies that would enable them
to successfully beguile the farmers without arousing their suspicions unduly. By bearing these in mind,
some farmers might successfully eliminate or decrease the opportunities available to potential
offenders if they should plan to attack their victims in those areas, at these times and/or attempt to use
this particular modus operandi. Guardianship might also be increased at these places, times and when
circumstances prevail that are conducive to attempts at deception. To make the offenders’ planning of
the crime more difficult, routines could be altered where possible.

The study might also throw more light on the best way to react if attacked. While some reactions are
involuntary, some victims might be fortunate to find themselves in a position to be able to decide on
the most appropriate way to pacify their attackers or even cause them to flee without harming them. As
most farmers are taken by surprise, it might be reasonable to assume that the decisions they make
would be made in a state of confusion and also often under chaotic and life threatening circumstances.
Bad choices might readily result in the loss of life or serious injury. Whereas physical resistance, for
example, might be a safe option in some circumstances, compliance with the demands of the
attackers might be a safer option in others. A better understanding of the outcome of certain reactions
might aid future victims in making better choices. They might also learn that it is necessary to take the
emotional state of their attackers into consideration. They might be nervous and/or angry or be under
the influence of drugs or alcohol. By highlighting the reactions of victims that were able to avoid being
killed or seriously injured during attacks, potential victims might each in their own circumstances
consider possible means of reducing rather than escalating the violence in the event of being attacked.

After criminal victimisation it is customary for the victims to upgrade their security. As this usually
entails a great deal of expenditure, those who find themselves financially constrained might believe
that there is little that they can do to safeguard their homes. By taking cognisance of the shortcomings

29
that victims of farm attacks who had the best security systems on the market in place before they were
attacked, other ways might be found to improve security on farms without resorting to spending large
sums of money which would not necessarily insure their safety.

Their subjective experience could create a better awareness of the extent of the physical and mental
suffering of victims of farm attacks. Ways might then also become evident from the qualitative
information provided by the direct victims of farm attacks, of how family, friends, neighbours and
members of the SAPS - who are the victims’ first line of contact with the criminal justice system – can
best alleviate their suffering and/or help them to incorporate the victimisation event into their system of
experiences as speedily as possible. Only by regaining their emotional equilibrium will victims of farm
attacks be able to go on with their lives again. At a time when nation building is of great importance to
the new democracy, the danger of racial polarisation might more directly be brought to the attention of
the authorities. Government might then see the need to consider ways of enhancing the image of
farmers that might highlight the important role they play in food production in the country. Government
might also take more seriously the financial drain of the victims and the loss of production on farms
where attacks have taken place, so that some means might be sought and found of enabling the
victims to return to the same level of production on the farms as before the attacks.

While all victims of farm attacks do not react to the victimisation experience in the same way because
of their individual life experiences, all potential victims of attacks would benefit from being made aware
of coping strategies that are available to help them regain their emotional equilibrium should they be
attacked. Some might be successful in overcoming the negative consequences of the victimisation
event by relying solely on their own inner strength, while others might need the support of family,
friends, and neighbours to overcome their distress. From the experiences of direct victims of attacks,
those who might in the future have to support victims of farm attacks, might also learn of a variety of
ways in which they might unwittingly compound the victims’ distress. First hand information provided
by direct victims of attacks should assist them in avoiding doing more harm to already traumatised
individuals.

While a qualitative study with a small number of participants will not allow for the generalisation of the
findings, first hand free-flowing ‘fresh’ information from direct victims of farm attacks in the
Mpumalanga Province and the Nokeng Tsa Taemane area of Gauteng Province, will promote a better
understanding of farm attacks in general. This might reduce the level of fear and apprehension that is
often experienced by persons living in isolation. By understanding that farm attackers need to be
aware of an opportunity in order to attack a farmer successfully, farmers could by striving to eliminate

30
or reduce those opportunities, also have time to relax in safety without being fully alert all the time.
Besides improving their quality of life, farmers might find that a better understanding of farm attacks
might also allow them to focus better on their primary task, which is to provide food for the nation.

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

In the light of the above discussion, the following objectives are set for the study:

• To determine farmers’ perceptions of their susceptibility to farm attacks.

• To determine the consequences of farm attacks for farmers.

• To identify the main coping strategies that victims implement during and after attacks to
alleviate the distress of victimisation.

1.5 SUMMARY

In this Chapter the historical background of farm attacks was discussed. Thereafter definitions of key
terms such as farmer, farm, farm attack and victim were dealt with. This was followed by a statement
of the research problem and the reasons for research on the personal perspectives of victims of farm
attacks. The research objectives were then listed.

In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, Chapter 2 will deal with theories and models that
can be used to guide the research on farm attacks. Chapter 3 will be devoted to the nature and
incidence of attacks, while Chapter 4 will give attention to victims’ negative experiences of
victimisation. Direct victims’ perceptions of a victimisation event could lead to a greater understanding
of the phenomenon. The research methodology used during the study will be discussed in Chapter 5,
while the research findings will be reported in Chapter 6. In Chapter 7, research topics that emerged
from the findings of the study will be identified. Salient elements of some of these topics that also
came to the fore and need to be addressed in further studies will also be discussed.
Recommendations will then be made regarding ways in which the government can help to reduce
attacks on farmers and also alleviate the negative impact that farm attacks have on all levels of rural
society. More detailed recommendations will thereafter also be made to farmers who regard
themselves as potential victims, on ways of eliminating or reducing opportunities that often make it
possible for offenders to attack farmers with little risk to their own safety. Recommendations will

31
furthermore be made to victims of farm attacks who need to find ways of coping with their distress and
to family, friends and neighbours who might unwittingly add to the trauma of the victims.

32
2. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

While it is necessary that all research be grounded, the qualitative nature of the research topic does
not allow the researcher to be bound by developed theories and/or models. There are however three
models/ theories in victimology that may be used as guidelines for the study. The lifestyle/exposure
model of Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo (1978:241-273) could be used to show how lifestyle
influences the risk of victimisation. The fact that victimisation is not distributed randomly across space
and time, that there are high-risk locations and high-risk time periods, will also be highlighted. The
routine activity theory of Cohen and Felson (1979:588-608) will secondly be discussed to indicate how
activities carried out routinely and especially in the absence of capable guardianship may raise the risk
of victimisation. The third model, namely Lynch’s domain-specific model (1987:283-300) will elaborate
on victimisation that often takes place while farmers are performing their occupational tasks. As
already indicated, the nature of some farming activities increases the vulnerability of the individuals
performing these tasks. The model might also provide possible answers to the reasons why farmers’
family members are often also victimised together with the head of the household. The above-
mentioned models and theory should also contribute to a better understanding of the trend and the
density of farm attacks as well as their geographic and demographic distribution.

2.1 THE LIFESTYLE/EXPOSURE MODEL OF PERSONAL VICTIMISATION

The lifestyle/exposure model of Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo focuses on personal

victimisation, which often occurs as a result of the lifestyle that individuals lead which exposes them to
the risk of victimisation. According to Hindelang et al. (1978:251) victimisation is not uniformly
distributed as it occurs disproportionately at particular times and places. These authors maintain that
persons are victimised by offenders with particular demographic characteristics. Furthermore, they
believe that victimisation takes place under certain circumstances and according to the prior
relationship between the potential victim and the potential offender. Any change to the routine activities
of an individual or groups of individuals, whether it be of potential victims or of wrongdoers, is sufficient
to increase or decrease exposure to risk and provide opportunities for victimisation.

2.1.1 Historical development of the lifestyle/exposure model

The lifestyle-routine activity approach was developed by two different groups of scholars, namely
Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo in 1978 and Cohen and Felson in 1979. Although their theories
were developed separately, they have proved to be so similar that they have been combined in the
32
works of many researchers (Maxfield, 1987:277).

The lifestyle/exposure model relies heavily on the spatio-temporal organisation of activities carried out
on a routine basis. This view is not an entirely new concept (Schafer, 1969:76), as it can be traced
back to 1831 when Quetelet, a Belgian social statistician found that temporal factors play a role in
victimisation. He used social statistics and developed a ‘thermic law’ that states that climate and
season have an effect on crime rates.

The lifestyle/exposure model of personal victimisation of Hindelang and his associates developed
directly as a result of victimisation research done by Hindelang in eight American cities in 1976. His
research on common theft and assault (Hindelang, 1976:153), indicates that lifestyle and victimisation
rates are closely related to an individual’s demographic characteristics such as age, sex and marital
status and to a lesser extent to race and income. As a result of his findings, Hindelang ascribes the
higher victimisation rates of younger persons, males and unattached persons to more time spent away
from home, which exposes them to more opportunities of being victimised by strangers. Therefore,
what people do and how they behave, largely determine the extent to which they will be victimised.

In 1978 Hindelang et al. drew up a set of eight empirically verifiable interdependent propositions that
deal with lifestyle and victimisation. Only Propositions 7 and 8 are relevant to victims of farm attacks.
Proposition 7 states that persons’ vocations limit their freedom of choice to isolate themselves from
individuals with offender characteristics. They also have little choice with regard to the time and place
that their vocations require them to associate with these individuals. Proposition 8 deals with offenders’
perceptions of likely victims. Sometimes their lifestyles expose them to acts of victimisation.

Garofalo (1987:23-41) later found certain shortcomings in the model that needed to be addressed.
One of his criticisms of Hindelang et al.’s model (1987:36) is that it assumes certain levels of offender
motivation. Another weakness of the original model (1987:28) is the failure to distinguish between
absolute and probabilistic exposure. Garofalo reasons that where the lifestyle model is reduced to
mean that there can be no victimisation of individuals or their property if not exposed, the model
becomes true by definition. Furthermore, as victimisation does not always take place when there is
direct contact between the victim or his property and the offender, other factors conducive to
victimisation need to be included and taken into consideration. Garofalo (1987:38) therefore takes into
account two additional elements, namely perceptions about crime and reactions to crime. Since
Garofalo (1987:39) also maintains that the risk of victimisation cannot be explained without considering
offenders and non-sociological levels of explanation, he also includes target attractiveness and

33
individual differences in his modified model, which focuses on direct-contact predatory violations rather
than on personal crimes.

34
2.1.2 Prerequisites for victimisation

Hindelang et al. (1978:250) list four prerequisites for victimisation to take place. These include

• an intersection of time and space between the offender and the victim;
• some type of dispute or claim between the actors in which the offender perceives the victim as a
suitable object of victimisation;
• an offender able and prepared to threaten the victim or to use force or stealth to achieve his
purpose; and
• an offender who regards the circumstances as advantageous for threatening or for using force or
stealth.

As victimisation occurs disproportionately at particular times and places, there are high-risk times and
high-risk places. Late night and early morning are regarded as times when personal victimisation is
likely to occur while the places where robbery and assault usually take place are public places and on
the streets. It therefore follows that persons who frequent these places at these times, are at greater
risk of coming into contact with offenders than individuals leading a more secluded lifestyle. In short,
routine activity affects exposure of persons and property to the risk of personal victimisation. This in
turn provides varying opportunities of falling victim to the illegal acts of offenders.

2.1.3 Elements of the model

The elements of the lifestyle/exposure model include role expectations, structural constraints,
adaptations, lifestyle, exposure, associations and personal victimisation. The additional elements that
were introduced by Garofalo to focus on direct-contact predatory victimisation, will also be discussed in
detail as they too have a direct bearing on the risk of victimisation. These are perceptions about crime,
reactions to crime, target attractiveness and individual differences (See figure 1).

2.1.3.1 Role expectations

An individual’s social role is determined by his demographic characteristics that include age, gender,
marital status, education and occupation. The role expected of a male would therefore differ from that
of a female (Baron, 1995:438). The traditional male sex role involves acting independent, unemotional,
logical and competitive. Aggressiveness and being power-oriented are also typical characteristics of a

35
 DEMOGRAPHIC
CHARACTERISTICS
Age
Sex
Race
Income
Marital Status
Education
Occupation

STRUCTURAL ROLE PERCEPTIONS

CONSTRAINTS EXPECTATIONS ABOUT CRIME
Economic
Familial
Educational LIFESTYLE ASSOCIATIONS
Legal Vocational
activity REACTIONS
Leisure TO CRIME

ADAPTATIONS
EXPOSURE
Individual
Subcultural

TARGET
ATTRACTIVENESS DIRECT
CONTACT
PREDATORY
VICTIMISATION
INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES

Figure 1.The original lifestyle/exposure model of personal victimisation of

Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo (1978:243) as well as elements introduced by Garofalo (1987:37) as indicated with the
dotted lines.

well-adjusted male. Most males are more active than females and more likely to help in situations in
which there is perceived danger. In contrast with this, females tend to be dependent, uninterested in
power and focussed on raising their offspring. As society expects a person to conform to certain
gender-based socio-cultural standards and stereotypes, individuals do not generally deviate from
these role expectations.

Traditional gender roles continue to dominate many cultures around the world (Baron, 1995:438).
Although social and economic changes have caused certain modifications to take place in modern

36
society, the male is still regarded as the breadwinner and head of the household in most societies. As
he is usually also perceived to be the stronger partner physically, he is expected to ensure the safety
of members of his family and to protect them in the face of danger. The role of the female that has
always been more domestic, is also still linked to child-rearing practices.

Although individuals fulfil a number of minor roles at any one time, the role of relevance to the
lifestyle/exposure model is the dominant role, which has a general influence on the person occupying
that status. Hindelang et al. (1978:242) thus define role expectations as "cultural norms that are
associated with achieved and ascribed statuses of individuals and that define preferred and anticipated
behaviors".

2.1.3.2 Structural constraints

Behaviour within a particular role is not free of constraint. Familial, economic, educational and legal
structures can restrict the behavioural pattern of individuals (Hindelang et al., 1978:242). Often
individuals’ behavioural patterns are constrained by these factors at various stages of their lives and at
times several constraints may affect them simultaneously. Garofalo’s modified lifestyle/exposure model
for direct-contact predatory victimisation shows that structural constraints affect associations and
exposure that are not determined directly by lifestyle (Garofalo, 1987:36). In this way, economic
constraints, such as the failure to qualify for a bank loan, can play a role in determining where an
individual can afford to reside. Constraints which cause individuals to live or work in close proximity to
offenders, increase the level of risk and thus also exposure to potential offenders, irrespective of the
measure in which an individual succeeds in lowering the risk of victimisation by adapting his vocational
and leisure activities.

37
2.1.3.3 Adaptations

According to Hindelang et al. (1978:224), individuals adapt to role expectations and structural
constraints in ways that result in regularities in behavioural patterns. These regular behavioural
patterns or routine activities of the individual increase or decrease his chances of being victimised.

Adaptations to behaviour are based on decisions taken by the persons constrained by both role
expectations and structural constraints. According to Van der Westhuizen (1998:61), these decisions
are founded on rational choice, which entails strategic thinking, consideration and decision-making.
While one person might take cognisance of the risk of being victimised and adapt his behaviour in
order to minimise such risk, another might believe that he can never be victimised or perceive such
risk to be so minimal that he decides to ignore the need to take precautions. By doing so, he by choice
of behaviour can increase the risk of criminal victimisation.

Adaptations to role expectations and structural constraints occur on both individual and group levels.
According to Hindelang et al. (1978:244), structural constraints have similar effects for people with the
same demographic characteristics. Differences in lifestyle will thus depend not only on differences in
role expectations and structural constraints, but also on differences in individual and subcultural
adaptations. Furthermore, certain skills and attitudes are also acquired during the process of
adaptation. Attitudes are liable to cause individuals to behave in certain ways. According to Hindelang
et al. (1978:244), attitudes to and beliefs about crime are important to personal victimisation. Fear of
crime, for example, can induce persons to take special precautions to avoid victimisation. This view is
supported by Perloff (1983:48) who believes fear of crime is positively related to a variety of crime
prevention behaviours.

Once acquired, these attitudes and beliefs are often incorporated into the routine activities of the
individual or group. Attitudes and beliefs acquired during adaptation can also lead to certain
constraints or limitations on behaviour. In many instances these limitations are relatively minor, such
as ensuring that the family never arrives at their home from an outing after darkness has set in.
Limitations can also be major, resulting in complete changes in lifestyle. Persons fearing victimisation
on their return to their homes might decide to forgo attending religious, cultural or sporting activities
altogether, rather than risk criminal victimisation.

38
2.1.3.4 Lifestyle

Hindelang et al. (1978:244) define lifestyle as the sum of the daily routine activities of persons. Such
activities include working outside the home, going to school or keeping house, as well as typical leisure
time pursuits. They expressly include non-adult activities such as going to school, which might expose
younger persons to the risk of victimisation on route to their destination as well as at the school itself.

Demographic variables such as age, sex, marital status, family income and race play a significant role
in determining an individual’s lifestyle. Young single males are likely to frequent places of
entertainment (e.g. bars) where the risk of victimisation might be greater than in their places of
residence. Married couples, on the other hand, generally spend more time in their homes occupied
with child rearing and home improvement activities. By doing this, their risk of victimisation outside the
home is decreased.

In the lifestyle/exposure model, emphasis is laid on the routine nature of daily activities. Vito and
Holmes (1994:145) define these activities as “recurrent and prevalent movements” that are motivated
by basic needs. The bulk of such activity occurs outside the home where the potential for interaction
with offenders increases.

Routine behaviour has a direct bearing on how some individuals suffer victimisation. Adhering to a
particular routine exposes the individual to risks of being victimised as offenders can be reasonably
sure of where a potential victim will be at a particular point in time and under what circumstances (e.g.
whether he will be armed, accompanied, sober or inebriated). The victim may therefore be ambushed
on his way to a specific location or surprised when alone and/or preoccupied with a routine task or
activity.

Routine behaviour also plays a role in the way some avoid being victimised. By routinely implementing
victimisation prevention tactics such as avoidance strategies and/or risk management tactics,
individuals may avoid victimisation altogether or decrease their risk of being victimised (Sheley,
1995:156). Their exposure to persons with criminal intent may, for example be avoided by staying
indoors after dark. When exposure to the risk of being victimised is unavoidable, the risk of being
harmed may be reduced by tactics such as travelling in groups rather than alone.

2.1.3.5 Exposure

39
According to the lifestyle/exposure model, a direct link exists between lifestyle and exposure to
situations in which the risk of victimisation is high. As victimisation is not uniformly distributed, it follows
that lifestyle differences are associated with differences in exposure to situations that have a high
victimisation risk.

2.1.3.6 Associations

There is also an indirect link between lifestyle and exposure to victimisation. This occurs as a result of
associations. Associations refer to "more or less sustained relationships among individuals that evolve
as a result of similar lifestyles and hence similar interests shared by these individuals” (Hindelang et
al., 1978:245). Association with offenders who disproportionally have particular characteristics would
thus increase an individual’s exposure to personal victimisation.

Not all associations are voluntary. Associations in the workplace are generally more obligatory than
those during leisure time activities. This might make it difficult for some people to avoid associating
with individuals whom they perceive to be high-risk persons. Factors such as economic constraints
and/or the high unemployment rate might play a role in preventing an employee from resigning his
present position to avoid association with a high risk employer and/or fellow employees. Employers too
might find that they have a limited choice as to the calibre of persons available in the labour market
that they may employ to perform certain tasks. Some labour laws might also make it difficult for
employers to dismiss persons whom they believe might prove to be a threat to their future safety.
Factors affecting persons in their places of work will, however, be discussed more fully in the section
on Lynch’s employment domain.

2.1.3.7 Personal victimisation

Personal victimisation will depend on the degree to which an individual allows his lifestyle to expose
him to victimisation. Hindelang et al. (1978:251) propose that the probability of suffering personal
victimisation is directly related to the amount of time that a person spends in public places and
particularly so at night.

2.1.3.8 Perceptions about crime

Hindelang (1976:153) found from information based on a number of opinion polls, that females and

40
older persons reported a substantially greater fear of being victimised than did males and younger
persons. They therefore maintain that it can be reasonably expected that such fears by females and
older persons will be translated into behavioural avoidance of high-risk situations, thus reducing their
exposure to victimisation risks. As already stated, Garofalo (1987:38) in his modified model, includes
an individual’s perceptions about crime as a variable that plays a role in determining the extent of risk
that he would be prepared to take. This idea is supported by Maxfield (1987:277), who regards
exposure to crime as a matter of choice influenced by the individual’s perception of the likelihood of
victimisation. By choosing to recognise or ignore the threat of crime in structuring their daily actions,
people provide varying levels of opportunity for victimisation.

2.1.3.9 Reactions to crime

Garofalo (1987:38) defines reactions to crime as the changes that individuals make in their behaviour
that are indicative of their perceptions about crime. Some of the changes might be related to exposure
and/or associations directly or by way of the individual’s lifestyle. These reactions might include fear of
crime, evaluation of victimisation risk and their belief about the amount and nature of crime.
Perceptions might stem either from first-hand experience of being victimised or from some other
sources such as the media.

Reactions to crime generally take the form of minor changes. As mentioned earlier, an example might
be never to travel unless accompanied by a family member or neighbour. However minor the changes
might be, these reactions have direct effects on associations and exposure.

2.1.3.10 Target attractiveness

Target attractiveness indicates the instrumental or symbolic worth of the target to the offender.
However, target attractiveness also includes factors such as offender perceptions. These might involve
both instrumental and symbolic considerations. Many factors play a role in the decision making
process of potential offenders. Garofalo (1987:39) lists two factors, namely the desirability of the target
for personal use or for use by the offenders’ friends and the fact that particular types of property are
easily disposed of. Sometimes offenders have access to certain channels, making it easier for them to
dispose of particular types of stolen goods. Where a target has little instrumental significance to
offenders, it might well have a great deal of symbolic significance (e.g. someone perceived to be a
racist). The choice of a symbolic target is generally subjective and depends on the expressive needs of
the offender.

41
Other factors such as spatial proximity to potential offenders or the fact that the targets are unguarded,
might increase their attractiveness. While spatial proximity increases their exposure to victimisation,
unguarded targets are often regarded as easy bait.

2.1.3.11 Individual differences

Individual differences refers to individual-level variables rather than to lifestyle which reflects the
regular patterns of behaviours among population groups. Garofalo (1987:39) maintains that variations
in risk cannot be attributed only to sociological factors. Psychological and biological variables might
also be relevant. In this regard he explains that individuals differ in their psychological tendencies
regarding the taking of risks and in the images of physical vulnerability that they project to potential
offenders. The greed and gullibility of a potential victim might induce him to take risks, while the
blindness or deafness of an individual might be perceived as a weakness by a potential offender. This
might increase the offender’s chances of taking the victim by surprise or reduce his chances of being
recognised or identified at a later stage.

2.1.4 Relevance of the lifestyle/exposure model to attacks on farmers

The relevance of each of the elements of the lifestyle/exposure model to farm attacks will now receive
attention. As some elements are more relevant than others, these will be discussed in greater detail.

2.1.4.1 Role expectations

Role expectations might throw some light on the fact that males are more vulnerable to farm attacks
than females (Visser, 1998:9). According to statistics provided by the CIMC (1998:33), men were
meaningfully over-represented.

Spatial as well as temporal factors play a significant role in the victimisation of males on farms. Many
of their activities take place in areas of the farm where guardianship is low. Some of their tasks also
have to be performed before daybreak and/or after nightfall. Working outside the security area
surrounding the homestead and/or at times when visibility is low, increases the risk of being taken by
surprise and/or ambushed (Polisie bekommerd oor aanvalle, 1998:2).

A male involved in producing agricultural crops as well as in raring livestock, generally spends a great

42
deal of his working day in fields and camps some distance from the homestead. Although activities
such as the preparation of the fields for the sowing of crops and their reaping or harvesting usually
take place on a seasonal basis and in daytime, these activities are sometimes extended into the hours
of darkness, enhancing opportunities for surprise attacks. In addition to being able to predict with some
measure of certainty when farmers will be at particular locations, tampering with implements, pumps
and generators usually ensures the presence of farmers at a particular place and at a certain point in
time.

One of the tasks crop farmers sometimes find to be more beneficial to perform after sunset is the
irrigation of their fields. This involves switching off irrigation pumps and generators located outside the
homestead after dark. It is also generally the males who go outside to investigate power interruptions
and suspicious noises (De Beer, 2007:5; Fourie, 1999:7; Steenkamp, 2000:1). This increases farmers’
chances of being overpowered and killed (Swart, 2003:58).

Farmers breeding and raring livestock are equally exposed to attack. Their farming activities are
performed on a daily rather than on a seasonal basis. Their tasks involve ensuring that drinking
troughs are full of water, checking if fences are intact and whether their animals have fallen prey to
marauding jackals and/or stock thieves. All these activities involve travelling by motor vehicle and
sometimes on foot to areas of the farm that are often isolated and densely overgrown. This exposes
farmers to being ambushed on the routes they use. The times they visit these points cannot always be
varied sufficiently to avoid being waylaid.

One of the valuable assets of livestock farmers is their grazing and fodder for the animals. As
destruction of this causes farmers financial loss and expenditure, it is often targeted by wrongdoers
(Moolman, 1999a:51; Visser, 1998:5). Setting fire to grazing, fodder, outbuildings or vehicles, is also
an effective way of luring farmers outside after dark (Só is hulle vermoor, 1998:85, 86). This exposes
them to victimisation as darkness provides cover for potential attackers to come sufficiently close to
launch an assault (Swart, 2003:61).

Although setting fire to farmhouses, outbuildings and motor vehicles is less common, there have been
incidents where this has taken place. The attack on a farm in the Ficksburg area is a case in point. A
fire broke out on the farm early in the evening, which the farmer and his helpers managed to extinguish
by ten o’clock. At two o’clock the attackers struck again, setting the farmer’s shed alight. As their victim
lifted the receiver of his telephone to alert the police, they shot and wounded him through the window.
The attackers then set the curtains alight. Although wounded in his arm and stomach, the 76-year old

43
farmer kept the attackers at bay with his 9mm pistol until daybreak when they fled from the farm. In
another attack near Ficksburg, a 19-year old farmer was overpowered where he was sleeping, doused
with petrol and set alight. Although he fought his way out of the already burning homestead to jump
into a fishpond, he died of his burns three days later. The historical farmhouse built in 1879 was
completely gutted and all its antique contents destroyed (Snyman, 2002:16-17, 24).

The movements of dairy farmers are even more predictable than those of stock farmers raring cattle
for resale. Dairy farmers’ tasks generally commence a number of hours before daybreak and end after
sunset. Although most farmers’ milking parlours are situated relatively close to the homesteads,
attending to the milking of cows involves moving about the farmyards before sunrise (Coetzee,
1999a:5; Gestremde boer aangeval en gesteek op plaas, 1997:4; Só is boer vermoor, 1998:77).
Animals sometimes also need attention at night. They get sick and animals such as cows, ewes and
mares often have difficulty giving birth. In many such cases the farmers have to spend a number of
hours exposed to the risk of victimisation outside their homesteads. A case in point is the attack on a
family on their farm in the Heilbron district on 21 February 1997. In this case, the five attackers
incapacitated the farmer’s wife and daughters in the house while he was assisting one of his cows to
calve. When he walked into the farmhouse two hours later, he was shot by the attackers with his own
rifle (Britz, 1998:36).

Most farmers find it necessary to leave their farms for certain periods. Crop farmers have to transport
their products to markets; livestock farmers have to attend auctions and dairy farmers need to sell their
milk within a short period of production. The routine harvesting of certain crops, the public advertising
of livestock auctions and the knowledge that cows have to be milked at fixed intervals, might facilitate
the planning of farm attacks. The date, the time of the farmers’ departure from their farms, as well as
the duration of their absence often become common knowledge which can be used to the advantage
of potential attackers (Van Niekerk, 1999:3). Routine absences such as these, could also be indicators
both of the increased exposure and vulnerability of family members left alone on the farms at such
times, as well as the probability of large sums of ready cash on the return of the farmers.

Road conditions on farms sometimes necessitate low speeds when farmers leave their farms,
facilitating attacks on vehicles (De Bruin, 1998:2). Farm gates separating fields also compel farmers to
bring their vehicles to a complete stop (Meyer, 2001b:10). It is generally at places such as farm gates
that potential offenders have the opportunity of approaching farmers under some guise (e.g.
requesting a lift to the nearest shop) and thus coming sufficiently close to launch an attack (Report of
the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:6, 10, 18).

44
As the figures of authority on the farms, it is usually the males that are involved in labour disputes that
might arise. At times disputes arise after working hours between the employees themselves. In many
instances their employers are summoned to their quarters after dark to settle such disputes. In doing
this, farmers might incite the wrath of one of the parties who might feel he has been wronged.
Sometimes one of the disputing parties is seriously injured and needs expert medical attention or
hospitalisation. As some farmers might suspect a call for assistance to be a ruse to lure them outside,
assistance might be rendered only after daybreak. This in turn could cause ill feelings as the workers
might feel their employers do not have their interests at heart.

Although females are victims of attacks less often than their male counterparts, they are also
victimised by attackers. Farmers’ wives are sometimes taken by surprise in their homes where they
spend much of their working day. In fulfilling their role, farmers’ wives are generally occupied nurturing
their children and fulfilling their household duties, supervising domestic staff in and about their house
and garden. A number of tasks involve constant movement in and out of their homes by them as well
as by their employees, making it difficult to keep doors and security gates locked at all times. Children
also play inside and outside the house. They are often too young to realise the importance of keeping
doors locked. Elderly members of a household, on the other hand, might be forgetful and fail to lock
doors although they are aware of the danger of being attacked. As it is sometimes possible for
potential offenders to watch the movements of individuals unobserved, they are able to take advantage
of times such as these when guardianship is decreased.

One of the tasks normally included in the duties of farmers’ wives, is transporting their children to and
from school daily or otherwise to and from boarding school at the beginning and end of weekends (Al
vier sal letsels saamdra, 1997:2). Having to travel exposes them and their children to the risk of being
ambushed. Children, in fulfilling their roles as pupils, might also become victims of attacks.

Farmers’ wives sometimes take charge of the farming activities while their husbands are absent from
their farms (e.g. to attend auctions and/or to transport livestock or farm produce to abattoirs or markets
at larger centres). This exposes them to victimisation as guardianship by the farmers and possibly by
some of their workers who have to accompany the farmers on these trips, is reduced during these
absences.

Farmers’ absences from their farmhouses even for short periods (e.g. to switch off generators) might
also increase the danger for their wives and children of being victimised. As the farmers are usually

45
within sight and/or earshot of their homes when performing these tasks, they might neglect to lock
doors behind them. This might provide the necessary opportunity for wrongdoers who might have been
keeping the house under surveillance or who might be aware of the farmers’ routine, to slip into the
homestead. Entering in this manner facilitates taking the family members by surprise as it becomes
unnecessary to break windows or force doors, which might alert them to their presence.

When veld fires break out, or grazing and/or outbuildings are intentionally set alight by wrongdoers at
night, it is usually the farmer’s wives who have to remain at the homesteads. Their task is to guard
over sleeping children and/or man the two-way radio, which is often useful in co-ordinating the fire
beaters when the fire has spread to neighbouring farms. On the failure of their husbands to return
within a reasonable period, they and/or members of the household might be tempted to go and search
of them (Só is hulle vermoor, 1998:85, 86). This also increases their exposure and the risk of being
ambushed by wrongdoers.

The role guardianship plays in discouraging or preventing attacks is important. As guardianship is one
of the main elements of the routine activities theory, it will be discussed in detail in the next section.

2.1.4.2 Structural constraints

Familial and economic constraints often restrict the behavioural activities of farmers. Although these
constraints might affect the lives of individuals at different times, more than one might also play a role
in their lives at any given time.

Familial constraints may take many forms. Greater freedom in the choice of careers, for example,
might result in some farmers having to continue their farming activities without the help and
guardianship of their sons after they have completed their education. Younger persons are often more
alert and active than older persons. Farmers’ sons choosing to farm with their parents might prevent a
tragedy by noting suspicious activity (e.g. the movements of potential attackers keeping the farmhouse
under surveillance) in the more rugged areas of the farm which are less likely to be visited by older
farmers.

Financial constraints often affect the level of security on many farms. The high cost of farms some
distance from townships and/or informal settlements where crime is often rife, might prevent some
potential farmers from acquiring farmland where they might be safer from victimisation. Security doors,
burglar bars, electric gates and fencing, alarm systems and power generators are also costly items.

46
The high cost of these might induce some farmers to run the risk of being attacked rather than fall into
debt or give up their farming enterprises. Furthermore, as a direct result of financial constraints,
farmhouses might be in a state of disrepair, making illegal entry by potential offenders relatively easy.

As a result of a number of restrictions of this nature, elderly widowed persons, for example, might find
themselves living alone in unsafe farmhouses. While mindful of their vulnerability to criminal
victimisation, they might be unable to improve the security situation on their farms.

47
2.1.4.3 Adaptations

While constrained by role expectations and structural constraints, adaptations are made by farmers on
both individual and group levels. As breadwinners who have a number of tasks to perform in potentially
dangerous circumstances, farmers might adapt by acquiring a dog or a number of dogs to protect them
while performing their tasks outdoors (Meyer, 2001b:10). More affluent farmers, not restricted by
economic constraints, might choose to hire armed bodyguards instead. Generally farmers attempt to
reduce their risk of victimisation by carrying handguns (Stofberg, 1997a:4).

Since structural constraints have similar effects on persons with the same demographic
characteristics, these adaptations could be shared by a number of farmers. Some farmers form groups
and arrange to make radio contact with one another at set times of the day. Failure to do so at the
appointed time alerts other members of the group to trouble on the farm. Farmers in certain areas
might also organise group patrols during which certain access roads to farms, or the boundaries of
farms neighbouring informal settlements or townships, are patrolled. By using radio codes or signals
they are able to inform friends and neighbours of any danger and/or emergency.

During the adaptation process, certain skills and attitudes are acquired which are important to personal
victimisation. Farmers and their family members might acquire the skill of teaching their guard dogs
complete obedience. By paying close attention to their dogs, they might also learn to become aware of
certain signs that indicate the presence of trouble even before the dogs bark (Chandler, 1998:17).
Some farmers and their wives might take part in regular target practice sessions and acquire the skill
of true marksmanship with handguns and hunting rifles (De Kock, 2002b:3).

Attitudes acquired by farmers during the process of adaptation to role expectations and structural
constraints might vary on a continuum ranging from the belief that they will never be attacked, to
extreme apprehension and fear of being attacked (Bester & De Lange, 1998:1; De Meyer, 1998:1).
Once acquired, these attitudes and beliefs are often incorporated into their routine activities. Thus,
farmers who believe that they will not fall victim to attackers might routinely fail to lock doors, go about
their tasks unarmed and do nothing to secure their homes. On the other hand, farmers living in fear of
being attacked, might arm themselves and always lock doors when moving in or out of their dwellings
(Chandler, 1998:17). They might not only install the security measures they can afford, but also take
extra precaution such as checking to see if any security mechanisms have been tampered with during
a period of absence from their homes. However, some farmers’ perceptions might be inaccurate.

48
Schoeman, Chief Joint Operations SANDF, is quoted as saying the following: “Daar is meer verkeerde
persepsies oor plaasaanvalle in die rondte as feite” (Kotzé, 2001a:29). This could result in some
farmers failing to take precautions altogether or in placing emphasis on the wrong aspects of security.
Farmers who believe that unfair treatment of workers motivate offenders to attack farmers might, for
example concentrate on treating workers fairly but be negligent when handling money or moving about
their farms.

Attitudes and beliefs acquired in this fashion might also lead to certain constraints or limitations on
behaviour. Whereas farmers in the past generally did not hesitate to investigate suspicious noises
outside their farmhouses or indulge in outdoor entertainment after darkness has set in, they might as a
result of beliefs that have developed about the risk of victimisation, refrain from doing so.

Where the taking of risks cannot be avoided, certain strategies may be implemented such as never
using isolated roads after dark. Trees may be cleared from the electrified fences and gardens to offer
better visibility or gravel pathways may be laid around the farmhouses and in front of windows and
doors in order to make silent movement by offenders more difficult (Chandler, 1998:17).

2.1.4.4 Lifestyle

As the terms lifestyle and routine activity are synonymous (Maxfield, 1987:277), farmers’ lifestyle refers
to the routine performance of their daily, weekly or seasonal tasks (as described in section 2.1.3.4) as
well as their leisure activities. Leisure activities include participating in or attending social, cultural or
religious activities. These activities generally take place away from the farms and normally involve the
whole family. The farmsteads are then left unattended for a number of hours in which offenders are
able to break and enter at leisure and await the arrival of the family in the seclusion of their homes
(Boer bid en skiet twee aanvallers dood in huis, 1998:4; Stofberg, 1997b:6; Verdagte in aanval het
gewerk by die boer, 2001:13). The victims of such attacks are generally at a disadvantage as they are
normally taken by surprise where they are not able to defend themselves. An attack in the district of
Burgersdorp near Aliwal North (Al vier sal letsels saamdra, 1997:2) took place under these
circumstances. In this case the farmer’s wife and their children were attacked upon arrival at their
unattended farmhouse after she had routinely transported them from school in the nearby town. The
mother was shot dead in the presence of her children who were then taken hostage for a number of
hours by their attackers.

The lifestyle of most farmers is well structured and their daily, weekly or monthly routines may easily

49
be learned by potential offenders (Cilliers, 1998i:71). According to submissions made by investigating
officers to the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, adhering to daily routines increases farmers’
chances of being victimised (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:3). Farm
attackers have in many instances been proven to have had detailed knowledge of the farmers’ routine
movements (Gunning & Smith, 2000:2; Special Assignment, SABC 3 Documentary, 22 August 1998).
As many suspects that have been arrested for attacking farmers were unemployed at the time of the
attack, this gave them sufficient time to study the movements of those going about their routine
activities (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:22; Crime Information Management Centre,
1998:38). Up to 90% of farm attackers are familiar with the occupants' routines as well as the plan of
their dwellings (Van Zyl, 1998:12). This might however also indicate that information is obtained from
staff members who work inside farmers’ homes, either directly or under some pretext (Schönteich,
2000a:60). The danger of activities performed routinely was also highlighted by the remarks of a
farmer after the attack on a couple near Newcastle (Stofberg, 1997b:6). He advised farmers as follows:
"Moenie ’n vaste roetine volg nie. Moenie verkope gaan doen en dan die geld saam met jou terugbring
huis toe nie".

2.1.4.5 Exposure

Included in the concept of exposure are two factors. They are spatial proximity to offenders and
unguarded targets.

While a small number of farmers have been attacked by employees living on their farms (see Lynch’s
domain-specific model in a later section), farmers are more often victimised by persons residing on
farms in the same area or in settlements or townships situated in the same district (Britz, 1998:41;
Swart, 2003:110; Twee vasgetrek minder as 36 uur ná Bothaville-moorde, 2000:5). Farmers living
close to densely populated informal settlements are often more exposed to attackers than others living
some distance away where crime is less rife.

Informal settlements where persons live in temporary shacks built from used corrugated iron and
timber have sprung up on the periphery of many rural towns. These temporary dwellings are often
occupied by young black unemployed males who, in competition with many other job seekers, have to
rely on finding regular piece-work in the nearest town to support themselves. Many might originate
from farms in the district and might therefore be familiar with a number of farmers and also know the
area well. While some might have left the farms voluntarily in the hope of finding better employment,
others might have been dismissed from their positions. Their subsequent failure to find employment

50
could cause some of these individuals to develop a grudge against their previous employers, resulting
in planned attacks on them. Others might turn to committing crimes such as burglary on farms in close
proximity to the settlements. Property crimes such as burglary have the potential of developing into
personal crimes such as robbery, assault or murder if the perpetrators are interrupted or caught red-
handed.

Many farmers might unwittingly contribute to their victimisation by allowing destitute relatives of their
employees to reside on their farms for indefinite periods. Proximity to individuals who might be tempted
to commit crime to sustain themselves and their families, not only places farmers within easy reach of
potential wrongdoers, but also facilitates unobtrusive observation of their daily activities. It also
increases awareness of objects of value that can be attractive targets. Unemployed persons living on
the farms have both the opportunity and the time to keep farmers under observation without arousing
the suspicions of farmers and the relatives with whom they are residing (Cilliers, 1995:77; Sien geen
toekoms in landbou, 1989:91).

Homesteads on farms are relatively unguarded compared with dwellings in towns and cities. They are
often too distant for their neighbours to note activity that might normally arouse their suspicions. When
farmers leave their homes to work at locations elsewhere on their farms or take necessary trips to the
nearest towns, guardianship of the homestead as well as guardianship of their family members who
remain, is decreased. At certain times of the day, for example when employees leave to have their
meals and/or when all the family members have left the farms, there is no human presence around the
homestead to give the alarm. Refer also to relevance of guardianship in the next section. Offenders
therefore often find it easy to approach and enter farmyards and farmhouses unnoticed to surprise or
ambush the farmers and their families on their return.

2.1.4.6 Associations

Associations referred to by Hindelang et al. (1978:245) are primarily voluntary associations. This
element of the lifestyle/exposure model might appear to be not entirely relevant to attacks on farmers
as both the CIAC (1998:3) and the operational definition of farm attacks (see section 1.2.3) exclude
attacks by friends and/or attacks that take place during ‘normal’ social interactions. While the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003d:20) also acknowledges that the attack on a family in
the Koffiefontein district in 1998 (Coetzee, 1998a:77), in which the offender was described as a friend,
is a borderline case, it states that the case had to be investigated as it had been referred to the
Committee by the TAU.

51
However, some associations are obligatory such as those encountered in the workplace and these are
relevant to farmers. According to Skogan (1981:741), persons are, for a variety of reasons, often
forced to do things that they consider risky. Farmers find it necessary to employ persons to perform
certain tasks, for example, to drill boreholes on their farms. Furthermore, some farmers have no other
way of disposing of their farm produce other than by selling it directly to the public at farm stalls near
public roads or in the vicinity of their homesteads. Obligatory associations of this nature might thus
cause farmers to fall prey to criminally inclined workers and/or members of their families who also
reside on the farm with them and/or persons pretending to be customers in the course of their
occupational duties. This factor will, however, be discussed in the section on Lynch's employment
domain.

2.1.4.7 Personal victimisation

Personal victimisation follows probabilistically from exposure to high victimisation risk situations
(Hindelang et al., 1978:245). As mentioned earlier, variations in lifestyle are associated with variations
in the ability of individuals to isolate themselves from persons with offender characteristics. Financial
constraints which prevent farmers from acquiring farmland some distance from informal settlements
where crime is less rife and/or securing their homes against attacks (see section 2.1.4.2), as well as
farmers’ proximity to potential offenders (see section 2.1.4.5) have already been discussed, therefore
these factors need only be noted. Farmers are also prevented from isolating themselves from potential
offenders by the nature of their occupational activities (see section 2.1.4.6). As Lynch’s domain
specific model focuses on victimisation at persons’ places of work, discussion of this last aspect which
prevents farmers from isolating themselves from attacks by their workers and persons with whom they
come into contact there, will take place in a later section.

2.1.4.8 Perceptions about crime

First hand experience and publicity given to farm attacks by the media, have resulted in farmers
forming certain perceptions about crime. While some farmers might perceive themselves as unlikely
victims and even believe that it could never happen to them (Bester & De Lange, 1998:1; Pieters,
1998a:1), others might be mindful of the risk of being attacked (Chandler, 1998:17; Stofberg, 1997b:6).

2.1.4.9 Reactions to crime

52
As mentioned in section 2.1.3.8, perceptions held about crime generally culminate in overt reactions to
crime. Some reactions have resulted in major changes, such as farmers selling their farms and moving
to towns and cities where they might feel safer (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003f:11). Other changes have involved substantial expenditure on safety devices, such as security
lights and electrified fences (Chandler, 1998:17; Wonderwerk dat hulle leef ná nag van bloed,
1997:12). More subtle changes to their lifestyle include going about their duties armed and protected
by dogs, never moving about the farm unaccompanied and routinely checking on the safety of
neighbours (see section 2.1.4.3).

2.1.4.10 Target attractiveness

Garofalo (1987:38) believes target attractiveness plays an important role in the selection of potential
victims. Apparent affluence may motivate attackers who seek financial or material gain (Coetzee & Van
Niekerk, 1997:1; Misdaadverslag: ander motiewe bestaan glo ook, 1998:17; Potgieter, 2001c:22). Most
farmers possess motor vehicles, firearms and electrical appliances, all of which are sought-after items.
Some farmers are also known to keep large amounts of ready cash on their farms (Schönteich,
2000a:60). While some of these items might be stolen or robbed for private use, they are sometimes
acquired for resale purposes. According to Schönteich (2000a:60-61), the Midlands area of KwaZulu-
Natal, for example, is an area deeply involved in the regional firearm market, primarily as a buyer of
stolen arms. A 9mm handgun can fetch the price of five or six goats even in the poorest of
communities. Some security personnel in the area believe that most firearms stolen in farm attacks are
destined for the use of warlords in the traditional areas of the Midlands. Large illegal markets between
the Midlands and Gauteng are known to exist and it is therefore possible that these are used for the
sale of vehicles and firearms stolen or robbed during attacks on farmers (Cilliers, 1998k:71;
Cornelissen, 2001:6).

Farmers might also be seen as attractive targets for symbolic reasons, in which case they might be
targeted to satisfy expressive needs of offenders. Farmers are often perceived as supporters of the
former National Party government and the apartheid system. As such, white farmers are often also
regarded as oppressive slave drivers who exploit black people (Moolman, 1999a:75). They might
therefore be attacked by persons who wish to take revenge for injustices that took place during the
apartheid era. Killing a farmer at the instigation of a political slogan such as ‘Kill the farmer, kill the
boer’ or ‘One farmer, one bullet’ (Plaasaanvalle só verklaar, 1998:8; Wittes doodgemaak ‘om Azania te
bevry’, 1998:4) might therefore provide some measure of satisfaction to persons who feel wronged by
government policy at that time.

53
2.1.4.11 Individual differences

Individual differences are also relevant to attacks on farmers. Differences are related to biological and
psychological characteristics (Garofalo, 1987:39). Farmers differ in the images of physical vulnerability
that they project to potential offenders (e.g. weak and sickly), as well as in the psychological
propensities regarding the taking of risks (e.g. optimistically negligent or careless).

2.1.5 Evaluation of the lifestyle/exposure model of personal victimisation

The significance of the lifestyle/exposure model of Hindelang et al. (1978:242-273) lies in the fact that
it can be applied universally. Persons of all ages and sexes are engaged in routine activities as they go
about their daily sustenance tasks and pleasure seeking activities. Moreover, the complexity and wide
scope of the term lifestyle allows for a diverse variety of lifestyles. It makes it equally applicable to
routine activities performed on a regular day-to-day basis in metropolitan as well as in isolated rural
areas, in day-time or night-time, on private property where there is reduced access by strangers, or in
public places. The lifestyle/exposure model can thus successfully be applied to farmers engaged in
their occupational, as well as leisure activities such as outdoor entertainment in the isolation of their
farms.

The wide scope of the concepts routine activities and lifestyle has, however, also led to criticism of the
model by some researchers. Grobbelaar (1986:12), for example, states that the term lifestyle needs to
be defined more comprehensively. According to Gottfredson (1981:723), the absence of refined and
direct measures of lifestyle and exposure impedes the significant and accurate testing of the model as
well as future theoretical development. Fattah (1991:329) supports this view and states that more
direct measures of different activities as well as attitudes related to lifestyle, need to be found to
ensure reliable test results.

Garofalo (1987:23-42), who recognised a few weaknesses in the model of Hindelang et al., introduced
some modifications. Originally the lifestyle/exposure model of personal victimisation included all
personal crimes which encompassed corporate crimes as well as crimes against individuals. Garofalo
(1987:36) reduced the scope of the model to apply to direct-contact predatory crimes only, thus
focussing on crimes where direct physical contact takes place between the offender and the person or
object that he wishes to injure or steal. While reducing the wide scope of crimes by excluding
corporate crimes, Garofalo maintains that direct-contact predatory violations cover more types of

54
crimes than personal crimes used in the original lifestyle/exposure model. Crimes in which direct
contact takes place between the offenders and victims or their property include murder, rape, robbery,
assault, malicious damage to property and theft, all of which are often committed during attacks on
farmers (Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:29). Vito and Holmes (1994:146-148) single out
rape and arson as crimes explained by the lifestyle/exposure model, but do not specifically exclude
any of the other crimes committed during farm attacks such as robbery and murder. Grobbelaar
(1986:12), on the other hand, maintains activity models can be extended to include illegal acts against
the state. He points out that since every citizen has a certain lifestyle within a particular community,
even the State can fall victim to illegal acts by way of certain communities’ lifestyles. Political crimes
and attacks by terrorists fall in this category.

Walklate (1989:13) mentions three points of criticism related to both the original and modified lifestyle/
exposure models. Her last point of criticism will be dealt with first, as it is relevant to Garofalo’s
exclusion of corporate crimes from the scope of the model. While Walklate concedes that excluding
these crimes is correct in the light of Garofalo’s interpretation of some of the key terms, she regards
the functionalist interpretation of the legal, economic, educational, and familial constraints as a
weakness of the model. She finds that the functionalist overtones are most evident in the authors’
interpretation of the concept of adaptation. According to Walklate (1989:12), the model takes for
granted structural constraints, role expectations and particularly the way in which individuals adapt to
these. This implies that they do little to resist or question these constraints or expectations while they
go about their every-day lives. Walklate (1989:12) explains that demographic characteristics such as
race and sex are treated merely as descriptive categories and not as factors that sustain a particular
power structure in society. Hindelang et al., for example, focus on sex role differentiation as well as its
function in the family, rather than on sexism as such. This allows for questions of power relationships
that often also play a role in personal victimisation to be overlooked. While this point of criticism is
valid, Hindelang et al.’s functional interpretation of sex roles is appropriate and relevant to the study on
hand. The nature of activities consigned to males by cultural expectations might offer an explanation
as to why males are over represented as victims of farm attacks while the majority of attacks take
place in farmers’ homes where females mostly go about their routinely structured activities. If the
power relationships referred to by Walklate are in any way applicable to the personal victimisation that
occurs during farm attacks, farmers’ positions in the power structure are as likely to cause them to be
victims as victimisers. On farms where males are the figures of authority and heads of the household,
they have to deal with potentially dangerous situations such as labour disputes, trespassing and
conflicts between workers, all of which might result in physical injury to themselves.

55
According to Walklate (1989:12), the functionalist framework in which the model is cast, also inhibits
thinking of victimisation as a process. She maintains that Hindelang et al. interpret the concept of
lifestyle as a measurable, objective entity rather than as a process. Treating lifestyle as a process, she
believes, might better address questions that might enhance the understanding of some forms of
personal victimisation. Walklate explains that factors relevant to victimisation are often ignored as they
are taken for granted or they have become such common every-day occurrences in the lives of some
individuals, that they no longer recognise them as part of their lifestyles. Walklate uses spouse abuse
as an example. Victims of spouse abuse might grow so accustomed to being abused that it might not
occur to them to mention this as a characteristic of their lifestyles. By the same token, victimisers
habitually abusing their spouses, might in time become so blunted to their insensitive behaviour that
they themselves are no longer aware of their abusive acts. In the same way others might also
unwittingly fall into offensive habits and not realise that they are offending. Habitually making remarks
that have a racist overtone, for example, might cause those who have to endure remarks of this nature,
to tire of these offensive utterances and take revenge.

Another point of criticism, mentioned first and foremost by Walklate (1989:12), is Hindelang et al.’s
exclusion of the private domain. Her criticism is aimed specifically at the authors’ first proposition,
which states that the probability of being victimised, is related to the amount of time spent in public
places. They stated in Proposition 6 that the more time spent in public places, away from family
members, the greater the chances of being victimised. Walklate points out that according to the model,
members of the public as well as the amount of time spent in public are Hindelang et al.’s focus of
concern, yet many acts of victimisation such as domestic violence and the physical and sexual abuse
of children take place in the private domain, away from the public. This leads her to contend that
women’s increased participation in the workforce, which means spending less time in their homes,
might in fact reduce women’s overall level of victimisation, rather than increase it as Hindelang et al.’s
model implies. The exclusion of the private domain, according to Walklate (1989:12), therefore limits
the lifestyle model. Once again, while her point of criticism might have a bearing on many cases, being
accessible to the public for long hours and having to deal with members of the public personally, are of
particular relevance to the study on hand. Although certain occupations are dangerous in themselves,
Lynch (1987:283-300) in his study (discussion will follow), isolates certain occupational tasks that
cause persons in some occupations to lead relatively dangerous lifestyles. Accessibility to the public is
one of the factors that increase the level of danger in many occupations including that of farmers.
Walklate’s criticism might therefore be valid in cases of intra-familial abuse, but is not relevant to the
study on hand. Although the attacking of farmers often takes place in the privacy of their homes,
offenders do not belong to the victims’ families and the motives for their victimisation often differ from

56
those of persons victimising their own family members.

Another point of criticism levelled at both the lifestyle/exposure and opportunity models is that they
have been tested and formulated using National Crime Survey data (Jensen & Brownfield, in Fattah,
1991:329). According to Jensen and Brownfield, a more direct analysis needs to be made of the
different activities for a more accurate assessment of the contribution of these activities to
victimisation. Walklate, on the other hand, regards using victimisation survey data as more
advantageous than the use of officially recorded homicide statistics as used in Wolfgang’s study on
victim precipitation. According to Walklate the use of victimisation survey data in the lifestyle/exposure
model has enabled researchers to examine relatively complex relationships in personal victimisation,
household victimisation as well as in multiple victimisation.

Garofalo (1987:36) also criticises the model for assuming certain levels of offender motivation. He
believes that since victims sometimes precipitate or provoke crimes committed against them, their
actions immediately preceding their victimisation may also be relevant to the criminal event. In this
regard, Grobbelaar (1986:12) believes that more attention should be paid to the relationship between
the offenders and the victims. This view is supported by Sheley (1995:177) who states that the
lifestyle/exposure model can be linked successfully to Luckenbill’s situational approach. Luckenbill
(1977:176-186) perceives violence as a dynamic, social and interactional phenomenon originating
from a situated transaction between a victim and an offender. According to Luckenbill, both parties
endeavour to establish or maintain ‘face’ during the confrontation. This then often results in the use of
violence to resolve the matter.

Jensen and Brownfield (in Fattah, 1991:329) maintain that an artificial division is created in both the
lifestyle/exposure and the opportunity models between victims and offenders. As a result, interaction
with offenders and/or proximity to them, are used as key explanatory variables. These authors
consider offence activity as a lifestyle characteristic or as a routine activity that increases the risk of
victimisation. They also point out that persons who lead criminal or delinquent lifestyles might be more
vulnerable to victimisation than any other persons who follow routines.

According to Garofalo (1987:40), certain public policies also effect role expectations and structural
constraints, and therefore also the lifestyles of most individuals. The role of these policies is, however
not taken into consideration by the lifestyle/exposure model. Garofalo quotes examples of public
policies that may increase the risk of victimisation, two of which may be relevant to attacks on farmers.
One is related to the transportation of persons and goods and the other to unemployment. Policies

57
regarding public subsidies for highways and other forms of transport that facilitate the movement of
persons and commodities, may also facilitate the convergence of potential attackers with farmers in
isolated rural areas. While these policies may also facilitate and expedite farmers’ tasks, they make it
easier for wrongdoers to escape from the scene of the crime and transport their looted goods.
Economic and/or labour policies that affect the level of unemployment may also have a negative effect
on the victimisation of farmers. Unemployed persons may be driven to crime to sustain their families.
As mentioned before, unemployed persons furthermore have the advantage of having time at their
disposal for surveillance of their targets so that they are reasonably certain of success when they
make their attack. Policies relating to gun ownership might also be relevant to farm attacks.

A further criticism by Jensen and Brownfield (in Fattah, 1991:330), is that attempts to test the model
have concentrated on only three demographic variables, namely age, race and income. They believe
gender plays a significant role in victimisation and that gender difference has to be explained.
According to them, male and female lifestyles differ. Although females are less likely to be exposed to
potential offenders and more likely to be guarded against victimisation, they still fall prey to offenders.
These authors maintain that the key factor contributing to the gender difference in victimisation risk, is
that females are less likely to be involved in deviant routines (e.g. associating with potential offenders
in public places).

Hindelang et al. in their model do not mention the possibility that some individual’s perceptions and/or
beliefs about crime might be flawed. This might in turn affect the efficacy of adaptations that they might
make to avoid or reduce the risk of victimisation. Farmers who believe that all farm attacks are
politically motivated, for example, might go to great lengths to improve the relationship between them
and black workers, but ignore precautions they might have taken if they believed they could also fall
prey to offenders bent solely on financial gain (see section 2.1.4.3).

In spite of the criticism levelled at Hindelang et al.’s model, it also has many advantages. One
advantage is that it shows that victims of personal crimes are not isolated from the realities of life.
Structural constraints and individual freedom play a role in everyday life, thereby making it possible for
personal victimisation to take place during the normal activities of individuals (Grobbelaar, 1986:12;
Sheley, 1995:177). Farmers therefore need not engage in out-of-the-ordinary activities to become
targets of attackers. In carrying out normal everyday activities, farmers are also not isolated from social
realities such as legal, familial and economic restraints that influence their routine activities and the
extent to which they expose themselves to victimisation. Farmers also make choices to adapt to the
potential risks that role expectations and structural constraints place on them. By admitting to the

58
presence of risky factors, yet choosing to ignore them, some farmers raise the risk of falling victim to
attackers. In short, the lifestyle/exposure theory suggests that violent crime rates are a consequence of
the fact that people sometimes willingly and sometimes unwillingly and unknowingly engage in risky
behaviour that exposes them to violent crime. The more people expose themselves to the chance of
victimisation, the higher the crime rates will be. While differences in lifestyle account for unequal
distributions in victimisation rates, differences may also explain crime trends and crime cycles.

Another advantage is that the lifestyle/exposure model can be tested empirically (Grobbelaar,
1986:12). Grobbelaar further states that it can also be adapted where necessary and used to form the
basis for further research. One of the aims of Hindelang et al. (1978:272) was, in fact, to stimulate
empirical and theoretical research as they saw the lifestyle/exposure model only as a preliminary step
towards the adequate explanation of personal victimisation. A number of researchers have
subsequently based their research on the model and have been able to provide additional support for
Hindelang et al.’s research on personal victimisation (Schurink et al., 1992:52; Sheley, 1995:176-183;
Vito & Holmes, 1994:145). Kennedy and Forde (1990:149), using data from a Canadian crime
victimisation study, confirm that the routine activity variables contribute significantly to the explanation
of personal victimisation. In accordance with predictions of the lifestyle/exposure model, they found
that the most likely victims of assault and robbery are young unmarried males who frequent places
where conflict flares up (e.g. bars).

Cohen and Cantor (1981:113-123) as well as Miethe, Stafford and Long (1987:189-191) found support
for Hindelang et al.’s model. Cohen and Cantor who studied residential burglary in the USA, confirmed
that central city residents have higher rates of burglary than non-central city residents, and that area
type is a stronger predictor of burglary victimisation than income. They found that the lowest-income
category had the highest risk of all income groups. Cohen and Cantor (1981:123) believe this might be
explained by the fact that a disproportionate number of burglars could reside in the same area as this
group. Miethe, et al. established that the risk of victimisation is higher for persons who are involved in
night-time activity and perform a large proportion of their day-time activity outside the home. They also
found that the effect of location of day-time activities is greater among married and older persons than
among unmarried and younger persons. Married and older persons spend more time in the relative
safety of their homes while younger persons prefer patronising public places where the risk of
victimisation might be higher than in their homes.

Since the model was published in 1978, a number of studies have generated findings that are
consistent with the lifestyle/exposure model regarding a variety of crimes (Garofalo, 1987:27-36).

59
These include household burglary, non-commercial larceny and motor vehicle theft.

In spite of her points of criticism referred to earlier in this section, Walklate (1989:13) also recognises
the sophistication of the lifestyle/exposure model both in its theoretical formulation and in the
hypotheses it propagates on crime prevention. An advantage is that it is an empirically grounded
approach and as such, Walklate (1989:9) comments, it has enabled researchers to make sense of
empirical observations that would normally have appeared to be contradictory. She believes the model
has displayed and still has further potential to display, in great detail, the nature of personal
victimisation provided that victimisation is understood as that which is publicly identifiable and that
which can be articulated. She also states that the model has successfully moved victimisation forward
from victim typologies and the idea of victim precipitation, to a fairly narrowly defined structural context.

Having taken all these advantages into consideration, it is the researcher’s contention that the
lifestyle/exposure model might shed some light on the factors that play a role in increasing farmers’
susceptibility to personal victimisation while going about their occupational and recreational activities.

2.2 THE ROUTINE ACTIVITY THEORY

The routine activity theory of Cohen and Felson was formulated independently of that of Hindelang et
al. (1978), yet it displays many similarities. While Hindelang et al. lay emphasis on lifestyle that
exposes potential victims to opportunities of being victimised, Cohen and Felson (1979:588-608)
highlight the absence of guardianship in individuals’ lifestyles. They pay special attention to trends in
lifestyle that have emerged since World War II, for example more females employed outside the home
and more single adult families. These trends not only expose employed females and single adults to
direct-contact personal victimisation, but also expose their homes as these become attractive targets.
According to the routine activity theory, dispersion of activities away from households and families
decreases guardianship, creating opportunities for victimisation and generating higher crime rates.

2.2.1 Historical development of the routine activity theory

In their research, Cohen and Felson were influenced largely by Amos Hawley’s human ecology theory.
Hawley recognised the temporal interdependence of criminal acts and those of law-abiding citizens
(Cohen & Felson, 1979:590). He identified three temporal components of community structure, namely
rhythm, tempo and timing. Rhythm referred to the regular periodicity with which events occur, tempo to
the number of events per unit of time at any given location, and timing to the co-ordination among

60
different activities which are more or less interdependent. An example that he quoted, is the co-
ordination of an offender’s rhythms with those of the victim.

Research by Cohen and Felson on the circumstances in which offenders carry out predatory criminal
acts was prompted by a paradox in the summary report of the National Commission on the Causes
and Prevention of Violence published in 1969 in the USA. In the report it was noted that urban violent
crime rates had increased substantially in metropolitan areas between 1959 and 1969, a period when
the conditions believed to cause violent crime had in fact improved and not worsened (Cohen &
Felson, 1979:588). During this decade, a larger proportion of black urban dwellers completed their
schooling, unemployment rates dropped significantly and the number of persons living below the
legally defined poverty level in cities declined from 11,3 million to 8,3 million. The paradox highlighted
by the Violence Commission applied to violent as well as to non-violent offences. According to
statistics quoted in the Uniform Crime Reports in the USA, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible rape
and homicide increased by 263%, 164%, 174% and 188% respectively, while property crime such as
burglary increased by 200%. This contradiction led Cohen and Felson to seek the root causes of illegal
acts in the circumstances surrounding the perpetration of the acts rather than in the characteristics of
the offenders.

According to Cohen and Felson (1979:590), most criminal acts require convergence in space and time
of likely offenders, suitable targets and the absence of capable guardians such as neighbours and/or
alarms. On the basis of these three prerequisites, they set about gathering data that help to explain
crime trends in the USA between 1947 and 1974. The importance of guardianship became clear when
residents of Louisville, Kentucky, were successful in reducing the number of crimes committed in their
area merely by increasing their guardianship. This they did with the aid of the police who restricted the
flow of traffic into a public housing project. Residents were able to question why unfamiliar people and
cars were in the area. As a result, the number of crimes committed there decreased dramatically.

2.2.2 Circumstances surrounding direct-contact predatory victimisation

Cohen and Felson (1979:588) highlight the circumstances in which offenders carry out direct-contact
predatory violations. These they defined as illegal acts in which “someone definitely and intentionally
takes or damages the person or property of another”. They focus on the fact that illegal acts are events
that occur at specific locations in space and time, involving specific persons and/or objects. According
to them, illegal acts are also routine activities, as are the legal everyday sustenance activities of law-
abiding members of society. Cohen and Felson (1979:593) define routine activities as "any recurrent

61
and prevalent activities which provide for basic population and individual needs, whatever their
biological or cultural origins”. Since routine activities are interdependent, any change in the structure of
everyday activities or lifestyle of an individual or groups of persons can alter the likelihood of the
convergence in space and time of the three prerequisites of direct-contact predatory crime, namely
motivated offenders, suitable targets and capable guardians against crime. The absence of any one of
these is normally sufficient to prevent the successful completion of a crime (Cohen & Felson,
1979:589). By adhering to a set routine, an individual ensures the presence of a suitable target at a
particular place and at a certain point in time.

2.2.2.1 Motivated offender

Criminologists have for more than a century proposed a number of theories, for example, the
subculture of violence by Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967) that explain crime and to some extent what
motivates or gives offenders reason to commit crimes. In the light of information provided by theorists,
Cohen and Felson (1979:589) regard the presence of motivated offenders as a given fact. They
furthermore maintain that even if the proportion of motivated offenders were to remain stable in a
community, changes in routine activity could alter the likelihood of their convergence in space and time
with suitable targets not protected by capable guardians, thereby creating more opportunities for the
commission of crimes.

2.2.2.2 Suitable target

According to Bartollas (1997:117), there is at least a measure of rationality involved in the choice of a
target for victimisation. As predatory crimes are high-risk activities, Fattah (1991:250) notes that it is
reasonable to expect that in selecting a target, wrongdoers will be influenced by the balance of the
potential rewards (e.g. the acquisition of valuable items) against the potential risks (e.g. apprehension
and/or injury). Fattah however also draws attention to the fact that the urge to commit a crime may be
so powerful that the risks involved are overlooked.

According to Bartollas (1997:117) decisions made in the process of choosing a suitable target are
sometimes rudimentary. They may be constrained by limits of time (e.g. in opportunistic crimes), the
ability of the offender (e.g. his previous experience in planning a crime and/or gauging risks) and the
availability of relevant information (e.g. regarding the absence of guardians or the availability of
valuable goods).

62
Generally, surveillance of the target ensures more effective decisions and choices. Unemployed
persons and professional criminals usually have sufficient time to observe the movements of those
going about their daily tasks. As mentioned earlier, by noting routines they are able to arrange their
own activities so that they intersect in time and space with those of the potential target. Two
straightforward ways in which offenders in property crimes determine if there are valuables to be
stolen, is by peeping through windows and obtaining information from friends and/or receivers of stolen
goods (Conklin, 1995:292). Information regarding the loot and/or potential victim is also obtained by
unobtrusive watching and from unguarded or idle talk by individuals and/or their employees.
Intimidation or the use of force, where persons are tortured to reveal where money, weapons, safes
and/or keys are hidden, are more direct means of exacting information from victims and/or their
employees.

In weighing up the suitability of their target(s), wrongdoers have to consider factors relating to both the
benefits to be gained (e.g. the valuable item and/or the satisfaction or revenge) and the potential
victims of their offences (e.g. their vulnerability). The degree to which the victim appears vincible
and/or is convenient to the offender are also factors which may play a decisive role in target selection
(Hindelang et al., 1978:264). These factors will be discussed next.

• Material benefits and/or personal satisfaction or revenge

Profitability and lucrativeness are the most important considerations in crimes committed for financial
gain, while physical attractiveness and other personal characteristics may play a role in the selection of
a victim for sexual offences (Fattah, 1991:237). Where the crime is a symbolic gesture, offenders
might gain some other benefit or personal satisfaction. Social acceptance by a political group or
criminal gang, or revenge for some real or imagined wrong, might be an important motivational factor
to commit a crime.

According to Cohen, Kluegel and Land (1981:508), target attractiveness refers to "the material or
symbolic desirability of persons or property targets to potential offenders, as well as the perceived
inertia of a target against illegal treatment”. Thus while affluence and the symbolic relevance of the
target might increase the risk of victimisation, factors such as the perceived physical ability of
individuals to resist an attack might cause potential offenders to seek alternative targets. Goods that
are fixed permanently to floors or walls, goods that are excessively heavy, or articles securely locked
away, might be considered unsuitable loot as attempts to remove the goods from the premises might
fail. Cohen and Felson (1979:599) for example found that the lightest television on sale in 1960

63
weighed 17,3 kilograms compared with 6,8 kilograms in 1970. There were similar changes for radios,
record players, slide projectors, tape recorders, television sets and toasters. This decrease correlates
with the rapid increase in illegal removal of these items during the period 1960-1975.

Goods stolen in crimes committed for financial gain, such as theft, burglary or robbery are often stolen
for resale purposes and not for personal use (Conklin, 1995:289). This might also have a direct
bearing on the choice of goods considered suitable to plunder. Some articles are more easily disposed
of than others. Electronic appliances have good retail value for a thief. Small items such as radios are
up to four times more valuable in weight than heavier appliances such as refrigerators and washing
machines. Burglary data for the District of Columbia in 1969 show that home entertainment items alone
constitute nearly four times the number of stolen items such as clothing, food, drugs, liquor and
tobacco combined and nearly eight times as many items as office supplies and equipment (Cohen &
Felson, 1979:596).

64
• Vincibility

In direct predatory crimes such as rape and robbery, physical and/or psychological traits may cause
certain persons to be judged suitable or unsuitable for victimisation. Potential victims’ vincibility usually
depends on their vulnerability. Hindelang et al. (1978:266) maintain that an individual's vulnerability to
personal victimisation increases to the degree that the offender perceives his potential victim as being
less able to protect himself. Physical traits such as strength and fitness might induce potential
offenders to seek other targets who are less likely to offer resistance. Some psychological traits, for
example gullibility, might cause an individual to be branded a suitable victim. Certain negative qualities
(e.g. provocative and/or demeaning behaviour) might further facilitate the neutralisation process and
cause certain persons to be judged legitimate targets.

Demographic characteristics such as the gender and age of a potential victim might also be an
indication of his vulnerability. Females and elderly persons are often perceived to be more vulnerable
to victimisation than males and younger persons who are usually more robust and likely to resist or
give pursuit. Females are generally believed to lack the physical strength to defend themselves against
an attack. According to Fattah and Sacco (1989:158), the elderly are also less likely to resist when
attacked, flee from adversity or engage in effective self-protection activities. Several physical
characteristics such as stride length, body movements and type of walk are interpreted as providing
cues to victim vulnerability (Fattah & Sacco, 1989:181).

Lone victims are also often perceived to be vulnerable because they are unaccompanied. Persons
who are alone often fear resisting their attackers and are also more easily overpowered. Another
reason might be that it is less likely that the offenders will be identified at a later stage (Hindelang et
al., 1978:266).

The sobriety of the potential victim is also a factor taken into account by offenders. Intoxicated victims
might appear incapable of resisting or providing the police with descriptions of the offenders.

• Convenience

According to Cohen and Felson (1979:590) the spatial and temporal structure of routine legal activities
should play an important role in determining the location, type and number of illegal activities occurring
in a given community or society. Convenience to the offender (Hindelang et al., 1978:264) plays an

65
important role in target selection. Offenders often wait for a potential victim to come to a place at a time
that is suitable to them. Outside the home and in public places a victim usually has no effective
defensible space or immediate access to weapons. Moreover, if the time of victimisation is selected
carefully, the chances of observation or intervention by others on behalf of the victim can be reduced.

Convenience is often determined by proximity, which is defined by Cohen et al. (1981:507) as "the
physical distance between areas where potential targets of crime reside and areas where relatively
large populations of potential offenders are found". Thus all else equal, the closer the residential
proximity of potential targets to relatively large populations of motivated offenders, the greater the risk
of criminal victimisation. This assumption is based on what is termed ‘gravity law of distance and social
interaction’. Research on personal victimisation (Fattah, 1991:235-236; Hindelang et al., 1978:265)
has shown that most offenders are perpetrate their crimes in close proximity to their places of
residence.

Three interrelated factors make proximity an important factor in target selection (Fattah, 1991:235-
236). These are awareness, familiarity and confidence.

- Awareness

Proximity generally increases exposure and ultimately awareness. Cohen et al. (1981:507) define
exposure as "the physical visibility and accessibility of persons or objects to potential offenders at any
given time or place". The greater the visibility and accessibility of suitable victims and valuable objects,
the greater might be the awareness of those persons and objects to would-be wrongdoers. The
physical visibility or accessibility of potential targets is often determined by their personal
characteristics. The affluence of an individual or the functional value of an object such as a firearm,
highlights the potential target’s desirability. On the other hand characteristics such as frailty or ill health
might draw attention to a potential victim's vulnerability.

- Familiarity

Familiarity with the area generally ensures that wrongdoers have reasonably accurate information
regarding their potential target. They can usually function inconspicuously, which increases their
feelings of security. Knowledge of the area is also an advantage when having to make a fast and
successful escape.

66
- Confidence

Familiarity generates confidence to commit an offence (Fattah, 1991:236). Offenders who know their
victim is frail and/or weak or that he will be unarmed, may be reasonably sure of their ability to
overpower their target. They may also be aware of certain weaknesses, such as greed, which might
facilitate victimisation. Wrongdoers who are familiar with the area in which they commit their crimes are
usually also aware what the reaction of possible eyewitnesses to the incident might be. In some areas
witnesses prefer not to become involved and will therefore not come to the assistance of the victim,
help to identify the culprits or give evidence against them.

2.2.2.3 Guardianship

Cohen et al. (1981:508) define guardianship as the effectiveness of persons (e.g. housewives,
neighbours, pedestrians and law enforcement officers) or objects (e.g. burglar alarms, locks and
barred windows) in preventing violations from occurring. While direct or indirect action by these
individuals is usually necessary, their mere presence may sometimes be sufficient to prevent the
commission of offences. The dispersion of activities away from households and families might thus
decrease guardianship of residential areas. This results in increased opportunities for the commission
of criminal acts, thus generating higher victimisation rates.

In their study, Cohen and Felson (1979:598) established that the number of females employed outside
the home between 1960 and 1970 increased by 31%, while the number of persons living alone
increased by 34%. Large increases were also recorded in the number of persons visiting public places
such as parks and engaging in out-of-town travel as well as in international travel. Cohen and Felson
further established that the proportion of homes unattended by persons older than 14 years at eight
o’clock in the morning increased by almost half during this period. The importance of occupancy is
shown by the increase in burglaries during this time. Their findings also revealed that burglary and
robbery victimisation rates were about twice as high for persons living in single-adult households due
to the fact that they tend to spend more time away from the home than married persons.

2.2.3 Relevance of the routine activity theory to attacks on farmers

The relevance of the theory lies in the fact that Cohen and Felson (1979:598) recognise the role
played by changes in social structure that create opportunities for victimisation. According to Barlow

67
(1987:70), social institutions as well as the physical environment in which people live, work and play
are affected by changes in the structure of communities.

In SA, some major social changes have taken place after the country’s first democratic elections in
1994. One such change that might be relevant to attacks on farmers is that people are now allowed to
move around more freely. Greater freedom of movement might bring numbers of persons without a
fixed income into closer proximity to farmers living in relatively crime free districts where guardianship
has not been a priority. Another change is the provision of electricity to a large number of townships
that formerly had to rely on the use of gas only. This might have created a demand for electrical
appliances in these areas that might increase the risk of victimisation of farmers. Unguarded
farmhouses, for example, might be perceived as easy targets by both unemployed persons who need
to sustain themselves until they find employment and organised criminal elements who have the
means to transport sought-after looted electrical appliances to their points of sale.

According to Cohen and Felson (1979:591) both the structure of community organisation and the level
of technology in a society are factors that are relevant to victimisation. They provide the circumstances
in which criminal acts may be committed and they affect the capacity of persons with criminal
inclinations to overcome their targets.

In some rural areas where community organisation is poor, farmers might run greater risks of being
victimised than farmers who live in areas where the farming community is highly organised. According
to Schönteich (2000a:87-88), there is much ignorance among some farmers concerning their potential
role in making their communities safer against criminal attacks. There is also little contact between
neighbours in certain areas. Many wrongdoers might interpret this lack of communication as a
weakness in the safety network of that neighbourhood and classify farmers living in such loosely knit
areas as safe targets. Farmers living where the community is highly organised, on the other hand,
might be perceived as harder targets and be avoided because of this image that they project. In highly
organised communities farmers are in constant communication with one another as the safety of their
community is their common goal. As already mentioned (see section 1.3.1), an example of a highly
organised farming community is that in the Piet Retief district. Schönteich (2000a:83) found that the
high participation of farmers in the security cell system used in this area has proven to be an
outstanding rapid reaction system against attackers. The members of each cell were linked to one
another as well as to commando headquarters by radio. Some cell members are also linked to one
another by an alarm system, activated by panic buttons and infrared sensors (Schönteich, 2000a:48).
Furthermore, many farmers are members of the Mpumalanga Agricultural Union (MAU) that serves

68
their interests.

A number of technological advances that serve legitimate purposes, however, also aid criminals in the
commission of their crimes. Cohen and Felson (1979:591) list motorcars, highways, cellular phones,
small power tools and hunting weapons. While modern technology serves to improve communication
between farmers going about their legitimate tasks, the availability of motor vehicles and highways
also normally ensures farm attackers a rapid escape from the area where they have committed their
crimes. Cellular phones, power tools and hunting weapons might also come in handy to offenders who
need to co-ordinate their criminal activities, break and enter the homes of farmers and inflict injury
upon their victims.

The relevance of the routine activity theory will now be discussed in terms of the three prerequisites for
direct-contact personal victimisation, namely motivated offenders, suitable targets and guardianship.

2.2.3.1 Motivated offenders

Statistics on farm attacks are proof of the existence of motivated offenders. It appears that the majority
of farm attacks are committed for economic gain. Evidence exists that the motive for the majority of the
attacks on farms and smallholdings is common criminality, with robbery serving as the primary
incentive (Britz, 1998:39; Kotzé, 2001a:29; Kotzé, 2001b:29). False pretence (Bester & De Lange,
1998:1; Boer kritiek ná nog ’n aanval in gebied, 2000:17) or impersonation (Du Preez, 2001:8) is often
used to lure farmers to locations where they are more vulnerable to attack. Farmers who conduct any
form of business transactions directly with the public on their farms, run a greater risk of being
deceived and led into danger. Offenders can, however, also be motivated to attack a certain farmer or
farmers for other reasons (e.g. a desire for revenge). Where revenge is the motive, the attack may be
excessively brutal (Pelser, 2001a:5) or cause major damage to the farmer’s possessions (e.g. farm
implements, livestock and/or winter fodder). Unsettled disputes or claims might also give rise to attacks
on farmers (Meyer, 2001a:10; Meyer, 2001b:10). Unfair labour practices serve as another example.
Conflict between farmers and their employees could arise over issues such as remuneration, working
hours, living conditions and illegal treatment which could take the form of a physical assault or a verbal
insult (Boer se seun, vriend staan tereg ná dood van werker wat glo selfoon steel, 2006:4; Boere deel
van MRK-ondersoek, 2001:10; Pelser, 2000a:19; ‘Slawe op plase’ in Mpumalanga skok Mbeki,
2000:2). To support this, Britz (1998:39) found that racial tension, dismissals and conflict between
employer and employee play a role in some attacks. Imagined injustices might also lead to farmers
being attacked. Legitimate dismissals could be perceived as illegitimate and result in retaliation in the

69
form of an immediate attack, or resentment which could in time develop into hate and culminate in an
attack on a farmer some time later.

2.2.3.2 Suitable targets

Many farmers are desirable targets for both instrumental as well as symbolic reasons. As these have
already been discussed in section 2.1.4.10, it suffices at this stage merely to note these reasons.

Farmers are also convenient targets as farm activities generally follow a strict routine (Die dag toe die
plaaslewe ’n nagmerrie geword het, 2000:42). This makes it easy to determine in advance where
farmers will be at a particular time and also under what circumstances (e.g. accompanied or alone,
armed or unarmed). Many suspects arrested for attacking farmers have been unemployed, thus have
had sufficient time on their hands to observe the farmers’ daily movements and plan the attacks (Mistry
& Dhlamini, 2001:21). Information about the farmer has on occasion been obtained from employees as
well as their friends and relatives living on the farms. In one attack (Special Assignment, SABC 3
Documentary, 22 August 1998), it was alleged that the attackers were given relevant information by
two women on the farm, one of whom was believed to be related to one of the offenders. Children
might sometimes also be used to obtain information about farmers. After children had been given a
task by teachers at the Moedig Skool (Thokozani) near Carolina to collect information about farms in
the area, there were four armed incidents in a week within 10 kilometers of the school (Viljoen,
2006:4).

Farmers are sometimes convenient targets because of their proximity to where potential offenders
reside. Research has indicated that a large number of offenders who attack farmers originate from the
target farm or vicinity. Others have family or friends living in close proximity to the target farms (Britz,
1998:41). Investigating officers in the North West Province believe that many unemployed farm
workers move to informal settlements near the farms where they were employed and return later to rob
their former employers (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:1). The suspects
in two farm attacks (Special Assignment, SABC 3 Documentary, 22 August 1998) were traced to
townships closest to the targeted farms. Two of a young doctor’s attackers were ex-employees on her
father’s farm. As mentioned before, close proximity to potential victims allows for observation of
farmers and their family members and also for familiarity with the area. This facilitates attacks on the
farmhouse or ambushes in isolated areas of the farm. Persons familiar with the area are generally also
aware of escape routes from the farm. Proximity also ensures familiarity with the farmer, whether he is
physically able to defend himself, whether he is routinely careful or careless about security and

70
whether he can be deceived and lured into danger or not. While the proximity of suitable targets is
distinctly advantageous to attackers, increased mobility makes it possible for criminals residing in
distant areas to carry out attacks on farmers, sometimes unknown to them personally (Cohen &
Felson, 1979:591).

Farmers are vulnerable targets for a number of reasons. The isolation of farms is an important factor
(Britz, 1998:42; Louw, 1998a:8). This is accentuated by the fact that many farmers are obliged to rely
only on conventional telephones of which the wires can easily be cut, preventing all communication
with the outside world. Even those with cellular telephones may find that a poor signal hampers the
ease with which contact can be established.

Many elderly farmers are vulnerable because of a decline in physical strength and various forms and
levels of sensory impairment such as deafness or blindness (Fattah & Sacco, 1989:158). Most farmers
are also vulnerable because of the nature of their work. This will become evident in the next section
when the characteristics of farmers’ vocational activities are discussed.

Factors relating to the attackers themselves might also cause them to believe a certain farmer is
vulnerable. These factors include being in possession of firearms or lethal weapons; strength in
numbers; previous experience in personal victimisation; intoxication which results in impaired
judgement; the element of surprise that can be used to their advantage; knowledge of the fact that all
links with the farmers’ neighbours and security forces have been cut off and the intimidation of workers
not to intervene and/or render assistance to their employers. When weighing up the pros and cons of
committing the crime, advantages such as these might erase all fears of apprehension from the minds
of potential attackers.

2.2.3.3 Guardianship

Guardianship (e. g. by ordinary citizens or technological devices) of one another and of property as
individuals go about their routine activities, is the third element of the routine activity theory (Cohen &
Felson, 1979:590). If guardianship is decreased, illegal predatory crimes are likely to increase. The
converse is also true. If controls are increased, predatory acts are likely to decrease. According to
Cohen and Felson, guardianship also links what would appear to be unrelated social roles and
relationships to the occurrence or absence of illegal acts.

Most farmers have the disadvantage of not being able to rely on the guardianship of the security

71
forces, passers-by or neighbours (Schönteich, 2000b:15-20). While police resources are thinly spread
in rural areas, farmhouses are also generally built some distance from public roads and/or the nearest
neighbours, which sometimes eliminates casual observation by informal guardians. For this reason
many farmers have gone to great expense to secure their farms by means of technological devices
(Chandler, 1998:17). High electrified security fencing, burglar proofing, security gates and alarms
protect those who perform their daily tasks inside the perimeter of the farmyard. Guard dogs and
geese are generally left to roam freely between the security fencing and the farmhouse in order to give
warning of approaching strangers. Farmers working outside the security area, however, are exposed
to attack. While many arm themselves with handguns and take dogs with them to give warning of
danger, this is not always sufficient to prevent them from being attacked (Meyer, 2001b:10; Pieters,
1998b:8; Stofberg, 1997a:4).

2.2.4 Evaluation of the routine activity theory of criminal victimisation

The significance of the routine activity theory in explaining the attacking of farmers lies in the fact that it
recognises the importance of the role played by the social structure in which routine activities are
performed. Conklin (1995:335) defines social structure as “recurrent, stable patterns of interaction
among people that facilitate the convergence in space and time of suitable targets and motivated
offenders in the absence of capable guardians against criminal acts”.

While changes referred to in the study relate mainly to changes in the routine activities of potential
targets which increase (or decrease) the risk of victimisation, the theory can be applied equally well to
changes in the social structure which affect the lifestyles of potential offenders (Cohen & Felson,
1979:598).

As a developing country and a relatively new democracy, the social structure in SA is undergoing
consistent and relatively rapid change. Many changes increase opportunities available to wrongdoers
to victimise potential targets, while others facilitate the commission of crimes. At the same time, some
changes also provide offenders with opportunities to escape apprehension and/or conviction and
incarceration, which might cause some persons to believe that crime pays. Another factor that might
play a role is that the police system has also been changed from a force to a community friendly
service (Maguire, 1997:16). Some offenders might believe that the police will treat them more leniently
and even overlook minor offences such as trespassing. Trespassing on farms often gives the
criminally inclined opportunities to observe the routine movements and habits of their potential targets
unhindered and thus enable them to plan further criminal acts with precision (Swart, 2003:49). The

72
shortage of human resources, which compels the police to give priority to serious crimes, could also
lead to an increase in other infringements on farms such as burglaries, which could also be the
forerunners of more serious crimes such as attacks on farmers. Police officials are sometimes also
guilty of corruption. Some members of these services have proven themselves to be open to
intimidation, bribery and/or other forms of corruption, which might result in some crimes being
purposely overlooked and/or some suspects escaping from custody and/or being found innocent of
crimes of which they might have been guilty (Mouton, 2006a:8). The ease with which bail can be
arranged as well as the release of prisoners on parole after completing only part of their sentences,
might in some instances minimise the deterrent effect of the sentences imposed by magistrates and
judges and enhance the perception that crime pays.

The abundance of manufactured goods, for example, might act as an incentive for criminally minded
individuals to commit property offences. Rapid urbanisation has increased the demand for electrical
goods, but has also created a ready market for stolen electrical appliances. The fast and efficient use
of power tools, for example, minimises the time spent at a crime scene during a burglary. It also
reduces the time needed to dismantle motor vehicles stolen during farm attacks in order to prevent
them from being traced to their owners. Ownership of cellular phones by large numbers of persons
who might previously have had no means of communication other than by using public telephones,
can facilitate the co-ordination and planning of crimes. Moreover, the increasing mobility of the
population and the rapidly growing number of persons able to drive and own motor vehicles has
increased the range within which offenders can commit their crimes. Farmers who might previously
have been out of range of criminals operating in or around cities, might now fall well within their reach.
Previously relatively crime free rural areas where some potential victims might not yet have adapted to
the social changes taking place in the country, might therefore be preferred by offenders in comparison
with targets which might be more effectively guarded in urban areas.

Cohen and Felson (1979:605) themselves believe that the routine activity theory might be useful in
explaining why the criminal justice system, the community and the family have appeared ineffective in
exerting social control since 1960. It might also explain why the certainty and the ease with which
valuable goods might be acquired by criminal means often outweigh the fear of punishment.

Cohen and Felson’s (1979:604) emphasis on the prerequisites for criminal acts to take place, links
their theory to the rational choice theory of Cornish and Clark (1987:933-947). The fact that many farm
attackers select vulnerable targets such as elderly people, individuals living alone or farmers who
conduct businesses from their farms, is evidence that they often weigh the pros and cons when

73
selecting their victims (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:4, 17; Report of
the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003f:15, 19). A rational choice is made before the
farmers are attacked during which factors such as the value of goods that may be looted, the
vulnerability of the target, as well as the absence of guardianship are considered. If the risk of
apprehension appears to be too great in proportion to the rewards that may be gained from attacking a
certain farmer, an alternate target may be chosen.

As the differences in the routine activities of some individuals might make them more susceptible to
victimisation than others, the routine activities theory may also be useful in explaining the rates of
victimisation for specific crimes, such as robbery, assault or murder. As targets are generally not
chosen at random, this could heighten the predictability value of the theory.

The routine activity theory also allows for the implementation of situational factors to increase
guardianship (Williams & McShane, 1999:222). Since farmers cannot always rely on the guardianship
of regular police patrols or that of passers-by, target hardening by means of electrified security fencing,
electronic gates and alarm systems as well as burglar bars, radio systems and guard dogs might be
implemented in order to increase guardianship and decrease the risk of victimisation.

Cohen and Felson (1979:591) state that the main advantage of the routine activity approach is that it
helps to bring together a variety of previously unconnected factors to form a definite framework. These
authors refer to several descriptive analyses as well as biographical and autobiographical descriptions
of illegal activities. An analysis by Reppetto (1974:18-24), who studied residential crime, found that
rhythms of residential crime rate patterns are marked, and often related to the routine movements of
individuals. He also found that both the physical characteristics of dwellings (e.g. if they were single or
double storey) and the visibility of doors and/or windows to the public, play a role in the decision-
making process of potential burglars. Approximately one-third of Reppetto’s interviewees stated that
they wanted evidence of valuables on the premises that they planned to target. This they often
obtained by peeping through windows or from information provided by friends. Another finding was that
approximately one-half of the interviewees, mostly the young and non-white burglars who were most
likely to travel on foot, preferred targets within one hour’s travel from their homes. Reppetto found that
lawbreakers take into account the nature of the property and/or the structure of human activities as
they go about their illegal activities.

Cohen and Felson (1979:590) maintain that as the absence of any one of the prerequisites of a direct-
contact predatory crime normally prevents the occurrence of such a crime, the theory can be used as a

74
framework to develop crime prevention strategies. By eliminating any one of the three prerequisites
(e.g. by increasing guardianship) it should be possible to prevent the commission of the crime. Miethe
et al. (1987:193) maintain that a weak point in the theory is that even if all the prerequisites for
victimisation to take place are present at a particular point in time, namely a motivated offender and a
suitable unguarded target, victimisation does not necessarily take place. This might indicate that other
factors are overlooked that need to be taken into consideration.

Barkan (1997:104) is of the opinion that the lifestyle/exposure model and the routine activity theory
apply less to violent crimes committed inside the home. Crimes such as family abuse normally take
place inside the home where the risk of victimisation is believed to be less than in public settings. For
this reason, Barkan states that the theories apply less to women, who spend more time inside the
home, than men whose routine activities take them outside their homes. Support for this is found in
farm attack statistics that show a smaller percentage of women are victimised in attacks than men who
need to oversee farm activities outside their homesteads. As the physical and sexual abuse of children
normally takes place in the privacy of their homes and seldom outside the home, these crimes also
cannot be explained by these theories. Moreover, children do not engage in lifestyles or routine
activities conducive to such victimisation. Barkan believes that the routine activity theories also do not
explain violent crimes such as murder. Such crimes are generally expressive, on-the-spur-of-the
moment crimes that are committed spontaneously. Research (Visser, 1998:7), however, has shown
that farm attacks are generally planned, sometimes with military precision, thus this criticism does not
apply and is not relevant to the current study.

Garofalo (1987:27) states that the routine activities theory also provides no reasons that motivate
individuals to commit crimes. Cohen and Felson take motivated offenders as a given fact as several
criminological theories provide the explanations for this. For these exponents, predictions as to
situations that may change criminal inclinations to criminal actions are more relevant than the
explanation of motives.

A further criticism (Davis, 1999:88) is that the routine activities approach makes no provision for the
fact that criminals may learn the daily routines of individuals, which might increase their risk of
victimisation. It is sometimes required of labourers to learn their employers’ daily, weekly or monthly
routines. Labourers’ unemployed friends or extended family members permitted to live on the farms or
residing there without the knowledge or permission of the farmers, also have opportunities of learning
the farmers’ routines (Sien geen toekoms in landbou, 1989:91). They have sufficient time to observe
the farmers going about their tasks unobtrusively and without creating suspicion. Trespassers who

75
take short cut across farms, poach on farms or erect temporary shacks in secluded areas of the farm,
may also become aware of farmers’ movements and be in a position to determine when and where the
farmer is most vulnerable.

Fattah (1991:329) states that the routine activity theory ignores the possible association between youth
misbehaviour and victimisation. Statistics of perpetrators arrested for attacking farmers show that 7,4%
of the offenders were between 10 and 19 years of age at the time of the attack. The majority (48,5%)
were in the 20-29 year category (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003n:17). In
some cases all the perpetrators were youths (De Wet, 2003:2; Viljoen, 2007b:1). In an attack on an
elderly couple in the Christiana district, three 19-year old and one 15-year old youth inflicted injuries on
the farmer that resulted in brain damage, stabbed his wife, poured petrol on the couple and set them
alight (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:27).Youth misbehaviour may
therefore play a role in attacks on the farming community.

Sherman, Gartin and Buerger (1989:31) maintain that a lack of testing of the actual places where the
crimes are committed, limits the theory. This supports the view of Miethe et al. (1987:185) who believe
that the most appropriate analysis for the routine activity approach would be the location of the
offences. In the case of farm attacks, this would be the farmhouse, the place of first contact between
68,8% of the respondents who participated in the Committee’s research and the offenders (Report of
the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003n:9). While an investigation into the location of the
crime might reveal that some farmhouses lack sufficient guardianship in the form of devices such as
alarm systems and/or security doors, it is the researcher’s contention that other factors might also
need to be considered. In 20,3% of the incidents4 highlighted in the Report the offenders gained
unobstructed entry, which might indicate that windows were left open and/or doors unlocked, either as
a result of forgetfulness or complacency on the part of the occupants. The fact that the offenders were
let into their homes freely by the victims in 15,9% of the attacks, might also be evidence of the
occupants’ false perceptions of safety or optimism that they will not be attacked when inside their
homes (Report of he Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003n:10). It must, however, be noted
that these statistics also pertain to workers and visitors to rural areas and not only to farmers as
defined for the purpose of this study.

Jensen and Brownfield (in Fattah, 1991:331) criticise the routine activity theory for its passive
interpretation of lifestyle as enhancing victimisation solely through exposure and guardianship. They
maintain that such an interpretation of lifestyle does not explain violent crime. Active pursuit of fun and

76
excitement (e.g. visiting bars and/or partying) could more readily lead to victimisation.

In spite of the above criticism, the main advantage of the routine activity theory to the study on hand is
that it creates an awareness of the increased risk of victimisation if motivated offenders and vulnerable
targets are permitted to converge in unguarded circumstances. Awareness of situations that might
facilitate victimisation might lead to the prediction of predatory acts. This in turn might instigate
precautionary behaviour to avoid falling prey to such acts. Only slight changes in activities carried out
routinely, a greater awareness of one’s surroundings and less negligence or carelessness might be
sufficient to foil attempts at victimisation. As relatively minor changes in social trends might contribute
to significant increases in crime rates, minor changes to the lifestyles of individuals might lead to
substantial decreases in crimes such as farm attacks.

2.3 THE DOMAIN-SPECIFIC MODEL OF CRIMINAL VICTIMISATION

The domain-specific model of criminal victimisation was developed by Lynch (1987:283-300) in an

attempt to narrow down the scope of activity theories that are too general to adequately explain
victimisation in the course of the performance of routine activities. Although the concepts of exposure,
guardianship, target attractiveness and proximity to dense populations of offenders are of use with
regard to narrowing down the scope of lifestyle, these concepts still provide for a diversity of
behaviours that people pursue on a routine basis. According to Lynch (1987:285-287), criminal
victimisation also includes a wide variety of illegal acts. Even if criminal acts are divided into basic
criminal code definitions, crime types such as robbery and assault remain diverse in character
because they differ both in their context and in their motivation.

Lynch’s approach (1987:284) divides both victimisation and life activities into fields that are defined by
place and activity. Different fields of activity involve varying levels of risk. Life activities include ‘at
work’, ‘at school’, ‘at home’ and ‘at leisure’ (out of the home) domains, but Lynch focuses on activities
performed in the work domain. This includes all activities carried out at the place of employment as
well as on the way to and from work.

Lynch (1987:285) believes that quantitative models might explain crime more effectively by defining
activity variables more specifically and defining increasingly narrow classes of victimisation. According
to him, crimes that occur during a specific life activity share a number of characteristics. Whereas
victimisations that occur in the home might share attributes of residential location, housing structure

4 More recent statistics are unavailable.

77
and types of security devices installed in the home, victimisation in the workplace might share other
characteristics, which once identified, might assist in the prediction and possible prevention of certain
criminal acts.

Lynch (1987:295) furthermore found in his analysis that it is not only the persons with whom an
individual is obliged to associate in the workplace, but also the activities he is expected to perform in
the course of his duties, which make him more vulnerable to victimisation. According to Lynch,
differences in the risk of victimisation at work are determined more by the task performed than the
person in the occupational role.

He maintains that an individual's chances of being victimised in the workplace are increased by three
factors, firstly by public accessibility or exposure, secondly by mobility and thirdly by the handling of
money. Lynch (1987:295) states that individuals whose occupation involves all of these features run
the greatest risk of victimisation. Farmers fall in this category for a number of reasons. These will be
discussed in the section on the application of the theory.

2.3.1 Historical development of the domain-specific model

Not much is known about victimisation in the workplace (Lynch, 1987:283). Information relevant to the
work environment became available in 1983 when the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the USA funded a
Victim Risk Supplement (VRS) to the National Crime Survey (Lynch, 1987:287). This data collected by
the Census Buro makes it possible to focus attention on the respondent’s work environment, which
eliminates the spurious effects of routine activities only correlated with the work (e.g. travelling to and
from work). In addition, information in the VRS also allows for classification of the respondent’s work
environment using specific indicators of concepts in the routine activity framework, namely exposure,
guardianship, proximity to offenders and attractiveness. The availability of this information since 1983,
prompted Lynch to formulate his domain-specific model of victimisation in which he uses the nature of
individuals’ tasks to explain why they are victimised at their places of work.

2.3.2 Elements of the model

Lynch (1987:287-288) found four factors of particular relevance to victimisation in the workplace.
These are exposure to victimisation, guardianship, perceived dangerousness and target
attractiveness.

78
2.3.2.1 Exposure

Exposure refers to the visibility of, or physical access to victims by potential offenders at the
workplace. Lynch (1987:287) gauges the degree of exposure of individuals going about their work
firstly by determining whether the workplace is open to the public and secondly by the number of
persons with whom they interact in an average week at work.

2.3.2.2 Guardianship

Lynch’s definition of guardianship is similar to that of Cohen et al. (1981:508) quoted in section 2.2.2.3.
Guardianship is related directly to the presence of persons or devices that can prevent or inhibit
victimisation. Two factors taken into consideration by Lynch in determining the degree of guardianship
are the frequency of the respondents’ local travel while carrying out their duties, and also the
frequency of trips that cause them to be absent from their homes at night, which reduces guardianship
during these hours.

2.3.2.3 Perceived dangerousness

The proximity of dense pools of offenders affects persons’ perceptions of the dangerousness of a
workplace. Therefore the only feasible method of assessing the density of offenders in the work
environment is by asking respondents how dangerous they perceive their places of work to be.

2.3.2.4 Target attractiveness

According to the domain-specific model of victimisation, attractiveness as a crime target depends on

how frequently individuals handle money as part of their job (Lynch, 1987:288). Financial gain is often
the motive for crime.

2.3.3 Analysis of the elements

Lynch analysed the elements in two stages (Lynch, 1987: 288-289). The first stage was designed to
test the relative influence of socio-demographic characteristics such as age, race and sex as well as
routine activities on the risk of victimisation. The second stage attempted to provide more specific
information on the effects of individual activity variables such as exposure, attractiveness and proximity
to dense pools of offenders on victimisation in the work domain.

79
Lynch’s findings show that activities such as routine face-to-face contact with large numbers of
persons performed as part of the occupational role and the proximity of the work environment to dense
pools of offenders, affect the risk of victimisation at work to a much greater degree than the socio-
demographic characteristics of victims. Exposure at work, attractiveness of the target resulting from
activities performed at work and guardianship, have a significant effect on the risk of victimisation while
at work. Of the variables in the routine activity framework, proximity to strangers, as measured by
perceived dangerousness, has the largest effect. Attractiveness of respondents as targets because
they handle money, exposure and guardianship have about the same effect. Coming into face-to-face
contact with large numbers of persons on a routine basis, routine travel, and the handling of money on
the job, are factors that expose workers to a greater risk of victimisation. A person whose occupation
involves all of these features, namely public accessibility, mobility and the handling of money (Lynch,
1987:295) thus runs the greatest risk of victimisation.

2.3.4 Relevance of the domain-specific model to attacks on farmers

The nature of farmers’ occupational activities makes farmers more vulnerable to victimisation than
people in most of the other occupations (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:16). They often work
and/or travel alone in isolated areas on their farms, exposing themselves to victimisation where
guardianship is low. They also often work or have to attend to emergencies after normal working hours
when the workers have left and visibility is poor. Extended working hours allow offenders better
choices in the planning of the location and time of the attacks. Farmers who do business from their
farms and handle money during the course of the business transactions, are often also exposed to
members of the public who know when there is money on the farms (Genis & Fouché, 2003:63). While
many might have learned to refrain from doing business on their farms, few are able to avoid handling
money, as most farm workers are paid their wages in hard cash. The dangerousness of normal
farming activities is borne out by a remark uttered by Justice Thirion when sentencing two men for
attacking and killing a Wartburg farm manager:

Anybody who handles money, or is driving a vehicle, or who is alone on his or her property or farm, risks
being robbed at gunpoint and either shot gratuitously or, if he or she shows the slightest resistance, shot
anyway (Frean, 1998a:7).

2.3.4.1 Exposure and accessibility to the public

80
Farmers in their day-to-day activities are exposed to a number of employees and members of their
families, unemployed persons seeking permanent or casual work, buyers of farm produce as well as
individuals or groups who enter the farms for illegal purposes such as taking short cuts to neighbouring
farms and/or farm stores, stripping the property of trees for firewood or stock theft (Boer kritiek na nog
’n aanval in gebied, 2000:17; Van Burick, 2001b:1; Vreemdes bly nie by fabrieke; hoekom dan op
plase?, 1996:79). Besides persons working on the farms or calling on farmers at their farmhouses,
some farmers also oblige when strangers along the roadside indicate that they should stop their
vehicles (Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:37). Potential offenders might therefore learn
which farmers are less security conscious than others and perceive them as soft targets (Bester,
1998:4; Boer bid en skiet twee aanvallers dood in huis, 1998:4; Pelser, 2001a:5; Rooi, 2000:13).

A factor that might contribute to the ease with which farmers are attacked while performing their
occupational tasks, is that farming activities are not generally performed within a structured sheltered
setting. A large percentage of farmers’ tasks are carried out some distance from the homestead and
out of sight and earshot of their family members and/or persons who might come to their assistance.
As some tasks require close supervision by farmers, potential offenders are ensured of their presence
at a particular location at a specific point in time. Many farmers also work side by side with their
workers. Workers planning to attack their employers might therefore be aware of times when they will
be within striking distance of them. They might also know that farmers will be so preoccupied with the
tasks on hand that they will be unaware of pending danger until it is too late to defend themselves. Of
possible relevance to attacks on farmers, is that tools such as spades and axes that serve equally well
as weapons, are used routinely on farms in the work situation. Knives are also carried by a large
number of males on farms, which increases the chances of serious injury. Visitors to farms who have
learned the farmers’ routines either by chance or with the intent to harm them, might also be aware of
situations and/or conditions that might make their potential victims vulnerable to attacks.

According to Fattah (1991:240), the ease with which a potential offender can have access to the victim
will contribute to whether a particular individual will be considered a ‘good’ or a ‘bad’ target. Both
physical and temporal accessibility play a role. Although farmers are not as exposed to the general
public as persons in many other occupations, the isolation of a farm might make any contact between
farmers and potential offenders more risky than in urban areas. In public places the presence of other
persons increases guardianship (see section 2.2.2.3) as well as the risk of offenders being recognised
and/or apprehended.

81
Block, Felson and Block (1984:442-451), who studied the differences in the personal characteristics of
individuals in a large number of occupations, found substantial differences among occupations. While
farmers and farm labourers are not high on their list, they found that policemen, teachers and
individuals who work with the public are more exposed to victimisation than others. There are a variety
of reasons why persons can be victimised at work. Selective recruitment of crime-prone individuals to
certain occupations (e.g. persons who do not fear taking risks), routine night-time travelling to and from
work (e.g. by night shift workers) or even the non-work-related activity pursued by certain types of
workers (e.g. drinking in bars and/or visiting prostitutes), might explain why persons in certain
occupations are victimised more than others. What certain people do at work can also make them
attractive targets. Persons who handle cash such as bank tellers and armoured car drivers are
attractive targets for this reason.

Farmers who run farm stalls or sell produce directly to the public from the farm are thus more
vulnerable than farmers who do not handle ready cash or come face-to-face with large numbers of
other people (Visser, 1998:9). Investigating officers in the Northern Cape, singled out selling liquor on
a farm as a threat to the security of farmers (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003h:9). Strangers visiting the farm might be mistaken for bona fide customers and be allowed to
approach sufficiently close to attack. Farmers selling livestock, often find it more convenient to walk or
travel to the area where the animals are grazing rather than have the whole herd rounded up and
driven to the farmhouse every time a potential buyer arrives. This increases opportunities of being
attacked out of sight of family and employees. Moreover, persons who purchase an animal to be
slaughtered during a burial ceremony as is the custom among many black South Africans, might be
accompanied by friends and/or relatives who assist in the choice of the animal. It would therefore not
appear suspicious to the farmer if a group of persons arrived on the farm (Mulder, 2001:1). Some
farmers might also be persuaded to oblige what appear to be genuine customers who have travelled
long distances and arrive after working hours. At this time guardianship normally provided by farm
workers would be reduced, making it easier to commit the offence unhindered and without risk of
identification at a later stage. All these aspects will be dealt with fully in the chapter on the nature of
farm attacks.

Temporal accessibility is significant as the extended hours of farming activities allow attackers greater
flexibility in timing their offences (Fattah, 1991:241). Offenders have the advantage of attacking only
when they feel the time is right. Farmers who commence their farming activities before daybreak
and/or continue until after sunset, are likely to be considered ‘good’ targets. Poor visibility might give
attackers confidence and might make them feel secure and safe. It allows them to take their victim(s)

82
by surprise, also makes later identification more difficult and facilitates escape.

The temporal accessibility of farmers to potential offenders is further increased by the fact that most
workers, and in some cases extended family members and friends, also reside on the farms (Sien
geen toekoms in landbou, 1989:91). At the same time, residing in close proximity with one another
also increases the risk of friction (e.g. as a result of the abuse of alcohol during leisure time), which
might lead to individuals attacking their employers and/or fellow employees.

2.3.4.2 Mobility

Local travel falls within the scope of the routine activities of most farmers. Many farmers have to move
about their farms in order to perform their daily tasks. Most farmers also have to leave their farms on a
regular basis to purchase provisions and other necessities from the nearest town. As mentioned before
in section 2.1.4.1, some produce has to be transported to larger centres where facilities such as fresh
produce markets and abattoirs are available. Routine trips might be predicted in advance, which
facilitates planning by offenders.

2.3.4.3 Handling of money

Most farmers, and in particular those who run businesses on their farms (e.g. selling livestock or farm
produce from farm stalls), sometimes handle large sums of money in hard cash (see section 2.1.4.4).
This makes them attractive targets to potential offenders (De Bruin, 2001:3; De Nysschen, 2003c:1;
Van Burick, 2001b:1; Venter, 2001:6). Investigating officers in the North West Province estimate that
20% of the farm shops in this province have been robbed. Farm stores in the Eastern Cape that are
used as pension payout points are often regarded as lucrative targets. Investigating officers in this
province are of the opinion that signs at farm entrances advertising livestock and other farm produce
for sale create the impression that there is money on those farms (Report of the Committee of Inquiry
into Farm Attacks, 2003h:4). As stalls where farmers sell their produce are usually at the farmers’
gates on public roads where people often wait for passing buses or other transport, unobtrusive
observance of transactions is possible.

In a micro-environment such as a farm where produce, animals and implements which are sold have to
be handled by the workforce, it might become common knowledge when a transaction has taken place
and when there is ready cash on the premises. Idle talk by both the farmer and employees could
increase the risk of being attacked. Potential offenders might also have other means of knowing about

83
transactions on farms well out of sight of the public. They might observe buyers’ vehicles when they
leave transporting livestock, fresh produce and/or second hand farm implements. Wrongdoers, on
becoming aware of a buyer’s purchases, might also enquire about the address of the farmer, openly or
under some pretext. Unsuspecting buyers and/or their assistants might oblige with this information
soon after making their purchase and while still in close proximity to the farm (e.g. during a short stop
at the nearest farm store). This provides potential wrongdoers with the certainty that there will be hard
cash on the farm or on the person of the seller at that point in time. Dishonest buyers and/or their
helpers might themselves plan to recover the money paid over to the farmer during the purchase and
sale transaction. Potential offenders would be aware that the more costly the item (e.g. a tractor) sold
by the farmer, the greater the likelihood that a large sum of money might be robbed.

Potential wrongdoers might also be aware that any money obtained, might not be deposited at a bank
as these all close by mid-afternoon. Investigating officers believe that the mere fact that some farmers
own safes causes potential offenders to believe that they have large sums of money on the farms
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:4).

Remuneration dates are also often easily determined. It is therefore possible to predict with reasonable
certainty when large amounts of cash will be available on farms. Wages are paid on a monthly basis or
as regularly as on a fortnightly or weekly basis, usually on a Friday. Although the practice might differ
from farm to farm, the routine followed on each farm may easily be established. As the nearest farm or
village stores are generally visited by the employees on the receipt of their wages, this routine
becomes common knowledge to locals and strangers alike. Farm workers’ remuneration is almost
always in hard cash, therefore farmers often find it necessary to leave their farms to withdraw money
for the wages from their local banks. Return trips might be potentially dangerous as they increase the
farmers’ risk of being followed or waylaid with the cash (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks, 2003c:4, 5, 7, 8). Should farmers withdraw sufficient funds for more than one remuneration
day in one trip to the bank, this routine practice might also become obvious to interested persons.

Farmers are generally aware of the increased risk of victimisation at times when they are accessible to
their workers and/or the public, when they are walking or travelling on their farms and/or country roads
and when they are handling money. However, as the choice is a limited one (Maxfield, 1987:276), the
majority continue with the tasks in spite of the risk associated with these factors.

2.3.5 Evaluation of the domain-specific model of criminal victimisation

84
By using domain as a way of classifying victimisation, Lynch increases the explanatory power of the
more general routine activity models. More homogenous crime classes allow for better examination of
the circumstances under which crimes are committed. By concentrating attention on crimes committed
in the workplace, the accuracy of prediction of such events might be enhanced and more effective
crime prevention strategies and policies devised (Lynch, 1987:285).

As vocation, which determines a large proportion of individuals’ activities, is central to lifestyle, the
theory can be applied universally. The significance of the model lies in the fact that most vocational
activities are generally carried out as formal roles within institutional structures. The routine nature of
these activities allows for a great degree of predictability. This facilitates acts of victimisation while
persons are carrying out their daily tasks in their places of employment.

By narrowing down the scope of routine activities to activities in the workplace, Lynch facilitates
empirical testing of the model. Clear definitions of the elements of the model improve the accuracy of
such tests (Lynch, 1987:285). While variables such as accessibility to the public, mobility and the
handling of money are clearly specified, they do not restrict the scope of the model. It can therefore be
applied to most work situations.

According to Lynch (1987:285), the domain specific model of victimisation facilitates drawing the
causal link between routine activity and victimisation. If persons are victimised at work, one can be
more certain that work activities explain the relationship between particular routine activities and
victimisation. This would successfully exclude a number of alterative explanations for the victimisation
event.

Lynch’s findings have been supported and confirmed by the study of Collins, Cox and Langan (in
Fattah, 1991:279). This study offered additional insights on the relationship between occupational
activities and criminal victimisation. These authors found that delivery of passengers or goods, out of
town travel, and face-to-face public dealings in connection with work were directly associated with
victimisation. Individuals whose jobs included one of these three activities, were approximately one
and a half times more likely to have experienced victimisation in comparison with persons whose jobs
did not include these activities. The study also confirmed Lynch’s finding that the effects of the different
risk factors are cumulative.

According to Fattah (1991:280), findings of research on victimisation risks related to, or associated
with certain job activities, are an important contribution to the understanding of the differential risks of

85
criminal victimisation. Research findings also have certain practical implications. Fattah maintains that
if victimisation at work were to be considered in the same way as labour accidents, a great deal might
be done to reduce or minimise those risks. This might be achieved by changing the tasks performed by
persons in certain occupations or by modifying the work environment.

A point of criticism was made by Lynch (1987:293) himself when he stated that one of his findings
should be regarded with some caution. His finding that proximity to strangers has the largest effect on
victimisation at work, might have resulted from the difficulty experienced in measuring this variable.
The only way of measuring perceived dangerousness was by asking respondents about their
perceptions of safety while at work and their perceptions of the neighbourhood in which they were
obliged to work. This finding is thus not necessarily completely accurate.

It is the researcher’s contention that Lynch fails to elaborate sufficiently on the role of guardianship.
Lynch (1987:297) measured the stability of the work environment (i.e. guardianship) with two
questions, one on the frequency of the respondent’s job-related travel while performing his
occupational tasks, the other on the frequency of overnight trips away from home. While many farmers,
their family members and some of their workers might be armed most of the time, persons living on
farms lack the guardianship often enjoyed by individuals living in less isolated areas. Neighbours might
be too distant to notice suspicious movements or hear gunshots on the adjacent farms and the security
forces too thinly spread out to be in time to assist the victims during attacks. As rural areas have been
relatively crime free in the past, many farmers still might not regard guardianship in the form of security
devices such as electrified fences or alarm systems as a priority. Some farmhouses might therefore
lack even the basic forms of guardianship, making them easy targets for offenders (Bester, 1998:4; De
Bruin, 1998:2).

Furthermore, most attacks are carried out in groups, in which case the offenders often outnumber their
victims (Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:38). This makes it difficult for farmers to protect
their families, workers and/or possessions. However, guardianship does not always guarantee safety
from attackers. In cash-in-transit heists four people often accompany the vehicles transporting money,
yet they are still victimised (Wrede transitoroof: nóg agt gesoek, 2006:9). Of significance, therefore,
might be the potential offenders’ perception of the risk involved. The benefits might outweigh the
danger of apprehension, injury or death (Cilliers, 1998j:71). Even where the level of risk is perceived to
be high, some offenders might be sufficiently desperate to ignore the danger involved.

It is also the researcher’s contention that the model explains property motivated attacks, but not crimes

86
committed for other reasons. If the personal characteristics of the individuals in the workplace were to
be considered, particularly negative characteristics such as demeaning or offensive behaviour towards
others, some personal crimes committed for other reasons such as revenge, might be explained. The
fact that not all farmers fall prey to offenders, indicates that other factors also play a role. The physical,
psychological and even moral qualities of individuals in their work environment might affect their risk of
victimisation. Physically fit and/or strong persons might be avoided whereas frail and/or sickly persons
might be regarded as ‘good’ targets. Persons with impaired hearing and/or eyesight might also be
perceived as easy targets as they might be taken by surprise. Many psychological traits (e.g.
aggressiveness or gullibility) also determine whether an individual will be perceived as vulnerable or
not. Aggressive persons might not give offenders the opportunity to beguile them whereas gullible
persons might be easily tricked. Wrongdoers might also be attracted to persons known to be
dishonest. They are not likely to ignore opportunities to enrich themselves, thereby giving offenders the
necessary chance to victimise them.

In spite of these points of criticism, Lynch’s domain-specific model conforms to most of the criteria for a
good model. These are testability, logical adequacy, parsimony (i.e. that no more causes are assumed
than are necessary to account for the facts), credibility, predictability and significance (Wolfgang &
Ferracuti, 1967:64). Lynch’s model is of value to the study as it highlights mobility and the handling of
money, two activities that are relevant to most farmers who, at the same time, generally carry out their
daily tasks in unguarded circumstances where they are also accessible to criminals. An awareness of
their greater susceptibility to criminal victimisation during the performance of their tasks might lead to
more accurate prediction of the time and location of farm attacks. Increased alertness, greater caution
and the avoidance of careless or negligent behaviour could result in a decrease in the number of
successful attacks on farmers.

2.4 SUMMARY

In this Chapter, the lifestyle/exposure model of Hindelang, Gottfredson and Garofalo (1978) draws
attention to a wide range of circumstances in which the acts and omissions of potential victims
increase their exposure to victimisation at particular times and places. Cohen and Felson in their
routine activity theory (1979) highlight activities performed routinely in the absence of capable
guardians. Many every-
day activities might be performed so routinely over a long period of time that some individuals might
lose sight of this and fail to realise how predictable their movements are to potential wrongdoers.
Lynch’s domain specific model of criminal victimisation (1987) focuses entirely on the workplace of

87
potential victims and in particular on tasks which increase their risk of victimisation. Risk is greater,
either because the tasks make the person performing the activity more vulnerable at that particular
point in time, or more attractive, as the benefits to be gained are greater if victimised during the course
of the performance of these tasks. Used in conjunction with the lifestyle/exposure model of Hindelang
et al. and the routine activity theory of Cohen and Felson, Lynch’s model serves as theoretical
background for the investigation of farmers’ susceptibility to attacks. The relevance of each of these to
farm attacks is discussed fully, followed by an evaluation of the models and theory.

88
3. INCIDENCE AND NATURE OF FARM ATTACKS

Most of the investigating officers interviewed by the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks state that
farm attacks as defined by the NOCOC and the CIAC first came to their notice around 1993 (Report of
the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:1). In order to gain a better insight into the
phenomenon, attention will be given in this chapter to the incidence and nature of attacks, as well as to
the main motives behind these acts of victimisation. This will be followed by an examination of the
suspected reasons for targeting specific farms. Information provided in the police reports on the
profiles of both the victims and the attackers will also be discussed in this chapter.

3.1 INCIDENCE OF FARM ATTACKS

The incidence of farm attacks can be determined accurately only if both the number of persons living
on farms and the number of attacks that have occurred can be established. Unfortunately, there are
neither accurate statistics pertaining to the number of farmers in SA nor to the number of attacks on
farmers (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003a:2; 2003k:3; Pelser, 2003a:4).
While it is the aim of the three bodies that collect statistics, namely Agri SA, the SAPS (through the
CIAC) and NOCOC, in which the SANDF is involved, to provide accurate statistics, it is recommended
that statistics relating to farm attacks be viewed with a measure of caution for a number of reasons.

Agri SA collects its statistics mainly from local agricultural societies, therefore it is possible that attacks
on commercial farmers might be emphasised, while attacks on some smallholders might be
overlooked. Statistics provided by the CIAC might also not be completely reliable, as there are
indications that not all information available at ground level is reported to the CIAC (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:5). Figures for the first few years that official statistics
were kept might therefore have been higher than indicated, which might explain the sudden increase in
recorded attacks between 1997 and 1998. During this period attention was also focused on farm
attacks by the media, therefore failure to record crimes that by definition qualified as farm attacks,
might have become less likely. As the NOCOC statistics are gathered primarily for operational
purposes as soon as possible after an attack, these might also be flawed. Victims who might be
reported as injured immediately after an attack, might for example afterwards die from their wounds,
resulting in incorrect information being recorded.

Initially, the commando system also provided the NOCOC with information on farm attacks. Later,
information was obtained from daily situation reports (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm

85
Attacks, 2003b:3). The CIAC and NOCOC now meet once a week to compare and correlate statistics.
Figures for 2001 were correlated and since then the statistics of the two bodies have been in
agreement (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:2).

If the statistics collected by Agri SA from 1991 are read with the official police statistics that were
compiled from 1997 onwards, farm attacks increased from 327 in 1991 to 1 011 in 2001 (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:5).

In preparing their report, The Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks combined Agri SA figures and
CIAC statistics in order to construct the following figure of the incidence of farm attacks from 1991
to 2001. While the figures may not be completely reliable, they provide a good indication of the
incidence of farm attacks for that period.

1200
1011
1000 906
769 813
800
Number

551
600 442 442 468 470
327 365
400
200
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year

Figure 2. Attacks on farms and smallholdings 1991-2001 (SAAU & CIAC, in Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:5).

From the above figures, it is clear that farm attacks increased for more than a decade. It must,
however, be borne in mind that incidents of rape committed in rural areas are in some cases also
recorded as farm attacks, thereby inflating farm attack statistics (see section 3.2.1.2.4). Official
statistics pertaining to the years before 2001 include attacks that occurred on farms as well as on
smallholdings. It is therefore not possible to indicate how the attacks were distributed (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:11). A breakdown of the CIAC figures for 20015,
indicate that 62,3% of attacks took place on farms while 37,7% were committed on smallholdings
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:12).

More recent statistics on the incidence of attacks have been calculated at the end of every financial

86
year and not every calendar year. As can be seen from Table 1, which also provides the provincial
distribution of attacks from 2001/2002 to 2005/2006, farm attacks have shown a steady decline.

3.1.1 Provincial distribution of attacks

Farm attacks have taken place in all provinces of the country. From 2001/2002 to 2005/2006 a total of
4075 attacks were recorded by the CIAC.

Table 1
Incidents per Province: 2001 to 2006 (CIAC)
Province 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006
Gauteng 313 245 188 216 215
KwaZulu-Natal` 130 83 119 73 59
Mpumalanga 280 291 198 169 133
Eastern Cape 76 36 43 26 46
Western Cape 41 49 39 31 32
Northern Cape 10 12 07 11 11
North West 132 82 70 84 68
Limpopo 59 64 49 47 42
Free State 28 41 60 37 30
Total 1069 903 773 694 636
(Crime Information Analysis Centre, 2006:70).

The above figures indicate that Gauteng experienced the most attacks (1 177) and the Northern Cape
the least (51). A disturbing fact is that Mpumalanga, one of the rural provinces, has recorded 1 071
attacks, the second highest number of incidents during this period. Attacks increased from 26 to 46 in
the Eastern Cape and slightly in the Western Cape, from 31 to 32. All the other provinces showed a
decline from 2004/2005 to 2005/2006.

The large number of attacks that take place on smallholdings in Gauteng however also tend to distort
the statistics. Gauteng, a small densely populated province, has many smallholdings and fewer farms
than the larger more sparsely populated provinces such as the Limpopo and North West Provinces. As
violence on smallholdings makes up a significant proportion of what have become known as farm
attacks (Louw, 1998a:6), Gauteng may at first glance appear to be over-represented compared with
the bigger provinces comprising mainly commercial farms. In Gauteng, 93,5% of all reported attacks
from 1998 to 2001 took place on smallholdings. Gauteng also accounted for 68,2% of all attacks on
smallholdings countrywide during this period. The majority of attacks and murders in the other
provinces occurred on farms. The average percentage for attacks on smallholdings in the other eight
provinces

5 More recent statistics are not available with regard to the place of attacks.

87
was 16,5% (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:12).

88
3.2 NATURE OF ATTACKS

Attacks on farmers should be seen against the backdrop of serious crimes committed in many urban
areas of SA (Aanvallers vemoor man in oprit voor huis, 2003:2; Coetzee, 2001b:2; Dhlamini, 2000:14;
Raubenheimer, 2006b:6; Swart, 2003:7). Crimes in towns and cities, like those committed in rural
areas, are characterised by increasing levels of violence and brutality (Crime Information Management
Centre, 1998:40). A case in point is that of a family of three who were woken at four o’clock in the
morning by burglars in their house in Groenkloof, Pretoria. The offenders shouted that they wanted
firearms and opened fire, killing the family’s son of two years who was sleeping between his parents
(Van Eeden, 2001:3).

3.2.1 Modus operandi employed by attackers

Modus operandi is a Latin term usually used when referring to the way in which offenders operate or
go about planning, executing a crime or leaving a crime scene (Marais, 1989:49). According to this
author, the modus operandi employed by criminals is influenced and determined by factors such as the
opportunity to commit a crime, physical qualities, varying needs and desires, the situation in which the
offenders find themselves and also their knowledge and experience.

Investigating officers sometimes have to rely on the modus operandi used by the wrongdoers to reveal
relevant facts in cases such as armed robbery where there is often no physical evidence left at the
scene of the crime. The type of goods looted, for example heavy furniture, might be an indication of the
number of offenders involved in the crime. The removal of large or many items, may also indicate that
the offenders had a means of transporting the goods from the crime scene. From the degree to which
crimes are pre-planned, investigating officers can usually establish whether the offenders were
professionals or amateurs. According to Prinsloo (1993:35), amateur criminals are impulsive when
committing crime, whereas professional criminals pre-plan their crimes by observing residents,
employees, security measures and occupants. They also consider the suitability of their targets and
the potential loot. Professional offenders take care to determine the most suitable time and identify
escape routes. The physical milieu (e.g. dense plantations or long grass) might facilitate their escape
and reduce the risk of being arrested. They also take cognisance of police activities in the area before
committing their crimes (Marais, 1989:47).

According to Moolman (1999a:41), police reports (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1999b:10) and

89
Swart (2003:28), farm attacks are sometimes well planned and carried out with great precision. This
might be an indication that some attacks on farmers are perpetrated by hardened criminals. This is
also borne out by police statistics which show that a number of arrested suspects have previous
convictions, some more than one, sometimes for serious crimes such as murder, rape and robbery
(Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:23; Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:38). Two
cases in point are the attack on a couple on a farm near Wesselsbron in the Free State and the attack
on a family near Wartburg in KwaZulu-Natal. The two accused in the first incident both had previous
convictions and were out on parole at the time of the fatal attack on the couple. The fact that the attack
was also well planned, was borne out by the testimony of a sangoma whom they had consulted to help
them succeed in the plan to attack the farming couple. One of the accused in the second attack was
also out of prison on parole at the time of the attack. He had started his criminal career at the age of 15
and had three previous convictions for housebreaking. At the trial, the offender was also linked to an
attack on a farming couple near Greytown and to an attack on a Greytown businessman and his wife
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:35, 42).

Certainty or secrecy, deception and the element of surprise are the three essential elements of a
successful attack (Swart, 2003:123-125). According to this author, it is possible to surprise the
intended victim only if he does not suspect that he is about to be attacked and if his attention is
diverted to focus on something else, for example removing boulders placed in the farm road at an
ambush (see section 6.1.12).

Attacks on farmers may generally be divided into three phases. These are the reconnaissance phase,
the operational phase and the escape phase.

3.2.1.1 Reconnaissance phase

Attacks have often been preceded by thorough reconnaissance (Crime Information Analysis Centre,
1999b:10; Moolman, 1999a:41; Schönteich, 2000a:44; Swart, 2003:37-46). Mistry and Dhlamini
(2001:26, 43) found that 67% of the 48 offenders they interviewed, had spent time studying the
movements of the farmers and their workers. They had kept the targeted farms under surveillance on
average three to four days before attacking. A case study used during their pilot project in Gauteng
revealed that the offender in this instance spent almost seven weeks studying the farm (Mistry &
Dhlamini, 2001:31). During this time, he followed the domestic worker home, befriended her son and
stole the keys from her house to make a duplicate key, thereby ensuring easy access to the
farmhouse. According to these researchers, the fact that the wrongdoers succeed in spending such

90
lengthy periods on the victims’ farms without being noticed, appears to have lessened their
apprehension of being caught.

The element of surprise might be eliminated by recognising ‘battle indicators’ that are often evident
before an attack takes place (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:20; Pelser,
2003b:4). ‘Battle indicators’ is a military term used for certain incidents that can be linked to attackers’
reconnaissance activities that are carried out to determine the most suitable time and place to attack
the potential victims. Swart (2003:28), who tested more than 3 700 farm attacks for the use of battle
indicators, found that these signs were evident before all the attacks. He divides battle indicators into
five different classes. Those that fall into the first class, for example threatening telephone calls and
the poisoning of dogs, are indicative of less serious confrontations that seldom if ever result in the
murder of the victims.

The second class of battle indicators can be noted four to eight weeks before the commencement of
an attack. An example is the barking of watchdogs before the farmers retire for the night or within ten
minutes to an hour and a half after the last lights have been switched off (Swart, 2003:37). Farmers’
dogs are disturbed purposely by offenders in order to establish if the farmer routinely goes outside to
investigate when they bark or otherwise to determine his sleeping patterns. Some of the methods used
to lure farmers from the safety of their homes, include switching off the power supply to the house,
whistling outside the farmhouse and chasing sheep around in the kraal. Potential victims’ sleeping
patterns need to be determined in order to reduce the risk of being caught when the offenders enter
the farmers’ homes or when they steal something (e.g. a motor vehicle parked in the farmyard).
According to Swart (2003:39), people normally fall asleep on average eight minutes after switching off
the light and they sleep soundly from ten minutes to an hour and a half after falling asleep.
Perpetrators have been found to keep logbooks in which the occasions are noted on which lights are
switched on in the farmhouses after the farmers’ dogs have been disturbed. If perpetrators are not
sure whether a farmer is awake or not, they sometimes enter the farmhouse whereupon they break a
windowpane, switch on the television or radio loudly or burn food on the stove, all of which are
intended to lure the intended victim out of his bedroom if he is awake. Other battle indicators that fall
into the same class are guarded warnings by workers, workers concerned about the farmer’s safety
and the intimidation of workers by persons who claim to be members of the SAPS or SANDF.
Strangers watching the farm, strange cars driving away when they are noticed in the vicinity of the farm
and people seeking employment without identity books, might also indicate that an attack will be
launched against the farmer, often within four to eight weeks.

Falling into the third class, are incidents that should warn that a farmer might be attacked within two

91
weeks (Swart, 2003:47-53). A worker disappearing from the farm without reason, persons passing
close to bedroom windows, keys going missing but appearing again soon afterwards and workers’
blankets and/or food being stolen from their dwellings, are examples of this class of battle indicators
that should place farmers on alert.

The fourth class of incidents indicates that an attack will take place within 24 hours. Examples are the
presence of strangers on the farm and, once again, the disturbing of the farm dogs by the offenders.

The fifth class of incidents indicates that an attack is imminent (Swart, 2003:61-67). These incidents
include a fire in the feed store, a burning vehicle or tractor and/or a veld fire. Persons that arrive after
working hours when guardianship is low to buy sheep or cattle, persons that cause a disturbance by
fighting at the gate to allow accomplices to slip into the farmhouse unnoticed and the cutting of
telephone wires, should also put farmers on the alert to immediate acts of victimisation.

During the reconnaissance period, it is necessary to convey the information that has been learned by
those tasked with observing the farmers’ movements, to members of the hit squads that carry out the
attacks. This is often done by means of the age-old secret Africa sign language, known only to few
white South Africans (Swart, 2003:83-95). The sign language, which makes use of natural objects
such as sticks, stones, and branches, and in more modern times, of items like plastic bags and bottles,
has been used for centuries throughout Africa to convey information of a social nature (e.g. where
water holes or good hunting grounds might be found). However, in 1836 the language was also used
for criminal purposes for the first time by Pomabaza, a migrant labourer from the former Transkei
(Swart, 2003:88). Farmers who have acquainted themselves with some of these signs by attending
courses presented countrywide, might become aware of information being conveyed by the observers
about certain aspects of the security on their farms. Besides also learning the day, date, time and
location of the planned attack, farmers who are well acquainted with the signs, might also determine in
advance whether they are to be assaulted, severely injured or murdered (Swart, 2003:93).

The main objective of those relaying information about the potential victim to the hit squad, is to
indicate whether it is safe to attack at that point in time or not. The signs are spaced at specific
distances from one another in the direction of the targeted farm. A specific sign will indicate that the
next sign is the activator or ‘on/off switch’ that will convey the information that it is safe to attack the
farmer. This is guarded by those watching the farm and removed by them if it is not opportune to attack
at that point in time, in which case the attackers simply drive or walk past without causing suspicion.
The spacing of the signs indicates the nature of the crime that is to be committed and sometimes also
the day and the time for which the victimisation event is planned (Swart, 2003:95). According to

92
Colonel Schoeman (2003), plastic bags attached to fences as though blown there by the wind and
scars made on trees by removing the darker coloured bark, are examples of more obvious signs that
are used to lead the offenders to their targets in the dark.

Farmers might, however, also find signs of a different nature that should alert them to the presence of
strangers on their farms, for example, discarded tinned food cans in remote parts of the farm or fires
made by the potential attackers. In one case a mattress was found on a farm at a point from where the
farmhouse could be kept under close surveillance (Antwoordmasjien red boer toe rowers hom wou
skiet, 1997:1). Another case in point is that of a couple that was attacked in a remote part of the Ceres
district. The fact that the farmer’s dogs had barked throughout the previous night, might have been an
indication that something was amiss on the farm. At 7.30 a farm worker noticed the perpetrators’ fire
up in the mountain about 100m from the farmhouse. On reporting this to the farmer, they left the
farmhouse to investigate unarmed. The defenceless farmer was fatally shot by the offenders when he
and the worker approached them. By the time that the labourer had summoned the neighbours four
kilometres away, the perpetrators had also shot the farmer’s wife through the closed door and looted
the house (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:37-38). Had the couple’s
suspicions been aroused by the barking dogs the previous night, the farmer might have enlisted the
aid of neighbours before embarking to investigate the fire on his farm. However, as dogs often bark at
other dogs that they hear some distance away, farmers do not necessarily always pay attention to
these warning signs.

3.2.1.2 Operational phase (the attack)

A farm attack may last anything from a few minutes to a number of hours. As most attacks are well
planned, many offenders know they may safely spend time torturing their victims before killing them.
During an attack on a smallholding in Mpumalanga, the attackers burnt two of the three victims with a
hot iron and kicked and assaulted them with fists before robbing them of a revolver, cash and
household appliances (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003c:10). In the another
case also in Mpumalanga, the victim was assaulted, tied up tightly and tortured by dripping burning
plastic on his legs (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:17). The experience
proved to be so traumatic that the elderly farmer lost his memory because of the attack. In some cases
attackers help themselves to food and alcohol before leaving the scene of the crime, sometimes hours
later (Britz, 1998:35). On a farm near Rustenburg, the offender first murdered the farmer, then spent
time eating, drinking and smoking while he waited for the farmer’s wife, who was away, to return to the
farm. On her arrival, he attacked, raped and killed her.

93
3.2.1.2.1 Getting close to the victim(s)

During the first stage of the attack, it is essential that the attackers get sufficiently close to their victims
in order to launch a physical attack on them. False pretences and ambushes are often used to this end
(Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:17; Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:32). In
some instances perpetrators succeed in approaching their victims while they are asleep (Swart,
2003:39).

• False pretences

Victims are often enticed outside their homes under false pretences, such as wanting to buy something
or to ask for employment (Boer kritiek ná nog ’n aanval in gebied, 2000:17; Crime Information Analysis
Centre, 1998:17; Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:32; Report of the Committee of Inquiry
into Farm Attacks, 2003d:9, 11, 39, 45). A case in point is that of a farmer in the district of Kestell. Two
black men approached him and told him that they were looking for work. One then took out a 9mm
pistol and shot him in the back and arm (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003d:9). Swart (2003:72) points out that a number of farmers have been murdered by offenders who
arrive to ask for employment accompanied by the farmers’ workers. This usually puts the farmers at
ease and they are taken by surprise.

Many attacks committed under false pretences have also taken place at farm shops or stalls where
offenders have the advantage of being mistaken for bona fide customers. In 1997, 29 of the 55
incidents in which false pretences were used to approach the victims, took place at farm stalls or
shops (Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:32). Many farmers have ‘kitchen-shops’ from
which they supply workers with items such as candles and tobacco. Swart (2003:71) refers to a case in
which workers were forced at gunpoint to distract the farmer serving them, so that the attackers might
attack him while his attention was focused on a long list of required items.

Attacks by people pretending to be SAPS or SANDF members, have also been reported (Crime
Information Analysis Centre, 1999b:10; Du Preez, 2001:8; Report of the Committee of Inquiry into
Farm Attacks, 2003c:4). In one case, a farmer was shot and wounded in Mpumalanga on 3 December
1997 by attackers wearing SAPS and SANDF uniforms (Moolman, 1999a:42). An increase in attacks
of this nature, might affect the level of cooperation between the farming community and these forces.

94
• Ambushes

It is clear that offenders find ambushes an effective means of getting close to their victims (Crime
Information Management Centre, 1998:31). The majority of ambushes take place in the farmyard,
inside the homestead and in outbuildings. During 2001, a small percentage (3,7%) of the ambushes
took place on farm roads and at gates (Cilliers & Stoltz, 1998:85-86; Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003p:9). While general statistics on attacks are available, more recent
statistics do not reveal the details of the methods used by offenders. Obstacles such as rocks or tree
stumps are sometimes placed in the road to force the victims to stop. According to Swart (2003:153),
offenders strike when the potential victims’ attention is focused on removing the obstacles. They will
therefore not use objects that the farmer might find too large or too heavy to attempt to remove himself.
In two cases in Mpumalanga, the victims were ambushed while traveling through a plantation and
while opening gates (Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003c:3, 6).

Ambushes are usually successful when the perpetrators know the potential victims’ routine. The
element of surprise might then also play a role. As some routine activities such as opening and closing
gates, switching water pumps and/or generators on and off or securing motor vehicles left outside
during the course of the day have been carried out safely by the victims on numerous occasions in the
past, they might no longer be as alert to their surroundings as they should have been. Being
approached by persons familiar to the victims might also not cause immediate alarm. A case in point is
that of a 26-year old medical doctor serving her housemanship at Botshabelo Hospital, Bloemfontein.
She was overpowered at the farm gate on her daily 50 kilometre trip from her father’s farm in the
Brandfort district to her place of employment (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003d:10-11). The offenders who were well known to the doctor, abducted her in the state vehicle she
was driving and beat her to death in a desolate place.

Just under half the offenders in the Mistry and Dhlamini study (2001:26) said that they had selected
those particular farms on the basis of information received from a previous or present employee of the
farms. According to Swart (2003:21), 63% of farm attacks are planned from the farms where they take
place and 20% from neighbouring farms.

Farmers are sometimes followed from town after having drawn wages for the workers (Swart,
2003:149). Farm gates are convenient locations for this type of attack as farmers usually have to stop
and alight from the vehicles to open the gates. This allows the perpetrators who have been following to

95
block the victims’ escape route with their own vehicle. This was the modus operandi in the Kritzinger,
Snyman, and Van Heerden attacks (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b: 4, 5,
7).

• Waking up the farmer

Sometimes victims are woken up at dead of night when many find themselves unaccustomed to the
sudden light, fairly disoriented and unable to defend themselves (Keppler, 2007:1). The reason for
waking the sleeping farmers, is to force them to hand over the safe keys and to lead them to the safe
(Swart, 2003:168). A 72-year old farmer who lived alone in a fairly well secured farmhouse near
Hartebeesfontein, was woken at night by a number of attackers who had planned the attack so well
that they had organised a truck to take them to a position near the farm and to pick them up again
afterwards (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:40).

3.2.1.2.2. Time of attack

Attacks may take place in daytime or after darkness on any day of the week. Attacks are also fairly
evenly spread throughout all the months of the year.

• Time of the day/night

An analysis of four-hour time slots has shown that no single time slot was free of attacks in 1997
(Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:31). From this analysis, however, the twilight hours of
the evening appear to be a vulnerable time for the residents of farms and smallholdings.

Of a total of 431 attacks which could be divided into time slots in 1997, most attacks (119) occurred
between 16:00 and 19:59 and the least (30) between 00:00 and 03:59. The late morning time slot,
08:00 to 11:59 was also popular with offenders (87).

This pattern was found to deviate somewhat during an analysis of attacks that took place between
January and the end of June 1998 (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:16). During this period
most attacks occurred between 08:00 and 11:59, a large number between 20:00 and 23:59 and
between 16:00 and 19:59.

The time slot 20:00 to 23:59 therefore became more popular. This trend has also been noted in more

96
recent statistics. Few attacks took place between midnight and daybreak in 20016 (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:15). The evenings and the mornings were clearly the
most dangerous times. The 20:00 to 23.59 time slot might be popular because noise of forced entry
where doors and windows have already been properly secured for the night, might be drowned by
sound usually emanating from farmers= television sets at this time. The late morning time slot
remained popular with most attacks in the morning occurring between 9:00 and 10:00. This is also the
time that many farm workers return to their quarters for breakfast, leaving the farmhouse unguarded
(see section 2.2.2.3).

The majority of attacks carried out in the Eastern Cape by the attackers interviewed by Mistry and
Dhlamini (2001:41), occurred at night. Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:29) noted that in the Eastern Cape
and in some areas of KwaZulu-Natal, the attacks took place mainly between 17:00 and 24:00. These
authors, however, found that no definite trend could be established. According to the suspects
interviewed by them, the time chosen to attack depended, once again, on the particular farmer=s
routine. In one of the two cases near Amersfort in which the same three offenders were involved, the
attackers spent the night in the victim=s garage, lying in wait for him, because they knew that he
routinely left the farm at 7:00 each morning. They shot the victim with a firearm they had stolen from a
farm in the same district while the occupants were at church. The timing of the burglary in which the
firearm was stolen, might also be an indication that these offenders relied heavily on their knowledge
of the potential targets= routine movements (see section 2.2.3.2).

• Day of the week

The distribution of farm attacks during the days of the week is fairly even. However, for both 2000 and
20017, there was a drastic increase on Fridays (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003b:14).

Fridays might be preferred by perpetrators because these days are traditionally wage days and there
is a greater likelihood of finding large amounts of cash on farms. Guardianship on farms might also be
lower on Fridays than on other days of the week. Farmers with children at boarding school, usually
make a point of doing their business in town on Friday mornings and then picking up their children for
the weekend (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:14). Routine absences for a
number of hours are soon noted by potential wrongdoers who might take advantage of the opportunity
to break and enter farmhouses without the fear of being interrupted. On Fridays, many workers who

6 More recent statistics are not available.

7 More recent detailed statistics are no available.

97
have the weekend off, also leave the farms (e.g. to visit relatives and friends living elsewhere). This
also decreases guardianship.

Friday was also found to be the most likely day for violent crime to occur in a survey conducted by the
ISS in June and July 1998. The researchers interviewed 756 respondents in 40 rural magisterial
districts in six provinces. The survey revealed that just over half (53%) of all violent crimes perpetrated
during this period, were committed during the week and the rest (47%) occurred over the weekend
(Pelser, Louw & Ntuli, 2000:21).

• Month of year

It is clear that no month has been free of attacks. According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry
into Farm Attacks (2003b:14), January was the month with the least number of incidents (239), while
most (329) incidents were reported in March for the period 1998-20018. This phenomenon is difficult to
explain. A reason might be that many farmers might be away from their farms in January. Breaking into
farmhouses and stealing cash, weapons and appliances might thus be recorded as a property crime
and not as a farm attack as there would be no physical confrontation between the perpetrator and the
victim.

3.2.1.2.3 Location of attack

Attacks may take place anywhere on farms - inside the farmhouse, outside, on farm roads, at farm
gates or anywhere where farmers might be engaged in carrying out farming activities. Inside
farmhouses, is however, the most common location.

From the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003b:15), it is evident that at least
half of the attacks on farmers in 2001 took place inside farmhouses. Perpetrators might enter stealthily
in the early hours of the evening and surprise the family when relaxing in front of their television sets or
after they have fallen asleep later in the night. Even in daylight hours, many perpetrators have
succeeded in entering farmhouses unbeknown to the residents who are then taken by surprise before
they are able to arm themselves. A case in point is the attack on a farmer’s wife who was alone on
their farm near Addo on 19 December 2001. Three attackers entered her home through an open
kitchen window while she was watching television at 14:00 and attacked her from behind (Report of
the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003c:41).

8 More recent statistics are not available.

98
As already stated, some attackers enter the farmhouses when the occupants are away, leaving them
no defensible space when they are attacked. For this reason, attacks in which farmers and family
members are ambushed inside their homes, are often very brutal and likely to result in death or serious
injury (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:15).

About a third (29,2%) of the farm attacks in 2001 occurred outside, in close proximity to the dwelling. In
the attack on an elderly farmer in the North West Province, the victim was overpowered outside the
farmhouse early in the morning and forced into the house where he was tied up and had grass forced
into his mouth to keep him quiet (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003c:9-10).
Farmers might also be surprised by offenders on their arrival at the farms even before they have been
able to enter their homes. In an incident in KwaZulu-Natal, the victim was attacked while opening the
garage door (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003c:7). Farmers who are inside
their homes might become aware of the presence of strangers or abnormal activity outside in the
farmyard. As many farmers have much of economic value to lose outside their homesteads, many
leave the safety of their homes to investigate suspicious persons or noises, only to be attacked by
wrongdoers waiting for them to appear. As mentioned, victims are also often alerted by dogs barking
outside or noises which they go to investigate (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003c:3, 5). A disturbing fact is that the majority of ambushes take place within the farmers=
defensible space. This might increase farmers’ feelings of vulnerability as it might reasonably be
expected that some warning would have been given prior to the attack of the offenders= presence,
either by workers, the farmers= dogs and/or geese or alarm systems.

Farmers are sometimes also ambushed while travelling in areas where visibility is low (e.g. in tall sugar
cane or timber plantations). Attacks perpetrated while the victims are in their motor vehicles are often
fatal, as the only way to bring the vehicle to a stop is by shooting the driver (Report of the Committee
of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:15). This also applies where farmers are ambushed on farm roads
or at farm gates where perpetrators usually lie in wait for the victims under the cover of bushes. In the
case of the medical doctor already referred to, who was ambushed and abducted by her attackers, the
two perpetrators hid in tall grass growing next to the road.

3.2.1.2.4 Crimes committed during attacks

The majority of crimes committed during farm attacks involve confrontation with the farmer, his family
and workers. They are therefore all violent personal crimes during which victims are usually injured

99
and sometimes killed. Armed robbery is by far the most prevalent crime. In 2001 armed robbery was
registered in 68,2% of the attacks that occurred in this year (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into
Farm Attacks, 2003b:17). In 2005/2006, more than 90,0% of the acts of violence against farmers could
be linked to robbery (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 2006:70).

According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003b:17), the figures with
regard to crimes committed during attacks, are not reliable. Three reasons are given for this. Firstly,
often only the most serious crime committed during an attack is registered in the Crime Administration
System (CAS). If a victim is killed during a robbery for example, the crime of murder might be
registered and not robbery. The same applies to rape that takes place during a robbery. Bearing this in
mind, the figure for robbery is probably higher than usually indicated while the figures for murder and
rape are probably fairly accurate.

Secondly, according to South African legislation, assault and sometimes also attempted murder, if
committed during the course of a robbery, are regarded as part and parcel of the crime of robbery.
Only the crime of robbery would be registered and not the crimes of assault and attempted murder. For
this reason the figures for these two crimes are probably much higher.

Thirdly, there can only be one robbery charge, irrespective of the number of victims who were robbed
in an attack. To calculate the number of assault or murder charges, on the other hand, one needs to
look at the number of victims. More than one murder or assault charge may thus be laid for any single
farm attack.

• Armed robbery

As already stated, armed robbery is the dominant crime associated with attacks on farms and
smallholdings. According to Best and Luckenbill (1982:166-170) robberies may be broken down into
five distinct stages. During these stages the crime is planned, contact is made with the intended
victims, offenders interact with the victims, goods are removed from the premises and the robbers
leave the crime scene. Failure to carry out any of these five tasks successfully, can result in the
disruption of the robbery, the apprehension of the robbers or the injury or death of the victims.

- Property robbed

Firearms, motor vehicles and cash have been the most popular items in robberies occurring on farms

100
and smallholdings. Electrical appliances, clothing, jewellery, food, beverages, ammunition and
livestock have also been removed from farms and smallholdings during attacks on the victims (Crime
Information Analysis Centre, 1998:14-15; Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:29).

Relatively few attackers indicate that the acquisition of firearms was their main motive, yet firearms are
highly sought after items in the criminal world. Only 52 offenders arrested in the eighteen-month period
from January 1997 to the end of June 19989, and only one of the 48 perpetrators interviewed by Mistry
and Dhlamini, said that the motive for their attacks on farmers was to obtain firearms (Crime
Information Analysis Centre, 1998:18; Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:32; Mistry &
Dhlamini, 2001:22).

Firearms robbed are sometimes recovered after the commission of crimes some distance away. A
firearm robbed in the Piet Retief district was, for example recovered by the police after an armed
robbery in Boksburg on the East Rand. According to Schönteich (2000a:44, 60, 61), it is reasonable to
assume that those who attack farms in the Piet Retief area have easy access to underground markets
for both firearms and motor vehicles. It is thus possible that farm attackers also use existing market
links for firearms and vehicles robbed during attacks on farmers (Schönteich, 2000a:61).

- Injuries and losses sustained during robberies

Injury and loss sustained during robberies are determined by a complex set of interactions. According
to Karmen (1990:84), these include offender initiatives (choice of weapon and target), victim responses
(willingness to resist), offender responses (willingness to escalate violence, or give up and disengage),
bystander reactions (willingness to intervene) and other situational factors such as the number of
offenders, the number of victims, the location, time and the value of the property at risk of being
robbed.

Karmen (1990:82) also maintains that robbers hurt their victims for a number of reasons. As mentioned
earlier, they might hurt them initially to intimidate them into submission. They might also react violently
if victims resist, fail to cooperate or stall for time (De Nysschen, 2003b:4; De Wet, 2004:1). Beirne and
Messerschmidt (1995:145), as well as Schönteich (2000a:44, 85), confirm Karmen’s view. Schönteich
found that violence is often deployed either to access safes, to leave the victims incapable of
summoning assistance or to overpower the victims. On the other hand, Karmen (1990:82) is of the
opinion that some offenders might injure their victims because they enjoy taking advantage of helpless

9 More recent statistics are not available.

101
persons. Others may perceive the incident as an opportunity to show off in front of accomplices.
Injuring victims may therefore be an indication of scorn, contempt, sadism, fear or loss of control.
Anger and/or disappointment in the loot might also play a role (Coetzee, 2001c:6). When a farmer
attacked at De Deur near Vanderbijlpark gave his attackers R1 000 which he had in his purse, they
demanded R40 000 to R50 000, which they claimed they had heard he kept in his home. When he
could not provide them with this amount, they tortured him by tying him up and burning him on his face
and arms with a hot iron and cigarettes (Coetzee, 2001a:8).

Some victims are more likely to be injured than others. While this may depend in part on whether the
robbers are armed or unarmed as discussed previously, other situational factors might also play a role.
According to Karmen (1990:83), victims are also more likely to be seriously injured if they are attacked
by three or more robbers, if they are alone at the time, if they are older than 55 years or if the robbers
are not strangers to them. The type of weapon used by robbers usually determines whether victims are
wounded or killed. According to this author, those carrying firearms have been found to slay their
victims three times as often as knife-wielding robbers.

Karmen (1990:84) further states that different strategies (e.g. to flee, fight, resist or cooperate) also
lead to different outcomes. Non-forceful resistance such as reasoning or arguing with or verbally
threatening the offenders, as well as yelling for help or trying to flee has been shown to result in lower
economic losses as well as reduced levels of physical attack and injury. Forceful resistance, on the
other hand, which includes fighting back barehanded or with a weapon, might result in lower property
loss, but it can be linked to higher injury rates.

Violent interaction between robbers and their victims sometimes leads to murders (Conklin, 1995:69).
As already stated, in such cases the offences would be classified as murders rather than robberies.

• Assault

Aassault forms part of the crime of robbery, which is the most prevalent crime committed during farm
attacks. Victims are assaulted in 20,6% of attacks on them. Statistics further show that approximately
15% of all victims of farm attacks are assaulted (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003b:16).

• Murder and attempted murder

102
Murder is the most serious crime committed during farm attacks (De Meyer, 1997b:4). While whole
families might be murdered in a specific attack, it is usually the male that loses his life. The reason for
this might be that males might be perceived as a greater threat to the offenders’ safety than females or
children.

103
Table 2
Murders Committed during Farm Attacks per Province: 2001/2002 to 2005/2006
Province 2001/2002 2002/2003 2003/2004 2004/2005 2005/2006
Gauteng 34 24 33 30 32
KwaZulu-Natal 24 19 18 12 09
Mpumalanga 23 21 09 14 02
Eastern Cape 18 01 04 01 05
Western Cape 10 07 04 04 11
Northern Cape 02 02 00 01 03
North West 17 14 04 03 08
Limpopo 07 09 07 09 12
Free State 05 06 09 08 06
Total 140 103 88 82 88
(Crime Information Analysis Centre, 2006:71).

From 2001/2002 to 2005/2006, the three provinces that reported the largest number of murders were
Gauteng (153) and KwaZulu-Natal (82), followed by Mpumalanga (69). The Northern Cape registered
the least number of murders, namely 8. While the murder rate was higher in all three of these
provinces during the 1998-2001 period, Gauteng and KwaZulu Natal also registered the largest
number of murders for that period and the Northern Cape the least (See table 2).

Block (1981:751), who made a study of victim-offender dynamics in violent crime, considers murder
generally to be the outcome of another offence such as robbery or aggravated assault. This confirms
what has already been stated above. Block also makes a distinction between impulsive murders that
result from arguments or fights and instrumental murders that are committed during the course of
robberies. In instrumental murders, the offenders are usually strangers to the victims and much
younger than the victims. Block (1981:751) also states that the probability of victim participation or
victim precipitation is small in such cases. Impulsive murders on the other hand, are usually committed
by offenders who are friends or relatives of the same age. There is also a higher probability of victim
participation or precipitation in impulsive murders.

Victims of farm attacks are sometimes killed when they resist their attackers (Mistry & Dhlamini,
2001:36; Toerien, 2002:1). According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks
(2003d:46; 2003p:17), some people might also be killed if they become involved in an argument with
the offenders. Swart (2003:13) identifies two further reasons. These are stalling for time and too much
eye contact with the offenders. Where attackers have returned to kill the victims after they have
successfully removed their loot from the premises, the murders might have been committed to avoid
identification. A case in point is that of an attack in which a farmhouse was set alight near Trichardt in
Mpumalanga. After the attack on the couple, the offenders closed the windows and locked the victims

104
inside the farmhouse. They thereupon released gas from a gas cylinder and set the farmhouse on fire.
The reason for doing this, one offender subsequently admitted, was to prevent identification (Mistry &
Dhlamini, 2001:35). This is borne out by a report by the Crime Information Management Centre
(1998:41) in which it is stated that many criminals believe that the killing of witnesses to their acts and
sometimes the destruction of the victims= property, decreases the chances of apprehension.

• Rape and attempted rape

Although men can also be victims, females are still more at risk of being raped than males. According
to CIAC statistics, 70 women were raped during farm attacks in 200110. This figure represents 6,9% of
all farm attacks in this year. Although the statistics on the NOCOC database that specifies the race of
rape victims are not completely reliable, the majority (71%) of rapes in rural areas during 2001 were
committed against black women. According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks (2003b:19), black women are often raped by strangers while walking to neighbouring farms or
to the nearest shop. These incidents of rape therefore also have the effect of inflating farm attack
statistics, making them less reliable than they would have been if rapes were recorded as social fabric
crimes.

• Arson

Arson is less common. Only in isolated cases have farmhouses and their contents been set alight by
attackers (Fourie, 1997d:6; Twee vasgetrek minder as 36 uur ná Bothaville-moorde, 2000:5). However,
financial loss to the farming community is sometimes high as a result of fires that are purposely started
on farms. Grazing, fodder and plantations set alight on one farm, sometimes cause fires to spread to a
number of adjacent farms simultaneously. Many cattle, sheep and goats might be lost as it is often
difficult for farmers to move livestock to safer areas in time (Cilliers, 1998c:79; Lochner, 1998a:105;
Pelser, 2002:10).

• No apparent motive

There have been reports of a number of attacks during which nothing was stolen or robbed (Crime
Information Management Centre, 1998:30). These are not always correct. The reason for this
inaccuracy is probably that the information is given to the NOCOC at a very early stage when it is not
yet known what has been stolen. The victims might still be suffering from shock at the time that the

10 More recent statistics are not available.

105
report is made or they might have been killed in the attack. The Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks, however, found that there are relatively few attacks in which nothing is stolen (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:21). There are a number of possible explanations for
this phenomenon. Suspects might have been surprised at the scene of the crime or the victims might
have summoned assistance or offered resistance. In some cases the suspects might have been
scared off by dogs or been arrested or killed at the scene of the crime before they had the opportunity
to remove the loot. Some offenders might also have left the farm after failing to gain access to the
farmhouse (Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:30).

Where nothing is robbed, the motive might have been to commit a crime other than robbery or theft
(e.g. murder or rape). It might also be an indication that the perpetrators wished to intimidate their
victims. The murder or torturing of a parent or a child in front of other family members, is a mass
intimidation technique used in certain parts of Africa to demonstrate the offenders= superior power and
to gain psychological control over individuals (Moolman, 1999a:81). Moolman perceives acts of murder
and intimidation directed at the farming community as attempts to scare farmers and their families off
their property. The vacant farm that may then be occupied is often merely the bonus and not the
primary aim. Political, racial or labour related motives might also have played a role where nothing was
robbed (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:22).

3.2.1.2.5 Weapons used

Weapons used in farm attacks range from firearms to sharp and/or blunt objects. Perpetrators
sometimes also use their bare hands or brute force (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks, 2003b:20).

More than half (63,8%) of the farm attacks committed in 200111, were perpetrated with firearms as the
primary weapons. While handguns appear to be the most favoured type of weapon employed, there
have also been attacks in which the offenders used AK 47 rifles (Crime Information Management
Centre, 1998:32; Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:17).

In a number of incidents the offenders rely only on their physical strength to overpower the victims. In
cases where the offenders arrive unarmed, it might be the intention to steal rather than to confront and
rob the victims (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:19).

11 More recent statistics are not available.

106
3.2.1.3 Escape phase (or departure from the crime scene)

Available statistics (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:32) indicate that in the majority of cases,
the attackers left the scene of the crime on foot. In many incidents, the criminals used the victims=
vehicles to escape as well as to transport the looted goods from the targeted farms. In at least two
reported cases where the offenders were either inexperienced drivers or unable to drive the farmers=
vehicles, the families= children were taken hostage. In the one case, the farmer’s young son was
compelled to open the farm gates for their attackers who kept stalling the stolen vehicle (Laaste koeël
is vir die kleintjie, 1997:2). In another (Toerien, 2002:1), the farmer=s son was forced to drive his
father=s vehicle full of looted goods to a sugar cane plantation where he was told to hide the stolen
property for his parents= killer. He was thereupon ordered to drive the attacker to a telephone booth
where the offender phoned a friend to pick him up, once again forcing the young boy to accompany
him to the location of the stolen goods. Some attackers are more mobile and use their own vehicles,
enabling them to travel long distances from the crime scenes.

3.2.2 Violence associated with farm attacks

It is clear that farm attacks are characterised by a high level of expressive and/or instrumental violence
(Coetzee, 2006:1; Coetzee, 2000:6; Du Preez, 1997a:7). While Berkowitz (1993:11) defines violence
as an extreme form of aggression deliberately aimed at inflicting serious physical injury, many social
scientists believe that most assaults are motivated by more than the desire to injure the victims
(Berkowitz, 1993:8). The goal of the assailant(s) might be to influence or exert power over their
victim(s) or to establish a favourable identity (e.g. with other members of their group or gang).
Offenders might also be driven by a desire to demonstrate that they are worthy of social approval (e.g.
by persons with the same political affiliations) or respect (Berkowitz, 1993:10). During a farm attack
near Amersfort, the offenders indicated that they killed the farmer because they got the impression that
he thought they were young and that they did not know what they were doing (Mistry & Dhlamini,
2001:36).

Violence is also a means of obtaining what the attackers want in the shortest time possible. This is
important as the length of time spent on the scene of the crime often has a bearing on the success or
failure of the attack. Stalling for time, insults, resistance and arguments during the attack, often serve
to increase the anger and/or anxiety of the attackers (Mistry & Dhlamini, 2001:24). In just under half of
the attacks investigated by Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:23), an argument preceded the violence. Victims
who comply with the wishes of their attackers, might in some instances therefore avoid physical injury,

107
while non-compliance with the offenders= demands might result in injury or even death.

The emotional state of the offenders before and during the attack also appears to have a significant
impact on the degree of violence used during the onslaught on the victim(s). Mistry and Dhlamini
(2001:25) report that offenders who felt anxious before an attack were likely to use any form of
violence including burning, strangling, stabbing or shooting them. Offenders who were calm during the
attack were more likely to only tie their victims up with a rope.

3.2.2.1 Possible reasons for the violent nature of farm attacks in SA

Some of the factors that induce criminals to resort to using violence while committing their crimes
include the following:

• Alcohol consumption and the abuse of drugs

Alcohol consumption and the abuse of drugs often stimulate acts of violence (Crime Information
Management Centre, 1998:40). According to Baron (1995:392), alcohol in large quantities increases
aggression, which then can result in violent behaviour. Conklin (1995:297-299, 302) states that while
alcohol and drugs do not actually cause crime, the high frequency of crimes such as murder, assault
and some sex offences committed after the consumption of liquor and/or the abuse of drugs, indicates
that they are facilitating factors. This is confirmed by Swarts (1997:21) who indicates that there is a link
between the use of certain substances and the types of crimes committed. The use of alcohol, for
example can be linked to rape and housebreaking or burglary, while the smoking of dagga often
precedes the commission of property crimes. According to this author, criminals may rely on alcohol to
generate sufficient courage to execute the planned crimes. Another explanation might be that the use
of drugs and alcohol reduce offenders’ anxiety. Both substance abuse and crime might therefore form
a part of the common lifestyle or subculture to which criminals belong.

• Firearms

Firearms also stimulate violence (Megargee, 1982:158). While they increase the arousal level, they
also make it easier for offenders to translate mere intentions into actions. The presence of weapons
can also increase aggression in offenders because of the previous association they might have of
firearms and violent behaviour (Baron, 1995:392). According to Hennop (2000:21), the international
borders between SA, Swaziland and Mozambique are often used for the smuggling of illegal weapons

108
into the country. There are 67 known crossing points, all uncontrolled, in the approximately 80-
kilometer stretch between SA and Mozambique. Hostile terrain in this area, is one of the factors that
makes securing this border difficult. AK 47 assault rifles that were smuggled into SA from neighbouring
countries were used by the gang of six offenders that attacked a smallholding near Bethlehem in 1992
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:7-8). It is suspected that a significant
amount of illegal trade in firearms also takes place between the traditional areas in the Midlands of
KwaZulu-Natal and Gauteng (Schönteich, 2000a:61). Schönteich is of the opinion that some attackers
of farmers possibly use these established markets to acquire firearms for use in attacks. Furthermore,
firearms are sometimes removed from farmhouses during burglaries and used in attacks on farmers in
the same vicinity, at a later stage (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:12, 31).
Often the victims’ own firearms are used against them after they have been forced to open gun safes
or been disarmed by the offenders (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:46;
2003e:3)

• Desensitisation to and rationalisation of violence

Desensitisation to violence has taken place in SA during the past two decades (Crime Information
Management Centre, 1998:40). Many South Africans, and in particular black South Africans, have
become desensitised by the violence that prevailed throughout the country between 1984 and 1994.
Young children in townships and informal settlements at that time often had to witness violence used
by members of the security forces, as well as violence used by black vigilante groups. Some persons
might therefore have accepted violence as a way of life and as the only method of controlling
opponents (Nomoyi, 2000:67; Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003l:8).
According to Wolfgang and Ferracuti (1967:155, 159, 161) overt physical violence often becomes a
common expected response to certain stimuli in some subcultures. According to these authors, the
subcultural ethos of violence is most predominant in a limited age group ranging from late adolescence
to middle age. This is in line with police statistics on suspects of farm attacks as most fall in the 20-29
year category (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:22). As the use of violence is not necessarily
viewed as illicit behaviour, offenders using violence do not have to deal with feelings of guilt about their
aggression. This might account for the complete lack of remorse displayed by some of the accused
during attacks on the victims and also when confronted in the courts with the human suffering they
have caused (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1999b:10: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into
Farm Attacks, 2003d:13).

Rationalisation of violence also often occurs. As a result of South Africa=s past experience of racism

109
and repression, many persons justify the employment of violence as a means to an end. According to
Moolman (1999a:2), violence was used successfully against the white population after 1984 to induce
the Nationalist government to change its apartheid policy. Violence is, however, still used to settle
social, economic and domestic conflict (Nomoyi, 2000:67). In addition to the negative effect of the
present culture of violence in SA, Nomoyi also refers to a culture of impunity. As a result of students=
uprisings, mass demonstrations and armed conflicts in the townships, many of the youth lost their
respect for authority.

110
• Loss of deterrence

The loss of deterrence might also be a reason for the loss of respect for authority and the commission
of violent crimes. According to Moolman (1999a:84), many potential criminals have lost their fear of
punishment and respect for the justice system. The abolition of the death sentence, the granting of
amnesty and the release of prisoners on parole, are factors enumerated in police reports (Boere vra
swaarder straf na moorde op plase, 2000:2; Cilliers, 1998j:71; Claassen, 1998a:69; Crime Information
Management Centre, 1998:40; Lewenslang tronkstraf, geen parool vir moordenaars, vra Salu, 1997:4).
According to Moolman (1999a:87-91), lack of evidence which causes many prosecutors to withdraw
cases, the decline of prosecution rates while the crime rate is increasing, as well as escapes from
police custody and from prisons, might also encourage criminally inclined persons to commit serious
crimes as there is a great likelihood of escaping punishment altogether. Furthermore, the perception
that crime pays, might induce potential offenders to commit crime.

• Target hardening

Hardening of targets is taking place increasingly. Fear of crime is causing many people to improve the
security around their homes (Schaum, 2007:1). To overcome hardened targets (e.g. early warning
alarm systems or burglar bars), criminals - especially where the motive is ‘pure’ financial gain - might
now find it easier to launch a personal attack on farmers while they are going about their duties or
enjoying their leisure time, and force them to open safes, hand over motor vehicle keys and/or show
them where money and other valuables are hidden. During normal daytime activities, offenders have
easier access to the homesteads as doors and windows are not always closed or locked and farmers
are out in the fields or outbuildings where they have little or no defensible space. Property crimes such
as burglary may therefore become inter-personal crimes such as robbery, which often culminates in
serious injury or even murder.

• Other

The use of violence might also be linked to motives (e.g. revenge) that may be related to political or
labour matters. These are discussed in the next section.

3.3 MOTIVES ASSOCIATED WITH FARM ATTACKS

111
There appear to be various motives for attacks on farmers. In some instances there may have been a
combination of motives (e.g. revenge and robbery), especially when more than one offender was
involved. The Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks analysed 3 544 cases on the NOCOC database
and found that in 2 644 cases the motive could clearly be established. These the Committee divided
into four broad categories, namely robbery, intimidation, political/racial and labour related attacks
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:21).

• Financial and/or economic gain

According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003b:21), 89,3% of attacks on
farmers from 1998-2001 had robbery as the main motive. The Committee believe that this percentage
might be higher as the NOCOC database does not accurately reflect the items stolen (see section
3.2.1.2.4). Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:43) also report that the main intention of 43 of the 48 attackers
that they interviewed, was to rob their victims. The suspects indicated that money, vehicles, food and
firearms were the items sought after in that order of importance (Mistry & Dhlamini, 2001:22-23).

• Intimidation

According to the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003b:21) there were cases in which the
motive could be attributed to attempts to intimidate the farmers (Pieters, 1997:1). These were attacks
in which the perpetrators gained nothing of economic value. Crops or buildings were set alight or
persons were shot at without reason.

• Political/racial motives

In 52 cases (2,0%) investigated by the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, there was evidence of
a political or racial motive12. To determine this, the Committee had to rely on remarks made at the
crime scene and on the remarks of the compilers of the statistics. The possibility thus exists that the
figure might be higher or lower than indicated (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003b:22). According to the Committee, some offenders might have claimed that the motive was
political in order to gain sympathy. Others might have left political or racial clues to put the police on
the wrong scent.

Moolman (1999a:71, 96, 111) maintains that the deeply rooted hatred that exists amongst some black

12 While the CIAC report states that robbery is the main motive for farm attacks, no mention is made of political/racial motives.

112
people for white farmers lies at the root of many farm attacks and therefore possibly of murders

committed during attacks. Maburu or Mabunu, the Northern Sotho and Shangaan words which refer to
farmers, are also words used for Afrikaners. Afrikaners, the instigators of apartheid, are perceived by
many black people to be responsible for the social, political and economic injustices that took place up
to the time of the democratic elections in 1994. According to a media report, farmers are sometimes
attacked because they served in the police and defence forces (Apla opdragte was om wit boere dood
te maak, hoor WVK, 1997:2).

• Labour related motives

The Committee found only a small percentage of the attacks on farmers were labour related (Claassen
& Cilliers, 1999:84, 86). This is in line with the NOCOC statistics that indicate that few workers have
been involved in attacks on their employers (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003b:24). Mistry & Dhlamini (2001:34) cite a case in which a wage dispute was claimed to have been
the motive in an attack on a farmer=s wife in the Potgietersrus district. Two offenders attacked their
employer=s wife because they were allegedly not paid their wages. They had become impatient with
their employer because they had continually been promised they would get their money ‘the next day’.

• Other motives

While the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003e:28) found that the illegal occupation of land is
one of the main causes of farm attacks, evictions and land disputes appear to have been the motive in
only a minority of farm attacks (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:18; Crime information
Management Centre, 1998:32; Mistry & Dhlamini, 2001:22, 34). A detailed study of the murder and
robbery dockets of the Greytown area in KwaZulu-Natal where issues of land ownership and
occupation might have been responsible for some attacks, revealed that only one murder of a farmer
might have been related to a land dispute (Schönteich, 2000a:57). In this case, the farmer was shot at
point blank range and his vehicle stolen on a public road a kilometre from his farm gate in October
1998. He was stopped by three young black men whom he recognised as they served on the local
police forum with him. They had also been involved in dialogue with him about a portion of his land to
which a chief in the area had lodged a title deed claim in 1997. In response to the claim, the farmer
had agreed to donate that portion of the farm for the purpose of building a school for the community.
However, in the period during which he entered into dialogue with the community and the relevant
state structures, the victim received a number of threats to his life from young black men in the area

113
who were hostile to him and opposed to his proposal to build a school on the land.

According to Schönteich (2000a:56), land encroachment deserves careful attention. He identifies two
ways in which it takes place, both of which result in prolonged tension between farmers and the local
population. The first takes place after claims have been lodged to certain property owned by farmers.
When it becomes common knowledge that the owners are prepared to sell the land to the Department
of Land Affairs, their farms are invaded before the deal is finalised. Since the redistribution of land is
usually a lengthy process, farmers who receive no further communication about their proposed deal
with the government often doubt that it is still on and recommence to farm the land. This results in
clashes with those who prematurely erected informal structures on their land and those who have
come to rely on the farms for the grazing of cattle and goats.

The second way in which encroachment on farmers= land takes place, is more quiet and subtle.
Invaders begin by marking out a portion of a farm. Should the farmers then plant crops in these
demarcated areas, the young plants are uprooted. Farmers= cattle found grazing there, are also killed.
The destruction of crops and livestock cause farmers financial losses that might affect the viability of
their farming enterprises and even cause some to move away, leaving the land vacant and available
for illegal occupation.

3.4 SUSPECTED REASONS FOR THE TARGETING OF SPECIFIC FARMS

A large number of questionnaires completed by police officials relating to attacks committed in 1997
and during the first half of 1998, indicated that the reason why certain farms or smallholdings were
targeted, was unknown. However, some questionnaires provided the following as suspected reasons.
They are listed in order of importance.

• Soft targets

The majority of the completed questionnaires indicated that the suspected reason for the attack on a
specific farm/smallholding was related to the fact that residents of farms and smallholdings are soft
targets (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:18; Viljoen, 2000:14). Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:25)
found that many offenders had managed to stay on the farms undetected by the farmers on average
for three to five days observing their movements and those of their family members and workers. This
enabled them to gauge the security situation on the farms and commence their attack with confidence.
These researchers also established from the offenders that they were so certain that the planned

114
attack would succeed, that 75% were not afraid of being shot by the farmer.

115
• Shops/farm stalls on the premises

As mentioned in section 2.3.4.3, shops and/or farm stalls often have ready cash available that might
cause potential offenders to perceive them as suitable and/or lucrative targets (Crime Information
Analysis Centre, 1998:18). As they are open to the public, they give wrongdoers the opportunity of
approaching a farmer and/or his workers sufficiently close to launch an attack without causing undue
suspicion. A visit to a farm shop or stall also gives offenders time to gauge the situation on the farm
(e.g. the number of persons present) at that point in time.

• Financial status of the owner

From the questionnaires it furthermore appears that affluent farmers might be regarded as good
targets. Risk of apprehension or injury, might be perceived as minimal in comparison with what might
be gained by attacking farmers who are believed to have large amounts of ready cash, firearms,
expensive electrical appliances and a number of motor vehicles.

• Information about cash on the farm

Information about the availability of cash on farms at a certain point in time might induce some
criminals to attack the farmers (Mistry & Dhlamini, 2001:31; Schönteich, 2000a:42). Just less than 50%
of the offenders in the Mistry and Dhlamini study, indicated that they had chosen the targeted farms on
the basis of information received from a previous or present employee of the farm (see also section
2.2.3.2). While such information might have been obtained under duress in some cases, it might also
have been given freely. In one case neighbours who learned from an elderly farmer that he had a large
sum of money hidden in his farmhouse, were responsible for an attack on him (Buurman bieg glo oor
plaasaanval, 2006:6; De Beer, 2006c:6; Dhlamini, 2006:9).

An offender arrested after an attack in the Barberton district, claimed that he knew a farmer had a lot of
money because he had helped him move from one house to another (Mistry & Dhlamini, 2001:36).
After an attack near Pienaarsrivier in the Limpopo Province in which R48 000 was robbed, a
perpetrator claimed that he and his accomplices had obtained the information from a girlfriend of one
of the offenders. She had been taken to the room where the farmer kept his safe by one of the
labourers on the farm who promised her he would get money for her if she needed it (Mistry &
Dhlamini, 2001:33-34). Domestic servants who work inside farmers’ homes might sometimes become

116
aware of hidden safes and hiding places for keys and firearms in the course of their daily duties.

• Suspects familiar with the layout of the farm

Labourers on the farm, ex-labourers and their visitors, as well as persons employed on or visiting
adjacent farms, are generally familiar with the layout of the farm. This gives them an advantage when
planning their approach to the farmhouse and also the escape route. They would be aware of the
safest way to approach unseen and pathways on the farm that would ensure speedy departure from
the crime scene.

• Bad security measures

The Mistry and Dhlamini study (2001:26) revealed that in most cases the farms attacked by the
offenders they interviewed, had only a fence and a gate as security, while 25% had no visible security
measures. In more than 67% of the cases, the offenders were able to approach or enter without
activating an alarm. Research conducted in August and September 1998 by the Crime Information
Analysis Centre (1999a:9) concerning the safeguarding of farms in some areas of the Eastern Cape,
also revealed that many farmers were not as safety-conscious as they might have been. However, this
might since have changed as a result of increasing attacks. Carelessness and forgetfulness (e.g.
failing to lock security gates and/or leaving keys in accessible places such as in motor vehicles or on
hooks behind doors) also tend to have facilitated attacks.

• Premises isolated/situated next to a public road

The isolation of a farm prevents informal guardianship by passers-by, neighbours or routine police
patrols (see routine activities theory - section 2.2.2.3). The Crime Information Analysis Centre
(1998:21) attempted to establish whether the proximity to a public road and the isolation of certain
farms played any role in target selection. It was found that the number of attacks decreased as the
distance from the public road increased.

Proximity to a public road might cause potential wrongdoers to become aware of a farm that might be
targeted. It might also provide opportunities for unobtrusive surveillance, as well as casual contact with
employees who might inadvertently provide important information about the residents (e.g. their
temporary absence or the lack of security on the premises). Looted goods can also be transported by
motor vehicles on public roads without causing undue suspicion.

117
• Uninhabited premises

A study by the CIAC in 1997 showed that 11 attacks occurred on uninhabited premises during 1997
(Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:23). Property that is not inhabited or that is occupied
only for certain periods (e.g. weekends) might be regarded as easy targets. In these instances, lack of
guardianship reduces the risk of apprehension (see routine activities theory - section 2.2.2.3) and
gives wrongdoers sufficient time to commit offences without leaving clues to link them with the offence.

• Information about firearms

Information about firearms might also induce criminals to attack farmers. Information might be obtained
from workers on the farm, in particular domestic workers (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1999b:9),
or from general observation as many farmers go about armed.

• Farms bordering informal settlements

The close proximity of large numbers of mostly unemployed persons, increases the risk of being
attacked. According to Britz (1998:41), many attackers of smallholders in particular, originate from
informal settlements where many unemployed persons erect their informal dwellings while seeking
employment in the nearest town or city. Large commercial farms are usually some distance from the
towns.

3.5 PROFILE OF VICTIMS

Although persons of all races and ages can fall victim to attackers, it is possible to draw up a profile of
victims of farm attacks.

3.5.1 Status of victims

The majority of attacks are aimed at owners of farms, managers, lessees and their dependants. The
reason for this might be that they are perceived to be more lucrative targets than the workers on the
farms.

According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003b:27), 69,7% of the victims

118
in 200113 were the owners, managers or lessees of farms and their dependants. Workers and their
family members made up 29,5% of the victims, while visitors comprised only 0,8% of the victims.

3.5.2 Race of victims

The CIAC started making a breakdown of figures on racial lines in 2001.This was done as farm attacks
were given racial connotations by some individuals and organisations.

White persons were the victims of most farm attacks. According to the CIAC, black people are,
however, increasingly being victimised (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003b:23).

3.5.3 Gender of victims

The majority of victims of farm attacks are males. As mentioned in section 2.1.4.1, possible reasons
might be related to the nature of males’ occupational tasks on farms (e.g. working in isolated areas)
and/or male role expectations (e.g. investigating suspicious noises at night).

In 2001, male victims comprised 59,2% of the total number of victims (Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:26). Males dominated in every province except the Free State where
there were 21 female victims and only 18 male victims. However, as the sample is small and more
recent statistics are not available, it is not possible to draw a reliable conclusion (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:25).

3.5.4 Age of victims

Elderly persons are clearly preferred victims in farm attacks (see also section 2.1.4.2 on the
vulnerability of the elderly). However, attackers also do not hesitate to attack children who are too
young to pose a threat to their safety (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:19).

According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003b:26), the largest number
of victims of farm attacks (34,4%) in 2001 fell in the 40-59 year category. Only 5,9% of the victims were
under 19 years of age. This might be attributed to the fact that scholars residing on farms are usually
at boarding school for most of the week. Victims of 80 years and older are also in the minority (3,4%).

13 More recent statistics are not available.

119
While few people attain this age, the publicity given to the danger of elderly people living in isolated
areas might have induced some to sell their farms to live in safer places.

Moolman (1999a:48) compared the age of victims of farm attacks during the period 1991 to August
1998. The average age of victims from 1991 to 1994 was calculated at 59,8 years. From 1995 to
August 1998 the average age of victims decreased to 51,3 years. In 1997, the average age of farm
attack victims was 50,4 years. The CIAC also analysed the age of 733 victims of farm attacks in 2001
and found that the average age for this year appears to be lower than in previous years (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003b:26). A possible reason for this might be that elderly
farmers are selling their farms to retire in towns where they believe they might be safer than on the
farms.

3.5.5 Relationship between victims and known suspects

The NOCOC database indicates that farm workers were involved in approximately 2,8% of farm
attacks. Although the NOCOC figures might not be completely reliable, it may be assumed that an
average figure of 2,8% involvement is reasonably accurate.

Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:27) also attempted to establish whether the perpetrators they interviewed
had any links to farms in general. As mentioned in section 3.4, just under half of the offenders stated
that they had chosen the particular farm on the basis of information received from a previous or
present employee of the farm. While more than 50% of the offenders indicated that they did not know
any farm labourers or anyone on the farm they chose to attack, it would appear that approximately half
of the offenders interviewed in this study had sufficient links with farm life and persons working or
residing on farms to be familiar with the lifestyle farmers lead.

There is evidence, sometimes only circumstantial, that employees of farmers and smallholders
frequently abet the actions of attackers (Schönteich, 2000a:89). It appears therefore that a link of some
kind, albeit only that of friendship, often exists between some person(s) on the targeted farms and one
or more of the offenders.

3.6 PROFILE OF SUSPECTS INVOLVED

From statistics pertaining to attacks reported in 1997 (Crime Information Management Centre,
1998:38)

120
and during the first half of 199814 (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:22), a profile may be
formed
of the average farm attacker. During these two periods 1149 and 894 suspects were known to have
been involved in attacks reported to have taken place on farms. From the Mistry and Dhlamini study
and the interviews of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, more personal details came to light
(Mistry & Dhlamini, 2001:21-29; Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003g:3-7).

3.6.1 Gender

During the 18-month period covered by the CIAC, all but one of the arrested suspects were male. All of
the offenders interviewed by Mistry and Dhlamini (48) and the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks
(8) were also males. In one incident (Vroue dalk deel van bende plaasmoordenaars, 2000:5), two
women were arrested in connection with an attack in the vicinity of Delmas. In an attack in Limpopo
(De Kock, 2002b:3), a female was arrested in a car driven from the scene by one of her four
accomplices. It is not clear if she played an active role in the attack. However, from the report it
appears that she is the only one of the five attackers involved who worked in the area of the targeted
farm at some point in time. It may therefore be reasonable to assume that at the very least, she played
a role in the choice of the farm. In an attack in the Bultfontein district, a female employee of a farmer is
alleged to have opened the farmhouse door to three male accomplices who cut off the farmer’s eyelids
before murdering him (Thompson, 2004:4).

3.6.2 Race

The majority of suspects arrested for attacks that took place in 1997 were blacks (499). The
remainder, namely seven and two were coloured and white respectively. During the first half of 1998,
the majority (319) once again were black. Coloured persons arrested in connection with farm attacks
totalled 23 during this period. The perpetrators interviewed by Mistry and Dhlamini and the Committee
of Inquiry into Farm Attacks were all black (Mistry & Dhlamini, 2001:21; Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003g:3). In a more recent newspaper report of a farm attack in the Zeerust
district in the North West Province, a white couple are suspected of being implicated in the attacking
and torturing of their neighbour who was robbed of more than R200 000. According to the report, the
couple, who were found in possession of police uniforms used in the attack on their neighbour, are
also suspected of being involved in other farm attacks and criminal activities in the area (Dhlamini,

14 More recent statistics are not available.

121
2006:9). Cases have also been reported in which white persons who attacked farmers for various
reasons have tried to mislead the police into believing that they were victims of farm attacks as defined
in section 1.2.3 (De Kock, 2002a:10; Malan, 2002:2; Oelofse, 2003:1; Vriendskap bly in slag ná
skynplaasaanval, 2002:5).
3.6.3 Citizenship

Both the Mistry and Dhlamini study and that of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks make no
mention of citizenship. It might be safe to assume that most held South African citizenship.

3.6.4 Age

Although the ages of arrested suspects vary considerably, the majority are younger than 30. A
considerable number, namely 113 of the 491 suspects arrested in 1997, and 74 of those arrested
during the first half of 1998, fell into the 10-19 year old category. The majority, 255 in 1997 and 188
arrested for attacks which took place between January and June 1998, fell into the 20-29 year
category (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:23; Crime Information Management Centre,
1998:39).

Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:21) report that 23% of the offenders that they interviewed were younger
than 18 years and 29% between 22 and 25 years. None were older than 33 years. All of those
interviewed by the Committee were between 20 and 36 years of age (Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003g:3).Young people therefore find farmers suitable targets.

3.6.5 Level of education

Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:21) report that 46% of the offenders that they interviewed had attained
grade 7-9, while 31% had passed grades 10-12. The Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003g:3)
found that the perpetrators’ level of education ranged from grade 2 to grade 10.

3.6.6 Backgrounds

Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:22) found that 56% of the interviewees had unstable backgrounds, which
included being raised by persons other than their biological parents. The Committee of Inquiry into
Farm Attacks (2003g:3) reported that all but one of the offenders interviewed by them, had been raised
either by a single parent or grandparents. It therefore appears that the majority had unstable
backgrounds. Three of the perpetrators were single, while five were married according to customary

122
law.

The perpetrator of one farm attack was found to be mentally unstable and referred permanently to a
psychiatric hospital. He threatened farmers and caused extensive damage on farms by setting alight
grazing and farm implements (Pelser, 2000b:5; Wil president wees en is nou sy pasiënt, 2000:5).

3.6.7 Occupation

Most (354) of the suspects arrested for attacks carried out on farmers in 1997, were unemployed at the
time of the attacks. Labourers (65), school pupils (23) and other occupations (23) made up the
remainder of the arrested suspects whose occupations could be established (Crime Information
Management Centre, 1998:38). The profile of suspects involved in the attacks on farms and
smallholdings during the first half of 1998 does not deviate much from the above. The majority (239)
were unemployed, 47 were labourers at the time and 24 were school pupils. According to a newspaper
report, a civil servant was arrested and brought to trial for the murder of a farmer during a farm attack
(Viljoen, 2007c:3). The occupation of 15 suspects was indicated as other, while that of 17 suspects
was recorded as unknown (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:22).

Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:21) found that 71% of the offenders in their study were unemployed, while
10% were farm workers. The Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks does not refer to the occupations
of the offenders that it interviewed.

3.6.8 Groups/gangs

Available statistics (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:22; Crime Information Management
Centre, 1998:38) indicate that attackers prefer to work in groups of two or three. In some cases the
groups are larger. Only 138 suspects (17,5%) arrested during 1998 carried out their attacks single-
handed. Two attackers were involved in 214 (27%) of the reported incidents, three in 183 (23,5%), four
in 93 (11,7%), five in 58 (7,3%), six in 30 (3,9%) and more than six attackers in 11 (1,3%) of the
incidents. According to Moolman (1999a:42), the groups in some cases, consist of an older person
leading a number of younger persons. In the Mistry and Dhlamini study, more than half of the offenders
had at least one accomplice when they perpetrated the farm attack (Mistry & Dhlamini, 2001:27).

3.6.9 Previous convictions

Sixty-five of the suspects arrested in 1997 and 48 arrested for attacks that took place during the first

123
half of 1998, had previous convictions (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:23; Crime Information
Management Centre, 1998:38). Some had more than one conviction. Their previous convictions vary
from serious personal crimes to less serious property crimes. The number of suspects falling into each
crime category from the beginning of January 1997 to the end of June 1998 is indicated in brackets:
Murder (5), robbery and attempted robbery (16), rape and attempted rape (7), assault (35) and
property related crimes (78).

Mistry and Dhamini (2001:27) found that more than half (54%) of the offenders interviewed by them,
had previous convictions. The rest were first offenders. Many had previously committed property
crimes. Of those with previous convictions, three (11%) had committed farm attacks on previous
occasions but had not been charged for those. Eight (31%) had been convicted of crimes ‘similar’ to
farm attacks, but the researchers provide no further details about these crimes. One offender could be
linked to eight similar incidents.

3.6.10 Place of origin of attackers

While a number of farm attacks have been perpetrated by offenders from areas some distance from
the scene of the crime, police investigations have shown that there is often a link between one of the
offenders in the group of attackers and the targeted farm or the surrounding area. However, an
analysis of the attacks on farmers in 1997 revealed that in only 5,1% of the cases, one or more of the
suspects had been employees, in 4,4% of the cases ex-employees and in a minority of cases relatives
of employees or ex-employees of the victims (Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:32).
Schönteich (2000a:45) also found that the majority of attacks seem to be perpetrated by groups
comprising of both individuals living in the area and persons from outside the area. Locals are often
able to provide strangers with information, wittingly or unwittingly, of farmers who might be regarded as
soft targets.

Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:28) found that on average the offenders travelled 40 km to the farms they
attacked and 10% between 60 and 80 km. Only 1% travelled between 160 and 180 km.

3.7 SUMMARY

In this chapter the incidence and the nature of farm attacks were discussed. The reasons why certain
farms were targeted were also dealt with, followed by the profiles of the victims and the perpetrators.
From available statistics, it appears that victims are selected on the grounds of the offenders=
perceptions of farmers’ vulnerability. The police profile of offenders indicates that farm attackers are

124
usually young, black unemployed South African males, some of whom have one or more previous
convictions for serious crimes such as murder, rape and robbery.

125
 4. RESPONSES TO VICTIMISATION

Having thrown some light on the victimisation event itself and the circumstances surrounding such
an event, it now becomes necessary to consider the effect victimisation has on the victims. Due to
the fact that research on the consequences of farm attacks is limited, and determining the
consequences of victimisation and coping strategies used by victims were set as an aim of the
study, Janoff-Bulman and Frieze’s (1983:1-17) comprehensive theoretical perspective for
understanding reactions to victimisation will be used to highlight some common responses to
victimisation. The three main assumptions of this perspective will be described, while the coping
strategies most victims employ in order to incorporate a victimisation event in their experiences, as
well as the advantages of each of these strategies, will also receive attention.

4.1 UNDERSTANDING VICTIMS’ REACTIONS TO VICTIMISATION

All victims of extreme and physically threatening events such as illness, violent crime, accidents
and disasters have to deal with both the physical injury resulting from their experience and the
psychological distress caused by such events. The psychological response to victimisation is
generally immediate and victims’ perceptions become marked by threat, danger, insecurity and
self-questioning (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:2). They therefore no longer see the world as safe
and feel apprehensive that anything may now happen to them. Common emotional reactions to
victimisation include shock, confusion, fear, helplessness, anxiety and depression. Sometimes the
psychological response is so intense that it results in PTSD as described in the American
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) (1994:424-427). In short, this
reaction is characterised most particularly by repetitive thoughts and the numbing of affect and
responsiveness. Exaggerated startle responses, sleep disturbances, guilt and memory impairment
are also characteristic symptoms of the disorder. Others are difficulty in concentrating and phobias
about the activities triggering recollection of the event.

4.1.1 Common assumptions

Much of the psychological strain which victims suffer can be traced to the shattering of certain
basic assumptions or personal theories held by most individuals about themselves and the world in
which they function. This ‘world model’ or ‘theory of reality’ allows them to set goals, plan and order
their lives (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:3). It thus provides persons with viable expectations
about themselves and those around them. When victimisation shatters these basic assumptions, or
121
at least causes some of them to be questioned, it destroys the psychological stability with which
individuals normally function, leaving them in disequilibrium. Although many individuals may even
be unaware that these assumptions were a guide to their behaviour in the past, they are no longer
able to serve as guidelines for future behaviour. Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:1) maintain that
there are at least three types of assumptions, all related to one another, that are most affected by
victimisation. These are
• the belief in personal invulnerability;
• the perception of the world as a meaningful place; and
• the assumption of self-worth.

Victimisation forces individuals to recognise and deal with these assumptions. As they are very
basic to persons’ every-day activities and their understanding of the world, and have generally
gone unquestioned and unchallenged, rebuilding these assumptions takes a long time.

The three basic assumptions will now be dealt with in turn. Thereupon the coping strategies
implemented by most victimised individuals to regain their emotional stability and equilibrium will
receive attention.

4.1.1.1 Assumption of invulnerability

Individuals are generally optimistic. They prefer to expect positive outcomes in life rather than the
likelihood of suffering from negative events (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:4). They feel they have
control over what happens in their lives and do not see the world around them as malevolent. They
therefore often operate on the basis of an ‘illusion of invulnerability’ which may also be described
as unrealistic optimism, often stating ‘It can’t happen to me’.

While this illusion of invulnerability protects them from the stress and anxiety linked to the threat of
suffering from a negative experience, it may be maladaptive. Some persons might neglect to
engage in preventative behaviours such as keeping security gates locked or installing alarm
systems.

An act of victimisation often brings a realisation that human malevolence is not always directed at
others. Feelings of apprehension replace victims’ basic trust in a benign world. The newfound
sense of personal vulnerability also causes them to lose their sense of safety. It sometimes causes
anxiety in the extreme, making it difficult for some victims to cope with ordinary every-day activities.

122
They feel vulnerable and helpless against potential danger. The experience is now ‘available’ and
the victims see themselves as representative of the subclass of persons who may be victimised.
This often leaves them preoccupied with the fear of recurrent victimisation.

The distress caused by the shattering of the assumption of invulnerability is believed to be more
extreme in the case of persons who have suffered criminal victimisation than any other type of
victimisation (Janoff-Bulman, 1985:502). Since criminal victimisation is human-induced, victims can
no longer trust persons around them, causing them to feel insecure in the world of other people.
The event has traumatised their sense of community as the suffering has been caused by the
conscious malicious intention of another human and not by an act of God or by accident. Events
that could be termed ‘acts of God’ and accidents are likely to make persons recognise the
weaknesses and limitations of people in general. Criminal victimisation, on the other hand, focuses
on the individual's vulnerability. Janoff-Bulman (1985:507) distinguishes the victimisation
experience as ‘humbling’ in the case of a natural disaster and ‘humiliating’ where criminal
victimisation has taken place. The difference between the two types of victimisation lies in the fact
that the victim of criminal activity has been rendered powerless and helpless by another human
being.

4.1.1.2 Assumption of the world as meaningful

Most persons believe the world is comprehensible and orderly, just and controllable and therefore
a ‘good’ place. For this reason, individuals feel they know what to expect and regard what happens
as controllable. According to most people, specific negative occurrences can usually be explained.
It is therefore generally believed that if cautious enough and if certain protective measures are
taken, no misfortune can befall a person. People also appear to operate on Lerner's Just World
Theory, stating that individuals get what they deserve and deserve what they get (Janoff-Bulman &
Frieze, 1983:5).

The malicious intent of the perpetrator preceding victimisation often causes crime victims to be
confronted with the existence of ‘evil’. Although all persons are aware of evil, it is not until they
become victims of such evil that the assumptions about order and morality become truly disrupted.
According to Janoff-Bulman (1985:504), this recognition of evil and immorality affects both their
trust of other persons and their general philosophical understanding of the world and how it works.

When people are forced to reconsider their beliefs that only negligent or careless persons who

123
deserve to be victimised fall prey to wrongdoers, a certain degree of self-questioning takes place.
The problem of loss of meaning thus seems to focus on the selective incidence of the victimisation.
Victims endeavour to establish why they were singled out and targeted by the perpetrators. As
there is a tendency for persons to view human behaviour as rationally based (Janoff-Bulman,
1985:505), victims are likely to seek the reason for their victimisation in their own behaviour or
even in their personality and character traits. Third parties are also inclined to examine the victims’
behaviour prior to and during the event and often blame them for not having averted their
victimisation.

When persons are victimised in spite of having taken the necessary precautions against
victimisation, and they moreover feel that they did not deserve to be victimised, their assumptions
of orderliness and predictability are totally disrupted. The unexpected nature of the victimisation
event also effects their reactions to the incident. Perloff (1983:48) believes that it is especially
those victims who were victimised while engaged in behaviours that were cautious, who often have
the greatest difficulty in coping with the trauma of victimisation. Suddenly they are forced to admit
that the security measures on which they rely to secure their safety are ineffective against
wrongdoers. They are also compelled to take note of the fact that they can no longer rely on being
protected against misfortune by being good and worthy people. In short, their victimisation does
not fit with the ‘social laws’ they held about the operation of the world before being victimised.

4.1.1.3 Assumption of self-worth

The majority of people need to have a certain level of self-esteem in order to function adequately.
Generally people see themselves as decent, worthy and competent. After victimisation many
victims start questioning whether they are in fact worthy or decent as negative images of the self
are evoked by the event.

Victims often cannot find answers to the question why it happened to them in particular. Their
autonomy, an essential component of an individual's equilibrium, is threatened. What has befallen
them is both unintended by them and unexpected. They therefore often perceive themselves as
being weak, helpless, needy, frightened and out of control (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:6).

Victims of criminal acts also sometimes experience a sense of deviance, believing something must
have induced the offenders to victimise them and not others. They therefore perceive themselves
to be different from their fellow citizens. According to Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:6) this

124
perception generally leads to serious self questioning and in most cases to the reinforcement of
negative self-images. Victims may be forced to recognise certain self-limitations which non-victims
are able to avoid doing. Negative societal reactions to crime victims may also cause them to carry
the stigma of victimisation.

In order to lessen the negative effects of having one's assumptions shattered, it is necessary that
certain coping strategies be implemented so that a new assumptive world can be established
which includes the negative experiences of the victimisation event. The victim needs to process the
new information until the situation or the models of reality change, until reality and models of reality
are once again in harmony. Incorporating their experience of victimisation into a newly integrated
conceptual system may prove to be a major coping task for victims (Janoff-Bulman, 1985:498). As
there are no automatic ‘adaptive’ responses to a victimisation event, victims need to be aware of
strategies that they can implement to help them cope and integrate their traumatic experiences.

4.1.2 Coping strategies

The coping process involves incorporating the victimisation experience and re-establishing a
conceptual system that will allow the victims to once again function effectively (Janoff-Bulman &
Frieze, 1983:7). Although they will probably never feel invulnerable again, victims need to work on
establishing a view of the world as not entirely malevolent or threatening. Events also need to be
seen as making sense and it is important that a positive self-image be regained, including the self-
perceptions of worth, strength and autonomy.

The victims’ coping efforts might involve redefining the victimisation itself, or once they have
defined themselves as victims, either adapting psychologically or resorting to making behavioural
changes. Since victims’ success (or failure) to adapt psychologically is difficult to prove for
research purposes, the only other means of establishing if they were successful or not, would be
by asking the respondents.

4.1.2.1 Redefining the event

The manner in which victims cognitively appraise the victimisation event often determines the
degree to which they feel stressed or threatened (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:8). Redefining the
victimisation event so that it appears less serious (e.g. attempted rape as opposed to rape)
sometimes allows the victims to minimise the threats to their assumptive worlds.

125
Victimisation represents a loss of value, status or resources. Feelings of loss of control
experienced during and after the incident can also produce cognitive, behavioural, motivational and
emotional consequences. Victimised persons might label themselves in negative ways or
categorise themselves with other stigmatised individuals. In addition, victims often experience
negative social reactions after victimisation. Hostility, derogation and rejection by significant others
might increase the emotional stress of victims. Redefining the incident often reduces the negative
personal and/or social consequences so that they are perceived to be less stressful and/or
threatening. Sometimes victims might even find that they are able to maintain the assumptions of
invulnerability, of the world as a meaningful place and of a positive self-esteem usually held prior to
victimisation.

4.1.2.2 Adapting psychologically

In order to cope with a victimisation event, it is important for victims to make sense of the
occurrence. They therefore often seek meaning in the experience. While one way is to find
purpose in the event, another is to make causal attributions as they are often plagued by the
question ‘Why me?’. Bard and Sangrey (1986:55, 61) define an attribution is “a mechanism for
defending against the arbitrariness of the victimisation”. They further explain that an attribution is
not a rational decision-making process, but a mechanism that is activated consciously or even
unconsciously by the victims’ need to explain the crimes perpetrated against them. Attributing a
reason for the occurrence of a particular event is important to victimised persons as uncertainty
often leaves them fearful of victimisation and generally less able to cope with their circumstances.

According to Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:9), victims are often able to re-establish a belief in a
meaningful world if victimisation can be viewed as serving a purpose. Victims might, for example,
be able to say that the event has taught them to be more careful or less trusting of strangers or that
it has brought them closer to their Maker.

Victims who attempt to establish why they in particular were singled out for victimisation, often do a
great deal of self-questioning. The cause of the victimisation event is sought either in their
behaviour prior to victimisation or in certain character traits. Self-blame therefore often takes place.
Victims might feel responsible for failing to lock a door, turning their backs on a stranger or falling
for a trick on the part of the perpetrator that led them to relax their guard. If they are able to blame
the victimisation event on aspects of their behaviour that they are able to control or change, they

126
might believe that they can avoid being victimised in future. However, if victims should blame their
victimisation on character traits that are more enduring, this could result in feelings of increased
vulnerability, helplessness and depression as these are not as easily changed.

4.1.2.3 Making behavioural changes

Once persons have defined themselves as victims, they often resort to actions that help them
adapt to the changes brought about by having to label themselves in this negative way. According
to Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:10-11), crime victims often engage in certain preventative
behaviours, undergo self-defence training or seek social support and/or therapeutic help. They
maintain that direct actions such as these can give victims a sense of control over their
environment, thereby alleviating their feelings of vulnerability.

Preventative behaviour often includes putting new locks on doors or bars on windows. Some
victims refrain from going out at night. Others relocate, while some individuals believe that
changing their place of work might prevent further victimisation. According to Janoff-Bulman and
Frieze (1983:10), victims who believed that they were safe and careful of being victimised at the
time of the victimisation event, might find it more difficult coping than persons who, for example,
knew they were careless because they can change their careless behaviour.

Formal training in self-defence might also have a positive effect, particularly on females’
perceptions of fear, helplessness and the right to resist (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:11). Such
training builds self-confidence, provides victims with more positive self-images and gives them a
greater sense of control over their environment. By building up victims’ self-confidence, the sense
of helplessness that often follows victimisation, might be eliminated.

Victims often turn to friends and relatives for assistance. While some victims might need help in
more practical matters (e.g. in replacing broken window panes and locks), others might need
emotional support. According to Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:11), victims need to express their
emotions (e.g. depression or sadness) after victimisation. They therefore need to have persons
available who are willing to listen to them talk, sometimes over a period of months. Some victims
might also find the support of others necessary in problem solving. Janoff-Bulman and Frieze
(1983:12) are of the opinion that victims also need to know that these supports are unconditionally
available. Should social support be withheld or be negative in tone, victims might find this more
distressing than the victimisation incident itself.

127
Social support might even be vital for their recovery and readjustment as victims need to feel cared
for and esteemed. Positive social support also appears to protect people in a crisis from a variety
of pathological states, including physical illness, depression and alcoholism. While victims should
themselves attempt to integrate the negative experience, it is also important that their environment
be benign so that they do not feel re-victimised. Concern and respect by others, also for their
attempts to make sense of the victimisation event, might prevent isolation, despair, bitterness and
resignation (Janoff-Bulman, 1985:506)

According to Janoff-Bulman (1985:503), social support is, however, often withheld, especially in
the case of criminal victimisation. One of the main reasons for this is that victims of crime are often
perceived as responsible for what has befallen them. Another reason is that victims sometimes
suffer from depression, making them bad company, preferably to be avoided by non-victims.
Victims might also be perceived as losers. Victims often also see themselves in this way, for they
have come off second best to other humans, their victimisers. Negative societal reactions are
therefore likely to be internalised.

When victims perceive social support from friends and family members to be inadequate for their
needs, they sometimes seek therapeutic help. Peer group support is becoming increasingly
popular (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:12). Communication with peers who have experienced a
similar life crisis or problem, is beneficial in that it reduces the perception of deviance. Social
comparison with equally disadvantaged others who have been victimised serves to rebuild positive
self-images and enhances victims’ self-esteem. In more serious cases professional therapy might
be needed.

4.2 RELEVANCE OF JANOFF-BULMAN AND FRIEZE’S THEORETICAL

PERSPECTIVE OF PERSONAL VICTIMISATION TO ATTACKS ON FARMERS

Victims of farm attacks do not all react to victimisation in the same way. Individual differences such
as their emotional well-being before victimisation, beliefs about risk prior to victimisation, the
seriousness of the crime and relationship with the offender(s), might play an important role in
victims’ response. Whatever victims’ reactions might be, every victim of crime experiences a crisis
situation or at least some form of disruption after victimisation (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:xvii, 34).

128
 4.2.1 Assumptions

According to Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:4-6), victimisation shatters or at the least causes
three basic human assumptions to be seriously questioned. These are the belief of invulnerability,
the world as meaningful and of a positive self-perception.

4.2.1.1 Assumption of invulnerability

Perloff (1983:43) defines perceived invulnerability as a belief in “personal safety and freedom from
misfortune” and vulnerability as “a belief that one is susceptible to future negative outcomes and
unprotected from danger or misfortune.”

Inadequate security on farms is evidence that there is still an illusion of invulnerability to attacks
among some farmers who have escaped victimisation at the hands of farm attackers (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:9). Some of the reasons for the lack of security
include the following:

• Genuine feelings of safety

Some farmers might not feel unsafe on their farms because of sophisticated alarm systems,
electrified fencing, burglar bars and watchdogs or because they go about armed with handguns
(Beukman, 1998:8). However, there is evidence that even those who have what can reasonably be
regarded as adequate security on their farms have fallen victim to farm attackers (Colonel
Schoeman, Chief of Joint Operations SANDF, Personal interview, 5 February 2002). This has also
been confirmed by the findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. In one case, the
perpetrators broke a window, crawled through the ceiling that proved to be the weakest link in the
security system, broke down an internal door and attacked the couple in their bedroom (Report of
the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:8). In another attack on a farming family, the
offenders entered through a locked kitchen and also broke through several secured doors before
overpowering the couple in their bedroom (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003f:8).

129
• Ego-defensive mechanisms

Farmers who have little or no protection from criminal victimisation might also have perceptions of
invulnerability. High levels of stress caused by an awareness that they are in fact vulnerable to
attack (e.g. because of inadequate security or old age) might have caused certain ego-defensive
mechanisms such as denial of vulnerability to come into play. While perceived vulnerability and the
need to be constantly on guard and hyper-vigilant can be conducive to feelings of helplessness
and passivity, illusions of invulnerability allow individuals to go about their lives without being
completely ‘immobilised’ by fear (Perloff, 1983:48). In support of this view, Bard and Sangrey
(1986:4, 62) maintain that persons who believe they are in control, feel comfortable and are able to
cope with stress. Denial of being susceptible to victimisation might therefore only be a mechanism
that helps some farmers to reduce their level of anxiety or fear of being victimised by potential
wrongdoers.

Ego-defensive mechanisms (e.g. denial), although difficult to prove for research purposes except
by asking victims their opinion, are therefore likely to play a role where stressful conditions prevail
(e.g. in farming areas where intimidation has taken place and/or where there have been overt acts
of aggression perpetrated against members of the farming community). While many farmers report
receiving death threats and threats that the farms will be occupied (Meyer, 2001b:10; Pieters,
1997:1; Potgieter, 2001b:8), some farmers in the Wakkerstroom area in the Mpumalanga Province,
have also had their names publicly displayed on placards carried by demonstrators in the village
who demand that they vacate their farms (Potgieter, 2001c:22). From a submission by Action: Stop
Farm Attacks (ASFA), an umbrella body for farmers concerned about farm attacks, to the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, it appears that farmers in the area also cannot rely on
members of the SAPS to be impartial in the execution of their duties. According to the submission,
there were notices displayed in the local police station stating that the police do not like a specific
family. The police allegedly also drove through the township telling the community that they would
arrest the farmer. The submission further states that the police stoned and killed 21 of the farmer’s
sheep and damaged his communication equipment (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks, 2003i:10). Being unable to rely on the support and/or co-operation of the police in the
event of an attack might cause tension and feelings of fear and insecurity in the area. In the
Mangete and Nqabeni areas of KwaZulu-Natal, acts of aggression against landowners such as the
invasion of their farms, the regular destruction and/or illegal harvesting of sugar cane crops, the
burning down of a community hall built by the farmers, as well as blockades of the main and

130
alternate routes to Mangete, indicate the level of aggression felt towards farmers in these areas.
Farmers in the Verulam/Hazelmere and Kranskop areas of KwaZulu-Natal also experience
similar threats to their personal safety and that of their possessions. In the Kranskop area, for
example, a farmer was ambushed on his farm and shot dead. In another instance, cows that were
worth R45 000 were driven off a farm and gunned down in a nearby plantation with AK47 rifles
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003e:2, 7, 9, 11).

After an attack on a farming family, persons who might also feel threatened (e. g. neighbours)
might find it less stressful to deny vulnerability to a similar fate than to acknowledge the fact that
they might be at least equally vulnerable as the victims. According to Perloff (1983:45), the way in
which non-victims react to victims of crime might be an indication that they perceive themselves as
invulnerable. Some farmers who have avoided being attacked often react by blaming victims who
have suffered at the hands of wrongdoers (Stofberg, 1997b:6). While there may be a number of
reasons for this reaction by non-victims, Bard and Sangrey (1986:88-89), Janoff-Bulman
(1985:505) as well as Perloff (1983:45) concur that non-victims sometimes blame victims in order
to avoid acknowledging the possibility that they might also be vulnerable to victimisation. Feelings
of invulnerability might therefore be a form of denial. Farmers who have not been attacked might
also need to convince themselves that they are somehow different from or more capable of
protecting themselves than those who were victimised. By blaming those who have been attacked,
they are able to preserve their belief that they will not be victimised. By comparing their
deservingness of misfortune, they reinforce the belief that they are better than the average citizen
(Perloff, 1983:45). This in turn facilitates perceptions that they are uniquely invulnerable or less
vulnerable to victimisation than their fellow-farmers. As mentioned earlier, they are then likely to
suffer more emotional disturbance than persons who believed they were vulnerable to criminal
victimisation before the event.

In order to enhance feelings of being in control of their environment, some farmers who have
escaped victimisation might also make comparisons with an inappropriate standard. This Perloff
(1983:46) defines as “an unrealistic stereotype of a person who does nothing to improve his or her
chances or even engages in counterproductive activity”. Some farmers might therefore believe that
they will not fall prey to wrongdoers as there are easier and/or more deserving targets that are
available to be victimised (e.g. old and/or frail neighbours, farmers who are excessively careless
about security on their farms or farmers who treat their employees badly).

While perceptions of control of their environment and invulnerability to attacks might allow persons

131
under threat to carry on their lives relatively normally, they might also lure some farmers into
complacency. According to Perloff (1983:48), perceptions of unique invulnerability may result in
potential victims taking the fewest precautions and ultimately increasing their chances of being
victimised. Evidence of some farmers’ beliefs in their invulnerability is their failure to also keep
windows secured at night. In approximately one third of all farm attacks in 1997, the attackers
gained entry without forcing doors or windows (Harde werk agter skerms om plase in SA te
beveilig, 2000:13; Kinderskok na gruwelmoord, 2001:5; Plaasmoorde: intimidasie speel groot rol,
1998:12). Other means of improving the security of farmhouses and the safety of farmers and their
families are also often ignored. While some might go to the expense of installing security gates or
doors, these are often left unlocked (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003h:9). Some farmers employ persons without checking on their identity documents or verifying
with the SAPS that they are not wanted persons (Stofberg, 1997b:6). The practice of employing
illegal immigrants poses an additional danger. These individuals usually have no family ties in the
area. This reduces their risk of being traced and brought to justice after the commission of a crime
(Beukman, 1998:8; De Kock, 2000:6; Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003d:28). Many farmers also often ignore the danger of being attacked by doing business with
strangers on their farms.

Whether persons felt uniquely invulnerable or universally vulnerable (equally as vulnerable as

others) before victimisation, illusions of invulnerability are usually shattered by a victimisation
event. Victims experience a ‘new’ and ‘unfamiliar’ sense of vulnerability (Perloff, 1983:50).
According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:19-21), victims perceive attempts to commit crimes against
them to be just as violating as completed crimes. The intention per se of wrongdoers to commit a
crime against the victims, poses a threat to their feelings of safety.

Whereas feelings of anxiety, fear and apprehension dominate when persons feel vulnerable, the
perception of being in control of life events allows those who perceive themselves to be
invulnerable to continue with their daily tasks unhindered by negative feelings as their autonomy
remains intact.

As soon as an offence is committed against an individual, his sense of autonomy is lost. In crimes
such as purse snatching, the loss of control might last for a few seconds only (Bard & Sangrey,
1986:19). However, in more serious crimes during which personal confrontation takes place (e.g.
assault, robbery, murder and rape), loss of control is usually for a longer period. As there have
been cases in which perpetrators of farm attacks have subjected their victims to lengthy periods of

132
torture before leaving the crime scene or killing them, it may be assumed that the victims
experienced acute loss of autonomy for the duration of the attack on them (Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:17, 26; Report of the Committee of Inquiry into
Farm Attacks, 2003h:10). In some cases husbands who believed they could protect their wives and
family members have had to watch helplessly while they were assaulted in their presence. Physical
injuries to the farmers and their family members furthermore remain a constant reminder of their
powerlessness and their failure to those who had come to rely on their protection. However,
whether the loss of control was for a short or a lengthy period during the victimisation event itself,
victims of crime have to come to terms with the realisation that the assumption of being in control
which were held prior to the incident had always been false. Furthermore, they have to cope with
the painful knowledge that it might never be possible to say that they can control whatever might
happen in future.

4.2.1.2 Assumption of the world as meaningful

The world is a meaningful place only when events are comprehensible and orderly, when persons
know what to expect and are able to ‘make sense’ of negative events when they occur. According
to Bard and Sangrey (1986:54), victims need to be able to feel “I understand this thing, and I am no
longer frightened by it”. These authors further maintain that it is natural for victims to attribute their
victimisation to someone or something. While some victims blame themselves, others make
external attributions.

• Self-blame

According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:55, 57), an individual’s personality may determine in part
whether he will blame himself or find some external cause for the victimisation event. Persons who
have a highly developed conscience, who believe strongly in right and wrong, blame themselves
more easily than others who do not readily take responsibility for their actions. According to Van
Wijk (a traumatologist at the University of Johannesburg who has interviewed between 30 and 35
victims of farm attacks), many older Afrikaners feel guilty about what they and their fellow white
countrymen did during the apartheid era. She describes some of them as “self-imposed victims-in-
waiting”. She further states that they almost expect to be attacked, robbed or murdered (Report of
the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:42). Therefore, should any of these persons be
victimised, some might find it easy to blame themselves because they already believe they
deserve negative events that might befall them.

133
Self-blame also comes easily to those who feel they should always be in control of life events
(Bard & Sangrey, 1986:57). This might readily apply to the persons in authority on farms, namely
the farmers. They might feel that failure to prevent the victimisation is a shortcoming that leaves
them blameworthy.

Victims’ self-blame might be more stressful if death, serious physical injury or emotional trauma
were experienced by family members during the incident. After the attack on a family in the
KwaZulu-Natal midlands which left one member of the family with a permanent physical disability,
the farmer who had spent R80 000 on an electric fence, blames himself for the attack as he forgot
his immobiliser with which he activates the fence in his vehicle earlier that evening (Venter,
2001:6). One of the daughters of the family also suffers from feelings of guilt, not because she
could have prevented the attack or helped her mother, father and sister, but because she came out
physically unscathed.

When victims are obliged to make negative evaluations of enduring character traits which led to the
attack (e.g. gullibility), this might lead to feelings of depression and helplessness (Miller & Porter,
1983:147). According to these authors, the reason for this is presumably that victims’ perception of
control is undermined by the fact that little can be done to change certain lasting qualities. Baum,
Fleming and Singer (1983:117-137) suggest that a negative evaluation of a victim’s character traits
or personality might also make it more difficult for victims to cope with the victimisation event.

However, while self-blame might be self-punishing, it restores a sense of order to the world if the
victims are able to identify an act or omission that might explain why they were singled out for
victimisation. Some might blame themselves for failing to lock their doors, others for allowing
themselves to be lured some distance from the relative safety of their farmhouses on some false
pretext (Chandler, 1998:17), or for leaving their homesteads to investigate when their dogs bark at
night (Fourie, 1999:7; Steenkamp, 2000:1). In farm attacks in which large sums of money are
looted (De Kock, 2000:6), surviving victims might blame themselves for keeping hard cash on their
farms. As already mentioned, victims who know that they can change their behaviour, believe that
they can avoid victimisation in future. They are once again able to view the world as orderly and
comprehensible and themselves as relatively invulnerable (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:57;
Janoff-Bulman, 1985:505).

134
• External attributions

According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:61), victims who blame others for their victimisation have
less sense of personal control than those who blame themselves. If they had been able to blame
themselves, they might not have been overcome by helplessness which often prevails when
victims perceive themselves to be at the mercy of outside forces. Perloff (1983:54) believes that
when people perceive the world as dangerous to themselves and others, it sometimes becomes
easier to make external attributions.

However, blaming others has both advantages and disadvantages. Firstly, it is less punishing than
self-blame. Secondly, blaming others allows victims to vent their anger. Thirdly, it allows victims to
feel entitled to support and sympathy (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:61). Blaming others, on the other
hand, may also cause victims to be perceived as less deserving of help. The reason for this is that
they appear to be fighting back and therefore to be stronger and less in need of sympathy. There is
also a possibility that victims who blame others might be seen as threatening, thereby causing
themselves to be alienated by persons who might have offered their help or support.

According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:61), blaming others could also lead to other difficulties.
Blaming a spouse, for example, could cause strain in a marriage relationship. In addition, as loved
ones can often sense that they are held responsible, the victims’ feelings need not necessarily be
voiced to be communicated. The authors also refer to accusing questions sometimes levelled at
police officers about investigating procedures. These might cause police members to become
defensive and wary and less helpful. Evidence of this happening became apparent from the
interviews held with farmers and their families by the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. In
one case the police officers did not test a glass and a knife for fingerprints after it had been pointed
out to them that these items should be tested as they had been used by one of the perpetrators. In
another case the police got nasty and accused a victim of trying to take over their work because
they felt he was making too many enquiries (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003f:15).

In cases where there appears to be no reason for an attack, it is difficult for victims to blame
themselves or others for the victimisation event. In a large number of instances, attacks have been
described as ‘senseless’ (Beukman, 1998:8; Du Preez, 2000:2; Gestremde boer aangeval en
gesteek op plaas, 1997:4; Pretorius, 1997:11; Stofberg, 1997b:6; Twee vasgetrek minder as 36 uur

135
na Bothaville-moorde, 2000:5; Visser, 1998:5). In twelve separate incidents of farm attacks,
farmers have simply been shot through their doors or windows (Polisie bekommerd oor aanvalle,
1998:2). Sometimes the perpetrators leave the scene having removed very little of economic value
from the farm, thus eliminating a motive of robbery (Boere ‘by kruispad’, ‘keelvol’ oor moorde,
1998:5; Gestremde boer aangeval en gesteek op plaas, 1997:4). This makes it difficult for
survivors to make sense of the event, yet they have to deal with the consequences of the attack.

4.2.1.3 Assumption of self-worth

People generally operate under the assumption that they are worthy and decent people. After an
attack, family members workers and neighbours often refer to the virtues of the victimised persons.
While this might be evidence of persons’ belief in the world as a meaningful place in which virtuous
persons do not deserve to be victimised, it might also be proof of persons’ attempts to be worthy
individuals. A number of examples may be quoted. After an attack in which a farmer’s wife was
killed and hidden behind bales of hay, a neighbour is reported to have said: “She worked hard to
aid the disadvantaged” (Chandler, 1998:17). A murdered mango farmer in the Limpopo Province
was described as: “’n Sagmoedige en hulpvaardige man. Hy was een van die verdraagsaamste
mense wat ek geken het” (Fourie, 1999:7). The fact that most workers interviewed by the
Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003f:24) described the relationships between themselves
and the farmers as ‘good’, might confirm that many farmers are also committed to maintaining a
positive self-image.

However, survivors of a farm attack might find their positive self-image shattered firstly by their own
attempts to understand why they were singled out for victimisation. As already mentioned, self-
questioning after a victimisation event often leads to self-blame. Secondly, speculation resulting
from press reports, particularly where attacks appear to have been perpetrated without reason,
might also cause a survivor’s positive self-image to be impaired (Taylor, 2002:26-29). As survivors
generally do not have the ability to effectively regulate what is reported about them, or the
murder(s), it might at times appear that they were partly or even fully responsible for the negative
event (Moorde is dalk uit weerwraak, 1997:1; Stofberg, 1997b:6). In some instances, it might
appear that the victims contributed to their own victimisation through certain omissions on their
part, for example, failing to check identity documents of job seekers (Stofberg, 1997b:6).

While hate speech by politicians aimed at farmers might not affect the positive self-image of some
victims of farm attacks, it stigmatises farmers in general and might even cause them to be

136
perceived as deserving victims. Some politicians publicly blame farmers for alleged wrongful
actions, such as assaulting or ill-treating their employees, which might then result in acts of
revenge against the farmers (Moorde is dalk uit weerwraak, 1997:1). President Mbeki, for example
is reported to have referred to farm workers in the Mpumalanga Province as ‘volslae slawe’ (‘Slawe
op plase’ in Mpumalanga skok Mbeki, 2000:2). Accusations that farmers treat their employees
badly allegedly induced Mr Mdladlana, the Minister of Labour in 1999 to threaten to use members
of the Scorpion Unit to investigate human rights violations by farmers (Arbeidsminister oortuig van
‘growwe mensereg-skendings’, 1999:4; Dreyer, 1999:20).

In order to adjust to the assumptions of invulnerability, meaning and self esteem shattered after
victimisation, individuals often need to resort to certain strategies to help them cope with their
feelings of helplessness, distrust and depression often experienced after victimisation.

4.2.2 Coping strategies

A number of coping strategies can help victims of farm attacks to deal with their victimisation. In
order to make a full recovery, victims of farm attacks need to examine, alter and re-examine their
assumptions of vulnerability, meaning and self-esteem. Recovery takes place in stages during
which victims sometimes experience setbacks. During the ‘recoil phase’ the coping strategies of
most victims come into play. During this stage victims attempt to adapt to the violation and
commence to integrate the experience while dealing with emotions such as fear, anger, sadness,
anxiety and guilt (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:41). These feelings are sometimes contradictory, but also
often extremely intense and painful (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003f:27-29). While shifts in mood are a normal part of the recovery process, victims sometimes
feel discouraged and frightened as they are repeatedly overcome by feelings of helplessness and
anxiety.

During the next phase, the ‘reorganisation phase’, victims assimilate the victimisation event (Bard
& Sangrey, 1986:48). The more serious the experience, the longer the recovery generally takes.
Rape victims, for example, can be expected to take up to one year and longer. According to these
authors, delayed recovery is normal. Feelings of fear and rage diminish during this period and
victims think less of the event. While victims also become less interested in talking about it, they
are able to do so with less emotional distress. Victims might still be reminded of the crime by some
outside event (e.g. seeing someone who looks like the offender), but the episode is usually short
and less painful than before.

137
Redefining the victimisation event might allow some victims to perceive the incident as less
traumatic. Others might find it necessary to adapt psychologically and/or make behavioural
changes.

4.2.2.1 Redefining the event

Criminal victimisation is often experienced as being intensely humiliating. Taylor, Wood and
Lichtman (1983:25) maintain that even the best social responses to victimisation may be
unpleasant to the victim. Having to accept aid from others, and the accompanying emotional
reactions such as pity, may be interpreted as condescension on the part of the helper. This in turn
may create an exaggerated awareness of the loss of power and/or status experienced by victims.
By seeking help, victims also run the risk of being labelled incompetent. Often well-meaning
sympathisers or helpers cause victims additional distress. They may be inhibited, over-controlled
or fail to hide the fact that the victimisation event causes them to feel uncomfortable in the
presence of the victims. Some may interpret minimal efforts of victims to cope in an exaggeratedly
positive way, giving them false positive feedback. This could cast doubt in the minds of the victims
as to the helpers’ sincerity and cause speculation in their minds as to the helpers’ true reactions to
their plight. Anticipating derogation from others can also cause feelings of discomfort (Taylor et al.,
1983:23).

After victimisation, many victims need to find ways to deal with the negative feelings they have of
themselves as well as those that they might believe others have of them. According to Taylor et al.
(1983:19), one of the ways of enhancing their self-image is for victims to evaluate themselves
selectively. They make what may be termed ‘downward comparisons’ during which they selectively
focus on attributes that make them appear advantaged. Farmers might therefore make social
comparisons with less fortunate victims of farm attacks. Some might selectively focus on attributes
that make them appear advantaged. They might create hypothetically worse worlds, for example:
‘My man kon dood gewees het’ (Gestremde boer aangeval en gesteek op plaas, 1997:4). Some
might even construe benefit from the victimising event (e.g. that they have learned to be more
careful in future), while others might manufacture normative standards of adjustment that make
their own coping efforts appear exceptional. In this way, their perceptions as victims might be
minimised and the event might become less stressful.

Taylor et al. (1983:33) maintain that by evaluating their situation against a comparative standard,

138
victims are often able to say: ‘I'm doing well under the circumstances’. Comparisons of this nature
have the psychological advantage of making victims feel good about their position in relation to the
comparison other. However, in order to gauge how other victims of similar incidents of victimisation
are coping, it is necessary for victims to share their experiences with one another. Although many
victims may find it easy and even helpful to speak of their victimisation, some may be reluctant
because they fear reviving memories of the unpleasant experience.

4.2.2.2 Adapting psychologically

Farmers need to search for meaning in the incident in an attempt to make sense of the
victimisation event. One way is to find some purpose in it. Other ways are by making causal
attributions and/or reliving the events in detail, which might help them to deal with feelings of anger
or fear that often follow on acts of victimisation.

• Finding purpose in the victimisation

If the victimisation can be viewed as serving a purpose, victims are able to re-establish a belief in
an orderly comprehensible world. Some farmers might feel that the event served to strengthen
their faith in the Almighty (‘Laaste koeël vir die kleintjie’ sê moordenaar, 1997:2; Stofberg &
Prinsloo, 1997:11). After an attack on a handicapped farmer, his wife expressed her thankfulness
towards the Lord for sparing his life: “Ons kan die Here net dank” (Gestremde boer aangeval en
gesteek op plaas, 1997:4). Other farmers might hope that the brutality of attacks will shock the
community and the government into devising some strategy to help minimise the risk of farmers
being attacked. The son of a farmer killed near Levubu in the Limpopo Province is reported to have
stated the following: “Uit dit [my pa se dood] móét iets goeds gebore word wat die res van ons in
die toekoms gaan help beveilig” (De Kock, 2003:8). Attacks may also enhance the sense of
community of farmers in a particular area or province. After a second farm attack in the Limpopo
Province within two days, it was reported that farmers were threatening to take the law into their
own hands should another farmer or a member of a farming family be murdered in the province
(Boer kritiek ná nog ‘n aanval in gebied, 2000:17).

• Causal attributions

In addition to attempting to find meaning for the event, some farmers are able to explain their
victimisation by making causal attributions. The culture of violence (Verdagtes in hof toegejuig,

139
2001:2), the uneven distribution of wealth (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks,
2003g:4), the availability of weapons (Cilliers, 1998k:71), organised syndicates (Van Burick &
Bothma, 2001:11), the lack of parental control (Van Burick, 2001a:2), as well as poverty and
unemployment (Pelser, 2003d:2) are generally believed to be contributing to criminal behaviour
country-wide and also to attacks on farmers. Many farmers, however, blame politicians and
government employees for certain acts and omissions, the publicity given to the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission (TRC) hearings, the slow process of redistribution of land and biased
journalism which tends to put farmers in a bad light (Boere is keelvol vir haatspraak, 1999:65;
Cilliers, 1999f:84; ’Die reg gaan in eie hande geneem word’, sê TLU-man, 1997:4; Pelser,
2000a:19; Rohendahl, 1998:67).

- Acts and omissions of politicians and the government

A large number of farmers have expressed their dissatisfaction with the government for certain
acts and omissions which might create the perception amongst wrongdoers that attacks on the
farming community are tacitly condoned by the government (De Bruin, 1998:2; Van der
Westhuizen, 1997a:4). Hate speech and the failure of government to protect farmers serve as
examples.

Hate speech by politicians was believed to contribute to attacks on farmers (Agri SA pleads with
members and politicians to act responsibly, 2000:1; Boere is keelvol vir haatspraak, 1999:65).
Support for the fact that inflammatory statements play a role in hardening the attitudes of
wrongdoers against the farming community can be found in the testimony of the murderer of a
farmer in the Vryheid district. He stated before the TRC that he was influenced by the slogan: “Kill
the boer, kill the farmer”. This slogan he had heard at ANC-meetings (Tshwete kap na ‘toeskouers’
in stryd teen misdaad, 1999:3). The seriousness of the matter is borne out by the fact that Agri SA
addressed an urgent appeal to the late Minister of Safety and Security, Mr Steve Tshwete in
November 1999 to use his influence to stop hate speech and inflammatory remarks against the
farming community (Tshwete assures Agri SA of commitment to rural safety, 2000:2). This
particular slogan: “Kill the boer, kill the farmer”, has subsequently been declared as an example of
hate speech by The Human Rights Commission (Van Burick, 2003b:61).

The failure of the criminal justice system to protect law-abiding citizens from victimisation by
wrongdoers, is often stated as the reason for farm attacks. Many farmers believe that a large
number of offenders are never arrested for or convicted of the crimes they have perpetrated, are

140
let out on bail or parole, or escape from prison only to return to the same area (Coetzee, 1999b:5;
Deysel, 2000a:2; Potgieter, 2001a:6; Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003d:
19, 20, 24).

- Wide publicity of Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) hearings

According to media articles (‘Die reg gaan in eie hande geneem word’, sê TLU-man, 1997:4)
statements made during the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) hearings increased racial
tension in the country. Evidence of atrocities committed during the apartheid era might induce
certain persons to take revenge against white persons such as farmers who are soft targets for
criminals. It is also thought that the TRC raised false hopes for persons claiming to hold certain
rights to farmland.

- Slow process of land reform

The implementation of land reform has been impeded by a lack of financial and other resources.
This has resulted in backlogs and increased tension between landowners and their workers or
tenants (Black farmers dissatisfied with government land programme, 1998:2; Dé, vat my plaas,
2006:20; De Lange, 2006:15; Grondeise – slegs vier van meer as 20 000 afgehandel, 1998:9;
Meyer, 2001b:10; Rohendahl, 1998:67; Tagtig persent van grondeise in Limpopo hang nog,
2006:14).

- Biased journalism

Some journalists also contribute to the problem due to negative reporting on certain matters
without verifying the truth of their statements. An example is printing allegations of ill treatment by
farmers of their farm workers (Boere se werk met leuens bevuil, 2000:6; Pelser, 2000a:19).
Although incidents of employee abuse might occur, accusations of this nature could put farmers in
general in a bad light (Boere deel van MRK-ondersoek, 2001:10; Stel feite oor ‘mishandeling’
vinnig vas, maan Bosman, 1999:5).

• Reliving the events of the crime

Some victims need to relive the events of the crime (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:43). They need a
sympathetic audience that is interested and willing to listen to them. It is necessary that they face

141
their emotions by remembering the events of the crime and allowing themselves to re-experience
the feelings (e.g. anger and/or fear) that have been aroused by the victimisation event. According
to these authors, some victims ‘play back’ the crime continually in their imaginations. They often
also want to talk about the crime, going over every detail carefully. It is also not uncommon for
victims to dream about the crime.

• Expressing anger

Besides attributing blame for an act of criminal victimisation, another way of coping with the
traumatic event, is by finding ways of expressing the intense anger often felt towards the offender
(Bard & Sangrey, 1986:45-46). However, as many victims never see their victimisers again, they
sometimes become angry with persons who are close to them. These are generally family
members or loyal helpers who can be relied on to support them even after the rage has been
discharged (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003f:6, 22, 24). Bard and
Sangrey (1986:46) further state that individuals who find it difficult to express their anger,
sometimes turn their anger inwards. Self-blame that has already been discussed, serves as an
example of anger felt towards the self.

Victims sometimes discharge their feelings of anger towards the criminal through fantasy.
According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:45), fantasies and dreams about revenge are fairly common,
particularly among victims that have suffered physical violence. These help provide an outlet for
their frustrated anger and help to dispel it.

• Expressing fear

Fear, like anger, also needs to be expressed. Victims often fear re-victimisation or even seeing
their assailant again. Bard and Sangrey (1986:42) believe fear is one of the most difficult emotions
with which victims have to cope. Sometimes victims experience fears about specific details of the
crime, phobic reactions to particular places or times of day or kinds of people. Racist feelings, for
example, are common where the crime was inter-racial (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:44).

If given sufficient opportunities to adapt psychologically, the need to express their emotions will
diminish in time. Once victims have integrated the victimisation event by establishing meaning for
the event, they will regain their psychological equilibrium.

142
4.2.2.3 Making behavioural changes

Behavioural reactions to farm attacks take on a number of different forms. While some farmers
might take drastic action, many might make only subtle changes.

Significant changes might be made in more serious cases of trauma (e.g. where a family member
has been killed or seriously injured). Surviving victims then often find it necessary to move to a city
or town where they might feel less threatened by attackers (Stofberg & Prinsloo, 1997:11;
Wonderwerk dat hulle leef ná nag van bloed, 1997:11). Investigating officers in Mpumalanga state
that victims of farm attacks usually move away after an attack (Report of the Committee of Inquiry
into Farm Attacks, 2003h:8). According to DuBow, McCabe and Kaplan (1979:31), relocating one’s
residence is the most dramatic form of avoidance behaviour. By moving away from the location
where the traumatic event occurred, victims might also avoid being continuously reminded of the
incident (Ferraro, 1995:12). This might assist in blocking out recurring thoughts of the incident.
Behavioural changes, however, are often more subtle. According to Hindelang et al. (1978:224)
"rather than making substantial changes in what they do, people tend to change the ways in which
they do things" (see lifestyle/exposure model in section 2.1.4.9).

DuBow et al. (1979:29-32) suggest a fivefold typology of behavioural reactions - all of which might
be relevant to victims of farm attacks. These reactions include avoidance, home protection, self-
protection, communicative behaviour and collective participation.

• Avoidance

Avoidance strategies are ‘risk management tactics’ implemented by persons to minimise the
chances of being harmed when exposure to risk is unavoidable (Sheley, 1995:156). DuBow et al.
(1979:33) define avoidance as attempts to decrease exposure to risk “by placing physical distance
between the individual and threatening situations”. These authors refer to examples such as
deciding to forgo activities such as socialising, attending meetings, shopping or recreation.
Farmers who have to make use of isolated farm roads and stop to open farm gates might therefore
consider it wise to decline social invitations from friends and neighbours in order to lessen the
chances of being ambushed. The fear of arriving at their unoccupied farm residences after dark
might also discourage participation in sporting, religious and cultural activities. In order to ensure
better self-protection, farmers and/or their wives might avoid travelling to the nearest town or
village alone and request the accompaniment of another member of the family or a neighbour.

143
As already mentioned in section 1.3.2.4, some farmers who believe that farm workers might be
involved in attacks, might stop employing additional labourers or reduce the number of persons
already in their employ (Potgieter, 2001d:8). The mechanisation of farming activities is one of the
ways that makes it possible to perform tasks with greatly reduced work forces.

• Home protection

Home protection is often referred to as target hardening which is probably the most common
reaction after victimisation in the home. According to DuBow et al. (1979:42), door locks, window
locks and bars, timers, burglar alarms and outside lights are security devices often installed by
persons wishing to protect their homes from wrongdoers. Although the effectiveness of this
strategy is difficult to evaluate, there is evidence in support of what Sheley (1995:156-157) terms
the ‘valve theory’. Where one avenue of illegal opportunities is shut off, criminally inclined persons
will shift their attention to more vulnerable targets (Sykes & Cullen, 1992:508). DuBow et al.
(1979:65) refer to a ‘random outlaw model’, which attempts to gauge the displacement effects of
private security behaviour. According to the model, the advantage for those taking protective action
is likely to be highest when not many other people are protecting their homes. From this it follows
that farmers who protect their homes are less likely to be attacked than others in the same area
who neglect to do so. As mentioned earlier, however, home protection is no guarantee against
attacks (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:9).

Enhanced security in towns and cities where many households have invested in home protection
devices might have caused a displacement of victimisation incidents to previously relatively crime
free rural areas. According to Britz (Beukman, 1998:8), farmers are soft targets and it appears that
criminals rate their chances of being caught less than would be the case in the city. After an attack
on the farm Woestalleen near Hendrina, a police officer stated: "Wat ons gevrees het, het gebeur.
Ons het hulle met patrollies in die dorp vasgetrap, toe wyk hulle uit na die plase toe. In die dorp het
hulle motorhawens en biersale beroof. Hulle wou die skrikbewind op plase voortsit" (De Meyer,
1997a:4).

Guard dogs that act as a deterrent are the cheapest and most popular means of safeguarding a
farm (Beukman, 1998:8; Chandler, 1998:17). Although research conducted by the Crime
Information Analysis Centre (1999a:14) in the Eastern Cape during August and September 1998
revealed that many farmers could improve their security, it also showed that some farmers usually

144
made use of security gates and burglar proofing. More than half of the farmhouses had external
lighting and 83% of the 207 farmers visited by field workers had acquired additional means of
communication besides the normal land line telephones and a radio system (Crime Information
Analysis Centre, 1999a: 9-13). While Miethe (1995:23) singles out the installation of burglar alarms
and increasing exterior lighting as measures that might alleviate potential victims’ fear of being
victimised, many farmers erect electric fencing or barbed wire around their homesteads. To ensure
that attackers attempting to cut wires are seen in time, some farmers also eradicate all plant
growth next to the fencing surrounding their homes (Chandler, 1998:17).

• Self protection

After victimisation, individuals often take a number of personal safety precautions. According to
Miethe (1995:24), gun ownership is one of the most common methods. South African farmers in
particular have always attached great importance to gun ownership. General Constand Viljoen is
quoted: “Die Afrikaner het ’n besondere kultuur oor wapens” and “Vuurwapens is ’n belangrike deel
van ons menswees” (Gunning, 2000:8). Many farmers not only own weapons, but also go about
their daily tasks armed with handguns (Beukman, 1998:8; Crime Information Analysis Centre,
1999a:12; Stofberg, 1997b:6). Although the research by the Crime Information Analysis Centre
(1999a:14) already referred to in the previous paragraph shows that only 19% of the farmers in the
area chosen for the survey carried firearms for self-protection, the study also revealed that more
than half of the farmers had five or more firearms. However, the new gun ownership law, the
Firearms Control Act, Act 60 of 2000, will already have reduced the number of firearms owned by
farmers.

Many women on South African farms are well acquainted with the use of firearms (De Kock,
2002b:3; De Kock, 2002c:1; Pelser, 2003c:4; Pelser, 2003e:4). This might have a positive impact
on women's perceptions of fear and helplessness and provide a greater sense of control over their
surroundings.

Farmers sometimes also have panic buttons to alert their family members, workers and/or
neighbours that they are being attacked. A case in point is that of a farmer and his wife who were
attacked when they arrived at their home 20 kilometers from the Mahamba border post after
attending a church service (Schönteich, 2000a:43). Two of the family’s neighbours responded after
the farmer’s wife managed to press the panic button worn under her blouse. After the attackers
opened fire on the men who had come to their assistance, one of the attackers was shot dead and

145
another wounded and apprehended.

• Communicative behaviour

Communicative behaviour involves the sharing of information related to the victimisation event with
others. Pelser, (2000c:8) quotes a victim who found that it helps to express fear or anger at being
victimised: “Dit help baie om oor so iets te praat”.

Communicative behaviour also gives victims the opportunity to voice intentions to act individually
or collectively against crime. While this allows them to feel that they have taken the first step to
improving their lot and possibly also relieves some of the frustrations felt by victims, DuBow et al.
(1979:32) are of the opinion that victims seldom put their words into actions. By sharing their
experiences with family members, friends and the community as a whole, persons are at times
also able to elicit accounts of similar victimisations. In this way they may validate or modify their
own understanding of the event and regain their faith in themselves and those around them.

Perloff (1983:57) supports the view that peer support groups (as mentioned in section 4.1.2.3)
might benefit many persons finding difficulty in coping with their victimisation. Besides being in a
position to reassure victims that they are not alone, they might also provide victims with information
and advice on how to cope with their misfortune. Such groups also encourage victims to
externalise the cause of their misfortune, rather than to attribute it to their own particular
shortcomings. Moreover, individuals who have experience of the same type of victimisation, are
often in a better position to understand the distress the victim is experiencing.

While communicative behaviour might help surviving victims, it also has an additional advantage.
Non-victims with whom the experiences are shared, might in future also avoid acts and omissions
that might have made the victims more susceptible to victimisation at the time of the attack.

• Collective participation

Collective participation refers to actions in concert with others which are motivated by a particular
crime or crime in general (DuBow et al., 1979:31). It may be informal or formal, a spontaneous act
(e.g. by fellow-farmers after a farm attack) or planned in advance, intermittent or continuous.
Collective response to crime can be traced back a number of centuries in many parts of the world.
Ancient Roman plebeians or commoners engaged in community self-help when they threw alleged

146
offenders from the Tarpeian rock (Conklin, 1995:385). Early Germans took up arms, blew horns
and chased crime suspects, sometimes lynching them. Further examples are actions by ‘people’s
police’ in the former Soviet Union, harsh punishment on suspected criminals in some African tribal
villages and citizen self-help in dealing with the urban crime problem in Brazil.

In SA, citizens are encouraged to find legal methods to curb crime. In 1999, Mr Steve Tshwete, the
late Minister of Safety and Security emphasised citizens’ responsibility in this regard: “Die stryd
teen misdaad is nie die uitsluitlike verantwoordelikheid van die regering nie, maar die kollektiewe
verantwoordelikheid van alle sektore van die bevolking” (Tshwete kap na ‘toeskouers’ in stryd teen
misdaad, 1999:3). President Mbeki, in his speech to the House of Traditional Leaders in Cape
Town in May 2006, once again emphasised the need for co-operation between government,
organised labour and community organisations to reduce the level of crime in the country (Smith &
Coetzee, 2006:1). Farm workers’ children in the Zeerust district have, by their alertness, already
proven that lives can be saved by working together against crime. In this case four primary school
children warned their parents’ elderly employers of two armed males who had come to ask for
water at their home. After the arrest of the two men, one of whom drew a firearm when approached
by the farmer, it was established that one of the two had escaped from the police cells in the town
two weeks previously by impersonating a fellow prisoner who was to be released on bail (De Beer,
2006a:1).

Among the legal methods employed by farmers to reduce the risk of victimisation and to make the
government and fellow citizens aware of their plight, include becoming active members of the local
agricultural union, community police forums or sector police forums at their local police stations.

By joining their local agricultural unions that are affiliated to Agri SA (the largest representative of
commercial farmers in SA), farmers have the opportunity of airing their views publicly, making
recommendations and contributing to finding solutions to the problems facing farmers in general.
As stated earlier, in its endeavour to ensure that the farming community goes about its task of
providing food for the nation in safety and free from fear or violence, Agri SA condemns attacks on
farmers publicly on a continuous basis, meets with representatives of the government on a regular
basis and draws up and presents memoranda to the relevant officials. Agri SA has also organised
protest marches and initiated projects to improve the safety and security of farmers (‘Ons is keelvol
vir misdaad’, sê Suid-Afrika se mense, 1998:1; Veiligheid, wet en orde - SALU gooi nie handdoek
in nie, 1998:20). Protest marches organised by Agri SA between 28 September and 2 October
1998 were well attended by farmers and their supporters country-wide (‘Ons is keelvol vir

147
misdaad’, sê Suid-Afrika se mense, 1998:1). After an attack in a farming district, it is not
uncommon for farmers to gather in the nearest town to express their concerns about rural safety
(Fourie, 1998a:1). After the Roos murder near Brits, in April 2006, large numbers of farmers and
residents of Brits gathered at a stadium in the town in sympathy of the family that lost heir
breadwinner and also in search of ways to reduce the level of crime in SA (Selfbeheersing bepleit
by boere ná moord op Roos, 2006:12).

Farmers might also volunteer to join the SAP Reservist Service, receive training in police work
after completion of which they are required to do a minimum of 16 hours’ voluntary unpaid duty per
month in their own communities (Roestoff, 2006b:12). Reservists tasks include patrolling the
relevant areas, erecting road blocks, taking part in search operations, visiting farms and training
the community to be more prepared in the case of an attack (Agri Securitas project to generate
money to protect communities, 1999:4; Cilliers, 1998d:81; Wees só meer prakties met plan vir
beveiliging, 1999:11). The advantage of working within a legal structure is that members are
protected by the law should a dispute arise about their actions while on duty (Van Burick &
Bothma, 2001:11).

Farmers sometimes also make informal security arrangements with their neighbours by forming a
cell. A group of farmers linked to one another by radio make regular contact to check on one
another’s safety. The cell system has been the most effective component of the rural protection
plan in the Piet Retief district. Here each cell has developed a rapid response strategy, which has
been responsible for foiling planned attacks and apprehending suspects after attacks. When a farm
is attacked, some members of the cell hasten to the farm, while others spread themselves into a
pre-arranged formation to block off exit routes from the area (Schönteich, 2000a:49b).

According to Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:10), there is evidence that victims who resort to
direct actions of the above nature, often regain their sense of environmental control. In this way
they are able to minimise their perception of vulnerability.

4.3 EVALUATION OF JANOFF-BULMAN AND FRIEZE’S THEORETICAL

PERSPECTIVE OF PERSONAL VICTIMISATION

Janoff-Bulman and Frieze’s perspective of personal victimisation may be applied at macro and
micro level to explain the responses to all types of victimisation (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:12).
As it applies equally well to victims of human induced events (e.g. criminal acts of wrongdoers) as
to victims of natural disasters, this perspective is also relevant to criminal attacks on farmers.
148
Furthermore, it is applicable to individuals as well as to groups of victims. It is therefore relevant to
victims of farm attacks who are traumatised while living alone or as a family group. As the
perspective may also be applied where victims are traumatised in a ‘once-off’ incident lasting a
relatively short while, as well as where a series of incidents occur which cover a long period of
time, it might be significant to farmers who are victimised once as well as to those targeted on a
number of occasions.

Janoff-Bulman and Frieze’s perspective for the understanding of reactions to victimisation is

relevant to victims’ responses to relatively minor crimes (e.g. theft), as well as to life-threatening
crimes such as attempted murder, murder, armed robbery and rape - all being crimes that are
sometimes committed during attacks on farmers. While the theft of personal possessions may be
viewed as less serious by third persons, some victims of theft might regard the loss of their
possessions as a relatively traumatic experience. According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:12),
personal possessions can take on symbolic significance as expressions of the self, which is the
part that makes each person unique. As persons’ possessions are extensions of themselves that
have emotional value because they express who they are, even the theft or destruction of items of
relatively little monetary value may be experienced as a violation of the self.

This theoretical perspective might furthermore explain why many farmers neglect security on their
farms. Feelings of invulnerability before an attack often result in comments such as: “We didn’t
think it could happen to us” as well as problems in coping after an attack. As Janoff-Bulman and
Frieze (1983:2) highlight the negative effects of victimisation (e.g. a lost sense of safety), potential
victims might do everything in their power to avoid the possibility of experiencing feelings such as
helplessness, apprehension and intense anxiety. They might therefore endeavour to protect
themselves and to safeguard their possessions more effectively. Persons who believe that being
good and worthy precludes them from victimisation, might improve their security situation by
understanding that criminals usually focus on the benefits to be gained by their criminal acts rather
than on the virtues (or vices) of their victims. An awareness of the possibility that positive
assumptions might be replaced by feelings of powerlessness and also feelings of deviance, might
cause potential victims to take measures to avoid this loss of autonomy and self-respect. An
awareness of the negative effects of victimisation, might also result in more potential victims, who
currently perceive themselves as invulnerable, reassessing their feelings of invulnerability and
modifying or changing their lifestyles.

Janoff-Bulman and Frieze’s perspective of understanding the reactions to victimisation might also

149
be useful in drawing attention to the possibility that potential victims of farm attacks might resort to
vigilante activity. Criminal victimisation often results in a distrust of all persons as a relatively
benign world is changed to appear hostile and dangerous to those victimised by criminals. Distrust
of some workers and/or persons calling on farmers (e.g. to buy produce or visit workers) might be
extended to distrust of security forces who are sometimes believed to be involved in farm attacks
(Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:11). As already mentioned in section
4.2.1.1, some members of the SAPS publicly display their hostility towards certain farmers (Report
of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:10). This might result in the perception that
they may not be relied on for protection, which in turn might induce some farmers to engage in
vigilante activity, possibly to project an image of alertness and in this way discourage potential
offenders from transgressing against them.

Janoff-Bulman and Frieze’s perspective on victimisation might also generate a better

understanding of the cognitive, affective and behavioural reactions of victims of serious crimes
such as rape that is sometimes committed during farm attacks. Surviving victims of attacks who
witnessed the killing of a family member, might also be severely affected by the event. According
to Van den Berg (1997:46), persons who witness a murder are often plagued by detailed visions of
the murder incident for six to eight months after the event. The wife of a murder victim recounts:
“Ek het gehoor hoe Piet met ’n mes gesteek word. Hy het geskreeu van die pyn” (Boere skepties
oor Tshwete se beloftes, 2001:5). Van den Berg (1997:46) is also of the opinion that thoughts
about the possible helplessness and fear of the victim are sometimes so overwhelming that it
negatively affect their concentration and sleep patterns. Nightmares about the murder, fantasies
about the survivor saving the victim from the murderer, as well as disturbing dreams about
murdering the offender often occur. Besides the heartache, anxiety and feelings of guilt, survivors
might also experience fear of victimisation and aggression towards the murderer. They might have
the compulsive need to be near other family members. As a murder incident often changes the role
of the survivors in the family structure, they might experience difficulty in coping with new
responsibilities and unfamiliar tasks, for example fulfilling a father’s role in providing for the family.

The perspective in general has successfully been integrated with existing literature on
victimisation. Taylor, Wood and Lichtman (1983:19-40) examined the strategies used by victims to
redefine the criminal event in order to minimise their perceived victimisation. Their study revealed
that victims selectively evaluate themselves and their situation in ways that are self-enhancing.
Sometimes victims compare themselves with an inappropriate standard that might result in their
failure to protect themselves and their possessions effectively. Awareness of the use of this coping

150
strategy by many potential victims who attempt to deny their vulnerability, might encourage more
appropriate comparison choices. This might therefore ensure that potential victims of farm attacks
have a more accurate or reliable perception of their own risk of being attacked.

A point of criticism is that there might be other assumptions besides those of invulnerability,
meaning and self worth that are shattered by acts of criminal victimisation. For example, in a
country such as SA with a history of segregation, older individuals might still erroneously assume
that they are ‘untouchable’, that black on white murders and/or assaults occur only in exceptional
circumstances. This might make them less cautious or even negligent about their safety. During
the apartheid era the investigation of personal crimes against white South Africans might also have
received priority treatment. In the new democracy, where the police members are more evenly
deployed, whites in rural areas have to cope with a lower level of guardianship than that to which
they have previously been accustomed. While this also makes them more attractive targets to
offenders, it could also lead to greater dissatisfaction and criticism of the SAPS. Perceptions need
to be revised so that the new beliefs that are developed might be translated into effective target
hardening and self-protection strategies that can successfully reduce the incidence of farm attacks.

4.4 SUMMARY

In this Chapter three basic assumptions were discussed, namely the assumption of invulnerability,
the belief in the world as a meaningful place and the assumption of self-worth. Thereafter coping
strategies that are often applied by victims of crime were highlighted. This was followed by a
discussion of, and an evaluation of the relevance of Janoff-Bulman and Frieze’s theoretical
perspective of personal victimisation to victims of farm attacks. As the rebuilding of victims’
assumptive worlds is often a slow, and sometimes uneven process, it was stated that victims need
to be aware of various coping strategies. Only when the victimisation event has been fully
integrated in the victims’ experiences and their views of themselves and the world around them
altered sufficiently, may equilibrium once again be attained.

151
5. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

A variety of research designs are available to researchers, however, the purpose of the study, the
nature of the research question as well as the skills and resources at the disposal of the
researcher, usually determine the research strategy most suited to a particular study (Babbie &
Mouton, 1998:11; Creswell, 1998:17-18; Durrheim, 2004:52; Schurinck, 1998a:240). Other factors
that often play a role in the selection of the research methodology, is the time available to the
researcher as some of the data collection techniques such as one-on-one personal interviews are
time consuming (Maxfield & Babbie, 2005:108). They sometimes also involve costly long-distance
trips. In this chapter, the research methodology will first be justified, then the procedure that was
followed will be discussed. Thereupon the sampling and data collection techniques will receive
attention followed by a discussion of the ways in which the data was processed and the information
was analysed. Finally the ethical considerations and the limitations of the study will be discussed.

5.1 METHODOLOGICAL JUSTIFICATION

As it is the aim of the study to understand and interpret the meanings that direct victims of farm
attacks give to their experiences, and not to show that the sample is representative of the
population or to generalise the findings of the research project, the qualitative rather than the
quantitative approach was found to be more appropriate.

5.1.1 Qualitative research methodology

The qualitative research design is also referred to as field research and/or interpretative research.
It is an antipositivistic approach that is concerned with the qualities of human behaviour. As it
focuses more on understanding than on explaining behaviour (Schurink, 1998a:240-241), the
phenomenological strategy of inquiry and the inductive form of reasoning were the most suited for
the project on hand. According to Fouché (2005:276), phenomenology is directed at
“understanding and interpreting the essence of the meaning that subjects give to their daily lives”.
It was therefore necessary to trace farmers who had already been victimised in order to gain first-
hand information, firstly about the opinions they have about farmers’ susceptibility to farm attacks
and secondly about the ways in which they personally experienced the physical, psychological,
social and financial consequences of this form of criminal victimisation. Babbie and Mouton
(2001:78) are of the opinion that it is only from the subjects of a study that invaluable accurate first-
hand information can be gained. In this regard, Block (1981:743) believes that the perspective of
the victim is probably more important for understanding acts of criminal victimisation than either
152
that of the police or the courts. Since the lifestyle farmers lead (see section 2.1), and the routine
nature of some farming activities, are believed to contribute to the susceptibility of some farmers to
criminal victimisation (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1998:16; Moolman, 1999a:110), only
empirical information gained from direct victims of attacks can support or refute these general
perceptions. It is also common knowledge that victims of farm attacks often suffer physical injuries,
emotional and social harm as well as financial losses as a direct result of the criminal attacks on
them, yet there is little empirical evidence of the victims’ first-hand experience of this harm and/or
losses. The impact of the harm and/or losses also differs from victim to victim. Some victims might,
for example, be in a position to write off financial losses suffered as a result of an attack, while
others might find that these force them to make major changes, such as selling the property and/or
seeking employment. For this reason, also, it was found necessary to undertake qualitative
research, rather than quantitative research, so that empirical data may be accessed on the impact
that attacks have on each individual victim that has ‘lived’ the experience. Furthermore, the choice
of the qualitative approach also permits the researcher to restrict the investigation to a limited
number of victims of attacks, thereby making it possible to gain rich in-depth data rather than to
amass information of a more general nature.

By interacting with the respondents and becoming directly involved in the setting, qualitative
researchers are better able to identify the significance and richness of information that might be
mentioned coincidentally. They become the ‘instruments’ through which the research data are
reported (Fouché & Delport, 2005:359).

While De Vos (1998:45) also emphasises the importance of ‘the voices and interpretations’ of the
subjects, Hagan (2000:183-184) goes so far as to warn against attempts at summarising or
paraphrasing subjects’ responses. According to this author, it is better to try to use their own
words, as paraphrasing requires interpretation that might change the meaning of the original
remarks. This stressed the importance of recording the actual words used by the respondents and
the use of verbatim quotations to avoid erroneous interpretations when reporting the victims’
responses.

According to Durrheim (2006:47), another characteristic of the qualitative approach is its holistic
nature. This view is supported by a number of authors. Creswell (1998:15) refers to the importance
of the ‘complex, holistic picture’ of the many facets of a research problem. Durrheim (2004:43)
describes the phenomenon that is being studied as a “complex system that is more than the sum
of its parts”. The qualitative approach also takes into account the interaction of persons within a
particular context (Mouton, 2001:14). Block (1981:744), in this regard, refers to a crime as “one
153
instance surrounded by a micro-environment of social relationships, physical structures, and
weapons of potential use, a macro-environment of neighbourhood and community, a history of
social relationships, and ideas of violence and danger, self-defence, social class, and segregation”.
Moolman (1999a:1), referring directly to the study of farm attacks, states that this phenomenon
cannot be studied without reference to both the socio-political history of SA and the prevailing
crime situation in the country. The way in which the elements referred to by Block (1981:744)
singly and/or collectively affect the interaction between the victims of farm attacks and the
offenders, can only be identified by gaining and understanding the beliefs and values that the
victims, personally, attach to the criminal event in the context in which they themselves place the
event.

According to Sutton and Sutton (2004:39), persons’ outlook on life determines why “they do the
things they do”. With reference to the study on hand, victims’ perspectives of their susceptibility to
farm attacks might impel them to enhance their personal security or ignore implementing means of
reducing the risks of criminal victimisation. Once again, it also accentuates the necessity of
entering the victims’ ‘life world’ or ‘life setting’ (sitz im Leben) to determine their views or beliefs
(Fouché, 2005:273). Hagan (2000:19) uses the German term verstehen, which means not only
understanding, but also empathy. Collecting the data at the location of the attack wherever this
could be arranged, was the first step towards sensitising the researcher to each individual victim’s
circumstances (e.g. familial and/or financial) that increase or decrease some farmers’ perceptions
of susceptibility to victimisation. This was necessary as these could further enhance the
researcher’s understanding of the perceptions they have regarding their susceptibility to attacks.

Besides the above-mentioned reasons for adopting the qualitative approach, there are a number of
advantages to using this approach. While the most important might be the greater depth of
understanding that might be gained, another is that the research design evolves through the
research process (Hagan, 2000:19; Schurink, 1998a:243). It is flexible and unique, with no
predetermined steps that have to be followed (Fouché, 2005:272). This gives a researcher with few
preconceived ideas of what to expect, a certain amount of leeway, should it be necessary to alter
the procedure or techniques in order to complete the study. A further advantage of the qualitative
approach is that it is not restricted to one technique, but gives the researcher freedom to choose
from a variety of effective techniques (Berg, 1998:3). Besides the interviewing of subjects,
examples include the analysis of newspaper reports and case studies.

154
5.2 PROCEDURE

Procedure implies a process during which the researcher takes steps to familiarise himself with the
research material and to collect facts (Pretorius & Theron, 1999:6). Qualitative research is
characterised by the use of a multi-perspective approach to social interaction that implements
different qualitative techniques and data collection methods (Lincoln & Denzin, 2000:3).

5.2.1 Orientation

The first step in the research procedure was orientation. While articles in popular magazines and
newspaper reports are not always regarded as reliable sources (Pretorius & Theron, 1999:16), a
large number were studied which proved to be of value in deciding whether the problem to be
investigated was socially relevant or not. Documentary programs on television such as Special
Assignment and Bitter Harvest also confirmed the necessity for in-depth, qualitative research into
the victimisation of members of the farming community. Police reports published after farm attacks
were given priority status in 1997 and literature by persons who have insight into the topic such as
officials of agricultural unions (Visser, 1998:1-12), were also consulted. Personal interviews were
arranged as early as February 1998, first with Assistant-Commissioner Suiker Brits who was
appointed by the former president, Nelson Mandela, to investigate farm attacks between 1 January
1998 to 31 May 1998 and with Kobus Visser, Director of Corporate Affairs of Agri SA. Both
provided valuable background information on attacks, were supportive and encouraged research
on the topic.

Articles in criminology journals (Moolman, 1999b:48-54; Van Rooyen, 2002:1-5) and later the
findings of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, provided further background for the study.
Three completed studies, firstly on the political and socio-economic factors which play a role in
farm attacks (Moolman, 1999a:1-118), secondly on the profile of offenders in farm attacks (Mistry &
Dhlamini, 2001:1-45) and thirdly one that focuses on the prevention of attacks, as well as on the
significance of ‘battle indicators’ (Swart, 2003:1-202) proved that the topic has many facets, some
of which have not been researched fully. International journals such as Journal of Social Issues,
39(2)(1-17) and Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3(4) (283-300) were also consulted on related
criminology and theoretical issues to serve as a theoretical background for the study.

The second step in the research procedure was deciding on the most appropriate strategy to
follow, the methods that would most effectively lead to insight and comprehension of the
155
phenomenon, as well as ways that would enable the researcher to collect the data in an
unprejudiced and objective way. In the human sciences, data may be collected by means of
measuring instruments such as questionnaires, interviewing schedules and psychological tests
(Mouton, 2001:100). The subjectivity of the topic on hand dictated that personal interviews that are
conducted on a one-on-one basis and using a schedule of five open-ended questions, would be a
suitable means of collecting the rich and detailed data required to fulfil the purpose of the study. In
order to gain further background information about farm attacks and for the researcher to
familiarise herself with personal interviewing as a data collection technique, the need to conduct a
pilot study was identified.

5.2.2 Pilot study

There are two types of pilot studies, one that Kanjee (2004:298) refers to as ‘free-range’ and the
other that is more structured. Both ensure that researchers have the necessary background
information about the research topic and provide opportunities to pinpoint difficulties they might
encounter in the main studies, for example, with the instrument design and evaluation or the
methods of data collection (Kanjee, 2004:298-299). Pilot studies also save costs and time in the
main studies and they allow for revision of the proposed procedures.

5.2.2.1 Tracing farm attack victims for the pilot study

Tracing victims of farm attacks proved to be a time consuming procedure. The high prevalence of
farm attacks had led the researcher to believe that by placing advertisements in farming
magazines, there would be no difficulty in obtaining a sufficient number of respondents. Only when
no response was forthcoming, was a second and later a third and fourth method implemented to
acquire volunteers for the project.

• Advertisements were placed in the personal columns of Farmers’ Weekly (30 May 2003) and
Landbouweekblad (23 May 2003 and 23 January 2004), allowing an interval of eight months, in
which victims of farm attacks were requested to make contact with the researcher. From the
response to the advertisements it appeared that victims are reluctant to become involved in
research on the topic and that difficulties might be encountered in obtaining victims for the pilot
study and ultimately victims to participate in the study. Only one Afrikaans-speaking victim
whose attack took place in 1996, and therefore fell outside the time frame of the study,
responded to the advertisements in 2003. One Afrikaans-speaking non-victim also telephoned to
give her views on the topic and to offer to trace respondents.
156
• A letter was also drafted and sent to Huisgenoot, stating the aims of the research and
requesting victims to contact the researcher. This was not published. While the reason for this
was not established, it might have been that the topic had already received much publicity in
newspapers or because farm attacks might not have been considered relevant to regular
readers of or subscribers to the magazine in question.

• As the study was initially restricted to the Mpumalanga Province, and only later extended to
include the Nokeng Tsa Taemane area of Gauteng as a result of the poor response, reporters of
local newspapers in the Mpumalanga Province such as The Lowvelder and the Middleburg
Observer were contacted on a regular basis in order to trace respondents. It was learned that
contact details are not filed once a report in these publications has been published. However,
Zambi, a monthly newspaper circulated mainly in the north-east of Pretoria published a letter in
August 2004 (Wat gebeur met slagoffers na plaasaanvalle?, 2004:16) requesting victims who
might have relocated to Pretoria to make contact. A member of the SAP Reservist Service who
previously resided in the distribution area of the Zambi and who had just relocated to the
Mpumalanga Province responded to the letter, offering her assistance to trace victims of farm
attacks in the area in which she was residing. However, as she was new to the area, she had
not yet built up any contacts. Contact was made with her again on 13 August 2005 to enquire
whether there had been any attacks in her area, but she stated that there had been none to
report.

• Adriana Stuit’s ‘Journalism During Apartheid’ web page (adrianastuitsjournalismduring

apartheidsite@groups.msm.com) was also scanned periodically for victims of farm attacks.
However, many of the victims listed there were killed during the attacks on them. Others were
listed as ‘unknown’. Some were farm workers who would fall outside the scope of the study. A
small number were listed as visitors to the farms and would therefore also not have been eligible
for inclusion in the study. None were traced for the study by this means.

• The researcher paid a visit to the offices of Radio Pretoria in Magalieskruin, Pretoria in May
2003 with a request that they ask listeners who had been victimised on farms to contact her.
While the administrative staff attempted to think of victims’ they had heard of, it appeared that
they had only recently covered farm attacks in their broadcasts and that a request of this nature
could not be broadcast so soon after this coverage.

157
• An interview was also arranged with Colonel Barry Schoeman, Head of Joint Operations,
SANDF in May 2003, who gave the researcher permission to approach Major Lucille Möll who is
responsible for updating the NOCOC database on farm attacks to assist in tracing victims of
attacks. Schoeman also introduced the researcher to the concept of ‘battle indicators’ that are
discussed fully by Lukas Swart (2003:1-202) already referred to in this section. An appointment
was arranged with Major Möll who provided the researcher with the data on the NOCOC
database. The information obtained from her was useful in that the districts and the names of
farms on which 127 attacks occurred in the Mpumalanga Province in 2002 were provided.
Despite this, 62 of the victims of these attacks proved to be workers, visitors or were listed as
‘unknown’ and therefore fell outside the scope of the study. While attempts were made to trace
the telephone numbers of most of the farm owners who had been attacked by using the names
of the farms as a reference, this was seldom successful. In almost all instances the telephones
were not answered, even when the times at which the researcher attempted to make contact
were varied. One victim had a non-listed number that could not be disclosed to the researcher.
Only three victims could be traced for the pilot study by means of the NOCOC list. Interviews
were arranged with all three victims. In one of the cases, the researcher found that the victim’s
brother who came to his aid after being summoned from his farm approximately five kilometres
from the scene of the attack, was indicated as the victim. Errors made by police officers and/or
commando members thus also occur which could make the tracing of victims more difficult. It
must be borne in mind, however, that much of the information about farm attacks is recorded
during the confusion immediately after an attack, often while serious injuries are being treated on
the crime scene, and when the arrest of the perpetrators is the main priority of the security force
members who are also tasked with recording the details of the incident.

• Captain Manie Van Zyl of the Nelspruit SAPS was contacted telephonically on 10 June 2004
and informed of the study. On 11 June 2004, a copy of the Informed Consent form (see
Appendix I), together with the researcher’s contact details, was faxed to him so that he could get
a better understanding of the purpose of the research project and possibly inform victims of the
researcher’s interest in the topic. While members of the SAPS are not permitted to disclose
details of victims, it was hoped that some farmers or smallholders who learned of the study
might contact the researcher of their own accord. However, no victims’ response was
forthcoming.

• An interview was also arranged with Superintendent J.C. Strauss of the CIAC who was
responsible for compiling the reports on farm attacks. Superintendent Strauss referred the
researcher to Litha Fourie. After the brutal murder of her parents in a farm attack in the Limpopo
158
 Province, she set about building up her own data base of victims and lending them support. Two
meetings were held with Fourie in 2003 and 2004. As she resides in the Limpopo Province, her
database at the time of the last meeting did not include addresses or contact numbers of
individuals attacked in the Mpumalanga Province. She was, however, helpful in sensitising the
researcher to the problems and to the needs of many victims of farm attacks.

• The Belfast Commando Unit was able to provide limited information in May 2003 on attacks
in their area, which made it possible to contact two victims of farm attacks, but as these attacks
fell outside the time frame of the study, only telephonic information was obtained from them
which was used only as background information for the research.

• On three occasions, the researcher approached farmers living in close proximity to the road
or patronising farm shops to enquire from them about farm attacks in their area. On each of
these occasions, the researcher was given names of victims that might be traced by means of
the Telkom enquiry service or by further enquiry in the towns where they had relocated. Victims
of three attacks were traced in this manner.

The researcher gained information about 14 farm attacks in the Mpumalanga Province. Victims of
two attacks were traced with the help of a mutual acquaintance, of a further two attacks with the
aid of employees of businesses that were contacted telephonically, of one attack by means of a
newspaper report and of three attacks by means of the NOCOC database. Information of three
attacks was also provided by farmers on whom the researcher called when driving past
farmhouses near Marblehall and Groblersdal and by customers at farm shops where she stopped
to enquire about farm attacks. Information of a further three attacks was obtained by means of the
snowball sampling method.

The researcher succeeded in tracing a total of 22 individuals who were involved in the 14 farm
attacks in the Mpumalanga Province. While she met with, and obtained valuable background
information from each of these individuals, only seven qualified to be interviewed for the pilot study,
as pilot studies are usually conducted with a sub-sample of the proposed sample or a small sample
representative of the proposed sample (Kanjee, 2004:298). Fifteen were disqualified for various
reasons. In the cases of the farm attacks where more than one victim was traced, it was decided
that only the victim who was likely to provide the most meaningful information, would be included in
the pilot study. Some of the individuals with whom the researcher met, primarily for the purpose of
obtaining background information, had been involved in attacks already falling outside the time
frame of the study at the time of the meeting. On closer investigation, some of the victims whose
159
attacks fell well within the time frame of the study, did not conform to the definition of a direct victim
of a farm attack (e.g. a young woman who was shot at while fleeing from the farmhouse after her
father had been shot). In one case the recently bereaved widow who was the only surviving victim
of an attack, was unable to provide sufficient information during the interview with her to be
included in the pilot study. It also became clear that married couples preferred to meet with the
researcher in each other’s presence and that it would not be possible to interview any one of them
on a one-on-one basis without jeopardising the rapport already established. In order to encourage
spontaneous participation, it was thought advisable not to use tape recordings during the
interviews for the pilot study.

5.2.2.2 Pilot interviews

Between June 2003 and September 2004 one-on-one interviews were held with seven of the 22
individuals who could be classified as direct victims and whose attacks fell within the time frame of
the study (with the exception of Respondent 5 - reasons will be provided later).

In order to gain a holistic picture of the events, the researcher endeavoured to interview the seven
victims on the farms where the attacks occurred. It was, however, only possible to interview
Respondents 4, 5, 6 and 7 where they were attacked. The son of Respondent 1 showed the
researcher the farm where the attack had taken place after the interview had been completed in
the nearest small town where the family was overseeing the building of the respondent’s new
townhouse. Respondent 2, a part-time farmer had for his convenience to be interviewed at his
place of business. Respondent 3 who had relocated, was interviewed at her daughter’s place of
employment.

During the pilot study the researcher became aware of a certain degree of wariness on the part of
victims regarding interest in their specific attacks. Questions such as “Hoekom nou die skielike
belangstelling na so ’n lang tyd?” (Respondent 6) were also asked. This caused the researcher to
anticipate that, while victims might not refuse to be interviewed, some victims might be guarded
with respect to the information that they are prepared to offer.

5.2.2.3 Outcome of the pilot study

Information gained from the seven victims interviewed during the pilot study, once again
highlighted the need for empirical research on the topic of farm attacks. It became clear that
although most of the victims were aware of their susceptibility to farm attacks even before they
160
were victimised, few had given any thought to why they believed themselves to be susceptible to
criminal acts of this nature. None mentioned times when or places where they felt more at risk of
being attacked than at other times. Few therefore knew whom they needed to avoid (e.g.
employees, members of the local population or strangers from cities). Also, none mentioned that
they were aware of any signs (battle indicators) that an attack was being planned against them and
none indicated that they had any preconceived plan of action if they were to be attacked.

From the pilot study it also became clear that those interviewed were so traumatised by the
circumstances in which they, personally, were victimised (e.g. while asleep, working with labourers,
watching television in the relative safety of a locked farmhouse), that little additional information of
a more general nature regarding the susceptibility of farmers was offered. While the researcher
initially hoped that sufficient ‘fresh’ information might be gained from free-flow conversation with
these victims of attacks, it also became evident that only by probing effectively would this goal be
attained. Therefore, while interviewing is a suitable method of acquiring the necessary data, the
researcher realised that many respondents, for example, often omitted mentioning that they often
had nightmares after the incident. This highlighted the fact that both skill and keen sensitivity would
be required on the part of the researcher in order to acquire the relevant information and also to
avoid jeopardising the rapport already established between the researcher and the victims (Kelly,
2004:396). As practice is necessary to focus simultaneously on the respondents and on new
themes that evolve during interviews (Sutton & Sutton, 2004:91), the researcher realised that she
might need to follow up on questions that might be identified only at a later stage when transcripts
of the interviews were studied in detail. While she made contact with a respondent after the
interview on one occasion, this was, however, only done to ascertain the outcome of the court
case, and not to follow up on information that was omitted during the course of interview.

From the information that was provided regarding the consequences of the victimisation event, it is
clear that all victims experienced the attacks as traumatic events. Each victim also experienced his
attack in a way that caused him to believe that nothing would ever be the same again after the
attack.

The seven respondents interviewed in the pilot study were included in the main sample. As a result
of telescoping (i.e. events that occurred in an earlier time frame are reported as though they took
place more recently) and elderly victims also having difficulty in remembering relevant facts such
as the year in which the attack occurred, it was decided to include only farm attacks that took place
from 2000 onwards. One exception was, however, made with the farmer who was attacked in
December 2000. He was the only one whose attacker was positively identified as his own worker.
161
The worker attacked him, not because of harsh treatment as is often reported, but because he had
been led to believe that everything the farmer owned also belonged to him. He was also the victim
that suffered the most severe physical and financial consequences of those interviewed, yet
remained emotionally positive, bearing no grudge against his attacker and/or his family members.
Excluding this victim would have resulted in the loss of relevant information regarding both farmers’
susceptibility to attacks, the seriousness of the consequences of some non-fatal attacks, as well as
the importance of social support immediately after an act of victimisation.

5.3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES

The purposive theoretical sampling method that is also referred to as judgemental or non-
probability sampling (Bailey, 1994:96) that was used in the pilot study, was determined to be the
most suitable also for the main study. The chief advantage of using this sampling method is that it
is more direct than other methods. It also ensures that the necessary elements that are required for
the research design are included and the researcher can choose cases on the basis of his/her
needs (Hagan, 2000:142; Pretorius & Theron, 1999:43). Furthermore it is an expedient and cost-
effective way of gathering information from widely dispersed subjects.

In qualitative research where detailed and in-depth analysis is the focus, the researcher may select
a few information-rich cases rather than large samples (Durrheim, 2004:45). Where the samples
are fairly similar, six to eight samples are sufficient if the interviews are based on several hours of
interviewing and 10-20 samples if the interviews are shorter (Kelley, 2004:381-2). Furthermore,
budgets and deadlines might also place constraints on the number of respondents interviewed.
Criteria for selection in the current study included farmers who had fallen victim to farm attackers in
the Mpumalanga Province between 2002 and 2006 - with the exception already referred to in
section 5.2.2.3 - who had first-hand experience of this type of criminal victimisation.

The snowball sampling method was also used since the researcher could not rely on victims to
respond to advertisements (see section 5.2.2.1). Snowball sampling is an example of the
purposive or non-probability sampling technique that is most commonly used in qualitative field
research (Babbie & Mouton, 2001:166). It is also a sampling procedure often used for exploratory
purposes (Hagan, 2000:145). Hard-to-obtain subjects are traced by finding a first subject, who then
refers the researcher to the next, who in turn might be aware of a third subject and so on (Strydom
& Venter, 2005:208).

162
Contact was made with employees of businesses such as Alzu Feeds, Eldorado Agencies and
Don Juan Traders in towns such as Belfast, Ermelo, Groblersdal and Middelburg in July 2004,
June 2005 and again in October 2005 in order to obtain the names of more victims of attacks. In
this way, three victims were traced, but only two were willing to take part in the research project.
The other who lived in a city and who had been attacked in his farmhouse when calling on his farm
to oversee workers, was, according to his daughter, still too traumatised to talk about the event.
They were unable to provide the researcher with the names of other victims.

The researcher also made telephonic contact with the office of the Dutch Reformed Church at
Amersfort. The name of a farmer involved in the security structures in the district was provided as a
possible source of information. While he could think of no attacks that had taken place in his area
during the past two years, he undertook to contact members of the security forces in the adjacent
districts and also make enquiries after the church service on the following Sunday. He could
provide no names of victims who were prepared to take part in the study.

In July 2005, a member of the Bronkhorstspruit Commando offered to enquire about attacks in
surrounding districts that fall within the Mpumalanga Province. She also, could provide no further
information.

By October when it became clear that there was little likelihood of obtaining a sufficient number of
respondents in the Mpumalanga Province, the researcher decided to extend the geographic
boundaries of the research area beyond this province. The Kameeldrift East and Cullinan areas
that fall under Nokeng Tsa Taemane, which adjoins the Mpumalanga Province, were selected for a
number of reasons. Besides the fact that the researcher resides in Kameeldrift East and is aware
of ten farm attacks, of which three were fatal, that occurred in the Kameeldrift East area between
27 July 2004 and 13 January 2005, Captain Mabashwa of the SAPS indicated at a Kameeldrift
East Community Police Forum (CPF) meeting held in April 2005, that the Kameeldrift East and
Cullinan areas were the two areas in the country that showed the largest increase in attacks during
March and April 2005. In order to ascertain if there was any other area adjoining the Mpumalanga
Province that also warranted inclusion in the study, the researcher contacted Superintendent
Strauss of the CIAC again on 16 September 2005. While he indicated that a high frequency of
attacks was being experienced in Muldersdrift, this area is closer to the North West Province.
Strauss however also confirmed that Kameeldrift East and Cullinan were the two areas adjoining
Mpumalanga Province that suffered an upsurge of attacks in March, April and May of 2005.
Another reason for including these two areas in the research project is that the researcher believes
that more farmers/smallholders in this area might fall victim to farm attackers in the near future.
163
The researcher accompanied Swart, the author of Oorwin plaasaanvalle, and a group of farmers
and smallholders on three occasions early in September 2005 during courses offered on the
‘reading’ and interpretation of the African communication system in Nokeng Tsa Taemane. On all
three occasions, secret signs used by black people to communicate with one another were found
along two public roads chosen at random in the vicinity of the venue where the courses were held.
While some of these related merely to social activities, some indicated that criminal activities had
been planned on farms in the area. By ‘reading’ one series of signs it was established that the theft
of a motor vehicle was planned to take place on one farm. On another in the same area, signs
indicated that a personal crime was to be committed against a farmer whose house was situated
near the road on a date later in September. This evidence of planned future criminal activity in the
form of a physical attack on the farmer served to further motivate the researcher to extend the
study to the Nokeng Tsa Taemane area of Gauteng.

Fourteen direct victims of farm attacks were traced and contacted. Nine agreed to participate, but
on considering the information provided during one interview, the researcher came to the
conclusion that the incident could be classified as an interrupted burglary rather than a farm attack.
One of the five who were unwilling to participate alleged that she was not directly involved,
another, in spite of assurances of anonymity, stated that she feared participation would negatively
affect her chances of selling her property which she was about to put on the market. Three stated
that it was too traumatic to talk about the experience. Two of the three were victims of attacks in
which family members were killed. The need to forget the victimisation episode, especially in
exceptionally traumatic cases is one of the reasons expressed by Fattah (1991:87) for lack of
cooperation by victims. According to this author, unwillingness to be involved in a study is likely to
increase if the request to participate is made long after the victimisation event and also if the victim
has already succeeded in putting the unpleasant incident behind him. Other cases noted by Fattah
in which victims might be reluctant to participate are where they fear that they might reveal their
naivety and/or credulity. He also includes instances where victims have contributed to their own
victimisation by provocation, precipitation and facilitation. As the research topic focussed on the
susceptibility of farmers, this might also have contributed to the low response rate.

In total fifteen victims of farm attacks were interviewed for the study. The genders were fairly
equally represented, seven of the victims being male and eight female.

164
5.4 DATA COLLECTION TECHNIQUE

Conducting personal one-on-one interviews is one of the most frequently used methods of data
gathering within the qualitative approach (Babbie & Mouton, 2001:289). While Terre Blanche and
Kelly (2004:128) state that interviewing is a natural way of interacting with people, they also refer to
interviews as ‘highly skilled performances’. In spite of the expertise required of an interviewer-
researcher, this method of data collection was selected for its many advantages (Hagan,
2000:175-176).

One of the main advantages of personal interviews is that the researcher can ensure that the
interview takes place in a non-threatening, amicable environment in which no extraneous factors
affect the validity of the subject’s responses. Personal contact between the researcher and the
respondent also allows the researcher-interviewer who picks up from the subject’s reactions that
something is not understood, to immediately clarify the misunderstanding or confusion (Hagan,
2000:175). Additionally, researcher-interviewers can act as observers and not only record verbal
responses, but also take note of the body language (e.g. discomfort) and/or facial expressions of
the subjects (e.g. sobbing) that might be evidence of more deep-felt emotions elicited by the
recollection of the victimisation event. In some cases, less deliberate responses might also more
accurately reflect the respondents’ inner feelings or attitudes (Hagan, 2000:175). These responses
could readily be missed by a researcher who is not present or in some cases even be overlooked
by a researcher who is conducting the interview, but who is insensitive to the respondent. Personal
interviews also allow respondents to demonstrate certain actions, such as the aiming of a firearm,
or to mimic certain sounds, such as the high-pitched voice of an offender. Unlike researchers who
mail questionnaires, interviewers can also gauge the individual who is responding and can use
their discretion as to the appropriate time at which to ask more sensitive questions. Personal
interviews also allow the researcher to gain a better understanding of a phenomenon through
observing the instances in which it occurs in specific contexts (Durrheim, 2004:47).

Based on the above-mentioned advantages of personal interviews, it was decided that semi-
structured interviews would be best suited for the purpose of the study on hand. Babbie and
Mouton (2001:290) regard this type of interview as a conversation in which the interviewer
establishes a general direction for the conversation and pursues specific topics raised by the
respondents. Ideally, the respondents do most of the talking. Schurink (1998b:301) confirms this
when she states that the role of the researcher-interviewer is “to introduce the general theme on
which information is required, motivate the interviewees to participate spontaneously, stimulate
165
them through probing and steer them tactfully back to the research topic when there is digression”.
From this, it is clear that it remains the task of the researcher to direct the interview by means of a
definite research agenda and to keep the interview on track with the aid of an interview schedule.
Five open-ended questions were used, two relating to the circumstances of the attacks which
covered the victims’ perceptions of their susceptibility to attacks and three relating to the
consequences of the attacks that included the physical, emotional, social and financial aspects.
The interview schedule ensured that all the topics were covered during the interview and also that
the data were collected fairly systematically.

Semi-structured interviews have both advantages and disadvantages. The main advantage is that
they provide more opportunities for respondents to raise issues about the research topic that are
important from their individual perspectives (De Beere, 2004:59). One such issue that came to light
in the study on hand, is the relevance of a seemingly petty crime such as trespassing on farms.
Two respondents referred to acts of trespassing before the attacks on them. Swart (2003:40, 54) in
this regard states that trespassing has been proven to be a forerunner of many farm attacks.
Another reason for using semi-structured interviews rather than structured interviews with long
questionnaires is that the pre-formulated questions often reflect the theory or viewpoint that the
researcher holds on the topic. By using semi-structured interviews, the researcher is not led by
information relating to lifestyle, routine activities and the consequences of victimisation. Plying the
subjects with a large number of the researchers’ own predetermined hypothesis-based questions,
in some instances, might result in responses that would not ordinarily have been given and/or, as
already stated, in the loss of valuable new information.

However, one of the disadvantages of using only a few open-ended questions, is that probing
might be necessary. Hagan (2000:181) describes probing as asking follow-up questions “to focus,
expand, clarify, or further explain the response given”. While this is a useful way of obtaining in-
depth information (Hagan, 2000:181-182), probing requires a certain degree of foresight, skill and
also practice on the part of the researcher-interviewer. Probes might also be necessary to confirm
latent facts that the researcher might suspect still lie hidden either intentionally or even
unintentionally, often behind a façade of bravado.

Firstly, the interviewer should be familiar with what response is needed to each question in order to
know when a probe is necessary (Hagan, 2000:181). Secondly, the interviewer should possess the
ability to probe tactfully without detracting from the free-flow of the interview. Hagan (2000:182)
believes that the interviewer’s informal mood and responsiveness to the answers provided by the
respondent might be of possible assistance. He maintains that the probe should not appear to be a
166
cross-examination, but be perceived as a natural extension of the interview. The pilot study proved
to be of great assistance in this respect. The researcher could also note relevant comments that
some of the respondents made after the interviews had been completed. One such comment, after
the interview with Respondent 5, revealed the ignorance of the mother of an offender regarding the
workings of the criminal justice system. After coming out of a coma in which Respondent 5 had
been for two months as a result of being set alight by his attacker, the attacker’s mother demanded
that he approach the Department of Correctional Services to release her son as he, Respondent 5,
had survived the attack and was learning to walk and write again.

Another disadvantage of using open-ended questions is that, while it might provide the means to
access ‘fresh’ information, it also provides respondents with opportunities to digress from the main
focus of the study. Other topics that might also be pertinent to farm attacks, but not directly
relevant to the study on hand might be foremost in the minds of some respondents. As the
researcher foresaw that most of the victims of farm attacks would also be white, she anticipated
that one such topic would be the role that politics play in the motivation of attacks on farmers. As
the researcher foresaw no problem in maintaining a value-free, politically indifferent approach to
the subject matter that is essential in non-biased research (Hagan, 2000:55), it was decided to
allow respondents who digress to continue unhindered in order that the interview might not be
aborted prematurely. However, since the motives for attacks on farmers are not the focus of the
research on hand, respondents were steered back to the relevant points as early as possible
without negatively affecting the rapport already established between the respondents and the
researcher.

5.4.1 Measures of control

As qualitative research includes fewer formal measures of control than quantitative research
(Babbie & Mouton, 2001:77), the rapport and trust built up between the researcher and the
respondent during the interview are used as measures to avoid error and establish validity. Validity
is defined by Sutton and Sutton (2004:28) as “the closeness of fit between data and reality”. These
authors further distinguish between external validity and internal validity. External validity might, for
example, be data that can be compared with available data on victims of crime in general, whereas
internal validity refers to the information provided by the victims of farm attacks that formed part of
the study.

While rapport and trust between the researcher and the respondents are a useful means of
establishing validity, the personal perspectives of the researchers influence their interpretations of
167
the data accessed from the respondents. Therefore, it might be necessary for a researcher to state
his or her position in relation to the phenomena being researched and to provide sufficient
evidence that the interpretations he or she makes are reasonable (see next section). Besides
personal perspectives, Sutton (2004:89) states that interviewer bias refers not only to the way in
which questions are asked, but also to the character of the interviewer. The sex, class, status,
ethnicity and appearance of the interviewer might also affect the extent of willingness of
respondents to participate in the study. For these reasons, the researcher believes it is necessary
to disclose that she comes from a farming background, has herself been engaged in part time
farming activities for more than two decades and is currently also in daily contact with many
farmers and smallholders in the Gauteng Province. While she personally has not been victimised
by offenders in a farm attack, two members of her immediate family were attacked and narrowly
escaped being executed in a criminal attack on a smallholding in Nokeng Tsa Taemane on 6
September 1996. Some might perceive this as a stumbling block in maintaining complete
objectivity which Babbie and Mouton (1998:35) define as “the ability to achieve a certain degree of
distance from the research materials and to represent them fairly; the ability to listen to the words
of the respondents and to give them a voice independent of that of the researcher”. However, the
event only emphasised the need for objectivity and the necessity to study each farm attack in its
own context. The experiences with two seriously traumatised family members also sensitised the
researcher to the care that needs to be taken when interviewing persons who have been victimised
in the same manner. In addition, it created an awareness of the danger of over-identification with
the victims that might result in biased reporting in some cases.

5.4.2 Conducting the interviews

As mentioned in section 5.3, semi-structured one-on-one interviews were held with 15 respondents
using a schedule of five open-ended questions. As the semi-structured interview is adaptable and
continuous, rather than prepared in detail and inflexible (Babbie & Mouton, 2001:289; Berg,
1998:61), it allowed the researcher to gauge the situation during the course of the interview and
develop, adapt and generate further questions to acquire the necessary information by means of
probing. While no cassette recordings were made during interviews conducted in the course of the
pilot study, the researcher realised that recording the interviews would enable her to focus her
attention better, as it would not be necessary to take down notes the whole time.

Most respondents who took part in the main study gave their permission to the use of a cassette
recorder. Besides the seven respondents who took part in the pilot study in which a cassette
recorder was not used, a further two respondents’ interviews could not be recorded because of

168
circumstances related to the availability of their time. One of the two whose interviews were taken
down verbatim in writing, missed his scheduled interview at his home on a Saturday afternoon and
arrived unexpectedly at the researcher’s place of business on a weekday and requested to have
the interview immediately as he might not find time later. As the researcher did not wish to lose his
input, she did not insist that he wait for a recorder to be sent to her. The second respondent also
arrived out of the scheduled time and therefore also did not have the interview recorded. Six of the
15 respondents therefore had their interviews recorded on tape. Recording the interviews in his
manner insured that no information would be lost. It also gave the researcher the opportunity to go
back after subsequent interviews to determine whether she had identified all the relevant
information. This was particularly helpful where certain themes emerged and were identified only
after a number of interviews.

The five open-ended questions (two regarding the susceptibility of farmers to attacks and three
relating to the consequences of this type of criminal victimisation) were extended by way of
probing. Probing was almost always necessary to ascertain what the respondents’ perceptions
were regarding their susceptibility to farm attacks. The researcher gained the impression that while
respondents realised that they might have made a mistake that increased their susceptibility (e.g.
failing to lock a door) after they had been victimised, few had stopped to assess their susceptibility
to attacks before the incident took place. While the respondents freely provided information about
the violence used during the attacks and sometimes about the unnecessary destruction and/or
theft of possessions of sentimental value (e.g. music scores and a Kilim rug), respondents
sometimes also needed probing regarding some of the consequences of the attacks on them. This
was often the case with regard to the emotional consequences of which there was no visible
evidence like scars left by bullet wounds that remained after the victims had sustained physical
injuries.

The length of the interviews varied from respondent to respondent. Although no record was kept of
the exact length of each individual interview, the researcher believes that on average, the
interviews lasted between an hour and an hour and a half. Two of the pilot interviews were short,
lasting approximately 20 minutes. In the case of the one interview, the researcher learned
afterwards, the respondent had asked her son, who indicated at the researcher’s arrival that he
was negative about research [‘Hoekom navorsing doen? Niemand lees dit nie’] to show her [the
researcher] the farmhouse where the attack occurred. As he approached the respondent and the
researcher once during the course of the interview to ascertain if the interview had been
completed, the researcher believes it caused the respondent to feel hurried to terminate the
interview as soon as possible. The second brief interview was with a respondent who suffered from
169
a speech defect as a result of a bullet damaging his vocal cords during the attack on him. The
researcher felt it would be insensitive to ply him with questions that would extend the length of the
interview but which would not necessarily bring more relevant detail to light. According to Terre
Blanche and Kelly (2004:130), interviews lasting 20 minutes to an hour and a half are usually
adequate to acquire the necessary information as many people find it difficult to concentrate fully if
an interview lasts longer than this period of time.

5.5 DATA PROCESSING AND ANALYSIS

Data processing entails preparing all information accessed from respondents for analysis (De Vos,
1998:48). Transcribing the recorded interviews was the first step. This is a lengthy process as an
interview lasting one hour may sometimes take six or more hours to transcribe (Terre Blanche &
Kelly, 2004:131). Thereafter the transcripts had to be read through a number of times in order to
identify recurrent themes and categories. Relationships between themes and categories also had
to be identified where possible (Babbie & Mouton, 1998:34; Hagan, 2000:19).

As Babbie and Mouton (1998:10-11) define qualitative research as “any type of research that
produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification”,
collected data was analysed during as well as after the completion of each interview. According to
De Vos, Fouché and Venter (2002:223), researchers almost ‘automatically’ interpret the data as
they analyse it. Preliminary analysis during the course of the interview sometimes also facilitates
keeping the interview on track by enabling the interviewer to probe for information which might be
lost if the interviewee were to be allowed to continue uninterrupted.

As the victims were encouraged to speak freely with as few interruptions as possible, information
that was of direct relevance to the study on hand (e.g. factors that increased the victims’
susceptibility at the time of the attacks), was often interwoven in their recollections of the sequence
of events before and during the attacks. Remarks that might have been made casually, but that the
researcher identified as being relevant, had to be studied in the context in which the respondents
made them. This often necessitated the rereading of the transcripts to determine exactly what the
respondent might have wished to convey by placing the remark in that particular context. In cases
where the researcher believed that she might interpret a respondent’s remark incorrectly, verbatim
quotations were used. This is in line with Schurink (1998a:242, 245) who believes that, as
researchers cannot create ‘lived experiences’, the respondents should speak for themselves. In
this regard, Davis and Klopper (2003:72) state that the meanings and interpretations that victims

170
attach to certain situations are essential to gaining an understanding of how they personally, have
experienced the criminal event.

During the final analysis, additional information gleaned from the open-ended questions were
summarised, ordered and arranged into themes or categories that helped in drawing conclusions
regarding the research questions. The validity of the data obtained from the respondents was
established by determining how closely it fits or deviates from known facts. The inferences that the
researcher has drawn were thus compared to the results of the study as well as to existing theory.
Similarities to and/or differences from the findings of other researchers were noted and, where
possible, served the additional purpose of verification of existing theory.

5.6 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

In line with Sutton and Sutton (2004:69), all the respondents were requested to sign an informed
consent form (see Appendix I) informing them of all the aspects of the study that might affect them
should they consent to participate. These included the goal of the investigation, the procedures
that were to be followed during the investigation and the possible disadvantages and dangers to
which they might be exposed.

The researcher explained to the respondents in each case that his/her participation was voluntary
and that he/she may withdraw from the investigation at any stage if the respondent so wished.
Each respondent was also given enough time before and during the interview to ask any
questions. This alleviated any doubts that they might have had about taking part in the study.

While respondents were warned of possible negative implications (e.g. reliving the trauma), they
were also made aware of the importance of the contribution that their participation could make to
the study. During the course of the interviews, the researcher was aware that it might be necessary
to debrief the respondents or arrange for professional counselling for them after the interviews.
Professional counselling was, however, not necessary in any of the cases. The researcher was
honest with the respondents at all times as she was aware that she has an ethical responsibility to
keep any promises or agreements made with the respondents, during and after the course of study
(Hagan, 2000:55). As all participated freely, there was no need to make any promises or come to
any additional agreement besides that of treating their responses with the strictest confidence and
reassuring them that their names would not be mentioned. As the information provided by them
would be used for research purposes only, they were further assured that the data, and also the
tapes, would be destroyed after the completion of the study.
171
5.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

The value of most research projects is limited by the problems encountered by the researchers
during various stages of their research. The study on hand has limitations that are mainly related to
the difficulty experienced by the researcher in obtaining the required number of direct victims of
farm attacks that were willing to participate in the project. Initially the researcher had hoped to
interview at least 20 direct victims who had been victimised within the last two years in the
Mpumalanga Province. The time frame as well as the geographical demarcation of the study had
to be extended in order to obtain a sufficient number of respondents. For the same reason one
respondent who was known personally to the researcher also had to be included. Further
limitations include the fact that farmers are a closed community and that some of the interviews
might have been longer. A further limitation is that the topic might be regarded as outdated by
many individuals. The researcher regards the small sample of respondents and the brevity of some
of the interviews the greatest limitations of the study.

5.7.1 Small sample

In spite of all her efforts extending over a period of three years, the researcher was able to trace
and meet with a total of 31 individuals who had been involved in farm attacks. Of these, only 15
qualified to be included in the research project.

The researcher believes that the small sample can be ascribed to a number of reasons, the main
one possibly being the fact that farm attacks are very traumatic events. Many victims find it difficult
to talk about their experiences, even months after the incident. Others want to put the experience
behind them and start afresh. One of the male victims, for example, who was traced by means of
the snowball sampling method, was initially reluctant to be interviewed, then agreed to an interview
and afterwards cancelled his appointment because he feared reliving the experience. His
neighbour, who had approached him to participate in the study, later stated that he believed that
recounting the incident might have reopened old wounds that would have affected not only him,
but also his family members. Another victim who relocated to live with family members in another
province, agreed to participate as long as she did not have to describe what happened on the
evening when her husband was killed while attempting to protect her from their attackers. She said
that she preferred to send copies of the newspaper clippings of the incident to the researcher by
post. This excluded her as a respondent as it was necessary for each victim who participated in the
study to recount the events in his/her own words and elaborate on the consequences as
172
experienced personally. Another survivor of a fatal attack who sold her farm after her husband had
been killed, was traced to a Pretoria suburb, but was not prepared to participate in the study as the
shooting of her husband was still too traumatic.

The researcher believes a second reason why direct victims are hesitant to get involved, is that
when farm attacks received wide publicity in 1997 and 1998, they were often politicised in the
media. Some direct victims might therefore be wary to participate for fear of being identified,
branded and/or re-victimised, either by the same offenders or their friends.

Another reason is that victims who read the advertisements in which respondents were requested
to contact the researcher, might have become aware of personal shortcomings or weaknesses
related to their susceptibility, and therefore decided not to participate in the study. During one
interview, the researcher noticed acute sensitivity on the part of a respondent when she was
probed about the circumstances in which she opened her back door to be attacked by offenders
waiting outside.

Time is also a factor. In spite of a more relaxed lifestyle, farmers also have urgent tasks to fulfil,
often making it difficult to tie themselves down to fixed appointments. One of the respondents who
missed an interview because of a cattle sale that lasted longer than he anticipated, is evidence of
the work pressure of some farmers.

5.7.2 Inclusion of (mainly) smallholders in Nokeng Tsa Taemane

Initially it was hoped that the sample of volunteers would be sufficiently large to select only full-time
commercial farmers. It however, became clear that smallholders living in Nokeng Tsa Taemane,
would have to be included to enlarge the sample sufficiently (Moord ruk Kameeldrift, 2006:1, 3).
While smallholders are included in the SAPS and SANDF’s definition and also in the current
study’s operational definition of farm attacks, conditions on farms differ from those on
smallholdings. As smallholdings are usually situated nearer to towns and villages, they are usually
also in closer proximity to over-populated black townships, which affects their owners’ susceptibility
to attacks. It is the researcher’s contention that a more accurate picture might have been gained if
all the respondents had been fulltime farmers.

173
5.7.3 The enlargement of the time frame

Initially it was decided that no attacks would be included where the interview was held two or more
years after the date of the attack. It was, however, found appropriate to extend the time frame to
include one victim of an attack that took place in 2000 for reasons already referred to in section
5.2.2.3. While this is not perceived as a shortcoming in this case, it is necessary that the inclusion
of this case be noted.

Although all victims interviewed were adamant that the events are so traumatic that their memories
could not fail them, one elderly victim insisted that the attack on him and his spouse had taken
place in 2003 while the NOCOC database indicated that they had been attacked in 2002. As
mentioned in section 5.2.2.3, the possibility of telescoping also taking place can thus not be
excluded. Victims might suffer memory lapses that cause them to give incorrect information or to
omit important facts.

5.7.4 Respondent known to the researcher

While the inclusion of Nokeng Tsa Taemane had definite advantages, the researcher is aware
victims who live in the same area might have withheld more personal information, for example that
they facilitated or provoked the attack, which they might have been willing to share with a stranger
from another area. However, as the researcher was personally acquainted with only one
respondent, in Nokeng Tsa Taemane, this could have had only a minimal effect on the study.

5.7.5 Closed community

In spite of having a legitimate reason to enquire about attacks, the researcher was aware of a
certain degree of wariness and suspicion of strangers. This led her to conclude that farmers are a
closed community that might not readily reveal all their beliefs about farm attacks.

From her everyday contact with members of the farming community, the researcher had become
aware of caution exhibited by farmers with regard to allowing outsiders to visit them on their farms
and to enquire about farm attacks. This was confirmed to an extent by the responses of farmers
who were contacted for information on attacks in their areas and by the initial response of victims
when contacted telephonically during the pilot phase of the study. Two farmers stated briefly that
there had been no recent attacks and offered no further information. Three referred the researcher
174
to other persons. One direct victim said that the timing of the telephone call was bad and that she
was unable to talk to the researcher. She added that she would have to get the permission of her
spouse first and that if he agreed, she would telephone the researcher. She made no further
contact and as participation is voluntary, the researcher saw no point in pursuing the matter further.
Four hesitated to respond before the researcher divulged the name of the person (e.g. another
farmer in the area) who had referred her to them. On making initial contact with victims, they asked
where the researcher had obtained information about their attacks. One of those who had
relocated after an attack, wanted to know how the researcher had managed to trace the family’s
whereabouts. In spite of providing all the information as stated on the informed consent form (see
Appendix I), one respondent remained suspicious, after which it was explained to him again. From
the above information, the researcher believes that victims of farm attacks experience their
victimisation as personal events that exclude all strangers, whether they be elderly, and therefore
generally harmless, of the same race or fellow-farmers. While some victims might not even open
up to ‘their own’, it became evident that they show reluctance to participate in research by a
stranger in which in-depth information is required of them.

5.7.6 Brevity of the interviews

As discussed in section 5.4.2, another limitation is the brevity of some of the interviews. It must
however be borne in mind that farm attacks seldom last longer than fifteen minutes (Botha,
2000:14, 16). At least two of the attacks - those during which the victims were awoken by their
attackers from a sound sleep - lasted three minutes or less. Besides the traumatic nature of the
events that possibly affected the length of time that victims were prepared to spend discussing the
topic, the researcher suspects that some victims might also have felt humiliated at being attacked
and therefore might have omitted to elaborate sufficiently on their feelings (see Janoff-Bulmann &
Frieze’s theoretical perspective, section 4.1.1). While none of the respondents whose interviews
were slightly shorter, indicated why they did not elaborate more fully on their experiences, the
researcher became aware in one instance of the antagonism of a respondent’s son which, as
already stated, caused her to keep the interview brief.

5.7.7 Outdated theme

The time that was required to trace a sufficient number of direct victims of farm attacks that were
willing to participate in the study extended the period of the research to the point that the topic
might be regarded by many as outdated. While no formal research has been done on victims’
perceptions of their susceptibility to attacks, information provided by completed research on other
175
aspects of farm attacks has taken the edge off significant information that only victims can provide.
However, even though the study is of an exploratory nature, new data from the perspective of the
victims can still be of considerable value to both farmers and the security forces in their efforts to
curb farm attacks.

5.8 SUMMARY

In this Chapter, the choice of the qualitative approach was analysed, as well its advantages and
disadvantages. Thereupon data collection procedures and techniques that were utilised during the
study were explained. These included reviewing completed work on farm attacks, as well as
existing literature on the topic. The choice of the purposive sampling and snowball sampling
methods was also motivated. Interviews as a data collection procedure, the choice of the semi-
structured interview and the interviews themselves were also discussed. Data processing and
analysis were dealt with as well as the importance of ethical considerations in research. Factors
that limited the study were then noted and discussed briefly.

176
6. ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

In this Chapter, the circumstances of the 15 farm attacks are reported first, in the order in which the
respondents agreed to be interviewed, followed by their perceptions of their susceptibility to attacks
and the security measures that they relied on before their victimisation. As even the best security
measures are no guarantee that farmers will not be attacked, the shortcomings that increased the
victims susceptibility, from their perspective, at the time that they were attacked, are then identified
and discussed. Thereafter, a discussion follows of their immediate reactions and the measures that
they took to prevent or avoid re-victimisation after their assumptions of invulnerability, of
meaningfulness and self-worth had been shattered. Finally the physical, emotional, social and
financial consequences of the attacks are also examined, followed by a discussion of the coping
mechanisms used by the respondents during and after the attacks.

As 13 of the 15 respondents who participated in the study were Afrikaans-speaking, their interviews
have been translated into English for the benefit of those who are not fluent in Afrikaans. The English
translations follow in italics immediately after the Afrikaans versions. However, as this procedure
unavoidably adds considerable length to the chapter, a way had to be found to eliminate as much
repetition as possible. For the sake of brevity, therefore, only the circumstances of each of the attacks
are noted in the first section. Information such as the consequences of victimisation and their coping
strategies (e.g. enlisting the aid of family and friends) that is relevant to later sections, is dealt with in
those sections only.

As already stated in section 5.4.2, the researcher refrained from using a tape recorder during the pilot
study in order to promote the free flow of conversation and to elicit information that might be withheld if
the respondents felt threatened by having their recollections and opinions recorded on tape. The
circumstances of the attacks on the first seven respondents (Respondents 1 to 7) and of the attacks
on two respondents (Respondents 11 and 15) who could not commit themselves to a specific time for
an interview, were noted in detail by hand and then transferred to the computer. The recollections of
the respondents that were recorded on tape were transcribed verbatim and are therefore slightly
longer. In order to adhere to the Afrikaans as closely as possible, and also because some of the
victims still become emotional when recounting their experiences, the verbatim transcriptions do not
always read easily.

177
6.1 CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ATTACKS

Only the circumstances of each of the attacks will now be dealt with. Where possible, the Afrikaans is
translated verbatim into English. At times, however, in order to facilitate the reading of the account, the
researcher deviated slightly from this procedure, but always taking care not to change the context in
any way. The respondents’ accounts of the victimisation events will be followed by the analysis of the
findings.

6.1.1 Respondent 1

At the time of the attack, Respondent 1 was a 62-year old married white female living with her
husband on a farm in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of the attack: 2002

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 1 and her friend were taken by surprise and attacked by two black males inside her home
at approximately 11h00 on a Saturday. At the time, she was helping her friend with needlework.
Guardianship was lower than usual on that morning. Her husband, daughter-in-law and grandchildren
had left the farm earlier, providing the offenders with the opportunity of approaching the farmhouse
unnoticed. While she was not aware of it at the time, her neighbours were also absent from their farm
on that particular morning. At the time of the interview, no arrests had been made.

“Ek was besig om my vriendin met naaldwerk te help in ons dubbelverdieping woning een Saterdagoggend
toe ’n groep swartmans ons oorval in die vertrek waar ons gewerk het. My man, dogter en kleinkinders het
vroeër van die plaas af gery.

Ek het ’n skuifelgeluid op die trappe gehoor, maar ek het gedink dis die huishulp wat ons teekoppies kom
haal. Ek het skielik ’n mes teen my keel gevoel en ’n man se stem het my beveel om stil te staan en nie ’n
geluid te maak nie. Die swartmans wat ongesiens met die trappe opgekruip het, het op ons begin skreeu en
vloek. Hulle het my teen die kop geslaan en geskop. Ek onthou dat ek gedink het dis dinge wat net met
ander mense gebeur.

178
Ek het begin bid dat die Here vir my en my vriendin moet help. Ek het onmiddellik so ’n snaakse gevoel
gehad, soos ’n doek wat van jou skouers af gly. Ek het kalm en rustig geword. Toe hulle my vra waar die
kluis is, het ek my aanvaller geantwoord hy sal doen soos wat ek sê: ‘Jy is ’n man, ek is ’n vrou, jy sal hom
self soek’. Ek het ook nie die polisie gesê waar hy [die kluis] is nie.

Een van die aanvallers het my deur die huis geneem na my musiekkamer. Hy het matrasse omgegooi en
kaste oopgepluk. Ek onthou dat ek by myself gedink het: ‘Hy’s geoefend’. Toe hulle van my juweliersware
vind, het hulle vir ons vasgemaak. Terselfdertyd het ek my man se opgewekte stem van onder gehoor:
‘Lunch time!’. Hy het teruggekeer saam met ons twee kleinkinders.

Die jongste enetjie het onbeheersd begin gil. Die aanvaller gooi die kleintjie toe in die hangkas. Ek kon die
oudste een onder hoor skop en skree dat hy weier om in die huis in te kom met sy aanvallers. Hulle het
hom boontoe gedwing. Ek het my bo-op hom gegooi en sy kop onder die naaldwerktafel ingedruk. Op
hierdie stadium het my hart onbeheersd geklop. Dit het gevoel asof alles gelyktydig gebeur.

Ek het gedink ek het ’n skoot gehoor. My man het by die trappe verskyn. Hy het verbouereerd gelyk en was
die ene bloed. Hy is oor die kop geslaan met ’n yster staaf en sy hemp was vol bloed. Ek het een van die
aanvallers hoor skree: ‘Ek gaan jou nou vrek skiet’. Ek onthou dat hulle probeer het om my man se
gewrigte aan mekaar vas te bind, maar dat ek my arm in hul pad gedruk het.

Die vel is van my hand afgeskuur… . Ek bid en ek ruik die kruit. Toe ek my oë oopmaak, het ek gesien my
man se aanvaller ondervind moeilikheid met sy pistool. Dit het gestoor. Ek was so bang en op my
senuwees. Hulle is later weg en ons werker het ons kom losmaak en het gaan hulp soek met ons bakkie.
Daar was twee werkers onder, een in die kombuis en een buite… . Na die tyd het ons uitgevind hulle het
hulle eers oorrompel… . My bure was die oggend ook nie daar nie… .”

“I was busy helping my friend with needlework in our double-storey home one Saturday morning when a
group of black men attacked us in the room where we were working. My husband, daughter and
grandchildren had left the farm earlier.

I heard a shuffling sound on the stairs, but I thought it was the maid coming to fetch our tea cups. I
suddenly felt a knife at my throat and a man’s voice ordered me to stand still and not to make a sound. The
black men who had crept up the stairs unseen, started shouting and swearing at us. They struck me
against the head and kicked me. I remember thinking that it is something that only happens to other people.

I started to pray that the Lord must help my friend and me. I immediately had such a strange feeling, like a
cloth slipping from your shoulders. I became calm and peaceful. When they asked me where the safe was,
179
 I answered my assailant that he would do as I say: ‘You are a man, I am a woman, you will look for it
yourself’. I also did not tell the police where it [the safe] is.

One of the attackers took me through the house to my music room. He tipped mattresses and plucked
drawers open. I remember thinking to myself: ‘He’s practiced’. When they found some of my jewellery, they
tied us up. At the same time I heard my husband’s cheerful voice from downstairs: ‘Lunch time!’. He had
returned with our two grandchildren.

The youngest little one started yelling uncontrollably. The attacker then threw the little one into the
wardrobe. I could hear the older one kicking and shouting that he refused to come into the house with his
attackers. They forced him upstairs. I threw myself on top of him and pushed his head under the
needlework table. At this stage my heart was beating uncontrollably. It felt as if everything was happening
simultaneously.

I thought I heard a shot. My husband appeared at the stairs. He looked flustered and was covered in blood.
He was struck on the head with an iron bar and his shirt was full of blood. I heard one of the attackers
shouting: ‘I am going to shoot you dead now’. I remember that they tried to tie my husband’s wrists
together, but that I pushed my arm in their way.

The skin was grazed from my hand… . I prayed and I smelt the cordite. When I opened my eyes, I saw that
my husband’s attacker was experiencing difficulty with his pistol. It had jammed. I was so afraid and
nervous. They left later and our worker came and untied us and went to seek help with our bakkie. There
were two workers downstairs, one in the kitchen and one outside… . Afterwards we found out that they had
first overpowered them… . My neighbours were also not there that morning… .”

6.1.2 Respondent 2

At the time of the attack, Respondent 2 was a 60-year old married white male who was living with his
wife in a rented farmhouse in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of attack: 2003

180
Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 2 and his spouse were attacked by a group of four black males at approximately 7h00 on
a day on which his landlord was to pay out wages on the farm. Respondent 2 had gone out to feed his
dogs as he routinely did at that time every morning, while his wife was preparing to have a bath. This
gave the offenders the opportunity to take him by surprise. At the time of the interview, no arrests had
been made.

“Daardie oggend was die arbeiders reeds besig om naby ons huurhuis op die plaas besproeiingspype te
verskuif en hulle kon sien daar is vreemdes by die huis, maar hulle het hulle nie daaraan gesteur nie. Hulle
het ook die skote gehoor… . Ons het twee groot honde, Rotweilers [wat die respondent besig was om te
voer], maar dit het ons nie gehelp nie. Hulle het die een met ’n pylgeweer geskiet en verdoof. Daar was vier
van hulle en hulle het Afrikaans gepraat. Hulle gesigte was heeltemal oop. Hulle kon gedink het ek sou
hulle later uitken en my summier geskiet het. Ek het heeltyd aan my vrou gedink. Sy was nog in die kamer
en sou gaan bad het. Ek het nie geweet wat hulle aan haar sou doen nie… . As daar net een was, sou ek
hom seker getakel het. Hulle sê pepersprei is die beste, maar as daar vier is, watter een sprei jy?

Die plaaseienaar se huis was maar 500m van ons huis af. Hulle het sommer met die bakkie ingery. Die
onbetrokkenheid van swartmense is fenomenaal. Die werkers het sekerlik die skoot gehoor en hulle nie
daaraan gesteur nie. Die eienaar van die plaas sou daardie dag lone uitbetaal.

Daar was nog ’n geweer wat hulle nie gekry het nie, in die plafon weggesteek. Ek kon op hulle geskiet het,
maar skiet ek een raak van agter af, is ek die misdadiger en hy die held. Hulle vernoem dan waarskynlik ’n
dam na hom.

Hulle het my gedwing om die kluis oop te sluit. Hulle was nie woedend antagonisties nie. Ek het doodkalm
gebly. Toe die rowers alles uit my motor gelaai het en hom gelos het waar gesteelde motors gereeld gevind
word - langs die besige pad na Pretoria aan die buitewyke van Kwaggafontein - moes iemand hulle gesien
het. Niemand het polisie toe gehardloop en dit rapporteer nie.

Op daardie stadium het ek agtergekom een telefoon werk nog. Ek het die buurman gebel. Die polisie jaag
toe na familie van my met dieselfde van op ’n ander plaas en die rowers kom weg.”

“That morning the labourers were already busy moving irrigation pipes near our rented house on the farm
and they could see that there were strangers at the house, but they took no notice of that. They also heard
the shots… . We have two large dogs, Rotweilers [that the respondent was busy feeding], but that did not

181
 help us. They shot and sedated the one with a dart gun. There were four of them and they spoke Afrikaans.
Their faces were completely exposed. They could have thought that I would identify them later and shot me
there and then. I thought of my wife all the time. She was still in the bedroom and would have gone to take
a bath. I did not know what they would do to her… . If there were only one, I would probably have tackled
him. They say pepper spray is the best, but if there are four, which one do you spray?

The house of the farm owner was only 500m from our house. They simply drove in with the bakkie. The
disconcern of black people is phenomenal. The workers surely heard the shot and took no notice of it. The
owner of the farm would have paid out wages that day.

There was another rifle which they did not find, hidden in the ceiling. I could have shot at them, but if I shot
one from the back, I am the criminal and he the hero. They then would probably name a dam after him.

They forced me to unlock the safe. They were not wildly antagonistic. I stayed dead calm. When the
robbers had loaded everything out of my car and left it where stolen vehicles are often found - alongside the
busy road to Pretoria on the periphery of Kwaggafontein - somebody must have seen them. Nobody ran
and reported it.

At that stage, I noticed that one telephone was still working. I telephoned my neighbour. The police raced to
relatives of mine with the same surname on another farm and the robbers got away.”

6.1.3 Respondent 3

At the time of the attack, Respondent 3 was a 51-year old married white female living with her
husband, daughter and grandchild on a farm in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of attack: 2002

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 3 and her husband were taken by surprise and attacked by two black males at
approximately 20h00 as they were watching television in their home. While the volume of the
television was not turned high, the noise eminating from the appliance provided the offenders with the
opportunity to move in close to the victims before they were noticed. Guardianship was also low that
evening as their son, who routinely let the two large dogs into their home until they retired to bed, had

182
that evening not yet returned home from his place of work in the nearest town. Respondent 3 later
learned that her spouse’s murderer who was arrested, was wanted on 11 counts of attempted murder,
rape and robbery.

“Ons het die aand nog televisie gekyk. My man het skuins op die rusbank gelê, toe sê hy hy kry koud. Ek
het vir hom ’n kombers gaan haal en hom toegegooi. Ek is ook eers kombuis toe waar ek koeksisterdeeg
gemaak het. Dit was ongeveer agtuur toe B, ons dogter, kamer toe is. [Sy het haar babadogter wat op die
rusbank geslaap het in haar ma se sorg gelaat]. Ek het, toe ek weer op die rusbank sit, ’n beweging uit die
hoek van my oog gesien, maar eers gedink dis B. Toe ek hom sien en gil, klap hy my van die bank af. Daar
was twee. [Een het deur ’n venster geklim en die deur vir sy medepligtige oopgemaak]. Een het op my man
geskiet. Hy was so vinnig toe hy op my man skiet. Hy het net so geskiet. [Die respondent demonstreer]. Hy
het nie eers gemik nie. Hulle het hom van die bank af geruk - toe weet ek hy is dood. Hy sou nie daar
stilgelê het en my so laat behandel het nie. Sy hande was onder die kombers en ek dink die een wat
geskiet het, het miskien gedink hy het ’n vuurwapen.

Hulle wou heeltyd weet waar die kluis is. Hoe meer ek vir hulle gesê het ons het nie ’n kluis nie, hoe meer
het hulle aangehou. Ek het hulle gesê daar is net ’n rewolwer in die kamer en dat ons ook n .22-geweertjie
het. Ek het gehoop hulle sou hulle vat en ons uitlos. Ek moes die rewolwer vir hulle gee, maar kon nie die
.22 kry nie. Hy het gewoonlik agter die kombuisdeur gestaan. Ons het party aande skelm gaan poach
[onwettige jag in die donker] met die geweertjie en my man het hom in die BMW gehad. Ek het nie geweet
nie. As ons plaasvolk betrokke was, sou hulle geweet het B is ook in die huis. Miskien het hulle ’n aksie
teen die vorige eienaar gehad. Hulle sê hy het partymaal hardhandig opgetree.

Hulle het my nie geskiet nie. Ek dink hy het net een patroon gehad. Hulle het later op B en haar broer
geskiet met haar pa se rewolwer. [B se broer wat nog nie teruggekom het plaas toe van sy werk op die
dorp nie, het plaas toe gejaag nadat hy ’n oproep van haar gekry het dat daar moeilikheid op die plaas is].
Hulle het my vasgebind. Ek glo nie ek het al ooit so hard gebid nie. Hulle het my ringe en horlosie afgehaal.
Toe die een my bene eenmaal op die vloer ooptrek, het ek gedink hy gaan my verkrag. Hulle het my met ’n
mes aangehou. Toe ek hulle sê ons het nie ’n kluis nie, toe slaan hulle my. Die een het mooi met my
gepraat. Ek glo hy was onder die indruk dat die ander een nie sou skiet nie. Miskien het dit, die skoot op my
man, hom verbouereer. Hulle wou nie hê ek moet die lig in die kamer aansit toe ek die rewolwer vir hulle
moes kry nie. Al die ander ligte was aan. Ek weet nie hoekom nie… . Toe ek hulle die handsak wys, toe
pluk hulle my nog in die gang rond. Ek het toe per ongeluk teen die skakelaar gestamp en die lig het
aangegaan… . Hulle het baie saggies geloop. Die TV was nie eers hard nie, want my man het gelê en
slaap. Hulle was ou skelms, maar jonk.

183
Toe hulle die rewolwer kry, moes ek die .22 soek. Op daardie tydstip lui ’n selfoon in die een se sak. Hy het
hom uitgehaal en doodgedruk. Ek het nie op daardie stadium geweet dis my selfoon nie. Hy moes hom in
sy sak gedruk het toe hulle ingekom het… . Toe het dit geklink asof hulle uitloop. Dis soos ’n film waarin jy
speel. Dit wil net nie verbygaan nie.

Ek het hulle gesê my seun gaan enige oomblik [van sy werk af] terugkom, maar ek het geweet hy sou eers
heelwat later by die huis kom. Dit was net asof Iemand sê ek moet dit sê. Ek het gesien die rowers hol weer
in die huis in. Hulle het die BMW se sleutels gaan haal. Toe my seun met die bakkie stop, het B by haar
broer ingespring. Haar babatjie het nog op die bank gelê en slaap. Sy het nie wakker geword tydens die
aanval nie. Die bure wat ’n halwe kilometer van ons gebly het, het later gesê hulle het die skote gehoor,
maar gedink ons poach… . Binne ’n halfuur het dit gewemel van die polisie. Hulle het in die bome, die
lemoenboord, oral gaan soek. Die boere, polisie en kommando’s het paaie afgesper. Polisie van Moord en
Roof, die honde, almal was hier. Hulle het die een gevang. Dit was die een wat geskiet het. Hulle het hom
gesoek vir 11 aanklagte van roof, poging tot moord en verkragting. Hy het tien teen een lewenslank gekry.”

“We were still watching television that evening. My husband was lying on his side on the couch, then he
said he was getting cold. I went and fetched him a blanket and threw it over him. I also first went to the
kitchen where I was making koeksister dough. It was approximately eight o’clock when B, our daughter,
went to her bedroom. [She left her baby daughter sleeping on the couch in her mother’s care]. I saw, when I
sat down on the couch again, a momevent out of the corner of my eye, but first thought it was B. When I
saw him and screamed, he clouted me and I fell off the couch. There were two. [One climbed through a
window and opened the door for his accomplice]. One shot at my husband. He was so fast when he shot at
my husband. He shot just like this. [The respondent demonstrates]. He did not even aim. They jerked him
off the couch - then I knew he was dead. He would not have lain there quietly and let them to treat me like
that. His hands were under the blanket and I think the one that fired the shot, possibly thought he had a
firearm.

All the time they wanted to know where the safe was. The more I told them that we did not have a safe, the
more they carried on. I told them that there was only a revolver in the bedroom and that we also have a .22
rifle. I was hoping that they would take them and leave us alone. I had to give the revolver to them, but I
could not find the .22. It usually stood behind the kitchen door. Some evenings we went poaching [illegal
hunting at night] with the rifle and my husband had it in the BMW. I did not know. If our workers were
involved, they would have known B was also in the house. Maybe they had a dispute with the previous
owner. They say he sometimes acted hard-handedly.

They did not shoot me. I think they had only one cartridge. They later shot at B and her brother with her
father’s revolver. [B’s brother who had not yet returned to the farm from his work in town, rushed to the farm
184
 after receiving a call from her that there was trouble on the farm]. They tied me up. I do not believe that I
have ever prayed so hard. They took off my rings and watch. When the one pulled my legs open on the
floor once, I thought he was going to rape me. They held me up with a knife. When I told them we did not
have a safe, they struck me. The one spoke nicely to me. I believe he was under the impression that the
other one would not shoot. Maybe that, the shot fired at my husband, flustered him. They did not want me
to put on the light in the bedroom when I had to get the revolver for them. All the other lights were on. I do
not know why… . When I showed them the handbag, they still jerked me around in the passage. I then
bumped against the light switch by accident and the light went on… . They walked very quietly. The TV was
not even loud, because my husband was lying asleep. They were old rogues, but young.

When they found the revolver, I had to look for the .22. At that point in time, a cellphone rang in the one’s
pocket. He took it out and silenced it. I did not know at that stage that it was my cellphone. He must have
pushed it into his pocket when they came in… . Then it sounded like they were walking out. It is like a
movie in which you are acting. It just will not pass.

I told them my son would be coming back [from his work] any moment, but I knew he would arrive home
only much later. It was just as though Someone was prompting me to say it. I saw the robbers running into
the house again. They went to fetch the keys of the BMW. When my son stopped with his bakkie, B jumped
in next to her brother. Her baby was still lying asleep on the couch. She did not wake up during the attack.
The neighbours who lived half a kilometre from us, later said that they heard the shots, but thought we were
poaching… . Within half an hour the place was teeming with the police. They went and searched amongst
the trees, in the orchard, everywhere. The farmers, the police and the commando’s blocked the roads.
Police from Murder and Robbery, the dogs, all were here. They caught the one. It was the one who fired the
shot. They had been looking for him for 11 counts of robbery, attempted murder and rape. Ten to one he
got life imprisonment.”

6.1.4 Respondent 4

At the time of the attack, Respondent 4 was a 58-year old white married female living with her
husband on a farm in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of attack: 2002

185
Circumstances of attack:

The attack took place at 10h30 on a Sunday morning when the couple was surprised in the farmhouse
by two offenders. They had just returned to the farm after routinely attending a church service in the
nearest town. Their absence from their home provided the offenders with the opportunity of entering
the farmhouse unnoticed, finding a gas pistol and waylaying them in the passage. During the attack,
they tied up her spouse and pushed him into a wardrobe. They then fired a shot through the wardrobe,
leaving him for dead inside. As the wardrobe was full of clothes at the time, the bullet did not penetrate
sufficiently far to injure him. One of the two young assailants was later arrested after killing a black
man in a township with the firearm stolen during the attack. Two years after the attack on the couple,
he was sentenced in a regional court to 13 and 39 years respectively for the two crimes.

“Ons het na kerk by die televisiekamer se deur ingestap. Hulle het my man in die gang ingewag met my
gaspistool wat ek in die kas gelos het. Wie dink nou iemand gaan dit kry…? Hulle het met ons in die huis
rondgeloop. Wat kon ons gedoen het? Toe een my gryp, het hy sommer die straps van my handsak
afgeskeur. Hy het heeltyd aangehou om my te dreig met die skroewedraaier.

Hulle het by die badkamervenster ingekom. Hulle het geslagte hoenders uit die vrieskas uitgehaal. My man
het daardie more nie sy kos geëet nie. Dit het hulle geëet, maar hulle het niks [geen kos] saamgevat nie,
net my man se leerbaadjie. Miskien, as ons later gekom het, was hulle al weg. Hulle het die kas [die
respondent wys na die buffet], met ’n lepel oopgebuig. Die lepel is so krom. Hulle sê altyd ’n mens moet
nooit ’n kas sluit nie, want hulle krap altyd om sleutels te kry. Jy leer eers as jy daardeur gegaan het. Hulle
het al ons goed in die badkamer ingedra. Al die deure was gesluit en die sleutels uit die slotte geneem.

Toe ek hoor hulle skiet, het ek gedink hy [die respondent se eggenoot] is dood. Hulle het hom vasgemaak
en toegesluit in die hangkas. Ek is deur die traliehek wat ek gelukkig agter my kon sluit en [is] by die
badkamer verby.

Buite was ’n blombedding met vuurpyle [kniphofia praecox]. Ek het sommer in die modder platgeval,
kerkklere en al, en so by die vensters verbygekruip. Nadat hulle weg is met die bakkie, is my man na die
bure. Hulle seun het hom hospitaal toe gevat vir sy oë. ’n Swart polisieman het my kom haal. Daar was
darem ook ’n wit kaptein en ’n speurder. Kan jy glo, na die aanval het ons die huis net so oopgelos.”

“After church, we entered through the television room. They waylaid my husband in the passage with my
gas pistol that I had left in the cupboard. Who would now think that someone is going to find it…? They

186
 walked around the house with us. What could we have done? When one grabbed me, he just ripped off the
straps of my handbag. All the time he kept on threatening me with a screwdriver.

They entered through the bathroom window. They took slaughtered chickens out of he freezer. My husband
had not eaten his food that morning. That they ate, but took nothing [no food] with them, only my husband’s
leather jacket. Maybe, if we had come later, they would already have left. They opened the cupboard [the
respondent points to the sideboard] with a spoon. The spoon is so bent. They always say one must never
lock a cupboard, because they always rummage around for keys. You learn only after you have
experienced it. They carried all our things into the bathroom. All the doors were locked and the keys
removed from the locks.

When I heard them shooting, I thought he [the respondent’s spouse] was dead. They tied him up and
locked him up in the wardrobe. I went through the security gate that I was fortunate to be able to lock
behind me, and [went] past the bathroom.

Outside there was a flowerbed with red-hot pokers [kniphofia praecox]. I just fell down flat in the mud,
church attire and all, and so crept past the windows. After they had left with the bakkie, my husband went to
the neighbours. Their son took him to hospital for his eyes. A black police officer came to fetch me.
Fortunately there was also a white captain and a detective. Can you believe, after the attack we left the
house open just like that.”

6.1.5 Respondent 5

At the time of the attack, Respondent 11 was a 65-year old married white male living with his wife on a
farm in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of attack: 2000

The attack was included in the study in spite of the fact that it fell outside of the time frame of the
research project (reasons already explained in section 5.2.2.3).

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 5 was attacked by a 28-year old black male with whom he had to associate out of
necessity as he was employed on his farm as a labourer. This provided him with the opportunity of

187
coming close to the respondent without arousing his suspicions and also of placing the cans of fuel,
with which he planned to douse his employer, in different areas where he knew the farmer would be
working on that day. While Respondent 5 was never aware that he carried a knife in the past, the
offender was also able to ensure that he had a knife with him to puncture the cans of fuel on the day of
the planned attack. By working on the weed-eater in the garage instead of sawing the wood as he had
been instructed on that morning, the attacker made sure that the farmer would come looking for him
where he would be within easy reach of a can of fuel. In the court case that took place only after
Respondent 5 had recovered sufficiently from the burns that he sustained in the attack, the offender
was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on a charge of attempted murder, of which a period of three
years was suspended.

“Ons s’n was nie ’n tipiese plaasaanval in die sin dat die aanvallers mense van buite [die plaas] af was nie.
Ons aanvaller was ons eie werker wat by ons grootgeword het. Sy ma het in die kombuis gewerk. Na skool
het hy in die middag vir sakgeld gewerk. Toe hy begin het, het ons nog in Pretoria gewoon. Toe hy klaar is
met laerskool, wou hy hoërskool toe. Ek het vir hom ’n fiets gekoop. Hy was intelligent. Hy het vrywilliglik na
sy pa getrek. Hy kon die skool met sy fiets bereik. Elke vakansie het hy hier kom werk. Hy was nie as
permanente werker aangestel nie. Ek het sy fiets in stand gehou, sy bande gekoop, hom laat regmaak. Toe
druip hy standerd nege. Hy het ’n bietjie rondgeval, toe kom werk hy voltyds vir ons. Ons het vir hom die
rondawel hier buite reggemaak en hom beddegoed gegee. Hy was baie oulik, heel intelligent en baie op sy
plek. Toe was daar ’n voorval gedurende Oktober 1999 waartydens hy so ’n bietjie parmantig geword het.
Dit het geblyk dat die plant van mielies in die land onder die huis nie na sy sin was nie. Hy het driemaal
soveel kunsmis gegooi as wat hy moes. Toe my vrou hom vra: ‘Wat maak jy nou, A?’ antwoord hy: ‘Ek kyk
of ek die baas kan trick. Ek soek R16 000’. Op daardie stadium het mense hom partymaal kom besoek. Hy
het hulle counsellors genoem en hy het hulle altyd gegroet: ‘Hey, Comrade’.

Die dinge het verbygegaan. Hy was heeltemal inskiklik. Aan die einde van die jaar 2000 vra hy of hy beeste
kan koop, want hy wil trou. Hy wou hulle laat loop op die plaas. Ek het hom gesê drie of vier is reg, daar is
genoeg weiding. Ek bied toe nog aan dat hy van my beeste kan koop. Dit sou goedkoper wees en hulle is
die plaas gewoond. In daardie tyd kom M, ’n indoena oor die swartes in hierdie gebied - al is dit ’n wit
gebied - en vra of ek ’n skaap, ’n bok en ’n bees vir hom het om te koop vir Kersfees. Hy koop toe die
skaap, bok en twee tollies. Ek vra toe vir A om te help. Hy praat niks, maar ek kon sien hy is baie
ongelukkig. Op dié stadium was ek op krukke want ek het middel November ’n operasie ondergaan. Op 28
Desember 2000, die dag van die aanval, het ek vir hom gesê hy moet hout saag. Ek sien toe hy werk
heeltyd aan die bossiekapper [weed-eater]. Ek was stal toe. So 7h30 stap ek deur die motorhuis. Die twee
motors het daar gestaan. Ek stap toe tussen die twee motors deur waar hy besig was met die

188
bossiekapper. Hy het my net so gekyk. Net voor die motors het ’n werksbank gestaan. Ek het nie op
daardie stadium gesien nie, maar daar het op die werksbank ’n 25 liter-kan met petrol gestaan. Toe ek hom
vra hoekom kap hy nie hout nie, los hy die bossiekapper en draai na my toe en sê: ‘I want £50 000’. Ek sê
hom toe ek het nie by hom geleen nie. Hy sê toe: ‘Kyk alles op hierdie plaas, ek het dit gedoen, dis myne,
dis myne’. Op dié stadium sien ek hy het ’n mes in sy hand. Hy bly die mes slyp. Ek weet hy het nooit ’n
mes gedra nie, want ek moes hom al in die verlede vra of hy een het as ek en hy werk en ek moet iets
afsny. Hy het die hef so vasgehou, asof hy van bo af wil steek. [Die respondent demonstreer]. Hy was baie
aggressief. My vrou en haar suster was besig om perskes te skil en hulle het gehoor hy vloek op my. My
vrou kom toe en sê: ‘Los die baas’ en hy antwoord: ‘Hou jou bek. Vir jou skiet ek’ en hy begin die petrolkan
stukkend steek met die mes. Ek gryp toe die kan om hom onderstebo te draai sodat die petrol nie so vinnig
sou uitloop nie. Hy trek toe ’n vuurhoutjie en ek is aan die brand. Ek dink ek was deurmekaar. My vrou hou
toe kop en stoot die karre uit. Daar was ook ’n klomp kanne verf en gif. Alles is toe aan die brand. My vrou
jaag toe na die ou opstal, na die kinders wat daar gebly het. Haar suster het gesê: ‘Los die huis, hy brand’.
Die voorkant was toegesluit. Ons dogter wat op daardie stadium chemo-terapiebehandeling vir kanker
gekry het en nie hare op haar kop gehad het nie, het haar hemp oor haar kop getrek en is die huis in. Sy
woon in die stad en weet niks van ons noodroepsyne op die radio nie, maar sy het darem geweet hoe die
radio werk. Sy het ook sleutels kon gryp en meubels begin uitgooi. Alles aan daardie kant van die
brandmuur het afgebrand.

Hy het by swartmense se huis gaan sit en gesê die polisie kan hom daar gaan haal. Volgens gerugte wat
later die ronde gedoen het, het die Young Comrades al elkeen vir hulle ’n plaas uitgesoek. Hierdie een was
syne. Die feit dat ek hier diere verkoop het en dinge gedoen het, is hoekom hy eksepsie geneem het. ’n
Mens weet nie hoe hul koppe werk nie.”

“Ours was not a typical farm attack in the sense that the attackers were people from outside [the farm]. Our
attacker was our own worker that grew up by us. His mother worked in the kitchen. After school in the
afternoons he worked for pocket money. When he started, we were still living in Pretoria. When he
completed his primary schooling, he wanted to go to high school. I bought him a bicycle. He was intelligent.
He moved to his father voluntarily. He could reach the school by bicycle. Every holiday he came to work
here. He was not appointed as a permanent worker. I maintained his bicycle, bought his tyres, had it
repaired. Then he failed standard nine. He drifted around a little, then he came to work for us full time. We
prepared the rondavel outside here for him and gave him linen. He was very nice, quite intelligent and
never forward. Then there was an incident in October 1999 during which he became a little cheeky. It
appeared that he did not approve of my planting mealies in the field below the house. He used three times
more fertiliser than he should have used. When my wife asked him: ‘What are you doing, A?’ he
answered:’I am trying to see if I can trick the boss. I want R16 000’. At that stage people sometimes came
to see him. He called them counsellors and he always greeted them: ‘Hey, Comrade’.
189
These things passed. He was altogether obliging. At the end of the year 2000 he asked if he could buy
cattle, because he wanted to get married. He wanted to have them graze on the farm. I told him three or
four would be all right, there is sufficient grazing. I then even offered that he could buy some of my cattle. It
would be cheaper and they were used to the farm. During that time, M, a headman over the black people in
this are - even though it is a white area - came and asked me if I had a sheep, a goat and a head of cattle
that he could buy for Christmas. He then bought the sheep, goat and two tollies. I then asked A to help. He
did not say a word, but I could see he was very unhappy. At this stage I was on crutches as I had
undergone an operation in the middle of November. On 28 December 2000, the day of the attack, I told him
to saw wood. I then noticed that he was working on the weed-eater all the time. I went to the milking
parlour. At approximately 7h30 I walked through the garage. The two motor cars were parked there. I then
walked through between the two cars where he was busy with the weed-eater. He just looked at me. Right
in front of the cars there was a workbench. I did not see at that stage, but on the workbench there was a 25
litre drum of petrol. When I asked him why he was not chopping wood, he left the weed-eater and turned
around to me and said: ‘I want £50 000’. I then told him that I had not borrowed from him. Then he said:
‘Look, everything ons this farm, I did it, it’s mine, it’s mine. At this stage I saw the knife in his hand. He kept
on sharpening the knife. I know he never carried a knife, because I already had to ask him in the past when
he and I were working and I had to cut something off. He held the hilt like this, as if he wanted to stab from
above. [The respondent demonstrates]. He was very aggressive. My wife and her sister were busy peeling
peaches and they heard him swearing at me. My wife then came along and said: ‘Leave the boss’ and he
answered: ‘Shut your trap. You I will shoot’ and he started puncturing the petrol can with his knife. I then
grabbed the can to turn it upside down so that the petrol would not leak out so fast. He then struck a match
and I was on fire. I think I was confused. My wife kept her head and started pushing the cars out. There
were also a number of cans of paint and poison. Everything was on fire then. My wife raced to the older
farmstead, to the children who were staying there. Her sister said: ‘Leave the house, he is burning’. The
front was locked. Our daughter who was receiving chemo-therapy treatment for cancer at that stage and
did not have hair on her head, pulled her shirt over her head and ran into the house. She lives in the city
and knows nothing of our call signs on the radio, but she at least knew how to use the radio. She was also
able to grab keys and started throwing furniture out. Everything on that side of the firewall was gutted.

He went and sat at black people’s house and said that the police could fetch him from there. According to
rumours that later did the rounds, the Young Comrades had each already selected a farm for themselves.
This one was his. The fact that I sold animals and did things, is why he took exception. One does not know
how they reason.”

190
6.1.6 Respondent 6

At the time of the attack, Respondent 6 was a 72-year old married white male living with his wife on a
farm in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of attack: 2002 (NOCOC data base) 2003 (Respondent 6)

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 6 and his wife were attacked by two or three assailants who broke the window-pane of
their bedroom window in the early hours of the morning. One entered their bedroom and repeatedly
struck the sleeping couple with a heavy piece of irrigation pipe that he had found on a pile stacked
behind a store room. As the window had burglar proofing only in front of the two smaller windows that
could open and not in front of the large window-pane, the offender who struck at the couple could
enter the bedroom quickly and also escape speedily from the scene of the crime. At the time of the
interview, no arrests had been made.

“Die aanval het 1h30 in die oggend gebeur. Ek was net ’n rukkie uit die hospitaal, het pille gedrink en het
seker vas geslaap. Hulle het ’n ruit gebreek en een het ingekom. Die twee kleiner vensters aan weerskante
van die groot ruit het diefwering, maar nie die grote nie. Hulle het die grote gebreek. Toe ons die slag hoor,
sit ons regop in die bed, maar toe was hy al binne. Hy het ’n twee-meter lange swaar yster sprinkelpyp by
hom gehad waarmee hy my en my vrou oor die kop geslaan het met die kant wat die haak aan het. Laat ek
jou wys. [Die respondent trek die gordyn oop wat nou altyd toegetrek is sodat niemand van buite af kan
inkyk nie]. Voel hoe swaar is hy. Hier aan die haak is nog van ons bloed. ’n Hoop van hierdie pype het daar
agter die stoorkamer gelê. Ons het gekeer met ons hande. Hy het geslaan om dood te slaan. My vrou het
bewusteloos op die vloer gelê. Ek het hom net hoor sê in sy taal: ‘Ouman, jy pla’. Ek sê jou, hy slaan jou
so, jy kry nie kans om ’n vuurwapen te kry nie. As hulle [enige oortreders] deur die jaart loop, dan praat ek
[die respondent spreek hulle aan]. Ek belowe jou, daardie tyd van die more… . Ons het drie honde. Hulle is
nogal wakker… . Hulle het niks gedoen nie.

Daar is twee advokadobome [wat skelms wegkruipplek kon gebied het]. Daar is ’n lig op daardie hoek en
op daardie hoek en by die kombuis, maar geen lig by hierdie vensters nie. Hy het presies geweet hoe lê
ons op die bed. Hy het geweet waar is ons slaapkamer. Hy kon net so maklik by die ander kamer se
venster ingebreek het.

191
Dit was net glas binne die kamer, en ek met my kaal voete… . Ek het my vrou probeer opkry, maar my kop
het baie gebloei. Ek het die buurman gebel. V bly daar bo. Hy het die polisie en dokter gebel. Hulle het
ongeveer 10 minute gevat om hier te kom. Hulle het die plek gefynkam. Hy [die geneesheer] het ons steke
in die kop gegee en ’n inspuiting… . Die polisie het weer teruggekom vir vingerafdrukke. Die pyp was te
grof. Die vingerafdrukke op die glasstukke pas nie by dié wat hulle van die mense op die plaas geneem het
nie. Die honde het twee spore gevolg, een daardie kant toe en een berg se kant toe. Ek was nie hier nie, ek
weet nie waarom hulle omgedraai het en nie verder gevolg het nie.

Daar was twee of drie van hulle. Hulle het hom gehelp om die stukke glas uit die venster te haal dat hy
vinnig kan inklim. Net een het ingekom. As nog een binne was, sou ek hom gesien het. Hy [enige oortreder]
is te bang. Hy [die oortreder wat ons aangeval het] sou nooit alleen gekom het nie. Hoekom vir my vrou
probeer doodmaak? Sy het niks gedoen nie.”

“The attack occurred at 1h30 in the morning. I had been discharged from hospital only a while before, drank
pills and probably slept soundly. They broke a window-pane and one came in. The two smaller windows on
either side of the big window-pane have burglar proofing, but not the big one. They broke the big one.
When we heard the crash, we sat upright in bed, but then he was already inside. He had a heavy two meter
long heavy iron irrigation pipe with him with which he hit my wife and me on the head, with the end that has
the big hook on it. Let me show you. [The respondent opens the curtain that is now always kept drawn so
that nobody might look in from outside]. Feel how heavy it is. Here on the hook is still some of our blood. A
heap of these pipes was lying there behind the storeroom. We defended ourselves with our hands. He
struck to kill. My wife lay unconscious on the floor. I just heard him saying in his language: ‘Old man, you
bother me’. I am telling you, he hits you so, you do not get a chance to get a firearm. If they [any
trespassers] walk through the yard, then I talk [the repondent reprimands them]. I promise you, that time of
the morning… . We have three dogs. They are quite awake… . They did nothing.

There are two avocado trees [that could have provided culprits with hiding place]. There is a light at that
corner and at that corner by the kitchen, but no light by these windows. He knew exactly how we lay on the
bed. He knew where our bedroom is. He could just as easily have broken in at the window of the other
bedroom.

There was just glass inside the bedroom, and I with my bare feet… . I tried to get my wife up, but my head
was bleeding a lot. I phoned the neighbour. V stays up there. He phoned the police and the doctor. They
took approximately ten minutes to get here. They searched the place with a fine toothcomb. He [the doctor]
stitched our scalps and gave us an injection… . The police came back again for fingerprints. The pipe was
too rough. The fingerprints on the glass do not match those of the people that were taken on the farm. The
dogs followed two tracks, one that way and one towards the mountain. I was not here, I do not know why
192
 they turned back and did not follow any further.

There were two or three of them. They helped him remove the pieces of glass from the window so that he
could get in quickly. Just one entered. If another one was inside, I would have seen him. He [any offender]
is too afraid. He [the offender who attacked us] would never have come alone. Why try and kill my wife?
She did nothing.”

6.1.7 Respondent 7

At the time of the attack, Respondent 7 was an unmarried 30-year old white male living with his
parents on a farm in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of attack: 2002

Circumstances of the attack:

This attack, that lasted approximately three minutes, took place in the early hours of the morning after
three offenders had broken into and entered the burglar-proofed farmhouse. On hearing a sound that
Respondent 7 believed to be his dog outside his bedroom door, he opened the locked door. The
offenders made use of the opportunity to break into the farmhouse when the other members of the
family who would also have been sleeping in the house, were away in Warmbaths for a week. Their
absence decreased the risk of being heard until they had already gained entry, and also the risk of
being apprehended before they could make their escape. Respondent 7 believes one of his attackers
was one of his labourers who had got himself into financial difficulties and who, because of his
proximity and association with him in the workplace, would have had the opportunity to establish that
he would be alone in the farmhouse that night. At the time of the interview, no arrests had been made.

The account of the circumstances is brief in this case for two reasons. The first is that the attack lasted
only a short while. The second is that Respondent 7 suffered from a serious speech defect as a result
of the damage done by an offender’s bullet to his vocal cords. This made it extremely difficult, and
possibly also embarrassing, for him to talk to the researcher who was a stranger to him. He, however,
elaborated more fully on the consequences of the attack.

“My ma en pa was vir ’n week Warmbad toe. Ek was alleen by die huis. Hulle het gereken dis maklik. Hulle

193
 het met ’n breekyster die diefwering gebreek. Ek het nie wakker geword daarvan nie. My kamerdeur was
gesluit. Toe ek iets by die deur hoor, het ek oopgemaak. [Die respondent het gedink dit was sy hond]. Drie
swart mans het in die gang gestaan. Een het in my rigting geskiet en ek het omgespring en my pistool
gegryp. Ons het so 16 skote op mekaar geskiet en hulle is by ’n venster uit. Hulle het n .38 Special gehad.
Ek het ’n skoot deur die elmboog, skouer en nek gekry. Ek het so ’n bietjie gebloei. Die dokters moes ’n
koeël verwyder. Ek het op die radio geroep en my broer met my mobiele foon laat weet. Hy bly so vyf
kilometers van hier af. Die aanval het so drie minute geduur.”

“My mother and father were at Warmbaths for a week. I was at home alone. They reckoned it was easy.
They broke the burglar proofing with a jemmy. I did not wake up from that. My bedroom door was locked.
When I heard something at the door, I opened it. [The respondent thought it was his dog]. Three black men
were standing in the passage. One fired in my direction and I jumped back and grabbed my pistol. We fired
approximately 16 shots at each other and they fled through the widow. They had a .38 Special. I was struck
in the elbow, shoulder and neck. I bled a little. The doctors had to remove a bullet. I called on the radio and
let my brother know on my mobile phone. He lives approximately five kilometres from here. The attack
lasted approximately three minutes.”

6.1.8 Respondent 8

At the time of the attack, Respondent 8 was a 65-year old married white female living with her
husband on a farm in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of attack: 2003

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 8 and her spouse were attacked at approximately midday by two young black males. One
of the offenders stayed near the couple, on an adjoining farm. Selecting a target in close proximity to
where one of the two offenders lived, is in line with the findings of Fattah (1991:235-236) and
Hindelang et al. (1978, 268), whose research on personal victimisation indicated that offenders often
perpetrate their crimes close to their places of residence. Respondent 8 had just reversed her car out
of the garage and parked it outside the back door, which indicated that she was about to exit the
house from that door. The fact that the attackers could also see that she had omitted to lock the
security gate, provided them with the opportunity of attacking her while she had little defensible space.
The two offenders were apprehended later on the same day by members of the local Commando Unit
194
and the SAPS.

“I wanted to go to the shop to buy ingredients to bake biscuits. My car was ready, and I got everything
ready to go to town, so I hadn’t locked the security door when I came in. On my way out I heard the dogs
barking, but it didn’t … because I thought it was just them, barking, and when I came back into the kitchen
and I opened the kitchen door, the two of them were standing at the kitchen door. I never thought when I
opened the kitchen door that I would find two black people standing there… .

One had a gun and the other had a panga and they kept on saying: ‘Kill the boer, kill the boer’. They
wanted money, cellphones and guns. I told them we didn’t have and then they started pushing me up the
passageway to the dining-room and I tried to shout to my husband to lock the door, not to come through on
the verandah. But he heard the commotion and he opened the door and the one with the panga pulled me
through the door. And then they just stood, all the time saying: ‘Kill the boer, kill the boer’. They wanted
money, they wanted guns and they wanted cellphones and then… . They shot me, in the leg, and then they
shot my husband through the legs and the hand and they came through to the room and they took the
house key that was next to my husband’s bed. Fortunately they didn’t think to open the safe where the guns
were kept and then they came into the d…, into here, and they started throwing… . They took the hi-fi set
and put it on the floor and the radio and they smashed a few of the records and we gave them the car keys
to try and stop them from killing us, and they went off with our car. We phoned the police and they arrived,
and they were caught.

They had apparently been on our farm twice before that, because they came in the one day and they said
to my husband they are looking to buy a young tollie. He said there aren’t any and they came back again.
They said they were looking for one that got lost. And then the girl that worked here for me, she was here
the one day when they came. When I came back from town she said to me this boy had come there to the
farm. She said he made her so frightened. She was hanging up the washing. She came in and locked the
door and she went and watched him walk out through my bedroom window, but she didn’t mention to me
that he had been here.

And when we were, when I was in hospital, N, the farmer from across the road, he came to see me, and he
said he was busy sitting in his bakkie talking on his cellphone when he saw them there. Two boys came
walking through his veld here and he called them and he asked them what they wanted. They said that they
were looking for one of the cattle that went lost and he said to them: ‘Get off my property. I don’t want to
see you here again’. They walked over from his property and they came in through the back of our property
- they didn’t come through the gate. They came through the back and through the orchard.”

195
6.1.9 Respondent 9

At the time of the attack, Respondent 9 was a divorced 53-year old white female living alone on a farm
in the Mpumalanga Province.

Date of attack: 2002

Circumstances of attack:

Respondent 9 was attacked on arrival at her home by three assailants at approximately 15h00 as she
went about her routine of parking her car and unlocking her house. According to the respondent, she
was in the habit of driving into the open shelter next to her back door, unlocking her back door from
the outside and walking to the front door to unlock the door and undo the bolts that barred her kitchen
door from the inside. As her routine was established and therefore predictable, the offenders probably
knew where they could wait for her in ambush on her front verandah. They would be out of her sight
while she was driving into her farmyard to park her car and also out of view until she came around the
corner to unlock her front door. No arrests had been made at the time of the interview.

“Die aanval was in 2002. Ek het ’n wit wolfhond gehad. Dié het hierso verdwyn, drie weke voor dit, en
daardie dag toe ek opstaan, toe is die foksterriër, die ander hondjie, toe is hy siek. Toe moes ek hom
Carolina toe vat, na die veearts toe. Toe sê hy vir my, toe ek daar kom, hy is vergiftig en verlam in sy
agterlyf.

En toe ek nou terugkom huis toe, mmm… . Weet jy, ek is, ek is eintlik altyd so versigtig, maar omdat ek die
dag so ontsteld was oor die hondjie, toe is ek nie op my hoede nie en … omdat hulle al so baie keer hier
ingebreek het by my, weet jy … . Ag hemel! Ek kom in… .

Ek het ’n Corolla gehad, dit was bloedgeld gewees. Jy weet as ’n vrou ’n kar koop, jy weet self, dis
bloedgeld. My agterdeur moet jy van buite af oopsluit, dan moet ek voor omgaan om die skuiwe af te haal.
Ek parkeer altyd die motor hierso en dan stap ek nou met die sleutels na die agterdeur toe en dan kom ek
eers terug motor toe. Toe ek daar wil deurgaan, hierso, toe wag hulle vir my daar, net daar, om daai hoek.
Die een het so ’n lang stuk hout gehad. Hulle het nie wapens gehad nie. Hulle het messe gehad, maar toe
gryp hulle my en gooi my so op die grond. Weet jy, jy kan vir niemand dit beskryf nie. Hulle vat toe ’n draad
om om my keel te sit. Die een kom toe nader met die stuk draad. Weet jy, en nou, en nou lê jy daar en hulle
sê heeltyd: ‘Ons maak dood. Moenie skree nie. Ons gaan jou doodmaak’ die hele tyd. Hulle het Afrikaans
196
gepraat. Toe sê ek, pleit ek: ‘Moenie my doodmaak nie, ek het ’n kind. Asseblief moenie die draad om my
nek sit nie’. Maar ek kon nie skree vir hulp nie. Jy kan nie. Jy weet, ek het nog die vreeslikste nagmerries.
Ek kon nie eers die Here vra nie. Jy sê net in jou gedagtes: ‘Ag, Here, help my’, maar weet jy, jy sien jou
hele lewe soos ’n rolprent voor jou verbydraai. Daardie dag, ag daardie dag, sien jy nie ’n uitweg nie. Jy
weet vandag jy gaan doodgaan, verstaan jy? En toe het hulle ’n tou, dis ’n tou wat hulle van my plante
afgehaal het, wat ek die blare mee vasmaak. Toe wou hulle die tou om my nek sit. Maar ek kon nie skree
vir hulp nie. Ek weet nie of die Here my gehoor het nie, maar om die een of ander rede sit hulle dit om my
polse, maar dit het so gesny, in my polse in. Toe kon hulle nie inkom nie, want kyk, die slotte sluit ek daar
oop en … toe sleep hulle my aan daai tou, so, om die huis, so tot hier by die voorstoep. En heeltyd sê hulle:
‘Ons maak dood. Ons maak dood’. Hulle het op my keel getrap, op my bors, soos hulle jou wurg, dan trap
hulle so op jou. Niks genade nie hoor, niks. Hulle voel niks vir jou nie. En dan moet ek hulle sê watter
sleutels moet hulle gebruik, jy weet: ‘Watter kamer is joune? Waar slaap jy?’ [Die respondent maak hul
harde stemtoon na]. So praat hulle met my. Toe smyt hulle my weer daar op die grond. Toe dog ek: ‘O,
Here’, toe hulle my vra waar is my kamer, ‘dat hulle my net nie verkrag nie’. ‘Asseblief, Here’ is al wat ek in
my gedagtes kon uitkry.

Toe het hulle my weer begin wurg. Toe was ek heeltemal bewusteloos … ek weet niks wat daar gebeur het
nie. Jy weet hoe voel dit as jy jou wurg? Wel, daardie dag het dit so gevoel. Ek weet nie of dit die sekere
manier is waarop die are toegedruk is nie. Soos voor jy narkose kry. Jy dryf net so weg. En toe ek bykom,
toe lê ek vasgemaak, met my hande. Lyk my hulle het nie iets gehad nie, want my voete was … met ’n
handdoek. O, heeltyd vra hulle: ‘Waar is die man? Waar is die man?’. Toe het ek gelieg, want as hulle weet
ek bly alleen, het hulle my seker verkrag. Ek sê: ‘Hy kom nou’, dis voor hulle my bewusteloos verwurg het.

Toe lê ek daar op my maag, dan hoor ek, dan maak ek my oë so oop - hulle krap in alles, grou in alles, gooi
alles uit, krap in alles. Hulle soek geld, wapens… . Dank die Vader hulle het nie my .38 gekry nie, want hy
was op ’n plek waar hulle nooit sou kyk nie. En toe dog ek nou moet ek my doodhou, anderste as hulle sien
ek leef, dan… . En toe hoor ek daar gaan hulle. Ek het my toe daar uitgewurg, net so… . Jy weet so, hulle
was haastig, dit lyk my hulle het my nie verskriklik styf vasgemaak nie. Toe hardloop ek vir my .38 en ek
dog as ek net my kar se wiele kan stukkend skiet… . Ek was net te laat.

Hulle het my so gewurg, ek was so hees, ek kon nie praat nie. Weet jy hoeveel keer ek die polisie gebel
het? … Hulle het nie geantwoord nie. Hulle het nie eers die foon geantwoord nie! [Die respondent gebruik
’n hoë stemtoon]. Toe bel ek naderhand die hardeware winkel in Waterval-Boven, toe sê ek vir hulle:
‘Asseblief’, - vir die ou daar, D, toe sê ek vir hom: ‘Asseblief kry die polisie in die hande. Ek is ge-hijack. Ek
kry hulle nie in die hande nie. Hulle antwoord nie hulle foon nie’. Ek belowe jou. En, toe … toe skielik kon
hulle hier aankom, die kommando en ek weet nie wie almal nie.

197
Daar was twee, en een het by die hek waggehou. Dis hy wat die kar moes ry, want die twee [wat in die huis
was] kon blykbaar nie bestuur nie.

Toe kom H [wat ongeveer ’n jaar na die aanval gesterf het], ’n ou Kleurling - jy sal in die koerante sien - hy
het hier oorkant gebly. Hy het altyd hierso vir my sulke werkies gedoen, hier in die huis. Hy kom toe hier
aan en hy kom klop toe aan die agterdeur, want hy sien my stoepdeur staan oop en hy dog toe dis so
snaaks, hoekom los ek die deur oop. Ag, en toe het hulle hom, mmm… . Die een wat by die hek was, het
hom bekruip en ’n sak oor sy kop getrek. Toe het hulle hom in die boot gelaai en toe het hulle met hom
weggery. Ons kry toe die bril daar, die polisie - ons het toe nie geweet, toe click ons hy is natuurlik, jy weet,
hulle het hom ook oorrompel. Ons dog toe hy is dood. Ou H vertel my na die tyd, hulle het een van die
stokke wat hulle diere mee skok by hulle gehad [’n elektriese toestel wat boere gebruik om diere in ’n
drukgang in te kry wanneer hulle geënt of gedoseer moet word] … en dan druk hulle dit so deur die sitplek
en tot in die boot dan skok hulle hom kort-kort. Hulle het sulke lang messe gehad. Hulle het hom uit die kar
laat klim en spykers deur sy hande… . Hulle moes hom vreeslik seergemaak het.

Hulle het toe leër, army klere aangetrek. Ja, en hulle het Noord-Wes nommerplate aangesit. Hy het dit
gesien. Hulle het hom aan ’n boom langs die pad vasgemaak. Hy is later dood aan sy beserings. Hy het
nooit heeltemal reggekom nie.”

“The attack was in 2002. I had a white Alsation. This disappeared here, three weeks before that and that
day when I got up, then the foxterrier, the other little dog, was sick. Then I had to take it to Carolina, to the
vet. Then he said to me, when I got there, he has been poisoned and is paralysed in its hind quarters.

And now when I came home, mmm… . You know, I am, I am actually always so careful, but because I was
so upset about the little dog that day, then I was not alert and … because they have aready broken in here
by me so many times, you know … O, heavens! I came in… .

I had a Corolla, it was blood-money. You know when a woman buys a car, you know yourself, it’s blood-
money. One has to unlock my back door from the outside, then I have to go around the front to slide the
bolts. I always park the car here then I walk with the keys to the back door and then only I come back to my
motor vehicle. When I wanted to go through there, here, they were waiting for me there, just there, around
that corner. The one had such a long piece of wood. They did not have weapons. They had knives, but
then they grabbed me and threw me to the ground. You know, you can describe it to no-one. They then
took a wire to put around my throat. The one then came nearer with the piece of wire. You know, and now,
and now you are lying there and the whole time they are saying: ‘We kill. Don’t scream. We are going to kill
you’ the whole time. They spoke Afrikaans. Then I said, I pleaded: ‘Don’t kill me, I have a child. Please
don’t put the wire around my neck’. But I could not scream for help. You cannot. You know, I still have the
198
most terrible nightmares. I could not even ask the Lord. You just say in your thoughts: ‘O, Lord, help me’,
but do you know, you see your whole life revolving past you like a movie. That day, O that day, you do not
see a way out. You know today you are going to die, do you understand? Then they had a rope, it’s a rope
they took off my plants, with which I tie up the leaves. Then they wanted to put the rope around my neck.
But I could not scream for help. I do not know if the Lord heard me, but for some reason they put it around
my wrists, but it cut so, into my wrists. Then they could not get in, because look, the bolts I unlock there …
and then they dragged me on that rope, like this, around the house, so, to here at the front verandah. And
the whole time they are saying: ‘We kill. We kill’. They trod on my throat, on my chest, as they are throttling
you, then they tread on you like this. No mercy, hear, nothing. They feel nothing for you. Then I had to tell
them which keys to use, you know: ‘Which bedroom is yours? Where do you sleep?’ [The respondent
immitates their harsh tone of voice]. So they spoke to me. Then they chucked me on the ground again.
Then I thought: ‘O, Lord’ when they asked me where is my room, ‘that they just not rape me’. ‘Please, Lord’
is all that I could say in my thoughts.

Then they started throttling me again. Then I was totally unconscious … I know nothing of what happened
there. You know what it feels like if you throttle yoursef? Well, that day it felt like that. I do not know if it is a
certain way in which the arteries are constricted. Like before they anaesthetise you. You just drift away like
that. And when I came to, I was lying tied up, with my hands. It appears that they did not have anything,
because my feet were … with a towel. O, the whole time they were asking: ‘Where is the man? Where is
the man?’. Then I lied, because if they knew I stay alone, they would probably have raped me. I told them:
‘He is coming now’, that’s before they throttled me unconscious.

Then I lay there on my stomach, then I opened my eyes - they rummage in everything, dig in everything, tip
everything out, rummage in everything. They search for money, firearms… . Thank the Father they did not
find my .38, because it was in a place where they would never look. And then I thought now I must pretend
to be dead, otherwise if they see I am alive, then… . And then I heard them leaving there. Then I forced
myself out of there, just like this… . You know like this, they were in a hurry, it appeared that they did not tie
me up very tightly. Then I ran for my .38 and I thought if only I could shoot my car tyres to pieces… . I was
just too late.

They throttled me so, I was so hoarse, I could not speak. Do you know how many times I phoned the
police? … They did not answer. They did not even answer the phone! [The respondent uses a high pitched
voice]. Then I later phoned the hardware shop in Waterval-Boven, then I said to them: ‘Please’, - to the guy
there, D , then I said to him: ‘Please get hold of the police. I have been hijacked. I cannot get hold of them.
They do not answer their phone’. I promise you. And, then … suddenly they could all pitch up here, the
commando and I do not know who all.

199
 There were two, and one kept watch at the gate. It was he who had to drive the car, because the two [who
were in the house] apparently could not drive.

Then H [who died approximately a year after the attack] arrived, an old Coloured - you will see in the
newspapers - he lived across here. He always did odd jobs here for me, here in the house. He then arrived
here and he then knocked on the back door, because he saw my verandah door standing open and he
thought it was so odd, why do I leave my door open. O, and then they, mmm … him . The one who was at
the gate, crept up on him and pulled a bag over his head. Then they loaded him into the boot, then they
drove away with him. We then found the spectacles there, the police - we did not know then, then we
clicked he was naturally, you know, that they also overpowered him. We then thought he was dead. Old H
told me afterwards, they took one of those prodders [an electric appliance farmers use to get animals to
move into a cattle race when they have to be inoculated or dosed] … and then they pushed it through
under the back seat like that and right into the boot and they shocked him every now and then. They had
such long knives. They let him get out of the car, and … nails through his hands. They must have hurt him
terribly.

Then they put on army, army clothes. Yes, and they put on North-West Province number plates. He saw it.
They tied him to a tree next to the road. He later died of his injuries. He never fully recovered.”

6.1.10 Respondent 10

At the time of the attack, Respondent 10 was a married 67-year old white male living with his wife on a
smallholding in Nokeng Tsa Taemane, Gauteng Province.

Date of attack: 2005

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 10 and his wife were misled and attacked at approximately 19h30 by four offenders, three
males and one female who posed as police officers investigating a recent burglary. As the couple had
become accustomed to police visits after each of the three or four burglaries that they had reported in
the past, their suspicions were not aroused by the four callers, all dressed in police uniform.
Respondent 10’s spouse invited them into their home without hesitation as they stated that they
wished to inspect the scene of the recent burglary. At the time of the interview, no arrests had been
made.

200
“Dit was op ’n Saterdag. Ek kan nie die presiese datum onthou nie. Ek dink dit was al einde Mei, in elk
geval, in Mei. Ek was besig - ons het ’n kelder hier onderkant - besig op die rekenaar, toe mijn vrou my
roep en seg ek moet kom want die polisie is hier. So ek stap na bowe, na die TV-kamer en daar sit drie
mansmense, en ’n vroumens, in polisie-uniform. En … die grootste een stel hom toe voor as Kommandant.
Hulle sê hulle wil net kom kyk. Hulle het ’n paar mense gevang en hulle wil hê ons moet hulle kom uitken.
Hulle wil graag sien waar die mense probeer inbreek het. ‘Goed, stap maar saam.’ Ons het al drie of vier
inbrake gehad, maar gelukkig was ons nie by die huis nie. Hierdie keer was ons wel by die huis. Ek stap
voor en die vroumens … my vrou gee vir haar nog koeldrank, terwyl die ander met my stap, door die een
slaapkamer na buite. Ek wys hulle buitekant die deur waar hulle probeer het. Terwyl ek dit doen, oorrompel
hulle my en dwing my weer in die huis in, na die hoofslaapkamer aan die einde van die huis. Hulle bind my
vas, my hande agter my rug en gooi my op die vloer. Hulle vat die komberse van die bed af en gooi dit oor
my.

Toe het hulle my vrou gaan haal. Hulle het haar gesê sy moet ook kom kyk. Hulle gaan na die
hoofslaapkamer en hulle doen met haar presies dieselfde. Toen het sy nie geweet ek was al klaar onder
die komberse nie. Sy stribbel nog tee, maar ek sê: ‘Los dit nou maar. Dit help nie. Jy maak dit net moeilik
voor jouself’. Haar het hulle ook vasgebind. Hulle het gedreig as ons nie stilbly nie, dan sal hulle ons skiet.
Ek het geen wapen gesien nie, maar die dreigement was daar.

En wat ek gesê het toe hulle my oorrompel? Ek vra: ‘Wat maak julle nou?’. Toe hulle my arms gryp, toe dog
ek miskien hulle wil vir my wys wat kan gebeur. Nou weet ek!

Toen het hulle maar aangegaan en alles gevat wat hulle wou vat. Ek dink miskien … dis moeilik om te sê,
hoe lank. Ek dink dit was so half-nege… . Tussen sewe en half-agt was hulle hier. Goed, toen ons niks
hoor, toen ons geen beweging hoor, het ons probeer loskom. J [die respondent se eggenote] kon by die
alarm kom en die alarm aktiveer en daarna het sy my losgemaak. Net ons monde … sy kon nie ons hande
loskry nie, nie met die skêrtjie wat sy gehad het nie. Ons het eers die alarm aangesit, die bure langsaan
gebel en hulle het die polisie gebel en die alarm mense. My seun het toe gekom.

Dit was pynlik. Hulle het ons met daardie cable ties vasgesnoer. Hulle het hulle saamgebring. Die polisie
kom gou hier, sommer gou. Eers was die hondepolisie daar, die alarmmense, daarna het die kommando’s
gekom. Dieselfde aand, alles bymekaar, dit was maklik tien. Daar het ook mense gekom nadat ons
hospitaal toe was.

Ons seun J - ons het hulle [die respondent se seun J en sy gesin] nie gebel nie - maar die mense langsaan

201
het hulle gebel. Ja, ek wou nie bel. Hulle het toe oorgekom. Dit was goed want hulle het ons gehelp om
hospitaal toe te gaan. J het M gebel, ons dogter. M en F het ons na die hospitaal toe gevat. J het hier
gebly, want hy het toe met die terugkom die bed weer opgemaak en die skottelgoed gewas.

Terwyl jy nou daar onder die komberse lê en jy weet nie wat gaan gebeur nie, dit is baie sleg. Dit voel lank.
Natuurlik was ek bekommerd oor my vrou. Seker omgekeerd ook. Ons was bekommerd oor mekaar. Kyk,
ek was nie bekommerd dat hulle goed gevat het, solank hulle ons nou net met rus laat. Maar ek dink tog
dat hulle nie vir seker geweet het of ons wel alarm gemaak het nie. Jy kan wel alarm maak sonder ’n
geluid, sonder dat jy dit hoor.

Onder in die kelder, wou hulle weet waar is die wapens [bygesê, in ’n laer stemtoon: ‘Ons het nie wapens
nie’]. ‘Waar is die geld, waar is die safe?’ Ek het een klein safe onder in die kelder. Gelukkig hy was oop,
want kyk, as hy toegesluit was, dan was daar nog groter moeilikheid. Aan die ander kant, daar was nie
eintlik veel van geldwaarde in nie - net ons paspoorte, ons ID-boekies. Hulle het my horlosie afgehaal en
haar horlosie ook. Dit was ’n groot hassle na die tyd. Ons moes aansoek doen vir nuwe ID’s en ons
paspoorte moes ons hernu.

Ek het hulle gesê al die geld wat ons het, is in die maansak en dit lê in die eetkamer. My vrou se ID-boek
het hulle op die stoel gelos. Mijn ID-boekie het hulle saamgevat. Hulle het die hele maansak gevat. Jou
bewyse [van identiteit], alles is weg, die kaarte van die bank. Gelukkig was dit naweek. Hulle kon nie veel
doen. In die middel van die nag kan jy die bank tog waarsku. Dit het ons tog gedoen.”

“It was a Saturday. I cannot remember the exact date. I think it was already the end of May, in any case, in
May. I was busy - we have a cellar down here - busy on the computer, when my wife called me and said I
must come because the police are here. So I go upstairs, to the TV-room and there are seated three
menfolk, and a woman, in police uniform. And … the taller one then introduced himself as Commandant.
They said they just want to come and have a look. They have caught a couple of people and they want us
to come and identify them. They would like to see where the people tried to break in. ‘Good, come along.’
We already had three or four burglaries, but fortunately we were not home. This time we were at home. I
led the way and the woman … my wife still gave her cooldrink, while the others accompanied me outside,
through the one bedroom. I showed them outside the door where they tried. While I was doing that, they
overpowered me and forced me back into the house, to the main bedroom at the end of the house. They
tied me up, my hands behind my back and threw me on the floor. They took the blankets from the bed and
threw them over me.

Then they went and fetched my wife. They said to her she must also come and look. They went to the main
bedroom and did precisely the same with her. Then she did not know I was already under the blankets. She
202
was still arguing with them, but I said: ‘Leave it now. It does not help. You are only making it difficult for
yourself’. They tied her up too. They threatened that if we did not keep quiet, then they would shoot us. I did
not see any weapon, but the threat was there.

And what did I say when they overpowered me? I asked: ‘What are you doing now?’. When they grabbed
my arms, I thought maybe they want to demonstrate to me what can happen. Now I know!

Then they just went on and took everything they wanted. I think, maybe … it’s difficult to say, how long. I
think it was about half past eight… . Between seven and half past seven they arrived here. Good, when we
heard nothing, when we heard no movement, we tried to free ourselves. J [the respondent’s spouse] could
reach the alarm and activate it and afterwards she untied me. Just our gags … she could not free our
hands, not with the small pair of scissors that she had. We first put the alarm on, telephoned the neighbours
next door and they phoned the police and the alarm people. My son then came.

It was painful. They tied us up with those cable ties. They brought them with them. The police came here
quickly, very quickly. First the dog police were there, the alarm people, after that the commando’s came
The same night, all together, it was easily ten. People also arrived after we had gone to the hospital.

Our son J - we did not phone them [the respondent’s son J and his family] - but the people next door
phoned them. Yes, I did not want to phone. Then they came over. It was a good, because they helped us to
go to the hospital. J phoned M, our daughter. M and F took us to the hospital. J stayed here, because when
we got back, he made the bed again and washed the dishes.

While you are lying there under the blankets and you do not know what is going to happen, it is very bad. It
feels long. Naturally I was worried about my wife. Probably vice versa. We were worried about each other.
Look, I was not worried that they had taken our possessions, as long as they just left us in peace. But I still
think that they did not know for sure if we had set off the alarm. You can set off an alarm without it making a
sound, without you hearing it.

Down in the cellar, they wanted to know where the weapons are [aside, in a lower tone: ‘We do not have
weapons’]. ‘Where is the money? Where is the safe?’ I do have a small safe down in the cellar. Fortunately
it was open, because look, if it were locked, then there would have been even greater trouble. On the other
hand, there was not really much of monetary value in it - only our passports, our ID-books. They took off my
watch and her watch too. It was a great hassle afterwards. We had to apply for new ID-books and renew
our passports.

I told them all the money we have is in the moonbag, and that is lying in the dining-room. My wife’s ID-book
203
 they left on the chair. My ID-book they took with them. They took the whole moonbag. Your proof [of
identity], everything is gone, the cards of the bank. Fortunately it was a weekend. They could not do much.
Nevertheless, in the middle of the night you can warn the bank. That we did, all the same.”

6.1.11 Respondent 11

At the time of the attack, Respondent 11 was a divorced 49-year old white male living with his son, his
fiancée and her daughter on a smallholding in Nokeng Tsa Taemane, Gauteng Province.

Date of attack: 2002

Circumstances of attack:

Respondent 11, his son, his fiancée and his fiancée’s daughter were taken by surprise while watching
television in his TV room at approximately 18h30 by four black males. As it was their habit to check on
the farm animals late at night, their doors were not yet locked. At the time of the interview, no arrests
had been made.

“Ons het so omstreeks half-sewe die aand by die huis gesit, in die TV-kamer, ek en E, my seun [’n
universiteitstudent] en my verloofde, L en haar dogter, Y. My verloofde was in die kombuis besig om kos te
maak. Sy het van die kombuis af gestap na die kamer toe. Skielik was daar vier [aanvallers] by ons. Hulle
het net reguit na my toe aangestap, rewolwer teen die kop gedruk en gesê: ‘Lê op die mat’. Dit het so
vinnig gebeur, ek het nie eers opgestaan uit die stoel nie. Een is na E en een na Y. Dieselfde storie. Een
het omgedraai en L gaan soek. Hy het die gang af gestap en toe kom sy net terug. Dieselfde storie. Toe vat
hy haar ook met die rewolwer teen die kop om te kom lê. Hulle bind ons toe vas, almal met gesigte na die
grond toe.

Toe, die eerste ding wat hulle vra, is die kluis se sleutel. Ek het hulle gesê dis nie my plek nie, dat ek net
huur en dat die kluis my broer s’n is en dat die sleutel by hom is. Toe begin hulle om elektriese toerusting
se drade af te sny. Hulle is ook direk na my slaapkamer toe. Hulle het in al my laaie, kaste, onder die bed,
onder die kussings gesoek na wapens en op die kluis se sleutel afgekom.

Ek het met hulle Tswana gepraat, hulle probeer kalmeer. Y het flougeword en weer bygekom. Wanneer
hulle iets hoor, druk hulle dadelik ’n geweer teen E se kop. Ek het hulle probeer kalmeer. Ek het Tswana
gepraat, gesê die geld wat ek het, kan hulle vat. Toe hulle die sleutel kry, is hulle by my verby, sonder ’n

204
woord. Soos hulle goed gekry het, het hulle alles op my bakkie gelaai.

Ek kon nie eintlik iets doen nie. Almal se hande en voete was vasgebind, behalwe myne, net my voete was
vas. Hulle het my voete van voor vasgemaak, want ek het omgedraai om beter met hulle te kon praat. Hulle
het die kluis oopgekry, toe kom hulle vier uit met so ’n bos gewere, al die wapens. Die voorste een, die
leier, sit so voor my op sy hurke en wys en sê: ‘Ek dog … watse goed is dit dié?’.

Hulle stap toe uit na buite met die gewere, in gelid. Elke ou het drie tot vier gewere gedra, maar agter
mekaar. Op daardie stadium weet ek vir die eerste keer waar is hulle almal. Ek het op daardie stadium
besef dat dit die tyd is wat ek iets sou kon doen.

Ek het ’n vuurwapen wat ek op ’n spesifieke plek [’n geheime wegsteekplek] bêre. My hande was los en ek
het op my rug gelê. Ek het onmiddellik regop gesit en my bene losgemaak en toe hulle uit my sig is, in die
kombuis, twee vertrekke verder, toe het ek opgespring. L het op daardie stadium, tipies, gesê: ‘Moenie,
moenie!’. Toe hoor hulle wat sy sê en toe kom een terug en gooi die gewere wat hy gedra het op die
kombuisvloer. Hy probeer toe ’n geweer uit sy sak pluk, maar toe hy terugkom, kry ons mekaar in die gang.
Ek het net by hom verby gehardloop, want as ek net in my kamer kon kom, by my vuurwapen… . Ek
vermoed hy het geskrik toe hy sien ek is op my voete. Hy het gesukkel om die wapen in sy baadjie in die
hande te kry. Ek is verby hom, in die kamer in, en gryp my wapen en ek hardloop terug in die huis in. Toe
het hulle laat waai. Hy het geskree - ek het gehoor uit die kamer uit - toe hardloop al vier en hulle gooi
vuurwapens net sover as wat hulle hardloop.

Ek het uitgehardloop, agter hulle aan tot buite die huis en sommer ’n klomp skote in die lug afgeskiet dat
hulle kan besef ek het ’n wapen en ook om die bure attent te maak daar is fout. Daarna is ek terug in die
huis om die klomp wat daar gelê het, los te maak en E een van die vuurwapens te gee wat daar op die
kombuisvloer gelê het.

Hulle was weg met die sleutels van die huis en die voertuig. Ek het gehardloop deur die veld na die bure
toe. Hulle het die telefoondrade uit die muur gepluk. Toe ek by hulle [die bure] aankom, vra ek dat hulle die
polisie bel om hulle te sê ons is aangehou en beroof. Ek het self op daardie stadium op een van hulle se
selfoon die koördineerder van die kommando’s gebel en haar gesê wat gebeur het. Toe is ek huis toe.

Binne 15 minute was die polisie, die blitspatrollie, die honde-eenheid en burgermag, so 40 karre, almal
daar. Van die vuurwapens is in die veld weggegooi en is deur hulle teruggevind, want hulle het deur die
veld gestap met hulle flitse.

Na ongeveer ’n jaar is ek polisiestasie toe ontbied vir ’n uitkenningsparade. Hulle het vier jonges daar
205
gehad. Ek kon nie een van hulle uitken nie. Alles gebeur te vinnig. Dit was goed georganiseer. Daar was
altyd een net uit sig, wat sorg dat, as ons sou loskom, dat hy daar is.

Plain suiwer gewoontes maak plaasboere kwesbaar. Jy is gewoond om tot agt-, nege-uur rond te loop, kyk
dat diere reg is, gesels buite. Dis tweede natuur. Dis asof jy ’n mental block het. Dit kan mos nie met jou
gebeur nie. Jy beskou jouself as paraat. Ek hét voor daardie tyd, maar as jy nie jou vuurwapen by jou het
nie, help dit niks.

My eerlike opinie is dat as ek nie losgekom het nie, was daar groot drama. Y het in haar nagklere gelê op
die mat, en die twee vrouens was heeltemal weerloos. Ek is oortuig daarvan as ek nie losgekom het nie,
was hulle onsedelik aangerand of verkrag of almal van ons doodgeskiet. Jy sien, dis die houding van die
mense. Ek praat met hulle Tswana en ek probeer hulle paai, kalmeer, en ek sien die opge-tense-heid, die
opgewerkdheid. Dit maak nie saak wat jy sê nie, jy gaan hulle nie oortuig [om van plan te verander] nie. Die
feit dat hulle ongeveer tien keer in so min minute teruggekom het en by elke geleentheid gesê het: ‘Ek skiet
jou dood. Lê stil! Bly stil!’ en as jy move, pluk hulle hulle vuurwapens… . Hulle voel vere. As ek nie
losgekom het nie, sou dit uitgeloop het op ’n tragiese storie.

“At approximately half past six that evening we were sitting at home, in the TV-room, my son E [a university
student] and I, and my fiancée, L and her daughter, Y. My fiancée was making food in the kitchen. She
walked from the kitchen to the bedroom. Suddenly there were four [attackers] by us. They just walked
straight up to me, pushed the revolver against my head and said: ‘Lie on the carpet’. It happened so fast, I
did not even get up from the chair. One went to E and one to Y. The same story. One turned around and
went and looked for L. He went down the passage and then she was just returning. The same story. Then
he also took her with the revlover to come and lie down.Then they tied us up, all with faces to the ground.

Then, the first thing that they asked [for], is the safe key. I told them it is not my place, that I am just renting
and that the safe is my brother’s and that the key is by him. Then they began cutting off the cords of the
electrical appliances. They also went directly to my bedroom. They searched for weapons in all my
drawers, my cupboards, under the bed, under the pillows and came across the safe key.

I spoke Tswana to them, tried to pacify them. Y fainted and came to again. Whenever they heard
something, they immediately pushed a gun against E’s head. I tried to pacify them. I spoke Tswana, told
them the money that I had, they can take. When they found the key, they passed me, without a word. As
they came across things, they loaded everything onto my bakkie.

I could not really do anything. Everybody’s hands and feet were tied up, except mine, only my feet were
bound. They tied my feet from the front, because I turned round to be able to speak to them better. They
206
got the safe open, then the four of them came out with such a stack of guns, all the weapons. The front
one, the leader, sat like this on his haunches in front of me, pointed and said: ‘I thought … what things are
these?’.

They then walked outside with the guns, one behind the other. Each guy carried three to four guns, but in
single file. At that stage I knew for the first time where they all were. I realised at that stage that that was the
time I would be able to do something,.

I have a firearm that I keep in a specific place [a secret hiding-place]. My hands were loose and I was lying
on my back. I immediately sat upright and untied my legs and when they were out of my sight, in the
kitchen, two rooms further, then I jumped up. L at that stage, typically, said: ‘Don’t, don’t!’ Then they heard
what she said and one came back and threw the guns he was carrying down on the kitchen floor. He then
tried to pluck a gun out of his pocket, but when he came back, we met up in the passage. I just ran past
him, because if only I could get into my bedroom, to my firearm… . I suspect he got a fright when he saw I
was on my feet. He battled to get hold of the weapon in his jacket. I passed him, into the bedroom, and
grabbed my weapon and ran back into the house. Then they took off. He shouted - I heard him out of the
bedroom - then all four ran and threw firearms down just as far as they ran.

I ran out, after them until outside the house and just fired a number of shots into the air so that they could
realise I have a weapon and also to make the neighbours aware that there is trouble. After that I went back
inside the house to untie the lot that were lying there and to give E one of the firearms that was lying there
on the kitchen floor.

They had left with the keys of the house and the vehicle. I ran through the veld to the neighbours. They had
plucked the telehone wires out of the wall. When I got to them [the neighbours], I asked them to phone the
police to tell them that we had been held up and robbed. I, myself, at that stage, telephoned the co-
ordinator of the commando’s on one of their cellphones and told her what had happened. Then I went
home.

Within 15 minutes the police, flying squad, the dog unit and civil defence were all there, approximately 40
cars. Some of the firearms were thrown away in the veld and were recovered by them, because they
walked through the veld with their torches.

After approximately a year, I was summoned to the police station for an identity parade. They had four
young ones there. I could not identify any of them. Everything happens too fast. It was well organised.
There was always one just out of sight, who took care that, if we were to free ourselves, he would be there.

207
 Sheer habit makes farmers susceptible to attacks. You are used to walking around until eight or nine
oclock, checking that animals are all right, chatting outside. It’s second nature. It’s as if you have a mental
block. After all it cannot happen to you. You perceive yourself as being mentally prepared and ready. I did
before that time, but if you do not have your firearm on you, it does not help at all.

My honest opinion is that if I had not freed myself, there would have been great drama. Y was lying on the
carpet in her pyjamas, and the two womenfolk were completely defenceless. I am convinced that if I had
not freed myself, they would have been indecently assaulted or raped or all of us would have been shot
dead. You see, it’s the attitude of the people. I speak Tswana to them and try to pacify them, calm them
down, and I see the tension and how worked up they are. It does not matter what you say, you are not
going to convince them [to change their minds]. The fact that they came back approximately ten times in as
many minutes, and said on each occasion: ‘I will shoot you dead. Lie still! Keep quiet!’ and if you move,
they draw their firearms… . They feel nothing. If I had not freed myself, it would have ended in a tragedy.”

6.1.12 Respondent 12

At the time of the attack, Respondent 12 was a 53-year old married white female living with her
husband and three children on a smallholding in Nokeng Tsa Taemane, Gauteng Province.

Date of attack: 2003

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 12 was waylaid by four black males while travelling on a narrow farm road with her twin
son and daughter. She had fetched her children from school as she routinely did and was driving them
home. She was forced by the men to proceed to the farm, unlock the farmhouse and watch the men
loot the farmhouse for approximately an hour. Guardianship was reduced on the farm at that point in
time as her tenants had moved away approximately a month before the attack and her husband was
also away on business. At the time of the interview, no arrests had been made.

“Ek het my twee kinders by die laerskool opgelaai. Dit was omtrent so 14h15 se kant toe ons hier aankom.
Op daardie tydstip was hierdie grondpad hier bo waar ons inkom na die huis toe baie smaller as nou en
baie meer bebos. Daar kon toe net een voertuig op ’n slag ry. En toe ons om ’n draai kom, so naby aan ons
ingang, het daar ’n voertuig gestaan met sy enjinkap op en bakstene so voor die kar. Ek was nogal
suspisieus en het so ’n entjie ver van hom af weg stilgehou, seker so twee of drie karlengtes, en my

208
dogtertjie het nog vir my seun gesê: ‘Gaan help hulle stoot’ en ek sê toe: ‘Nee, bly sit’. Toe, die volgende
oomblik toe klim iemand van agter af in die kar in. Toe het my kind nooit die agterste deur toegemaak nie.
Toe kom hy van agter af langs die pad en klim in, reg agter my, reg agter my sitplek en toe ek so omkyk,
haal hy sy pistool so onder sy T-hemp uit.

Toe hy in is, toe slaan die ander twee die kap af en een klim in en trek die kar uit die pad uit. Daar was vier
mans, een het eerste ingeklim by ons - die ander drie was by die ander voertuig - en die een het toe
teruggeklim in hulle voertuig. Twee ander het na ons toe gekom en ook hier in die kar ingeklim. Een het
sommer in die voorste sitplek ingeklim en letterlik bo-op my dogtertjie gaan sit. Hy was baie lelik, sommer
bo-op haar gaan sit. Toe sê hulle vir ons ons moet nou huis toe ry. Ons ry maar huis toe. Hy was baie
ordentlik die man hoor, [die respondent lag] baie hoflik, Afrikaans met my gepraat, en vir my gesê as ons
niks doen nie, dan sal ons niks oorkom nie, maar ons moet luister wat hulle sê. In elk geval, toe gaan ons
huis toe.

Ek het nog gedink miskien kan ek verbyry tot by die hoenderplaas want daar is altyd baie mense, maar toe
ek by ons indraai kom, toe sê hy vir my: ‘Ry hier in’. Toe weet hy al klaar. O, hulle het presies geweet,
presies geweet. Want A [die respondent se eggenoot] is baie by die huis, maar op daardie stadium het hy
van tyd tot tyd vir werk iewers heen gegaan, en hy was daardie dag iewers heen. So ons vermoed ons
huishulp was betrokke. In elk geval, toe kom ons nou na die huis toe, na die hek toe aan. Ek het vir my
kinders gesê hulle moet asseblief net kalm bly en … want ek het besluit ek gaan my nie teësit nie. Nee, ag,
weet jy, ek het besef ons lewens is dit net nie werd nie. Die een wat langs my dogter voor gesit het, dit was
vir my nogal erg. Hy het met sy pistool se punt op haar bobeen so gesit… . Weet jy wat het my opgeval van
die klomp? Dis hoe angstig hulle is. Weet jy, hulle is so jittery. Die ou wat langs my voor ingeklim het en
met sy pistoolpunt op my dogtertjie se been gesit het, het so gebewe. Daardie pistoolpunt het so gemaak -
[die respondent dui die beweging aan met haar hand] - ek belowe jou. Ek sê toe vir my dogtertjie: ‘Luister,
sit jy net soos ’n standbeeld. Moet net nie roer nie’, want ek meen, as sy roer, dan gaan hy skiet. Ag, ons
kom toe af na die hek toe, en ek maak toe maar die hek oop.

Ons het op daardie tydstip ’n baie kwaai hond gehad. Toe vra hy waar is die hond. Toe weet hy van die
hond, ja. ’n Baie kwaai hond wat byt. Hy vra toe vir my waar is die hond, toe sê ek: ‘Nee, hy is hier
iewerste’. Toe sê hy hy gaan hom skiet. Toe sê ek: ‘Nee, moenie my hond skiet nie’. Toe sê hy vir my maar
hulle gaan hom skiet. Toe sê ek: ‘Asseblief, moenie my hond skiet nie, ek sal die hond vasmaak’. Toe het
hy my seun toegelaat om uit die kar te klim, maar ons, my en die dogter nog in die kar aangehou. Maar
hulle het nie uitgeklim nie, want hulle het geweet die hond gaan hulle byt. En die hond het toe natuurlik toe
my seun die deur oopmaak, toe hap die hond, [die respondent lag] in die kar. Hy hap toe aan die ou se
arm, maar hy het hom toe nou natuurlik nie seer gehap nie. Hy het toe so geskrik, hy kon niks gedoen het
nie. P [die respondent se seun] het toe die hond gaan vasmaak. Wel, òf maak hom vas òf hy is dood. En ek
209
het nie kans gesien dat hy die hond voor die kinders doodskiet nie.

Toe het hulle ons nou in die huis in. My huishulp was hier en mmm … ek was toe vreeslik bang die
huishulp gaan vreeslik reageer, dan skiet hulle ons. Later sê my kinders vir my: ‘Mamma, jy het ingeloop en
toe jy, haar naam is M, toe jy M sien, toe het jy vir M gesê, ek kon agterna nie glo, ek het blykbaar vir haar
gesê: ‘M, hierdie mense het ons TV kom haal. [Die respondent lag]. Ek het vir haar gesê: ‘Moenie skree
nie, hulle het die TV kom haal’. Toe het hulle haar in die badkamer gesit, in die stort en vir haar gesê sy
moet daar sit, sy mag nie loop nie.

Dit was die Here se kalmte, jy weet, want ek … ek het vir die kinders gesê toe ons hier afry: ‘Luister, ek
gaan nou bestuur, maar julle moet bid, dis julle werk om te bid. Julle gaan bid, en ek gaan die ding handle’.

En hulle het die drie van ons so in die huis ingevat, en een, een van die ouens het dadelik begin uitdra en
die ander twee het ons gevat en gevra waar is die hoofslaapkamer. Hulle het toe alles begin omver gooi en
die goed uitgooi en soek en so aan.

Ons het ’n kluis en hulle sien toe die kluis, en wil toe die kluissleutel hê en ek weet toe nie waar is die
sleutel nie want A steek hom weg. Ek sê toe vir hulle ek weet nie waar is die sleutel nie, maar hy … hy raak
verskriklik aggressief omdat ek nie weet nie, maar ek sê toe vir hom ons sal hom soek, ek het ’n idee waar
hy is. Toe gaan ons, soek toe die sleutel. Die hele tyd hou hulle ons … jy weet, die pistole op ons gerig.

Een ou het in die kar gebly, een het begin uitdra. [Die respondent lag]. Die grootste sterkste ou het begin
uitdra, my broodmes gevat en al die drade van die rekenaar en goed afgesny, en twee het ons drie
bymekaar gehou.

Een van die twee vra my dogter wat so twaalf-dertien was: ‘Kom wys my waar is jou kamer’. Toe sê ek net:
‘Nee, sy bly by my. Ons bly almal saam, ons sal almal saam jou gaan wys waar is haar kamer’. Hy het haar
toe nou nie geskei van ons nie, ook nie met geweld nie. Toe ons die kluissleutel kry, het hy die kluis
oopgesluit, die kluis leeggemaak … alles uitgedra… . Wat het hy nog gedoen … ? Dis maar basies dit,
maar soos wat die tyd aangegaan het, het ek al hoe meer angstig begin raak en, jy weet, ek dink toe die
hele tyd hoe vinnig ek uit die ding uit kan kom, want ons het ’n radio, ons het radio verbinding. Maar hulle
het dit ook geweet, want toe ek sê: ‘Sluit ons in die slaapkamer toe’, toe sê hulle: ‘Nee, die radio is daar’.
Ja, hulle het presies geweet. Ek vermoed my huishulp van laas, daardie tyd was betrokke - die een wat in
die huis was. En ja, toe, toe hulle ons nou wou toesluit, sê ek: ‘OK, sluit ons in die spens toe’, want die
spens het nou nie vensters nie en al die dinge. Wat ek geweet het, wat hulle nou nie geweet het nie, is dis
’n ou huis wat aangebou is. En ek het geweet agter die spensrakke is ’n deur wat na my dogter se
slaapkamer toe lei. Ek dog as hulle ons daar toesluit, sal ons kan uitkom. Hy het toe eers die spens gaan
210
ondersoek [die respondent lag], om te kyk of ons kan uitkom. Maar hy sien toe nie die deur nie en hy sluit
ons daar toe. Maar, wat eintlik verstommend was, is dat net voor hulle ons wou toesluit, vra hulle vir my wil
ons water hê. Toe sê ek vir hom: ‘Ja, asseblief, ek wil water hê’. Toe sê hy vir my: ‘OK, gaan haal nou ’n
glas - dan stuur hy my so met die pistool. Ek haal die beker water uit die yskas, toe loop hy so met die
pistool agter my aan binne-in die spens in. My tweeling, dis die twee wat in die huis was, was op daardie
stadium in graad sewe gewees en dit was kort voor die finale eksamen. Die tasse en al hulle goed was in
die kar - al hulle skoolwerk. Ek sê toe vir hom: ‘Luister, die kinders skryf eksamen. Haal net asseblief die
tasse uit die kar. Gooi hulle net iewers uit. Haal net vir my die tasse uit’. Ek sê ook vir hom: ‘…en gooi net
vir my asseblief my ID-dokument…’ . En ek onderhandel met hierdie ou. [Die respondent lag].

As dit nie vir die Here was nie… . Ek weet nie hoe hanteer ’n mens so iets as jy nie die Here ken nie en
weet dat jy in die Here se beskerming kan wees nie. Ek, ek weet regtigwaar nie. Ek dink ’n mens hanteer
dit glad nie. Ek dink glad nie, want dit is traumaties om met ’n pistool aangehou te word, jy weet. Ja, dis
aaklig. In elk geval, toe sluit hy ons nou toe in die spens en toe sê ek vir my seun: ‘Ons moet net so ’n
halfuur of so wag om seker te wees’. Toe vat hulle my kar. Toe laai hulle die goed in my kar en in hulle kar.

Maar ek het geweet hulle gaan die kar vat. Hy sê nogal vir my hy gaan my kar vat, maar hy gaan my kar
hier iewers langs die pad parkeer vir my. Hy het natuurlik nie. En jy weet, hulle het nie een maskers of iets
opgehad nie en ek het hulle almal in die gesig gekyk. Hulle sê mos eintlik moet ’n mens hulle mos nie in die
gesig kyk nie. Hulle het my nie gesê om nie te kyk nie. Hulle het ons toegelaat om te kyk, die hele tyd. Dit is
vreemd, nè? In elk geval, toe is hulle weg. Toe het my seun uitgeklim, oor die rak en in die slaapkamer in
en hy het ons toe kom oopsluit. Die ou sê vir my hy gaan ons toesluit maar hy gaan die sleutel buitekant die
deur los, want as my man kom, kan hy ons maklik uitlaat.

Dit is alles net genade van die Here, nè. As jy sien hoe hy ons hanteer het. Toe ons uitkom, staan die twee
skooltasse in die middel van die kombuisvloer met my dogtertjie se skoolskoene wat sy uitgetrek het op die
tas en ’n ID-dokument het hy daar neergesit, maar dit was my ou ID-dokument. [Die respondent lag]. My
handsak en my bankkaarte en goed het hy toe saamgevat. Hy het ’n ou een, ID-dokument wat voor in die
paneelkassie van die kar gelê het, uitgehaal.

Toe het ons op die radio geroep. M [’n SAPD reservis] wat hier langsaan bly, was binne vyf minute by ons
huis. En toe het die polisie uitgekom. Toe het ons ’n saak gemaak, maar nooit weer van die saak gehoor
nie, behalwe dat my pistool gekry is. Dit was so amper ’n jaar later, toe bel die polisie my van ’n ander plek
af, toe sê hulle, hulle het my pistool gekry. Die pistool is gebruik in ’n verdere kaping en daar is drie mans in
hegtenis geneem. Ek moes die pistool gaan uitken. Ek het gegaan en dit gedoen.

Toe het die polisiemanne vir my gesê as die saak afgehandel is, kan ek my pistool kry. Nou, dis nou
211
verlede jaar Junie- of Juliemaand gewees, het ons nog niks verder van hulle gehoor nie. Ag, ek wil ook nie
eintlik my pistool hê nie. Wat gaan ek tog met hom maak? Ek gaan tog nie ’n lisensie vir hom kry nie.

Ek het hulle gesê ek wil graag kyk - na die kapers wat gearresteer is in besit van my pistool. Ek wil weet.
Toe het die polisieman vir my gesê daar is een of ander tegniese detail, omdat dit ’n ander saak was as my
saak of so iets. Hulle het my nooit toegelaat nie, my nooit gekontak nie, ook nooit gekontak om byvoorbeeld
te sê in die hof dis my pistool nie. So, dis basies maar die storie, jy weet.”

“I picked my two children up at the primary school. It was approximately 14h15 when we arrived here. At
that time this gravel road up here where we come in to the house was much narrower than it is now and
more overgrown. Only one vehicle could go at a time. And when we came around a bend, near to our
entrance, a vehicle stood in the road with its bonnet up with bricks like this in front of it. I was fairly
suspicious and stopped a little way away from it, perhaps two or three car lengths, and my little girl still said
to my son: ‘Go and help them push’ and then I said: ‘No, remain seated’. Then, the following moment
someone got into the car from behind. My child had not closed the back door. Then he came along the road
from the back and got in, right behind me, right behind my seat and when I looked back, he took his pistol
from under his T-shirt.

When he was inside, the other two closed the bonnet and one got in and drove the car out of the road.
There were four men, one got in first by us - the other three were by the other vehicle - and one got back
into their vehicle. Two others came to us and also got into the car here. One just got into the front seat and
literally sat down on top of my little girl. He was really ugly, just went and sat down on top of her. Then they
told us we must now drive home. We then just drove home. He was very decent, the man, eh [the
respondent laughs,] very polite, spoke Afrikaans to me, and told me if we did nothing, then nothing would
happen to us, but we must listen to what they say. In any case, then we went home.

I still thought maybe I can drive past to the chicken farm because there are always many people there, but
when we got to our turn-in, he said to me: ‘Drive in here’. Then he already knew. O, they knew precisely,
knew precisely. Because A [the respondent’s spouse] is at home a lot, but at that stage he went
somewhere on business from time to time and he had gone off somewhere on that day. So we suspect our
maid was involved. In any case, then we came to the house, approached the gate. I told my children they
must please just stay calm and … because I had decided not to offer any resistance. No, oh, you know, I
realised that our lives were just not worth it. The one that sat next to my daughter in front, that was quite
bad for me. He sat with the point of his pistol on her thigh like this… . Do you know what struck me about
this lot? It’s how anxious they were. You know, they were so jittery. The guy who got in front next to me and
who sat with his pistol point on my little daughter’s leg, was shaking so. That pistol point was doing this -
[the respondent demonstrates the movement with her hand] - I promise you. I then said to my little girl:
212
‘Listen, you just sit like a statue. Just do not move’, because, I mean, if she moves, then he is going to
shoot. Oh, then we came down to the gate, and I then opened the gate.

At that point in time we had a very vicious dog. Then he asked where the dog is. Then he knew about the
dog, yes. A very vicious dog that bites. He then asked me where is the dog, then I said: ‘No, it is here
somewhere’. Then he said he is going to shoot it. Then I said: ‘No, don’t shoot my dog’. Then he said to me
but they are going to shoot it. Then I said: ‘Please, don’t shoot my dog, I will tie the dog up’. Then he
allowed my son to get out of the car, but we, my daughter and me, he still detained in the car. But they did
not alight, because they knew the dog was going to bite them. And of course the dog did when my son
opened the door, then the dog snapped, [the respondent laughs] in the car. It snapped at the guy’s arm, but
of course it did not hurt him. Then he got such a fright, he could do nothing. P [the respondent’s son] then
went and tied the dog up. Well, either tie him up or he is dead. And I was not up to it that he shoot the dog
dead in front of the children.

Then they had us into the house. My maid was here and mmm … I was then terribly afraid that she would
react terribly, then they would shoot us. Later my children said to me: ‘Mom, you walked in and when you,
her name is M, when you saw M, you said to M, I could not believe it afterwards, I apparently said to her:
‘M, these people have come to fetch our TV’. [The respondent laughs]. I told her: ‘Don’t scream, they have
come to fetch the TV’. Then they put her in the bathroom, in the shower and told her to sit there, she may
not go.

It was the Lord’s peace, you know, because I … I told the children when we were driving down here:
‘Listen, I am now going to drive, but you must pray, it’s your job to pray. You are going to pray, and I am
going to handle this thing’.

And they took the three of us into the house, and one, one of the guys immediately started carrying things
out and the other two took us and asked us where the main bedroom is. They then started tipping
everything out and searching and so on.

We have a safe and then they saw the safe and then wanted the safe key and then I did not know where
the key was because A hides it. I then told them I do not know where is the key, but he … he became
terribly aggressive because I did not know, but I then said to him we would look for it, I have an idea where
it is. Then we went, looked for the key. The whole time they held us … you know, the pistols aimed at us.

One guy remained in the car, one started carrying out. [The respondent laughs]. The biggest strongest guy
started carrying out, took my breadknife and cut off all the cords of the computer and things, and two kept
the three of us together.
213
One of the two asked my daughter who was twelve-thirteen: ‘Come show me where is your room’. Then I
just said: ‘No, she stays with me. We all stay together, we will all go and show you together where her room
is’. He then did not separate her from us, also not by force. When we found the safe key, he unlocked the
safe, emptied the safe … carried everything out… . What else did he do … ? That’s basically it, but as time
progressed, I began to become all the more anxious and, you know, the whole time I was thinking how fast
I could get out of the thing, because we have a radio, we have radio communication. But they knew that
too, because when I said: ‘Lock us up in the bedroom’, they said: ‘No, the radio is there’. Yes, they knew
exactly. I suspect that my maid of last, that time was involved - the one that was in the house. And, yes,
when they wanted to lock us up, I said: ‘OK, lock us up in the pantry’, because the pantry now does not
have windows and all the things. What I knew, and what they now did not know, is that it’s an old house
that has been extended. And I knew behind the pantry shelves there is a door that leads to my daughter’s
bedroom. I thought that if they locked us up there, we would be able to get out. He then first went to inspect
the pantry [the respondent laughs], to see if we could get out. But he then did not see the door and he
locked us up there. But, what is actually amazing, is that just before they wanted to lock us up, they asked
me if we wanted some water. Then I said to him: ‘Yes, please, I want some water’. Then he said to me:
‘OK, go and fetch a glass then’ - then he guided me like this with the pistol. I took the jug of water out of the
refrigerator, then he walked behind me like this with the pistol right into the pantry. My twins, the two who
were in the house, were in grade seven at that stage and it was just before the final exams. The cases and
all their stuff was in the car - all their schoolwork. I then said to him: ‘Listen, the children are writing exams.
Please just take their cases out of the car. Just throw them out somewhere. Just take the cases out for me’.
I also said to him: ‘…and please throw me my ID-document…’. And I negotiated with this guy. [The
respondent laughs].

If it were not for the Lord… . I do not know how one handles something like this if you do not know the Lord
and know that you can be in the Lord’s protection. I, I really do not know. I think a person does not handle it
at all. I think not at all, because it is traumatic to be held up with a pistol, you know. Yes, it’s awful. In any
case, then he locked us up in the pantry and then I said to my son: ‘We must just wait half an hour or so to
be sure’. Then they took my car. Then they loaded the things into my car and into their car.

But I knew they were going to take the car. He even said to me that he was going to take my car, but he
was going to park it alongside the road here somewhere for me. Naturally he did not. And you know, they
did not even have masks on and I looked them all in the face. They actually say one should not really look
them in the face. They did not tell me not to look. They allowed us to look, the whole time. That is strange,
not so? In any case, they then left. Then my son climbed out, over the shelf and into the bedroom and then
he came and unlocked us. The guy told me that he was going to lock us up but that he was going to leave
the key outside the door, because when my husband arrives, he can easily let us out.
214
 It is all just the grace of God. If you see how he treated us. When we got out, the two school cases stood in
the middle of the kitchen floor with my daughter’s school shoes that she had taken off on top of the case
and he put an ID-document down there, but it was my old ID-document. [The respondent laughs]. My
handbag and my bank cards and things he took with him. He took out an old one, ID-document that was
lying in the cubby-hole of the car.

Then we called on the radio. M [a SAPS reservist] who lives next door, was at our house within five
minutes. And then the police came out. Then we opened a case, but never heard about the case again,
except that my pistol had been found. It was approximately a year later, then the police phoned me from
another place, then they said to me, they have found my pistol. The pistol was used in a further hijacking
and three men were taken into custody. I had to go and identify the pistol. I went and I did it.

Then the policemen told me when the case is finalised, I can have my pistol. Now, that was now last year in
the month of June or July, we have not heard anything further from them. Oh, I also actually do not really
want my pistol. What am I going to do with it? I am still not going to get a licence for it.

I told them I would like to have a look – at the hijackers arrested in possession of my pistol. I want to know.
Then the policeman told me there is some technical detail or other, because it was a different case from
mine or something like that. They never allowed me, also never contacted me, also never contacted me, for
example, to say in court that it’s my pistol. So, that’s basically the story, you know.”

6.1.13 Respondent 13

At the time of the attack, Respondent 13 was a 58-year old white married male living with his wife,
daughter and granddaughter on a smallholding in Nokeng Tsa Taemane, Gauteng Province.

Date of the attack: 2003

Circumstances of the attack:

The couple and their daughter were taken by surprise one hot summer’s evening by three armed black
males while they were relaxing on their verandah just after sunset. On the day of the attack,
Respondent 13 had drawn money from the bank to pay his employees’ wages the next day. At the
time of the interview, no arrests had been made.

215
“Dit was in Januarie gewees, 16 Januarie. Twee jaar gelede was dit vreeslik warm die dag, en selfs ook die
aand. Ek, my vrou en my dogter het hier op die stoep gesit en ontspan, jy weet. Ek was in ’n kortbroek en ’n
hemp gewees. Hier was nog nie eers ligte aan nie en toe ons hulle sien, het hulle hier by die bure
deurgekom, drie van hulle, gewapen, elkeen met ’n pistool. Toe ons hulle sien, kom hulle om die huis. Van
agter af. Die oomblik toe ons hulle sien, toe span hulle die pistole en hulle sê vir my ek moet gaan lê en die
vrouens moet sit. Hulle het aanvanklik niks gepraat nie. Hulle het net gefluister, heeltyd omtrent. Dit was
om en by agtuur. Dan is jy nie op jou hoede nie.

Ons het ’n klein foksie in die huis. Dié het vreeslik begin blaf. My kleindogter het hier binne gesit. Sy het
televisie gekyk. Sy het daar deur die venster gekyk en sy sien toe wat gebeur. Sy hardloop toe kamer toe
en sy kruip toe in een van die kaste weg. Hulle het my toe vasgebind met skoenveters en sulke goed en toe
hou hulle ’n wag by ons. Die ander twee begin toe die huis leegdra. Later het hulle [die aanvallers] gesien
ek het half losgekom, toe gaan haal hulle van die draad. En hulle het hulle [die respondent se eggenote en
dogter] vasgemaak met daardie drade en my ook. Met die heiningdraad.

My kleindogter het toe die polisie gebel uit die kas uit met haar selfoon, maar sy het ongelukkig nie die
plotnommer reggehad nie. Toe kon hulle nou nie hierso uitkom nie. Sy het nogal ’n skrywe gekry van die
polisie. Wel, hulle het alles uitgedra, een van die voertuie gaan haal in die motorhuis, toevallig my dogter
s’n, alles daarin gelaai. Hulle het ons gelukkig geen leed aangedoen nie.

Al die geld gevat, die pistool gevat, want ek het net die dag gaan lone trek. Dit het so op my bedkassie nog
gelê, pistool en al. Toe het hulle dit alles gevat, al die juwele gevat, en natuurlik al die elektroniese goed,
maar niks klere nie. Snaaks, geen klere gevat nie, maar al die elektroniese goed.

Toe hulle wegry, het ek probeer loskom, maar hulle [die respondent se eggenote en dogter] was
vasgebind. Ek het gelukkig ’n knip gehad, ’n ding wat kan knip hierso in ’n laai in die kombuis en ek het so
ge-hop-hop op my voete en die ding gevat en hulle gaan loskry. Toe vat ek sommer my voertuig en ry hier
af polisie toe. Toe gaan sê ek toe direk vir hulle, sê hulle moet kyk met [behulp van] die radio en so aan.
Hulle het niks gedoen nie, niemand gevang die aand nie.

Die volgende dag het hulle die kar in Mamelodi gekry. Die radio is uitgesteel, al die gereedskap uitgesteel,
spaarwiel uitgesteel en alles. Die polisie het hier gekom en verklarings geneem. Hulle het later ’n
uitkenningsparade gehad, ons genooi om ’n uitkenningsparade te doen, maar dit is ook eintlik nie baie
goed gereël nie, want aanvanklik wou hulle gehad het hulle moet sommer net voor ons verskyn. Toe sê ek
maar ek is nie bereid om dit te doen nie, jy weet. Nou-nou herken ons daar iemand en hy gaan terugkom

216
en jou weer leed aandoen of iets, jy weet. Toe het hulle so ’n eenrigting venster tipe ding gekry, maar ons
kon nie… . Jy weet dit was skemer, hier was geen ligte nog buite aangewees nie en ja, hulle lyk vir blankes
almal dieselfde. Jy kan hulle nie so maklik uitken nie.

Ek sou sê hulle was so ’n uur hierso. Ja-nee, hulle is eintlik redelik op hulle gemak, jy weet. Die een ou sê
ook vir my, jy weet, hulle doen baie hierdie werk [die aanval en roof van boere] sê hy. Ja, hy beskou dit as
sy werk.”

“It was January, 16th January. Two years ago it was terribly hot that day, and even also in the evening. My
wife, daugter and I were sitting and relaxing here on the verandah, you know. I was in shorts and a shirt.
The lights were not even on here yet and when we saw them, they were coming through here by the
neighbours, three of them, armed, each with a pistol. When we saw them, they were coming around the
house. From the back. The moment we saw them, they cocked their pistols and told me to lie down and the
women must sit. At first they did not speak at all. They just whispered, almost the whole time. It was
approximately eight o’clock. Then you are not on your guard.

We have a little foxy in the house. This started barking terribly. My granddaughter was sitting inside here.
She was watching television. She looked through the window there and saw what was happening. She then
ran to the room and hid in one of the cupboards. They then tied me up with shoelaces and such things and
then they left a guard by us. The other two started clearing out the house. Later they [the attackers] saw
that I was half loose, then they went and fetched some of the wire. And they tied them [the repsondent’s
wife and daughter] up with that wire and me too. With wire from the boundary fence.

My granddaughter then phoned the police from the cupboard on her cellphone, but unfortunately she did
not have the plot number correct. Then they could not get to us here. She even got a letter from the police.
Well, they carried everything out, fetched one of the vehicles from the garage, coincidentally my daughter’s,
loaded everything into it. Fortunately they did us no harm.

Took all the money, took the pistol, because I had gone and drawn wages just that day. It still lay so on my
pedestal, pistol and all. Then they took it all, all the jewellery, and naturally all the electronic stuff, but no
clothes. Strange, no clothes taken, but all the electronic stuff.

When they drove off, I tried to free myself, but they [the respondent’s wife and daughter] were tied fast.
Fortunately I had a clipper, something that can clip here in a draw in the kitchen and I hopped-hopped on
my feet and fetched the thing and went to loosen them. Then I just took my vehicle and drove down here to
the police. Then I went and told them directly, said they must search with the [help of the] radio and so on.
They did nothing, caught nobody that night.
217
 The next day they found the car in Mamelodi. The radio had been stolen, all the tools stolen, spare wheel
stolen and everything. The police came here and took statements. Later they had an identity parade, they
invited us to attend an identity parade, but it was actually not arranged very well, because initially they
wanted them to appear before us just like that. Then I said but I was not prepared to do it, you know. We
might just recognise somebody there and he will come back and harm you again, or something like that,
you know. Then they got a one-way window type of thing, but we could not… . You know, it was dusk, there
were no lights on outside here yet and yes, they all look the same to white people. You cannot identify them
so easily.

I would say they were here approximately an hour. Oh yes, they are actually reasonably at ease, you know.
The one guy also said to me, you know, they do this work a lot [the attacking and robbing of farmers], he
says. He regards it as his job.”

6.1.14 Respondent 14

At the time of the attack, Respondent 14 was a 36-year old married Indian female living with her white
husband on a smallholding in Nokeng Tsa Taemane, Gauteng Province.

Date of attack: 2004

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 14 and her spouse parked their motor vehicle outside their home on returning to their
smallholding from their place of business in the city. When her husband went to drive their vehicle into
the garage at approximately 20h00, he was waylaid and bludgeoned to death. At the time of the
interview, no arrests had been made.

“You know, this, I, still am trying to figure out, the day that this happened, and, you know, it was a
Wednesday, 31st March. That particular day everything was different. He didn’t even want to go to work.
He refused to get out. You know, I don’t know … and that day he just wouldn’t go and I kept forcing him to
get up and he wouldn’t. He says: ‘No, just lie in bed’. Eventually, half past twelve, I got him out of bed. And
he says: ‘No, come on, let us just stay’. I said: ‘But you have to. It’s month-end. There are people to pay
and cheques to collect’ because we run our own business… . I was sitting here. We were having tea here. I
was sitting watching TV and I said to him: ‘Time for the bakkie to be put in the garage’ and he says: ‘Oh,

218
leave it’ and I said: ‘Please, W, yesterday you went for a meeting and you said to me these people said to
you that they’ve changed the times of crime, and that now they’re attacking earlier. So why do you want to
wait till it’s late and put it away? Put it away now. It’s almost eight o’clock. Just go and put it away, and get it
done, because … then you don’t have to worry. I mean, what if they break in? You’ve over R30 000, R40
000 worth of equipment sitting in the bakkie and tomorrow you’re going to be upset. So put it away, it’s
locked up, it’s safe, then you can come and relax and watch TV… . And he had his supper and he didn’t
smoke his cigarette for the first time in all the years that I know him, for the first time, he refused to smoke
his cigarette and have his tea. He said he would go and put the bakkie away and I got his tea for him and I
left it on the table and I lit him a cigarette and I said: ‘Have your cigarette and your tea and you can put the
bakkie away’ and he said: ‘No, it’s OK. I’ll go and put it away’. He took his cap and he put on his jacket with
the hood, because he has got a very soft head, you know, and he gets cold on his head very quickly
because he has got fine blond hair - so he must put on that hood, you know, and then go outside, otherwise
he gets a head cold. I heard him driving the bakkie away because he locked this door [leading outside from
the dining-room]. The kitchen door was open, the gate was locked, the light was on exactly as it is right now
and because I was sitting here, he won’t leave the door open - so he locked this door and he locked the
gate and put the keys in his pocket and he went out.

I just felt something. I, I, the pain that I felt made me know that something was happening outside. I got to
that door between the kitchen and the dining-room, and I heard him say: ‘What the … are you doing? Didn’t
I tell you never to come to the window with the lights on, because people can see you from outside?’.
Umm… I just froze there for a moment, I mean, it seemed like forever, but it was like a split second, and I
turned around and I ran upstairs, switched the lights off and I looked out the upstairs lounge window. I saw
the silhouette of a person, but because I have night blindness, you only see shadows, you don’t see
people. You can’t see much, you can’t see anything and we didn’t have a light at the garage door at that
time. We didn’t have lights inside the garage either, because we were still renovating. He was still in the
process of doing all that. And when I saw the silhouette, I looked towards the garage and I noticed a light in
the garage and immediately, you know, everything went blank. I didn’t know who, who I was, where I was,
where I lived, what was my telephone number, nothing. I knew, all I could remember was I must call Netstar
because they know everything, you know, because the bakkie has Netstar. I called Netstar and I said to
them my husband has been hijacked… . And they asked me for my address and I said: ‘I don’t know, you
know everything’ and I cut the call. I ran downstairs into the bedroom and there was a rifle, one of those old
shotguns, rifles that he’s got. I took it from the top of the wardrobe, didn’t even check if it was loaded or not
loaded, nothing, you know, just thinking I can do something. And I ran up the stairs again and couldn’t see
anybody, so I ran back downstairs, saw the phone and I thought: ‘F, let me call F, the neighbour. Because,
you know, they belong to this neighbourhood watch thing. You know, [inaudible] I’m not on the radio… . So
I thought if I phone F, F will get help, because he is part of the neighbourhood watch and commando thing.
I dialled the number and it was somebody else, the wrong number, because I couldn’t remember what his
219
number was. The second call I made, I got through to him and I said to him this is what is happening. Look,
he was here very fast with M [a SAPS reservist]. I don’t know who broke the gates, whether it was them. I
can’t tell you, but I know somebody broke off the gate, before the time, after the time, I don’t know, but the
gate was broken. And I tried to get out and I couldn’t get out because he had the keys. The maid has got a
set of keys and he had the other keys with him and I couldn’t get out the door. And I couldn’t get outside,
and I opened the window and I started screaming for these workers, but instead of … helping me, they
switched the lights off. And there was nobody else to call. I called my sister … and by then the police, M
and them were here and they asked me where B [the respondent’s spouse] is and I said: ‘He should be in
the garage or I don’t know where he is. He was putting the car away’. And the garage was locked and there
were no lights there. Nobody could see anything and they started calling out his name, but nobody was
going inside the garage. I’m standing at the kitchen door, trying to flick the light on and off, because I have
a sensor light there. I was trying to flick that light on and off so that maybe, you know, I can see something.
They pulled their cars and bakkies closer to the garage door and they waited until the rest of the police
came, before opening the garage door. M was the first to open the garage door. He tried to look inside and
he called out his name a couple of times. They [the police] were running towards the cottage and [inaudible]
in the garage and to the side of the house and I kept asking them where is B and if he is OK, you know,
what’s happening with him. Nobody is saying anything and all of a sudden somebody screamed: ‘Get the
ambulance, he is bleeding!’. Nobody is saying where is he bleeding, what’s happening and I am screaming
for them to get the keys from the maid, I’m stuck inside the house. I called the policeman and said: ‘Get the
keys from the maid. Call the maid. Call somebody. Let me out’. And nobody was letting me out. About an
hour, an hour and a half later, they finally got the maid and they opened the door and they let me out. I
walked and I went into the garage and there he was lying on the floor, curled up like a baby between the
bakkie and the car and there was blood all over, but I could hear him … deep … gurgling … you know,
trying hard to breathe. His eyes were closed, but I didn’t think he was hurt so badly. You know, he was a
baby when it came to things like that. You hit him on his head and he would hold his head for two hours.
You know, he couldn’t take pain. He was a very big strong man. You can hurt him anywhere, and he could
handle it, he’d stand up, but if you hurt him on his head, he can’t. He’d go down like a ton of bricks. And I
didn’t know he was hurt on his head, I mean, I saw the blood. His eyes were closed and all blue, and I
couldn’t… . Look, I’ve never seen anybody involved in something like this before, so I didn’t know why his
eyes were so blue and closed and his skin was all hurt and swollen and … his hand cold and dead. He was
going to be OK. I was saying: ‘You must hang on. You must be strong’. And somebody pulled me away,
told me I’m in their way, the ambulance people want to work on him. Somebody took away his jacket and
there was blood going all over. And, before I knew it, they’re putting him in the ambulance and the police
stopped me. They wanted to talk to me and nobody wanted to go with him. There were people [neighbours]
all over laughing and joking and carrying on and the police were sitting inside and questioning me over and
over, where we were, what time we came, who we saw, what we did, what we ate, why he locked me inside
the house, why I couldn’t get out, how come there weren’t other keys? I phoned his sister and I said to his
220
 sister: ‘Please, he has gone to the hospital. You know B doesn’t like to be alone. None of us will be there
and he is going to be very, very angry and very upset, because we’re always together. Just go there and
hold his hand and tell him I’m just doing what he needs me to do. I’m just giving the police all the details
that they need, so that they know and they can catch the people or whatever they are going to do.’ At that
time, we didn’t know if anything was taken or what was happening, you know. So I just wanted to make
sure that he doesn’t have anything to worry about tomorrow or when lying in the hospital and recovering
from whatever hurt he’s got. ‘Tell the doctor that he is allergic to penicillin and asprin and [tell him] I’m
bringing his clothes and he doesn’t have to worry about having those dirty clothes and using the hospital
stuff. I’ll be there now with everything they need. Just go and try and cheer him up.’ The time was going.
The time was going, but I’m still sitting. Eventually I phoned a friend of ours, J and I said to him: ‘J,
something’s happened to B, please can you go through?’ And luckily he came through. He didn’t ask any
questions. He came through… . When J was taking me away, I thought: ‘Shit, I can’t just leave the garage
and stuff like that, B is going to get upset. He is going to get very upset if I leave everything like that’. So I
put a lock onto the garage doors and I told my workers: ‘I haven’t got time to do anything now. You guys
stay in the house, lock up the house, do whatever, but I’m going’. At least the garage has to be locked up
because I don’t know what happened in there. Tomorrow when he asks me, he must not get upset for
nothing, he must get well.”

She later learned that he was declared dead on arrival at the hospital. He suffered severe head
injuries.

6.1.15 Respondent 15

At the time of the attack, Respondent 15 was a 60-year old white married female living with her
husband and adult daughter on a smallholding in Nokeng Tsa Taemane, Gauteng Province.

Date of the attack: 2003

Circumstances of the attack:

Respondent 15 was attacked outside her home one morning just after her maid and gardener had
returned to the farmhouse from their quarters where they had gone for their breakfast. The maid
informed her that the gardener’s brother was outside and that he wished to speak to her about
employment. According to Swart (2003:72), it is not uncommon for strangers to arrive with employees
to enquire about employment opportunities. Respondent 15 walked towards the electric fence where

221
the offender then pointed a firearm at her and pulled the trigger.At the time of the interview, no arrests
had been made.

“Ek het om elfuur die oggend uit die veld uit gekom met my honde. Ek het my [afstand] kontrole bo-op die
hek neergesit vir my werker. Ek het met my jong ’n reëling gehad, sodat hulle [die tuinier en die huishulp]
kan inkom nadat hulle ontbyt gaan eet het. Toe het die bediende ingekom en my kom roep en gesê F se
broer is daar en F se broer soek werk. ‘Julle is mos hier, watse werksoekery is dit?’. En toe gaan ek hek
toe. Hulle het my geroep. Hulle het aan die ander kant van die elektriese omheining gestaan. Die honde het
mal geblaf. Hy het een meter van die omheining gestaan en ek een meter van die omheining aan die ander
kant. Die honde het vreeslik lawaai en hy het nader gestaan, maar hy het afgekyk en sy een hand het hy
agter sy rug gehou - so [die respondent demonstreer]. Toe hy die rewolwer uittrek, toe is dit in die militêre
styl, so, en hy mik na my. Toe skiet hy, maar die skoot het nie afgegaan nie. Ek het gedink: ‘O God, help
my!’. Ek het binne-in die rotstuin gestaan. Ek het omgedraai en ek het gedink as hy my moet skiet, moet hy
my liewer in my rug skiet en nie in my gesig nie. Ek glo ook, behalwe God se genade, het my honde my
gehelp. Ek het geweet ek moenie reguit hardloop nie. Ek het in die huis in gehardloop. Toe ek by die
stoepdeur kom, staan sy [die huishulp] met haar arms gevou in die kombuis. Ek het die kombuisdeur
gesluit, toe begin ek bel, eers die navorser wat my buurvrou is, by haar winkel. Sy het van die mans in die
winkelsentrum gevra om gou te kom help. Dit het my man 20 minute geneem om van Johannesburg af
hierheen te ry. Hy het 10111 gebel. My dogter was by die haarkapster. Ek het haar gebel om nie huis toe te
kom nie, want ek was bang vir wat hulle aan haar sou doen as sy hier aankom. Sy jaag toe sommer met
nat hare hierheen. Langs die pad het sy die vangwa gekry en gesê hulle moet haar volg.

Ek het net groot lof vir die Kameeldrift SAPD. Ek wou hulle nog wys waar dit gebeur het, maar my twee
skoene het nog mooi langs mekaar gestaan waar ek gestaan het toe hy op my geskiet het. Die kaptein kom
na my toe en sê sy sien ek is erg getraumatiseer, sy wil my net ’n drukkie gee. Hulle was later hier met
verdagtes, maar ek kon hulle nie identifiseer nie. As iemand op jou wil skiet, kyk jy na die vuurwapen, nie
na sy gesig nie.”

“At eleven o’clock I came out of the veld with my dogs. I put my [remote] control on top of the gate for my
worker. I had an arrangement with my young worker, so that they [the gardener and the maid] could get in
after they have gone to eat their breakfast. The maid then came in and came and called me and said that
F’s brother was there and that F’s brother was looking for employment. ‘You are here, what job-seeking is
this?’. Then I went to the gate. They called me. They stood on the other side of the electric fence. The dogs
barked madly. He was standing one meter from the fence and I one meter from the fence on the other side.
The dogs were making a terrible noise and I stepped nearer, but he was looking down and was holding one
hand behind his back - like this [the respondent demonstrates]. When he pulled the revolver out, it was in

222
 military style, like this, and he aimed at me. Then he pulled the trigger, but the shot did not go off. I thought:
‘O God, help me!’. I was standing in the rockery. I turned round, and I thought that if he must shoot me, he
must rather shoot me in my back and not in my face. I also believe, except for God’s mercy, my dogs
helped me. I knew I mustn’t run in a straight line. I ran into the house. When I got to the verandah door, she
[the maid] was standing with folded arms in the kitchen. I locked the kitchen door, then I began phoning,
first the researcher who is my neighbour, at her shop. She asked some of the menfolk at the shopping
centre to come and help quickly. It took my husband 20 minutes to drive here from Johannesburg. He
phoned 10111. My daughter was at the hairdresser. I phoned her not to return home, because I was afraid
of what they would do to her if she arrived here. Then she just raced here with her wet hair. Along the way
she met up with the police van and she told them to follow her.

I have only great praise for the Kameeldrift SAPS. I still wanted to show them where it happened, but my
two shoes were still lying neatly next to each other where I was standing when he shot at me. The captain
then came to me and said that she could see that I was badly traumatised, she just wants to give me a
hug.They were here later with suspects, but I could not identify them. If someone wants to shoot at you, you
look at the firearm, not at his face.”

6.2 ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

This section will deal firstly with the respondents’ perceptions of their susceptibility to farm attacks. In
the analysis that follows, all related aspects of susceptibility that sometimes come to the fore by
chance during the course of the interviews, will also be included. Erroneous perceptions about the
motives behind farm attacks and the capabilities of offenders who perpetrate attacks will be
highlighted as they sometimes give rise to a false sense of security and complacency about farmers’
safety.

6.2.1 Respondents’ perceptions of susceptibility to attacks

Before they were victimised, all 15 respondents that were interviewed were aware of attacks on
farmers. Only six respondents (Respondents 2, 3, 8, 10, 11 and 15) verbalised that they felt safe on
their farms before the attacks. The erroneous perception of safety of Respondents 3, 8 and 15 is in
line with Janoff-Bulman and Frieze’s finding that individuals are usually optimistic and assume that
they are invulnerable until they have fallen prey to offenders (see section 4.1.1.1). Their beliefs about
farm attacks, possibly also played a role in the risks that they were prepared to take and in the level of
complacency that some of the respondents might have evidenced. The rest of the respondents were
223
aware that they might be attacked and therefore did not feel completely safe.

Respondent 3: “Jy voel veilig omdat dit so oop is. Dis so oop, jy kan ver sien.”
Respondent 3: “You feel safe because it is so open. It is so open, you can see far.”

Respondent 8: “I mean, you didn’t expect anything like that to happen… . I never did.”

Respondent 15: “Ek het veilig gevoel in die huis as gevolg van die elektriese omheining. Ons het al inbrake
gehad, maar net as ons met vakansie was. Dis waarom ons die elektriese omheining laat oprig het.”
Respondent 15: “I felt safe in the house because of the electric fence. We have already had burglaries, but
only when we were on holiday. That is why we had the electric fence erected.”

Two respondents (Respondents 2 and 10), indicated that they did not feel less safe on their farms
than in a city, even after they had been attacked. While one believed that assistance might more
readily be forthcoming from eyewitnesses in a city than in the country, the other felt that only one
untrustworthy guard at a security complex in a city was sufficient to jeopardise the safety of all the
residents in an area that was designed to be safe.

Respondent 2: “Ek voel nie meer kwesbaar [vir viktimisasie] op ’n plaas as op die dorp nie. Die enigste
verskil is dat jy alleen is op ‘n plaas en niemand sal hoor as jy roep nie. As jy byvoorbeeld in Pretoria
aangeval sou word by ’n stopstraat en jy skreeu, sal iemand jou help. Op die plase is dit anders.”
Respondent 2: “I do not feel more susceptible [to victimisation] on a farm than in town. The only difference
is that you are alone on a farm and nobody will hear if you call. If you were to be attacked in Pretoria, for
example, at a stop street, and you shout, somebody will help you. On the farms it is different.”

Respondent 10: “In die dorp gebeur dieselfde. In die veiligheidsplekke ook. Dis net nie so maklik om daar in
te kom nie. Dis ook maar swart wagte [op wag] en sodra daar een is wat nie betroubaar is nie… .”
Respondent 10: “In town the same happens. In the security complexes too. It is just not so easy to get in
there. It is also only black guards [on guard], and as soon as there is one that is not reliable… .”

One respondent (Respondent 11) felt that he was prepared for any eventuality before the attack as he
probably had the best security system in the area and that he would be able to cope should the need
arise.

Respondent 11: “Jy beskou jouself as paraat. Ek hét voor daardie tyd, maar… .”

224
 Respondent 11: “You perceive yourself as being mentally prepared and ready. I did before that time… .”

Although Respondent 13 did not feel particularly vulnerable at the time of the attack on him and his
family, he believed that whatever he might have felt, it was his prerogative as owner of his
smallholding to enjoy his property rights in the company of his family members in safety and in a
relaxed fashion.

Respondent 13: “Soos ek netnou vir jou gesê het, ek voel … ek was nie besonders kwesbaar gewees nie.
Dit is my reg. Dit is my eiendom en ek voel, in my land, ek voel ek kan maak hier op my eiendom wat ek
wil.”
Respondent 13: “Like I said to you just now. I feel … I was not exceptionally vulnerable. It is my right. It is
my property and I feel, in my country, I feel I can do what I want here on my property.”

All the respondents, including two of the six respondents who indicated that they felt safe before the
attacks on them (Respondents 8 and 15), had attempted to improve their safety in one or more ways
before they were victimised. Some (Respondents 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 13) invested in home protection
devices, such as burglar bars, security gates and alarms, while others (Respondents 1, 2, 6, 10 , 11,
12 and 14) also relied on the guardianship of family members, friends, neighbours, workers and dogs
to act as a deterrant to potential offenders. However, for various reasons all of their attempts at
enhancing their safety failed them on the day of the attack.

Respondent 1: “Ek was besig om my vriendin met naaldwerk te help in ons dubbelverdieping woning een
Saterdagoggend toe ’n groep swartmans ons oorval in die vertrek waar ons gewerk het… . Daar was twee
werkers onder, een in die kombuis en een buite… . Na die tyd het ons uitgevind hulle het hulle eers
oorrompel… . My bure was die oggend ook nie daar nie… .”
Respondent 1: “I was busy helping my friend with needlework in our double-storey home one Saturday
morning when a group of black men attacked us in the room where we were working… . There were two
workers downstairs, one in the kitchen and one outside… . Afterwards we found out that they had first
overpowered them… . My neighbours were also not there that morning… .”

Respondent 2: “Daardie oggend was die arbeiders reeds besig om naby ons huurhuis op die plaas
besproeiingspype te verskuif en hulle kon sien daar is vreemdes by die huis, maar hulle het hulle nie
daaraan gesteur nie. Hulle het ook die skote gehoor… . Ons het twee groot honde, Rotweilers [wat die
respondent besig was om te voer], maar dit het ons nie gehelp nie. Hulle het die een met ’n pylgeweer
geskiet en verdoof… . Die plaaseienaar se huis was maar 500m van ons huis af. Hulle het sommer met die

225
bakkie ingery. Die onbetrokkenheid van swartmense is fenomenaal. Die werkers het sekerlik die skoot
gehoor en hulle nie daaraan gesteur nie.”
Respondent 2: “That morning the labourers were already busy moving irrigation pipes near our rented
house on the farm and they could see that there were strangers at the house, but they took no notice of
that. They also heard the shots… . We have two large dogs, Rotweilers [that the respondent was busy
feeding], but that did not help us. They shot and sedated the one with a dart gun… . The house of the farm
owner was only 500m from our house. They simply drove in with the bakkie. The disconcern of black
people is phenomenal. The workers surely heard the shot and they took no notice of it.”

Respondent 3: “B se broer het in die onderste woonstel gebly. Hy het altyd die hond in die huis toegemaak
tot B terug is, want hy was kwaai. Daardie aand het hy dit nie gedoen nie. As die hond daar was, sou net
een ingekom het en nie lank gelewe het nie. Die ander een sou glad nie ingekom het nie… . Die bure wat
’n halwe kilometer van ons gebly het, het later gesê hulle het die skote gehoor, maar gedink ons poach… .”
Respondent 3: “B’s brother stayed in the bottom flat. He always closed the dog in the house until B
returned, because it was vicious. That evening he did not do it. If the dog were there, only one would have
got in and not lived long. The other one would not have come in at all… . The neighbours who lived half a
kilometre from us, said later that they heard the shots, but they thought we were poaching… .”

Respondent 4: “Hulle het my man in die gang ingewag met my gaspistool wat ek in die kas gelos het. Wie
dink nou iemand gaan dit kry…? Hulle het by die badkamervenster ingekom… . Al die deure was gesluit en
die sleutels uit die slotte geneem.”
Respondent 4: “They waylaid my husband in the passage with my gas pistol that I had left in the cupboard.
Who would now think someone is going to find it…? They entered through the bathroom window… . All the
doors were locked and the keys removed from the locks.”

Respondent 5: “Ons is redelik veiligheidsbewus. Al is dit nie so esteties aanvaarbaar nie, het ons nie groot
glas vensters laat insit toe ons gebou het nie. Ons het die kot-huis tipe gekies met die klein venstertjies met
rame wat terselfdertyd as diefwering dien. Alles is vasgesweis. Die vensters is ook hoog sodat ons onder
hulle kan verbybeweeg as dit nodig sou wees. In die nag sluit ons ons Trellidoor-hek in die gang. Ons het
ook gesorg dat ons ’n telefoon en die radio aan die slaapkamerkant van die veiligheidshek het. Burgelike
beskerming hou ook kort-kort vergaderings om die mense op te skerp. Hulle raai ons aan om elke aand ’n
ou kombers in ’n bad water te hou sodat dit gebruik kan word om ’n brand te blus of om jou mee toe te
draai as jy by vlamme moet verbyvlug. Misdadigers steek partykeer die veld aan die brand om jou uit te lok
buitentoe of om jou huis te laat afbrand. Die polisie raai ons aan om ’n haelgeweer langs ons bed te hou. ’n
Mens kan nie maklik met hom mis skiet nie… . Ons aanvaller was ons eie werker wat by ons grootgeword
het. Sy ma het in die kombuis gewerk. Na skool het hy in die middag vir sakgeld gewerk.”
Respondent 5: We are reasonably safety conscious. Even though it is not so esthetically acceptable, we did
226
not have large windows put in when we were building. We chose the cottage-type with the small windows
with frames that serve as burglar proofing at the same time. Everything is welded fast. The windows are
also high so that we may pass through under them should it be necessary. At night we lock our Trellidor-
gate in the passage. We also saw to it that we have a telephone and the radio on the bedroom side of the
security gate. Civil defence also have meetings now and again to make people aware. They recommend
that we keep an old blanket in a bath of water each night so that it can be used to extinguish a fire or to
wrap around yourself if you have to flee past flames. Criminals sometimes set the veld alight to lure you
outside or to burn your house down. The police recommend that we keep a shotgun next to our bed. One
cannot miss easily with it… . Our attacker was our own worker that grew up by us. His mother worked in the
kitchen. After school in the afternoons he worked for pocket money.”

Respondent 6: “As hulle [enige oortreders] deur die jaart loop, dan praat ek [die respondent spreek hulle
aan]. Ek belowe jou, daardie tyd van die more… . Ons het drie honde. Hulle is nogal wakker… . Hulle het
niks gedoen nie… . Daar is twee advokadobome [wat skelms wegkruipplek kon gebied het]. Daar is ’n lig
op daardie hoek en op daardie hoek en by die kombuis, maar geen lig by hierdie vensters nie. Hy het
presies geweet hoe lê ons op die bed. Hy het geweet waar is ons slaapkamer. Hy kon net so maklik by die
ander kamer se venster ingebreek het.”
Respondent 6: “If they [any trespassers] walk through the yard, then I talk [the respondent reprimands
them]. I promise you, at that time of the morning… . We have three dogs. They are quite awake… . They
did nothing. There are two avocado trees [that could have provided the culprits with hiding place]. There is
a light at that corner and at that corner by the kitchen, but no light by these windows. He knew exactly how
we lay on the bed. He knew where our bedroom is. He could just as easily have broken in at the window of
the other bedroom.”

Respondent 7: “Hulle het met ’n breekyster die diefwering gebreek. Ek het nie wakker geword daarvan nie.
My kamerdeur was gesluit. Toe ek iets by die deur hoor, het ek oopgemaak [die respondent het gedink dit
was sy hond]. Een het in my rigting geskiet en ek het omgespring en my pistool gegryp… . Ek dra al 10 jaar
’n vuurwapen… . Ons het honde… . Hulle het twee van die honde doodgeslaan.”
Respondent 7: “They broke the burglar proofing with a jemmy. I did not wake from that. My bedroom door
was locked. When I heard something at the door, I opened it [the respondent thought it was his dog]. One
fired in my direction and I jumped around and grabbed my pistol… . I have been carrying a firearm for 10
years already … . We have dogs… . They bludgeoned two of the dogs to death.”

Respondent 8: “I wanted to go to the shop to buy ingredients to bake biscuits. My car was ready, and I got
everything ready to go to town, so I hadn’t locked the security door when I came in. On my way out I heard
the dogs barking but it didn’t … because I thought it was just them, barking, and when I came back into the
kitchen and I opened the kitchen door, the two of them were standing at the kitchen door. I never thought
227
when I opened the kitchen door that I would find two black people standing there… . So I think when they
came through, they must have broken a stick off and they must have tried to hit the dogs. They ran away
and that’s why they stopped barking… . We’ve had security doors on the farm since we’ve been here. All
the windows are burglar proofed… .”

Respondent 9: “Ek het so ’n wit wolfhond gehad. Dié het hierso verdwyn, drie weke voor dit, en daardie dag
toe ek opstaan, toe is die foksterriër, die ander hondjie, toe is hy siek. Toe moes ek hom Carolina toe vat,
na die veearts toe. Toe sê hy vir my, toe ek daar kom, hy is vergiftig en verlam in sy agterlyf… . En toe ek
nou terugkom huis toe, mmm… . Weet jy, ek is, ek is eintlik altyd so versigtig, maar omdat ek die dag so
ontsteld was oor die hondjie, toe is ek nie op my hoede nie… .”
Respondent 9: “I had a white Alsation. This disappeared here, three weeks before that, and that day when I
got up, then the foxterrier, the other little dog, was sick. Then I had to take it to Carolina, to the vet. Then he
said to me, when I got there, it has been poisoned and is paralysed in its hind quarters… . And now when I
came home, mmm… . You know, I am, I am actually always so careful, but because I was so upset about
the little dog that day, then I was not alert….”.

Respondent 10: “Ons het eers die alarm aangesit, die bure langsaan gebel en hulle het die polisie gebel en
die alarm mense.”
Respondent 10: “First we put the alarm on, telephoned the neighbours next door and they phoned the
police and the alarm people.”

Respondent 11: “Jy beskou jouself as paraat. Ek hét voor daardie tyd, maar as jy nie jou vuurwapen by jou
het nie, help dit niks… . Ek het seker die beste sekuriteitstelsel in die gebied. Jy voel veilig, maar ons deur
was oop… .”
Respondent 11: “You perceive yourself as being mentally prepared and ready. I did before that time, but if
you do not have your firearm on you, it does not help at all… . I probably have the best security system in
the area. You feel safe, but our door was open… .”

Respondent 12: “Ons het op daardie tydstip ’n baie kwaai hond gehad. Toe vra hy waar is die hond. Toe
weet hy van die hond, ja. ’n Baie kwaai hond wat byt. Hy vra toe vir my waar is die hond, toe sê ek: ‘Nee,
hy is hier iewerste’. Toe sê hy hy gaan hom skiet. Toe sê ek: ‘Nee, moenie my hond skiet nie’. Toe sê hy vir
my maar hulle gaan hom skiet. Toe sê ek: ‘Asseblief, moenie my hond skiet nie, ek sal die hond vasmaak’.
Toe het hy my seun toegelaat om uit die kar te klim, maar ons, my en die dogter nog in die kar aangehou.
Maar hulle het nie uitgeklim nie, want hulle het geweet die hond gaan hulle byt. En die hond het toe
natuurlik toe my seun die deur oopmaak, toe hap die hond, [die respondent lag] in die kar. Hy hap toe aan
die ou se arm, maar hy het hom toe nou natuurlik nie seer gehap nie. Hy het toe so geskrik, hy kon niks
gedoen het nie. P [die respondent se seun] het toe die hond gaan vasmaak. Wel, òf maak hom vas òf hy is
228
dood. En ek het nie kans gesien dat hy die hond voor die kinders dood skiet nie… . Die polisie het vir ons
gesê die rede hoekom hulle ons daar ingewag het, is omdat ons sekuriteit so goed is… . Hulle kon nie
inkom nie. Hulle het ’n ander plan gemaak, om in te kom. Want hulle kon nie inkom op hulle eie nie, met die
hond en en al die goed, so hulle moes op ’n ander manier toegang verkry.”
Respondent 12: “At that point in time we had a very vicious dog. Then he asked where the dog is. Then he
knew about the dog, yes. A very vicious dog that bites. He then asked me where is the dog, then I said:
‘No, it is here somewhere’. Then he said he is going to shoot it. Then I said: ‘No, don’t shoot my dog’. Then
he said to me but they are going to shoot it. Then I said: ‘Please, don’t shoot my dog, I will tie the dog up’.
Then he allowed my son to get out of the car, but we, my daughter and me, he still detained in the car. But
they did not alight, because they knew the dog was going to bite them. And of course the dog did when my
son opened the door, then the dog snapped, [the respondent laughs] in the car. It snapped at the guy’s
arm, but of course it did not hurt him. Then he got such a fright, he could do nothing. P [the respondent’s
son] then went and tied the dog up. Well, either tie it up or it is dead. And I was not up to it that he shoot the
dog dead in front of the children… . The police told us the reason why they waylaid us there, is because our
security is so good… . They could not get in. They made another plan, to get in. Because they could not get
in on their own, with the dog and all the things, so they had to gain access in another way.”

Respondent 13: “Ons het ’n klein foksie in die huis. Dié het vreeslik begin blaf.”
Respondent 13: “We have a little foxy in the house. This started barking terribly.”

Respondent 14: “I don’t have dogs. We are grass-crazy people. We love our grass, you know, the dogs are
just, very messy. You can’t lie on the grass afterwards. That’s the reason we didn’t have dogs, you know.
But we were careful people. We were not, you know, silly people, just riding in. We were very careful.
Always when he opened the gate, he would look. I would watch whilst he opens the gate. And he would still
tell me: ‘Lock yourself in the bakkie’ whilst he was opening the gate, and he would drive the bakkie in and
we would lock the bakkie again and he would lock the gate behind him and I would open his door for him
because the keys are still with me. Drive into the yard, the same thing, parks the bakkie: ‘Lock yourself in’.
He will open, because really, he is very, very protective. I’m not a petite woman, but he made me feel that I
was the most delicate thing on the face of the earth… . I was sitting watching TV and I said to him: ‘Time for
the bakkie to be put into the garage… . So why do you want to wait till it’s late and put it away? Put it away
now. It’s almost eight o’clock’.”

Respondent 15: “Toe het die bediende ingekom en my kom roep en gesê F se broer is daar en F se broer
soek werk. ‘Julle is mos hier, watse werksoekery is dit?’. En toe gaan ek hek toe.”
Respondent 15: “The maid then came in and told me that F’s brother was there and that F’s brother is
looking for employment. ‘You are here, what job-seeking is this?’. Then I went to the gate.”

229
When analysing the findings with regard to the susceptibility to attacks, it is clear the lifestyle farmers
lead in isolated unguarded areas contributes to their susceptibility to criminal victimisation. There are a
number of reasons why the safety measures taken by the 15 respondents failed. Bearing in mind that
the number of respondents who participated in the study is too small to allow for generalisation of the
findings, erroneous beliefs about the motives for farm attacks, the offenders and the under-estimation
of the capabilities of perpetrators of farm attacks, appear to be the main reasons. While these factors
are also conducive to farmers being complacent about security matters, the routine nature of farming
activities (see section 2.1.3.4) further causes them to be less alert to their immediate surroundings.
Farmers then also ignore movements and sounds to which they have become accustomed, giving
attackers the opportunity to approach within striking distance (see section 2.2).

• Erroneous perceptions about motives for farm attacks

Respondents 3 and 8 erroneously believed that the motive for attacks on farmers is usually revenge
for the ill-treatment of farm workers. As they treated their labourers fairly and humanely, they felt safe
and invulnerable on their farms. Assumptions of invulnerability are based in part on the belief that
events are understandable and orderly (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze,1983:5). According to Janoff-Bulman
and Frieze (1983:5), individuals believe that they are safe from misfortune if they perceive themselves
to be good people (see section 4.2.1.2). They also believe that persons normally get what they
deserve and deserve what they get. Having done nobody any harm, Respondents 3 and 8 could not
understand why they were victimised. Respondent 3 who had moved from a large mining town to the
farm five months prior to the attack, also erroneously perceived herself to be safe on the farm as she
had a good view of her surroundings from the farmhouse in daytime.

Respondent 3: “Ons het net vyf maande daar gebly. Niemand het ’n aksie teen ons gehad nie, geen
dreigemente. Ou plaasboere het gewoonlik struwelinge - daar was niks… . Jy voel veilig omdat dit so oop
is. Dis so oop, jy kan ver sien. Dit voel rustig, jy is kalm … dan kom hulle soos diewe in die nag wanneer jy
dit die minste verwag… .”.
Respondent 3: “We lived there only five months. Nobody had a dispute against us, no threats. Old farmers
usually have rows - there was nothing… . You feel safe because it is so open. It’s so open, you can see far.
It feels peaceful, you are calm… then they come like thieves in the night when you least expect it… .”

Respondent 8: “We have never refused anybody access to the farm. I mean the girl that stayed here, she

230
 had been staying here for years and years and years, so she had a lot of people that came up and we
never ever, you know, stopped them from coming up to the property, but they would go up that way, they
wouldn’t come here to the house… . I mean, we’ve never been nasty with them, you always treat people
with respect so I couldn’t understand what the whole thing was about.”

While Respondents 3 and 8 are in no way to be blamed for the erroneous perceptions, it seems that
these beliefs caused them to be less alert to their immediate environment and/or warning signs of
danger, thereby depriving them of valuable time to act defensively and possibly prevent death, injury
and/or trauma to themselves and/or their family members.

Respondent 3: “Dit was ongeveer agtuur toe B, ons dogter, kamer toe is. [Sy het haar babadogter wat op
die rusbank geslaap het in haar ma se sorg gelaat]. Ek het, toe ek weer op die rusbank sit, ’n beweging uit
die hoek van my oog gesien, maar eers gedink dis B… . Dis so onwerklik want jy verwag hom nie daar
nie… . Dis soos ’n film waarin jy speel. Dit wil net nie verbygaan nie.”
Respondent 3: “It was approximately eight o’clock when B, our daughter, went to her room. [She left her
baby daughter sleeping on the couch in her mother’s care]. I saw, when I sat down on the couch again , a
momevent out of the corner of my eye, but first thought it was B… . It’s so unreal because you do not
expect him there… . It’s like a movie in which you are acting. It just will not pass.”

Respondent 8: “On my way out I heard the dogs barking, but it didn’t … because I thought it was just them,
barking, and when I came back into the kitchen and I opened the kitchen door, the two of them were
standing at the kitchen door. I never thought when I opened the kitchen door that I would find two black
people standing there… . I mean, you didn’t expect anything like that to happen … I never did… .”

In the one case that had revenge as a motive (Farm attack 5) and in another in which revenge was
presumed to have been the motive (Farm attack 6), both victims were unaware of feelings of animosity
towards them and were therefore also taken by surprise by their attackers. While Respondent 6 did
not suspect that reprimanding trespassers could result in an act of revenge, Respondent 5, with
hindsight, believes that he should have become aware of changes in his worker’s attitude towards
him. According to Moolman (1999a:70), black people have been taught for centuries not to reveal their
innermost feelings towards white people. This might have increased the susceptibility of Respondents
5 and 8 and made it possible for their attackers to catch them off guard.

Respondent 5: “Toe was daar ’n voorval gedurende Oktober 1999 waartydens hy so ’n bietjie parmantig
geword het. Dit het geblyk dat die plant van mielies in die land onder die huis nie na sy sin was nie. Hy het

231
 drie maal soveel kunsmis gegooi as wat hy moes. Toe my vrou hom vra: ‘Wat maak jy nou, A?’ antwoord
hy: ‘Ek kyk of ek die baas kan trick. Ek soek R16 000’. Op daardie stadium het mense hom partymaal kom
besoek. Hy het hulle counsellors genoem en hy het hulle altyd gegroet: ‘Hey, Comrade’… . Toe ek hom vra
hoekom kap hy nie hout nie, los hy die bossiekapper en draai na my toe en sê: ‘I want £50 000’. Ek sê hom
toe ek het nie by hom geleen nie. Hy sê toe: ‘Kyk alles op hierdie plaas, ek het dit gedoen, dis myne, dis
myne’… . Volgens gerugte wat later die rondte gedoen het, het die Young Comrades al elkeen vir hulle ’n
plaas uitgesoek. Hierdie een was syne. Die feit dat ek hier diere verkoop het en dinge gedoen het, is
hoekom hy eksepsie geneem het.’n Mens weet nie hoe hul koppe werk nie… . Hy het ongeveer vier maal
uit die tronk aan ons geskryf waarin hy sê ek het eintlik die ding oor myself gebring, aangesien hy en M,
kaptein oor die swartmense in hierdie gebied, kwaai vriende is en ek die vermetelheid sou hê om diere aan
hom te verkoop”.
Respondent 5: “Then there was an incident in October 1999 during which he became a little cheeky. It
appeared that he did not approve of my planting mealies in the field below the house. He used three times
more fertiliser than he should have used. When my wife asked him: ‘What are you doing now, A?’ he
answered: ‘I am trying to see if I can trick the boss. I want R16 000’. At that stage people sometimes came
to see him. He called them counsellors and he always greeted them: ‘Hey, Comrade’… . When I asked him
why he was not chopping wood, he left the weed-eater and turned around to me and said: ‘I want £50 000’.
I then told him I had not borrowed from him. Then he said: ‘Look everything on this farm, I did it, it’s mine,
it’s mine’… . According to rumours that later did the rounds, the Young Comrades had each already
selected a farm for themselves. This one was his. The fact that I sold animals here and did things, is why
he took exception. One does not know how they reason… . He has written to us from prison approximately
four times saying that I actually brought this thing on myself as he and M, a captain over the black people in
this area, are bad friends and I have the audacity to sell animals to him.”

Respondent 6: As hulle [enige oortreders] deur die jaart loop, dan praat ek [die respondent spreek hulle
aan]… . Hoekom vir my vrou probeer doodmaak? Sy het niks gedoen nie.”
Respondent 6: “If they [any trespassers] walk through the yard, then I talk [the respondent reprimands
them]… . Why try and kill my wife? She did nothing.”

• Erroneous beliefs about offenders

The erroneous perception that revenge is the motive for most farm attacks, also results in farmers
underestimating the proficiency of some perpetrators of attacks. While farm labourers sometimes
instigate attacks and/or supply the perpetrators with valuable information regarding security on the
farms, Swart (2003:110) states that in only 19% of the cases that he investigated, was a worker on the
farm one of the attackers. Attacking the farmers is usually the task of offenders whom Swart (2003:28)

232
refers to as ‘hit squads’.

Farm attacks are usually perpetrated by a group of three or more strangers who are guided to the farm
by markers, and more specifically to the on-off marker and area or points where the potential victims
would be most vulnerable at the planned time of the attack (Swart, 2003:95). Many of the offenders
have committed violent offences on previous occasions and therefore have experience at planning a
crime. They are often practiced at overcoming their victims, are blunted to the effects of physical
violence on their victims and are also able to predict the reactions of the potential victims and possible
eyewitnesses. Perpetrators who have been involved in criminal activities before, therefore might have
greater planning capabilities, better access to firearms with which to intimidate and/or eliminate the
victims and also to markets and transport for the looted goods than the average farm labourer
normally has (see section 2.1.4.10). They can rely on the expertise of those laying the markers, they
do not hesitate to use violence to attain their goals and they also use time that they know they have at
their disposal because of the isolation of farms to sometimes torture their victims at length (see
sections 2.2.2.2 and 2.2.3.3).

Respondent 1: “Ek onthou dat ek by myself gedink het: ‘Hy’s geoefend’.”

Respondent 1: “I remember thinking to myself: ‘He’s practiced’.”

Respondent 3: “Hulle was ou skelms, maar jonk… . Hulle het die een gevang. Dit was die een wat geskiet
het. Hulle het hom gesoek vir 11 aanklagte van roof, poging tot moord en verkragting.”
Respondent 3: “They were old rogues, but young… . They caught the one. It was the one who fired the
shot. They had been looking for him for 11 counts of robbery, attempted murder and rape.”

Respondent 11: “Op daardie stadium weet ek vir die eerste keer waar is hulle almal… . Dit was goed
georganiseer. Daar was altyd een net uit sig, wat sorg dat, as ons sou loskom, dat hy daar is.”
Respondent 11: “At that stage I knew for the first time where they all were… . It was well organised. There
was always one just out of sight who took care that, if one of us were to free ourselves, he would be there.”

Respondent 12: “Ons het op daardie tydstip ’n baie kwaai hond gehad. Toe vra hy waar is die hond. Toe
weet hy van die hond, ja. ’n Baie kwaai hond wat byt. Hy vra toe vir my waar is die hond, toe sê ek: ‘Nee,
hy is hier iewerste’. Toe sê hy hy gaan hom skiet. Toe sê ek: ‘Nee, moenie my hond skiet nie’. Toe sê hy vir
my maar hulle gaan hom skiet. Toe sê ek: ‘Asseblief, moenie my hond skiet nie, ek sal die hond vasmaak’.
Toe het hy my seun toegelaat om uit die kar te klim, maar ons, my en die dogter nog in die kar aangehou.
Maar hulle het nie uitgeklim nie, want hulle het geweet die hond gaan hulle byt. En die hond het toe

233
 natuurlik toe my seun die deur oopmaak, toe hap die hond, [die respondent lag] in die kar. Hy hap toe aan
die ou se arm, maar hy het hom toe nou natuurlik nie seer gehap nie. Hy het toe so geskrik, hy kon niks
gedoen het nie. P [die respondent se seun] het toe die hond gaan vasmaak. Wel, òf maak hom vas òf hy is
dood. En ek het nie kans gesien dat hy die hond voor die kinders doodskiet nie… . Die polisie het vir ons
gesê die rede hoekom hulle ons daar ingewag het, is omdat ons sekuriteit so goed is… . Hulle kon nie
inkom nie. Hulle het ’n ander plan gemaak, om in te kom. Want hulle kon nie inkom op hulle eie nie met die
hond en en al die goed, so hulle moes op ’n ander manier toegang verkry… . Een ou het in die kar gebly,
een het begin uitdra. [Die respondent lag]. Die grootste sterkste ou het begin uitdra, my broodmes gevat en
al die drade van die rekenaar en goed afgesny, en twee het ons drie bymekaar gehou… . Dit was hulle
manier waarop hulle werk.”
Respondent 12: “At that point in time we had a very vicious dog. Then he asked where the dog is. Then he
knew about the dog, yes. A very vicious dog that bites. He then asked me where is the dog, then I said:
‘No, it is here somewhere’. Then he said he is going to shoot it. Then I said: ‘No, do not shoot my dog. Then
he said to me but they are going to shoot it. Then I said: ‘Please, don’t shoot my dog, I will tie the dog up’.
Then he allowed my son to get out of the car, but we, my daughter and me he still detained in the car. But
they did not alight, because they knew the dog was going to bite them. And of course the dog did when my
son opened the door, then the dog snapped, [the respondent laughs] in the car. It snapped at the one guy’s
arm, but of course it did not hurt him. Then he got such a fright, he could do nothing. P [the respondent’s
son] then went and tied the dog up. Well, either tiehimt up or he is dead. And I was not up to it that he shoot
the dog dead in front of the children… . The police told us the reason why they waylaid us there, is because
our security is so good . They could not get in. They made another plan, to get in. Because they could not
get in on their own with the dog and all the things, so they had to gain access in another way… . One guy
remained in the car, one started carrying out. [The respondent laughs]. The biggest strongest guy started
carrying out, took my breadknife and cut off all the cords of the computer and things, and two kept the three
of us together… . That was just the way they operate.”

• Farmers underestimate the ability of offenders to acquire information on potential victims

Perpetrators are able to acquire information about their potental victims in advance of the attacks
(Swart, 2003:28). They often have information regarding the times when guardianship is low, the
habits or routines that make the potential victims more vulnerable and the security factors that can
impede speedy entry to the premises or safe escape after the perpetration of the attack (see section
2.2.2.3).

The attackers of Respondents 1, 4, 7, 8, and 12 attacked the farmers when guardianship was reduced

234
because of the temporary absence of one or more of the family members, neighbours, tenants and/or
workers.

Respondent 1: “My man, dogter en kleinkinders het vroeër van die plaas af gery… . My bure was die
oggend ook nie daar nie… .”
Respondent 1: “My husband, daughter and grandchildren had left the farm earlier… . My neighbours were
also not there that morning… .”

Respondent 4: “Hulle kyk jou uit, hoe kom jy, hoe gaan jy.”
Respondent 4: “They watch you, your comings and goings.”

Respondent 7: “Ek was alleen by die huis. Hulle het gereken dis maklik.”
Respondent 7: “I was at home alone. They reckoned it was easy.”

Respondent 8: “We only got two boys that worked for us, but they were on the tractors and the girl that
worked for me, she never worked permanently, it was only just twice a week that she used to come.”

Respondent 12: “Want A [die respondent se eggenoot] is baie by die huis, maar op daardie stadium het hy
van tyd tot tyd vir werk iewers heen gegaan, en hy was daardie dag iewers heen… . Maar dis nog ’n ding
wat ’n mens laat dink hierdie ouens het absoluut kennis gehad, want ons huurders het kennis gegee, die
vorige huurders, en hulle was uit en daar was ’n maand wat die woonstel leeggestaan het. In daardie
maand gebeur dit. Hulle het geweet, want die mense wat in die woonstel bly, is in die bediening [van die
kerk] en is in en uit. Hulle het nie vaste ure nie en toe is die man nie hier nie. En A was weg vir die dag. Die
enigste een wat hier was, was my huishulp. Daar was niemand anders nie.”
Respondent 12: “Because A [the respondent’s spouse] is at home a lot, but at that stage he went
somewhere on business from time to time and he had gone off somewhere on that day… . But that is
another thing that makes one think these guys had absolute knowledge, because our tenants had given
notice, the previous tenants, and they were out and there was a month in which the flat stood vacant. In
that month it happened. They knew, because the people who stayed in the flat, are in the service [of the
church] and were in and out. They did not have regular hours and then the man was not here. And A was
away for the day. The only one who was here, was my maid. There was nobody else.”

Respondent 9 was in the habit of parking her vehicle in the open garage adjacent to her house and
following a specific routine to unlock her farmhouse. Respondent 12 always arrived at her farmhouse
at approximately the same time after fetching her twins from school. The attackers were aware of
these routines. This is also in accordance with the findings of Moolman (1999a:113) who states that

235
90% of the perpetrators of farm attacks are aware of their potential victims’ routines.

Respondent 9: “Ek parkeer altyd die motor hierso en dan stap ek nou met die sleutels na die agterdeur toe
en dan kom ek eers terug motor toe. Toe ek daar wil deurgaan, hierso, toe wag hulle vir my daar, net daar,
om daai hoek.”
Respondent 9: “I always park the car here then I walk to the back door with the keys and then only I come
back to my car. When I wanted to go through there, here, they were waiting for me there, just there, around
that corner.”

Respondent 12: “Ek dink hulle het geweet wanneer kom ek huis toe van die skool af… . Hulle moes dit
geweet het… .”
Respondent 12: “I think they knew when I return home from school… . They must have known that… .”

In the attack on Respondent 12 whom they waylaid a short distance away from her farmhouse (see
section 6.1.12), they had information as to which of the four properties that used the access road
belonged to her and her husband.

Respondent 12: Ek het nog gedink miskien kan ek verbyry tot by die hoenderplaas want daar is altyd baie
mense, maar toe ek by ons indraai kom, toe sê hy vir my: ‘Ry hier in’. Toe weet hy al klaar. O, hulle het
presies geweet, presies geweet.”
Respondent 12: “I still thought maybe I can drive past to the chicken farm because there are always many
people there, but when we got to our turn-in, he said to me: ‘Drive in here’. Then he already knew. O, they
knew precisely, knew precisely.”

They also knew about the vicious dog on the farm that would bite them if they alighted from their
vehicle.

Respondent 12: “Ons het op daardie tydstip ’n baie kwaai hond gehad. Toe vra hy waar is die hond. Toe
weet hy van die hond, ja. ’n Baie kwaai hond wat byt. Hy vra toe vir my waar is die hond… .”
Respondent 12: “At that point in time we had a very vicious dog. Then he asked where the dog is. Then he
knew about the dog, yes. A very vicious dog that bites. He then asked me where is the dog… .”

Offenders sometimes also have information about the interior of the homes they plan to attack. The
attackers of Respondent 6 knew where the couple’s bed was located in the bedroom, in spite of his
efforts to stop trespassing in his farmyard which might have enabled potential wrongdoers to gain

236
such detailed information. Moolman (1999a:113) states that in 90% of farm attacks, offenders are
aware of the layout of the house. Swart (2003:49) states specifically that potential offenders need
information regarding the position of their victims’ beds so that they do not waste time looking for their
victims when they break a window.

Respondent 6: “Hy het presies geweet hoe lê ons op die bed. Hy het geweet waar is ons slaapkamer. Hy
kon net so maklik by die ander kamer se venster ingebreek het.”
Respondent 6: “He knew exactly how we lay on the bed. He knew where our bedroom is. He could just as
easily have broken in at the window of the other bedroom.”

While the attackers of Respondent 12 might have gained information about the location of their two-
way radio set during the course of the attack, they might also have had this information prior to the
attack.

Respondent 12: “…ek dink toe die hele tyd hoe vinnig ek uit die ding uit kan kom, want ons het ’n radio, ons
het radio verbinding. Maar hulle het dit ook geweet, want toe ek sê: ‘Sluit ons in die slaapkamer toe’, toe sê
hulle: ‘Nee, die radio is daar’. Ja, hulle het presies geweet.”
Respondent 12: “…the whole time I was thinking how fast I could get out of the situation, because we have
a radio, we have radio communication. But they knew that too, because when I said: ‘Lock us up in the
bedroom’, they said: ‘No, the radio is there’. Yes, they knew exactly.”

Offenders sometimes also acquire information about their potential victims which they can use in order
to beguile them.

Respondent 10: “Hulle het geweet van die inbraak. Hulle het geweet, want die laaste keer was in Januarie.
Ons was met vakansie. Dit was die eerste nag dat ons tuis was toe gooi hulle die yster door die venster. Of
dit dieselfde is wat dit gedoen het, ek weet nie want hulle het gemaak of hulle van die polisie kom en hulle
wil nou ondersoek daarna instel, maar hulle kon netsowel dieselfde gewees het, ek weet nie.”
Respondent 10: “They knew about the burglary. They knew, because the last time was in January. We
were on holiday. The first night that we were home, they threw a piece of iron through the window. Whether
they were the same who did it, I do not know, because they pretended to come from the police and they
now wanted to investigate the matter, but they could just as well have been the same, I do not know.”

Information is sometimes gained by trespassing on the property prior to the attack on the farmer (see
section 3.2.1.1).

237
 Respondent 8: “They had apparently been on our farm twice before that, because they came in the one day
and they said to my husband they are looking to buy a young tollie. He said there aren’t any and they came
back again. They said they were looking for one that got lost. And then the girl that worked here for me, she
was here the one day when they came. When I came back from town she said to me this boy had come
there to the farm. She said he made her so frightened. She was hanging up the washing. She came in and
locked the door and she went and watched him walk out through my bedroom window, but she didn’t
mention to me that he had been here… . And when we were, when I was in hospital, N, the farmer from
across the road, he came to see me, and he said he was busy sitting in his bakkie talking on his cellphone
when he saw them there. Two boys came walking through his veld here and he called them and he asked
them what they want. They said that they were looking for one of the cattle that went lost and he said to
them: ‘Get off my property. I don’t want to see you here again’. They walked over from his property and
they came in through the back of our property - they didn’t come through the gate. They came through the
back and through the orchard.”

Respondent 13: “’n Tydjie voor die aanval het die hondjie wat in ons kamer slaap, geknor. Toe staan daar
drie [oortreders] voor die garage. Hulle kyk wat jou opset is.”
Respondent 13: “A while before the attack the doggy that sleeps in our bedroom, growled. Then three
[trespassers] were standing in front of the garage. They check your set-up.”

• Farmers underestimate offenders’ ability to detect the weakest link in their security

Offenders are able to determine areas in farmers’ security that lend them easiest access to their
premises. Knowledge of farmers’ routines such as attending church on Sundays that guarantees a
sufficiently long period of absenteeism from the farm (see section 2.1.3.4) as well as isolation from
neighbours who might notice them reconnoitring (see section 2.2.2.2), allow potential offenders to
seek out these areas at leisure and unnoticed.

In the attack on Respondent 4, the offenders gained access to the farmhouse by means of the only
window in the house that was not burglar proofed because the couple believed that it was too small in
size to allow for human entry. Respondent 4 also underestimated the ability of the offenders to find a
gas pistol that she believed was sufficiently well hidden when they left their home.

Respondent 4: “Hulle het my man in die gang ingewag met my gaspistool wat ek in die kas gelos het. Wie
dink nou iemand gaan dit kry… ? Hulle het by die badkamervenster ingekom… . Al die deure was gesluit

238
 en die sleutels uit die slotte geneem.”
Respondent 4: “They waylaid my husband in the passage with my gas pistol that I had left in the cupboard.
Who would now think that someone was going to find it…? They entered through the bathroom window… .
All the doors were locked and the keys removed from the locks.”

While Respondent 6 had burglar proofing in front of the smaller windows that could be opened, the
large window was not secured. There were also lights in some areas, but not at their bedroom
window.

Respondent 6: “Die twee kleiner vensters aan weerskante van die groot ruit het diefwering, maar nie die
grote nie… . Daar is twee advokadobome [wat skelms wegkruipplek kon gebied het]. Daar is ’n lig op
daardie hoek en op daardie hoek en by die kombuis, maar geen lig by hierdie vensters nie.”
Respondent 6: “The two smaller windows on either side of the big window-pane have burglar proofing, but
not the big one… . There are two avocado trees [that could have provided the culprits with hiding place].
There is a light at that corner and at that corner by the kitchen, but no light by these windows.”

• Farmers underestimate offenders’ stealth, audacity, and guile

Many farmers underestimate the audacity, stealth and guile used by farm attackers when approaching
their potential victims. Some offenders approach their victims openly, thereby succeeding in allaying
any suspicions that might arise in the minds of eye-witnesses. Ingenious offenders succeed in
beguiling their victims in order to gain entry to secured premises.

Respondent 1: “Ek het skielik ’n mes teen my keel gevoel en ’n man se stem het my beveel om stil te staan
en nie ’n geluid te maak nie. Die swartmans wat ongesiens met die trappe opgekruip het… .”
Respondent 1: “I suddenly felt a knife at my throat and a man’s voice ordered me to stand still and not to
make a sound. The black men who had crept up the stairs unseen… .”

Respondent 2: “Hulle het sommer met die bakkie ingery… . Die blatantheid is erg. Die gemiddelde rower
dink dis maklik. Die geoefende een gee nie om nie. Hulle weet jy gaan nie hulp kry nie. Dis net 1% wat
gevang word en 0,5% word skuldig bevind.”
Respondent 2: “They simply drove in with the bakkie… . The blatancy is shocking. The average robber
thinks it is easy. The experienced one does not care. They know you are not going to get help. It is only 1%
that are caught and 0,5% are found guilty.”

239
 Respondent 3: “Hulle het baie saggies geloop. Die TV was nie eers hard nie, want my man het gelê en
slaap.”
Respondent 3: “They walked very quietly. The TV was not even loud, because my husband was lying
asleep.”

Others manage to come within striking distance of their potential victims before they are aware of their
presence by using stealth.

Respondent 10: “Ek was besig - ons het ’n kelder hier onderkant - besig op die rekenaar, toe mijn vrou my
roep en seg ek moet kom want die polisie is hier. So ek stap na bowe, na die TV-kamer en daar sit drie
mansmense, en ’n vroumens, in polisie-uniform. En … die grootste een stel hom toe voor as Kommandant.
Hulle sê hulle wil net kom kyk. Hulle het ’n paar mense gevang en hulle wil hê ons moet hulle kom uitken.
Hulle wil graag sien waar die mense probeer inbreek het. ‘Goed, stap maar saam.’ Ons het al drie of vier
inbrake gehad, maar gelukkig was ons nie by die huis nie. Hierdie keer was ons wel by die huis. Ek stap
voor en die vroumens … my vrou gee vir haar nog koeldrank terwyl die ander met my stap, door die een
slaapkamer na buite. Ek wys hulle buitekant die deur waar hulle probeer het. Terwyl ek dit doen, oorrompel
hulle my en dwing my weer in die huis in, na die hoofslaapkamer aan die einde van die huis. Hulle bind my
vas, my hande agter my rug en gooi my op die vloer. Hulle vat die komberse van die bed af en gooi dit oor
my… . En wat ek gesê het toe hulle my oorrompel? Ek vra: ‘Wat maak julle nou?’ Toe hulle my arms gryp,
toe dog ek miskien hulle wil vir my wys wat kan gebeur. Nou weet ek!”
Respondent 10: “I was busy - we have a cellar down here - busy on the computer, when my wife called me
and said I must come upstairs because the police are here. So I went upstairs, to the TV-room and there
are seated three menfolk, and a woman, in police uniform. And … the taller one introduced himself as
Commandant. They said they just want to come and have a look. They have caught a couple of people and
they want us to come and identify them. They would like to see where the people tried to break in. ‘Good,
come along.’ We already had three or four burglaries, but fortunately we were not home. This time we were
at home. I led the way and the woman … my wife still gave her cooldrink, while the others accompanied me
outside, through the one bedroom. I showed them outside the door where they tried. While I was doing that,
they overpowered me and forced me back into the house, to the main bedroom at the end of the house.
They tied me up, my hands behind my back and threw me on the floor. They took the blankets from the bed
and threw them over me… . And what did I say when they overpowered me? I asked: ‘What are you doing
now?’ When they grabbed my arms, I thought maybe they want to demonstrate to me what can happen.
Now I know!”

Respondent 12: “En toe ons om ’n draai kom, naby aan ons ingang, het daar ’n voertuig gestaan met sy
enjinkap op en bakstene so voor die kar. Ek was nogal suspisieus en het so ‘n entjie ver van hom af weg

240
 stilgehou, seker so twee of drie karlengtes, en my dogtertjie het nog vir my seun gesê: ‘Gaan help hulle
stoot’ en ek sê toe: ‘Nee, bly sit’. Toe, die volgende oomblik, toe klim iemand van agter af in die kar in… .
Hulle het geweet ek gaan fokus op die kar voor en gelukkig vir hulle was my seun se deur nie gesluit nie.”
Respondent 12: “And when we came around a bend, near to our entrance, a vehicle stood in the road with
its bonnet up and bricks like this in front of it. I was fairly suspicious and stopped a little way from it, perhaps
two or three car lengths from it, and my little girl still said to my son: ‘Go and help them push’ and then I
said: ‘No, remain seated’. Then, the following momen,t someone got into the car from behind… . They
knew I would focus on the car in front and luckily for them my son’s door was not locked.”

Respondent 15: “Toe het die bediende ingekom en my kom roep en gesê F se broer is daar en F se broer
soek werk. ‘Julle is mos hier, watse werksoekery is dit?’”
Respondent 15: “The maid then came in and told me that F’s brother was there and that F’s brother is
looking for a job. ‘You are here, what job-seeking is this?’”

• Farmers underestimate offenders’ ability to overcome security measures

Farmers often underestimate the ability of offenders to deal with watchdogs, workers, members of the
family who could prove to be a threat to the success of the attack and burglar bars. They also find
means of gaining access to farmhouses that are so secure that they cannot be accessed without the
aid of the farmer or one of his family members.

- Dogs

Dogs that farmers rely on for early warning of danger and for protection are drugged, bludgeoned to
death, intimidated or poisoned in advance of the planned attack, immediately prior to or during the
attack.

Respondent 2: “Hulle het die een met ’n pylgeweer geskiet en verdoof.”

Respondent 2: “They shot and sedated the one with a dart gun.”

Respondent 7: “Hulle het twee van die honde doodgeslaan.”

Respondent 7: “They bludgeoned two of the dogs to death.”

Respondent 8: “…and then my husband said to me afterwards: ‘What is that stick doing there?’ So I think
when they came through, they must have broken a stick off and they must have tried to hit the dogs. They

241
 ran away and that’s why they stopped barking, because I mean, I didn’t have a stick on the back stoop. I
think it was a branch of a tree that they had broken off. I didn’t have that in the house.”

Respondent 9: “Ek het ’n wit wolfhond gehad. Dié het hierso verdwyn, drie weke voor dit, en daardie dag
toe ek opstaan, toe is die foksterriër, die ander hondjie, toe is hy siek. Toe moes ek hom Carolina toe vat,
na die veearts toe. Toe sê hy vir my toe ek daar kom, hy is vergiftig en is verlam in sy agterlyf.”
Respondent 9: “I had a white Alsation. This disappeared, three weeks before that, and that day when I got
up, the foxterrier, the other little dog, was sick. Then I had to take it to Carolina, to the vet. Then he said to
me when I got there, he has been poisoned and is paralysed in his hind quarters.”

- Workers

Workers are sometimes overpowered and/or forced at gun-point to aid the offenders. One of the ways
often used by offenders to get within striking distance of the potential victims, is by pretending to be
looking for employment.

Respondent 1: “Na die tyd het ons uitgevind hulle het hulle eers oorrompel… .”
Respondent 1: “Afterwards we found out that they first overpowered them… .”

Respondent 15: “Hulle sê die vier het by hulle kamer gewag, tot ek uit die veld kom. Net vantevore, toe ry
ek in die pad op na die huis toe, toe kom vier die rylaan op. Hul pakkies was by die hek. Dit was nie sy
broer nie. F sê hulle het hom met die pistool teen sy kop gevat na die hek.”
Respondent 15: “They say the four waited at their room, until I came out of the veld. Just before, I drove up
to the house, then four were coming up the driveway. Their parcels were at the gate. It was not his brother.
F says they took him to the gate with the pistol held against his head.”

- Persons that might pose a threat

While attackers are able to deal effectively with watchdogs, they also often first eliminate members of
a family that pose the greatest threat to them. Males that they know or suspect to be armed are
sometimes shot first.

Respondent 3: “Een het op my man geskiet. Hy was so vinnig toe hy op my man skiet. Hy het net so
geskiet. [Die respondent demonstreer]. Hy het nie eers gemik nie. Hulle het hom van die bank af geruk -
toe weet ek hy is dood. Hy sou nie daar stilgelê het en my so laat behandel het nie. Sy hande was onder

242
 die kombers en ek dink die een wat geskiet het, het miskien gedink hy het ’n vuurwapen.”
Respondent 3: “One shot at my husband. He was so fast when he shot at my husband. He shot just like
this. [The respondent demonstrates]. He did not even aim. They jerked him off the couch - then I knew he
was dead. He would not have lain there quietly and let them treat me like that. His hands were under the
blankets and I think the one that fired the shot, possibly thought he had a firearm.”

- Burglar bars

Offenders also often have access to housebreaking equipment that they use to remove burglar bars.
Sometimes they use farming equipment that is not always locked away after it has been used.

Respondent 6: “Hy het ’n twee meter lange swaar yster sprinkelpyp by hom gehad waarmee hy my en my
vrou oor die kop geslaan het met die kant wat die haak aanhet. Laat ek jou wys. [Die respondent trek die
gordyn oop wat nou altyd toegetrek is sodat niemand van buite af kan inkyk nie]. Voel hoe swaar is hy. Hier
aan die haak is nog van ons bloed. ‘n Hoop van hierdie pype het daar agter die stoorkamer gelê.”
Respondent 6: “He had a heavy two meter long iron irrigation pipe with which he hit my wife and me on the
head, with the end that has the hook on. Let me show you. [The respondent opens the curtain that is now
always kept drawn so that nobody can look in from ouside]. Feel how heavy it is. Here on the hook is still
some of our blood. A heap of these pipes was lying there behind the storeroom.”

Respondent 7: “Hulle het met ’n breekyster die diefwering gebreek… . Die bakkie met al hul
breekgereedskap het hulle reeds by die pad gekry.”
Respondent 7: “They broke the burglar proofing with a jemmy… . The bakkie with all their tools they
already found at the road.”

- Alternative methods

In cases where security cannot be overcome by conventional methods, offenders seek and find other
means, such as waylaying farmers outside the security area and forcing them to aid them to gain entry
to the secured premises.

Respondent 12: “Die polisie het vir ons gesê die rede hoekom hulle ons daar ingewag het, is omdat ons
sekuriteit so goed is. Hulle kon nie inkom nie. Hulle het ’n ander plan gemaak, om in te kom. Want hulle kon
nie inkom, op hulle eie nie met die hond en al die goed, so hulle moes op ’n ander manier toegang verkry.”
Respondent 12: “The police told us the reason why they waylaid us there, is because our security is so

243
 good. They could not get in. They made another plan, to get in. Because they could not get in on their own
with the dog and all the things, so they had to gain access in another way.”

• Farmers underestimate offenders’ ability to predict reactions of victims and eyewitnesses

While it is sometimes necessary for offenders to eliminate various forms of target hardening, they are
also at times aware that they need only rely on their knowledge of human nature to complete their
mission without resorting to the customary violence.

The attackers of Respondent 2 not only knew that they would attract less attention by driving up to the
farmhouse openly with their vehicle, but also that the gunshot at the farmhouse would intimidate the
eyewitnesses. By showing no sign of being aware of the activities in and around the farmhouse, the
eyewitnesses conveyed the message to the attackers that they had no intention of interfering with their
activities.

Respondent 2: “Die onbetrokkenheid van swartmense is fenomenaal. Die werkers het sekerlik die skoot
gehoor en hulle nie daaraan gesteur nie… .”
Respondent 2: “The disinterest of black people is phenomenal. The workers surely heard the shot and took
no notice of it… .”

The attackers of Respondent 12 and her two young children knew that they could manipulate her into
having the vicious watchdog tied up so that it would not be shot in the presence of her children.

Respondent 12: “Ons het op daardie tydstip ’n baie kwaai hond gehad. Toe vra hy waar is die hond. Toe
weet hy van die hond, ja. ’n Baie kwaai hond wat byt. Hy vra toe vir my waar is die hond, toe sê ek: ‘Nee,
hy is hier iewerste’. Toe sê hy hy gaan hom skiet. Toe sê ek: ‘Nee, moenie my hond skiet nie’. Toe sê hy vir
my maar hulle gaan hom skiet. Toe sê ek: ‘Asseblief, moenie my hond skiet nie, ek sal die hond vasmaak’.
Toe het hy my seun toegelaat om uit die kar te klim, maar ons, my en die dogter nog in die kar aangehou.
Maar hulle het nie uitgeklim nie, want hulle het geweet die hond gaan hulle byt. En die hond het toe
natuurlik toe my seun die deur oopmaak, toe hap die hond, [die respondent lag] in die kar. Hy hap toe aan
die ou se arm, maar hy het hom toe nou natuurlik nie seer gehap nie. Hy het toe so geskrik, hy kon niks
gedoen het nie. P [die respondent se seun] het toe die hond gaan vasmaak. Wel, òf maak hom vas òf hy is
dood. En ek het nie kans gesien dat hy die hond voor die kinders doodskiet nie.”
Respondent 12: “At that point in time we had a very vicious dog. Then he asked where the dog is. Then he
knew about the dog, yes. A very vicious dog that bites. He then asked me where is the dog, then I said:

244
 ‘No, it is here somewhere’. Then he said he is going to shoot it. Then I said: ‘No, do not shoot my dog’.
Then he said to me but they are going to shoot it. Then I said: ‘Please, don’t shoot my dog, I will tie the dog
up’. Then he allowed my son to get out of the car, but we, my daughter and me, he still detained in the car.
But they did not alight, because they knew the dog was going to bite them. And of course the dog did when
my son opened the door, then the dog snapped, [the respondent laughs] in the car. It snapped at one guy’s
arm, but of course it did not hurt him. Then he got such a fright, he could do nothing. P [the respondent’s
son] then went and tied the dog up. Well, either tie him up or he is dead. And I was not up to it that he shoot
the dog dead in front of the children.”

The offender(s) in the attack on Respondent 14 and her spouse were probably aware that their
workers would not approach the house before they knew it was safe to do so.

Respondent 14:”…and I opened the window and I started screaming for these workers, but instead of
helping me, they switched the lights off. And there was nobody else to call.”

• Farmers uderestimate the level of violence sometimes used

Offenders who attack farmers often use more violence than is necessary to subdue and/or
incapacitate their victims. According to Moolman (1999a:41), this might be attributed to racial hatred or
revenge.

Respondent 5: “’n Mens weet nooit hoe hulle koppe werk nie… . Die wreedaardigheid! Hulle het geen
konsiderasie nie. ’n Mens kan jou nie beroep op hulle menslikheid nie. Hulle sal jou brutaal om die lewe
bring vir ’n paar sent.”
Respondent 5:” One does not know how they reason… . The cruelty! They have no consideration. One
cannot appeal to their humaneness. They will kill you brutally for a few cents.”

Respondent 6: “Hoekom vir my vrou probeer doodmaak? Sy het niks gedoen nie.”
Respondent 6: “Why try and kill my wife? She did nothing.”

Respondent 8: “It was so unnecessary. If they had asked for the money, I would have given it to them. Why
shoot?”

Respondent 9: “Hulle het op my keel getrap, op my bors, soos hulle jou wurg, dan trap hulle so op jou … .
Niks genade nie hoor, niks. Hulle voel niks vir jou nie.”

245
 Respondent 9: “They trod on my throat, on my chest, as they are throttling you, then they tread on you like
this. No mercy, hear, nothing. They feel nothing for you.”

Respondent 11: “Hulle voel vere. As ek nie losgekom het nie, sou dit uitgeloop het op ’n tragiese storie.”
Respondent 11: “They feel nothing. If I had not freed myself, it would have ended in a tragedy.”

Respondent 14: “Four fractures to the skull. What kind of person, how could any human being do that to
another human being? [The respondent sobs]. And with a blunt object that we never found.”

• Complacency

As already indicated, complacency about security matters may arise from erroneous beliefs about the
motives for farm attacks as well as the character and abilities of the individuals or groups that commit
these acts of criminal victimisation. However, the very nature of farmers’ lifestyle is also conducive to
complacency (see section 2.1.3.4). Farmers in rural areas where crime is less rife than in cities, often
succeed for long periods in avoiding criminal victimisation in spite of performing their tasks under
dangerous circumstances (e.g. transporting their children to and from school along densely overgrown
farm roads) and/or omitting to take certain precautions regarding their safety (e.g. locking security
gates). The fact that they do not always suffer victimisation when the circumstances are favourable for
being attacked or when their paths cross with those of potential offenders, often lulls members of the
farming community into a false sense of security. Potential victims then also lose sight of the fact that
one unguarded moment provides the necessary opportunity for a motivated offender with criminal
intent to launch an attack on them (see sections 2.1.4.5 and 2.2.3.3). Acts as well as omissions often
increase those farmers susceptibility who have allowed themselves to become lax about safety
matters. Farmers who are normally security conscious might at times also be taken by surprise if they
are not consistent when taking precautions against being attacked.

- Activities of workers

Many farmers become so accustomed to the movement of family members and workers going about
their routines, that they are no longer consciously aware of them. They therefore do not always react
when they hear sounds that they have come to regard as normal.

Respondent 1: “Ek het ’n skuifelgeluid op die trappe gehoor, maar ek het gedink dis die huishulp wat ons

246
 teekoppies kom haal.”
Respondent 1: “I heard a shuffling sound on the stairs, but I thought it was the maid coming to fetch our tea
cups.”

Respondent 3: “Dit was ongeveer agtuur toe B, ons dogter, kamer toe is. [Sy het haar babadogter wat op
die rusbank geslaap het in haar ma se sorg gelaat]. Ek het, toe ek weer op die rusbank sit, ’n beweging uit
die hoek van my oog gesien, maar eers gedink dis B.”
Respondent 3: “It was approximately eight o’clock when B, our daughter, went to her bedroom. [She left her
baby daughter sleeping on the couch in her mother’s care]. I saw, when I sat down on the couch again, a
momevent out of the corner of my eye, but first thought it was B.”

- Behaviour of farm animals

Farm animals also behave in ways that, in time, are not perceived as out of the ordinary and therefore
fail to alert their owners to impending danger.

Respondent 8: “On my way out I heard the dogs barking, but it didn’t … because I thought it was just them,
barking… .”

Respondent 7 jeopardised his safety, not by ignoring the behaviour of his dog, but by reacting to
sounds he believed were being made by his dog trying to wake him to be let into his bedroom.

Respondent 7: “Toe ek iets by die deur hoor, het ek oopgemaak.”

Respondent 7: “When I heard something at the door, I opened it.”

- Routine visits

Besides the routines of those living and working on farms and the behaviour of some farm animals,
farmers also become well acquainted with the routines or procedures of strangers such as workers’
friends, job-seekers and officials who visit their farms on legitimate business. They therefore
sometimes relax their guard and are deceived by offenders who have become aware of this. Some
offenders succeed in beguiling the farmers into allowing them access to their homes by impersonating
persons who have visited the farms on legitimate business on previous occasions (see section
3.2.1.2).

247
 Respondent 10: “So ek stap na bowe, na die TV-kamer en daar sit drie mansmense, en ’n vroumens, in
polisie-uniform. En … die grootste een stel hom toe voor as Kommandant. Hulle sê hulle wil net kom kyk.
Hulle het ’n paar mense gevang en hulle wil hê ons moet hulle kom uitken. Hulle wil graag sien waar die
mense probeer inbreek het. ‘Goed, stap maar saam.’ Ons het al drie of vier inbrake gehad, maar gelukkig
was ons nie by die huis nie.”
Respondent 10: “So I went upstairs, to the TV-room and there are seated three menfolk, and a woman, in
police uniform. And … the taller one then introduced himself as Commandant. They said they just want to
come and have a look. They have caught a couple of people and they want us to come and identify them.
They would like to see where the people tried to break in. ‘Good, come along.’ We already had three or four
burglaries, but fortunately we were not home.”

Respondent 15: “Toe het die bediende ingekom en my kom roep en gesê F se broer is daar en F se broer
soek werk. ‘Julle is mos hier, watse werksoekery is dit?’. En toe gaan ek hek toe.”
Respondent 15: “The maid then came in and told me that F’s brother was there and that F’s brother is
looking for employment. ‘You are here, what job-seeking is this?’. Then I went to the gate.”

Habitually dealing with strangers who visit their farms on a regular basis without threat to their safety,
in time also reinforces the feeling ‘It cannot happen to me’.

• Lifestyle

From the findings it is evident that certain aspects of the lifestyle that farmers and their family
members lead, increase their risk of victimisation. This is in line with the lifestyle theory of Hindelang et
al. (1978:244) and Moolman (1999a:110). Their occupational roles often expose farmers, their
spouses and children to high-risk situations, while leisurely activities.enjoyed by the farmers and their
family members also increase their risk of victimisation. Farmers often unwittingly provide the
offenders with opportunities of attacking them with little risk of apprehension. In other cases, reduced
guardianship facilitates the attacks on them. Sometimes factors that increase the risk of victimisation,
such as travelling and having hard cash and sought-after items such as firearms on the premises,
either makes victimisation possible or increases the farmers’ attractiveness as targets. Further,
farmers’ perceptions of crime and their individual differences also determine the risks that they are
prepared to take when engaged in these occupational and/or leisure activities.

248
- Role expectations

Seven of the victims that were interviewed, were carrying out their tasks as head of the household or
as housewives and/or mothers to their school-going offspring when they were attacked.

Respondent 2: “Ons het twee groot honde, Rotweilers [wat die respondent besig was om te voer]… .”
Respondent 2: “We have two large dogs, Rotweilers [that the respondent was busy feeding]… .”

Respondent 5: “Op 28 Desember 2000, die dag van die aanval, het ek vir hom gesê hy moet hout saag.”
Respondent 5: “On 28 December 2000, the day of the attack, I told him to saw wood.”

Respondent 8: “I wanted to go to the shop to buy ingredients to bake biscuits. My car was ready, and I got
everything ready to go to town, so I hadn’t locked the security door when I came in. On my way out I heard
the dogs barking, but it didn’t … because I thought it was just them, barking, and when I came back into the
kitchen and I opened the kitchen door, the two of them were standing at the kitchen door.”

Respondent 9: “Toe moes ek hom Carolina toe vat, na die veearts toe… . Toe ek daar wil deurgaan, hierso,
toe wag hulle vir my daar, net daar, om daai hoek.”
Respondent 9: “Then I had to take it to Carolina, to the vet… . When I wanted to go through there, here,
they were waiting for me there, just there, around that corner.”

Respondent 12: “Ek het my twee kinders by die laerskool opgelaai… . En toe ons om ’n draai kom, naby
aan ons ingang, het daar ’n voertuig gestaan met sy enjinkap op en bakstene so voor die kar.”
Respondent 12: “I picked my two children up at the primary school… . And when we came around a bend,
near to our entrance, a vehicle stood in the road with its bonnet up and bricks in front of it like this.”

Respondent 14: “He said he would go and put the bakkie away and I got his tea for him.”

While Respondent 15 might not have regarded it as her role to go outside and speak to a job-seeker if
her husband had been present on that day, she nevertheless regarded it as her duty in his absence.

Respondent 15: “Toe het die bediende ingekom en my kom roep en gesê F se broer is daar en F se broer
soek werk. ‘Julle is mos hier, watse werksoekery is dit?’. En toe gaan ek hek toe.”
Respondent 15: “The maid then came in and told me that F’s brother was there and that F’s brother is
looking for a job. ‘You are here, what job-seeking is this?’. Then I went to the gate.”
249
- Leisure time activities

Five farmers and their family members were also attacked while enjoying leisure time inside and
outside their homes or on arriving home after attending religious activities. As leisure activities
normally take place after working hours, farmers who engage in leisure activities either inside the
house or outside, are temporarily accessible for longer periods than many other individuals. According
to Fattah (1991:241), extended hours of accessibility give potential offenders greater flexibility in
planning the offence. The twilight hours often provide the opportunity for victimisation as farmhouses
are not yet locked for the night and visibility is already low.

Respondent 1: “Ek was besig om my vriendin met naaldwerk te help in ons dubbelverdieping woning een
Saterdagoggend toe ’n groep swartmans ons oorval in die vertrek waar ons gewerk het.”
Respondent 1: “I was busy helping my friend with needlework in our double-storey home one Saturday
morning when a group of black men attacked us in the room where we were working.”

Respondent 3: “Ons het die aand nog televisie gekyk.”

Respondent 3: “We were still watching television that evening.”

Respondent 4: “Ons het na kerk by die televisiekamer se deur ingestap. Hulle het my man in die gang
ingewag met my gaspistool wat ek in die kas gelos het.”
Respondent 4: “After church, we entered through the television room. They waylaid my husband in the
passage with my gas pistol that I had left in the cupboard.”

Respondent 11: “Ons het so omstreeks half-sewe die aand by die huis gesit, in die TV-kamer, ek en E, my
seun [’n universiteitstudent] en my verloofde, L en haar dogter, Y… . Plain suiwer gewoontes maak
plaasboere kwesbaar. Jy is gewoond om tot agt-, nege-uur rond te loop, kyk dat diere reg is, gesels buite.
Dis tweede natuur… . Jy voel veilig, maar ons deur was oop… . Daar was heeltyd nog verkeer, in-en-uit.”
Respondent 11: “At approximately half past six that evening we were at home, in the TV-room, my son E [a
university student] and I, my fiancée, L and her daughter, Y… . Sheer habit makes farmers susceptible to
attacks. You are used to walking around ouside until eight or nine o’clock, checking that the animals are all
right, chatting outside. It’s second nature… . You feel safe, but our door was open… . There was still traffic
in and out, the whole time.”

Respondent 13: “Ek, my vrou en my dogter het hier op die stoep gesit en ontspan, jy weet. Ek was in ’n
kortbroek en ’n hemp gewees. Hier was nog nie eers ligte aan nie en toe ons weer sien, het hulle hier by
250
 die bure deurgekom, drie van hulle, gewapen, elkeen met ’n pistool. Dit was om en by agtuur. Dan is jy nie
op jou hoede nie.”
Respondent 13: “My wife, daugter and I were sitting and relaxing here on the verandah, you know. I was
wearing shorts and a shirt. The lights weren’t even on yet and when we saw again, they were coming
through here by the neighbours, three of them, armed, each with a pistol. It was approximately eight
o’clock. Then you are not on you guard.”

- Constraints

Two respondents indicated that they were constrained from improving their security. Respondent 6
relied on his landlord to secure the house that he was hiring from him but he never found time to do
so. He himself was financially constrained, suffered from ill health and lacked the help he needed to
weld burglar bars to the window. Respondent 9 who lived alone, might have improved the
guardianship on the farm if her children lived with her, but they are unable to practise their professions
from the farm.

Respondent 6: “Ek het self daardie ysters by die varkhok gekry en hier aangesit. Die eienaar sê altyd hy
gaan iets doen. Dit gebeur nie. Net vir tyd en wyl… . Ek het ander ysters gekoop op my eie onkoste. Hulle
lê daar.”
Respondent 6: “I myself found those pieces of iron at the pigsty and put them on here. The owner always
says he is going to do something. It does not happen. Just in the meantime… . I bought other iron, at my
own cost. It is lying there.”

Respondent 9: “My skoonseun is ’n vlieënier en my dogter werk ook. Hulle kan nie hier by my kom bly nie.”
Respondent 9: “My son-in-law is a pilot and my daughter also works. They cannot come and live here by
me.”

- Associations

Only two of the 15 victims were attacked by offenders with whom they had a previous association. In
both cases the association was not entirely voluntary. Respondent 5 was the employer of the offender
and Respondent 10 was obliged to deal with police officers who visited his smallholding on three or
four previous occasions to investigate burglaries. This is in line with Hindelang et al. (1978:245) and
with Lynch (1987:295) who state that associations with individuals who might pose a risk to persons’
safety, increases exposure to victimisation.

251
 Respondent 5: “Ons s’n was nie’n tipiese plaasaanval in die sin dat die aanvallers mense van buite af was
nie. Ons aanvaller was ons eie werker wat by ons grootgeword het.”
Respondent 5: “Ours was not a typical farm attack in the sense that the attackers were strangers. Our
attacker was our own worker that grew up by us.”

Respondent 10: “So ek stap na bowe, na die TV-kamer en daar sit drie mansmense, en ’n vroumens, in
polisie-uniform. En … die grootste een stel hom toe voor as Kommandant. Hulle sê hulle wil net kom kyk.
Hulle het ’n paar mense gevang en hulle wil hê ons moet hulle kom uitken. Hulle wil graag sien waar die
mense probeer inbreek het. ‘Goed, stap maar saam.’ Ons het al drie of vier inbrake gehad, maar gelukkig
was ons nie by die huis nie. Hierdie keer was ons wel by die huis. Ek stap voor en die vroumens … my vrou
gee vir haar nog koeldrank, terwyl die ander met my stap door die een slaapkamer, na buite.”
Respondent 10: “So I went upstairs, to the TV-room and there are seated three menfolk, and a woman, in
police uniform. And … the taller one then introduced himself as Commandant. They said they just want to
come and have a look. They have caught a couple of people and they want us to come and identify them.
They would like to see where the people tried to break in. ‘Good,come along.’ We already had three or four
burglaries, but fortunately we were not home. This time we were at home. I led the way and the woman …
my wife still gave her cooldrink, while the others accompanied me outside, through the one bedroom.”

- Perceptions about crime

As already mentioned in section 6.2.1, the 15 respondents’ perceptions of crime varied from feeling
safe to being wary of being attacked. In some instances feeling safe to relatively safe, resulted in
omissions such as letting neighbours know when to expect hearing gunshots on the farm. Neighbours
who might have come to the aid of one female victim and her husband when they heard the offenders’
gunshot, failed to do so, as they had become accustomed to hearing gunshots after dark when
Respondent 3 and her husband went poaching by torch light.

Respondent 3: “Die bure wat ’n halwe kilometer van ons gebly het, het later gesê hulle het die skote
gehoor, maar gedink ons poach.”
Respondent 3: “The neighbours who lived half a kilometre from us, later said that they heard the shots, but
thought we were poaching.”

252
- Target attractiveness

It appears that target attractiveness (Garofalo, 1987:38) also plays a role in farm attacks. Most farmers
are expected to have motor vehicles, firearms and electronic appliances, which cause them to be
perceived as attractive targets by offenders. Two victims might have been perceived to have hard
cash on the premises on the day of the attack. This is in line with Lynch (1987: 288) who states that
attractiveness as a crime target depends on the frequency that individuals handle money as part of
their tasks.

Respondent 11: “Hulle het die kluis oopgekry, toe kom hulle vier uit met so ’n bos gewere, al die wapens.
Hulle stap toe uit na buite met die gewere, in gelid. Elke ou het drie tot vier gewere gedra, maar agter
mekaar.”
Respondent 11: “They got the safe open, then the four of them came out with such a stack of guns, all the
weapons… . They then walked outside with the guns, one behind the other. Each guy carried three to four
guns, but in single file.”

Respondent 13: “Al die geld gevat, die pistool gevat, want ek het net die dag gaan lone trek. Dit het so op
my bedkassie nog gelê, pistool en al. Toe het hulle dit alles gevat, al die juwele gevat, en natuurlik al die
eletroniese goed, maar niks klere nie. Snaaks, geen klere gevat nie, maar al die elektroniese goed.”
Respondent 13: “Took all the money, took the pistol, because I had just gone and drawn wages that day. It
all still lay so on my pedestal, pistol and all. Then they took it all, all the jewellery, and naturally all the
electronic stuff, but no clothes. Strange, no clothes taken, but all the electronic stuff.”

Farmers who do not own these commodities might in time perceive themselves safe from criminal
victimisation in the form of farm attacks. However, it is the perception that potential offenders have of
the availability of some sought after items, that is also the decisive factor in determining the
attractiveness of a target. Some of the perceptions are not always correct. For example, while firearms
are generally believed to be an integral part of farmers lifestyle, there are farmers who do not own
firearms.

Respondent 10: “Ons het nie wapens nie.”

Respondent 10: “We don’t have firearms.”

Offenders might also err with regard to other information about the proposed targets. Persons who
253
might be mistaken for the farmer, for example, a tenant, might be targeted in error.

Respondent 2: “Die eienaar van die plaas sou daardie dag lone uitbetaal.”
Respondent 2: “The owner of the farm would have paid out wages that day.”

Taking into account the possibility of error on the part of offenders regarding the possible loot they
hope to rob and also the identity of the farmer they plan to attack, all farmers are potential victims of
farm attackers on their farms.

- Individual differences

In the case of some attacks, individual differences, such as old age and illness caused some
individuals to be regarded as easy or suitable targets. Less permanent factors such as temporary
distractions, concentration on tasks and grief, made some victims more susceptible to attacks than
they believe they might have been (see section 2.1.4.11).

Respondent 1: “Ek was besig om my vriendin met naaldwerk te help… . Ek het ’n skuifelgeluid op die
trappe gehoor, maar ek het gedink dis die huishulp wat ons teekoppies kom haal. Ek het skielik ’n mes teen
my keel gevoel en ’n man se stem het my beveel om stil te staan en nie ’n geluid te maak nie. Die
swartmans wat ongesiens met die trappe opgekruip het, het op ons begin skreeu en vloek.”
Respondent 1: “I was in the process of helping my friend with needlework… . I heard a shuffling sound on
the stairs, but I thought it was the maid coming to fetch our tea cups. I suddenly felt a knife at my throat and
a man’s voice ordered me to stand still and not to make a sound. The black men who had crept up the
stairs unseen, started shouting and swearing at us.”

Respondent 6: “Hulle weet waar oumense is. As ek jonger was, sou ek hom gegryp het… . Ek was net ’n
rukkie uit die hospitaal, het pille gedrink en het seker vas geslaap.”
Respondent 6: “They know where old people live. If I were younger, I would have grabbed him… . I had
been discharged from hospital only a while before, drank pills, and probably slept soundly.”

Respondent 9: “En toe ek nou terugkom huis toe, mmm… . Weet jy, ek is, ek is eintlik altyd so versigtig,
maar omdat ek die dag so ontsteld was oor die hondjie, toe is ek nie op my hoede nie… .”
Respondent 9: “And when I now came home, mmm… . You know, I am, I am actually always so careful, but
because I was so upset about the little dog that day, then I was not alert… .”

254
6.2.2 Reactions, avoidance and target hardening strategies

The immediate reactions of the respondents do not differ substantially from the reactions of victims of
other forms of criminal victimisation. In line with the findings of Bard and Sangrey (1986:xvi), the
reactions include surprise at being attacked, fear and feelings of powerlessness. According to the
respondents that participated in the current study, self-questioning also takes place and in some cases
self-blame for the event. This is usually followed by avoidance strategies that often take the form of
behavioural changes and target hardening measures aimed at securing their premises against
unlawful entry by potential offenders.

6.2.2.1 Immediate reactions

Surprise and fear are the predominant emotions displayed by victims who participated in the research.
Concern about the safety of family members was also verbalised. Some felt powerless and also
stressed for the duration of the attacks.

• Surprise

A characteristic of farm attacks is that the victims are always taken by surprise, irrespective of whether
they felt susceptible to farm attacks or not. The first reaction of some respondents was that they could
not believe that it was happening to them. This is true to the findings of Bard and Sangrey (1986:3), as
well as Janoff-Bulman (1985:500) who state that victims are seldom prepared for the victimisation
event. Victims become confused, fail to react immediately and also forget personal details such as
their telephone number and/or address when they need to report the incident.

Respondent 1: “Ek onthou dat ek gedink het dis dinge wat net met ander mense gebeur.”
Respondent 1: “I remember thinking that it is something that only happens to other people.”

Respondent 4: “Alles speel so voor jou af.”

Respondent 4: “Everything is enacted in front of you.”

Respondent 5: “Ek dink ek was deurmekaar.”

Respondent 5: “I think I was confused.”

255
 Respondent 11: “Dis asof jy ’n mental block het. Dit kan mos nie met jou gebeur nie… .”
Respondent 11: “It’s as if you have a mental block. After all, it cannot happen to you… .”

Respondent 12: “Weet jy, ek dink nie ek het so iets verwag nie… .”
Respondent 12: “You know, I do not think I expected something like this… .”

Respondent 14: “And when I saw the silhouette, I looked towards the garage and I noticed a light in the
garage and immediately, you know, everything went blank. I didn’t know who, who I was, where I was,
where I lived, what was my telephone number, nothing… . And I just sat there the whole night, thinking you
know what, I’ve just had a bad dream. I am actually dreaming. I must have been very tired and I fell asleep
and I am dreaming this thing. This hasn’t happened. Because we were going to live to be old and grey and
we were going to start a family. So this can’t be happening. We just celebrated our wedding anniversary,
eleven days before that. This cannot be happening! I must be dreaming. There is no other explanation!”

Respondent 15: “Ons het nooit probleme gehad nie. Dit was heel rustig. Ons bediendes was sewe jaar by
ons, broer en suster. Ons het tien hektaar en ek stap heeldag met die honde, die hele veld.”
Respondent 15: “We never had problems. It was quite restful. Our employees had been with us for seven
years, brother and sister. We have ten hectares and I walk with my dogs the whole day, the whole veld.”

• Fear

Whether an attack culminates in the death of a victim or whether the victim is fortunate to escape
injury, most victims fear for their lives for the duration of the attack (Boervrou versmoor in kluis terwyl
sy Bybel vasklou, 2000:1). According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:20), there is immediate and total loss
of control as soon as a victim comes face-to-face with his assailant. These authors also state that
when a firearm is used in the victimisation incident, the loss of autonomy is more acute. However,
other victims begin to fear only after the attack has ended. Bard and Sangrey (1986:43) confirm that it
is not an uncommon occurrence for victims to start fearing for their lives only after the immediate
threat has passed. After victimisation, victims’ perception of vulnerability often causes them to be
preoccupied with the fear of re-victimisation (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:5). While some
respondents that took part in the study fear victimisation by offenders not related to the attack on
them, others fear re-victimisation by the same offenders when they are let out on parole or have
completed serving their sentences. One respondent also expressed the fear of being victimised by the
offender’s friends or by the friends that he might make in jail while serving his sentence.

256
Only one of the respondents, Respondent 4, did not experience fear at the time of the attack.

Respondent 4: “Snaaks genoeg, ek het nie geskrik nie. Ek was nie bang nie.”
Respondent 4: “Strangely enough, I did not get a fright. I was not afraid.”

During the attack, ten respondents who participared in the research feared for their own safety and
sometimes for that of the other family members present at the time of the attacks.

Respondent 1: “Die jongste enetjie het onbeheersd begin gil. Die aanvaller gooi die kleintjie toe in die
hangkas. Ek kon die oudste een onder hoor skop en skree dat hy weier om in die huis in te kom met sy
aanvallers. Hulle het hom boontoe gedwing. Ek het my bo-op hom gegooi en sy kop onder die
naaldwerktafel ingedruk. Op hierdie stadium het my hart onbeheersd geklop. Dit het gevoel asof alles
gelyktydig gebeur… . Ek het een van die aanvallers hoor skree: ‘Ek gaan jou nou vrek skiet’. …Ek was so
bang en op my senuwees.”
Respondent 1: “The youngest little one started yelling uncontrollably. The attacker then threw the little one
into the wardrobe. I could hear the older one kicking and shouting downstairs that he refused to come into
the house with his attackers. They forced him upstairs. I threw myself on top of him and pushed his head
under the needlework table. At this stage my heart was beating uncontrollably. It felt as if everything was
happening simultaneously… . I heard one of the attackers shouting: ‘I am going to shoot you dead now’.
…I was so afraid and nervous.”

Respondent 2: “Ek het heeltyd aan my vrou gedink. Sy was nog in die kamer en sou gaan bad het. Ek het
nie geweet wat hulle aan haar sou doen nie… .”
Respondent 2: “I thought of my wife all the time. She was still in the bedroom and would have gone to take
a bath. I did not know what they would do to her…. .”

Respondent 3: “Toe die een my bene eenmaal op die vloer ooptrek, het ek gedink hy gaan my verkrag.”
Respondent 3: “When the one pulled my legs open on the floor once, I thought he was going to rape me.”

Respondent 4: “Toe een my gryp, het hy sommer die straps van my handsak afgeskeur. Hy het heeltyd
aangehou om my te dreig met die skroewedraaier… . Toe ek hoor hulle skiet, het ek gedink hy [die
respondent se eggenoot] is dood. Hulle het hom vasgemaak en toegesluit in die hangkas. Ek is deur die
traliehek wat ek gelukkig agter my kon sluit en [is] by die badkamer verby… . Buite was ’n blombedding met
vuurpyle [kniphofia praecox]. Ek het sommer in die modder platgeval, kerkklere en al, en so by die vensters
verbygekruip… . Kan jy glo, na die aanval het ons die huis net so oopgelos.”
Respondent 4: “When one grabbed me, he just ripped the straps off my handbag. He kept on threatening

257
me with a screwdriver… . When I heard them shooting, I thought he [the respondent’s spouse] was dead.
They bound him and locked him up in the wardrobe. I escaped through the security gate, which I was
fortunate to be able to lock, past the bathroom… . Outside there was a flowerbed with red-hot pokers
[kniphofia praecox]. I immediately fell down flat in the mud, in my churh attire, and crept past the windows…
. Can you believe, after the attack we left the house open just like that.”

Respondent 9: “Hulle het messe gehad, maar toe gryp hulle my en gooi my so op die grond. Weet jy, jy kan
vir niemand dit beskryf nie. Hulle vat toe ’n draad om om my keel te sit. Die een kom toe nader met die stuk
draad. Weet jy, en nou … en nou lê jy daar en hulle sê heeltyd: ‘Ons maak dood. Moenie skree nie. Ons
gaan jou doodmaak’ … die hele tyd. Hulle het Afrikaans gepraat. Toe sê ek, pleit ek: ‘Moenie my doodmaak
nie, ek het ’n kind. Asseblief moenie die draad om my nek sit nie’. Maar ek kon nie skree vir hulp nie. Jy
kan nie. Jy weet, ek het nog die vreeslikste nagmerries. Ek kon nie eers die Here vra nie. Jy sê net in jou
gedagtes: ‘Ag, Here, help my’, maar weet jy, jy sien jou hele lewe soos ’n rolprent voor jou verbydraai.
Daardie dag, ag daardie dag, sien jy nie ’n uitweg nie. Jy weet vandag jy gaan doodgaan, verstaan jy? En
toe het hulle ’n tou, dis ’n tou wat hulle van my plante afgehaal het, wat ek die blare mee vasmaak. Toe
wou hulle die tou om my nek sit. Maar ek kon nie skree vir hulp nie. Ek weet nie of die Here my gehoor het
nie, maar om die een of ander rede sit hulle dit om my polse, maar dit het so gesny, in my polse in. Toe kon
hulle nie inkom nie, want kyk, die slotte sluit ek daar oop en … toe sleep hulle my aan daai tou, so, om die
huis, so tot hier by die voorstoep. En heeltyd sê hulle: ‘Ons maak dood. Ons maak dood’. Hulle het op my
keel getrap, op my bors, soos hulle jou wurg, dan trap hulle so op jou. Niks genade nie hoor, niks. Hulle
voel niks vir jou nie. En dan moet ek hulle sê watter sleutels moet hulle gebruik, jy weet: ‘Watter kamer is
joune? Waar slaap jy?’ [Die respondent maak hul harde stemtoon na]. So praat hulle met my. Toe smyt
hulle my weer daar op die grond. Toe dog ek: ‘O, Here’, toe hulle my vra waar is my kamer, ‘dat hulle my
net nie verkrag nie’. ‘Asseblief, Here’ is al wat ek in my gedagtes kon uitkry.”
Respondent 9: “They had knives, but then they grabbed me and threw me to the ground. You know, you
can describe it to no-one. They then took a wire to put around my throat. The one then came nearer with
the piece of wire. You know, and now, and now you are lying there and the whole time they are saying: ‘We
kill. Don’t scream. We are going to kill you’ the whole time. They spoke Afrikaans. Then I said, I pleaded:
‘Don’t kill me, I have a child. Please don’t put the wire around my neck’. But I could not scream for help.
You cannot. You know, I still have the most terrible nightmares. I could not even ask the Lord. You just say
in your thoughts: ‘O, Lord, help me’ but do you know, you see your whole life flashing past you like a movie.
That day, O that day, you do not see a way out. You know you are going to die today, do you understand?
Then they had a rope, it’s a rope they took off my plants, with which I tie up the leaves. Then they wanted to
put the rope around my neck. But I could not scream for help. I do not know if the Lord heard me, but for
some reason they put the rope around my wrists, but it cut so, into my wrists. Then they could not get in,
because look the bolts I unlock there … and then they dragged me on that rope, like this, around the
house, so, to here at the front verandah. And the whole time they are saying: ‘We kill. We kill’. They trod on
258
my throat, on my chest, as they are throttling you, then they tread on you like this. No mercy, hear, nothing.
They feel nothing for you. Then I had to tell them which keys to use, you know: ‘Which bedroom is yours?
Where do you sleep?’ [The respondent immitates their harsh tone of voice]. So they spoke to me. Then
they chucked me on the ground again. Then I thought: ‘O, Lord’ when they asked me where is my room,
‘that they just not rape me’. ‘Please, Lord’ is all that I could say in my thoughts.”

Respondent 10: “Hulle het gedreig as ons nie stilbly nie, dan sal hulle ons skiet. Ek het geen wapen gesien
nie, maar die dreigement was daar… . Terwyl jy nou daar onder die komberse lê en jy weet nie wat gaan
gebeur nie, dit is baie sleg… . Ons was bekommerd oor mekaar. Kyk, ek was nie bekommerd dat hulle
goed gevat het, solank hulle ons nou net met rus laat.”
Respondent:10: “They threatened that if we did not keep quiet, then they would shoot us. I did not see any
weapon, but the threat was there… . While you are lying there under the blankets and you do not know
what is going to happen, it is very bad… . We were worried about each other. Look, I was not worried that
they had taken our possessions, as long as they just left us in peace.”

Respondent 11: “Y het in haar nagklere gelê op die mat, en die twee vrouens was heeltemal weerloos… .
Daardie halfuur is ongelooflik. Die stres.”
Respondent 11: “Y was lying on the carpet in her pyjamas, and the two womenfolk were completely
defenceless… . That half hour is unbelievable. The stress.”

Respondent 12: “Die een wat langs my dogter voor gesit het, dit was vir my nogal erg. Hy het met sy pistool
se punt op haar bobeen so gesit… . Weet jy wat het my opgeval van die klomp? Dis hoe angstig hulle is.
Weet jy, hulle is so jittery. Die ou wat langs my voor ingeklim het en met sy pistoolpunt op my dogtertjie se
been gesit het, het so gebewe. Daardie pistoolpunt het so gemaak - [die respondent dui die beweging aan
met haar hand] - ek belowe jou. Ek sê toe vir my dogtertjie: ‘Luister, sit jy net soos ’n standbeeld. Moet net
nie roer nie’, want ek meen, as sy roer, dan gaan hy skiet… . Toe gaan ons, soek toe die sleutel. Die hele
tyd hou hulle ons … jy weet, die pistole op ons gerig… . Een van die twee vra my dogter wat so twaalf-
dertien was: ‘Kom wys my waar is jou kamer’. Toe sê ek net: ‘Nee, sy bly by my. Ons bly almal saam, ons
sal almal saam jou gaan wys waar is haar kamer’. Hy het haar toe nou nie geskei van ons nie, ook nie met
geweld nie. Toe ons die kluissleutel kry, het hy die kluis oopgesluit, die kluis leeggemaak… . Toe sê ek vir
hom: ‘Ja, asseblief, ek wil water hê’. Toe sê hy vir my: ‘OK, gaan haal nou ’n glas’ - dan stuur hy my so met
die pistool. Ek haal die beker water uit die yskas, toe loop hy so met die pistool agter my aan binne-in die
spens in… . Ek dink ’n mens hanteer dit glad nie. Ek dink glad nie, want dit is traumaties om met ’n pistool
aangehou te word, jy weet. Ja, dis aaklig.”
Respondent 12: “The one that sat next to my daughter in front, that was quite bad for me. He sat with the
point of his pistol on her thigh like this… . Do you know what struck me about this lot? It’s how anxious they
were. You know, they were so jittery. The guy who got in front next to me and who sat with his pistol point
259
on my little daughter’s leg, was shaking so. That pistol point was doing this - [the respondent demonstrates
the movement with her hand] - I promise you. I then said to my little girl: ‘Listen, just sit like a statue. Just do
not move’, because, I mean, if she moves, then he is going to shoot… . Then we went, looked for the key.
The whole time they held us … you know, the pistols aimed at us… . One of the two asked my daughter
who was twelve-thirteen: ‘Come show me where is your room’. Then I just said: ‘No, she stays with me. We
all stay together, we will all go and show you together where her room is’. He then did not separate her
from us, also not by force. When we found the safe key, he unlocked the safe, emptied the safe… . Then I
said to him: ‘Yes, please, I want some water’. Then he said to me: ‘OK, go and fetch a glass then’ – then he
guided me like this with the pistol. I took the jug of water out of the refrigerator, then he walked behind me
like this with the pistol right into the pantry… . I think a person does not handle it at all. I think not at all,
because it is traumatic to be held up with a pistol, you know. Yes, it’s awful.”

Respondent 13: “Die oomblik toe ons hulle sien, toe span hulle die pistole en hulle sê vir my ek moet gaan
lê en die vrouens moet sit… . Hulle het later ’n uitkenningsparade gehad, ons genooi om ’n
uitkenningsparade te doen, maar dit is ook eintlik nie baie goed gereël nie, want aanvanklik wou hulle
gehad het hulle moet sommer net voor ons verskyn. Toe sê ek maar ek is nie bereid om dit te doen nie, jy
weet. Nou-nou herken ons daar iemand en hy gaan terugkom en jou weer leed aandoen of iets, jy weet.
Toe het hulle so ’n eenrigting venster tipe ding gekry, maar ons kon nie… .”
Repondent 13: “The moment we saw them, they cocked their pistols and told me to lie down and the
women must sit… . Later they had an identity parade, they invited us to attend an identity parade, but it was
actually not arranged very well, because initially they wanted them to appear before us just like that. Then I
said but I was not prepared to do it, you know. We might just recognise somebody there and he will come
back and harm you again, or something like that, you know. Then they got a one-way window type of thing,
but we could not… .”

Respondent 15: “Toe skiet hy, maar die skoot het nie afgegaan nie. Ek dink: ‘O God, help my!’. Ek staan
binne in die rotstuin. Ek draai om en ek dog as hy my moet skiet, moet hy my liewer in my rug skiet en nie
in my gesig nie. Ek glo ook, behalwe God se genade, het my honde my gehelp. Ek het geweet ek moenie
reguit hardloop nie. Ek het in die huis in gehardloop… . My dogter was by die haarkapster. Ek het haar
gebel om nie huis toe te kom nie, want ek was bang vir wat hulle aan haar sou doen as sy hier aankom.”
Respondent 15: “Then he pulled the trigger but the shot did not go off. I thought: ‘O God, help me!’. I am
standing in the rockery. I turn round, and I tought that if he must shoot me, he must rather shoot me in the
back and not in my face. I also believe, except for God’s mercy, my dogs also helped me. I knew I mustn’t
run in a straight line. I ran into the house… . My daughter was at the hairdresser. I phoned her not to return
home, because I was afraid of what they would do to her if she arrived here.”

260
• Powerless

During the attacks, five victims (Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 11) felt powerless and at the mercy of their
assailants. These feelings of powerlessness, helplessness and neediness often force victims of crime
to recognise certain self-limitations and also to confront the malevolence, the ‘evil’ in their fellowmen
(Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:504, 507, 508). According to these authors, being at the mercy of
another human being can also result in feelings of shame, decreased self-esteem and a loss of self-
respect.

Respondent 1: “Toe hulle van my juweliersware vind, het hulle vir ons vasgemaak.”
Respondent 1: “When they found some of my jewellery, they tied us up.”

Respondent 2: “As daar net een was, sou ek hom seker getakel het. Hulle sê pepersprei is die beste, maar
as daar vier is, watter een sprei jy? … Hulle het my gedwing om die kluis oop te sluit.”
Respondent 2: “If there were only one, I would probably have tackled him. They say pepper spray is the
best, but if there are four, which one do you spray? … They forced me to unlock the safe.”

Respondent 3: “Ek moes die rewolwer vir hulle gee… . Hulle het my vasgebind… . Hulle het my met ’n mes
aangehou… .”
Respondent 3: “I had to give the revolver to them… . They tied me up… . They held a knife to me… .“

Respondent 4: “Hulle het met ons in die huis rondgeloop. Wat kon ons gedoen het?”
Respondent 4: “They walked around the house with us. What could we have done?”

Respondent 11: “Y het in haar nagklere gelê op die mat, en die twee vrouens was heeltemal weerloos… .
Ek kon nie eintlik iets doen nie.”
Respondent 11: “Y was lying on the carpet in her pyjamas, and the two womenfolk were completely
vulnerable… . I could not really do anything.”

In spite of their feelings of fear and powerlessness, two of the respondents (Respondents 11 and 12)
had the presence of mind to pacify their agitated and/or nervous assailants.

Respondent 11: “Jy sien, dis die houding van die mense. Ek praat met hulle Tswana en ek probeer hulle
paai, kalmeer, en ek sien die opge-tense-heid, die opgewerkdheid. Dit maak nie saak wat jy sê nie, jy gaan
hulle nie oortuig [om van plan te verander] nie. Die feit dat hulle ongeveer tien keer in so min minute

261
 teruggekom het en by elke geleentheid gesê het: ‘Ek skiet jou dood. Lê stil! Bly stil!’ en as jy move pluk
hulle hulle vuurwapens… . Hulle voel vere.”
Respondent 11: “You see, it’s the attitude of the people. I speak Tswana to them and try to pacify them,
calm them down, and I see the tension and how worked up they are. It does not matter what you say, you
are not going to convince them [to change their minds]. The fact that they came back approximately ten
times in as many minutes, and said on each occasion: ‘I will shoot you dead. Lie still! Keep quiet!’ and if you
move, they draw their firearms… . They feel nothing.”

Respondent 12: “Ja, aan die ander kant het dit so half-en-half so vinnig verbygegaan want ek het so
gekonsentreer om net almal kalm te hou. [Die respondent lag]. Ja, ek dink dit was ons redding, weet jy,
want ek het heeltyd net gedink as ek net almal kan kalm hou, dan sal hulle ons uitlos. Vir my, die hooffokus
was: ‘Kalmeer die ouens’, jy weet.”
Respondent 12: “Yes, on the other hand, time passed rather quickly, because I was concentrating so on
keeping everybody calm. [The respondent laughs]. Yes, I think that was our salvation, you know, because
the whole time I just thought if I can keep everybody calm, then they will leave us alone. For me, the main
focus was: ‘Calm the guys down’, you know.”

6.2.2.2 Avoidance tactics

The victims perceptions of their susceptibility to attacks changed after they had been victimised. This
is in direct line with the findings of Janoff-Bulman (1985:500). Their beliefs about the places and times
that they had regarded as ‘safe’ before the victimisation event had to be reassessed and incorporated
into their new system of beliefs of the world and those with whom they come into contact on their
farms. While some made drastic changes such as relocating, others made small behavioural changes
or merely changed their mental attitude towards criminal victimisation.

Respondent 1 moved from the farm a year after the attack, which she believed contributed to the
death of her husband.

Respondent 1: “Ek het vir my ’n meenthuis laat bou op die dorp.”

Respondent 1: “I had a townhouse built for myself in town.”

After the attack, Respondent 2 also moved from the rented farmhouse to a townhouse in the nearest
small town. However, the attack did not change his perception of the relative safety on farms.

262
 Respondent 2: “Ons het op die dorp gaan bly… . Ek voel nie meer kwesbaar op ’n plaas as op die dorp
nie.”
Respondent 2: “We went and stayed in town… . I do not feel more vulnerable on a farm than in town.”

For safety reasons, Respondent 3 moved off the farm on which her husband was killed less than 24
hours after the attack.

Respondent 3: “Ek het die volgende dag al Sasolburg toe getrek na my een seun toe”.
Respondent 3: “The next day already I moved to Sasolburg to my one son.”

• Behavioural changes

Many of the respondents made behavioural changes after their victimisation in order to avoid further
acts of victimisation. Fear of re-victimisation in many cases made them more alert to the acts and
omissions that provided their assailants with the necessary opportunity to attack them.

- Dogs

In order to avoid going outside after darkness has set in, Respondent 5 now ensures that he feeds his
dogs while visibility is good.

Respondent 5: “Ons het eers die honde in die aand kosgegee, nou gee ons hulle in die middag terwyl dit
nog lig is.”
Respondent 5. “Initially we fed the dogs at night, now we feed them in the afternoon while it is still light.”

- Doors/windows

Respondent 6 indicated that his wife keeps the bedroom curtains drawn all day so that potential
offenders are unable to see the position of their bed.

Respondent 6: “My vrou hou nou die gordyne heeldag toe sodat hulle [die oortreders wat bedags kortpad
deur die werf kies] nie kan inkyk nie.”
Respondent 6: “My wife now keeps the curtains drawn whole day so that they [the trespassers who take
short cut through the yard] cannot look in.”

263
Respondent 11 stated that he keeps all doors locked even during the day.

Respondent 11: “Ek het seker die beste sekuriteitstelsel in die gebied. Jy voel veilig, maar ons deur was
oop… . Daar was heeltyd nog verkeer, in-en-uit. Ek het niks verander nie… . Wat ons wel doen, die deure
is konstant gesluit selfs in die dag. As ek in die aande voor die televisie sit, moet hulle die deur sluit… .”
Respondent 11: “I probably have the best security system in the area. You feel safe, but our door was
open… . There was still traffic in and out, the whole time. I changed nothing… . What we do in fact, is that
the doors are constantly locked even in the day. When I sat in front of the television in the evenings, they
must lock the door… .”

- Weapons

Respondents, 9, 11, and 13 stated that they keep their firearms handy to protect themselves at all
times. Respondent 14 has a broad heavy knife in her bedroom for self-protection, and also to use on
herself if necessary, rather than be raped or killed by an offender.

Respondent 9: “Ek sit met my rewolwer heeltyd langs my.”

Respondent 9: “I sit with my revolver next to me all the time.”

Respondent 11: “Jy beskou jouself as paraat. Ek hét voor daardie tyd, maar as jy nie jou vuurwapen by jou
het nie, help dit niks… . As ek in die aande voor die televisie sit, het ek die rewolwer langs my. Nie net by
die huis nie, as ek ry ook… .”
Respondent 11: “You perceive yourself as being mentally prepared and ready. I did before that time, but if
you do not have your firearm on you, it does not help at all… . When I watch television in the evenings, I
have the revolver next to me. Not only at home, when I am driving too… .”

Respondent 13: “Dis nie in my aard om so te loop nie, maar nou is ek altyd gewapen, as ek uitgaan in die
nag. Jy weet, dis simpel. Ek sê ek wil nie soos ’n cowboy hier rondloop nie … dis nie in my aard nie, maar
wat, maar wat moet ek maak?”
Respondent 13: “It is not in my nature to walk around like this, but I am always armed now, when I go out at
night. You know, it’s stupid. I say I do not want to walk around here like a cowboy … it is not in my nature,
but what, but what must I do?”

Respondent 14: “I have an alarm and the lights go on immediately if a door is opened. I also have a
matchet up in my room, to use on myself, if necessary.”
264
Contrary to these respondents, Respondent 5, on the other hand, doubts whether he would be able to
use his firearm on another human being.

Respondent 5: “Ek is nie seker of ek die sneller sou kon trek nie… . Ek kan my nie indink dat ek ’n mens sal
kan doodmaak nie.”
Respondent 5: “I am not sure that I would be able to pull the trigger… . I cannot imagine that I could kill a
human being.”

- Leisure activities

Respondent 15 mentioned that she no longer takes her dogs for walks outside the electric fence that
surrounds her farmhouse.

Respondent 15: “Ek gaan stap nie meer in die veld met my honde nie.”
Respondent 15: “I do not go for walks with my dogs any more.”

- Bonds

Respondent 4 emphasised that she hides anything that offenders might use to tie her up if she were to
be re-victimised.

Respondent 4: “Ek steek nou alles weg wat hulle kan gebruik om ’n mens mee vas te maak, draadhangers,
dasse, maar jy weet jy kan nie alles wegsteek nie.”
Respondent 4: “I now hide everything that they can use to tie one up, wire coat hangers, ties, but you know
you cannot hide everything.”

- Security gates

Respondent 4 said that she has taught her maid to lock the security gate when she leaves the house
and to throw the key into the house where it would be out of reach of potential offenders.

Respondent 4: “Ek het die bediende goed geleer. Sy gooi die sleutel deur die traliehek.”
Respondent 4: “I have taught the maid well. She throws the key through the security gate.”

265
- Visitors

Respondent 4 stated that she no longer leaves the safety of her farmhouse when she sees strangers
at the gate.

Respondent 4: “Ek gaan nie meer uit as iemand op die plaas aankom nie. Ek stuur die werker om te vra
wat soek hy… . Ek sê altyd vir my man hy moenie oopmaak nie.”
Respondent 4: “I do not go outside any more when someone arrives at the farm. I send the worker to ask
what he wants… . I always tell my husband he mustn’t open up.”

- Guardianship

Respondent 6 whose dogs slept outside the farmhouse when he and his spouse were attacked, now
keeps them inside at night so that they may give warning of strangers’ presence.

Respondent 6: “Die hondjies slaap nou in die huis.”

Respondent 6: “The little dogs now sleep in the house.”

- Alertness

Respondents 12 and 15 are now more alert than they were prior to the attacks on them.

Respondent 12: “Ek is nou meer bewus van alles en ek sal meer wakker wees… . Dit en ja, weet jy, ek dink
ons is nie wakker genoeg nie. Weet jy, ons moet meer wakker wees en meer bedag wees. Ons raak baie
gemaklik.”
Respondent 12: “I am now more aware of everything and I will be more alert… . That and yes, you know, I
think we are not vigilant enough. You know, we must be more alert and more prepared. We become very
easy.”

Respondent 15: “Ek is uitermate versigtig.”

Respondent 15: “I am extremely careful.”

- Workers

Respondent 4 who believes that she gave her worker time to plan the offence by inicating that she

266
intended being away from the farm, no longer tells her workers of planned absences.

Respondent 4: “Ek dink die fout wat ek gemaak het, was om die werker te sê hy moet vroeg begin melk.
Die kerkdiens begin al 8h00. Hy moes geweet het ons gaan ry. Ek sê nou glad nie meer vooruit wat ons
planne is nie.”
Respondent 4: “I think the mistake I made, was to tell the worker to start milking early. The church service
starts at 8h00 already. He must have known we were going to leave. Now I never let on in advance any
more what our plans are.”

- Advice

Respondent 12 believes that farmers should learn more about the modus operandi of offenders that
attack farmers and in this way become pro-active in preventing victimisation.

Respondent 12: “…ek dink ons mense moet meer kennis hê van hoe hulle te werk gaan, en wat is die
tekens wat jy kan sien vooraf, en ek dink ons moet wakker wees. Ons het na die tyd, en dit was baie
waardevol, weet jy, het ons vir M [’n SAPD reservis] gekry en twee mense van die Kameeldrift-polisiestasie.
Ek en A het sommer ’n klomp mense – bure - uitgenooi en hulle het almal hiernatoe gekom en M en die
twee polisiemense het gekom, en toe het hulle vir ons ’n lesing gegee oor wat om voor uit te kyk, wat doen
jy… .”
Respondent 12: “…I think we must be more informed about how they operate, and what are the signs that
you can see before, and I think we must be alert. Afterwards, and that was of great value, you know, we got
M [a SAPS reservist] and two people from the Kameeldrift police station. A and I invited a large number of
people - neighbours - and they all came here and M and the two people from the police came, and they
gave us a lecture on what to look out for, what you must do… .”

- Strangers

Respondent 10 no longer opens his door to strangers as his offenders deceived his spouse into
believing they were police officers.

Respondent 10: “As hy eers in is, hoe gaan jy hom uitkry? Die kommando’s sê, al sê hulle dis die polisie,
dan sê hulle hulle moet hulle identifikasie onder deur die deur druk. As hulle sê hulle is van die polisie,
moet jy vra wie het hulle gestuur of jy moet die polisie bel om te hoor of iemand na jou gestuur is. Nou ja, ’n
mens word nou gedwing om op die manier op te tree.”

267
 Respondent 10: “Once he is in, how are you going to get him out? The commando’s say, even if they say
it’s the police, then tell them they must push their identification under the door. If they say they are from the
police, you must ask them who sent them or you must phone the police station to hear if anyone has been
sent to you. Well, one is now forced to act in this way.”

- Restraints

Respondent 15 who feels that she was betrayed by her black employees would prefer not to have to
employ black people, but she believes that she has no alternative.

Respondent 15: “Ek sou verkies om sonder swart hulp te wees maar dis nie moontlik nie.”
Respondent 15: “I would prefer to be without black helpers but it is not possible.”

6.2.2.3 Target hardening

As security measures are costly to implement, not all the respondents could afford to secure their
premises to the degree that they would have liked.

Respondent 7: “Jy kan dit net probeer moeiliker maak. Maar sekuriteit kos baie geld. Jy sal plaasaanvalle
nooit 100% kan stop nie.”
Respondent 7: “You can try to make it more difficult. But security costs a lot of money. You will never be
able to stop farm attacks 100%.

Respondent 8: “No, no, we’ve still got the same security system. Ag, no we can’t afford to pay, I mean, a
couple of thousand for them to come out. OK, the commando’s are here, the police are here.”

However, Respondents 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 upgraded their security, each depending on
the weakness that he/she identified in his/her security system to feel safe again and in control. This is
in line with the findings of DuBow et al. (1979:42) who state that victims of crime often improve their
security after being victimised.

- Improved visibility

Respondents 3, 4 and 12 improved the visibility around their homes. While Respondent 4 demolished
the wall around her house to erect a palisade fence through which she could see strangers outside,
268
Respondents 4 and 12 eradicated trees and bush that grew near their homes. To ensure better
visibility at night, Respondent 13 improved the lighting around the house.

Respondent 3: “Ek het eers ’n muur voor gehad en nou het ek die palissade. Nou kan ek ver sien.”
Respondent 3: “Initially I had a wall in front and now I have the palisade. Now I can see far.”

Respondent 4: “Ons het bosse laat afkap.”

Respondent 4: “We had bushes chopped out.”

Respondent 12: “Dit was baie nou en baie bebos. Dis nou baie oop. So, ja, dit maak dit nou eintlik baie
veiliger. ’n Mens kan nou ver sien.”
Respondent 12: “It was very narrow and very overgrown. Now it is very open. So, yes, it actually makes it
much safer. A person can see far now.”

Respondent 13: “Ons het meer ligte, ekstra ligte. Uit die aard van die saak kos die misdaad baie geld.”
Respondent 13: “We have more lights, extra lights. Naturally the crime costs a lot of money”

- Widened farm road

Respondent 12 who was suspicious of the car blocking her access road but who was unable to turn
her vehicle because of the narrow road, widened the road with the help of the other road-users so that
they might avoid victimisation in future.

Respondent 12: “Maar wat toe gebeur het – hier is net vier plotte wat hierdie pad gebruik, dis nie ’n
deurloop nie - ons het toe almal saam die pad baie breër gemaak sodat daar twee voertuie kan verbygaan.
Dit was baie nou … ek sou nie kon omgedraai het nie.”
Respondent 12: “But what happened then - there are only four smallholdings that use this road, it’s not a
thoroughfare - was that we all together widened the road a lot so that two vehicles can pass by. It was very
narrow … I would not have been able to turn around.”

- Erected fencing

Respondent 10 improved his safety by erecting a security fence around his property and Respondent
15 another, thirty meters outside the existing fence.

269
 Respondent 10: “Ek is nou besig om die plek te omhein, om te help om die plek ’n bietjie veiliger te maak.
Ja, maar ag, ek weet nie watter omheining ’n mens moet maak dat ’n mens dit kan stop nie. Hulle kan alles
breek.”
Respondent 10: “I am now busy fencing the place, to help make the place a little safe. Yes, but oh, I do not
know what type of fencing a person must erect that one can stop it. They break everything.”

Respondent 15: “Ons is baie paraat. Ons het ’n addisionele heining opgesit, dertig meter buite om die
bestaande een.”
Respondent 15: “We are very prepared and ready. We erected an additional fence, thirty metres around the
existing one.”

- Burglar bars

In order to improve the couple’s safety as speedily as possible, Respondent 6 made use of scrap
metal to secure the large window through which their attacker entered the farmhouse. Respondent 7
whose attackers succeeded in removing the burglar bars to gain entry to the farmhouse, fitted the
windows with stronger bars and built a wall with apertures around the front door of the house, which
allows the occupants to see or go outside in relative safety while it makes it difficult for those watching
the front door from a distance to get a good view and/or to attack unexpectedly.

Respondent 6: “Ek het self daardie ysters by die varkhok gekry en hier aangesit. Die eienaar sê altyd hy
gaan iets doen. Dit gebeur nie. Net vir tyd en wyl… . Ek het ander ysters gekoop op my eie onkoste. Hulle
lê daar.”
Respondent 6: “I myself found those pieces of iron at the pigsty and put them on here. The owner always
says he is going to do something. It does not happen. Just in the meantime… . I bought other iron, at my
own cost. It is lying there.”

Respondent 7: “Ons het die diefwering versterk om die huis en hier toegebou.”
Respondent 7: “We reinforced the burglar proofing around the house and we built shut here.”

- Early warning alarm system

In addition to the fence that he erected around his property, Respondent 10 installed an alarm system
in his garden. Any movement that breaks the invisible beams around the farmhouse, triggers an alarm
inside the house, giving the occupants warning of the presence of strangers in proximity to the house.

270
 Respondent 10: “Ons het gelukkig daardie les ook geleer. Ons moet ook nou met ’n ander scheme
vorendag kom. As daar nou weer iets gebeur, ons het die alarm buitekant. As iemand deurkom, word ons
gewaarsku, maar dit sou nie gehelp het nie… . Nou ja, ons het nou weer iets geleer. Kyk, ons het ’n alarm
binnekant en ook hier buitekant. As daar in die nag iemand wel deurkom, dan word ons gewaarsku. Maar
dit sou nie gehelp het nie, want, ek meen as hulle hulself voorstel as polisie en hul het uniform aan, dan kyk
… ons het nou weer iets geleer.”
Respondent 10: “Fortunately we learned that lesson too. We also have to come up with another scheme
now. Should something now happen again, we have the alarm outside. If someone comes through, we are
warned, but that would not have helped… . Well, we have now learned something again. Look, we have got
an alarm inside and also outside here. If someone does come through in the night, then we are warned. But
it would not have helped, because, I mean if they introduce themselves as police and they are in uniform,
then look … we have now learned something again.”

- Improved guardianship

Respondents 3, 4 and 15 respectively improved their guardianship by taking in boarders, having their
adult children come to stay on the farm with them and keeping themselves surrounded by dogs, even
when taking an afternoon nap.

Respondent 3: “Ek het loseerders begin inneem omdat ek nie alleen wou wees nie. Solank hulle
[die potensiële misdadigers] kan sien daar is baie beweging… .”
Respondent 3: “I started taking in boarders because I did not want to be alone. As long as they [the
potential offenders] can see there is a lot of movement… .”

Respondent 4: “Ons het die ander huisie opgeknap. Ons een seun bly nou daar. Hulle werk en ons gaan
haal die kinders elke dag by die skool en kyk na hulle.”
Respondent 4: “We renovated the other little house. Our son lives there now. They work and we fetch the
children from school every day and look after them.”

Respondent 15: “My honde is baie kwaai. Ek hoop dit doen die rondte. Jy kan nêrens gaan sonder die
honde nie. As ek ’n bietjie gaan lê, lê al elf honde om my.”
Respondent 15: “My dogs are very vicious. I hope that does the rounds. You cannot go anywhere without
your dogs. When I go and take a nap, all eleven lie around me.”

By implementing target-hardening measures, the respondents hope to become aware of the presence
271
of offenders in time to take defensive action. Improved security measures might also assist in keeping
offenders from entering their homes before their neighbours or security force members are able to
come to their assistance.

6.2.3 Consequences

The consequences of farm attacks are sometimes so drastic that some victims believe their lives can
never be the same again. Physical injuries of a permanent nature, fear of re-victimisation for long
periods after an attack as well as financial losses that take years to recoup are some of the long-term
consequences suffered by victims of farm attacks.

6.2.3.1 Physical consequences

All respondents, except Respondents 12, 4 and 15 were manhandled during the attacks on them.
While some suffered temporary injuries, mostly from the bonds with which they were secured, others
suffered long-term injuries accompanied by discomfort, pain and suffering.

Respondent 12: “…maar hulle het ons gelukkig geen leed aangedoen nie.”
Respondent 12: “…but fortunately they did us no harm”.

Respondent 1: “Hulle het my teen die kop geslaan en geskop… . Die vel is van my hand afgeskuur.”
Respondent 1: “They struck me against the head and kicked me… . The skin was grazed from my hand.”

Respondent 3: “Toe ek hulle sê ons het nie ’n kluis nie, toe slaan hulle my… .Toe ek hulle die handsak wys,
toe pluk hulle my nog in die gang rond.”
Respondent 3: “When I told them we did not have a safe, they struck me… . When I showed them the
handbag, they still jerked me around in the passage.”

Respondent 5: “Onthou ons is 45 kilometers van Middelburg. Binne 15 minute was daar baie mense. Ek
weet weinig. My kleinseun het met my gejaag tot by die bure en hulle het my verder gevat tot by Midmed op
Middelburg. Van daar af is ek oorgeplaas na Eugene Marais in Pretoria. Ek was twee maande in ’n koma.
Dit was ’n traumatiese ervaring… . Ongelukkig het ek druksere gekry, groot druksere omdat ek, as gevolg
van my brandbeserings, so lank in die bed moes lê. My vrou sê jy kon ’n lemoen daar [die drukseer]
ingedruk het. Toe vra die chirurg wat die veloorplantings gedoen het: ‘Kan ons jou nie ontslaan en tuis
versorg nie?’. My suster koop toe ’n hospitaalbed en ek gaan lê by my dogter in Kilnerpark. Die chirurg laat

272
toe sy ontvangsdame wat ook ’n suster is, na Kilnerpark toe ry om die druksere te versorg. Dit het hulle
gedoen tot einde Maart, toe het my vrou die hantering van die druksere oorgeneem. Ek was toe aan die
genees. Van toe af het dit beter gegaan… . Toe ek in die hospitaal in Middelburg gelê het, sê die suster vir
my vrou ek is besig om dood te gaan. Ek het in die kindersaal gelê en my bene het afgehang. Hulle het niks
daaraan gedoen nie en die dokter wou my nie oorplaas nie. Hulle het net nie die fasiliteite nie. My vrou het
daardie Sondagoggend die uroloog wat my voorheen behandel het genader om te help. Sondagmiddag
was ek op pad Eugene Marais toe. Hy het alles gereël. Ek was reeds in ’n koma. Toe die ambulans stilhou,
het twee chirurge reggestaan en wag. Dokter M het gesê: ‘Hy gaan nie die son sien opkom nie’. Toe ek
ontslaan is, moes ek na rehab toe in Pretoria. Ek moes leer loop en skryf. Dit het maar moeilik gegaan. Ek
was in ’n rolstoel. Middel April was ek uit die rolstoel, maar op krukke… .”
Respondent 5: “Remember we are 45 kilometers from Middelburg. Within 15 minutes there were many
people. I know little. My grandson raced to the neighbours with me and they took me further to Milmed in
Middelburg. From there I was transferred to Eugene Marais in Pretoria. I was in a coma for two months. It
was a traumatic experience… . Unfortunately I got bedsores, large bedsores because I, as a result of my
injuries, was bedridden for so long. My wife says you could have pushed an orange into it [the bedsore].
Then the surgeon who did the skin graft asked: ‘Can’t we discharge you and treat you at home?’. My sister
then bought a hospital bed and I went and lay by my daughter in Kilner Park. The surgeon then let his
receptionist who is also a sister drive to Kilner Park to attend to the bedsores. That they did till the end of
March, then my wife took over the treatment of the bedsores. I was recuperating. From then on things got
better… . When I lay in hospital in Middelburg, the sister told my wife I was dying. I was lying in the
children’s ward and my legs were dangling down. They did nothing about that and the doctor would not
transfer me. They just do not have the facilities. That Sunday morning my wife approached the urologist
who treated me before to help. Sunday afternoon I was on my way to Eugene Marais. He arranged
everything. I was already in a coma. When the ambulance stopped, two surgeons were ready and waiting.
Doctor M said: ‘He will not see the sun rise’. When I was discharged, I had to go to rehab in Pretoria. I had
to learn to walk and write. It was difficult. I was in a wheelchair. Mid April I was out of the wheelchair, but on
crutches… .”

Respondent 6: “Ons het gekeer met ons hande. Hy het geslaan om dood te slaan. My vrou het
bewusteloos op die vloer gelê… . Hierdie arm was pikswart. My hand was gebreek. Hierdie vinger moes vyf
steke kry. Ek kan nie hard vat nie. My vrou kla oor haar nek. Haar nekwerwels is seergemaak… . Ons is
hospitaal toe. Ons wonde is skoongemaak. Ons gaan gereeld dokters toe. Dis duur. Ek het gips om my arm
gekry. My vrou gebruik nou Valiums. Sy kan nie in die nag omdraai nie. Sy sê: ‘Eina. Eina. My nek!’.”
Respondent 6: “We defended ourselves with our hands. He struck to kill. My wife lay unconscious on the
floor… . This arm was pitch black. My hand was broken. This finger had to have five stitches. I cannot hold
anything firmly. My wife complains about her neck. Her vertebrae were injured… . We went to hospital. Our
wounds were cleaned. We go to doctors regularly. It’s expensive. I had plaster of Paris on my arm. My wife
273
 now uses Valiums. She cannot turn around at night. She says: ‘Ouch. Ouch. My neck!’.”

A bullet from the offender’s .38 Special revolver caused Respondent 7 injury to his vocal chords. As a
result of this injury, his speech is characterised by short staccato sentences. He also cannot
communicate by telephone. This has both social and business implications. Approximately three years
after the attack he still has not recovered fully. Besides the pain and suffering that he is enduring over
a long period, he will always bear the long scar running from his neck up to his chin. According to Bard
and Sangrey (1986:21, 43) scars of injuries sustained during victimisation incidents often serve as
reminders or evidence of the fact that the victims were unable to look after themselves. Physical
injuries therefore also cause some victims to feel ashamed or guilty.

Respondent 7: “Ek het ’n skoot deur die elmboog, skouer en nek gekry. Ek het so ’n bietjie gebloei. Die
dokters moes ’n koeël verwyder… . Hulle moes die gat in my nek toewerk. Die senuwees van my
linkerskouer was beskadig. Dit het ongeveer agt maande geneem voordat hy reggekom het. Ek het baie
probleme gehad met chroniese en akute pyn in die nek. Ek is seker nou so 95% reg. Medikasie is duur.”
Respondent 7: “I was struck in the shoulder, elbow and neck. I bled a little. The doctors had to remove a
bullet… . They had to stitch the hole in my neck. The nerves of my left shoulder were damaged. It took
about eight months before it came right. I had many problems with chronic and acute pain in the neck. I
have probably recovered 95% now. Medication is costly.”

Respondent 8: “They shot me, in the leg, and then they shot my husband through the legs and the hand… .
My husband also had to have an operation. He still has a pin in his finger but he is up. He hasn’t got the full
use of his hand any more. He holds his spoon awkwardly, but we’ve still got our lives, that’s the main
thing… . My husband was only in for one day. He went home the next day. He wasn’t going to stay in
hospital, but I had to stay for a couple of days, then I came home but then I had a walker. Then I went to my
children because when my husband came back to the farm, the children fetched me. Because he said he
couldn’t manage to bath me and see to me and all that. So I went and stayed with the children, with the
girls. So I had somebody there all the time. I had this walker. It was one of those … but you had to lift it and
I found it was hurting my back and my legs. So then there was the lady here staying in Belfast and she
gave me one of these with brakes. It’s on wheels, then it was much easier but the one I had was terrible… .
I went to see the doctor and the pin - they put a big steel pin from my hip to my leg - had actually broken.
They had to take it out and I had to have another operation. So that’s why the two ops cost R65 000. And
now this one, they put a steel plate in my leg, so now with the cold weather, that is also affected. When I
came back to the farm, they bought me one of those chairs that fits into the bath. I used that for a time till I
could get in the bath.”

274
Respondent 9: “En toe het hulle ’n tou, dis ’n tou wat hulle van my plante afgehaal het, wat ek die blare
mee vasmaak. Toe wou hulle die tou om my nek sit. Maar ek kon nie skree vir hulp nie. Ek weet nie of die
Here my gehoor het nie, maar om die een of ander rede sit hulle dit om my polse, maar dit het so gesny, in
my polse in. Toe kon hulle nie inkom nie, want kyk, die slotte sluit ek daar oop en … toe sleep hulle my aan
daai tou, so, om die huis, so tot hier by die voorstoep. En heeltyd sê hulle: ‘Ons maak dood. Ons maak
dood’. Hulle het op my keel getrap, op my bors, soos hulle jou wurg, dan trap hulle so op jou. Niks genade
nie hoor, niks. Hulle voel niks vir jou nie… . Toe het hulle my weer begin wurg. Toe was ek heeltemal
bewusteloos… .”
Respondent 9: “Then they had a rope, it’s a rope they took off my plants, with which I tie up the leaves.
Then they wanted to put the rope around my neck. But I could not scream for help. I do not know if the Lord
heard me, but for some reason they put it around my wrists, but it cut so, into my wrists. Then they could
not get in, because look, the locks I unlock there and … then they dragged me on that rope, like this,
around the house, so, to here at the front verandah. And the whole time they are saying: ‘We kill. We kill’.
They trod on my throat, on my chest, as they are throttling you, then they tread on you like this. No mercy,
hear, nothing. They feel nothing for you… . Then they started throttling me gain. Then I was totally
unconscious.”

Respondent 10: “Dit was pynlik. Hulle het ons met daardie cable ties vasgesnoer. Hulle het hulle
saamgebring… . Ja, mijn senuwees was so bekneld, ek was geopereerd. Hierdie elbow wil ook nog nie
regkom nie. Hierdie een, jy kan sien, ek kan hom nog nie reguit kry nie… . Ja, dis nou al vyf maande. Wel,
die dokter sê hy sal regkom, maar hy het nie gesê hoe lank nie. Ek werk heeldag en hy oefen. Ek moet
volgende week weer gaan… . Hy is versplinter. Hulle het daardie elmboog te ver door gedruk.”
Respondent 10: “It was painful. They tied us up with those cable ties. They brought them with them… . Yes,
my nerves were so pinched, I underwent an operation. This elbow still will not come right. This one, you can
see, I still cannot get it straight… . Yes, it is now already five months. Well, the doctor says it will come
right, but he did not say how long. I work all day and it exercises. I have to go next week again… . It is
splintered. They pushed that elbow through too far.”

Respondent 11: “Net E se arms was stukkend gesny van die draad, soos hulle hom vasgemaak het en hy
homself probeer loskry het.”
Respondent 11: “Just E’s arms were cut from the wire, as they tied him up and as he tried to free himself.”

Respondent 13: “Later het hulle [die aanvallers] gesien ek het half losgekom, toe gaan haal hulle van die
draad. En hulle het hulle [die respondent se eggenoot en dogter] vasgemaak met daardie drade en my ook.
Met die heiningdraad… .”
Respondent 13: “Later they [the attackers] saw that I was half loose, then they went and fetched some of
the wire. And they tied them [the respondent’s wife and daughter] up with that wire and me too. With wire
275
 from the boundary fence… .”

Respondent 14: “They said he died from blood loss. Four fractures to the skull.”

While Respondent 2 made no reference to injuries, he and his spouse were forced to lie down on the
floor in the passage. The shot fired at Respondent 15 did not go off.

6.2.3.2 Emotional consequences

According to Janoff-Bulmann (1985:499), the most common psychological loss caused by a

victimisation experience is the shattering of the assumptions of invulnerability, of a meaningful world
and of a positive self-perception. Although all the respondents were traumatised, three respondents
(Respondents 9, 12 and 14) found difficulty in relating the events to others. This was also given as the
reason why three other victims, two of whom were victims of fatal farm attacks, who were approached
for interviews, refused to participate in the study.

Respondent 9: “Weet jy, ek kon nie met iemand praat nie. Die koerante was hier. Ek kon met niemand
praat nie, seker so ’n maand. Ek kon nie. Dit is as iemand bel, dan sê ek, ek kan nie. Dit was vreeslik… .”
Respondent 9: “Do you know, I could not talk to anybody. The newspapers were here. I could not talk to
anybody, perhaps about a month. I could not. That is if someone phones, then I say, I cannot. It was
terrible… .”

Respondent 12: “Ag, eintlik het ons wat die emosionele en fisiese betref, eintlik baie goed daarvan
afgekom, maar ek kon tot nou toe met niemand daaroor praat nie.”
Respondent 12: “Oh, actually as far as the emotional and physical are concerned, we actually came off
very well, but until now I could talk to nobody about it.”

Respondent 14: “You know, … it is very traumatic and talking about it, you feel as though it is still
happening to you.”

Only Respondent 8, who was the youngest victim interviewed, reported that he suffered no emotional
trauma during the attack on him.

Respondent 8: “Ek het geen emosionele issues nie. Dit was meer finansieel.”
Respondent 8: “I have no emotional issues. It was more financial.”
276
Respondents 1, 3 and 14 summed up the emotional trauma that they suffered as follows:

Respondent 1: “Jou hele gesindheid verander.”

Respondent 1: “Your whole attitude changes.”

Respondent 3: “So iets gooi ’n mens se hele lewe deurmekaar.”

Respondent 3: “Something like this throws your whole life into shambles.”

Respondent 14: “So he died, my life stopped, and nobody, that … hasn’t been through something like this,
can understand what it is all about and how … it affects you… . Everything is in total chaos. We had
structured lives and when something like this happens, total chaos. Total chaos! Nobody to help you with
anything! Nobody knows anything! Nobody to do anything!”

• Heartache of having lost a husband, breadwinner, and companion

Respondents 3 and 14 experienced the heartache of having lost their husbands, breadwinners and
also companions. Respondent 3 had embarked on a new venture with her spouse when they
purchased the farm only five months prior to the attack. Respondent 14 had only just celebrated their
wedding anniversary and the couple planned to start a family. These two respondents were the only
direct victims of a farm attack who lost a family member, who were prepared to take part in the
study/were able to be interviewed meaningfully.

Respondent 3: “Hy het altyd gesê: ‘Hier wil ek nog 20 jaar bly en dit ’n spogplaas maak’… . As die yskas
gebreek het, het hy geweet waar om te gaan [om hom te laat herstel]. Hy het altyd die jaart skoongehou… .
My man was ’n steunpilaar… . As my man wakker was, sou dit miskien nie gebeur het nie. Ek voel baie
bitter… .”
Respondent 3: “He always said: ‘Here I still want to stay for 20 years and make it a farm to be proud of’… .
If the refrigerator broke down, he knew where to go [to have it repaired]. He always kept the yard clean… .
My husband was a pillar of strength… . If my husband had been awake, perhaps it would not have
happened. I feel very bitter… .”

Respondent 14: “He [the doctor] says to me: ‘You know, Mrs V, B didn’t make it’. He was brain dead. [The
respondent sniffs]. My whole world crumbled at that one split second … he’s gone in, in body, but in mind,
in heart, in soul, he will always, always be here, with us. Always. No matter what, and now that we’ve put

277
 his ashes in the ground, he will forever go on in those roses. And that was something he wanted and that’s
what he said, you know: ‘Anybody that loves me and misses me, just go and pluk one of those roses and
they’ll know I’m there’. You know? Therefore, I say he was just one of those kind of people and how can
you not be there for him, you know? We were the best of friends and we spent 24/7 together. I have never
come across another couple that spent that much time together. We worked together. We were each
other’s best friend and we were husband and wife. So everything, and there were no children, you know, in
the way so to speak, or taking away our attention from each other, that he did his own thing and I did my
own thing and we did not know… . And we did not need outside friends to take away that attention either.
We socialised. We invited people over. We had lots of parties, but we enjoyed each other’s company.”

• Chaos and shock

During the attack, Respondents 1 and 14 felt everything was in a state of chaos. Respondent 4 could
not believe that she actually left her house open when the policeman fetched her from the farm. After
the attack, Respondent 14 was so numbed by shock that she could not believe what was happening.
This is in line with the findings of Janoff-Bulman (1985:499) who states that these are common
emotional reactions across all types of victimisation, including disease and natural disasters.

Respondent 1: “Op hierdie stadium het my hart onbeheersd geklop. Dit het gevoel asof alles gelyktydig
gebeur.”
Respondent 1: “At this stage my heart was beating uncontrollably. It felt as if everything was happening
simultaneously.”

Respondent 4: “Kan jy glo, na die aanval het ons die huis net so oopgelos.”
Respondent 4: “Can you believe it, after the attack we left the house open just like that.”

Respondent 14: “And when I saw the silhouette, I looked towards the garage and I noticed a light in the
garage and immediately, you know, everything went blank. I didn’t know who, who I was, where I was,
where I lived, what was my telephone number, nothing. I knew, all I could remember was I must call Netstar
because they know everything, you know, because the bakkie has Netstar. I called Netstar and I said to
them my husband has been hijacked… . And they asked me for my address and I said: ‘I don’t know, you
know everything’ and I cut the call. I ran downstairs into the bedroom and there was a rifle, one of those old
shotguns, rifles that he’s got. I took it from the top of the wardrobe, didn’t even check if it was loaded or not
loaded, nothing, you know, just thinking I can do something. And I ran up the stairs again and couldn’t see
anybody, so I ran back downstairs, saw the phone and I thought: ‘F, let me call F, the neighbour. Because,
you know, they belong to this neighbourhood watch thing. You know, [inaudible] I’m not on the radio… . So

278
 I thought if I phone F, F will get help, because he is part of the neighbourhood watch and commando thing.
I dialled the number and it was somebody else, the wrong number, because I couldn’t remember what his
number was. The second call I made, I got through to him and I said to him this is what is happening… .
Everything is in chaos. We lived our lives in a strict structure. We had structured lives and when something
like this happens, total chaos. Total chaos! Nobody to help you with anything! Nobody knows anything!
Nobody to do anything! … You know, and the police are in the yard, but I happened to overhear, and I can’t
tell you today who it was, because I was somewhere looking down at this woman that is walking and doing
these things. She’s me, but she is not me, because I am happy. She has to do all these things for
something that’s happened but it’s not really happening.”

• Bitterness, disillusionment and anger

The respondents who participated in the research felt bitter, disillusioned and angry with the offenders,
with themselves, family members, community members, their employees and even with a
psychologist. They also felt bitter about the lack of response of eye-witnesses, the bias of the Human
Rights Commission and the inability of Government to ensure peace amongst the country’s citizens.
The inefficiency of members of the SAPS who were summoned to help, the investigative powers of
some of the SAPS investigating officers charged with solving the crimes and also the insensitivity of
members of the SAPS distressed some respondents. Respondents were also disillusioned with the
service at the hospitals, the members of the emergency services and the officials at the state
mortuary. According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:115), it is not uncommon for victims to express anger
at the police. If the offender is not arrested, they often feel neglected. They sometimes also perceive
this as a violation of their trust, which then intensifies their feelings that the world is out of control.
Victims’ adaptation is sometimes also made more difficult when their experiences do not meet their
expectations (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:6-9). Fattah and Sacco (1989:189) are of the opinion that
bureaucratic procedures that are followed by criminal justice officials can exacerbate victims’ anxieties
about themselves. Some respondents also felt that the laws of the land favour the criminals and not
the victims who have been wronged. Janoff-Bulman (1985:506) states that feelings of bitterness,
despair, resignation and isolation are often experienced when victims find that they do not have a
benign environment that does not re-victimise when they are attempting to regain their psychological
equilibrium and to assimilate the experience. This might also be the case when others do not respond
with concern and respect to the victims’ psychological plight. This includes their attempts at making
sense of the victimisation event.

279
- Offenders

Respondent 6: “Ek was kwaad… . Volgende keer gaan ek hom nie ’n kans gee nie… . Hoekom vir my vrou
probeer doodmaak? Sy het niks gedoen nie.”
Respondent 6: “I was annoyed… . Next time I will not give him a chance… . Why try and kill my wife? She
did nothing.”

Respondent 11: “Hulle lê beslag op jou reg van vryheid. Hulle neem dit weg van jou af.”
Respondent 11: “They take away your right of freedom. They take it away from you.”

- Self

Respondent 14: “You know I, I don’t know who I am angry with most, myself, people around me, our
government. Everything is in chaos. We lived our lives in a strict structure. We had structured lives and
when something like this happens, total chaos. Total chaos! Nobody to help you with anything! Nobody
knows anything! Nobody to do anything!”

- Family members

Respondent 14: “And there was nobody else to call. I called my sister and I said to her, you know:
‘Something has happened to B. I don’t know what’s happening, I can’t get out the house, can you come
through? Please come through. She lives in Pretoria West, in Valhalla. No, but she didn’t come through.
She didn’t. She said her husband was involved in an accident a few months before, and he wasn’t feeling
well, so she said to me: ‘He’s not feeling well’ and I cut the call and I called back, and this time, you know,
telling her: ‘Please just get here. I don’t know what’s happening here. I need somebody here, somebody to
be outside at least’. The second time, still nothing. The third time nothing… . My sister finally rocked up at
the hospital … and she said: ‘OK, let’s go home’, to her place. I couldn’t bring myself to go with her… .
Because she wasn’t my sister! If she was my sister, or she was a friend, she would have been there when
we called the first time. Not after finding out her brother-in-law is on the way to hospital. Then come and
meet me at the hospital? Why, does that save petrol? I don’t need to go home with that kind of person! So I
went with J [a family friend] and they took me straight to the appraising room. There [at the hospital] I saw
my sister-in-law, whom I had phoned too, and I said to her also: ‘Where is he?’ you know, ‘How is he
doing? Is he OK? Where is he?’ and she says: ‘The doctor is coming now to speak to you’. ‘How is he? Is
he feeling better? Is he talking? Is he hurt badly?’. Even she didn’t have the decency [to tell her that her
husband was dead]. When I got back, there were a lot of people sitting here and skindering now I’m a very
rich widow … that now I can go on nice holidays, and that I’d never have to work in my life again, because

280
now I’m a multi-millionnaire … that I can have myself a toyboy or two, but who knows, maybe I killed him for
the money. And this is family and friends that are talking, my family and friends, or people that I thought
were my family and friends. I came home again. Gossip … because that was all that was happening. His
immediate family never acknowledged our marriage at all, right until he died… . Eh, my mother-in-law, she
said to me after his death, which I thought was very, very horrible of her to say, that she did not even know
we were married, until he died… . She thought we were living together, and yet she was invited to our
wedding and she never came. Eh, my family loved him. My family loved him to bits. They turned up at the
wedding… . My mother-in-law used to phone once in a while, once a week to find out how things are going
with the investigation. After a while it just dwindled off. I had a memorial first week of April and I phoned her
and I said to her: ‘Look, I have to fulfil his last wishes, and in order to do that, you guys have to be here as
well’. You know, he wanted his ashes to be put in the garden, and plant a rose and whatever. I got a pastor
to come out and do all those things, because according to my culture [Hindu], you don’t just dig a hole and
throw the ashes in. So, following my tradition as well, I thought it would be best to have a memorial service
and then put his ashes to rest. It was the only decent thing to do for him and she turned around and said to
me: ‘Well, my son is gone, I don’t see the reason to be there’… . That was an even bigger slap in my face.
Some of his, eh, relatives did turn up, eh, you know nefies and cousins, … whatever, they did turn up, but
the immediate family… . To me it felt as though, you know, he wasn’t important enough in their lives,
because if he was, because if he was, they would have been there, not for me: ‘You don’t care about me,
that’s fine, but for him, for his memory. It’s his life, you know’.”

- Community members

Respondent 6: “Hy was uit om ons dood te maak. Een van die manne hier sê ons: ‘Hy het julle net kom
pakgee’.”
Respondent 6: “He was out to kill us. One of the men here said to us: ‘He just came to give you a hiding’.”

Respondent 14: “…we know one of our neighbours. They came over now and then to say: ‘Hello’, but
otherwise we saw nobody. Since we moved here, we’ve just been to ourselves. First and foremost, being a
mixed marriage … people don’t say anything, they behave as though everything is fine, but you can feel it,
you can feel it, because you’re the one that is on the outside… . I’m not on the radio. Since we bought the
place, we’ve never been on the radio. Everybody else is. It’s as though we’re not welcome… . Most of my
family lives in Durban so, at the end of the day, I’m again here, living in a different province, living amongst
people of a different community, different culture, out of choice, out of love. And being ostricised by them,
because the man is gone. It, it’s like they tolerate you when he is alive, and they make it worse when he is
dead. No, there is no comfort, no nothing.”

281
- Employees

Respondent 14: “The maid has got a set of keys and he had the other keys with him and I couldn’t get out
the door. And I couldn’t get outside, and I opened the window and I started screaming for these workers,
but instead of … helping me, they switched the lights off. And there was nobody else to call.”

- Eye-witnesses

Respondent 2: “Daardie oggend was die arbeiders reeds besig om naby ons huurhuis op die plaas
besproeiingspype te verskuif en hulle kon sien daar is vreemdes by die huis, maar hulle het hulle nie
gesteur daaraan nie. Hulle het ook die skote gehoor… . Toe die rowers alles uit my motor gelaai het en
hom gelos het waar gesteelde motors gereeld gevind word - langs die besige pad na Pretoria aan die
buitewyke van Kwaggafontein - moes iemand hulle gesien het. Niemand het polisie toe gehardloop en dit
rapporteer nie.”
Respondent 2: “That morning workers were already busy moving irrigation pipes around near our rented
house on the farm and they could see that there were strangers at the house, but they took no notice of
that. They also heard the shots… . When the robbers had loaded everything out of my car and left it where
stolen vehicles are often found - alongside the busy road to Pretoria on the periphery of Kwaggafontein -
somebody must have seen them. Nobody ran and reported it to the police.”

- Psychologist

Respondent 3: “As mense sê ons moet na ’n sielkundige toe gaan, kyk ons net na mekaar. Wat gaan hulle
ons help? … B het met haar gepraat, maar dit was baie onpersoonlik. Sy was meer nuuskierig as wat sy
wou gehelp het.”
Respondent 3: “If people say we must go to a psychologist, we just look at each other. How are they going
to help us? … B spoke to her, but it was very impersonal. She was more curious than she wanted to help.”

- Human Rights Commission

Respondent 2: “Die Menseregtekommissie was ook nie hier nie. Hulle het nie kom simpatiseer omdat my
regte geskend is nie. Toe ’n swartmens op ‘n plaas getref is deur n koeël wat van elders deur die lug getrek
het, was hulle gou daar. Daar was praatjies dat die boer die gesin ’n pensioen sou moes betaal.”
Respondent 2: “The Human Rights Commission were also not here. They did not come to sympathise
because my rights were violated. When a black person on a farm was struck by a bullet that came from
elsewhere, they were there very quickly. There was talk that the farmer would have to pay the family a

282
 pension.”

- Government

Respondent 2: “Daar was nog ’n geweer wat hulle nie gekry het nie, in die plafon weggesteek. Ek kon op
hulle geskiet het, maar skiet ek een raak van agter af, is ek die misdadiger en hy die held. Hulle vernoem
dan waarskynlik ’n dam na hom.”
Respondent 2: “There was another firearm which they did not find, hidden in the ceiling. I could have shot
at them, but if I had hit one from the back, I would have been the criminal and he the hero. They would
probably have named a dam after him.”

Respondent 6: “Hulle koning Mbeki ‘peace, peace’ in ander lande in plaas van ‘peace’ in sy eie land.”
Respondent 6: “Their king Mbeki ‘peace, peace’ in other countries instead of ‘peace’ in his own country.”

Respondent 7: “As jy die misdadiger is, betaal die staat jou mediese koste. Ek het op een stadium gehoor
van ’n slagofferfonds, maar dit klink asof dit platgeval het. Waar trek jy die lyn? Maar ek glo vir alle
geweldsmisdade moet daar so iets wees.”
Respondent 7: “If you are a criminal the state pays your medical expenses. At one stage I heard about a
victim’s fund, but it sounds as though that collapsed. Where do you draw the line? But I believe there
should be something like that for all violent crimes.”

Respondent 13: “Soos ek sê, ek dink ons wette veroorsaak hierdie dinge. Ek bedoel hulle, die polisie, het
hulle minderwaardige mense aangestel, onbekwame mense, toe moes hulle die wette verander laat jy nie
mag … iemand skiet as hy byvoorbeeld. as jy hom gestop het nie. Ek bedoel, watter polisieman gaan agter
iemand aanhardloop om hom te vang? Hulle gaan vir hom lag. Dit is, regtig, dit is vir my die belaglikste wet
wat daar is. En soos ek sê, dis vir my absurd om te dink laat iemand in my huis kan inloop en ek mag hom
nie eers met ’n pistool aanhou nie. Jy weet, ek mag dit nie doen nie! Dit is buite die wet! Ek bedoel, waar in
die wêreld is dit so? Nêrens nie! Dis net hier. ’n Mens voel ons wet soos hy nou lees, is vir die misdadiger
geskryf, nie vir die, vir die landsburger nie. Kyk hoe lyk die wapenwet. Ek bedoel, ek het wapens vandat ek
omtrent twintig jaar oud is. Ek het nog nooit iemand bedreig nie! Ek het nooit iemand geskiet nie! Nou, nou
moet ek allerhande toetse gaan doen… . Vir wat? Jy weet, en soos jy nou sê, as hulle roof en steel, dan
steel hulle die mense se wapens. En daai goed gaan nooit weer terugkom nie… . Hulle gaan hulle nie
inhandig nie. Hulle breek juis in om dit te steel en in die hande te kry, jy weet… . So wat, wil hulle nou die
goeie burger ontwapen, om dit vir die misdadiger te gee? Want hy gaan dit altyd in die hande kry. Of wil
hulle nou hê ek moet ook nou onwettige dinge begin doen? … Ek moet ’n wapen hê. So, of ek hom gaan
onwettig kry, en of ek hom wettig gaan kry… . As hulle hom wettig vir my gee, dan weet hulle ek het hom.

283
 Maar anders gaan ek hom onwettig kry. So, hulle gaan my nie ontwapen nie. Kyk, die toetse pla my nie.
Om vir die toetse te gaan, die vaardigheidstoetse en al dit te gaan, dit pla my nie. Maar, ek verstaan van
die blankes wat nou aansoek doen vir nuwe lisensies, staan hulle nie toe nie, en hulle sê nie hoekom nie!
Jy weet, ek bedoel … dis chaos, daar is chaos. Daar is mense wat daardie goed ingehandig het, en dit kom
net nie terug nie, jy verstaan? … Soos ek sê, die toets pla my nie, die toets is nie ’n probleem nie, jy weet.
Dis nou ’n geldmakery, maar, jy weet, ek sê as ek nog niemand bedreig het deur die jare nie, dan moet
hulle net my lisensie gee, of lisensies.”
Respondent 13: “As I say, I think our laws cause these things. I mean they, the police, they appointed
inferior people, incompetent people, then they had to change the laws that you are not allowed to … shoot
someone for example, if you have stopped him. I mean, what police officer is going to run after somebody
to catch him? They will laugh at him. It is, really, for me it is really the most ridiculous law. And as I say, for
me it is absurd to think that someone may walk into my home and I cannot even detain him with my pistol.
You know, I may not do it! It is against the law! I mean, where in the world is it like that? Nowhere! It’s just
here. One feels, as our law reads now, it is written for the criminal, not for the, for the citizen. Look at the
firearm law. I mean, I have had firearms since I was approximately twenty years old. I have never
threatened anyone! I have never shot anyone! Now, now I must go and do all kinds of tests… . For what?
You know, and as you now say, if they rob and they steal, they steal the people’s firearms. And those
things will never come back again… . They will not hand them in. They break in for that reason, to steal
them and get hold of them, you know… . So what, do they want to disarm the good citizen, to give it to the
criminal? Because he will always get hold of it. Or do they want me also now to start doing illegal things? …
I must have a firearm. So, if I am going to get it illegally, or get it legally… . If they give it to me legally, then
they know I have it. But otherwise I will get it illegally. So, they are not going to disarm me. Look, the tests
do not worry me. To go for the tests, the competency tests and all that, that does not worry me. But, I
understand some of the whites that apply for new licences now, they do not grant, and they do not say why!
You know, I mean … it’s chaos, there is chaos. There are people who have handed those things in, and
they do not come back, you understand? … As I say, the tests do not worry me, the tests are not a
problem, you know. It is now a money-making exercise, but, you know, I say if I have never threatened
anyone through the years, then they must just grant my licence, or licenses.”

- Investigating officers

Respondent 2: “Die polisie het dit net vererger… . Die polisie jaag toe na familie van my met dieselfde van
op ’n ander plaas en die rowers kom weg. Die plaaslike polisie het die oggend ’n verklaring geneem en
vingerafdrukke gelig. Die dossier is toe oorhandig aan die Eenheid vir Ernstige Misdade op Middelburg.
Twee dae later het hy [die polisiebeampte] gesê hy kom. Hy het nooit opgedaag nie. ’n Week later het een
opgedaag en gesê hy is ’n runner - hy volg die sake op. Ek het hom die spuitjie, die pylgeweer se pyltjie

284
waarin daar nog van die verdowingsmiddel oorgebly het, gegee. Die saak het doodgeloop. Eendag daag
daar toe ’n wit ondersoekbeampte uit Middelburg hier op saam met ander wit polisiemanne ‘om die dossier
te ondersoek omdat die ander manne nie kan vorder nie’. Wat help dit jy roep die polisie? Daar is 19 sake
en net een voertuig. My dienspistool is later teruggekry. Ek het hom uitgeken. Hulle het nooit mense
ondervra nie. In al daardie sake van my, was daar net een verklaring, myne. Hulle weet nie hoe om sake te
ondersoek nie… . Dis net 1% wat gevang word en 0,5% word skuldig bevind.”
Respondent 2: “The police just worsened it… . The police then raced to relatives of mine with the same
surname on another farm and the robbers got away. The local police took a statement and fingerprints that
morning. The docket was then transferred to the Unit for Serious Crime in Middelburg. Two days later he
[the police officer] said he was coming. He never pitched up. A week later one pitched up and said he was
a runner - he follows up the cases. I gave him the syringe, the dart of the dart gun in which some of the
sedative still remained. The case came to a dead end. One day a white investigating officer arrived here
from Middelburg with other white policemen ‘to investigate the docket because the others cannot make
headway’. What does it help to call the police? There are 19 cases and only one vehicle. My service pistol
was recovered later. I identified it. They never questioned people. In all those cases of mine, there was only
one statement, mine. They do not know how to investigate cases. It’s just 1% that get caught and 0,5% are
found guilty.”

Respondent 5: “Agterna, na die polisie-ondersoek, het ons ook op drie verskillende plekke twee-liter
petrolkanne gekry - by die trekker, die bakkie en by die stoorkamer. My vrou het dit uitgewys aan die swart
polisiebeampte, maar hy het gesê dit het niks met hierdie saak te make nie.”
Respondent 5: “Afterwards, after the police investigation, we also found two-liter petrol cans at three
different places - at the tractor, the bakkie and at the storeroom. My wife pointed this out to the black police
officer, but he said it has nothing to do with this case.”

Respondent 6: “Ek was nie hier nie, ek weet nie waarom hulle omgedraai het en nie verder gevolg het nie.”
Respondent 6: “I was not here, I do not know why they turned back and did not follow any further.”

Respondent 7: “Die polisie was redelik gou hier, dis ver. Maar hulle het regtig nie baie moeite gedoen nie.
Die volgende dag was daar ’n polisievrou hier met haar tassie om vingerafdrukke te soek. Die bakkie met al
hul breekgereedskap het hulle reeds by die pad gekry. Toe ons later vra oor vingerafdrukke, toe vra die
polisieman: ‘Watter bakkie?’ Hulle het basies niks gedoen nie. So ses maande gelede, kom ’n blanke
polisieman hier aan. Daar was nie baie leidrade nie en geen vingerafdrukke in die huis nie. Dis so ongeveer
twee en ’n half jaar na die aanval. Hulle het daardie aand my pistool gevat vir toetse. Dit het hulle twee of
drie weke geneem. Dit was ’n stryd om hom weer terug te kry. My pa moes redelik hoog gaan in die polisie
voordat hy teruggegee is.”
Respondent 7: “The police were here fairly quickly, it’s far. But they really did not go to much trouble. The
285
next day a female police officer was here with her little case to look for fingerprints. The bakkie with all their
housebreaking tools they already found at the road. Then, later when we enquired about the fingerprints,
the police officer asked: ‘Which bakkie?’ Basically they did nothing. Approximately six months ago a white
police officer arrived here. There were not many clues and no fingerprints in the house. It is approximately
two and a half years after the attack. That night they took my pistol for tests. It took them two or three
weeks. It was a battle to get it back again. My dad had to go to fairly high ranks in the police before it was
returned.”

Respondent 9: “Weet jy hoeveel keer ek die polisie gebel het? … Hulle het nie geantwoord nie. Hulle het
nie eers die foon geantwoord nie! [Die respondent gebruik ’n hoë stemtoon]. Toe bel ek naderhand die
hardeware winkel in Waterval-Boven, toe sê ek vir hulle: ‘Asseblief’, - vir die ou daar, D - toe sê ek vir hom:
‘Asseblief kry die polisie in die hande. Ek is ge-hijack. Ek kry hulle nie in die hande nie. Hulle antwoord nie
hulle foon nie’. Ek belowe jou. En, toe … toe skielik kon hulle hier aankom, die kommando en ek weet nie
wie almal nie… . Weet jy, het hulle net daardie dag ’n paar padblokkades gedoen, het hulle my kar gekry …
onmiddellik. Maar nou is hulle nie geïnterresseerd daarin nie. Hulle worry nie om jou te help nie. Ekskuus,
ek is nie nou lelik nie, hoor, maar dis die indruk wat ek gekry het. Hulle weet ek bly alleen. Die polisie wat
dit ondersoek het, hulle moes eintlik X-strale laat neem het [van H se ernstige beserings waarvan hy nooit
herstel het nie], maar hulle het nie.”
Respondent 9: “Do you know how many times I phoned the police? … They did not answer. They did not
even answer the phone! [The respondent uses a high-pitched voice]. Then I later phoned the hardware
shop in Waterval-Boven, then I said to them: ‘Please’, - to the guy there, D - then I said to him: ‘Please get
hold of the police. I have been hijacked. I cannot get hold of them. They do not answer their phone’. I
promise you. And, then … suddenly they could all pitch up here, the commando and I do not know who
all… . Do you know, had they put up a few roadblocks that day, they would have recovered my car …
immediately. But now they are not interested in that. They do not worry to help you. Sorry, I am not being
nasty now, eh, but that is the impression that I got. They know I live alone. The police that investigated it,
should actually have had X-rays taken [of H’s serious injuries from which he never recovered], but they did
not.”

Respondent 10: “Die kommando’s sê dis miskien iemand wat uit die diens is. Dis eintlik nalatigheid van die
polisie.”
Respondent 10: “The commando’s say it is perhaps somebody who has left the service. Actually it is
negligence on the part of the police.”

Respondent 13. “Toe vat ek sommer my voertuig en ry hier af polisie toe. Toe gaan sê ek toe direk vir hulle,
sê hulle moet kyk met [behulp van] die radio en so aan. Hulle het niks gedoen nie, niemand gevang die
aand nie.”
286
Respondent 13: “Then I just took my vehicle and drove down here to the police. Then I went and told them
directly, said they must search with [the help of] the radio and so on. They did nothing, caught nobody that
night.”

Respondent 14: “And he [J, the family friend] told the police: ‘Please, she has to go to the hospital now. Let
her go. Let her go and see him, let her go and be with him, because he is one of those people, if his wife is
not there, he is going to get into a bigger panic and he is going to do more harm than good, so let her be
with him’. But the dogs, they knew, they knew by then [when they were questioning her in her dining-room]
he was dead and nobody said a thing. Nobody said a thing… . They didn’t even bother to close the garage
door or to check for anything… . [The respondent starts to sob]. It just came through and the
Superintendent walked through the house and the passage door and you could just hear people laughing
and joking as though: ‘You know, what, it’s just one of those things that happen’. Not that it’s somebody
else’s concern. Everybody, just nobody cared … nobody cared! When I got home [from the hospital] the
police came. Just before that I opened the garage to have a look at this. Now he was gone… . I needed to
see what happened, how, you know, because it was dark [the previous evening]. You can’t really see
anything at night, so I wanted to see what happened. I opened the garage. Just then the police came and I
looked inside. They just looked and said: ‘Not much of a struggle, huh?’ - two black police officers. ‘Not
much of a struggle. Anyway, we’ve got a case number for you. Somebody will get in touch with you from
the Murder and Robbery Unit of Silverton’. As the guy was walking away, I looked at the bakkie and I saw
this mark, on the bakkie, if you can call it that. What I didn’t know was that it was a bullet that had
richocheted off the bakkie. I turned around and said to my worker: ‘Your boss must have put up a struggle,
because, look there is a mark on the bakkie. The police officers turned around and he had a look and he
says: ‘It’s not a mark. It’s a bullet that’s richocheted’. And they got somebody to cut the lock off the garage
and pulled the bakkie out. Everything started happening at that time. You know, they, they started calling
people and things and they were looking for the bullet and they noticed, I noticed, that the thing actually
went through the wall, you know, and then I had to go to identify the body, and I had to go to the mortuary
and I left the police here and I went off… . Later on the police gave my maid his jacket to wash. The jacket
that he was wearing they gave to wash, because according to the police officer, who now doesn’t exist any
more, because you know at the police department it is so corrupt, that the police officer was not on the
scene. My maid was prepared, and my gardener was prepared to identify the police officer and this one
officer was never presented. And they showed us the people that were supposed to be on the scene. From
what we found out, it was Pretoria North police station that responded first to the call and Kameeldrift police
station came afterwards… . I am asking so many questions and you know what, nobody is helping me find
out those answers. I complained to the Complaints Directorate and nothing was done. And my sister-in-law
wrote a letter as well because I think she thought, you know, having an Indian wife wasn’t good enough or
whatever, and being Afrikaans, she got a little more help than I did. Eventually they referred the case to the
Serious and Violent Crime Unit, seven months after his death. Seven months after his death! And they’re
287
 still investigating. Two months ago they came with Forensics. Two months ago! I never touched a thing in
my garage for all this time! Two months ago they came with Forensics and said: ‘It’s too long!’.”

- Hospitals

Respondent 14: “And I went to the hospital, went to Casualty, and they said: ‘No, you must just wait. And I
saw a couple of rooms and opened the first door and he wasn’t there. I opened the second one. It was a
broom closet. And I went walking around, looking for him and I couldn’t see him anywhere and I went back
to ask where is he and they said: ‘The doctor is coming now’. The doctor came. Through everything you
can see: ‘Oh, you’re Mrs V? Sit down’. ‘I don’t want to sit. Tell me what happened! Tell me how is he doing!
Tell me he is OK.’ You know - just, just tell me those things, then I can sit down and relax. Don’t tell me:
‘Calm down’. Don’t tell me: ‘Relax’. How do you expect me to relax? You be in the situation, then tell me:
‘Relax’. ‘No, you’ve got to take… .’ I don’t know what it was … something. ‘You’ve got to take this thing
before we talk to you.’ I am a very stubborn person as well. I am not prepared to listen to you to take
something I don’t know what it is. I want to know it’s OK. I don’t take anything. Just tell me he is OK.
Whatever this thing was, I gulped it down. He says to me: ‘You know, Mrs V … B didn’t make it’. He was
brain dead [the respondent sniffs]. My whole world crumbled at that one split second … and still I
remembered, you know, when his cousin passed away, the University of Pretoria, I think, does this organ,
you donate organs, mm … you know, for research and for students and stuff like that and when P passed
away, we donated his bone marrow and stuff. B said to me: ‘You know, Babes, if anything happens to
either one of us, we must do what’s best for, you know, other people, so you donate everything that’s
possible towards research so that other people can benefit. And if my organs can be used for any other
purposes, you must go for it’. And I said to the doctor: ‘OK, can we donate anything to the University of
Pretoria?’. I think it is the University of Pretoria because the hospital he went to is Pretoria Academic. So,
and he said to me: ‘No, they can’t use him’. You know, that was a bigger slap, again, you know. ‘Why, what,
what is wrong with him that they can’t use anything of his, you know?’ But I am still waiting to find out why,
who, who did what, who said what, because I wanted to see him. They said his body has already gone to
the mortuary. They said his time of death was ten o’clock. I was at the hospital twenty to eleven. I found out
half past eleven. How quick does Pretoria Academic get a body to the mortuary if they attended to him at
the hospital?”

- Emergency services

Respondent 14: “Only later I realised he wasn’t attended to at the hospital, that no doctor saw him, that
there was [the respondent sobs] some ambulance person who decided to declare him dead on arrival and
that he has the right to do that and that no doctor had to see him. That nobody cared enough about him,

288
 nobody thought that he was important enough to save. And why did they have to take him to that hospital of
all places, I don’t know. There are closer hospitals. Why couldn’t they give him, why couldn’t they send a
helicopter? For other people they can do that. Why couldn’t they do that? This was an emergency. [The
respondent sniffs]. We pay our taxes, we do everything. Look here, I don’t have Medical Aid. I’m self-
employed and so is he, but you know what, you rather spend a lifetime paying a debt. Spend a lifetime
paying a debt, because your life is more important, but they didn’t take him to a private hospital because he
wasn’t on Medical Aid, yet I was sitting with over R20 000 in my pocket. They could have asked for it, I
would have given it to them. Because, if they had taken him to a close hospital, he wouldn’t have died.
They said he died from blood loss. Four fractures to the skull… . The ambulance service that did turn up -
the owner of the ambulance service was in my yard - and he phoned for the ambulance. Who he is, how he
got here, why he was in my yard, I don’t know.”

• Nightmares, sleeplessness and/or anxiety

Nightmares, sleeplessness and anxiety might be a symptom of the PTSD already referred to in section
4.1. Many respondents (Respondents 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 15) indicated that they suffered from
nightmares and/or anxiety.

Respondent 2: “Die nagevolge het meer as ’n jaar geduur. As ’n hond blaf wonder jy wie is nou waar, en
waar gaan hy. Die angs het 12 tot 18 maande by my gebly.”
Respondent 2: “The after effects lasted more than a year. When a dog barks, you wonder who is where,
and where is he going. The anxiety stayed with me for 12 to 18 months.”

Respondent 4: “Ek het maande lank nagmerries gekry.”

Respondent 4: “I had nightmares for months.”

Respondent 6: “Ek moet altyd kyk. Ek hoor geluide in die nag. As die hond net beweeg in die nag, is ek
wakker. Dit maak ’n mens se senuwees klaar.”
Respondent 6: “I always have to look. I hear noises in the night. If the dog just moves at night, I am awake.
It works on one’s nerves.”

Respondent 8: “I still get nightmares. I don’t think I’ll ever forget their faces.”

Respondent 9: “Jy slaap nie lekker nie want jou brein skakel nie af nie. Weet jy hoe put dit jou uit? Dit, weet
jy, dit maak jou nog meer depressief, verstaan jy? Jy slaap maar jou brein is paraat kan ek maar sê - dit tap
’n mens vreeslik. Toe het ek die nagmerries begin kry. Hulle dra mos sulke koper armbande. Dan, een van

289
 die drome wat ek gehad het, was net die hand, die swart hand met die koper armbande, net die hand, wat
my wurg, nie die gesig nie. O, en ek sal nooit daardie gesigte vergeet nie. My bril het afgeval, maar ek kon
hul gesigte duidelik sien omdat hulle gewurg het… . Jy weet, ek het nog die vreeslikste nagmerries.”
Respondent 9: “You don’t sleep well because your brain does not switch off. Do you know how that
exhausts you? That, you know, that makes you more depressive, you understand? You sleep but your
brain is alert I can say - that drains one terribly. Then I started having the nightmares. They wear these
copper bangles, you know. Then, one of the dreams that I had, was just the hand, the black hand with the
copper bangles, just the hand, that is throttling me, not the face. O, and I will never forget those faces. My
glasses fell off, but I could see their faces clearly because they throttled… . You know, I still have the most
terrible nightmares.”

Respondent 10: “Ja, ek het wel nagmerries aan die begin ’n paar keer gehad.”
Respondent 10: “Yes, I did have nightmares in the beginning, a few times.”

Respondent 12: “ … en ek kon nie slaap nie.”

Respondent 12: “ … and I could not sleep.”

Respondent 14: “You can’t sleep. I could feel him. I could sense him. I could smell him and it, it was driving
me out of my mind. I mean, I’d spend sleepless nights.”

Respondent 15: “Ek het die hele nag wakker gebly. Ek het nie ’n oog toegemaak nie, niks. Van toe af drink
ek slaappille. Enige geluid ontstel jou. Ek wil nie hoor nie, want wat gaan ek doen? Ek wil nie skiet nie, want
ek weet ek gaan die slegste daarvan afkom. Ek het aanvanklik nagmerries gekry, maar nie meer nie.”
Respondent 15: “I stayed awake the whole night. I did not close an eye, nothing. Since then I have been
drinking sleeping tablets. Any sound alarms you. I do not want to hear, because what am I going to do? I do
not want to shoot, because I know I am going to come off second best. I had nightmares initially, but no
longer.”

• Flashbacks

Flashbacks are also a characteristic of PTSD as described in the American Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-IV) (1994:424-427). Two respondents (Respondents 4 and 12)
indicated that they had flashbacks of the traumatic events. While Respondent 4 found it disturbing to
come face-to-face with her assailant in court, Respondent 12 was reminded of the attack every time
that the weather conditions were similar to those that prevailed on the day of the attack. She also
found it impossible to work with a young black man whose features were similar to those of one of her
290
attackers. According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:116), seeing the offender again (or someone that
resembles the offender) can be upsetting to the victim. Sometimes it brings back all the fear of the
incident.

Respondent 4: “Weet jy hoe voel dit as jy hulle daar [in die hof] sien? Jy kyk hulle net.”
Respondent 4: “Do you know what it feels like when you see them there [in court]? You just look at them.”

Respondent 12: “Dit was ’n baie bewolkte dag … dit het so gemotreën, en die eerste paar maande as dit so
motreën, dan het ek terugflitse gehad, jy weet… . Eendag by die werk - ek is ‘n spraakterapeut - het hulle ’n
jong swart man na my gestuur. Elke slag as ek na hom gekyk het, het ek een van ons aanvallers gesien.
Om regverdig te wees teenoor hom, moes ek hom na ’n ander terapeut verwys.”
Respondent 12: It was a very overcast day … there was a slight drizzle, and the first few months if it
drizzled, I got flash backs, you know… . One day at work - I am a speech therapist - they sent a young
black man to me. Every time I looked at him, I saw one of our attackers. To be fair to him, I had to refer him
to another therapist.”

• Paranoia

Respondent 4: “Ek steek nou alles weg wat hulle kan gebruik om ’n mens mee vas te maak, draad
hangers, dasse, maar jy weet jy kan nie alles wegsteek nie.”
Respondent 4: “I now hide everything that they can use to tie one up, wire coat hangers, ties, but you know
you cannot hide everything.”

• Violation of privacy

The respondents were often forced to accompany the offenders through the house to point out the
location of safes and/or firearms and watch offenders rummaging through their private possessions in
their cupboards and drawers. This caused them to feel helpless as there was no way in which they
could prevent this violation of their privacy.

Respondent 4: “Hulle het my man in die gang ingewag met my gaspistool wat ek in die kas gelos het. Wie
dink nou iemand gaan dit kry…? Hulle het geslagte hoenders uit die vrieskas uitgehaal. My man het
daardie môre nie sy kos geëet nie. Dit het hulle geëet… . Hulle kan jou huis omkrap, hoor! Jy kan nie glo
waar hulle oral krap nie. Dis vreeslik… . Ons kon nie eens daardie aand in ons kamer slaap nie. Ons moes
in die spaarkamer slaap… . Alles was deurmekaar.”

291
 Respondent 4: “They waylaid my husband in the passage with my gas pistol that I had left in the cupboard.
Who would now think that someone is going to find it… ? They took slaughtered chickens out of the freezer.
My husband had not eaten his food that morning. They ate that… . They can turn your house upside down,
eh? You cannot believe everywhere they rummage. It’s terrible… . We could not even sleep in our room
that night. We had to sleep in the spare room… . Everything was topsyturvy.”

Respondent 9: “Toe lê ek daar op my maag, dan hoor ek, dan maak ek my oë so oop - hulle krap in alles,
grou in alles, gooi alles uit, krap in alles.”
Respondent 9: “Then I lay there on my stomach, then I hear, then I open my eyes - they rummage in
everything, dig in everything, tip everything out, rummage in everything.”

Respondent 11: “Hulle het in al my laaie, kaste, onder die bed, onder die kussings gesoek na wapens en
op die kluis se sleutels afgekom… . Jou privaatheid is geskend. Jy voel vuil, fisies. Hulle krap in jou kaste,
jou privaat goed. So arrogant… .”
Respondent 11: “They searched for weapons in all my drawers, cupboards, under the bed, under the
pillows and came across the safe key… . Your privacy is violated. You feel dirty, physically. They rummage
in your cupboards, in your private possessions. So arrogant… .”

• Self questioning and self-blame

After the attacks, some of the respondents sought reasons why they were singled out for victimisation.
According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:xvii, 46), this is an important step in the recovery process. If a
cause can be identified, victims feel that the threatening events in their lives make sense. They feel
that they might be able to predict future acts of victimisation and avoid situations that could result in
harm. This also helps them to feel more in control of their lives (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:54, 69; Janoff-
Bulman, 1985:503; Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:6). While Respondent 3 thought the offenders might
have wished to victimise the previous owner of the farm because of his alleged hard-handedness with
his workers, Respondent 5 believed that the young worker that he had nutured was brain-washed and
influenced by outsiders to offend against him. Respondent 7 concluded that he was attacked by one of
his workers in order to rob him so that he might get out of his financial difficulties. Respondent 8 who
treated workers and their visitors with respect and therefore believed that they were safe from
victimisation, speculated, like Respondent 7, that the offenders might have been driven by financial
gain to attack and rob her and her spouse. Respondent 14, on the other hand, agonised over the fact
that she might have sent her spouse to his death. She had kept asking him to leave the safety of the
house and to drive their vehicle that was parked outside into the garage where it might be safe for the

292
night. According to Janoff-Bulman (1985:505), victims of crime are more likely to suffer from self-
blame than victims of non-criminal incidents.

Respondent 3: “Ons het net vyf maande daar gebly. Niemand het ’n aksie teen ons gehad nie, geen
dreigemente. Ou plaasboere het gewoonlik struwelinge - daar was niks… . Miskien het hulle ’n aksie teen
die vorige eienaar gehad. Hulle sê hy het partymaal hardhandig opgetree.”
Respondent 3: “We lived there for only five months. Nobody had an issue with us, no threats. Old farmers
usually have rows - there was nothing… . Maybe they had an action against the previous owner. They say
he sometimes acted hard-handedly.”

Respondent 5: “Ons aanvaller was ons eie werker wat by ons grootgeword het. Sy ma het in die kombuis
gewerk. Na skool het hy in die middag vir sakgeld gewerk… . Ek het sy fiets in stand gehou, sy bande
gekoop, hom laat regmaak… . Op daardie stadium het mense hom partymaal kom besoek. Hy het hulle
counsellors genoem en hy het hulle altyd gegroet: ‘Hey, Comrade’… . Volgens gerugte wat later die ronde
gedoen het, het die Young Comrades al elkeen vir hulle ’n plaas uitgesoek. Hierdie een was syne. Die feit
dat ek hier diere verkoop het en dinge gedoen het, is hoekom hy eksepsie geneem het. ’n Mens weet nie
hoe hul koppe werk nie.”
Respondent 5: “Our attacker was our own worker that grew up by us. His mother worked in the kitchen.
After school in the afternoons he worked for pocket money… . I maintained his bicycle, bought his tyres,
had it repaired… . At that stage people sometimes came to see him. He called them counsellors and he
always greeted them: ‘Hey, Comrade’… . According to rumours that later did the rounds, the Young
Comrades had each already selected a farm for themselves. This one was his. The fact that I sold livestock
here and did things, is why he took exception. One does not know how they reason.”

Respondent 7: “Ek glo een van die drie was een van my werkers. Een van my drywers was in ’n finansiële
verknorsing. Daar is baie druk op hom geplaas. Hy het eers een van die bakkies gesteel, maar dit het nie
gewerk nie. Ons het hom teruggekry… .”
Respondent 7: “I believe one of the three was one of our workers. One of my drivers was in financial
difficulties. A lot of pressure was put on him. He first stole one of the bakkies, but that did not work. We
recovered it… .”

Respondent 8: “I really couldn’t understand, because as I say, I mean, we had been here so long and I
mean we have never had a problem before so I don’t know what, why they came, if it was just for the
money story, to try and get money or whatever… . I really don’t know… . And I mean we’ve never been
nasty with them, you always treat people with respect so I couldn’t understand what the whole thing was
about.”

293
 Respondent 14: “But then maybe, if I didn’t ask him, he would have paid the workers the next day, he
wouldn’t have gone outside, or I don’t know … there are just so many ‘maybe’s’. How it happened I don’t
know. I wish I could say I saw something before the time. Maybe if I didn’t ask him to put it away, he
wouldn’t have gone outside. Or, no, maybe he should have put the bakkie away as soon as we got home,
and waited and put it under the afdak first, because he was a gentleman, you know. He has to open the
door for his wife, the car door and the house door and make sure she is inside and that kind of thing before
going out and being the man and bringing the vehicle away and checking the yard and checking everything
is fine… . You know, if I could turn that back again.”

• Regrets

Respondents 3 expressed some regrets after the victimisation incident. She regretted an omission that
caused them to be more susceptible to an attack on that particular evening than on other evenings. It
also distressed her that she had not been a better wife to her deceased husband.

Respondent 3: “As my man wakker was, sou dit miskien nie gebeur het nie… . As die hond daar was, sou
net een ingekom het en nie lank gelewe het nie. Die ander een sou glad nie ingekom het nie… . As ’n mens
net weer ’n kans kan oorhê. Baie mans en vrouens baklei.”
Respondent 3: “If my husband had been awake, perhaps it would not have happened. If the dog were
there, only one would have got in and not lived long. The other one would not have come in at all… . If one
can only have another chance. Many husbands and wives fight.”

Respondent 6 who was old and frail, regrets that he did not get an opportunity to retaliate when he
and his spouse were attacked.

Respondent 6: “Hy was gou uit. As ek net ’n gap kon gekry het… .”
Respondent 6: “He was out quickly. If only I could have got a gap… .”

Respondent 14 regrets that she kept on asking her husband to drive their bakkie into the garage.

Respondent 14: “Maybe if I didn’t ask him to put it away, he wouldn’t have gone outside… . You know, if I
could turn that back again.”

294
• Dejection

Circumstances that prevail after the attacks caused three of the respondents to feel dejected.
Financial problems, pain and suffering caused by the injuries sustained during the attacks and pining
for a deceased spouse, were the main reasons.

Respondent 3: “Ek was by tye mismoedig, het huilerig geraak… . Dit het gevoel ek het nie meer ’n dak oor
my kop nie… . Ons het daardie Sondagoggend die laaste R1 000 gaan trek. Ons is daarvan beroof. Ons
het elkeen net R20 gehad.”
Respondent 3: “At times I felt very dejected, became weepy… . It felt as though I no longer had a roof over
my head… . That Sunday we went to draw our last R1 000. We were robbed of it. We each had only R20.”

Respondent 8: “At one stage I was very weepy… . I still get weepy at times when I think about it. It was so
unnecessary. If they had asked for the money, I would have given it to them. Why shoot? … I sometimes
used to think to myself if they could rather have killed me, when I battled.”

Respondent 14: “…so he died, my life stopped and nobody that … hasn’t been through something like this,
can understand what it is all about and how … it affects you. They can sympathise, but to empathise is
another story… . You know, I would sit in my room. It was the only place I felt OK to stay in without going
mad. I’d just stay in my bedroom, day in, day out. If I get visitors, well and good, you know, for that little
while you try to be cheerful, but you can’t, you can’t and then people that still visited, friends and the family
that still visited, up to this day, we can’t sit and have a drink together without his [the respondent’s
deceased husband] name coming up.”

• Difficulty in assimilating the experience

While Respondent 5 bore no grudge against his attacker, he doubted that he would be able to
assimilate the act of victimisation.

Respondent 5: “Die wreedaardigheid! Hulle het geen konsiderasie nie. ’n Mens kan jou nie beroep op hulle
menslikheid nie. Hulle sal jou brutaal om die lewe bring vir ’n paar sent … . Daar is geen wraakgedagtes,
maar of ’n mens dit ten volle kan verwerk? ’n Mens is te swak daarvoor.”
Respondent 5: “The cruelty! They have no consideration. One cannot appeal to their humaneness. They
will kill you brutally for a few cents … . There are no vengeful thoughts, but if one can fully assimilate it? A
person is too weak for that.”

295
• Difficulty in finding closure

Respondents 3 and 14 had difficulty in finding closure. Problems experienced with burial
arrangements and many unanswered questions related to the fatal events, drew out the process for
the respondents.

Respondent 3: “Die patoloog kom eenmaal in twee of drie weke dorp toe. Hy was met verlof. Ek moes
R800 betaal om hom [die respondent se oorlede man] Witbank toe te bring anders sou ons te lank moes
wag. Ek was op Sasolburg, hy op Groblersdal en ons moes hom op Witbank kry. Hy is 11 Julie vermoor en
23 Julie begrawe, anders sou ons tot 3 Augustus moes gewag het vir die patoloog wat met verlof was… .
Hy het ’n begrafnispolis gehad, maar hulle wou nie uitbetaal voor die doodsertifikaat geteken is nie… . ’n
Mens se lewe kan nie aangaan nie. Toe hulle bel om te sê ons kan nou reëlings [vir die begrafnis] tref, toe
weet ons dis nou tyd vir afskeid… .”
Respondent 3: “The pathologist comes to town once every two or three weeks. He was on leave. I had to
pay R800 to bring him [the respondent’s deceased spouse] to Witbank otherwise we would have had to
wait too long. I was at Sasolburg, he at Groblersdal and we had to get him to Witbank. He was murdered
11th July and buried on 23rd July, otherwise we would have had to wait till 3rd August for the pathologist
who was on leave… . He had a funeral policy, but they would not pay out before the death certificate had
been signed… . One’s life cannot go ahead with one’s life. When they phoned to say we could start making
arrangements [for the burial], then we knew it was now time to say farewell… .”

Respondent 14: “I only started accepting that he is not coming through that door just a few months ago… .
I’ve only just started carrying on about, I’d say, just almost a year after his death. I, I couldn’t bring myself to
go out and work. [The respondent is self-employed]. I saw him everywhere. I saw him in everything. Every
time I picked up a spanner or every time I looked at a customer’s TV or tried to install a system, he was
there. I could hear him saying things or hear him joke about something. But, you, and you can’t work like
that. You can’t sleep. I could feel him, I could sense him. I could smell him and it, it was driving me out of
my mind. I mean, I’d spend sleepless nights. You know, I would sit in my room. It was the only place I felt
OK to stay in without going mad. I’d just sit in my bedroom, day in, day out. If I get visitors, well and good,
you know, for that little while you try to be cheerful, but you can’t, you can’t and then people that still visited,
friends and the family, that still visited, up to this day, we can’t sit and have a drink together without his [the
deceased’s] name coming up. Or this is what he used to do and this is how B was and what would B say
now and, you know, it is everybody that comes in contact with him. We still do it. It hasn’t gotten into our
minds that he has gone, for good, you know. We talk about him as though he is just not present at this
party, that he had to go somewhere. You know, I still sit back and I wonder, is he coming in. He said he was

296
 going to put the bakkie away. He is going to be back just because he has never broken his word.”

• Forgotten and abandoned

Respondent 14 started feeling forgotten and abandoned as time wore on. Family members stopped
inquiring about the progress of the investigation when she had no new information to report to them.
According to the findings of Bard and Sangrey (1986:6), victims suffer when their experiences are
ignored by family and friends. Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:12) found that victims sometimes need
their support for months or even years, in order that they may express depression, sadness and other
emotions.

Respondent 14: “My mother-in-law used to phone once in a while, once a week to find out how are things
going with the investigation. I see after a while it just dwindled off.”

6.2.3.3 Social consequences

Many of the respondents (Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15) indicated that they
experienced social consequences. Distrust of strangers and fear of re-victimisation were the most
common. This is a direct consequence of the shattering of the assumption that the world is a
meaningful place (see section 4.1.1.2) where the victims believed they knew what to expect and why
negative events occur. Some respondents also presented symptoms of the PTSD such as
associations and paranoia (see section 4.1).

• Distrust

Some of the victims (Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 12 and 15) who were attacked by black offenders felt
they could never trust black people again. According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:7), this is a common
reaction where the victimisation event is inter-racial. Persons belonging to the same race as the
victimiser usually become the object of distrust. As a result of these acts of criminal victimisation,
some victims of farm attacks have also become suspicious of their black workers, black policemen
and black people in general.

Respondent 1: “Ek het ook nie die polisie gesê waar hy [die kluis] is nie… . Jy kan niemand meer vertrou
nie. Daar het baie mense by ons gewerk, nou nie meer nie… .”

297
Respondent 1: “I also did not tell the police where it [the safe] is… . You cannot trust anyone any more.
Many people worked by us, now not any more… .”

Respondent 2: “Die eerste ding wat een van my werkers my gevra het toe ek by die werk kom, was: ‘Het
hulle jou en jou vrou darem mooi behandel?’ Dié spesifieke werker het altyd drie sulke klossies baard
gehad en daardie oggend was dit alles afgeskeer.”
Respondent 2: “The first thing that one of my workers asked me when I got to my work, was: ‘Did they at
least treat you and your wife well?’ This specific worker always had three clusters of beard and that
morning it was all shaved off.”

Respondent 3: “Maar vertrou sal ek nooit nie. ’n Mens moet nooit vertrou nie… . Daar is baie blankes ook in
die tronk, maar hulle sal nie maklik moor of hijack nie. Dis swartes.”
Respondent 3: “But trust, I will never again. A person must never trust… . There are many whites in jail too,
but they will not easily murder or hijack. It’s black people.”

Respondent 4: “Ek dink die fout wat ek gemaak het, was om die werker te sê hy moet vroeg begin melk.
Die kerkdiens begin al 8h00. Hy moes geweet het ons gaan ry… . Die werker wat buitekant gewerk het op
daardie stadium, het toe net ’n week hier gewerk. Hy kon betrokke gewees het… . Ek sê nou glad nie meer
vooruit wat ons planne is nie… . ’n Swart polisieman het my kom haal. Daar was darem ook ’n wit kaptein
en ’n speurder.”
Respondent 4: “I think the mistake I made, was to tell the worker to start milking early. The church service
starts at 8h00 already. He must have known we were going to leave… . The worker who worked outside at
that stage, had then just worked here for a week. He could have been involved… . Now I never let on in
advance any more what our plans are… . A black police officer came to fetch me. Though there was also a
white captain and a detective.”

Respondent 11: “Jy gaan nie wil hoor wat ek nou gaan sê nie. Ek voel absoluut negatief teenoor
swartmense. Ek praat Tswana, ek is in Volkekunde opgelei, het ’n Meestersgraad, maar ek wil niks van
hulle weet nie. Ek help niemand meer nie. Dis negatief, maar dis hoe ek voel, en waar ek uit my pad uit sou
gegaan het, en ook gedoen het, honderde kere, sal ek nie weer nie. Ongelukkig word almal oor dieselfde
kam geskeer.”
Respondent 11: “You are not going to want to hear what I am going to say now. I feel absolutely negative
about black people. I speak Tswana, I studied Anthropology, have a Masters’ degree, but I want to know
nothing about them. I help nobody any more. It is negative, but that is how I feel, and where I would have
gone out of my way, and also did, hundreds of times, I will not do it again. Unfortunately they all get treated
alike.”

298
 Respondent 12: “Ek vermoed my huishulp van laas, daardie tyd, was betrokke - die een wat in die huis
was.”
Respondent 12: “I suspect that my maid, of last, was involved - the one that was in the house.”

Respondent 15: “Ek is baie wantrouig. Ek vertrou niemand nie… . Ons het altwee ons werkers laat gaan,
sommer dieselfde dag. Ons kon hulle nie hou nie… . Ek sou verkies om sonder swart hulp te wees maar
dis nie moontlik nie.”
Respondent 15: “I am very suspicious. I trust nobody… . We dismissed both our workers, that very same
day. We could not keep them… . I would have preferred to be without black helpers but that is not
possible.”

• Change of lifestyle

Three respondents (Respondents 4, 11 and 15) changed their lifestyle as a result of the attacks
on them. Respondents 4 and 11 also began to fear being hijacked.

Respondent 4: “Ek ry nie meer alleen nie. As ons Pretoria toe ry, ry ons oor Witbank.”
Respondent 4: “I do not drive alone any more. If we go to Pretoria, we go via Witbank.”

Respondent 11: “As ek in die aande voor die televisie sit … het ek die rewolwer langs my. Nie net by die
huis nie, as ek ry ook.”
Respondent 11: “When I watch television in the evenings … I have the revolver next to me. Not only at
home, when I am driving too.”

Respondent 15: “Ek gaan nie meer met die honde in die veld stap nie.”
Respondent 15: “I do not take my dogs for walks in the veld any more”.

• Fear of re-victimisation

Many respondents (Respondents 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, and 15) feared being re-victimised, either by the
same offenders or their friends or other offenders who might also regard them as suitable targets.
Bard and Sangrey (1986:42) regard fear as one of the most difficult emotions with which victims have
to cope (see section 4.2.2.2).

Respondent 4: “Tot vandag toe bid ek elke slag in die kerk dat ons veilig by die huis sal kom.”

299
Respondent 4: “To this day I pray every time in church that we will get home safely.”

Respondent 5: “Ons weet nie of ons gaan veilig wees as hy uitkom nie. Hulle kom in die tronk met ander
[wat hulle negatief beïnvloed] in aanraking.”
Respondent 5: “We do not know if we are going to be safe when he comes out. They come into contact
with others [who influence them negatively] in prison.”

Respondent 6: “Sy [die respondent se eggenote] wil heeltyd by my weet of ek die deur agter my gesluit het.
Ek antwoord haar nie meer nie, want sy glo my nie. Sy gaan kyk altyd self.”
Respondent 6: “She [the respondent’s spouse] wants to know from me all the time if I locked the door
behind me. I do not answer her any more because she does not believe me. She always goes to look
herself.”

Respondent 10: “…namate die tyd aanstap, dan raak dit beter, maar ’n mens is skrikkerig. As jy sawens
daar sit met worries wat jy nie kan tuisbring, dan… .”
Respondent 10: “…as time passes, it gets better, but one is nervous. When one sits there at night with
worries you cannot understand, then… .”

Respondent 12: “Ek moet sê die eerste paar maande na die tyd was ek nogal angstig om huis toe te kom.”
Respondent 12: “I must say the first few months after the time I was fairly nervous to come home.”

Respondent 13: “Hulle het later ’n uitkenningsparade gehad, ons genooi om ’n uitkenningsparade te doen,
maar dit is ook eintlik nie baie goed gereël nie, want aanvanklik wou hulle gehad het hulle moet sommer
net voor ons verskyn. Toe sê ek maar ek is nie bereid om dit te doen nie, jy weet. Nou-nou herken ons daar
iemand en hy gaan terugkom en jou weer leed aandoen of iets, jy weet. Toe het hulle so ’n eenrigting
venster tipe ding gekry, maar ons kon nie… . Jy weet dit was skemer, hier was geen ligte nog buite
aangewees nie en ja, hulle lyk vir blankes almal dieselfde. Jy kan hulle nie so maklik uitken nie.”
Respondent 13: “Later they had an identity parade, they invited us to attend an identity parade, but it was
actually not arranged very well, because initially they wanted them to appear before us just like that. Then I
said but I was not prepared to do it, you know. We might just recognise somebody there and he will come
back and will harm you again, or something, you know. Then they got a one-way window type of thing, but
we could not… . You know, it was dusk, there were no lights on outside here yet and yes, they all look the
same to white people. You cannot identify them so easily.”

300
6.2.3.4 Financial loss, expenses, damage and inconvenience

Many of the respondents suffered financial loss and/or damages and/or inconvenience as a result of
the attacks on them.

• Financial loss

According to the respondents (Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13) they had to go to
great expense to repair or replace articles that were damaged or robbed. Items of sentimental value
could not be replaced. According to Bard and Sangrey (1986:12), personal possessions sometimes
have symbolic significance. They become outward or visible expressions of the self. As they have
emotional value, theft or destruction of these possessions is often experienced as a violation of the
self.

Respondent 1: “Hulle het my juwele gevat, maar die ergste is my musiek. Ek sal dit nooit kan vervang nie.
Dit beteken vir hulle niks. Ook die skoene wat ek altyd gedra het as ek orrel speel.”
Respondent 1: “They took my jewellery, but the worst is my music. I shall never be able to replace it. It
means nothing to them. Also the shoes that I always wore when I played the organ.”

Respondent 2: “Hulle het al die juweliersware gevat wat nog oorgebly het na die vorige aanvalle [die
respondent beskou inbrake by sy huis as persoonlike aanvalle teen hom], vuurwapens en geld, en
ongeveer R3 000, al die ou munte wat ek omgeruil het vir nuwe munte en bymekaar gemaak het. Hulle het
my polisie dienspistool [die respondent was ’n SAPD reservis] en ’n rewolwer gevat. [Die respondent lag].
Een het alles in die huis gevat wat rooi was, tot handdoeke en ’n geraamde Kilim mat wat hoofsaaklik rooi
was, wat ek in 1976 vir R100 gekoop het. Dit was baie geld daardie dae. Hulle het my ring probeer afkry,
maar dit gelos toe hulle nie daarin slaag nie. Hulle het ook my kar gevat. Hulle het my belowe dat hulle hom
nie sou beskadig nie en dat hulle hom in Pretoria sou los. Die motor is twee uur later naby Kwaggafontein
gekry, onbeskadig en met die sleutel in hom.”
Respondent 2: “They took all the jewellery that was still left after the previous attacks [the respondent
regards burglaries at his home as personal attacks against him], firearms and money, and approximately
R3 000, all the old coins that I exchanged for new ones and collected. They took my police service pistol
[the respondent was a SAPS reservist] and a revolver. [The respondent laughs]. One took everything in the
house that was red, even towels and a framed Kilim rug that was mainly red, that I bought in 1976 for R100.
That was a lot of money in those days. They tried to remove my ring, but left it when they did not succeed.

301
They also took my car. They promised me that they would not damage it and that that they would leave it in
Pretoria. The car was found two hours later near Kwaggafontein, undamaged and with the key in it.”

Respondent 3: “Hulle het my ringe en horlosie afgehaal… . Op daardie tydstip lui ’n selfoon in die een se
sak. Hy het hom uitgehaal en doodgedruk. Ek het nie op daardie stadium geweet dis my selfoon nie. Hy
moes hom in sy sak gedruk het toe hulle ingekom het… . Hulle is weg met die rewolwer, maar die .22 wat
ek in die huis gesoek het, het hulle sommer in die BMW gelos.”
Respondent 3: “They took off my rings and watch… . At that point in time a cellphone rang in the one’s
pocket. He took it out and silenced it. I did not know at that stage that it was my cellphone. He must have
pushed it into his pocket when they came in… . They left with the revolver, but the .22 that I looked for in
the house, they simply left in the BMW.”

Respondent 4: “…my man se leerbaadjie… . Nadat hulle weg is met die bakkie… . Ons het nie ons
beursies of geld teruggekry nie.”
Respondent 4: “…my husband’s leather jacket… . After they had left with our bakkie… . We did not get our
purses or our money back.”

Respondent 5: “As ek dink wat ons alles verloor het! Jy soek na iets, dit moet daar wees, maar dis alles
verbrand… . Ons moes alles was. Party goed moes ons weggooi… . Die melkkamer was afgebrand, die
afromer, die skottels, die emmers. My Whirlpool wasmasjien en tuimeldroër het ook uitgebrand. Twee
yskaste se deksels het afgebrand. Twee staaldeure het ontplof. Ons het nie krag gehad nie.”
Respondent 5: “When I think of everything that we have lost! You look for something, it has to be there, but
it’s burnt… . We had to wash everything. Some things we had to throw away… . The dairy was burnt down,
the separator, the dishes, the buckets. My Whirlpool washing machine and tumble dryer also burned out.
The lids of two refrigerators burned off. Two steel doors exploded. We had no electricity.”

Respondent 7: “E het baie werksure op die plaas verloor. Ek was ses tot sewe maande so twee-derdes van
die dag op die bed.”
Respondent 7: “I lost many working hours on the farm. For six to seven months I was on the bed for
approximately two-thirds of the day.”

Respondent 9: “Ek kan nie, jy weet, jy het gesien watter ou kar ry ek nou, dis die eerste keer in my lewe dat
ek ’n tweedehandse kar ry. Ek kon nie, want die kar wat ek gehad het kon ek nie weer koop nie… . In
Desember moes ek aansoek doen vir ’n ryding. My een vriendin het my korttermynversekering betaal
anders kon ek nie eers hierdie ryding bekostig nie.”
Respondent 9: “I cannot, you know, you saw the old car I am driving now, it’s the first time in my life that I
am driving a second-hand car. I could not, because the car that I had I could not buy again… . In December
302
I had to apply for a vehicle. My one friend paid my short term insurance otherwise I could not even afford
this vehicle.”

Respondent 10: “Aan die ander kant, daar was nie eintlik veel van geldwaarde in nie - net ons paspoorte,
ons ID-boekies. Hulle het my horlosie afgehaal en haar horlosie ook… . Ek het hulle gesê al die geld wat
ons het, is in die maansak en dit lê in die eetkamer. My vrou se ID-boek het hulle op die stoel gelos. Mijn
ID-boekie het hulle saamgevat. Hulle het die hele maansak gevat. Jou bewyse [van identiteit], alles is weg,
die kaarte van die bank… . Wel, die versekering het toe gelukkig, ek het versekering gehad, ek dink
ongeveer R38 000, so iets, die waarde van die goed, uitbetaal.”
Respondent 10: “On the other hand, there was not really much of monetary value in it - only our passports,
our ID-books. They took off my watch and her watch too… . I told them all the money we have is in the
moonbag, and that is lying in the dining-room. My wife’s ID-book they left on the chair. My ID-book they
took with them. They took the whole moonbag. Your proof [of identity], everything is gone, the cards of the
bank… . Well, fortunately the insurance, I had insurance, I think then paid out approximately R38 000,
something like that, the value of the goods.”

Respondent 11: “Hulle was weg met die sleutels van die huis en die voertuig… . O, ja, hulle het al vier ons
selfone gevat. Ons het al die ander goed teruggekry.”
Respondent 11: “They had left with the keys of the house keys and the vehicle… . O, yes, they took all four
of our cellphones. We got all the other stuff back.”

Respondent 12: “My ordentlike goed, my handsak en my bankkaarte en goed het hy toe nou saamgevat… .
Hulle het ons TV gelos. Ons het ’n baie ou televisie. Maar hulle het ons rekenaar gevat, wat redelik nuut
was en baie van my juwele. Ek het, weet jy, mooi juwele gehad wat ek by my pa gekry het. Dit is al … en
my verloofring. Vandag kan ’n mens dit nie vervang nie. [Die respondent lag]. Dit maak nie saak nie. Hulle
het baie klere gevat, hoor, baie klere, vuurwapens, al ons vuurwapens en juwele … sleutels, strykyster,
alles … . Maar ek het geweet hulle gaan die kar vat. Hy sê nogal vir my hy gaan my kar vat, maar hy gaan
my kar hier iewers langs die pad parkeer vir my. Hy het natuurlik nie… . Nee, my kar het ek nooit weer
gesien nie, hoor, nooit weer nie. Hoewel ek het al ’n paar keer ’n kar gesien het wat soos myne lyk… . Ja,
ek is seker daarvan ek het hom gesien [die respondent lag], want dis, dit was nogal ’n ou karretjie en hy het
lelike stampe gehad. Ek sou hom geken het. Ja, ek dink so, weet jy, ag en die motor was verseker, die
versekering het toe uitbetaal en ag, ek was toe nie lus vir issues nie.”
Respondent 12: “My decent stuff, my handbag and my bank cards and stuff he then took with him… . They
left our TV. We have a very old television. But they took our computer, that was fairly new and much of my
jewellery. I had, you know, nice jewellery that I got from my father. That is all … and my engagement ring.
Today one cannot replace it. [The respondent laughs]. It does not matter. They took many clothes, eh,
many clothes, firearms, all our firearms and jewellery … keys, iron, everything… . But I knew they were
303
 going to take the car. He even said to me he was going to take my car, but he was going to park it
somewhere along the road for me. Naturally he did not… . No, I never saw my car again, eh, never again.
Although I have seen a car a couple of times that looks like mine… . Yes, I am sure of it that I have seen it
[the respondent laughs], because it’s, it was quite an old little car and it had ugly dents. I would have known
it. Yes, I think so, you know, oh, and the car was insured, the insurance paid out and oh, I did not feel like
issues.”

Respondent 13: “Wel, hulle het alles uitgedra, een van die voertuie gaan haal in die motorhuis, toevallig my
dogter s’n, alles daar ingelaai… . Al die geld gevat, die pistool gevat, want ek het net die dag gaan lone
trek. Dit het so op my bedkassie nog gelê, pistool en al. Toe het hulle dit alles gevat, al die juwele gevat, en
natuurlik al die, al die eletroniese goed, maar niks klere nie. Snaaks, geen klere gevat nie, maar al die
elektroniese goed… . Die volgende dag het hulle die kar in Mamelodi gekry. Die radio is uitgesteel, al die
gereedskap uitgesteel, spaarwiel uitgesteel en alles.”
Respondent 13: “Well they carried everything out, fetched one of the vehicles from the garage,
coincidentally my daughter’s, loaded everything into it… . Took all the money, took the pistol, because I had
gone and drawn wages just on that day. It all still lay so on my pedestal, pistol and all. Then they took it all,
all the jewellery, and naturally all the electronic stuff, but no clothes. Strange, no clothes taken, but all the
electronic stuff… . The next day they found the car in Mamelodi. The radio had been stolen, all the tools,
spare wheel stolen and everything.”

• Expenses

The respondents’ expenses were related mainly to medical and target-hardening efforts. Several
respondents (Respondents 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7) incurred medical expenses as they had to receive
treatment for their injuries. Respondents 13 and 15 improved the security around her farmhouse in
order to make it more difficult for offenders to harm her.

Respondent 1: “Ek en my man het ook mediese onkostes gehad. Sy skietwond moes behandel word en die
dokter moes kyk na my kopwonde.”
Respondent 1: “My husband and I also had medical expenses. His gunshot wound had to be treated and
the doctor had to see to my head injuries.”

Respondent 3: “Ek moes R800 betaal om hom [die respondent se oorlede man] Witbank toe te bring
anders sou ons te lank moes wag… . Ek was op Sasolburg, hy op Groblersdal en ons moes hom op
Witbank kry. Hy is 11 Julie vermoor en 23 Julie begrawe, anders sou ons tot 3 Augustus moes gewag het
vir die patoloog wat met verlof was.”

304
 Respondent 3: “I had to pay R800 to bring him [the respondent’s deceased spouse] to Witbank otherwise
we would have had to wait too long… . I was at Sasolburg, he at Groblersdal and we had to get him to
Witbank. He was murdered on 11th July and buried on 23rd July, otherwise we would have had to wait till
3rd August for the pathologist who was on leave.”

Respondent 4: “Hulle het die kas [die respondent wys na die buffet] met ’n lepel oopgebuig. Die lepel is so
krom… . Die blokkiesvloer en die hangkas is beskadig deur die koeëls soos hulle op my man [in die
hangkas] gevuur het.”
Respondent 4: They opened the cupboard drawers [the respondent points to the sideboard] with a spoon.
The spoon is bent… . The parquet flooring and wardrobe are damaged by the bullets as they fired at my
husband [in the wardrobe]”.

Respondent 5: “Weet u, op die ou einde het ek minder as R10 000 betaal en die mediese fonds R530 000.”
Respondent 5: “Do you know, in the end I paid less than R10 000 and the medical aid R530 000.”

Respondent 7: “My mediese onkostes was so R25 000. Ek was een dag in die hospitaal… .”
Respondent 7: “My medical expenses were approximately R25 000. I was in hospital one day… .”

Respondent 13: “Ons het meer ligte, ekstra ligte. Uit die aard van die saak kos die misdaad baie geld.”
Respondent 13: “We have more lights, extra lights. Naturally the crime costs a lot of money.”

Respondent 15: “Ons het ’n addisionele elektriese heining opgerig… . Ons het nou maar later ander
behuising op ’n ander plek laat bou. Dit was ongelooflike uitgawes. Ekstra diefwering, nuwe hekke, nuwe
huise vir werkers!”
Respondent 15: “We erected an additional electric fence… . Later we had other accommodation built at
another spot. These were unbelievable expenses. Extra burglar proofing, new gates, new houses for the
workers!”

• Damage

Two respondents (Respondents 3 and 5) indicated that they suffered damage as a result of the attack
on them.

Respondent 3: “Ek het die volgende dag al Sasolburg toe getrek na my een seun toe. Ek het baie skade
gehad. My meubels is erg beskadig. Hulle het onder ’n lapa gestaan en natgereën. Ek het party weggegee.
Dit het gevoel ek het nie meer ’n dak oor my kop nie.”

305
 Respondent 3: “The next day I moved to Sasolburg, to my one son. I suffered a lot of damage. My furniture
was badly damaged. It stood under a lapa and got wet in the rain. I gave some of it away. It felt as though I
did not have a roof over my head any more.”

Respondent 5: “Alles aan daardie kant van die brandmuur het afgebrand… . ’n Mens wil dit nie graag
vervang op hierdie ouderdom nie. Jy het nie die regte gereedskap om dinge te doen nie.”
Respondent 5: “Everything on that side of the fire wall was gutted… . One prefers not to replace anything at
this age. You do not have the right tools to do things.”

• Inconvenience

The respondents who participated in the research suffered inconvenience in various forms. This varied
from short-term inconvenience such as clearing up the disarray that is often caused by attackers
searching for valuable items, to long-term inconvenience such as legal red tape and being stranded
out in the country without a motor vehicle for a month.

- Disarray after the attack

Some of the respondents (Respondents 1, 4 and 10) indicated that the offenders left their homes in a
state of disarray.

Respondent 1: “Hy het matrasse omgegooi en kaste oopgepluk. Ek onthou dat ek by myself gedink het:
‘Hy’s geoefend’.”
Respondent 1: “He tipped mattresses and plucked drawers open. I remember thinking to myself: ‘He’s
practiced’.”

Respondent 4: “Ons kon nie eens daardie aand in ons kamer slaap nie. Ons moes in die spaarkamer
slaap… . Alles was deurmekaar.”
Respondent 4: “We could not even sleep in our room that night. We had to sleep in the spare room… .
Everything was topsyturvy.”

Respondent 10: “J het hier gebly, want hy het toe met die terugkom die bed weer opgemaak… .”
Respondent 10: “J stayed here, because when we got back, he made the bed again… .”

306
- Police procedure and red tape

Respondents 3 and 4 felt inconvenienced by standard procedures that have to be followed after the
commission of a crime.

Respondent 3: “Ek was op Sasolburg, hy op Groblersdal en ons moes hom op Witbank kry. Hy is 11 Julie
vermoor en 23 Julie begrawe, anders sou ons tot 3 Augustus moes gewag het vir die patoloog wat met
verlof was… . Hy het ’n begrafnispolis gehad, maar hulle wou nie uitbetaal voor die doodsertifikaat geteken
is nie… .”
Respondent 3: “I was at Sasolburg, he at Groblersdal and we had to get him to Witbank. He was murdered
on 11th July and buried on 23rd July, otherwise we would have had to wait till 3rd August for the pathologist
who was on leave… . He had a funeral policy, but they would not pay out before the death certificate had
been signed… .”

Respondent 4: “Die polisie wou my nie in die huis toelaat nie.”

Respondent 4: “The police would not allow me into the house.”

- Immobility

Respondent 9, who lived alone some kilometres from the nearest town, had no means of transport
after the offenders fled in her motor vehicle.

Respondent 9: “Ja, en weet jy, ek kon, vir ’n maand het ek gesit hier in die huis… .”
Respondent 9: “Yes, and you know, I could, for a month I sat here in the house… .”

- Keys and/or locks and/or remote controls

Some respondents (Respondents 1, 11 and 12) had to replace the locks on their homes as they felt
unsafe, knowing that the offenders had taken their keys with them and would have access to their
farmhouses at any time. Respondent 15 changed the code on her remote control, also knowing that
the offender could access her farmyard in the future.

Respondent 1: “Ons sleutels moes ook vervang word.”

Respondent 1: “Our keys also had to be replaced.”

307
 Respondent 11: “Hulle was weg met die sleutels van die huis en die voertuig.”
Respondent 11: “They had left with the keys of the house and the vehicle.”

Respondent 12: “Maar hulle het ons sleutels gevat… .”

Respondent 12: “But they took our keys… .”

Respondent 15: “Ons moes al die hekke se kontroles verander.”

Respondent 15: “We had to change all the remote controls of the gates.”

- Attendance of religious activities

Respondent 5 who was an elder in his church was unable to attend church services as a result of his
injuries.

Respondent 5: “In Junie was ek die eerste keer weer in ’n kerk. Ek kon kerk toe gaan.”
Respondent 5: “In June I attended church for the first time. I could go to church.”

- Court hearings

Respondents 4 and 8 had to spend much time travelling to attend the trials of the offenders. As the
case of the offender in the attack on Respondent 4 had to be tried in the regional court, Respondent 4
and her spouse had to travel a long distance every day.

Respondent 4: “Die hofsaak het ’n week geduur. Ons moes elke dag Lydenburg toe, na die streekhof. Dis
ver. Ons het net die twee laaste dae nie gegaan nie, toe hulle die moord op die swartman afhandel.”
Respondent 4: “The court case took a week. We had to drive to Lydenburg every day, to the regional court.
It is far. We just did not go the last two days, when they concluded the murder of the black man.”

Respondent 8: “…and now we’ve been to court twice and were now due to go back on 4 August. We’ve got
to go back. When the police caught the youngest one, he said he was 15, no 16, but now when we went
the second time to the court, he now says he is only 15. So now that’s why the case has been postponed,
because now they’ve got to get clarification about his date of birth. I don’t think he has got a mother.
Apparently his grandmother is supposed to be in charge of him… . Hopefully on 4 August it will be finished,
because our children come through to us to come and be with us so that we don’t go to court on our own.
You sit there for hours. Then they say: ‘It’s postponed.’.”

308
- Inconvenience with regard to personal documents

Respondents 4, 5, 10 and 12 found it inconvenient to be without personal documents such as

passports and bank cards until they could be replaced.

Respondent 4: “Ons [bank]kaarte het ons in die bakkie gekry toe hulle die bakkie teruggekry het. My man
se ID-boek is nie gekry nie… .”
Respondent 4: “We found our [bank] cards in the bakkie when they recovered the bakkie. My husband’s ID-
book was not found… .”

Respondent 5: “Ek was al ontslaan toe kry ek eers ’n kaart by ABSA. Dit, dat ek heeltyd nie ’n kaart gehad
het nie, het dinge moeilik gemaak.”
Respondent 5: “I was already discharged when I got my card from ABSA. That, the fact that I did not have a
card, made things difficult.”

Respondent 10: “Dit was ’n groot hassle na die tyd. Ons moes aansoek doen vir nuwe ID’s en ons
paspoorte moes ons hernu… . Jou bewyse [van identiteit], alles is weg, die kaarte van die bank… . Ons
sou Juliemaand … mense van oorsee het hulle afspraak gemaak… . [Die respondent en sy gade sou by
familielede in Holland gaan kuier]. Die kaartjies was alles betaal, maar gelukkig kon ons hulle mettertyd
kry.”
Respondent 10: “It was a great hassle afterwards. We had to apply for new ID-books and renew our
passports… . Your proof [of identity], everything is gone, the cards of the bank… . In July we would have …
people overseas had already made bookings… . [The respondent and his spouse were to visit family
members in Holland]. The tickets were already paid for, but fortunately we could get them in due course.”

Respondent 12: “My handsak, my bankkaarte en goed het hy toe saamgevat.”

Respondent 12: “My handbag, my bank cards and things he then took with him.”

Some respondents were also distressed about the inconvenience that the attack on them caused their
family members who had to take over their routine duties and who also had to deal with problems that
arose on the farms until they had recuperated sufficiently. Respondents 5 and 8 had to rely on family
members to help with farming activities as well as more personal activities such as having a bath. This
is in line with Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:11) who state that victims are often dependent on other
members of the family for practical assistance as well as emotional help after an act of victimisation.

309
Respondent 5: “My vrou was alleen op die plaas. Dit was vrugtetyd, daar was diere om na om te sien en sy
moes heen en weer hospitaal toe. Die telefoon het nie meer gewerk nie, daar is nie ’n sein vir ’n
sellulêrefoon in die gebied nie, die krag was uit van die brand, sy het geen kontak gehad met die
buitewêreld nie. Sy en my skoonsuster moes dinge laat werk… . Ek het twee stoetbulle gehad en een word
siek. My vrou skakel toe die veearts. Dit was ’n Gur, lyk soos ’n Brahman. Nou ja, die bul is toe dood en ek
het nog veeartskoste gehad. Ons verkoop toe die vleis vir R400. My swaer en skoonsuster uit Parow het
hier gebly tot middel April en my vrou se suster het hier by ons ingewoon. Ek het drie-kwart van my beeste
verkoop en my getal skape en bokke gehalfeer. Ons het geen hande gehad op daardie stadium nie… . Die
telefoon was ook nog stukkend. Een aand het die hospitaal haar gesoek, maar kon nie kontak maak met
haar nie. Ons het eers later die selfoon gekry wat ons aan die antenna gekoppel moet hou om ’n sein te kry
om oproepe te ontvang en uit te skakel. Alles gebeur so gelyk. Voor ek my operasie gekry het, het ek
besluit ek gaan my testament verander. Die ou testament is vernietig en die nuwe een was nog nie geteken
nie. Daardie spanning as ek sou sterf en ek het nie ’n testament nie! Daar was weerligskade aan die huis.
Die versekering wou net 40% betaal en ek moes die verdere 60% betaal. Ek betaal R1 200 per maand.
Terwyl ons met die onderhandelinge besig was, was ek nie verseker nie… . Ek moet bysê, met al die liefde
wat ons gekry het, het die stapels rekeninge so hoog gelê [die respondent beduie]. Ons het ’n
mediesefonds gehad. My skoonseun en sy [die respondent se eggenote] het aandag gegee aan die goed.
Weet u, op die ou einde het ek minder as R10 000 betaal en die mediese fonds R530 000. Daardie mense,
ek haal my hoed af vir hulle. Daar was nie soveel as ’n navraag nie. Dit laat ’n mens klein voel… . Ek kry ’n
brief van Medihelp so middel van Desember. Ons dink toe hulle gaan sê hulle kan nie meer nie. Soos die
oumense bang was om ’n telegram oop te maak, so was dit dit met die brief. Ons maak hom toe oop en
daar staan: ‘Weens die uniekheid van die geval word u voordele van Januarie verbeter na Medihelp 100%’,
waar pensioenarisse gewoonlik slegs 80% [dekking] kry.”.
Respondent 5: “My wife was alone on the farm. It was fruit time, there were animals to see to and she had
to go backwards and forwards to hospital. The telephone was not working any more, there is no signal for a
cellular phone in the area, the electricity was off because of the fire, she had no contact with the outside
world. She and my sister-in-law had to make things work… . I had two stud bulls and one got sick. My wife
then phoned the vet. It was a Gur, looks like a Brahman. Well, the bull then died and I had more veterinary
expenses. We then sold the meat for R400. My brother- and sister-in-law from Parow stayed here till mid
April and my wife’s sister lived here by us. I sold three-quarters of my cattle and reduced my sheep and
goats to half the number. We had no hands at that stage… . The telepone was still out of order too. One
night the hospital tried to contact her, but could not get through to her. It was only later that we got the
cellphone that we have to keep attached to the antenna to get a signal to be able receive calls and to
phone out. Everything happens at once. Before I had my operation I decided to change my will. The old will
was destroyed and the new one had not yet been signed. That stress if I were to die and I do not have a

310
 will! There was lightning damage to the house. The insurance wanted to pay only 40% and I had to pay the
remaining 60%. I pay R1 200 per month. While we were negotiating I was not insured… . I must add, with
all the love we received, the stacks of accounts that we received were heaped this high [the respondent
demonstrates]. We had a medical aid. My son-in-law and she [the respondent’s spouse] attended to them.
Do you know, in the end I paid less than R10 000 and the medical aid R530 000. Those people, I take my
hat off to them. There was not so much as a query. It makes one feel small… . I receive a letter from
Medihelp approximately the middle of December. We think they are going to inform us they cannot any
more. As the old people feared opening a telegram, so it was with this letter. We then opened it and there
was written: ‘Due to the uniqueness of the case, your benefits are being improved to Medihelp 100% from
January, where pensioners usually get only 80% .”

Respondent 8: “Because he said he couldn’t manage to bath me and see to me and all that. So I went and
stayed with the children, with the girls. So I had somebody there all the time.”

Besides the negative effects that farm attacks have on the direct victims of attacks, indirect victims are
also affected. Respondents 3 and 10 expressed their concern about the negative effect that the
attacks have on family members. Respondent 3 believes that her son might cope better with the loss
of his father if he were to communicate his inner feelings to someone. However, his sister who visited
a psychologist, did not have positive feedback of her session that she had hoped would relieve her
distress.

Respondent 3: “My seun praat nie oor my man se dood nie… . B het met haar gepraat, maar dit was baie
onpersoonlik. Sy was meer nuuskierig as wat sy wou gehelp het.”
Respondent 3: “My son does not talk about my husband’s death… . B spoke to her, but it was very
impersonal. She was more curious than she wanted to help.”

Respondent 10: “Maar onthou ons sê hulle [familielede wat hulle in die buiteland sou besoek] niks… . Hulle
kan niks doen nie, dan worry hulle. Ons moes so oppas. Partykeer wou ons iets sê… .”
Respondent 10: “But remember we tell them [members of their family that they were to visit overseas]
nothing… . They can do nothing, then they worry. We had to be so careful. Sometimes we wanted to say
something… .”

From the above it is clear that the farm attacks had far reaching consequences for the victims who
participated in the study, their family members, employees and possible job seekers. Bard and
Sangrey (1986:7) sum up the situation verbalised by most of the respondents as follows: “Few victims

311
are prepared for the aftermath of victimisation, the ways that a crime can echo and reverberate
against the rest of the victim’s life.”

6.2.4 Coping strategies

Victims find certain ways of coping during and after a farm attack. While some find strength in their
faith in the Lord, others rely on the support of family, friends and neighbours as well as on support
from professionals. In addition, some actively engage in activities that distract their attention or force
themselves to block out all thoughts of the traumatic event (see section 4.2.2).

6.2.4.1 During the attacks

During the attacks, some of the respondents (Respondents 1, 3, 12 and 15) relied on their Christian
faith for strength to handle the situation. In two cases (Respondents 1 and 15) the offenders pistols’
jammed.

- Faith in the Lord

Respondent 1: “Ek het begin bid dat die Here vir my en my vriendin moet help. Ek het onmiddellik so ’n
snaakse gevoel gehad soos ’n doek wat van jou skouers af gly. Ek het kalm en rustig geword… . Ek bid en
ek ruik die kruit. Toe ek my oë oopmaak, het ek gesien my man se aanvaller ondervind moeilikheid met sy
pistool. Dit het gestoor.”
Respondent 1: “I started to pray that the Lord must help my friend and me. I immediately had such a
strange feeling, like a cloth slipping from your shoulders. I became calm and peaceful… . I prayed and I
smelt the gunpowder. When I opened my eyes, I saw that my husband’s attacker was experiencing
difficulty with his pistol. It had jammed.”

Respondent 3: “Ek glo nie ek het al ooit so hard gebid nie… . Ek het hulle gesê my seun gaan enige
oomblik [van sy werk af] terugkom, maar ek het geweet hy sou eers heelwat later by die huis kom. Dit was
net asof Iemand sê ek moet dit sê. Ek het gesien die rowers hol weer in die huis in.”
Respondent 3: “I do not believe that I have ever prayed so hard… . I told them my son would be back [from
his work] any moment, but I knew he would arrive home only much later. It was just as though Someone
was prompting me to say that. I saw the robbers running into the house again.”

Respondent 12: “Dit was die Here se kalmte, jy weet, want ek … ek het vir die kinders gesê toe ons hier
312
afry: ‘Luister, ek gaan nou bestuur, maar julle moet bid, dis julle werk om te bid. Julle gaan bid, en ek gaan
die ding handle’… . As dit nie vir die Here was nie… . Ek weet nie hoe hanteer ’n mens so iets as jy nie die
Here ken nie en weet dat jy in die Here se beskerming kan wees nie. Ek weet regtigwaar nie. Ek dink ’n
mens hanteer dit glad nie. Ek dink glad nie, want dit is traumaties om met ’n pistool aangehou te word, jy
weet… . Dit is alles net genade van die Here, nè? As jy sien hoe hy [die oortreder] ons hanteer het… . Hy
het my ongelooflike kalmte gegee, jy weet, want as jy, as jy so te kere gaan, dan is dit regtig verby. As my
huishulp te kere gegaan het, dan het hulle ons geskiet… . Dit was die Here. Regtig, as dit nie vir die Here
was nie! Die volgende dag het ek en A en die drie kinders en die huishulp gegaan na Sinoville se
polisiestasie vir ontlonting, maar dieselfde aand nog het ’n vriend van ons hiernatoe gekom. Hy’s eintlik ’n
geestelike berader. Hy het dieselfde aand na ons toe gekom en saam met ons gebid en so aan. Toe ons
die volgende dag by die dame kom wat die ontlonting doen, toe sê sy vir ons [die respondent lag] - dis
eintlik so wonderlik - toe sê sy vir ons, ag sy het nie eintlik werk om te doen nie. [Die respondent, haar
gesinslede en huishulp het nie berading nodig nie]. Dis die Here, regtig. Die kinders was eintlik wonderlik.
[Hulle was nie bang na die aanval nie]. Weet jy, daardie selfde aand toe sê ek en A vir hulle, as hulle nou
wil, kan ons matrasse in die kamer indra, dan kan ons nou saam slaap. Maar nee, hulle gaan elkeen in
hulle eie kamer slaap, en elkeen het in hul eie kamer gaan slaap en dwarsdeur die nag geslaap. Dis net die
Here. Niemand anders kan dit doen nie. Ja, niemand anderste nie. Ja, dit was ’n slegte ervaring, maar daar
was ook positiewe dinge daaraan verbonde. Jy weet, hoe die Here Sy hand oor my kan hou. Hy laat wel
die goed gebeur, maar Hy beskerm my… .”
Respondent 12: “It was the Lord’s peace, you know, because I … I told the children when we were driving
down here: ‘Listen, I am now going to drive, but you must pray, it’s your job to pray. You are going to pray,
and I am going to handle this thing’… . If it were not for the Lord… . I do not know how one handles
something like this if you do not know the Lord and know that you can be in the Lord’s protection. I really do
not know. I think a person does not handle it at all. It is traumatic to be held up with a pistol, you know… . It
is all just by the grace of God, not so? If you look at the way he[the offender] treated us… . He gave me
unbelievable calmness, you know, because if you, if you go on like that, then it is really over. If my maid
carried on, then they would have shot us… . It was the Lord. Really, if it were not for the Lord! The next day
A and I and the three children and the maid went to the Sinoville police station for debriefing, but the same
evening still a friend of ours came here. He is actually a spiritual counsellor. He came to us that same
evening and prayed with us and so on. When we got to the lady that does the debriefing the following day,
then she said to us [the respondent laughs] - it is actually so wonderful - then she said to us, oh, she does
not really have work to do. [The respondent, her family members and the maid do not need debriefing]. It is
the Lord, really. The children were actually wonderful. [They were not afraid after the attack]. You know,
that same night A and I said to them, that if they now want to, we can carry mattresses into the room, then
we can now sleep together. But no, they were going to sleep in their own room, and each went to sleep in
their own room and slept right through the night. It’s just the Lord. Nobody else can do it. Yes, nobody else.
Yes, it was a bad experience, but there were also a positive aspects involved. You know, how the Lord can
313
 hold His hand over me. He does allow these things to happen, but He protects me… .”

Respondent 15: “Toe skiet hy, maar die skoot het nie afgegaan nie. ‘O God, help my!’”
Respondent 15: “Then he pulled the trigger, but the shot did not go off. ‘O God, help me!’”

6.2.4.2 After the attacks

Shock and cofusion after an attack often cause victims distress. They find themselves in a state of
disequilibrium and need to feel safe and cared for.

• Family, friends and professional people

The speedy reaction of members of the security forces, the support of family and friends and also
professional assistance helped most victims to overcome some of the negative effects of the traumatic
incidents

- The SAPS and the security forces

On arrival, members of the SAPS and the security forces who were summoned to the crime scene,
took charge of the situation, allowing the victims (Respondents 3, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15) to overcome
the shock, see to their injuries and/or the well-being of their family members.

Respondent 3: “Binne ’n halfuur het dit gewemel van die polisie. Hulle het in die bome, die lemoenboord,
oral gaan soek. Die boere, polisie en kommando’s het paaie afgesper. Polisie van Moord en Roof, die
honde, almal was hier. Hulle het die een gevang.”
Respondent 3: “Within half an hour the place was teeming with police. They went and searched amongst
the trees, in the orange orchard, everywhere. The farmers, the police and the commando’s blocked the
roads. Police from Murder and Robbery, the dogs, all were here. They caught the one.”

Respondent 8: “We were very fortunate, my husband had a lot to do with the police force since he’s been
on the farm. So the result is, when he phoned, they came. They knew where we were. So that was a big
help.The police and the commando’s caught them. The commando’s from Carolina, they called them out, I
think it was, and they sent a plane, a police plane from Middelburg, and they were able to monitor where
they all were. I think it was one of the commando’s that shot the younger one in the foot.”

314
 Respondent 10: “Die polisie kom gou hier, sommer gou. Eers was die hondepolisie daar, die alarm mense,
daarna het die kommando’s gekom. Dieselfde aand, alles bymekaar, dit was maklik tien mense. Daar het
ook mense gekom nadat ons hospitaal toe was.”
Respondent 10: “Then the police came here quickly, very quickly. First the dog police were there, the alarm
people, after that the commando’s came. The same night, all in all, it was easily ten people. People also
arrived after we had gone to the hospital.”

Respondent 11: “Binne 15 minute was die polisie, die blitspatrollie, die honde-eenheid en burgermag, so 40
karre, almal daar. Van die vuurwapens is in die veld weggegooi en is deur hulle teruggevind, want hulle het
deur die veld gestap met hulle flitse… . Na ongeveer ’n jaar is ek polisiestasie toe ontbied vir ’n
uitkenningsparade. Hulle het vier jonges daar gehad. Ek kon nie een van hulle uitken nie. Alles gebeur te
vinnig.”
Respondent 11: “Within 15 minutes the police, flying squad, the dog unit and civil defence were all there,
approximately 40 cars. Some of the firearms were thrown away in the veld and were recovered by them,
because they walked through the veld with their torches… . After approximately a year I was summoned to
the police station for an identity parade. They had four young ones there. I could not identify any one of
them. Everything happens too fast.”

Respondent 12: “M [’n SAPD reservis] wat hier langsaan bly, was binne vyf minute by ons. En toe het die
polisie uitgekom.”
Respondent 12:” M [a SAPS reservist] who lives next door, was by us within five minutes. And then the
police came out.”

Respondent 15: “Ek het net groot lof vir die Kameeldrift SAPD. Ek wou hulle nog wys waar dit gebeur het,
maar my twee skoene het nog mooi langs mekaar gestaan waar ek gestaan het toe hy op my geskiet het.
Die kaptein kom na my toe en sê sy sien ek is erg getraumatiseer, sy wil my net ’n drukkie gee.”
Respondent 15: “I have great praise for the Kameeldrift SAPS. I still wanted to show them where it
happened, but my two shoes still lay next to each other where I had been standing when he shot at me.
The captain came to me and said she can see I am severely traumatised, she would just like to give me a
hug.”

- Family friends and neighbours

In spite of the disappointment of some victims in those who might have been expected to render help
or show some understanding for their plight, many of the victims [Respondents 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 and
14], also acknowledged the generosity, kindness and understanding of family, friends and/or strangers

315
who became aware of their special needs. This is in line with Bard and Sangrey’s finding (1986:49)
that most victims have great appreciation for the aid of family and friends. Their sensitivity also helps
them to feel less isolated and counteracts feelings of distrust of people that is generated by acts of
victimisation (Bard & Sangrey, 1986:40). While this might have been a short-term solution to their
problems, some of the respondents might in the long term have needed to consult a professional if
they were not able to overcome the trauma themselves.

Respondent 1: “My seun en skoondogter [hulle het plaas toe getrek sodat die respondent in ’n meenthuis
nader aan ander mense kan gaan woon] boer nou daar.”
Respondent 1: “My son and daughter-in-law [they moved to the farm so that the respondent can live in a
townhouse nearer to other people] are now farming there.”

Respondent 3: “Ek het die volgende dag al Sasolburg toe getrek na my een seun toe. Hulle wou nie hê ons
moet losies betaal nie… . Ons vriende het R1 500 ingesamel. Hy [die respondent se vermoorde eggenoot]
is 23 Julie begrawe en ek het die laaste tjek op 25 Julie laat deurgaan, toe alles gestop… . Een van die
bure het die kis geskenk, een vriendinnetjie die blomme. Sy het ook die pastoor betaal. Die begrafnis het
R11 000 gekos. Die yskas en die vervoer van die lyk het R6 000 gekos… . Dit was R1 000 vir die kaartjies
en die graf. Ons seun se skoonfamilie het alles betaal.”
Respondent 3: “The very next day I moved to Sasolburg, to my one son. They did not want us to pay
boarding… . Our friends collected R1 500. He [the respondent’s husband] was buried on the 23rd July and I
let the last cheque go through on 25th July, then I stopped everything, otherwise we would have had
nothing. One of the neighbours donated the coffin, one friend the flowers. She also paid the pastor. The
funeral cost R11 000. The fridge and the transportation of the corpse cost R6000… . The cards and the
grave cost R1 000. Our son’s in-laws paid everything.”

Respondent 4: “Die familie het gehelp, selfs die mense op die dorp. Ons het baie gepraat. Daar was baie
boere hier.”
Respondent 4: “The family helped, even the people in town. We spoke a lot. There were many farmers
here.”

Respondent 5: “Op daardie stadium het my swaer in Parow-Noord gewoon. Hy het al afgetree, maar sy
vrou het nog gewerk. Sy het verlof geneem en hulle het kom help. Ons het ook ’n kind wat in Pretoria gebly
het… . Die Here laat ’n mens nie alleen nie… . Die Here was vir my baie genadig, ter syde gesê, ’n mens
besef nie altyd hoeveel dierbare mense daar is nie. Toe die telefoon nie werk nie - ons fone het nog met ’n
slinger gewerk - het ons bure ons lui gehoor en die boodskappe vir my vrou gebring, toe ek nog in die
hospitaal gelê het. Om eenuur een oggend was daar ’n boodskap van die hospitaal: ‘Ongelukkig is u man

316
oorlede’. Die bure het haar kom wakker maak en hospitaal toe geneem. Hulle het my ’n inspuiting in die
hart gegee en ek het weer reggekom. Dit was die eerste keer. Dit het die skok aansienlik versag. Die
tweede keer het ’n aptekersvriend daar aangekom, waar ek in hoësorg gelê het. Daar was geen
verpleegster nie. Hy vertel my hy het die hospitaal se dak af geskreeu en my mond-tot-mond asemhaling
gegee. Toe tap hulle vog van my af, sommer daar. Ek was onbewus van alles, maar hoe dit op my vrou en
kinders gewerk het! Daar in die hospitaal was die tweede insident… . Ek gaan terug vir die laaste
veloorplanting. Dr M het laat weet ek moet kom, twee tot drie dae. Toe ek uit die teater uitkom en bykom,
staan daar agt verpleegsusters om die bed. Ek vra toe wat soek hulle hier. ‘Ons het kom hoor hoe gaan dit.’
Dat een mens so groot genade kan kry!
Daar was weerligskade aan die huis. Die versekering wou net 40% betaal en ek moes die verdere 60%
betaal. Ek betaal R1 200 per maand. Terwyl ons met die onderhandelinge besig was, was ek nie verseker
nie. Toe ek bykom, het die De J-broers alles herstel saam met ’n derde boer van Roossenekal. Hulle het
elke dag 65 kilometers heen en weer met hul werkers gery om hier te werk, op te ruim, op te bou, saam
met my kinders en skoonkinders, ook vloere in te sit. Toe ek my kop regkry, was die dakkappe al op… . Ek
kry ’n brief van Medihelp so middel van Desember. Ons dink toe hulle gaan sê hulle kan nie meer nie. Soos
die oumense bang was om ’n telegram oop te maak, so was dit dit met die brief. Ons maak hom toe oop en
daar staan: ‘Weens die uniekheid van die geval word u voordele van Januarie verbeter na Medihelp 100%,
waar pensioenarisse gewoonlik slegs 80% kry.”
Ongelukkig het ek druksere gekry, groot druksere omdat ek, as gevolg van my brandbeserings, so lank in
die bed moes lê. My vrou sê jy kon ’n lemoen daar [in die bedsere] ingedruk het. Toe vra die chirurg wat die
veloorplantings gedoen het: ‘Kan ons jou nie ontslaan en tuis versorg nie?’. My suster koop toe ’n
hospitaalbed en ek gaan lê by my dogter in Kilnerpark. Die chirurg laat toe sy ontvangsdame wat ook ’n
suster is, na Kilnerpark toe ry om die druksere te versorg. Dit het hulle gedoen tot einde Maart, toe het my
vrou die hantering van die druksere oorgeneem. Ek was toe aan die genees. Van toe af het dit beter
gegaan. Daar is soveel stof tot dankbaarheid, dat ek kan lewe, ander kan sien. Wat ’n verandering. Daar is
dierbare mense.’n Mens het gedink almal is sleg, gierig… .”
Respondent 5: “At that stage my brother-in-law lived in Parow-North. He had already retired, but his wife
still worked. She took leave and they came to help. We also have a child that lived in Pretoria… . The Lord
does not leave you alone… . The Lord was very merciful to me, said aside, one does not always realise
hom many dear people there are. When the phone was out of order - our phones stil worked with a sling -
our neighbours heard our ring and brought the messages to my wife, when I was still lying in hospital. At
one o’clock one morning there was a message from the hospital: ‘Unfortunately your husband has passed
away’. The neighbours came and woke her and took her to hospital. They gave me an injection in the heart
and I came right again. That was the first time. That alleviated the shock considerably. The second time a
pharmacist friend came along there, where I was lying in high care. There was no nurse. He tells me he
shouted the hospital roof down and gave me mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Then they drained fluid from
me, right there. I was unaware of everything, but how it affected my wife and children! There in the hospital
317
was the second incident… . I go back for the last skin graft. Dr M let me know I must come, two to three
days. When I came out of the theatre and I came to, there were eight nurses standing around my bed. Then
I asked them what they were doing there. ‘We came to hear how you are doing.’ That one person can
receive such great mercy!”
There was lightning damage to the house. The insurance wanted to pay only 40% and I had to pay the
remaining 60%. I pay R1 200 per month. While we were busy with the negotiations, I was not insured.
When I came to, the De J-brothers had repaired everything, together with a third farmer from Roossenekal.
They tavelled 65 kilometers, to and fro every day with their workers to work here, clear up, to rebuild,
together with my children and in-law’s children, also to put in floors. When I became aware of what was
going on around me, the roof trusses were already up.
I receive a letter from Medihelp approximately the middle of December. We think they are going to inform
us that they cannot any more. As the old people feared opening a telegram, so it was with this letter. We
then opened it and there stood: ‘Due to the uniqueness of the case, your benefits are being changed to
Medihelp 100% from January’, where pensioners usually get only 80%.”
Unfortunately I got bedsores, large bedsores because I, as a result of my injuries, had to lie in bed for so
long. My wife says you could have pushed an orange in there [in the bedsores]. Then the surgeon who did
the skin graft asked: ‘Can’t we discharge you and treat you at home?’. My sister then bought a hospital bed
and I went and lay by my daughter in Kilner Park. The surgeon then let his receptionist who is also a sister,
drive to Kilner Park to attend to the bedsores. That they did till the end of March, then my wife took over the
treatment of the bedsores. I was recuperating then. From then on things got better. There is so much cause
for thankfulness, that I can live, can see others. What a change. There are dear people. One thought all
were bad, avaricious… .”

Respondent 8: “Then I actually went to my children, because when my husband came back to the farm, the
children fetched me. Because he said he couldn’t manage to bath me and see to me - so I went and stayed
with the children, with the girls so I had somebody there all the time… . There is a psychiatrist at the
Children’s Home and she came down and spoke to me and our minister from church in Middelburg. He
came and he spoke to my husband and myself. And the people were very supportive, neighbours and
family.”

Respondent 10: “Ons het eers die alarm aangesit, die bure langsaan gebel en hulle het die polisie gebel en
die alarm mense. My seun het toe gekom… . Ons seun J - ons het hulle [die respondent se seun J en sy
gesin] nie gebel nie - maar die mense langsaan het hulle gebel. Ja, ek wou nie bel. Hulle het toe oorgekom.
Dit was goed want hulle het ons gehelp om hospitaal toe te gaan. J het M gebel, ons dogter. M en F het
ons na die hospitaal toe gevat. J het hier gebly, want hy het toe met die terugkom die bed weer opgemaak
en die skottelgoed gewas.”
Respondent 10: “We first put the alarm on, telephoned the neighbours next door and they phoned the
318
 police and the alarm people. My son then came… . Our son J - we did not phone them [the respondent’s
son J and his family] - but the people next door did. Yes, I did not want to phone. They came over. It was
good, because they helped us to go to the hospital. J phoned M, our daughter. M and F took us to the
hospital. J stayed here, because when we got back, he made the bed again and washed the dishes.”

Respondent 11: “Ek het gehardloop deur die veld na die bure toe. Hulle het die telefoondrade uit die muur
gepluk. Toe ek by hulle [die bure] aankom, vra ek dat hulle die polisie bel om hulle te sê ons is aangehou
en beroof. Ek het self op daardie stadium op een van hulle se selfoon die koördineerder van die
kommando’s gebel en haar gesê wat gebeur het. Toe is ek huis toe.”
Respondent 11: “I ran through the veld to the neighbours. They had plucked the telehone wires out of the
wall. When I got to them [the neighbours], I asked them to phone the police to tell them that we had been
held up and robbed. I, myself, at that stage, telephoned the co-ordinator of the commando’s on one of their
cellphones and told her what had happened. Then I went home.”

Respondent 14: “…so I ran back downstairs, saw the phone and I thought: ‘F, let me call F, the
neighbour…’ . Because, you know, they belong to this neighbourhood watch thing. You know [inaudible] I’m
not on the radio… . Since we bought the place, we’ve never been on the radio. Everybody else is. It’s as
though we’re not welcome. So I thought if I phone F, F will get help, because he is part of the
neighbourhood watch and commando’s thing and I dialled the number … and I got through to him and I
said this is what’s happening. Look, he was here very very fast with M [the SAPS reservist]… . Eventually I
phoned a friend of ours, J, and I said to him: ‘J, something’s happened to B, please can you come
through?’ And luckily he came through. He didn’t ask any questions… . Somebody came to me and said:
“You must clean the garage now. You must wash off the blood.’ … and somebody did. I found out later it
was a colleague of ours and his one nefie who cleaned the garage, washed it, washed the blood off and put
the vehicles back in.”

- Professional aid

Four of the respondents (Respondents 2, 10, 11 and 12) sought prefessional help. While this usually
helps victims to overcome their distress (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:12), none of the respondents
confirmed this view.

Respondent 2: “Op die kinders se aandrang het ons vir berading gegaan. Net een maal.”
Respondent 2: “At the children’s insistance we went for counselling. Just once.”

Respondent 10: “Die polisiemense en kommando’s het ons aangeraai om tog ’n bietjie berading te laat

319
 doen, met een van die mense hier. Nou ja, ons was daar twee keer gewees. Sy sê dit lyk vir haar dat ons
nogal … sterk mense is. Sy sê as dit nodig is, moet ons weer kom, anders los ons dit nou maar vir die tyd.”
Respondent 10: “The police people and the commando’s recommended that we have a little counseling
nevertheless, with one of the people here. Well, we were there twice. She says we seem to her to be …
quite strong people. She says if it is necessary, we must come again, otherwise we leave it now for a
while.”

Respondent 11: “Y het traumabehandeling gekry… .”

Respondent 11: “Y received trauma treatment… .”

Respondent 12: “Die volgende dag het ek en A en die drie kinders en die huishulp gegaan na Sinoville se
polisiestasie vir ontlonting … maar dieselfde aand nog het ’n vriend van ons hiernatoe gekom. Hy’s eintlik ’n
geestelike berader. Hy het dieselfde aand na ons toe gekom en saam met ons gebid en so aan. Toe ons
die volgende dag by die dame kom wat die ontlonting doen, toe sê sy vir ons [die respondent lag] - dis
eintlik so wonderlik - toe sê sy vir ons, ag sy het nie eintlik werk om te doen nie. [Die respondent, haar
gesinslede en huishulp het nie berading nodig gehad nie]. Dis die Here, regtig.”
Respondent 12: “The next day A and I and the three children and the maid went to the Sinoville police
station for debriefing but the same evening still a friend of ours came here to us. He is actually a spiritual
counsellor. He came to us that same night and prayed with us and so on. When we got to the lady that had
to do the debriefing the following day, then she said to us [the respondent laughs] - it is actually so
wonderful - then she said to us, no there is not really anything for her to do. [The respondent, her family
members and the maid did not need counselling]. It is the Lord, really”.

One respondent whose daughter visited a psychologist was even of the opinion that not all
professionals help those who seek their aid in recovering from their trauma.

Respondent 3: “Hulle het gesê ons moet ’n sielkundige gaan sien. Die polisie het ons ’n adres en ’n
telefoonnommer gegee… . As mense sê ons moet na ’n sielkundige toe gaan, kyk ons net na mekaar. Wat
gaan hulle ons help? …B het met haar gepraat, maar dit was baie onpersoonlik. Sy was meer nuuskierig as
wat sy wou gehelp het.”
Respondent 3: “They said we must go and see a psychologist. The police gave us an address and a
telephone number…. .If people tell us to go to a psychologist, we just look at each other. How are they
going to help us? …B spoke to her, but it was very impersonal. She was more curious than she wanted to
help.”

320
- Research

Respondent 14 felt that she would benefit by taking part in the research. By talking about the incident,
she hoped to gain a better understanding of her emotions and also to accept that the death of her
spouse.

Respondent 14: “I agreed to this whole thing [the current research] simply for my benefit, but I don’t have
the financial capabilities to go and see a counsellor and it is not like, you know, the Police Service or
anybody else offers this type of voluntary service where people that are involved in something like this can
get together and try and work through their feelings. So in a manner of speaking it helps me to try and
understand and accept, because I only started accepting that he is not coming back or that he is not
coming through that door just a few months ago.”

• Individual adjustments

In spite of some of the negative emotional experiences, some of the respondents retain a positive
outlook on life.

- A learning experience

According to Janoff-Bulman & Frieze (1983:9), victims who are able to regard the victimisation event
as having served a purpose in their lives, more readily re-establish a belief in the world as an orderly,
understandable place. Respondents 4 and 10 regard the incident as a learning experience that serves
some purpose in their lives.

Respondent 4: “Hulle sê altyd ’n mens moet nooit ’n kas sluit nie, want hulle krap altyd om sleutels te kry.
Jy leer eers as jy daardeur gegaan het nie.”
Respondent 4: “They always say one must never lock a cupboard, because they always rummage around
for keys. You learn only after you have experienced it.”

Respondent 10: “As hy eers in is, hoe gaan jy hom uitkry? Ons het gelukkig daardie les ook geleer. Ons
moet ook nou met ’n ander scheme vorendag kom. As daar nou weer iets gebeur, ons het die alarm
buitekant. Nou ja, ons het nou weer iets geleer… .”
Respondent 10: “Once he is in, how are you going to get him out? Fortunately we learned that lesson too.

321
 We have to come up with another scheme now. Should something now happen again, we have the alarm
outside. Well, we have now learned something again… .”

- Christian principles

Respondents 3 and 5 are determind to adhere to their Christian principles of bearing no hate or any
wish for revenge against their offenders. The knowledge that they are succeeding in doing what they
believe is correct, helps them cope with their circumstances.

Respondent 3: “Ek haat nie. Dit doen meer skade… . Die Bybel sê wraak kom ons nie toe nie.”
Respondent 3: “I do not hate. That does more harm … . The Bible says we have no right to take revenge.”

Respondent 5: “Ek lees ’n boek waarin dit pragtig gestel is. Jy het iets soos ’n gewete, jy kry dit ook reg om
jou eie gewete te sus, maar jy sorg dat hy voor God skoon is… . Ons het weer ’n oulike werker. Hy neem
ook die kragmeterlesing as Eskom se werknemers kom vir die lesing. Hy is daardie ene se jonger broer.
Mense vra my: ‘Hoe kan jy dit doen?’. Hy is heeltemal ’n ander persoonlikheid as sy broer. Ek het geen
rede om hom nie werk te gee as om te sê hy is sy broer nie. Hy slaap nie hier nie, is baie intelligent. Hy het
my maar niks, maar niks aangedoen nie… . Ons is nou maar sulke mense… . Ons is mense wat leef en
laat leef… . Ons dra geen wrok nie. As ons predikant so eenmaal ’n kwartaal kom kuier, dan vra Dominee
A: ‘Hoe voel jy teenoor die man?’ In die begin [’n kort rukkie na die aanval] was dit moeilik. Dan sê ek: ‘Ek
weet nie, ek dra nie ’n wrok nie’. Hy sê: ‘Jy moet jou vyande liefhê’, dan sê ek: ‘Hy is dan seker nie ’n vyand
nie’. Die volgende keer as hy kom, as hy weer vra, sê ek: ‘Ek het hom lief soos ek die Satan liefhet’. ’n
Mens bly ’n mens. Daar is geen wrok of begeerte vir weerwraak… .”
Respondent 5: “I am reading a book in which it is stated beautifully. You have a conscience, you also
manage to soothe your conscience, but you see to it that your conscience is clear before God… . We now
have a nice worker again. He also takes the electricity readings when the Escom employees come for the
reading. He is that one’s younger brother. People ask me: ‘How can you do it?’. He is a totally different
personality from his brother. I have no reason not to employ him except to say that he is his brother. He
does not sleep here, is very intelligent. He has harmed me in no way, but in no way… . We are just such
people… . We are people who live and let live… . We bear no gruge. When our minister visits us once a
quarter, then Reverand A asks: ‘How do you feel about this man?’. In the beginning [a short while after the
attack] it was difficult. Then I say: ‘I do not know, I do not bear a grudge’. He says: ‘You must love your
enemy’, then I say: ‘Then perhaps he is not an enemy’. The next time he comes, when he asks again, I say:
‘I love him like I love Satan’. A person stays a person. There is no grudge or wish for revenge… .”

322
- Inner strength

Some of the respondents realised that they would not be able to depend on family and friends
indefinitely. One of the respondents, who relied heavily on family and friends immediately after the
attack, suspected that her coping abilities were being closely monitored. This served as a form of
motivaton for her to become self-reliant as soon as possible.

Respondent 3: “Baie van die familie het gedink ek gaan op ’n hopie sit… .”
Respondent 3: “Many family members thought I would sit in a little heap… .”

In order to prove those wrong who might have misgivings about her, she realised that she herself
would have to find ways to improve her negative mental disposition. In the first instance, she
suppressed thoughts of the incident.

Respondent 3: “As ek my oë toemaak, sien ek nog sy gesig voor my… . Die een het ’n lelike vel gehad. Sy
asem het na drank geruik. Sy voete was kaal, in die middel van Julie 2002 toe dit baie koud was. Die
kleintjie wat deur die venster geklim het en die deur oopgemaak het, het ’n ronde gesig gehad. Sulke geel
blink wange, en sy oë! Hy het suiwer Afrikaans gepraat. Hy het ’n swart jas aangehad, met silwer knope,
soos jare terug se nagwagte… . Ek het myself geleer om nie daaraan te dink nie.”
Respondent 3: “If I close my eyes, I still see his face in front of me… . The one had an ugly skin. His breath
smelt of liquor. His feet were bare in the middle of July 2002 when it was very cold. The little one that got
through the window and opened the door, had a round face. Such yellow shiny cheeks, and his eyes! He
spoke perfect Afrikaans. He had on a black coat, with silver buttons, like those of night watchmen years
ago… . I taught myself not to think about it.”

Respondent 3 also forced herself to engage in activities to keep her mind off the attack.

Respondent 3: “Ek kry nie tyd om te dink nie… . Iets wat Boetie [die respondent se seun wat plaas toe
gejaag het om te help toe sy suster hom gebel het] kwaad maak, is wanneer hy ’n ding begin en hy dink hy
gaan dit doen, dan het ek dit al klaar gedoen… . B en klein V [die respondent se kleinkind] hou my besig.”
Respondent 3: “I do not get time to think… . Something that annoys Boetie [the respondent’s son who
raced to the farm to help when his sister phoned him], is when he begins a task and he thinks he is going to
do it, then I have already completed it… . B and little V [the respondent’s grandchild] keep me busy.”

323
Respondent 3 also avoids watching violence on television.

Respondent 3: “Baie mense kyk hierdie skop-skiet-en-donder-prente. Na die aanval kyk ek nie maklik nie.
Dit gebeur in die werklike lewe ook.”
Respondent 3: “Many people watch these blood and thunder movies. After the attack I do not watch readily.
It also happens in real life.”

Respondent 9 spends her days reading Christian literature to keep her mind from dwelling on the
attack.

Respondent 9: “Ek lees baie godsdienstige boeke.”

Respondent 9: “I read many religious books.”

Respondent 15 also did something practical to help her cope. She had the servants’ quarters, from
where her movements were watched, demolished to prevent a similar occurrence.

Respondent 15: “Ons het die bediendekamers laat afbreek. Toe die bakstene val, dit het die ding vir my
gedoen.”
Respondent 15: “We had the servants’ quarters demolished. When the bricks fell, that did the thing for me.”

Most of the respondents (Respondents 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) have identified something for
which they can be thankful. Creating hypothetical worse worlds is one of the self-enhancing strategies
often used by victims to alleviate the distress caused by having to admit that they came off second
best to another human being (Janoff-Bulman & Frieze, 1983:8).

Respondent 2: “Hulle gesigte was heeltemal oop. Hulle kon gedink het ek sou hulle later uitken en my
summier geskiet het.”
Respondent 2: “Their faces were completely exposed. They could have thought that I would identify them
later and shot me there and then.”

Respondent 3: “Die Here was goed vir my. Ek het nie een nagmerrie gekry nie… . Die Here is goed vir ons.
Ek sê elke dag dankie vir die huis. Ons wou hom al in die verlede verkoop het, maar ons het nie… . Die
kinders is darem standvastig. Hulle doen nog hul dinge. Dis nie asof hulle op ’n ashoop sit nie. Ek kon
miskien weer begin drink het.”
Respondent 3: “The Lord was good to me. I did not have one nightmare… . The Lord is good to us. I say
thank you for the house each day. We have already wanted to sell it in the past, but we did not… . The
324
children are really steadfast. They still go about their business. It is not as though they are struck numb. I
could perhaps have started drinking again.”

Respondent 5: “’n Mens is darem dankbaar vir die gebruik van jou bene en hande. Ek ken die frustrasie
van nie eens my naam te kan teken nie.”
Resondent 5: “One is thankful for the use of one’s legs and hands though. I know the frustration of not even
being able to sign my name.”

Respondent 8: “…but fortunately they didn’t think to open the safe where the guns were kept… .
Fortunately, as I say, our lives were saved and fortunately for me, we had medical aid because our hospital
bill for the operation was R65 000… . But we’ve still got our lives, that’s the main thing. If I didn’t have a
medical aid, I mean, I get a pension of R2 000 and my husband gets an old age pension, and we wouldn’t
have had money to pay. But fortunately I worked when he was on the farm. I carried on working so when I
retired, my medical aid … I must stipulate the company tried to get me to leave the medical aid, but I said:
‘No ways, I’m not doing away with my medical aid’, which was a blessing, because we would have been
really, I don’t know, my daughters would have had to pay for us, you know, and you can’t expect your
children to pay for everythin.g They [the medical aid] paid it all. If I didn’t have a Barlows medical aid, I don’t
know what I would have done … but luckily I still have my life, I still live my life… .”

Respondent 9: “Dank die Vader hulle het nie my .38 gekry nie, want hy was op ’n plek waar hulle nooit sou
kyk nie. En toe dog ek nou moet ek my doodhou, anderste as hulle sien ek leef, dan… .”
Respondent 9: “Thank the Father they did not find my .38, because it was in a place where they would
never have looked. And then I thought now I must pretend to be dead, otherwise if they see I am alive,
then… .”

Respondent 10: “Ek het een klein safe onder in die kelder. Gelukkig hy was oop, want kyk, as hy toegesluit
was, dan was daar nog groter moeilikheid.”
Respondent 10: “I do have a small safe down in the cellar. Fortunately it was open, because look, if it were
locked, then there would have been even greater trouble.”

Respondent 11: “My eerlike opinie is dat as ek nie losgekom het nie, was daar groot drama. Y het in haar
nagklere gelê op die mat, en die twee vrouens was heeltemal weerloos. Ek is oortuig daarvan as ek nie
losgekom het nie, was hulle onsedelik aangerand of verkrag of almal van ons doodgeskiet… . As ek nie
losgekom het nie, sou dit uitgeloop het op ’n tragiese storie.”
Respondent 11: “My honest opinion is that if I had not freed myself, there would have been great drama. Y
was lying on the carpet in her pyjamas, and the two womenfolk were completely defenceless. I am
convinced that if I had not freed myself, they would have been indecently assaulted or raped or all of us
325
would have been shot dead… . If I had not freed myself, it would have ended in a tragedy.”

Respondent 12: “En ek dink die Here het … Hy het my ongelooflike kalmte gegee, jy weet, want as jy, as jy
so te kere gaan, dan is dit regtig verby. As my huishulp te kere gegaan het, dan het hulle ons geskiet… . ’n
Mens dink wat kon gebeur het, byvoorbeeld met my dogter, wat ’n tiener was, of is, wat op daardie stadium
nog ’n tiener was… . Hulle het geweet ek gaan fokus op die kar voor en gelukkig vir hulle was my seun se
deur nie gesluit nie… . Toe ons uitkom, staan die twee skooltasse in die middel van die kombuisvloer met
my dogtertjie se skoolskoene wat sy uitgetrek het op die tas en ’n ID-dokument het hy daar neergesit, maar
dit was my ou ID-dokument. [Die respondent lag]. My handsak en my bankkaarte en goed het hy toe
saamgevat. Hy het ’n ou een, ID-dokument wat voor in die paneelkassie van die kar gelê het, uitgehaal… .
Die kinders was eintlik, eintlik wonderlik. [Hulle was nie bang na die aanval nie]. Weet jy, daardie selfde
aand toe sê ek en A vir hulle, as hulle nou wil, kan ons matrasse in die kamer indra, dan kan ons nou saam
slaap. Maar nee, hulle gaan elkeen in hulle eie kamer slaap, en elkeen het in hul eie kamer gaan slaap en
dwardeur die nag geslaap. Dis net die Here. Niemand anders kan dit doen nie. Ja, niemand anderste nie.
Ja, dit was ’n slegte ervaring, maar daar was ook positiewe dinge daaraan verbonde. Jy weet, hoe die Here
Sy hand oor my kan hou. Hy laat wel die goed gebeur, maar Hy beskerm my… . Ja, so dis basies ons
storie. [Die respondent lag]. Ja, regtig, die kinders was wonderlik. Ja, ja, hulle het eksamen gaan skryf en
nie baie lank daarna nie het hulle vir ons gesê ag, hulle is nie bang nie, hulle sal alleen bly as ons iewerste
heengaan. En hulle bly vingeralleen. Ons gaan uit en los hulle. Ons reël net met een van die bure. Daar is
’n woonstel, en ons het huurders in die woonstel. Jy weet, so dikwels as ons iewers heen gaan, dan is hulle
[die huurders] hier, dan is hulle nie alleen-alleen hier nie.”
Respondent 12: “And I think the Lord did … He gave me unbelievable calmness, you know, because if you,
if you take on like that, then it is really over. If my maid took on, then they would have shot us… . One
thinks what might have happened, for example with my daughter, who was a teenager, or who still is, who
was still a teenager at that stage… . They knew I would focus on the car in front and luckily for them my
son’s door was not locked… . When we got out, the two school cases stood in the middle of the kitchen
floor with my daughter’s school shoes that she had taken off on top of the case and an ID-document he put
down there, but it was my old ID-document. [The respondent laughs]. My handbag and my bank cards and
things he took with him. He took out an old one, ID-document that was lying in the cubby-hole… . The
children were actually, actually wonderful. [They were not afraid after the attack]. You know, that same
night A and I said to them, that if they wanted to, we can carry mattresses into the room, then we can all
sleep together. But no, they both wanted to sleep in their own bedroom, and they both did sleep in their
own bedroom and right through the night. It is just the Lord. Nobody else can do it. Yes, nobody else. Yes,
it was a bad experience, but there was also a positive side to it. You know, how the Lord can hold His hand
over me. He does allow these things to happen, but he protects me… . Yes, so that’s basically my story.
[The respondent laughs]. Yes, really, the children were wonderful. Yes, yes, they went and wrote exams
and not long after that they said to us, no, they are not afraid, they will stay alone if we go somewhere. And
326
 they stay all alone. We go out and leave them. We just arrange with one of the neighbours. There is a flat,
and we do have tenants in the flat. You know, so often when we go somewhere, then they [the tenants] are
here, then they are not here alone-alone.”

6.3 SUMMARY

In this chapter, farmers’ perceptions regarding their susceptibility to farm attacks were investigated. All
those interviewed were aware of farm attacks, and, with the exception of two, felt unsafe on their
farms before the victimisation. They were all taken by surprise by their attackers in spite of their
awareness of the possibility of being attacked. They were able to identify weaknesses in their security
systems and routines that provided the opportunity for offenders to succeed in the attacks on them.

Analysis of the data accessed from the respondents revealed that errroneous perceptions of the
motives for attacks and of the perpetrators of attacks, together with complacency about security
matters which sets in because of the routine nature of farmers’ lifestyle, were the main reasons for
farmers’ susceptibility to victimisation.

According to the respondents, surprise, fear and powerlessness were the immediate reactions to
attacks. Anger and bitterness set in afterwards.

Some respondents preferred to relocate after an attack. Most suffered physical, emotional, social and
economic consequences. While many feared re-victimisation, they also found it too costly to
implement the necessary target hardening tactics. Avoidance behaviour in the form of alertness was
identified as the most effective means of preventing future victimisation.

Respondents’ reactions and coping strategies varied. Some relied on their Christian faith and the
support of family and friends while others relied on their inner strength to help them regain their
emotional equilibrium.

327
7. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

From the findings of this study, it is clear that farmers’ lifestyle often provides the circumstances
that favour attacks on farmers. Their isolation and inadequate guardianship provide offenders with
opportunities to attack farmers while they are engaged in occupational or leisure activities. First-
hand experience of victims of farm attacks as shared in the current study, has made it possible to
gain more detailed information regarding specific acts and omissions that have increased certain
farmers’ risks of being victimised. While some of these are related to their lifestyle, others can be
linked to erroneous perceptions about the motives for farm attacks as well as the identity and
calibre of offenders that perpetrate attacks.

As most farms can be described as ‘one-man-businesses’ the impact of any physical, emotional,
social and financial harm reverberates through family members and workers alike. The productivity
and therefore also the profitability of the farms are often negatively affected for a long period after
the attacks. In short, nothing can be the same again. Distrust, anger, and in some cases where
racism surfaces or is exacerbated because of the inter-racial victimisation (see Respondent 11),
attacks on farmers have a destabilising affect in the rural areas.

Coping strategies of victims of farm attacks do not differ fundamentally from those of victims of
other types of crime, yet some practical examples that helped some victims of attacks to overcome
their distress could be identified during the study that might aid other victims to regain their
psychological equilibrium more readily. The negative impact of the lack of support, particularly by
family members also came to the fore. Victims who received the support of family members as well
as that of community members, are able to cope more effectively than those who feel betrayed by
those they believed they could rely on in times of distress. Some victims could rely on their inner
strength to help them cope with the consequences of the negative experience.

In this chapter, attention will first be given to the extent to which the objectives in Chapter 1 have
been attained. Themes for further research that emerged from the study will also be identified after
which recommendations will be made on how government can help to reduce farm attacks and on
how farmers themselves may reduce the risk of victimisation without necessarily over capitalising
on target hardening devices.

328
7.1 ATTAINMENT OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Research can be of value only if there are clear objectives, therefore the objectives as stated in
Chapter 1 will be evaluated and discussed.

• Objective 1

Objective 1 was to determine farmers’ perceptions of their susceptibility to farm attacks. Two
farmers (see Respondents 3 and 8) perceived themselves safe from attacks. Their feelings of
safety were generated by misconceptions regarding the motives behind farm attacks. One farmer
(see Respondent 2), did not feel less safe on the farm than in the city, but he believed that
witnesses in a city would more readily render assistance to a victim of crime than would be the
case on a farm. Three farmers (see Respondent 6, 9 and 15) felt constrained from improving their
security to the degree that they might have wished. Respondent 6 who leased a farmhouse, felt he
could not upgrade the security of the farmhouse sufficiently with his own meagre financial
resources. He also believed that it was the duty of his landlord to ensure that the farmhouse was
secure. Other factors, for example ill health and the physical injuries that he sustained during the
attack, also played a role. At the time of the interview, approximately two years after the attack, he
had not yet set about welding the iron rods that he had purchased after the attack for burglar
proofing. Familial constraints prevented Respondent 9 who lived alone on a farm that she had
inherited, from increasing her guardianship on the farm. Her daughter and son-in-law, whom she
might have asked to live on the farm with her, could practise their professions only in a city.
Respondent 13 believed that, while he had secured his house with burglar proofing and security
gates, it was his right as a South African citizen and as a landowner, to relax with his family
members on the veranda at the end of a hot summer’s day without having to do so within the
confines of his secured farmhouse. Respondent 15, on the other hand, indicated that she was
unable to manage without black labour on her farm and that she would, for this reason, have to run
the risk of being attacked again by black people. While the remaining eight farmers (see
Respondents 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 14) might not have felt completely safe, it is necessary that
the resources that each farmer has available to spend on target hardening measures be weighed
up against the risk of being victimised. They had all improved their security as best they could
under their individual circumstances, but this was not sufficient to prevent the attacks on them.
Target hardening measures that might have been regarded as adequate, also did not prevent
Respondents 11 and 12 from being victimised. Respondent 11 who believed that he probably had
the best security system in Nokeng Tsa Taemane, Gauteng Province, had not yet locked his
329
farmhouse doors when he and his family members were attacked early in the evening as he was in
the habit of going outside later to check on his animals. The spouse of Respondent 14 who also
had a good security system installed in her house before the attack, was victimised when he left
the secure farmhouse after dark to park his vehicle in the garage. Respondent 12, who might have
been safe in her well secured home, was attacked on her farm road where she and her family
members were more vulnerable to criminal victimisation than inside her house. Farmers who might
have felt safe at the time of the attack because of the presence of workers and/or dogs (see
Respondents 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, and 15), were also susceptible to victimisation as the offenders
were able to deal effectively with this form of guardianship.

One farmer (see Respondent 5) who regarded himself as fairly safety conscious, was the only one
of the 15 farmers that were interviewed that was attacked by his own employee. Obligatory
associations in the work place therefore might also play a role in increasing some farmers’
susceptibility to attacks. While Respondent 5 might not have felt that his employee was a safety
threat to him before the attack, he was nevertheless attacked by him. From the above findings, it is
clear that farmers are attacked whether they perceive themselves as being susceptible to farm
attacks or whether they feel safe from victimisation.

The study showed that motivated offenders find alternative locations to victimise the farmers that
they have labelled suitable targets if their homes have been secured too effectively for them to gain
entry (see Respondent 12). Increased mobilisation of the population has also increased the
susceptibility of farmers to victimisation, as they no longer have to guard against being attacked by
members of the local population only. The attackers of Respondents 2, 7, 10 and 12 arrived on the
farms in motor vehicles. The availability and affordability of firearms, tools that facilitate entry to
farmers’ homes and means of incapacitating farmers and their family members, also play a role in
increasing their susceptibility to attacks. The attackers of Respondents 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14 and 15
were all armed on arrival. The attackers of Respondent 7 brought their own tool to remove the
burglar proofing and the offenders in Respondent 10’s case brought cable ties to ensure that he
and his spouse were securely tied up while they ransacked the house. The ability of offenders to
obtain uniforms worn by security forces that might cause some farmers to be beguiled more
readily, also increases farmers’ susceptibility to farm attacks. The attackers of Respondent 10 and
his spouse wore police uniforms and the offenders in the case of Respondent 9, changed into
uniforms worn by members of the SANDF.

330
As a variety of views regarding farmers’ perceptions about their susceptibility to farm attacks were
established in the course of the study, it is the researcher’s contention that objective 1 has been
met by the information obtained from the respondents.

Objective 2

Objective 2 was to determine the consequences of farm attacks for farmers.

Most victims’ injuries were minor injuries that were caused by rope, wire and cable ties that the
offenders used to tie them up securely while they ransacked their homes (see Respondents 1, 2, 3,
4, 6, 7, 8 and 9). Serious injuries that required hospitalisation, for over two months in one case
(see Respondent 5), surgery (see Respondents 5, 7 and 8) and therapy in a rehabilitation centre
(see Respondent 5), were also inflicted by the offenders. Some (see Respondents 5, 7 and 8) also
bear physical scars that will remind them of their ordeal for the rest of their lives. One farmer (see
Respondent 7) experiences difficulty in carrying on a conversation, as his vocal cords were
damaged by the offender’s bullet. This affects his social as well as occupational life as he no
longer uses a telephone. Another farmer (see Respondent 8) cannot walk as well as she was
accustomed in winter when it is cold as the stainless steel plate in her leg causes her additional
pain.

Emotional harm was severe in some cases, sometimes resulting in deterioration in the quality of
life led by the farmers (see Respondent 9, 14 and 15). In more serious cases (see Respondents 4,
11 and 12), paranoia and phobias that are characteristics of the PTSD, also became evident.
Anger at being victimised and fear of re-victimisation caused most respondents to distrust or be
wary of black people in general. Some also distrust their employees (see Respondents 1, 3, 4. 11,
12 and 15) and members of the SAPS (see Respondent 10). Respondent 11 who had always gone
out of his way to help black people, vows never to do so again in the future. Fear of being re-
victimised has caused Respondent 15 to forbear the pleasure of taking her eleven dogs for walks
in the veld as she had been accustomed to doing before she was attacked. Attacks therefore have
a negative effect on the lives of both respondents and workers.

Financial loss was suffered by the majority of farmers (see Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11,
12 and 13). Items that were robbed in many of the attacks include jewellery (see Respondents 1, 2,
3, 12 and 13), firearms (see Respondents 2, 4, 12 and 13) and motor vehicles (see Respondent 2,
4, 9 12). Other items such as cellular phones (see Respondents 3 and 11), money (see
Respondents 2 and 13), electrical appliances (see Respondents 12 and 13), clothes (see
331
Respondents 4 and 12), a computer (see Respondent 12) a car radio, tools and a spare wheel
(see Respondent 13) as well as a handbag and a moon bag (see Respondents 10 and 12) were
also robbed.

It was established that farmers suffered physical injuries, emotional harm, social consequences
and financial losses. It is therefore the researcher’s contention that objective 2 was also met.

Objective 3

Objective 3 was to identify the coping strategies that victims implemented during and after the
attacks on them.

A variety of strategies were identified, the main one being the victims’ reliance on their Christian
faith to carry them through the event and the healing process (see Respondents 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 12,
and 15). Respondents 1, 3, 9, 12 and 15 prayed to the Lord during the attacks on them to save
their lives. Respondents 4, 5, 9 and 12 repeatedly called on the Lord to help them during their
healing process and also to give thanks for sparing their lives and making their circumstances
bearable.

Immediately after the attacks, some of the farmers (see Respondents 3, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15) were
able to cope due to help rendered by members of the SAPS and commando units who arrived
speedily and ensured their safety while they also went about their duty of trying to find and
apprehend the offenders. Family, friends and neighbours of Respondents 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12,
and 14 also supported the victims in many ways. Some offered practical assistance, such as
summoning the police and doctor (see Respondents 4, 9 and 11), taking the victims to hospital
(see Respondents 4, 7 and 10), accompanying the surviving spouse to hospital (see Respondent
14), providing accommodation (see Respondent 2), helping to clear the disarray left by the
attackers (see Respondent 10) and taking over the victim’s farming duties and rebuilding the
gutted farmhouse while the victim recovered in hospital (see Respondent 5). Friends and family of
Respondent 3 also provided financial support. They paid all the expenses of her spouse’s funeral.

Only two respondents, Respondent 6 and Respondent 14, believed that they did not receive the
necessary emotional support from a neighbour and a family member respectively. A neighbour of
Respondent 6 was insensitive when he joked about the attackers coming to give him a hiding while
he and his spouse were nearly killed by the attacker wielding a heavy iron irrigation pipe. A sister

332
of Respondent 14 failed to come to her assistance when called upon to do so when her help and
support were required after her brother-in-law had been bludgeoned to death.

In the cases of the attacks on Respondents 2, 3, 10, 11 and 12 the victims went for professional
counselling to help them cope with their circumstances. While some farmers (see Respondents 2
and 10) felt it might not have been necessary to go, Respondent 3, whose daughter was also shot
at by the escaping offenders, verbalised that she was not helped in any way by the psychologist
she consulted. Respondent 14 felt that by taking part in the research and discussing her feelings, it
helped her understand and to accept that her husband had been killed and would not come
walking in at the door.

Respondents 4 and 10 coped by finding purpose in the attacks. Both regarded the attacks on them
as a learning experience. Respondent 3, who also had a positive outlook, relied on her inner
strength to help her cope with her spouse’s untimely death. She forced herself to engage in
activities that would keep her mind off the attack and also avoided watching blood and thunder
movies that would remind her of the violence that she witnessed during the attack. Most of the
farmers (see Respondents 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12) created hypothetical worse worlds that
caused them to be thankful that they did not suffer more harm.

While the importance of positive social support was also reaffirmed by the study, the negative
effect of the lack of understanding and support of a neighbour and a family member highlighted the
secondary harm that can be done to victims who have already fallen prey to offenders. Based on
these findings, objective 3 was also met successfully.

7.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations regarding further research on themes that emerged from the study, will first be
made. These will be followed by recommendations on ways in which Government and farmers may
reduce the number of successful farm attacks. Based on the findings of the study, the focus will
however be on practical ways in which farmers can themselves reduce their susceptibility to
victimisation, keep the level of violence used against them to a minimum and also cope with the
consequences if they fail in their efforts to prevent victimisation.

333
7.2.1 Recommendations with regard to further research

According to Pretorius and Theron (1999:23) new aspects or themes that emerge during the
course of research on a particular topic need to be identified and discussed. With regard to the
current study, certain areas that warrant further research have been identified.

7.2.1.1 Larger samples

While the objectives of the study were attained and rich first-hand information was accessed
regarding the perceived susceptibility of farmers, the consequences of farm attacks and the coping
strategies used, the study should be regarded merely as a basis or starting point for further
research. As it was qualitative and exploratory in nature and the sample was small, none of the
findings can be generalised. Research needs to be undertaken with larger samples to confirm if
farmers’ perceptions about their susceptibility to farm attacks are in line with the occurrence of farm
attacks. It is also necessary to establish whether erroneous beliefs regarding the motives for
attacks and the nature of offenders who commit farm attacks, affect farmers’ chances in any way of
becoming aware of criminal activity that might be planned against them and also of dealing with
attacks effectively when they occur. Research also needs to be undertaken to establish if the
coping strategies of farmers who are attacked differ in any way from those of other victims of crime
and in particular from those of victims of house robberies in cities that show a great similarity to
farm attacks. As one of the three respondents (see Respondents 1, 2 and 3) who moved off the
farms after the attacks, namely Respondent 3, also changed her occupation after the attack, this
additional challenge might have demanded additional coping skills, which warrant further research.

7.2.1.2 Typology of victims of farm attacks

As theory that is relevant to the susceptibility of farmers to farm attacks is limited, a good starting
point might be to develop a typology of victims of attacks. Mc Kinney (1966:23) defines a typology
as “a purposive, planned selection, abstraction, combination and accentuation of a set of criteria
that have empirical referents and that serve as a basis for comparison of empirical cases”. A
typology of farm attack victims that is a set or combination of the most important characteristics, of
farm attack victims which makes them different from other groups of victims, for example vehicle
hijacking victims, might be of great value. The small sample that was used in the current research
prohibits the researcher from reaching any meaningful conclusion from the information that was
accessed in the course of the study on hand. Researchers using a large sample of victims of farm
attacks might establish if there are any traits or characteristics that can be singled out that
334
contribute to some farmers being labelled more suitable targets for victimisation than others. By
identifying and highlighting, for example economic, physical, psychological and social
characteristics that are possibly taken into consideration by offenders when selecting their victims,
researchers might become aware of specific attractions, weaknesses, habits and/or constraints
that contribute to their susceptibility to criminal victimisation. Based on this information, a theory
might be developed that could explain some aspects of the phenomenon.

Developing a typology of farm attack victims could also have further advantages. It might serve the
purpose of sensitising farmers and members of the crime prevention units of the SAPS to the
factors that contribute to farmers being attacked. It might also aid them to predict with relative
accuracy if a farmer who exhibits those characteristics and who finds himself in circumstances that
are conducive to criminal victimisation, will be victimised or not. By classifying individuals who have
fallen prey to perpetrators of farm attacks, it might also be possible to gain a better understanding
of the conduct that sometimes precipitates or provokes attacks against farmers. This might lead to
corrective actions that could prevent death, injury, harm, damage and/or destruction of a farmer’s
property. Empirical comparisons might then be made which could possibly lead to more accurate
analyses of findings.

As a number of factors contribute to farmers being targeted, future researchers might find it useful
to refer to the typologies of Van der Westhuizen (1977:123-125) and Pretorius (1986:41-43) that
have victim susceptibility as the main criterion. These authors cover a wide range of personal
characteristics of victims. As most of the respondents interviewed by the researcher may be
classified as middle-aged or elderly, the researcher suggests that the typology of Pretorius be used
as a basis for the classification of victims of farm attacks. Researchers might also find certain
aspects with regard to susceptibility that came to light during the course of the study helpful in
developing a typology. Thus, while the sample that was used was too small to generalise and to
draw up a formal typology, the value of the study lies in the fact that certain aspects can be
highlighted and investigated:

• According to Pretorius (1986:41), the aged person’s vulnerability is centred in his personality,
physical condition, as well as economic and social conditions in which he finds himself as a
result of his particular lifestyle. Elderly victims might, for example, be more gullible and trusting
(Pretorius, 1986:41), but possibly also more naïve and ignorant of crime. While Respondent 10
and his spouse are in no way to be blamed for being deceived by the four offenders who gained
access to their home under the pretext that they were police officers investigating a recent
burglary, it would be informative if it could be established whether the offenders would have

335
selected them or used the same modus operandi if the couple were younger and possibly more
familiar with police ranks and investigating procedures. Sarcasm, the threatening attitude and
quarrelsome nature of some elderly individuals can also provoke offenders into victimising them
(Pretorius, 1986:42). Respondent 6 who always reprimanded trespassers that walked through
his farmyard and passed close to his house, believes his attacker whose voice sounded familiar
to him, had taken offence on one of these occasions and returned to take revenge on him and
his elderly spouse while they lay sleeping on their bed in front of the window. According to
Pretorius (1986:43), elderly individuals who rely only on their pensions for an income, might live
in homes that are unguarded or only partially protected by target hardening devices such as
burglar bars and security gates. She also believes that the physical condition of the elderly could
attract the attention of potential wrongdoers, as it might be obvious that they cannot defend
themselves. Respondent 6, an elderly farmer, had been discharged from hospital only a few
weeks prior to the attack, slept soundly because of his prescribed medication and did not hear
their attackers outside the bedroom before they had broken the window. Sometimes persons’
most valuable qualities (e.g. kindness and/or generosity) also render them easy victims.
Respondent 5 was attacked by a young worker that had grown up on his farm. He had given him
a bicycle, maintained it and provided him with holiday jobs while he was in high school.
Respondent 5 therefore possibly also did not regard him as a threat to his safety, making it
easier for the offender to take him by surprise.

• Available data show that the risk of victimisation from crime such as common theft or assault,
which often takes place during the course of farm attacks, varies considerably by the
characteristics of persons (Gottfredson, 1981:717). While Hindelang et al. (1978:251), Fattah
(1991:145) and Separovic (1974:18) concur that there are often characteristics, regularities and
typical elements in the victims’ personalities that contribute to the offences committed against
them, they also believe that victims’ attitude towards the offences and the offenders is taken into
account at the moral level when preparing for the commission of their crimes. It is the
researcher’s contention that some farmers’ attitudes or beliefs about farm attacks and their
opinions about perpetrators of attacks need to be reconsidered. Those who believe that the
motive for farm attacks is usually revenge, might perceive themselves as being safe from
victimisation if they have not offended or harmed anyone and might therefore be taken by
surprise more easily than those who are more wary of victimisation. Those who are of the
opinion that perpetrators of attacks are usually farmers’ own employees, might thus
underestimate the capabilities and guile of offenders who have sometimes committed farm
attacks or other violent crimes successfully in the past. Erroneous beliefs about motives for
attacks, as well as about perpetrators of attacks, could result in complacency about security

336
matters. Perpetrators of farm attacks could perceive farmers who are careless or negligent about
their security as easier and more suitable targets than those farmers who believe that all farmers
are potential victims and therefore exercise greater vigilance and more caution when going
about their daily tasks and leisure activities. According to Van Wyk (Report of the Committee of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003q:4), some middle-aged to elderly farmers might also erroneously
believe that they are deserving victims because of the socio-political history of the country. They
might therefore neglect to safeguard themselves and their possessions to the best of their ability.

• According to Gulota (1976:50), the victim usually stands in a relationship with the offender.
The behaviour of one is seen as a function of the behaviour of the other, therefore the victim
might contribute to his own victimisation. Von Hentig (1948:383-384) adds that a wide range of
interactions takes place between offenders and victims during which both attractions and
repulsions play a role. For this reason it might be useful to attempt to understand crime in a
broader perspective. Future researchers might therefore also give attention to the interplay of
words and acts between the offenders and the victims before and during the course of attacks.
From this information, ways might be identified in which the level of violence against the victims
of future attacks might be reduced to the minimum. For example, provocative and/or
precipitating behaviour in the form of repulsive acts, words and/or gestures, or simply physical
resistance by victims against the perpetrators, might cause those individuals to be regarded as
legitimate and/or deserving targets and thereby increase the level of violence used against them.
On the other hand, fawning or grovelling victims or those who are unable to conceal their fear,
might also elicit the same level of violence. Hysterical victims might readily raise the level of
violence used during attacks as some of the offenders are sometimes themselves nervous,
agitated or angry. Respondent 11 highlighted the threats and the cocking of pistols by his
attackers if he and his family members so much as moved. Respondent 12 who described her
attackers as ‘jittery’, believes her calmness during the course of the attack saved her and her
children from being injured by their attackers. A comparison might then also be made of the
interactions that take place when farmers are attacked by lone offenders and when attacked by
groups of two or more offenders. A lone offender might react differently to the same stimuli for a
number of reasons. He might be more nervous because he is alone, more fearful of being
overpowered by his victim(s) and may therefore not hesitate to use more violence from the
outset, irrespective of the words or actions of his victim(s). He might then also perceive it as an
advantage that he has no accomplices who might later turn state witness, identify and testify
against him if he were apprehended and brought to trial. Members of groups, on the other hand,
might wish to impress accomplices with their hard-handedness or cruelty. Where criminal gangs

337
are involved, initiates might have to prove their worth to more accomplished gang members or to
earn acceptance and gang membership.

• As it is all potential victims’ functional responsibility to prevent victimisation incidents, future

researchers might find it beneficial to extend their investigations further than the personal
behavioural characteristics that might be adapted to enhance farmers’ security. They might also
include an investigation of the role that is played by financial, legal and familial constraints in
preventing farmers from securing their farmhouses and/or farms effectively. Financial
constraints, for example could prevent potential victims from purchasing security systems or
employing security guards. Respondent 6 rented a farmhouse from a farmer who constantly put
off upgrading the security of the farmhouse that he leased to the elderly couple. As they could
hardly afford to secure the farmhouse themselves, they came to rely on their dogs to give
warning of approaching offenders. Attention might once again be given to victims’ beliefs about
farm attacks and the perpetrators of attacks. Erroneous beliefs could result in delays or even
omissions in upgrading security even if no financial constraints came into play. By potential
victims’ actions or omissions they strengthen stimuli to commit crime against them (Fattah,
1976:113).

• From the attack on Respondent 8 it became clear that perpetrators of farm attacks, like other
offenders, are selective when choosing their victims, that they do not necessarily attack at
random even if the circumstances are favourable and the risk of apprehension minimal. The
neighbour of Respondent 8 accosted their two attackers while they were on their way to the
victims’ farm. The farmer was alone in his vehicle, parked in an isolated field, outnumbered and
probably unarmed. At the time he also had in his possession two sought-after items that the
armed attackers demanded and/or removed from the elderly couple only a short while later,
namely a cellular phone and a motor vehicle. All these factors would normally have been
regarded as contributing to his susceptibility to criminal victimisation and to the perception that
he was a safe, easy and also lucrative target, yet he was not attacked. While there might have
been a number of reasons why he was not perceived as a suitable target at that particular point
in time, it could be of value to identify the characteristics of his neighbours that labelled them
more suitable targets while he was purposely avoided or simply overlooked. One possible
reason might have been that the offenders might have suspected that he was reporting their
presence to someone on his cellular phone when they were approaching him. Another reason
might have been that he was younger and probably more able to defend himself than the elderly
couple. Other factors pertaining to the offenders might also need to be considered. The fact that
the two offenders had already selected their target and done their pre-attack reconnaissance on
338
 the farm, can also not be ignored. While this could be an indication of their determination to
attack that particular farmer, it could also indicate that they did not have the ability to alter their
plans at short notice. This shortcoming, could be to their advantage in some instances, but it
could also be of assistance to members of the security forces who have knowledge of a planned
attack to predict more accurately how offenders might react under certain circumstances.

Schafer (1969:142) warns that no typology can be perfect. Human behaviour is complex and
therefore cannot be divided into clear-cut individual categories. However, a typology of victims of
farm attacks would have value in creating an awareness of factors that might lead to victimisation
as it would throw more light on combinations of characteristics and behaviours that are most
commonly perceived as contributing to farmers’ susceptibility to attacks. This being so, it must also
be borne in mind that potential victims, like offenders, exercise certain choices. Farmers’ attitude
towards research might also play a role in the making of their choices. Some farmers might accept
the research findings and make the necessary adaptations to enhance their safety. Others might
choose to ignore the findings, particularly as typologies are essentially discretionary and
exploratory. Therefore besides research, alternative means should not be overlooked to encourage
farmers to engage in more effective avoidance or target-hardening behaviour.

7.2.1.3 Brutality of attacks and violence used

It is seriously recommended that in-depth research be undertaken to determine from convicted

offenders the reason(s) why farmers are often tortured and murdered in a brutal manner (Pretorius,
1997:11). One such brutal attack was that of the elderly Cross couple who were ambushed and
murdered in their farmhouse near Gravelotte in Mpumalanga in April 2000. Their attackers
undressed the farmer, tied him to the bath, throttled him with ties and tried to drown him by forcing
hot water down his throat. Both he and his wife were then shot by the offenders (Kotzé, 2001a:29).
In another farm attack near Groblersdal in Mpumalanga, attackers shot and killed the farmer and
his wife, then abducted their nine-year old son, assaulted him brutally and left him gagged and
bound to a boundary fence. In an attack that lasted approximately seven hours near Roossenekal
in Mpumalanga, the elderly farmer was tortured for hours before being shot in the head. His wife
managed to untie herself and hide in the bushes until daybreak the following morning when she
went to seek help (Viljoen, 2007a:1).

Research might also be undertaken to determine ways in which to keep the levels of violence
down during farm attacks. While there is no guarantee that victims will in fact react as planned
when attacked because of the impact of shock and fear, research findings on ways in which victims

339
can keep themselves from over reacting and/or provoking offenders who are often already
nervous, might act as a guideline to the most appropriate behaviour during the course of an attack.
While prayer helped Respondents 1 and 12 and her children to remain calm throughout their
ordeal, other victims of a more recent farm attack in the Mpumalanga Province that was not
included in the study on hand, found that prayer provoked one of their nervous attackers (Keppler,
2006a:6). It thus seems that victims would have to ‘read’ the situation in each case, if given the
opportunity, in order to gauge which behaviour would be the most beneficial in their particular
situation (Bellingan, 2006a:21). According to Kitshoff, a Johannesburg psychologist who has been
hijacked on four occasions, it is generally the intensity of the attack, as well as victims’ previous
experience in stressful situations, that determines how individuals will react when victimised
(Bellingan, 2006b:21). He emphasises the need to make children aware of crime and to explain to
them the importance of carrying out their parents’ orders should they find themselves in a
dangerous situation. Once again, there is no guarantee that they will react as taught, but they
would at least have an idea of what is expected of them. The complete obedience of the two young
children of Respondent 12, paid off in that particular case as they came to no harm in spite of the
obvious nervousness of one member of the group who held his firearm pointed at the little girl’s
thigh for the duration of their drive to the farmhouse. Research on the ways in which stressful
situations were diffused successfully, might also make potential victims aware of a number of
different options that might be available should they find that they need to diffuse their attackers’
aggression.

7.2.1.4 Other aspects

Other aspects or themes that should receive more research attention include the following:

• It is recommended that research be done to determine the effect of media coverage of

farm attacks. Some farmers claim that there is too little coverage of rural crime, both of intra-
racial and inter-racial crime. A greater awareness of the negative effects of crime in rural
areas where many of the country’s poorest reside, could induce Government to allocate more
police officers to outlying police stations. However, more publicity of inter-racial crime could
polarise the black and white communities and result in destabilised areas where vigilante
activity and revenge attacks might cause an escalation in personal crimes. Detailed coverage
of rural crime might also emphasise the shortcomings in security that makes farmers and their
employees easy targets (Cilliers, 1998l:71). Reporting on items stolen during farm attacks can
also cause some farmers to be perceived as lucrative targets that can be victimised with little
risk of apprehension. It is the researcher’s contention that speculation in the media that

340
revenge for ill-treatment of workers as one of the main motives for farm attacks has caused
some farmers (Respondents 3 and 8) who treat their employees well, to believe that they are
safe on their farms. As already stated, this has in some instances resulted in complacency
about security, which has resulted in some farmers (Respondents 3 and 8) becoming easy
targets.

• It is furthermore suggested that research be undertaken to determine the susceptibility of

farm workers to farm attacks. Many are not armed as effectively as farm owners and their
homes are not always as secure as those of the farmers. They are also more exposed to
victimisation on farm roads, as they seldom own vehicles. At the same time, the role that the
intimidation of farm workers plays in farm attacks might be investigated as potential offenders
might use workers’ feelings of being unsafe and unable to protect themselves and their family
members adequately, to their advantage when planning attacks on them and/or their
employers. In the attack on Respondent 2, the farm workers who were working in close
proximity to the farmhouse, did not react in any way to the gunshot at the farmer’s house
immediately after a vehicle with strangers had driven past them up to the farmhouse.

• Research might also be undertaken to establish if carrying a firearm increases farmers’

susceptibility to farm attacks. As it is not always possible for individuals to hide handguns so
well that potential offenders do not become aware of them, farmers might be targeted for the
purpose of robbing them of the firearms as they are sought after items in the underworld. They
might also be killed because they are regarded as a greater threat to the success of attacks
than other members of their families. According to Swart (2003:137, 176) going about armed
eliminates all chances that farmers might have of coming out of farm attacks unscathed.
Respondent 7 who had carried a firearm on his person for approximately 10 years before the
attack on him, was shot the moment he opened his bedroom door. Respondent 3 believes her
husband was shot and killed because their attackers might have thought that he had a firearm
under the blanket where he was sleeping on the couch.

• It is recommended that research be done on the impact of farm attacks on indirect

victims of attacks (Bester & Hattingh, 1997:1; Boervrou skiet haar toe sy van plaasmoord
verneem, 1997:1; Du Preez, 1997b:1; Fourie, 1997c:2; Plant van kruise krap aan wonde,
2003:6). Individuals who have family and/or friends who work or live on farms often fear for
their safety and well-being. This might have the effect of raising the level of fear of crime
countrywide. Attacks on farmers might, for example also cause them to become angry and/or
bitter. The son of Respondent 1 indicated clearly that he saw no point in research on the topic
341
as nobody reads it (‘Niemand lees dit nie’). His father had been shot in the arm during the
attack, which Respondent 1 believes contributed to his death approximately a year later.

• The role played by alcohol and drugs might also be investigated. Respondent 3 stated
that she could smell alcohol on the breath of one of her attackers.

• It is recommended that research be undertaken to determine the possible effect that hate
speech has on black people and the possible role that hate speech plays in the attacking of
farmers. The attackers of Respondent 8 repeatedly uttered the phrase ‘Kill the Boer, kill the
farmer’ during the attack on her and her spouse.

• Research might be undertaken to establish the impact that farm attacks have on job
losses in the agricultural sector. Respondent 1 had in her employ many more workers on her
farm before the attack than she had working for her after the attack on her. Respondent 14
indicated that she preferred to be without black labour, but that could not manage without her
employees. By 2006, 30 000 farm workers had already left the farms on which they had been
working as a direct result of attacks on the farmers (Mulder, 2006:9).

• It is recommended that research be undertaken to establish the impact of relocating after

farm attacks. Three of the 15 victims that participated in the study relocated after the attacks
on them. Investigating officers in the Mpumalanga Province state that the family usually move
away after being attacked (Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003h:8). De Jager, a
psychologist from Vanderbijlpark, states that he places relocation eighth on a ten-point scale
of stressors. Relocation can be stressful if the individuals are not psychologically prepared for
the change. This might be relevant to the surviving victims of farm attacks as they often leave
the farms as soon as possible after being victimised. Relocating to an area unknown to them
can also be stressful. He states that even the packing process can add to the trauma as
individuals are often forced to discard items to which they attach sentimental value. In some
cases farmers might have to leave farms that have been in the possession of their families for
a number of generations. Van der Merwe, a psychologist attached to the University of
Johannesburg, states that the age of the person who relocates, as well as the stage of
development of the individual, plays a role in the level of stress experienced when relocating.
Elderly persons usually find relocating traumatic as they prefer to in an area with which they
are familiar. This is particularly so if they have been living there a long time and have built up a
number of good memories. According to Van der Merwe, children also find relocating

342
 traumatic. Teenagers, in particular, adapt less easily as they are often extremely attached to
their friends (Joubert, 2006:17).

• It is also recommended that research be done on the financial impact of farm attacks on
the economy of the country. Besides the negative effect that attacks have on foreign
investment and tourism, it might be established that farm attacks have a greater impact on
many other important sectors of the economy than presently fully realised. Life insurance
policies, the loss of expertise in the different fields of farming, loss of production and the
earning of foreign revenue are some of the factors that might be relevant.

7.2.2 Recommendations with regard to combating farm attacks

While farm attacks might not be prevented altogether, certain recommendations will be made to
Government and to farmers that might reduce the number of victimisation incidents.

7.2.2.1 Recommendations related to the government

According to Moolman (1999a:111-114), there are five main causes of farm attacks. These are
hatred, the slow distribution of land, illegal firearms, socio-economic conditions and escaping
punishment in SA. While the government has already engaged in efforts to address each of these
causes, some respondents again highlighted some of these factors. In order to eliminate
unnecessary repetition of the recommendations already published in the Report of the Committee
of Inquiry into Farm Attacks (2003r:1-12), only some of these points that are also relevant to the
attacks investigated in this study will be discussed in this subsection.

7.2.2.1.1 Condemnation of inflammatory statements

It is recommended that the government should deal severely with hate speech and inflammatory
statements against the farming community as these might incite offenders to attack farmers.
According to Moolman (1999a:54) and submissions made to the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks by Visser, Director of Agri SA Governmental Services, Weber of Action: Stop Farm Attacks
(ASFA) and by Superintendent Vreugdenburg, Head of the Serious and Violent Crime Unit in the
Bushveld area (Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:3, 10, 22), political attacks on
farmers might be the result of hate speech by political figures and political parties. In a newspaper
report it is stated that Xingwana, Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs has two charges laid
against her with the Human Rights Commission by representatives of TLU SA and AfriForum. She
343
allegedly indirectly incited persons at a public gathering on Church Square in Pretoria by making
generalisations that farmers put women and children off their farms in the middle of winter and that
there are still reported cases of farmers assaulting and raping their workers (Louw-Carstens,
2007a:13; Mulder, 2006:2). Racial intolerance in the country was also cited as the reason for farm
attacks in the submission made by Groenewald, Member of Parliament (MP) for the Freedom Front
(FF) (Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:31). He believes that the government
contributes to the polarisation between the groups. Both the FF and the ASFA are of the opinion
that public statements and slogans such as ‘Kill the Boer, kill the farmer’ and ‘Everything Whites
own, they stole from Blacks’, should be condemned. In spite of this having been done on several
occasions, the two attackers of Respondent 8, one of only two English speaking victims
interviewed, repeated the phrase ‘Kill the Boer, kill the farmer’ during the attack on the couple.
While hatred by black people of their white counterparts might be traced back to the discriminatory
and oppressive laws of the apartheid era, in order to ensure racial unity in SA in the future, it
becomes the duty of the elected government to publicly condemn all forms of discrimination and/or
inflammatory statements that might incite inter-racial hatred and/or violence (Regering moet volhou
met uitsprake teen geweld, 1999:1). While it is common knowledge that hate speech has been
outlawed by Government, it is necessary to draw the attention of the public to this on a continuous
basis. In its submission to the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, ASFA stated that the
Transvaal Rural Action Committee (TRAC) is informing people that where the farmer is killed, the
labourers should get the farm. Utterances of this nature might encourage attacks by naïve workers
who have been aspiring to acquire land of their own. According to the TLU, non-governmental
organisations are fostering divisions between farmers and workers (Report of Commission of
Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:4). After receiving visits by ‘counsellors’ whom he greeted ‘Hey,
Comrade’ on a number of occasions, a farm worker doused Respondent 5 with petrol and set him
alight because he had been led to believe that everything the farmer owned, including the livestock
that he sold, also belonged to him.

While it might be more difficult to act against representatives of non-governmental organisations

and private individuals, Government should take a clear stand and publicly deal with government
officials found to be encouraging racial hatred by any means whatsoever and/or discriminating
against members of certain racial groups. Government officials dealing directly with the public
should be closely monitored. Complaints against them should be taken seriously, investigated and
dealt with severely in order that a clear message may be sent out to the public regarding the
sincerity of Government in dealing with an issue that could negatively affect SA’s future stability.
The government might make a series of conciliatory statements in a drive to foster better relations
between the racial groups. Negative perceptions of farmers might be countered by the President

344
and other politicians, for example by releasing press statements, emphasising the important role
farmers play in food production, creating employment and providing housing for thousands of
employees.

7.2.2.1.2 Acceleration of land distribution

The government might also consider accelerating land distribution by setting a higher target than is
presently the case and ensuring that the target is met (De Beer, 2006b:11; Louw, 2006:14). While
the government aims at transferring at least 15% of agricultural land that is presently owned by
white farmers to black people by 2008, it has succeeded in transferring only 2 442 million hectare
to black people since 1994 (Van Rooyen, 2006:3). This is also a recommendation made by
Moolman (1999a:77) who believes that the country will have to face decades of unrest should the
government fail in its efforts. Once again reference can be made to the offender who attempted to
murder Respondent 5 whom he believed was occupying land to which he was entitled. Many
farmers have in fact agreed to sell their farms to the government so that more land might be
available to black farmers (Dè, vat my plaas, 2006:20). Others, especially those bordering on black
settlements where crime is rife, might desperately wish to sell, but might not be offered enough for
their property to enable them to buy land elsewhere. Should they not be paid the market value for
their property, many might become reliant on the state, for example for old age pensions or
medical benefits. Many farmers also have no skills other than farming. They might therefore not
succeed in finding employment and swell the ranks of unemployed persons in the country. This
might also apply to their sons and/or daughters as they are often sent to agricultural schools or
colleges where the emphasis is more on subjects related to farming matters. Should their parents’
farms be sold at productive value, for example, they might be unemployed and unable to provide
financial support for their parents.

7.2.2.1.3 Reducing the number of illegal firearms

It is furthermore recommended that the government should, through the SAPS, embark on more
operations aimed primarily at recovering stolen firearms (Jooste, 1999a:80). Government is
already engaged in improving South African border control posts to reduce the number of illegal
weapons being smuggled into the country. Stricter firearm ownership and firearm licensing laws
(e.g. the Firearms Control Act, Act 60 of 2000) are also in operation to prevent irresponsible and
incompetent citizens from acquiring firearms. However, it is primarily firearms that are obtained
illegally during robberies and burglaries by unlicensed gun owners that pose a problem for the
authorities and law-abiding citizens. Firearms stolen during the farm attacks on Respondents 4 and

345
12, for example were used in a subsequent murder and hijacking incident respectively. Tip-offs and
involvement by concerned and responsible members of the public, could be of invaluable aid to the
police in tracing illegal firearms. Imposing heavier sentences for being in possession of an
unlicensed firearm might also be considered.

7.2.2.1.4 Socio-economic conditions

It is the researcher’s contention that the government should also find ways of improving the socio-
economic conditions of those living in rural areas. Police records show that 354 offenders arrested
for attacking farmers in 1997 were unemployed (Crime Information Management Centre, 1998:38).
Research by Mistry and Dhlamini (2001:21) also revealed that the majority, 71%, of the offenders
in their study were also unemployed at the time of the attacks on the farmers.

By creating more employment opportunities in rural areas, farm attacks committed purely for
financial gain may be reduced (Cilliers, 1999e:91). Respondents 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13
were robbed of items of value during the attacks on them. Although robbery was suspected to be
the motive in the attacks on Respondents 7 and 14, the attackers fled in haste, therefore it was not
established for certain that the motive in these two cases was in fact robbery. Subsidies for
employing a minimum quota of workers, tax relief and similar means that would make it affordable
and worthwhile for farmers and businessmen in rural towns to increase rather than diminish their
employees, might be the first step in countering the unemployment problem. Ways to make it
beneficial for owners of labour intensive industries to operate their businesses in smaller towns
where property is less expensive than in the metropolitan areas, might also be found.

7.2.2.1.5 Education

While even basic education could uplift illiterate individuals who are restricted to performing
unskilled manual tasks on farms, it has become clear that all sections of rural society need to be
educated about their democratic rights and also about their obligations. Farmers as landowners or
lessees of the farmland have rights to the uninterrupted use and enjoyment of the land they own or
lease, and employees to fair compensation for their services, good working conditions and just and
humane treatment. Farmers are obliged to respect the rights of those they employ and employees
to respect those of their employers.

Farmers often violate the rights of their employees. Vreugdenburg of the Serious and Violent Crime
Unit states that revenge attacks on farmers sometimes occur as result of salary disputes, bad

346
treatment of workers, evictions and dismissals (Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm
Attacks, 2003i:22). While some of these infringements such as dismissals and evictions might take
place as a result of farmers’ inability to comply with the minimum wage requirements, others might
take place in bad faith. Farmers therefore need to be made aware that they are under obligation to
respect their employees’ rights to fair remuneration and to humane treatment. As might also be the
case with some farmers, employees sometimes erroneously believe that they have certain claims.
The attacker of Respondent 5 had been misled to believe that the farm and the farmer’s livestock
also belonged to him because he worked on the farm. This caused him to take offence when his
employer sold some of his animals. His feelings of dissatisfaction were exacerbated by the fact that
the livestock was sold to someone with whom he was on a bad footing. Farmers might learn that
they could reduce the risk of revenge attacks against them by respecting the legal rights of their
employees and by meeting their legal responsibilities as employers.

Workers also often fail to respect the rights of farmers. Respondent 6 believes that he and his
elderly spouse were attacked because he always accosted trespassers who violated their rights as
tenants of the property by passing through his farmyard. The attackers of Respondent 8 and her
spouse also violated the farmer’s property rights by trespassing on the farm on three occasions
prior to the attack on the couple. Respondent 13 recalled finding strangers standing in front of his
garage one night some time before the attack on him and his family. In the light of this, it is
recommended that employees and strangers need to be made aware that many farmers regard
trespassing as a serious infringement of their rights, not only because it is a violation of
landowners’ and tenants’ rights to trespass on private property, but also because trespassing is
often a forerunner of more serious offences such as farm attacks (Boere trek streep oor toegang
tot plase, 2001:3; Claasen, 1998b:30).

The Lawyers for Human Rights (Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks, 2003i:34) furthermore
emphasise the need for education regarding the purpose and functioning of legislation. While some
offenders might believe that they will never be apprehended, others might be sufficiently naïve to
believe that they might be able to negotiate with criminal justice officials to make exceptions. The
mother of the offender that attacked Respondent 5, demanded that he [the farmer] write a letter to
the Department of Correctional Services to request the release of her son as Respondent 5 had
survived the attack, come out of his coma and learned to write and walk again. Education would
eliminate possible ignorance regarding the functioning of the criminal justice system and deter
those who plan to attack farmers and hope to escape punishment.

347
Of relevance also is the education of farmers as potential victims of farm attacks regarding the
laws that relate to self-protection and the protection of their property against offenders (Blaauw,
2006a:14; Smit, 2006:4; Viljoen & Van der Merwe, 2000a:35). Farmers need to have clarity on the
provisions that pertain to the level of force permitted in self-defence and in the protection of their
family members and property. While some might hesitate to use permissible force against
offenders, others again might overstep the legal boundaries of self-defence out of ignorance.
Potential victims should also be informed of the legal procedures that necessarily have to be
followed in the event of the injury or death of an offender. On hearing that farmers that kill or injure
attackers are charged with murder or attempted murder, some farmers might not exercise their
legal right to self-defence and as a result be killed unnecessarily, be seriously injured and/or
maimed for life. Respondent 15 stated that she and her family members have already decided that
they will not defend themselves by shooting at attackers as this could cause them endless trouble.
Respondent 15 therefore becomes an easy target for offenders.

Some farmers believe that the ‘new’ gun ownership regulations (e.g. the Firearms Control Act, Act
60 of 2000) are aimed at demoralising them and that they will not be granted licences to defend
themselves if they apply. Respondent 12 stated that she did not care if her stolen firearm was
never returned to her as she was sure that she would not be granted a licence. Education,
information and fair appraisals by those tasked with screening gun licence applicants might restore
faith in the government’s efforts to reduce excess firearms in the country and also prevent
successful attacks against persons who know they have the legal right to defend themselves and
their property. From the remarks made by Respondent 13 (“As hulle hom wettig vir my gee, dan
weet hulle ek het hom. Maar anders gaan ek hom onwettig kry.”), it is clear that some farmers
might own firearms illegally if licences are refused for no valid reason. Delays in granting licences
also endanger the lives of farmers who have no other means of protecting themselves and their
family members. In an attack on an elderly couple near Cullinan, the farmer tried to protect his wife
and grandchildren with a knobkierie against two attackers who shot him in the leg with a R4 rifle.
According to Meintjies, chairman of the Cullinan Farmers’ Union, the farmer had applied for a
firearm licence four years before the attack, but the police had lost the application forms
(Raubenheimer, 2006a:16).

7.2.2.1.6 Criminal justice system

It is recommended that the government plans to improve the efficacy of the criminal justice system
be implemented without delay. While many perpetrators of attacks are apprehended, sometimes
only after committing further serious crimes with firearms looted during farm attacks (see

348
Respondents 4 and 12), many offenders are never punished (Keppler, 2006b:6). Criticism has
often been levelled at the Department of Correctional Services for the large number of escapes
from prisons and at the criminal courts for the lengthy period that victims (see Respondent 8) and
other community members have to wait to see justice being done (De Bruin, 2006:12). The
possibility of escaping from prison and the delays in meting out punishment, could cause
offenders, victims and others who also consider attacking farmers to believe that even if offenders
were to be apprehended, they might never be brought to justice (Blaauw, 2006b:1; Snyman,
2006:6).

More regular publication of crime statistics might also be considered. Information regarding recent
crime trends could be helpful to members of the public in their endeavour to avoid or prevent
criminal victimisation. However, while it is clear that the government might improve all levels of
functioning of the criminal justice system, recommendations will focus mainly on the SAPS - the
crime victims’ first level of contact with the criminal justice system after being victimised.
Improvements in this area might instil greater faith in the system, ensure better co-operation
between farmers and members of the SAPS, eliminate unnecessary delays during offenders’ trials
and also ensure a larger number of successful prosecutions of offenders.

• Stricter discipline at station level

While it is pleasing to note that the government plans to recruit and train larger numbers of men
and women for the SAPS (Smith & Joubert, 2006:1), it is recommended that station commissioners
be held accountable in cases where lack of discipline, poor service and the use of police vehicles
for private purposes by police members, can be proven. Newspaper reports also draw attention to
cases where members of the SAPS might be abusing their rights to the use of police vehicles and
shirking their duty to complainants. In one case it is alleged that the police were not interested
when a maid was raped repeatedly, intimidated and threatened by her attackers that they would
return to harm her at the end of the month (Keppler, 2006c:11; Roos, 2006:4). Failure to answer
telephones at police stations needs to be taken seriously and addressed by taking disciplinary
steps against members of the SAPS who fail to perform their duties (Neethling, 2006:4). In
Mookgopong (Naboomspruit) a complainant drove to the police station to report a burglary after
her telephone call was not answered. She found and photographed three members of the SAPS,
including a captain, sleeping in the charge office. On another occasion, she once again found and
photographed police members sleeping while on duty (Louw-Carstens, 2007b:1). Respondent 9
who tried unsuccessfully to contact the nearest police station to give chase after her attackers had

349
abducted her neighbour, believes that the offenders might have been apprehended had she
succeeded in contacting them.

• Remuneration, promotion and better working conditions

Many victims complained of the incompetence of members of the Service. Respondent 2

complained about officers who did not keep their appointment with him during which he intended
handing over evidence that he had found to prove his dogs had been sedated. Some police
officers investigating the attack on Respondent 5 refused to consider evidence that was discovered
only at a later stage when the victim had been removed to hospital. Police officers sent to
investigate the attack on Respondent 7 were unaware of the vehicle used by the attackers that
might have had fingerprints that could have helped to identify the offenders.

Newspaper reports (Deysel, 2000b:7; Mouton, 2006:8; Neethling, 2006:4; Roos, 2006:4) confirm
that many of the police officers lack motivation to be of assistance to crime victims and/or to solve
the cases allotted to them. Remuneration that can compete favourably with salaries paid in the
private sector would ensure that recruits with better potential for police training would apply to
enlist in the Service. In order to gain and maintain the respect of members of the public, care
should be taken that individuals with criminal records and persons who do not have the necessary
level of literacy are eliminated and not overlooked during the screening process.

Adequate remuneration for hours worked overtime, might also motivate members of the SAPS and
discourage those who resort to ‘moonlighting’ [doing other work for remuneration on days or nights
that that are off-duty] to augment their salaries. This practice could result in overtiredness, the
making of bad decisions in crisis situations and in being less alert to the presence of clues left at
crime scenes. Competitive remuneration would also discourage experienced investigative officers
from resigning from the SAPS and seeking employment elsewhere. While tiredness might not have
been to blame in this instance, the officers who were summoned by Respondent 2 raced to the
wrong farm and missed apprehending the offenders. The officers investigating the murder of
Respondent 14’s husband, had to have evidence pointed out to them by the mourning spouse.

Delays in the promotion of those members who have qualified to be promoted to a higher rank,
might demoralise dedicated policemen and also cause them to leave the Service. At the same time
care should be taken that members of the Service who have departmental and/or criminal charges
pending against them are not promoted until all investigations have been completed and the
individuals cleared of the charges (Roestoff, 2006a:6). Many highly qualified and experienced

350
investigative officers resign each year, leaving young and inexperienced officers to deal with
serious crimes. They might overlook vital clues, be less sympathetic to victims and even attempt to
hide their own distress at having to deal with violent crime scenes by using coping mechanisms
that could create the impression that they are indifferent to the victims’ distress. Respondent 14
reported the disrespect for her feelings and grief after the bludgeoning to death of her husband.
She remembers hearing jokes and laughing outside while she was concerned about her husband.

Many investigating officers have an unmanageable number of cases allotted to them to them. The
training of more detectives would alleviate this burden, as the officers would have sufficient time to
investigate each of the cases more thoroughly (see Respondent 2). More efficient investigations
could in turn reduce delays and increase the number of successful prosecutions. Investigating
officers would also have time to report back to the victims on the progress, or lack of progress, of
their investigations and alleviate their concerns. Respondent 14 had to contact the police on a
number of occasions to enquire whether any progress had been made in tracing her spouse’s
murderer. While reporting back to victims, whether progress has been made or not, might appear
to be a time consuming exercise, it might alleviate the suffering of some victims as they will not feel
abandoned and forgotten by the investigating officers on whom they rely to bring the perpetrators
of the crimes committed against them to justice. Reporting back to crime victims might possibly
also deter them from making negative comments that might further damage the image of the SAPS
or incite some farmers to take the law into their own hands.

• Reaction to victims

Despite the fact that training has been provided to many police officers regarding secondary
victimisation, victim needs and the provision of trauma support as part of the Victim Empowerment
Programme (Nel, 1996:31), it is imperative that more follow-up training be done. Regulations
should be put in place to deal with police officers who do not treat victims sympathetically. Besides
reporting them to the Independent Complaints Directorate, disciplinary hearings might be held to
discourage further improper unsympathetic actions. Victims expect officers who attend the case to
take charge and respect their emotions. In support of this, Respondent 15 mentioned the comfort
she experienced when a female police captain acknowledged her distress by giving her a hug.
Victims’ rights as stipulated in the Victims’ Charter of Rights that was signed and accepted by
Parliament in November 2004, should also be acknowledged, including the right to information
regarding the progress made in the investigation. Respondent 14 stated that she was still plagued
by many unanswered questions more than a year after the killing of her husband. She gained the

351
impression that nobody knew anything and that there was total chaos. She also stated that she no
longer knew to whom she could turn for information on the case.

It is further recommended that, where human resources allow, victims should also be informed
when those who offended against them are released from custody. Respondent 5 feared that he
and his spouse might not be safe when the worker who offended against them qualified for parole.
While it is recommended that further training be provided to police officers, it is pleasing to note
that Respondents 3, 10 and 12 were given telephone numbers by the police officers where they
could arrange for debriefing and counselling (Van Burick, 2003c:63). All police officers should be
compelled to provide victims with the necessary information. Failure to do so should result in
disciplinary action being taken against the officers. This is necessary as victims might be overcome
by grief or fear at night when they would be less inclined to disturb friends or neighbours for
reassurance.

7.2.2.2 Recommendations related to farmers

As the areas policed by rural police stations cover many square kilometres, it is necessary that
farmers take responsibility for their own safety (Cilliers, 1998i:71; Cilliers, 2006:91). Immediate
reaction to suspected danger is often essential to avoid victimisation. Although the
lifestyle/exposure model, the routine activity theory, newspaper reports, as well as the current
study, indicate that adhering to routines heightens farmers’ susceptibility to farm attacks, it is
difficult for farmers to deviate from their routines as these are often determined by the
requirements of specific farming activities, including the needs of the farm animals. All attempts
should therefore be made rather to eliminate one of the three elements, which according to the
routine activity theory, are essential for victimisation to take place, namely a suitable target, a
motivated offender and the opportunity to commit a crime (Cohen & Felson, 1979:590). A change
of mindset regarding criminal victimisation - which might cause potential victims to be regarded as
less suitable targets - combined with certain practical implementations that eliminate or reduce any
opportunities that potential offenders might become aware of, might prevent a number of farm
attacks. Psychological preparedness, which includes having a plan of action, and target hardening
are therefore important considerations. Viljoen and Van der Merwe (2000b:24, 26) list four main
requirements for farmers’ protection. These are security, early warning systems, emergency
communication measures and self-protection. According to Swart (2003:113-122) knowledge of the
differences in the cultures of black and white South Africans will also enable potential victims to
avoid certain behaviour by which they might cause conflict or unwittingly ‘invite’ potential offenders
to attack them.

352
Although these recommendations are no guarantee that all farm attacks will be prevented, they
may sensitise individuals and reduce vulnerability in general and thereby change the conditions
that promote farm attacks.

7.2.2.2.1 Change of beliefs about crime

Farmers should be aware that they are all potential victims of farm attacks for a variety of reasons
(Phillips, 2006:9). Disparity of wealth between them and the rural population is possibly the most
obvious. Some farmers therefore need to change their attitude or beliefs about crime and guard
against misconceptions about the motives for attacks and the perpetrators of crime in rural areas
(see Respondents 2, 3, 4, 9, 12 and 13). Based on this, it is recommended that workshops be held
on a regular basis to educate farmers about crime and crime trends in rural areas. Articles in
farming magazines such as the Farmers’ Weekly and Landbouweekblad could also be used more
regularly to change farmers’ beliefs about crime. McKenzie, who was responsible for the greatest
prison exposé in South African prisons, highlights the importance attached to the possession of
firearms and motor vehicles (Cilliers, 2006:91). This causes farmers who own firearms and motor
vehicles to be regarded as attractive targets for robbery during farm attacks:

It’s a great myth that the several farm murders in South Africa are politically motivated. Anyone who’s
been to prison can tell you. Farmers have more guns than the average police station. And will often
parade the weapons to their farmhands, boasting about how he will shoot the murderers to bits if they
try anything. He may even hear of a neighbouring farm murder and go out to buy even more guns,
making himself nothing but more of an attractive target. He has everything an upstart needs for an
armed robbery, guns and one-ton pickup trucks. Black farmers, too, fall prey to these attacks, because
they think that to be a farmer, you need to have guns. No self-respecting gangster is going to kill a
farmer when the real money is in the city, but he will kill the farmer for these essential tools of the trade
and the mythically endless amounts of money that the poor, uneducated farmhand is so convinced is
being kept in a safe or under the mattress. He can even be tortured to produce it.

7.2.2.2.2 Black culture

The culture of black people differs from that of white people. One of the differences is that
according to the black culture, any individual has a right to be maintained by those members of
society who have more than the specific individual (Swart, 2003:113-122). This might cause white
farmers who normally possess more than members of the black population in rural areas, to be
perceived as legitimate targets. Some acts of kindness might also unwittingly ‘invite’ criminal

353
victimisation. According to Swart (2003:120), a black man who receives a gift of men’s clothing
from the farmer’s wife, is expected to reciprocate by means of a sexual favour. It is therefore
recommended that white farmers become more sensitive to, and acquainted with cultural
differences that might cause them to be victimised.

7.2.2.2.3 Psychological preparedness

Based on the findings of the research, it is further recommended that potential victims be
psychologically prepared to identify dangerous situations and to deal effectively with the prevailing
conditions or circumstances. A combination of psychological preparedness and selected target
hardening features that are implemented optimally at all times by all members of the farming
family, may also reduce the number of farm attacks considerably.

Psychological preparedness includes being psychologically prepared to shoot an offender and

possibly kill in self-defence. If farmers feel that they would be unable to do so if their lives or those
of their family members were to be threatened, the SAPS suggests that they go for weapons
training (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1999a:7). Respondent 5 stated that he could hardly
see himself taking the life of another to save his own life. However, he might have felt differently if
his attacker were a stranger to him and not a trusted young worker who had grown up on the farm.

• Alertness

Alertness and vigilance are the key words to improving safety on farms (Botha, 1999:83; Viljoen,
2000:14, 15, 17). Respondents 4 and 12 referred to increased alertness to their surroundings only
after being attacked. Respondent 1 heard one of her attackers coming up the stairs, but thought it
was the maid coming to fetch dirty teacups. Respondent 2 saw a movement out of the corner of
her eye before the attacker shot and killed her husband, but she ignored it, as she believed it was
her daughter. In the light of this, it is recommended that potential victims become pro-active and be
more alert to their immediate surroundings to avoid being taken by surprise. Surprise is an element
that Swart (2003:124) has identified as a prerequisite for a successful attack on farmers. Alertness
and vigilance might also give farmers time to make better choices, for example to flee or to fight.
Respondents 9 and 11 who were vigilant under normal circumstances, indicated why they were
less vigilant on the day or night of the attacks, making it possible for the offenders to catch them
off-guard. Respondent 9 was upset because her little dog had been poisoned and Respondent 11
had been accustomed to locking the farmhouse doors only much later in the evenings after

354
checking on his animals for the last time. While it is not possible to be hyper-alert at all times,
farmers should utilise all means of becoming aware of danger.

• Dogs

Dogs are farmers’ first line of defence, therefore their behaviour should be monitored carefully.
Dogs have different ways of barking which farmers should learn to distinguish. They will, for
example, bark in one way at other dogs that they hear some distance away, and in another at an
offender in close proximity to the farmhouse. As dogs act as an early warning system, their barking
should never be ignored. Respondent 8 was so accustomed to her dogs barking that she took no
notice of them barking at her attackers who were waiting for her to open her kitchen door. She was
manhandled and forced into the dining-room where she was later shot in the leg. According to
Swart (2003:101), alertness to the times at which dogs bark at night for a period of time, could be
an indication to farmers of the strategy that offenders plan to use when they attack them.

The absence of dogs that normally come to meet farmers and/or their family members after they
have been away from the farm, could also indicate that they have been lured somewhere,
poisoned or shot. The disappearance or poisoning of dogs could therefore act as a warning of
planned criminal activity. The Alsation that Respondent 9 relied on for protection, disappeared a
short while before she was attacked. The poisoning of her smaller dog might have been a sign to
her that she should exercise extra vigilance.

On the other hand, the presence of farmers’ dogs is not always a guarantee that they are safe from
criminal victimisation. Criminals sometimes have access to drugs that sedate dogs and reduce
their efficacy as watch or guard dogs, making it safe for the offenders to approach and attack their
victims unhindered (Swart, 2003:98). Respondent 2 found evidence that the two large dogs that he
and his spouse relied on for protection, had been sedated with a dart gun by their attackers a short
while before he routinely emerged from the house to feed them in the mornings. To ensure that
offenders have no opportunity to render dogs ineffective, farmers might allow the dogs that they
rely on for protection to sleep inside their homes at night.

• Geese, partridges and plovers

Although none of the respondents mentioned that they relied on the behaviour of animals to warn
them of the presence of strangers, some animals can be useful in this respect. Geese become
very noisy at the slightest unusual movements. If kept in an area around the farmhouse at night
355
where there are no other farm animals to disturb them unnecessarily, they will warn the farmer and
his family members without fail of approaching offenders. Out in the veld, birds such as partridges
[Francolinus coqui] and plovers [Vanellus coronatus], that are also noisy when disturbed
unexpectedly, can act as a warning to farmers repairing fences, water pumps or checking on their
livestock.

• Ambushes

Farmers and their family members should at all times be alert to being ambushed. Ambushes are
facilitated when it is difficult for farmers to vary their routines. Times when they might be more
susceptible to being attacked and places where potential offenders might find opportunities of
attacking them at little risk to themselves, should be identified so that the farmers might exercise
extra vigilance at those times and places. The times at which Respondents 4 and 12 were to return
home could be predicted with accuracy and also the movements of Respondent 9 as she went
about her normal procedure of unlocking her house after an absence. Respondent 4 and her
spouse were ambushed inside their farmhouse, Respondent 9 outside her farmhouse and
Respondent 12 around a bend in the narrow farm road where she was unable to see her offenders
before it was too late to reverse her vehicle to safety. According to Swart (2003:157), farmers’
garages are the most dangerous places to be ambushed on farms. The spouse of Respondent 14
drove his vehicle into the garage long after darkness had set in and was attacked by an offender or
offenders inside his garage. In daytime they might also be taken by surprise when driving into a
garage, as their eyes might have to adjust to the difference in the intensity of light outside and
inside the garage. In the light of this, it is recommended that farmers check the safety of their
garages first and that they park their vehicles in their garages before visibility is poor.

Farmers would each have to consider their own individual circumstances to eliminate opportunities
that offenders might find of taking them by surprise. Ambushes inside farmhouses might be
reduced if farmers and their family members are alert to movements behind windows and curtains
on their arrival on their farms. More obvious signs of the presence of intruders such as a broken
window, a lock that has been forced or displaced items that have been stacked ready to be loaded
onto the farmer’s vehicle, should warn farmers not to enter their farmhouses or proceed further into
their homes where the offenders might be waiting in ambush. By sending their dogs into their
garages where offenders often lie and wait or into the farmhouses before entering themselves,
farmers might be warned of the presence of strangers in time to avoid being attacked.

356
Opportunities to carry out ambushes outside the farmhouses might also be reduced. Swart
(2003:161) suggests that farmers who, for example, have to go to their milking parlours at set
times early in the morning, first switch on the lights outside and check from the safety of their
homes if anything is amiss outside. They should then also call their dogs to the door from which
they plan to exit before opening their doors. The dogs’ behaviour will normally indicate if there are
strangers in the vicinity.

There are also ways of reducing the risk of being ambushed on farm roads. After the attack,
Respondent 12 and her neighbours set about widening the narrow access road to make it possible
to turn a vehicle around should it be necessary. Trees and vegetation were also cleared in order to
improve visibility along the side of the road. Farmers should also be alert to the fact that offenders
sometimes create opportunities to ambush them on farm roads. Gates that are normally kept open,
but are found closed on a particular day, might indicate that offenders plan to attack them when
they stop to open them. To ensure that they are kept busy and their attention is distracted, gates
are sometimes secured with wire, which farmers first have to loosen in order to proceed further
(Swart, 2003:153). Farmers should therefore remove all bush and rocks behind which offenders
could hide near the gates so that they deprive them of the opportunity of striking before they can
defend themselves. Where there are objects that are conveniently available along the roadside
such as stones and tree trunks that can be used to block the roadway, these might also be
removed in anticipation of possible ambushes. Gates that are normally closed but are found to be
open, on the other hand, might have been left open by offenders already on the farms or in the
farmyards so that they might make a speedy escape after attacking the farmers. On seeing gates
open, farmers might anticipate finding offenders awaiting their arrival. Tyre marks made by
vehicles entering the farms during the farmers’ absences or strange footprints or soleprints could
also warn farmers of the presence of strangers on the farms.

• Modus operandi

Alertness should not be confined to ways of establishing the presence of offenders. It should
include being alert to the modus operandi used by offenders to deceive or divert farmers’ attention
so that they or their accomplices might enter their homes or come within striking distance of them
(Van der Merwe & Viljoen, 2000:22). Some of these include luring the farmers outside by causing a
disturbance by their animals, pretending to fight or deceiving them into believing that they are
buyers of livestock or law enforcement officers. Respondent 10 and his spouse were deceived by
offenders impersonating police officers who said that they had come to investigate a recent
burglary. While it was already too late to refuse them entry to their home, the farmer’s suspicions

357
might have been alerted when one offender introduced himself as ‘Commandant’. As offenders are
impersonating the police more often, farmers should make a point of learning to know the names of
the ranks, some of which have changed during the last decade, the compulsory insignia on police
uniforms and to be particularly alert to the absence of the officers’ identification pinned or sewn
onto the uniforms. The wearing of reflective jackets sometimes used by the police at night might
also be used to beguile unsuspecting individuals into believing that the offenders are police
officers. However, as offenders can also impersonate detectives who work in civilian clothes, it is
not always possible to rely on becoming aware of discrepancies in the uniforms or insignia worn by
impersonators and those worn by genuine police officers. Farmers should in such cases, as well as
cases where they do not personally recognise the individuals who claim to be law enforcement
officers, insist on being shown their SAPS identity documents, at the same time keeping well out of
striking distance.

• Battle indicators

Alertness to battle indicators and the Africa sign language could reduce the chances of being
attacked by up to 99% (Swart, 2003:112). From the signs that are used, alert farmers might even
be able to ascertain the time and place of the planned attacks.

While it is not always possible to exercise the same level of alertness every day, farmers should
endeavour to increase their alertness and vigilance, for example, on days that they handle money
or could be perceived to have money on the premises. According to the domain-specific model
(see section 2.3.3), handling money increases individual’s attractiveness as targets. Respondent 2
believes he might have been mistaken for his landlord who was to pay his employees’ wages on
the day of the attack on him. Respondent 13 had drawn money on the day of the attack to pay his
employees’ wages the next day.

7.2.2.2.4 Preconceived plan of action

Alertness to signs that might betray the presence of offenders and hyper alertness at dangerous
times and places, are not necessarily sufficient to always avoid being attacked. Farmers and their
family members should consider having a preconceived plan of action if taken by surprise in order
to regain control over the situation (Die dag toe die plaaslewe ’n nagmerrie geword het, 2000:43).
This probably is the only way in which farmers who fall prey to offenders will be able to remain
calm and regain their presence of mind amidst all the confusion and chaos of an unexpected farm
attack. Respondents 5, 6, 11 and 14 indicated that everything seemed to be happening at once

358
when they realised they were being attacked. Family members of Respondent 5 focused on
extinguishing the fire in the garage and did not notice that he was burning. Respondent 6 was so
bewildered that he was unable to reach his firearm before his attacker fled. Respondent 11 did not
have time to get up from his chair and Respondent 14 was also unable to remember her particulars
when she called Netstar. A plan might be devised for each area of the farm, out of sight of the
homestead, in the farmyard and also inside the homestead. The objective should be to instil
sufficient fear in the attackers that they might abandon their attempts or to give farmers and/or their
family members the necessary time to summon aid in safety (Swart, 2003:130).

Farmers could for example identify an area in their farmhouses where they and their family
members would not easily be visible to attackers and where they might be safe from bullets if fired
at from outside or inside the house. In this area, there should always be some means of
communication, for example a telephone, cellular phone, siren, alarm system or a radio. As
farmers are sometimes attacked at night when it might be dangerous to switch on a light, a torch
might be kept in this area at all times. Bearing in mind the victims’ state of shock when attacked
and the chaos and confusion that normally reigns during an attack, it is recommended that a list of
emergency numbers in large print be pasted on the wall next to the telephone. Respondent 14 tried
unsuccessfully to call her neighbour the first time as she was unable to remember her neighbour’s
telephone number. Individuals who are accustomed to wearing spectacles or contact lenses might
find it useful to keep a spare pair in this safe area. Farmers should also make sure that the children
know the farm name or smallholding number should they have to summon help. The grandchild of
Respondent 13 phoned the police from inside a wardrobe where she went to hide, but got the
smallholding number incorrect. As the smallholding was situated less than a kilometre from the
police station, the attackers might have been apprehended before they fled with the farmer’s
possessions.

As attackers often lock up the victims before leaving the farms, farmers might prepare themselves
for such an eventuality. In anticipation of being locked up in a toilet or a bathroom, Swart
(2003:174) suggests that farmers keep a pair of pliers and a knife in the toilet cistern so that they
might free themselves more easily if they were tied up. On the suggestion of Respondent 12, their
attackers locked them up in the pantry from where she and her children were able to escape, as
she knew that there was another door that the attackers could not see behind the shelves. If
circumstances permit, farmers might also take the initiative like Respondent 12 and suggest that
they be locked up where they know they, for example have a well hidden means of communication
such as a cellular phone or a spare key to the room.

359
Farmers might also in anticipation of being attacked, devise ways of making offenders leave the
farm as quickly as possible. Respondent 3 told her attackers that her son would be arriving home
any minute and Respondent 9, a divorcee who lived alone, that her husband would also be back in
a short while. If farmers were able to alert neighbours of the attack on them, they might turn the
radio volume up so that the offenders can hear their presence on the farm being relayed to other
farmers in the area. Depending on the circumstances of the attack, farmers might even dupe the
offenders into believing that their presence has already been reported.

Panic buttons may be used to alert neighbours in emergencies (Cilliers, 1999c:79). Farmers should
also devise a secret warning system whereby they might warn other members of the family of
whose presence the offenders might yet be unaware to prevent them from walking into danger. A
seemingly insignificant act (e.g. leaving a door open that is always kept closed) that would not
attract the attention of offenders, but would immediately alert family members to danger, should be
discussed with members of the family in anticipation of an attack. While circumstances might not
always allow the victim(s) to use this preconceived warning system, the fact that it was discussed
might inculcate greater alertness in all the family members. The mere fact that a plan has been
devised, will ensure that all the members of the farming family are aware of behaviour or actions
that could jeopardise their safety. Having a plan of action could also cause the farmer to exude
confidence, which might puzzle and cause potential attackers to leave as soon as possible or
choose a safer target to victimise. While it would have been impossible in the case of Respondent
1 to warn her husband who walked into the farmhouse while the attack was in progress - even if
she had devised an early warning system in anticipation of being attacked - it might be possible in
farm attacks where the circumstances are different.

Farmers should discuss with their family members the danger of looking at the offenders’ faces. As
83% of attacks investigated by Swart were carried out by workers, relatives of workers, ex-
employees and neighbours’ employees, victims might easily recognise one or more of their
attackers (Swart, 2003:110). If any of the offenders believe that there is a chance that they might
be identified at a later stage, the victims stand a good chance of being killed there and then.
Although one respondent (Respondent 12) looked at her attackers, it is wise to be more cautious.

Besides discussing a plan of action with family members, farmers should also involve their workers
and neighbours who are more likely to be able to render assistance than the security forces
because of their proximity.

360
• Workers

Farmers should make workers part of the solution to the problem (Betrek werkers by veiligheid, sê
Leon, 2000:8; Cilliers, 1998e:81; Rooi, 2001:10). Farmers might encourage their employees to
express their concerns and/or grievances, take these seriously and attempt to address them
without delay. The negative effect of farm attacks on the workers’ job security should also be
explained in order that they may understand that farm attacks almost always have a ripple effect
through all the layers of the farming community.

While changes in workers’ attitude to their employers could be an indication of dissatisfaction

and/or a grudge held against them (see Respondent 5), changes in the behaviour of loyal
employees might be an indirect way of warning their employers that something is amiss. They
might have learned of a planned attack, but be too afraid of revenge if they were to warn their
employers openly.

- Safety of farm workers

In order to gain the co-operation of the farm workers, farmers have to also ensure their safety so
that they may not be intimidated into providing offenders with information regarding the farmers’
habits, psychological state of preparedness and/or the risks that they are prepared to take.
Farmers should therefore ensure that the living quarters of their employees are as safe and secure
as possible. Loyal employees who suspect or are aware that an attack is being planned, are more
likely to warn their employers of the danger if they know that they will be safe at night should the
offenders wish to take revenge on them for informing their employers of their intentions.

- Information treated with the strictest confidence

Farmers ought to ensure workers that any information reported to them will be treated with the
strictest confidence. Farmers should then adhere to this undertaking as the lives of their workers
and those of their family members could be jeopardised if fellow workers or potential offenders
were to learn that they have been warned of planned attacks. Knowing that they can rely on the
farmers in this respect, might also encourage loyal workers to communicate their fears and
suspicions to their employers.

361
- Service contracts and warning signs

Farmers might attempt to find ways of reducing the chances of conflict arising between them and
their employees and/or strangers to the farms. Service contracts should be drawn up to eliminate
any misconceptions and misunderstandings regarding service conditions and remuneration.
Farmers should put up clearly visible notices that trespassers will be prosecuted in the language
spoken in that area and in places where strangers are likely to enter the farms. Workers should be
warned that trespassers will not be tolerated and that they will be accosted and questioned and
where necessary, action will be taken against them (Agri SA eis dringende ondersoek na moorde,
2001:1, Boere trek die streep oor toegang tot plase, 2001:3; Smith, 2000:8; Viljoen & Van der
Merwe, 2000b:24). Workers should also be made aware that strangers might attempt to beguile or
deceive them. The worker who attacked Respondent 5 and often received strangers that he
greeted ‘Hey, Comrade’, was deceived into believing that the farm on which he worked and all the
farmer’s possessions belonged to him. This induced him to attack the farmer when he sold some of
his livestock.

- Curfews and ‘no-go’ areas

To further ensure their safety, employees should be warned not to approach the farmstead after
sunset so that they might not be mistaken for offenders. Certain areas of the farms should also be
off-limits during weekends in order to distinguish workers from trespassers, poachers and stock
thieves. While it might mean extra effort on the part of the farmers’ wives, it might be advisable to
also have ‘no-go’ areas in the farmhouses so that maids cannot divulge sensitive information on
the farmers’ security if manipulated or intimidated by potential offenders.

- Illegal immigrants

Care might be taken to check on the identity documents and employment history of all individuals
seeking employment. In this way farmers might become aware that a job seeker is an illegal
immigrant. Besides the fact that it is illegal to employ immigrants that are not in possession of work
permits, immigrants are difficult to trace should they offend, as they normally have no family ties
and can move from area to area. The SAPS might be of assistance to farmers wishing to ascertain
that job seekers are not wanted criminals. After individuals have been employed, it is advisable
that farmers keep copies of all the identity documents so that they might assist the SAPS in tracing

362
them should they commit crime during the period that they are employed. This precautionary
practice in itself could act as a deterrent to crime.

• Neighbours

Farmers are mostly aware that police officers summoned to their farms in emergencies are not
always able to reach them due to lack of resources or the distance from the police station to the
farms. Farmers should thus involve their neighbours in their plans of action (Magnus, 2007:1).

- Communication

It is recommended that all farmers set up communication networks with their neighbours. The
SAPS encourages farmers to acquire the Nearnet Radio System and cellular telephones that
would ensure that those whose landlines are cut by offenders, have means of communicating with
neighbours and the security forces. The SAPS recommends that the call signal of the farm radio’s
be painted on the roofs of farmhouses so that the aerial wing of the SAPS and/or Air Force may
easily make contact with the specific farmer in an emergency (Crime Information Analysis Centre,
1999a:14). Where the global position system (GPS) is known, this could also be used to guide
members of the security services to the farms. The daughter of Respondent 5 who was a stranger
to the area, was able to alert their neighbours by radio of the plight of her father who had been set
alight by his attacker, in spite of the fact that she did not know the call sign of her father’s radio.
The aid of the aerial wing of the SAPS was enlisted in the attack on Responded 8 in which she and
her spouse were shot and wounded. This made it possible to track the car in which the offenders
fled from the farm and make speedy arrests.

Hand held radio’s are also to be recommended as farmers in isolated areas of their farms would be
able to contact their neighbours and/or family members if necessary. These might be useful
particularly where there are no cellular phone signals. Farmers who live in areas where there is a
cellular phone signal, may also, by pressing one button on their cellular phones, alert a number of
neighbours simultaneously. An arrangement of this nature, which costs a minimal amount to
activate, can be of great assistance in other emergencies on farms such as accidents and/or heart
attacks.

Suspicious persons, vehicles and rumours of planned crime in the area should be reported so that
all are aware that they need to be fully alert to possible danger. Neighbours might also become
aware of the presence of offenders in an area on a farmer’s property that adjoins their farms. They

363
might be able to inform other farmers of smoke caused by offenders cooking food, flattened grass,
the presence of empty food cans and cigarette butts, all of which might indicate that potential
offenders are spending time watching their movements. Here too, a preconceived plan of action
needs to be discussed in the event of it becoming necessary for them to come to one another’s
assistance during a crisis.

While some farmers might feel that it is not necessary to report to their neighbours on their safety
as regularly as every evening and/or morning, all farmers should contact their neighbours
immediately on hearing gunshots. Farmers who plan to do target shooting or need to fire a shot on
their farms for any reason, for example, to eradicate vermin, should report to their nearest
neighbours immediately before or afterwards. Neighbours can become complacent if they regularly
hear gunshots and fail to go to the family’s aid when they are attacked. This was true in the case of
Respondent 3. The neighbours said that they had heard the attackers’ gunshots but that they had
ignored them as Respondent 3 and her husband often poached game at that time of night.

By enlisting the aid of workers and neighbours, farmers also increase guardianship on their farms
(see routine activities theory, section 2.2). Besides giving farmers warning of planned activity, their
guardianship might also eliminate some of the opportunities to commit a successful attack as
farmers can act on information provided to them before it is too late.

7.2.2.2.5 Target hardening strategies

Based on existing literature and the findings of the current study, it is clear that target-hardening
strategies are essential in ensuring that farmhouses are secured effectively. It is important that
farmers be made aware that target hardening entails more than the outlay of capital necessary to
purchase devices that might make their homes safer places. Effort, which is often accompanied by
frustrations, is also needed to ensure the optimal use of the devices. Security doors, for example,
are not effective if not locked and alarm systems cannot give warning if not switched on. While it
might be time consuming and also annoying, for example, to have to lock the outside doors of
farmsteads day and night, this practice could afford the farmer and his family the necessary time to
defend themselves more effectively or contact their neighbours for support if attacked. Excessive
outlay of capital on devices that farmers know will not be used optimally in their particular
circumstances, would thus be a waste of resources. Farmers should also be made aware that
some of their target hardening measures might have limitations or shortcomings of which they
should take cognisance before they rely too heavily on them for protection against offenders.

364
• Burglar proofing and security doors

While burglar proofing in front of windows is generally effective as a warning system when the
family is inside the home, it must be remembered that it can delay the entry of motivated offenders
for a short while only. Offenders sometimes bring their own equipment to speed up entry into
farmhouses. This was true in the case of the attack on Respondent 7 who failed to wake up when
his attackers removed burglar proofing with tools that they brought with them for this purpose.
While cases have been reported where offenders have broken down more than one door to gain
entry to farmhouses, the SAPS emphasise the importance of security doors in strategic points in
the farmhouses, especially the bedrooms (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1999a:13). Sturdy
bolts on the inside of doors leading outside the farmhouses might be a safety measure worth
considering in addition to security doors. While it might only be practical to use this means of target
hardening when farmers and their family members retire at night, the use of bolts would also
prevent those who have succeeded in obtaining spare keys or making duplicate keys, from
unlocking the farmhouse and gaining entry unheard.

Only if all members of the family and workers who have to work inside the farmers’ homes are
trained to lock the outside doors whenever they leave or enter, can the noise made by offenders
breaking down the security door warn farmers of impending danger. Elderly farmers or elderly
members of their families might also forget to lock doors (Pretorius, 1986:41). Respondent 8 did
not lock her security door after fetching her car from the garage, which was some distance from the
house, as she planned to leave again almost immediately. After the attack on her and her spouse,
Respondent 4 taught her maid to lock the security door when leaving the house and toss the key
deeper into the house out of reach of potential offenders.

Farmers might also be aware that burglar bars are no deterrence if they and their family members
are absent from the farms. The same applies to security doors. Farmers might therefore be caught
off-guard by offenders that entered the farmhouses in their absence.

While those who have burglar proofing in front of their windows might feel secure, burglar proofing
does not prevent offenders from drawing the curtains aside and shooting their victims in their beds
if the windows are left open. After the attack on the couple, the spouse of Respondent 6 keeps the
bedroom curtains drawn tightly day and night, as their attacker appears to have known exactly how
they were lying on their bed on the night of the attack. Those who open curtains during the day
might ensure that they draw them before dark to avoid their silhouettes from providing offenders
with open targets in the lighted rooms. Lace curtains kept closed all day, could prevent potential

365
offenders looking into bedrooms while still admitting light to the rooms. Once again, family
members and maids would have to be trained not to open windows on the side of the farmhouse
where dogs do not have access to provide the necessary guardianship or give warning of prowlers.

• Alarms, warning beams and electric fences

As already stated, alarms and electric fences can only be effective if farmers remember to switch
them on. Beams outside the house that are sometimes activated by farm animals and later ignored
are also not effective. Farmers should ensure that they are set at a height that animals may not
trigger them unnecessarily. Respondent 10 who had an alarm inside his house, but whose spouse
was deceived into admitting offenders who pretended to be police officers, ensured that he would
not be taken by surprise again. He installed an alarm system outside his house in the garden that
would warn them when the beams were broken by a vehicle arriving at the farmhouse and also by
individuals approaching the house through the garden.

• Lights

Farmers might ensure that there is adequate lighting outside the farmhouse. Floodlights attached
to radio masts or windmills, are an effective form of lighting, especially if combined with lighting at
ground level (Crime Information Analysis Centre, 1999a:15). Respondent 6 had lights in two areas
around the farmhouse but no lights near the bedroom where he and his spouse were sleeping
when they were attacked. He also had two avocado trees in close proximity to the bedroom where
the offenders might have taken cover. However, having lights on permanently after dark enables
offenders to select areas where they may not be visible to the farmers because of the cover
provided by the stems of trees, garden ornaments and outbuildings. It is therefore advisable that
none of these be too close to the farmhouse. According to the Crime Information Analysis Centre
(1999a:15), ideally only grass should be allowed to grow within a radius of 20 meters of the
farmhouses.

Lights that are activated by movement and light sensors might also aid farmers in becoming aware
of potential offenders near the farmhouses. If farmers have lights that come on only when there is
movement in those areas, farmers will know where to focus their attention. The advantage of
having lights that are activated by light sensors is that they do not always come on at the same
time. If light is good, they will remain off. On cloudy days when visibility might be poorer than other
days, the lights would be activated earlier. It is advisable that the switch for all the outside lights be
located in the main bedroom, making it unnecessary for farmers to leave the safety of their rooms
366
to switch them on elsewhere as offenders might already have gained entry to the farmhouses and
be lying in wait to take them by surprise. Swart (2003:161) suggests that lights be switched on
suddenly on the opposite side of the farmhouse should farmers suspect their attention is purposely
being diverted to another area of the farmyard. This unexpected act could unnerve offenders who
might suspect that the farmers are already aware of their presence and their plan of attack.

• Keys

Carelessness with farmhouse keys could also endanger farmers’ lives in spite of having security
gates at each door. There are ways of copying keys if left out of sight even for short periods. Keys
should not be left in obvious places such as under doormats or pot plants and also not hung up
near open windows or windows that can be broken to gain access to the keys. It is also
recommended that farmers ensure that keys cannot be unhooked with wire, for example, and
pulled through a window or a broken windowpane. Those who provide their maids or foremen with
keys for convenience or when they leave their farms on holiday, should bear in mind that even
loyal workers may easily be intimidated into handing over keys when their lives or those of their
family members are at stake. Keys in possession of disloyal farm workers also provide them with
the opportunity of inviting those who have to carry out the attacks, into the farmers’ homes during
the farmers’ absences from the farms. They would then be able to learn the layout of the house,
the position of the farmers’ beds in relation to the windows and also learn the location of secret
safes of which only the maids who clean the farmhouse might be aware.

Keys necessary to escape from the farmhouse if attacked or if the house were to be set alight at
night should always be kept in the same place. All members of the household would then have
access to them and be able to locate them even in darkness. Preferably all members of farmers’
families should have their own keys to doors leading outside, so that they may habitually lock them
and be spared the delay and frustration of having another member of the family lock and unlock for
them as they move in and out the homestead. In the case of Respondent 14, her husband went
outside with the only set of keys that the couple had besides the keys that they had given to the
maid. Respondent 14 was unable to leave the farmhouse until the police had arrived and found the
workers who failed to respond to her calls to be let out of the house.

Although target hardening is always recommended, farmers should determine the cost
effectiveness of the system they intend to use under their own specific lifestyle circumstances. If
complacency because of their beliefs about crime (see Respondents 8 and 11) is going to prevent
them from being consistent in using costly measures effectively, it might be foolhardy to register

367
second bonds on their property, for example, to be able to afford devices that will not be used
optimally. Target hardening can only be effective if farmers and their family members are also
prepared to put some effort into making safety consciousness a part of their lifestyle. Care should
also be taken to ensure that farmers do not develop a false sense of security because of their
target hardening measures. Farmers might be made aware of the importance of security on the
farms by inviting them to attend workshops on safety and by making use of the opportunities
provided by the media to draw their attention to practical means of enhancing their safety. Articles
published in popular family magazines such as Huisgenoot or You and in farming magazines such
as Farmers’ Weekly or Landbouweekblad, should ensure that the information reaches most
farmers and/or their family members.

• Reporting crime

It is furthermore suggested that farmers ensure that they report all crimes committed on the farms
to the nearest police station, irrespective of their beliefs about the efficacy of the investigating
officers. By doing this, police officers at the police station might identify possible hot spots and
focus their attention and resources in areas where it is more necessary (Faure, 2006:17).
Increased patrols in those areas might act as a deterrent to potential offenders. Only in this way
also, can Government become aware of the community’s needs and prioritise effectively when
resources are allocated to the police areas (Jordaan, 2006:7; Meyer, 2006:4).

7.2.3 Recommendations with regard to coping strategies

In spite of target hardening and farmers doing everything they can to prevent attacks, farm attacks
are a reality. In the light of this, it is recommended that all farmers be made aware that victimisation
is traumatic and that ways of coping differ from individual to individual. While some might need to
do something drastic, others might need to make only minor changes. Respondents 1, 2 and 3
moved from their farms, while Respondent 11 found it sufficient to watch the servants’ quarters,
from where her movements were monitored by her attacker, bulldozed to the ground. Farmers who
move from the farms where they were attacked, however, often have to cope with the additional
stress of changing their occupations. Respondent 3 who had been looking forward to farming and
improving the farm which she and her spouse had bought five months prior to the attack, had to
adapt to being a landlady to boarders that she had to take into her home in town for an extra
income. Respondent 10 and his spouse were able to treat the attack on them as a learning
experience and Respondent 5 as an opportunity to enforce his Christian principles.

368
Since the healing process is neither easy nor immediate and there are setbacks along the way,
victims should be informed and encouraged to accept feelings such as anger and distrust as
normal. Depression, nightmares, flash-backs and sometimes even paranoia should also be
accepted as part of the healing process that will pass in time. Members of the SAPS, articles in
popular magazines, workshops and meetings arranged by the agricultural sector might be used to
make farmers aware that they should build on the understanding of these facts so that they can
once again regain their emotional equilibrium. Respondents 3 and 8 reported that they became
dejected and weepy at times until these feelings eventually passed. Should these last too long,
victims should, however, also be made aware of the importance of enlisting professional aid,
before feelings of depression and/or distrust, for example, become part of their permanent make-
up (Boere oorval traumasentrum, 2001:18; Du Plessis-Swart, 2005:34-35).

It is also to be recommended that contact be made with other victims of crime in order to compare
notes and encourage one another. Victims who find it difficult to speak to individuals who have not
experienced the same victimisation experience, might form and/or find relief in victim support
groups. The fact that there was so little response by victims of farm attacks to take part in the
research, might be an indication that victims do not feel comfortable talking about the victimisation
incidents to non-victims. It might also be an indication that they are suppressing their emotions.
After the lengthy interview in which Respondent 14 was able to express her grief, she declared that
she would like to speak to other victims of farm attacks. Sharing experiences could prevent
feelings of deviation as many crime victims need to ascertain why they were singled out from
others for victimisation. This is in line with Janoff-Bulman and Frieze (1983:507) who state that
victims of crime need to know what caused them to be regarded as more suitable targets than
other individuals.

Since Respondent 3 mentioned that she forced herself not to think about the victimisation event, it
might be wise for victims not to dwell on negative thoughts and rather concentrate on positive
aspects of the victimisation event. If they can regard the event as a learning experience, as was
the case with Respondent 10, they might be able to cope better. All victims should feel comforted
by the fact that they survived the attacks, as this is sufficient proof that they handled the situation
correctly, no matter what they in retrospect believe might have been a better option.

Victims often seek the assistance and support of family and friends so that they might incorporate
the victimisation event into their system of experiences as soon as possible. Janoff-Bulman and
Frieze (1983:1983:12) confirm that family and friends should offer their unconditional support at all
times without victim blaming even though they might be aware that the event could have been

369
avoided if the victim had been a little more careful or less negligent. Respondent 6 felt offended by
a neighbour who blamed him indirectly for the attack by saying that the attacker had come to give
him a hiding [for reprimanding trespassers who walked through his farmyard]. While some victims
might need practical assistance such a transport to hospital (see Respondents 4 and 10), others
might need moral support. It is of importance that no request, no matter how inconvenient it might
be at the time, be ignored or refused. Respondent 14 has been unable to forgive her sister who
failed to respond to her request to come to the smallholding after her husband had been killed.
Assistance and support should be forthcoming continuously until it is clearly evident that the
victims have recovered physically and also their psychological equilibrium has been restored.
Fellow farmers, family and friends supported Respondent 5 throughout his lengthy recovery period.
Interest should also not dwindle as time passes as it did in the case of Respondent 14 whose in-
laws made little contact with her when they could glean no further information from her regarding
the progress of the murder investigation.

7.3 SUMMARY

In this chapter recommendations were made with regard to future research. It was recommended
that further research be done using larger samples so that the findings may be generalised. It was
also recommended that a typology of victims of farm attacks be formulated. The typology would
highlight the necessity of farmers who fit the profile to exercise extra caution in order to avoid
victimisation. Research also needs to be done on other aspects such as the brutality with which
many farm attacks are perpetrated, the effect of media coverage on the incidence of attacks and
the susceptibility of farm workers to attacks. Further research might also determine whether the
carrying of a firearm has any effect on farmers’ susceptibility to victimisation.

In this chapter recommendations were made with regard to combating farm attacks. It was
recommended that the government give further attention to aspects such as condemning the use
of inflammatory statements more vigorously, accelerating land distribution, reducing the number of
illegal firearms and improving socio-economic conditions and education in rural areas. Farmers
were advised to change their beliefs about crime, exercise greater alertness and make informed
decisions about target hardening strategies. Recommendations were also made about coping
strategies. Victims were encouraged to accept feelings of distrust and anger. It was stated that
nightmares, depression and flash-backs should also be regarded as part of the healing process.

Even though a small sample was used in the current study and further quantitative research using
larger samples is recommended, it is hoped that this study has made a valuable contribution to the
370
understanding of the susceptibility of farmers to farm attacks, the far reaching consequences of
attacks on farmers and the coping strategies that are often applied successfully to overcome
trauma and enable farmers to adjust to their circumstances. It is also hoped that the research
findings of this study will encourage further much needed research and that various theories will as
a result be developed to explain farm attacks and the violent nature of crime in the country. Only in
this way can this heinous crime be understood and prevented.

371
REFERENCES
A student’s dictionary of psychology. 1993. Seven Oaks, Kent: Edward Arnold.

Aanvallers vermoor man in oprit voor huis. 2003. Beeld, 25 September:2.

Agri SA eis dringende ondersoek na moorde. 2001. Die Boer, Januarie:1.

Agri SA opnuut toegespits op projekte om plaasveiligheid te bevorder. 2001. Die Boer, Januarie:2.

Agri SA pleads with members and politicians to act responsibly. 2000. The Farmer, July:1.

Agri Securitas geld vir navorsing oor plaasaanval misdadigers. 2001. Die Boer, Februarie:3.

Agri Securitas – hoop vir beter toestande in veiligheidsituasie. 1998. Die Boer, November:2.

Agri Securitas project to generate money to protect communities. 1999. The Farmer, March:4.

Agriculture more important to South Africa than gold. 1999. The Farmer, November:9.

Ál minder plaaswerkers. 2000. Beeld, 9 Desember:3.

Al vier sal letsels saamdra. 1997. Beeld, 17 November:2.

All sectors committed to fight crime. 1998. The Farmer, November:3.

American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders 4th
ed. Washington, DC: Author.

Antwoordmasjien red boer toe rowers hom wou skiet. 1997. Beeld, 29 Desember:1.

Apla opdragte was om wit boere dood te maak, hoor WVK. 1997. Beeld, 19 Desember:2.

Arbeidsminister oortuig van ‘growwe menseregteskendings’. 1999. Die Boer, November:4.

Armed robbers. 1956. Sunday Times, 16 December:18.

372
Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. 1998. The practice of social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Babbie, E. & Mouton, J. 2001. The practice of social research. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bailey, K.D. 1994. Methods of social research. 4th ed. Oxford: Free Press.

Bard, M. & Sangrey, D. 1986. The crime victim’s book. 2nd ed. Secaucus, NJ: Citadel.

Barkan, S.E. 1997. Criminology: A sociological understanding. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Barlow, H.D. 1987. Introduction to Criminology. 4th ed. Edwardsville, Boston: Little Brown.

Barlow, D.H. & Durand, V.M. 1995. Abnormal Psychology: An integrative approach. Pacific Grove:
Brooks/Cole.

Baron, R. A. 1995. Psychology. 3rd ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bartol, C.R. 1995. Criminal behavior: A psychological approach. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Bartollas, C. 1997. Juvenile delinquency. 4th ed. London: Allyn & Bacon.

Baum, A., Flemming, R, & Singer, J.E. 1983. Coping with victimisation by technological disasters
Journal of Social Issues, 39 (2):117-137.

Beirne, P. & Messerschmidt, J. 1995. Criminology. 2nd ed. Fort Worth: Halcourt Brace.

Bellingan, M. 2006a. ’n Nag van doodsvrees:My ses uur saam met ‘gawe’ rowers. Rapport, 13
Augustus:21.

Bellingan, M. 2006b. Sorg dat jou kinders paraat is teen misdaad. Rapport, 13 Augustus:21.

Berg, B.L. 1998. Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.

373
Berkowitz, L. 1993. Aggression: Its causes, consequences and control. New York: Mc Graw-Hill.

Best, J. & Luckenbill, D. 1982. Organising deviance. Dedeviant exploitation: Coercion and
surreptitious exploitation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bester, G. 1998. Noorde se boere dreig met wraak ná moorde. Beeld, 21 April:4.

Bester, G. & De Lange, L. 1998. Boer vermoor, bejaarde egpaar aangerand. Beeld, 6 April:1.

Bester, G & Hattingh, C. 1997. Broers in rolstoele waak by ouerlyke. Beeld, 16 Desember:1.

Betrek werkers by veiligheid, sê Leon. 2000. Rapport, 19 November:8.

Beukman, B. 1998. Die pad na veiliger plase. Beeld, 22 Augustus:8.

Beukman, B. 2001. Die land se mense word uitgemoor. Rapport, 18 November:4.

Blaauw, D. 2006a. Boervrou wil eis oor Pase in polisiesel. Beeld, 21 Julie:14.

Blaauw, D. 2006b. Dertien vrygelaat toe landdros weier om ná 16:00 te werk. Beeld, 13
September:1.

Black farmers dissatisfied with government land programme. 1998. The Farmer, October:2.

Blight, G. 1998. World body condemns SA rural violence. The Farmer, July:1.

Block, R. 1981. Victim-offender dynamics in violent crime. Journal of Criminal law and Criminology,
72(2):743-761.

Block, R. 1989. Victim-offender dynamics in stranger to stranger violence: Robbery and rape. In
Fattah, E.A. (ed.), The plight of crime victims in modern society. New York: St Martin’s.

Block, R., Felson, M. & Block, C. R. 1984. Crime victimisation rates for incumbents in 246
occupations. Sociology and Social Research, 69(3): 442-451.

374
Boer bid en skiet twee aanvallers dood in huis. 1998. Beeld, 18 April:4.

Boer kritiek ná nog ’n aanval in gebied. 2000. Rapport, 7 Mei:17.

Boer se seun, vriend staan tereg ná dood van werker wat glo selfoon gesteel. 2006. Beeld, 21
Junie:4.

Boere beplan eie beskerming. 1997. Beeld, 4 Desember:1.

Boere ‘by kruispad’, ‘keelvol’ oor moorde. 1998. Beeld, 7 April:5.

Boere deel van MRK-ondersoek. 2001. Rapport, 22 Julie:10.

‘Boere huiwerig oor aanstellings’. 1998. Die Boer, Oktober:13.

Boere in Noord-Kaap in ‘sitting-duck’ situasie. 1998. Die Boer, Oktober:10.

Boere is keelvol vir haatspraak. 1999. Landbouweekblad, 6 Augustus:65.

Boere ‘kan trots voel oor 1998’. 1999. Die Boer, Februarie:3.

Boere ‘keelvol’ oor moorde. 1998. Die Boer, Mei:4.

Boere oorval traumasentrum. 2001. Rapport, 4 November:18.

Boere sal reg in eie hande neem. 2001. Rapport, 1 April:1.

Boere se werk met leuens bevuil. 2000. Beeld, 14 Januarie:6.

Boere skepties oor Tshwete se beloftes. 2001. Rapport, 1 April:5.

Boere trek die streep oor toegang tot plase. 2001. Die Hoëvelder, 22 Augustus:3.

Boere vra swaarder straf na moorde op plase. 2000. Beeld, 15 Februarie:2.

Boervrou skiet haar toe sy van plaasmoord verneem. 1997. Beeld, 15 Desember:1.
375
Boervrou versmoor in kluis terwyl sy Bybel vasklou. 2000. Beeld, 15 Februarie:1.

Boëseken, A.J. 1952. Die Nuusbode. Elsiesrivier, SA: Nasionale Handelsdrukkery.

Botha, T. 1999. Waak teen nalatigheid. Landbouweekblad, 3 September:83.

Botha, T. 2000. ’n Profiel van ’n plaasaanval. Landbouweekblad, 3 November:14, 16.

Britz, S. 1998. Attacks on farms and smallholdings. Pretoria, SA: South African Police Service.

Butler, G. & Benyon, J. 1974. The 1820 Settlers: An illustrated commentary. Cape Town: Human &
Rousseau.

Buurman bieg glo oor plaasaanval, 2006. Rapport, 19 November:6.

Cassell’s New Latin Dictionary. 1962. 2nd ed. Norwich: Jarrold.

Chambers’ Twentieth Century Dictionary. 1981. Mc Donald, A.M. (Ed.). Edinburgh: Chambers.

Chandler, N. 1998. Imprisoned in farm fortresses. The Star, 11 June:17.

Cilliers, C. 2006 The choice: The Gayton McKenzie story. Cape Town: ABC Press.

Cilliers, J. 1995. Boere-geduld op met nie-werkers. Landbouweekblad, 24 November:77.

Cilliers, J. 1998a. Mei was swartste maand op plase. Landbouweekblad, 12 Junie:69-70.

Cilliers, J. 1998b. Armoede is die rede vir misdaad, glo Molefe. Landbouweekblad, 19 Junie:81.

Cilliers, J. 1998c. Duisende hektare weiding in brande verwoes. Landbouweekblad, 19 Junie:79.

Cilliers, J. 1998d. Kom sluit by reserviste aan, nooi SAPD. Landbouweekblad, 19 Junie:81.

Cilliers, J. 1998e. Plaaswerkers in Noordwes as wagte opgelei. Landbouweekblad, 19 Junie:81.

Cilliers, J. 1998f. Plan teen paasaanvalle kon ná spitsberaad. Landbouweekblad, 19 Junie: 76, 78.

376
Cilliers, J. 1998g. Salu hoop Suiker vlek motiewe vir moord oop. Landbouweekblad, 24 Julie:93.

Cilliers, J. 1998h. Plaasmoorde is oorlog en deel van revolusie – nie misdaad. Landbouweekblad,
11 September:79.

Cilliers, J. 1998i. Boere gemaan om na eie veiligheid om te sien. Landbouweekblad, 20

November:71.

Cilliers, J. 1998j. Misdaad in SA ’n loopbaan met min risiko. Landbouweekblad, 20 November:71.

Cilliers, J. 1998k. Oorvloed onwettige wapens is wortel van kwaad. Landbouweekblad, 20

November:71.

Cilliers, J. 1998l. Media ‘vererger probleem’. Landbouweekblad, 28 November:71.

Cilliers, J. 1999a. Sewehonderd-en-negentig aanvalle op plase in 12 maande. Landbouweekblad,

5 Februarie:68, 70.

Cilliers, J. 1999b. Loon-kwessie kan werkloosheid vererger. Loon-kwessie kan werkloosheid

vererger. Landbouweekblad, 30 April:101.

Cilliers, J. 1999c. Moordenaars nog op vrye voet. Landbouweekblad, 25 Junie:79.

Clliers, J. 1999d. Aanvalle ‘lyk na kontrakmoorde’. Landbouweekblad, 20 Augustus:85.

Cilliers, J. 1999e. Mdladlana gekap oor werkloosheid. Landbouweekblad, 10 September:91.

Cilliers, J. 1999f. Huise, lone op plase lyk goed, bevind Harris. Landbouweekblad, 12
November:84.

Cilliers, J. 1999g. Regering ìs begaan oor misdaad. Landbouweekblad, 26 November:91-92.

Cilliers, J. 1999h. Landbou is meer werd as goud. Landbouweekblad, 15 Oktober:84, 86.

377
Cilliers, J. 1999i. Boere het sleutelrol in SA ekonomie, sê Dirk. Landbouweekblad, 10
Desember:76.

Cilliers, J. 2000. Regering verbind hom tot optrede teen moorde. Landbouweekblad, 19 Mei:73.

Cilliers, J. & Stoltz, I. 1998. Só is hulle vermoor. Landbouweekblad, 14 Augustus:85-86.

Claassen, J. 1998a. Moorde ná vrylatings is ‘regering se skuld’. Landbouweekblad, 7 Augustus:69.

Claassen, J. 1998b. Só wil generaals swart Kersfees keer. Landbouweekblad, 25 September:30.

Claassen, J. & Cilliers, J. 1999. Minimum lone kan werkers benadeel. Landbouweekblad, 29
Oktober:84, 86.

Claster, D. & David, D. S. 1981. The resisting victim. In B. Galway & J. Hudson (Eds), Perspectives
on crime victims.London: C.V. Mosby.

Coetsee, J. 1998. Kleurling-boer op sy plaas vermoor. Landbouweekblad, 22 Mei: 77.

Coetzee, C. 2006. Rowers martel boer met kookwater dood. Beeld, 25 November:1.

Coetzee, L. 2000. Boer beroof, oorleef wreedaardige aanranding. Rapport, 9 April:6.

Coetzee, L. 2001a. Boer met strykyster en sigarette gemartel vir geld. Rapport, 25 Maart :8.

Coetzee, L. 2001b. Inwoners van Linden vrees vir hul lewe. Rapport Gauteng, 15 Julie:2.

Coetzee, L. 2001c. Boer gemartel, met yster doodgeslaan. Rapport, 26 Augustus:6.

Coetzee, S. 1999a. Rowers skiet boer in oë, vrou beseer in 2 aanvalle. Beeld, 22 November:5.

Coetzee, S. 1999b. Speurder woedend oor drie ontsnap. Beeld, 22 November:5.

Coetzee, S. & Van Niekerk, R. 1997. Ermelo-boer en vrou sterf in aanval. Beeld, 3 Desember:1.

378
Cohen, L.E. & Cantor, D. 1981. Residential burglary in the United States: Life-style and
demographic factors associated with the probability of victimisation. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 18(1):113-127.

Cohen, L.E. & Felson, M. 1979, August. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44 (August):588-608.

Cohen, L.E., Kluegel, J.R. & Land, K.C. 1981. Social inequality and predatory criminal
victimisation: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46
(October):505-524.

Collins Paperback English Dictionary. 1999. 4th ed. Glasgow: Harper Collins.

Conklin, J.E. 1995. Criminology. 5th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Cornelissen, A. 2001a. Landbou verwelkom Operasie Akantus. Rapport, 4 November:18.

Cornelissen, C. 2001b. Meer as 30 000 gewere kry voete. Rapport, 11 November:6.

Cornish, D. B. & Clark, R.V.G. 1987. Understanding crime displacement: An application of national
choice theory. Criminology, 25(4):933-947.

Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five traditions.
London: Sage.

Crime and pressure from abroad. 1998. The Farmer, July:12.

Crime Information Analysis Centre. 1998. Attacks on farms and smallholdings: Report 2 of 1998.
Pretoria: South African Police Service.

Crime Information Analysis Centre. 1999a. Attacks on farms and smallholdings: Report 1 of 1999.
Pretoria: South African Police Service.

Crime Information Analysis Centre. 1999b. Attacks on farms and smallholdings: September 1999.
Pretoria: South African Police Service.

379
Crime Information Analysis Centre. 2005. Annual Report of the South African Police Service
2004/2005. Pretoria: South African Police Service.

Crime Information Analysis Centre. 2006. Annual Report of the South African Police Service
2005/2006. Pretoria: South African Police Service.

Crime Information Management Centre. 1998. Attacks on farms and smallholdings: Quarterly
Report 3/98. Pretoria: South African Police Service.

Dairy group warns about labour legislation. 1999. The Farmer, November:25.

Davis, L. 1999. ‘n Kriminologiese ondersoek na motorvoertuigkaping met spesifieke verwysing na

slagoffervatbaarheid, slagofferaandadigheid en die modus operandi van die oortreder.
Ongepubliseerde MA-verhandeling, Universiteit van Pretoria, Pretoria, SA.

Davis, L. & Klopper, H. 2003. The value of a qualitative methodology in criminological research.
Acta Criminologia, 16(1):72-81.

Dè, vat my plaas. 2006. Rapport, 23 Julie:20.

De Beer, L. 2006a. Kinders keer plaasaanval. Beeld, 2 Mei:1.

De Beer, L. 2006b. Ses-en-tagtig grondeise sloer nog in Noordwes. Beeld, 2 November:11.

De Beer, L. 2006c. Bure glo agter plaasaanval. Beeld, 16 November:6.

De Beer, L. 2007. Boer was op krukke toe boewe aanval. Beeld, 14 Maart:5.

De Beere, S.R. 2004. Social research topic example 2 evaluation. In Sutton, M.D. & Sutton, C.D.
(Eds). Social research: The basics. London: Sage.

De Bruin, G. 1998. Boer vermoor dae ná protesaksie. Rapport, 11 Oktober:2.

De Bruin, G. 2001. Boer skiet ‘rowers’ dood. Rapport, 13 Mei:3.

380
De Bruin, P. 2006. ‘Rower’ vry omdat hy al so lank wag. Beeld, 26 September:12.

De Kock, G. 2000. Gruwelike ‘teregstelling’ op ’n stil Marico-plaaswerf. Rapport, 9 April:6.

De Kock. G. 2002a. Broer praat oor broer ná hul ouers vermoor is. Rapport, 21 April:10.

De Kock, G. 2002b. Die slag van Platjan. Rapport, 14 Julie:3.

De Kock, G. 2002c. ‘Skiet!’ sê hy, toe skiet sy. Rapport, 21 Julie:1.

De Kock, G. 2003. ‘Só kan dit nie langer aangaan nie’. Rapport, 5 Oktober:8.

De Lange, L. 2006a. Regering wil boere help bemark. Sake-Beeld, 28 Junie:3.

De Lange, L. 2006b. Grondhervorming sál versnel, beloof minister. Beeld, 29 September:15.

De Meyer, J. 1997a. Vyf ‘lede van bende’ aangekeer twee uur ná plaasaanval. Beeld, 11
Desember:4.

De Meyer, J. 1997b. Tweede verdagte vas oor Scheepers-moorde. Beeld, 12 Desember:4.

De Meyer, J. 1998. Boer-woede teen Mandela. Beeld, 16 April:1.

De Nysschen, L. 2003a. Honderde hektaar weiding brand af. Beeld, 29 Mei:13.

De Nysschen, L. 2003b. Bejaarde met strykyster gebrand in roof. Beeld, 22 Augustus:4.

De Nysschen, L. 2003c. Plaaswinkel-eienaar in kop geskiet. Beeld, 12 September:1.

De Vos, A.S. 1998. Introduction to the research process. In A.S. De Vos (Ed.), Research at grass
roots: A primer for the caring professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

De Vos, A.S., Fouche, C.B. & Venter, L. 2002. Qualitative data analysis and interpretation. In A.S.
De Vos (Ed.), Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human services
professions. 2nd ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

381
De Wet, T. 2003. Appel verbind man met moord. Beeld, 12 September:2.

De Wet, T. 2004. Boer [47] erg gemartel en ‘tereggestel’. Beeld, 31 Julie:1.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S (Eds). 2000. Handbook of qualitative research. 2nd ed. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Deysel, S. 2000a. Ontsnapping ‘maak van regstelsel ’n bespotting’. Beeld, 10 Februarie:2.

Deysel, S. 2000b. Span sê polisie kry te min geld vir oortyd. Beeld, 10 Februarie:7.

Dhlamini, D. 2006. Afrikaanse egpaar in hof ná plaasaanvalle.Beeld, 12 November:9.

Dhlamini, S. 2000. Bejaarde egpaar in huis in Garsfontein beroof. Beeld, 25 Mei:14.

Die dag toe die plaaslewe ’n nagmerrie geword het. 2000. Landbouweekblad, 29 September: 41,
43.

‘Die reg gaan in eie hande geneem word’, sê TLU-man. 1997. Beeld, 4 Desember:4.

Dreyer, A. 1999. Kan nie sê boere is misdadigers. Beeld, 2 Desember:20.

DuBow, F., McCabe, E. & Kaplan, G. 1979. Reactions to crime: A clinical review of the literature.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, U.S.
Department of Justice.

Du Plessis-Swart, M. 2005. Neem trauma in ag. Landbouweekblad. 23 September:34-35.

Du Preez, L. 1997a. Noordwes-boer aangeval. Beeld, 24 November:7.

Du Preez, L.1997b. Vrou hoor skote wat haar man eis. Beeld, 2 Desember:1.

Du Preez, L. 2000. Boer, vrou se lyke agterop bakkie gevind. Beeld, 15 Februarie:2.

Du Preez, L. 2001. Nóg bejaardes in N-wes aangeval. Beeld, 29 Oktober:8.

382
Durrheim, K. 2004. Research design. In Terre Blanche, M. & Durrheim, K. (Eds). Research in
practice:Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town:
University of Cape Town Press.

Durrhem, K. 2006. Research in practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. Terra Blanche,
M., Durrheim, K. & Painter, D. (Eds). Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Du Toit, C. 1998. Salu praat oorsee oor misdaad. Die Boer, Junie:1.

Engelbrecht, S. 1998. Veiligheid van die boeregemeenskap. Servamus, Februarie: 10-12.

Fattah, E.A. 1976. The use of the victim as an agent of self-legitimization: Toward a dynamic
explanation of criminal behavior. In E. Viano (Ed.), Victims and society. Washington, DC:
Visage.

Fattah, E.A. 1991. Understanding criminal victimisation: An introduction to theoretical victimology.

Scarborough, On: Prentice Hall.

Fattah, E.A. & Sacco, V.F. 1989. Crime and victimisation of the elderly. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Faure, N. 2006. Eenhonderd-en-twee-en-tagtig polisiemanne uitgeplaas om leemtes ná

kommando’s te vul. Beeld, 25 Augustus:17.

Feldman, P. 1993. The psychology of crime: A social science textbook. Cambridge: University
Press.

Female farmers add value to agriculture in South Africa. 2001. The Farmer, January:9.

Ferraro, K.F. 1995. Fear of crime; Interpreting victimisation risk. Albany: State University of New
York.

Fouché, C.B. 2005. Research strategies. In A.S. de Vos (Ed.), Research at grass roots: For the
social sciences and the human service professions. 3rd ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

383
Fouché, C.B. & Delport, C.S.L. 2005. Introduction to the research process. In A.S. de Vos (Ed.),
Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and the human service professions. 2nd
ed. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Fourie, M. 2007. Tweehonderd-en-vyftig boere gee misdaad-versoekskrif aan landdros. Beeld, 14

Maart:5.

Fourie, R. 1997a. Salu stig fonds vir boere se veiligheid. Beeld, 11 Desember:4.

Fourie, R. 1997b. Dié twee ondersoek plaasmoorde. Beeld, 11 Desember:4.

Fourie, R. 1997c. Vermoorde ouers van gestremde seuns begrawe. Beeld, 23 Desember:2.

Fourie, R. 1997d. Brand van 2 plaashuise ‘nog nie nuwe tendensie’. Beeld, 29 Desember:6.

Fourie, R 1998a. Plaasaanvalle laat boere opruk na Groblersdal. Beeld, 8 April:1.

Fourie, R. 1998b. Gemiddeld twee aanvalle per dag in Maart en April. Beeld, 15 Mei:8.

Fourie, R. 1999. Boer met messe gesteek, geskiet. Beeld, 1 Desember:7.

Frean, B. 1998a. ‘Government must take responsibility’. The Farmer, January:7.

Frean, B. 1998b. Mandela, don’t call would-be emigrants cowards, give them hope. The Farmer,
November:17.

Garofalo, J. 1987. Reassessing the lifestyle model of criminal victimisation. In Gottfredson, M.R. &
Hirschi, T. (Eds.), Positive Criminology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Genis, A & Fouché, J. 2003. Gelderblom veroordeel aanvalle, moord. Landbouweekblad, 1

Augustus:63.

Gestremde boer aangeval en gesteek op plaas. 1997. Beeld, 11 Desember:4.

Gevangenes ontsnap uit polisievoertuig. 2006. Beeld, 21 Oktober:6.

384
Geweld lei boere se aandag af van hooftaak. 1998. Die Boer, Julie:8.

Gibson, E. 1999. Rustenburg se kommando spring bont teen misdaad. Beeld, 2 Desember:21.

Goeie raad aan boere. 1998. Die Boer, Oktober:19.

Gottfredson, M.R. 1981. On the etiology of criminal victimisation. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 72(2):714-726.

Granny’s night of horror. 1984. Sunday Times, 9 September:7.

Grobbelaar, T. 1986. Misdaadslagofferteorieë. In Cilliers, C.H. (Red.), Viktimologie. HAUM:

Pretoria.

Groenewald, A. 1998a. Spitsberaad se planne teen plaasgeweld. Landbouweekblad, 23

Oktober:99.

Groenewald, A. 1998b. Staak moorde op boere, sê Mandela. Landbouweekblad, 23 Oktober:99.

Groenewald, A. & Cilliers, J. 1998. Misdaadberaad was sinvol, sê SALU. Landbouweekblad, 23

Oktober:92.

Grondeise – slegs vier van meer as 20 000 afgehandel. 1998. Die Boer, Januarie:9.

Grüttner, W. & Van Zyl, D.J. 1981. The history of South Africa. Cape Town: Human & Rousseau.

Gulota, G. 1976. The offender-victim system. In E.C.Viano (Ed.), Victims in society. Washington:
Visage.

Gunning, E. 2000. Oor my dooie liggaam. Rapport, 28 Mei:8.

Gunning, E. & Smith, E. 2000. Spanning ná verslag oor plaasmoorde. Rapport, 19 November:2.

Halstarrige arbeidsbeleid. 1999. Landbouweekblad, 16 Julie:65.

‘Heed the farmers’ alert. 1998. Pretoria News, 18 September:13.

385
Hennop, E. 2000. South Africa’s porous borders: A haven for arms smugglers. Nedbank Institute
for Security Studies Crime Index, 4(3):21-23.

Hindelang, M.J. 1976. Criminal victimization in eight American cities: A descriptive analysis of
common theft and assault. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Hindelang, M.J., Gottfredson, M.R. & Garofalo, J. 1978. Victims of personal crime:An empirical
foundation for a theory of personal victimisation. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Huxham, K. & Haupt, P. 1995. Aantekeninge oor SA. se inkomstebelasting. Roggebaai, SA:
Hedron.

Janoff-Bulman, R. & Frieze, I.H. 1983. A theoretical perspective for understanding reactions to
victimisation. Journal of Social Issues, 39(2):1-17.

Janoff-Bulman, R. 1985. Criminal versus non-criminal victimisation: Victims’ reactions. Victimology:

An International Journal, 10(1-4):498-511.

Jooste, C. 1999a. Broers vas ná vlaag van terreur in Oos-Vrystaat. Landbouweekblad, 25

Junie:80.

Jooste, C. 1999b. Boer van die jaar steek mans die loef af. Landbouweekblad, 15 Oktober:90.

Jooste, C. 1999c. Sy produseer net die beste katoen. Landbouweekblad, 19 November:63.

Jooste, C. 1999d. Top aspersieboer moes eers klippe kou. Landbouweekblad, 19 November:62.

Jordaan, P. 2006a. Polisie:’Jammer, ons kán nie.’ Beeld, 2 Mei:7.

Jordaan, P. 2006b. Ons weet hoe dit is. Beeld, 4 November:14.

Joubert, L. 2006. Treklorries tjokvol trauma. Beeld, 31 Augustus:17.

386
Kanjee, A. 2004. Assessment research. In Terre Blanche, M. & Durrheim, K. (EDS), Research in
practice: Applied methods for the social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town
Press.

Karmen, A. 1990. Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kelley, K. 2004. From encounter to text: Collecting qualitative data for interpretive research. In
Terre Blanche, M & Durrheim, K. (Eds), Research in practice: Applied methods for the
social sciences. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press.

Kennedy, L.W. & Forde, D.R. 1990. Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimisation in
Canada. Criminology, 28(1):137-151.

Keppler, V. 2006a. Rower word kwaad toe gesin bid. Beeld, 25 April:6.

Keppler, V. 2006b. Verdagte verkeerdelik vry. Beeld, 21 Oktober:6.

Keppler, V. 2006c. Polisievoertuig? Bel Makro by… . Beeld, 31 Oktober:11.

Keppler, V. 2007. Goosen in slaap oorval. Beeld, 26 Januarie:1.

Kotzé, A. 1998. Kalmte gevra by Angelina se graf. Beeld, 22April:1.

Kotzé, A. 2001a. Dis misdaad, niks anders. Rapport, 25 November:29.

Kotzé, A. 2001b. Loop katvoet voor jy sê ‘politiek’. Rapport, 25 November:29.

KZN cabinet ‘outraged at farm violence’. 1998. The Farmer, October:4.

Laaste koeël vir die kleintjie, sê moordenaar. 1997. Beeld, 17 November:2.

Lewenslange tronkstraf, geen parool vir moordenaars, vra Salu. 1997. Beeld, 4 Desember:4.

Lewis, C. 2007. Vyfhonderd ruk op oor moord op eienaar van bruilofsplaas. Beeld, 5 Maart:4.

Livingston, J. 1996. Crime and Criminology. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

387
Lochner, H. 1998a. Groot skade na veld glo wyd gebrand is. Landbouweekblad, 25
September:105.

Lochner, H. 1998b. Grond kan rede wees vir boer se skietdood. Landbouweekblad, 18
Desember:44, 46.

Louw, A. 1998. A framework for solving farm attacks? NEDCOR Institute for Security Studies
Crime Index, 2(5):5-8.

Louw, M. 2006. Tagtig persent van grondeise in Limpopo hang nog. Beeld, 26 Julie:14.

Louw-Carstens, M. 2007a. Plaas sy net stilbly… . Beeld, 26 Januarie:13.

Louw-Carstens, M. 2007b. Sjuut … laat die polisie maar slaap. Beeld, 2 Februarie:1.

Luckenbill, D.F. 1977. Criminal homicide as a situated transaction. Social Problems, 25(2):176-
186.

Lynch, J. P. 1987. Routine activity and victimisation at work. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
3(4):283-300.

Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology. 1995. London: MacMillan.

Magnus, L. 2007. Boere pak bende saam. Beeld, 17 Februarie:1..

Maguire, K. 1997. Policing the new South Africa: Law, order and the dynamics of self-sustaining
violence. The Police Journal, 70(1):11-17.

Malan, P. 2002. Vrou, jong man vas oor ‘plaasmoord’. Rapport, 4 Augustus:2.

Malan, P. 2007. Rattray se dood glo sluipmoord ná onmin oor grond. Beeld, 1 Mei:4.

Mandela supports SAAU initiatives for rural safety. 1999. The Farmer, February:5.

Manie. 1998. Onnodige afjak. Landbouweekblad, 16 Oktober:73.

388
Manie. 1999a. Ál meer vrae oor misdaad. Landbouweekblad, 19 Februarie:73-74.

Manie. 1999b. Dink nugter oor minimum loon. Landbouweekblad, 7 Mei:57.

Marais, C.W. 1989. Die waarde van modus operandi-inligting by die ondersoek van sekere
misdade. Acta Criminologia, 2(2):46-49.

Maxfield, M.G. 1987. Lifestyle and routine activity theories of crime: Empirical studies of
victimisation, delinquency and offender decision making. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 3(4):275-282.

Maxfield, M.G. & Babbie, E. 2005. Research methods for Criminal justice and Criminology. 4th ed.
Scarborough, Canada: Thomson Wadsworth.

Mc Kinney, J.C. 1966. Constructive typology and social theory: New York: Appleton Century-
Crafts.

Megargee, E.I. 1982. Psychological determinants and correlates of criminal violence. In M.E.
Wolfgang & N.A. Weiner (Eds), Criminal violence. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Merriam Webster’s Dictionary of Basic English. 1995. Springfield, MA: M. Webster Publishers.

Meyer, I. 2001a. Boer [81] verlaat sy plaas oor ‘intimidasie, teistering’. Rapport, 18 Februarie:10.

Meyer, I. 2001b. Grondeise ál taaier tameletjie. Rapport, 18 Februarie:10.

Meyer, L. 2001a. Boere, owerheid stamp kop oor onwettige immigrante. Rapport, 3 Junie:8.

Meyer, L. 2001b. Slagoffer van groepmoord. Rapport, 22 Julie:10.

Meyer, L. 2006. SAPD se werk ál meer geknou. Rapport, 3 September:4.

Miethe, T.D. 1995. Fear and withdrawl from urban life. The Annals by American Academy of
Political and Social Science, 539:15-27.

389
Miethe, T.D., Stafford, M.C. & Long, J.S. 1987. Social differentiation in criminal victimisation: A test
of routine activities/lifestyles theories. American Sociological Review, 52:84-194.

Miller, D.T. & Porter, C.A. 1983. Self-blame in victims of violence. Journal of Social Issues, 39(2):
139-152.

Misdaadverslag: Ander motiewe bestaan glo ook. 1998. Landbouweekblad, 4 September:16-

17, 26.

Mistry, D. & Dhlamini, J. 2001. Perpetrators of farm attacks: An offender profile. Pretoria, SA:
Institute of Human Rights and Criminal Justice Studies: Technikon SA.

Molefe gee SAPD in Noordwes ’n pluimpie. 1998. Die Boer, Oktober:8.

Monster-arbeidswet. 1998. Landbouweekblad, 25 September:97.

Moolman, C.J. 1999a. Bloodstains on your food: An investigation into farm attacks in South Africa.
(Unpublished research report). Pietersburg: University of the North.

Moolman, N. 1999b. Explaining farm attacks in South Africa. Acta Criminologia, 12(2):48-54.

Moord ruk Kameeldrift. 2006. Nokeng, 30 April:1, 3.

Moorde is dalk uit weerwraak. 1997. Beeld, 12 Desember:1.

Moses, A. 2007. ‘Publiek glo polisie kan hul nie meer beskerm’. Beeld, 17 Februarie:15.

Mouton, J. 2001. How to succeed in your Master’s and Doctoral studies: A South African guide and
resource book. Pretoria, SA: Van Schaik.

Mouton, S. 2006. Polisielid vas oor hy verdagte glo vrylaat. Beeld. 30 Augustus:8.

Mulder, M. 2006. Meer as twee aanvalle op plase per dag. Beeld, 21 Julie:9.

Mulder, N. 2001. ‘Boer vermoor omdat hy wit is’ – 2 kry lewenslank. Beeld, 7 Maart:1.

390
Mulder, N. 2006. Minister se ‘haatspraak’ grief. 7 Desember. Beeld, 9 April:2.

Murdered in front of his wife. 1936. Sunday Times, 17 May:2.

Neethling, E. 2006. Pornoprogram haal glo blits uit patrollie terwyl fone lui. Beeld, 25 Oktober:4.

Nel, J.A. 1996. The South African Police Service victim support programme initiative: the way
forward. Paper presented at the Crimsa/Idasa Conference, University of South Africa. 14
July, Pretoria.

Nomoyi, C. 2000. The incidence of violent crime in the rural areas in South Africa. A challenge to
indigenous institutions? Acta Criminologia, 13(1):66-71.

Nuttall’s Standard Dictionary of the English Language. 1945. London: Frederick Warne.

Oelofse, L. 2003. Minnaars agter tralies nà ‘aanval op plaas’. Rapport, 28 Desember:1.

Ons is keelvol vir misdaad, sê Suid-Afrika se mense. 1998. Die Boer - Spesiaal: Nuus oor
misdaadprotes, Oktober:1.

Ons kan nie heeldag in loopgrawe lê, ons moet boer!. 1998. Die Boer - Spesiaal: Nuus oor
Misdaadprotes, Oktober:3.

Ons verwag nog groter poging van regering. 1999. Die Boer, Maart:2.

Pelser, E. 2000. Rural exposure: Measuring police performance in rural areas. Nedbank Institute
for Security Studies Crime Index, 3:10-13. Pretoria: Institute for Security Studies.

Pelser, E., Louw, A. & Ntuli, S. 2000, May. Poor safety: Crime and policing in South Africa’s rural
areas. Institute for Security Studies Monograph Series 47:3-6. Pretoria, SA: Institute for
Security Studies.

Pelser, W. 2000a. Plaaswerkers word nie sleg behandel. Rapport, 28 Mei:19.

Pelser, W. 2000b. Jan Mnisi erken dit is alles sy werk. Rapport, 23 Julie:5.

391
Pelser, W. 2000c. Alleen jag dogter pa se moordenaars. Rapport, 19 November:8.

Pelser, W. 2001a. Kinderskok ná gruwelmoord. Rapport, 3 Junie:5.

Pelser, W. 2001b. Polisie-kombers om die platteland. Rapport, 4 November:18.

Pelser, W. 2002. Boere bid hardop toe vlamme hulle omsingel. Rapport, 14 Julie:10.

Pelser, W. 2003a. Vrae oor plaasaanvalsyfers. Rapport, 22 Junie:4.

Pelser, W. 2003b. Waarskuwings op baie plase. Rapport, 22 Junie:4.

Pelser, W. 2003c. Boervrou, man gered deur vernuftige skut. Rapport, 22 Junie:4.

Pelser, W. 2003d. Werklose jonges val plase aan. Rapport, 27 Julie:2.

Pelser, W. 2003e. Boervrou skiet geweer leeg op boef. Rapport, 27 Julie:2.

Perloff, L. S. 1983. Perceptions of vulnerability to victimisation. Journal of Social Issues, 39(2):41-

61.

Petisie-aksie teen plaasaanvalle geloods. 2000. Die Boer, Julie:1.

Phillips, M. 2006. Skrik wakker, boere, júlle dra by tot plaasmoorde. Beeld, 24 November:9.

Pieters, M. 1997. Familie sê Marais is voor moord herhaaldelik gedreig. Beeld, 15 Desember:1.

Pieters, M. 1998a. Rowers skop en slaan egpaar, vriendin naby Centurion. Beeld, 23 Maart:1.

Pieters, M. 1998b. Die pad na veiliger plase. Beeld, 22 Augustus:8.

Plaasaanvalle só verklaar. 1998. Beeld, 15 Mei:8.

Plant van kruise krap aan wonde. 2003. Rapport, 13 Augustus:6.

Polisie bekommerd oor aanvalle. 1998. Rapport, 11 Oktober:2.

392
Politiek is dalk wel faktor by plaasmoorde. 1998. Landbouweekblad, 12 Junie:72.

Potgieter, D. 2001a. Skotvry boewe te wyte aan onopgeleide polisie. Rapport, 25 Februarie:6.

Potgieter, D. 2001b. Boere gedreig hul plase gaan beset word. Rapport, 25 Maart:8.

Potgieter, D. 2001c. Híér leef boere op ’n kruitvat. Rapport, 8 April:22.

Potgieter, D. 2001d. Boere, werkers span saam op plase. Rapport, 3 Junie:8.

Pretorius, B. 1997. SA se ‘Mau-Mau-rebellie’. Beeld, 13 Desember:11.

Pretorius, R. 1986. Die slagoffer-oortredersisteem van verhoudinge in misdaad. In C.H. Cilliers

(Red.), Viktimologie. Pretoria, SA: HAUM.

Pretorius , R. Theron, A. 1999. Class notes for CRM 310. Pretoria, SA: Department of Criminology.
University of Pretoria.

Prinsloo, J. 1993. Modus operandi. In J. Van der Westhuizen (Ed.), Forensic criminalistics.
Durban, SA:Butterworths.

Prinsloo, W. 1999. Gautengse roosvrou is vroueboer van die jaar. Landbouweekblad, 10

September:89.

Raubenheimer, C. 2006a.Net ’n kierie teen rowers.Beeld, 15 Junie:16.

Raubenheimer, C.2006b.Pta-man in slaapkamer oorval en doodgeskiet, Beeld, 4 November:6.

Raubenheimer, J. 2001. Howe: Drastiese stappe nodig. Beeld, 1 Junie:16.

Regering moet volhou met uitsprake teen geweld. 1999. Die Boer, Januarie:1.

393
Report on Farm Attacks: Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July, 2003a. The
appointment of the committee:1-16.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into farm Attacks. 31 July 2003b. The
incidence and nature of farm attacks: 1-26.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003c.
Examples of farm attacks in general: 1-13
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003d.
Case studies: Direct attacks: 1-48.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003e.
Case studies: Land invasions: 1-28.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003f.
Victims of farm attacks: 1-30
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

394
Report on Farm Attacks. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003g.
Perpetrators of farm attacks: 1-11.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003h.
Investigating officers and prosecutors: 1-20
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003i.
Submissions to the Committee: 1-44.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003j.
Literature Review: 1-61
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003k. The
farming community in South Africa: 1-11
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003l.
Crime in South Africa: 1-16.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

395
Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003m. The
criminal justice system and the protection of farmers: 1-26.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003n.
Comparative studies: 1-19.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003o.
Legislation on land and land reform: 1-13.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003p.
Security on farms and smallholdings: 1-26.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003q. The
nature of trauma and its treatment: 1-13.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

Report on Farm Attacks Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Farm Attacks. 31 July 2003r.
Conclusions and recommendations: 1-44.
[0] Available:
http:www.saps.gov.za/farmat/index.htm
Accessed on 2003/10/10

396
Reppetto, T.A. 1974. Residential crime. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Roestoff, A. 2006a. Polisieman met klag teen hom glo bevorder. Beeld, 10 Augustus:6.

Roestoff, A. 2006b. Reserviste nou betaal om nog te lok. 2006. Beeld, 25 Augustus:12.

Rohendahl, L. 1998. Grondhonger is rede vir plaasmoorde. Landbouweekblad, 2 Oktober:67.

Rooi, J. 2000. Harde werk agter skerms om plase in SA te beveilig. Rapport, 7 Mei:13.

Rooi, J. 2001. Plaaswerkers opgelei as ‘polisiemanne’. Rapport, 18 Maart:10.

Roos, E. 2006. Skurke dreig, maar polisie ‘stel nie belang’. Beeld, 30 Augustus:4.

Schafer, S. 1969. Theories in criminology: Past and present philosophies of the crime problem.
New York: Random House.

Schaum, I. 2007. Alarms soos soetkoek. Beeld Huisgids, 2 Februarie:1.

Schoeman, B. 2003. Interview with Colonel B. Schoeman, Chief of Joint Operations, SANDF.
[Transcript]. 5 May. Pretoria, SA.

Schönteich, M. 2000a: Attacks on farms and smallholdings: An evaluation of the rural protection
plan. Pretoria, SA: Institute for Security Studies.

Schönteich, M. 2000b. The thin blue line: Police resources in the provinces. Nedbank Institute for
Security Studies Crime Index, 4(2):15-20. Pretoria, SA: Institute for Security Studies.

Schurink, E.M. 1998a. Deciding to use a qualitative research approach. In A.S. De Vos, Research
at grass roots: A primer for the caring professions. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Schurink, E.M. 1998b. The method of unstructured face-to-face interviewing. In A.S. De Vos,
Research at grass roots: A primer for the caring professions. Pretoria, SA: Van Schaik.

Schurink, W.J., Snyman, I., Krugel, W.F. & Slabbert, L. 1992. (Eds), Victimisation: Nature and
trends. Pretoria, SA: Human Research Council Publishers.

397
Selfbeheersing bepleit by boere ná moord op Roos. 2006. Beeld, 2 Mei:12.

Separovic, Z.P. 1974. Victimology: A new approach in the social sciences. In I. Drapkin & E. Viano
(Eds), Victimology: A new focus (Vol. 1), Theoretical issues in victimology.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Sheley, J.F. 1995. Criminology: A contemporary handbook. 2nd ed. Belmont: Wadsworth.

Sherman, L.W., Gartin, P.R. & Buerger, M.E. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities
and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27:27-55.

Sien geen toekoms in landbou. 1989. Landbouweekblad, 31 Maart:91.

Skerp afname van werkers op plase. 2000. Die Boer, Julie:15.

Skogan, W. 1981. Assessing the behavioural context of victimisation. The Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 72(2):727-742.

Skok-uitlatings oor moorde op boere walglik. 1997. Landbouweekblad, 14 November:113.

Skrywers vereer top-boere. 2006. Beeld, 15 November:24.

‘Slawe op plase’ in Mpumalanga skok Mbeki. 2000, Beeld, 14 Maart:2.

Smit, K. 2006. Wanneer mag jy skiet? Beeld, 28 Julie:4.

Smith, A & Coetzee, G. 2006. Wat doen jy aan misdaad?. Beeld, 25 Augustus:1.

Smith, A. & Joubert, J-J. 2006. Een-en-dertigduisend nuwe polisielede vir slaankrag. Beeld, 26
Oktober:1.

Smith, C. 2000. Beheer toegang tot plase strenger. Rapport, 19 November:8.

Snyman, A. 2006. Moordsaak weer uitgestel. Beeld, 12 Desember:6.

398
Snyman, D. 2002. Ewe erg as Zimbabwe. Landbouweekblad, 29 Augustus: 16-17, 24.

Só is boer vermoor. 1998. Landbouweekblad, 16 Oktober:77-78.

Só is hulle vermoor. 1998. Landbouweekblad, November:85, 86.

Spear, P.D., Penrod, S.D. & Baker, T.B. 1988. Psychology: Perspectives on behavior. New York:
John Wiley.

Steenkamp, L. 2006a. Sóveel betaal ons vir ekstra veiligheid. Rapport, 3 September:4.

Steenkamp, L. 2006b. Veiligheid is ’n luuksheid wat net rykes beskore is. Rapport, 3
September:4.

Stel feite oor ‘mishandeling’ vinnig vas, maan Bosman. 1999. Die Boer, November:5.

Stofberg, A. 1997a. Die boere se bloed kook oor. Beeld, 11 Desember:4.

Stofberg, A. 1997b. In die hart van ’n plaasmoord. Beeld, 11 Desember:6.

Stofberg, A. & Prinsloo, K. 1997. Plase word ‘the killing fields’ in Natal. Beeld, 13 Desember:11.

Strydom, H. 1998. Ethical aspects of research in the caring professions. In A.S. De Vos, (Ed.),
Research at grass roots: A primer for the caring professions. Pretoria, SA: Van Schaik.

Strydom, H. 2005. The pilot study. In A.S.De Vos (Ed.), Research at grass roots: For the social
sciences and human service professions. 3rd ed. Pretoria, SA: Van Schaik.

Strydom, H. & Venter, L. 2005. Sampling and sampling methods. In A.S. De Vos, (Ed.), Research
at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions. 3rd ed. Pretoria, SA:
Van Schaik.

Stuijt, A. 2001.Adriana Stuijts’ Journalism During Apartheid. [0]. Available:

http://www:adrianastuijtsjournalismduringapartheidsite@groups.msn.com . Accessed on
2005/10/12

399
Sutton, M.D. & Sutton, C.D. 2004. Social Research: The basics. London: Sage Publications.

Swart, L. 2003. Oorwin plaasaanvalle. Cape Town, SA: CLS.

Swart, L. 2006. Sal ons monster ooit tem?. Beeld, 21 Julie:19.

Swarts, M. 1997. Evil bedfellows: Drugs, alcohol and crime. In focus forum, 4(5):18-21.

Sykes, G.M. & Cullen, F.T. 1992. Criminology 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Taylor, D. 2002. Death of a farmer. Farmer’s Weekly, 17 May:27-29.

Taylor, S.E. ,Wood, J.V. & Lichtman, R.R. 1983. It could be worse: Selective evaluation as a
response to victimisation. Journal of Social Issues, 39(2):19-40.

Tempelhoff, E. 2007. Hartaanval eis vrou nadat sy moord-nuus kry. Beeld, 1 Maart:1.

Terre Blanche, M. & Kelly, K. 2004. Interpretive methods. In M. Terre Blanche & K. Durrheim.
Research in practice: Applied methods for the social services. Cape Town, SA:
University of Cape Town Press.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 1964. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English 1976. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

The New Collins Thesaurus. 1984. Mc Leod, W.T. London:Collins.

The New Oxford Illustrated Dictionary. 1976. Tokyo: Bay Books.

The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary. 1991. Oxford: Clarendon.

The South African Pocket Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 1994. 8th ed. Cape Town: Oxford
University Press.

Thompson, C. 2004. Four up for farm murder. The Citizen, 3 August:4.

400
Toerien, D. 2002. Plaasmoord-nagmerrie. Beeld, 17 Junie:1.

Tshwete assures Agri SA of commitment to rural safety. 2000. The Farmer, January:2.

Tshwete kap na ‘toeskouers’ in stryd teen misdaad. 1999. Die Boer, November:3.

Twee 11-jariges vas na bylmoord op bejaardes. 1998. Rapport, 11 Oktober:2.

Twee vasgetrek minder as 36 uur ná Bothaville-moorde. 2000. Beeld, 16 Februarie:5.

Tweehonderd-en vyftig boere gee misdaad-versoekskrif aan landdros. 2007. Beeld, 14 Maart:5.

Van Burick, N. 1999. Plaasaanvallers gemaan. Beeld, 25 November:19.

Van Burick, N. 2001a. Swart én wit ween by graf. Beeld, 2 Februarie:2.

Van Burick, N. 2001b. Nog plaasmoorde skok. Beeld, 2 Maart:1.

Van Burick, N. 2003a. SA boere mees bedreigde groep ter wêreld. Landbouweekbld, 4 Julie:69.

Van Burick, N. 2003b. Uitspraak oor haatspraak verwelkom. 2003. Landbouweekblad, 1

Augustus:61.

Van Burick, N. 2003c. ‘Te min hulp vir slagoffers’. Landbouweekblad, 1 Augustus:63.

Van Burick, N. 2004. Plaasaanvalle benadeel stabiliteit. Landbouweekblad, 12 November:94.

Van Burick, N & Bothma, P. 2001. Wagwoord: Keelvol. Beeld, 2 Februarie:11.

Van den Berg, D.J.C. 1997. Die inirekte slagofferbelewenis van ’n moordinsident.
Ongepubliseerde MA-verhandeling, Universiteit van Pretoria.

Van der Merwe, K. & Viljoen, C. 2000. Is jy paraat vir aanvalle?. Landbouweekblad, 19 Mei:22.

Van der Westhuizen, G. 1997a. Honderde boere in KwaZulu-Natal eis noodtoestand. Beeld, 11
Desember:4.

401
Van der Westhuizen, G. 1997b. Misdaad: Die een probleem wat swart kleinboere bloots ry. Beeld,
12 Desember:4.

Van der Westhuizen, J. 1977. Meting van misdaad. Ongepubliseerde doktorale proefskrif,
Universiteit van Suid-Afrika, Pretoria.

Van der Westhuizen, M.M. 1998. Intertextuality in the case of routine activity and rational
choice: Some of the theoretical perspectives. Acta Criminologia, 11(1):59-65.

Van Eeden, J. 2001. Hoekom my kind? Rapport, 25 November:3.

Van Greunen, A. 2001. Jagseisoen oop op SA boere. De Kat, Junie:32-35.

Van heinde en ver kom steun vir petisie-aksie. 2001. Die Boer, Januarie:4.

Van Niekerk, S. 1999a. Vier Balfour-verkragters skuldig bevind. Beeld, 18 November:3.

Van Rooyen, C. 1999. Misdaad kan hele ekonomie lamlê. Landbouweekblad, 4 Junie:72.

Van Rooyen, D. 1999. Hoekom buitelanders nie in SA wil belê. Sake Beeld, 13 Desember:1.

Van Rooyen, D. 2006. Vyftien persent wit plase moet gou swart base kry. Beeld, 12 November:3.

Van Zyl, J. 1998. Plaasmoorde: intimidasie speel ’n groot rol. Finansies & Tegniek, 9 Januarie:12.

Veiligheid, wet en orde – SALU gooi nie handdoek in nie. 1998. Die Boer, Oktober:20.

Venter, J. 2001. Lewenslange straf vir lewenslange smart. Rapport, 11 November:6.

Verdagte in aanval het gewerk by die boer. 2001. Rapport, 18 April:13.

Verdagtes in hof toegejuig. 2001. Beeld, 29 Maart:2.

Viljoen, B. 2006. Boer doodgeskiet by agterdeur. Beeld, 21 Junie:4.

402
Viljoen, B. 2007a. Boer lank gemartel, toe vermoor. Beeld, 13 Januarie:1.

Viljoen, B. 2007b. Seun [15] vas ná moord op boer. Beeld, 15 Januarie:1.

Viljoen, B. 2007c. Staatsamptenaar in hof ná plaasmoord. Beeld, 26, Januarie:3.

Viljoen, C. 2000. Sigbare paraatheid kan aanvalle ontmoedig. Landbouweekblad, 3 Mei:14, 15, 17.

Viljoen, C. & Van der Merwe, K. 2000a. Wanneer mag ek skiet? Landbouweekblad, 2 Junie:35-36.

Viljoen, C. & Van der Merwe, K. 2000b. Vereistes vir woningbeskerming. Landbouweekblad, 26
Mei: 24, 26.

Visser, J.M.J. 1998. Violent attacks on farmers in South Africa. ISSUP Bulletin, 3:1-12.

Vito, G.F. & Holmes, R.M. 1994. Criminology: Theory, research and policy. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Von Hentig, H. 1948. The criminal and his victim: Studies in the socio-biology of crime.
New York: Schocken Books.

Voorstes in Suid-Afrika wil boere help teen misdaad. 1999. Die Boer, Maart:1.

Vreemdes bly nie by fabrieke; hoekom dan op plase? 1996. Landbouweekblad, 4 Oktober:79.

Vriendskap bly in slag ná skynplaasaanval. 2002. Rapport, 21 Julie:5.

Vrou, jong man vas oor ‘plaasmoord’. 2002. Rapport, 4 Augustus:2.

Vroue dalk deel van bende plaasmoordenaars. 2000. Beeld, 8 September:5.

Walklate, S. 1989. Victimology and the criminal justice process. London: Unwin Hyman.

Wat gebeur met slagoffers na plaasaanvalle?. 2004. Zambi:16.

Wees só meer prakties met plan vir beveiliging. 1999. Die Boer, November:11.
403
Wil president wees en is nou sy pasiënt. 2000. Beeld, 30 Augustus:5.

Williams, F.P. & McShane, M.D. 1994. Criminological theory. 2nd ed. London: Sage.

Wittes doodgemaak ‘om Azania te bevry’. 1998. Beeld, 21 April:4.

Wolfgang, M.E. & Ferracuti, F. 1967. The subculture of violence: Towards an integrated
theory in criminology. London: Tavistock.

Wonderwerk dat hulle leef ná nag van bloed. 1997. Beeld, 10 Desember:12.

Wrede transitoroof: Nóg agt gesoek. 2006. Beeld, 9 November:9.

Zastron-boer se moordenaar kry 38 jaar. 1997. Beeld, 24 November:7.

Zillmann, D. 1979. Hostility and aggression. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

404
 APPENDIX I

Pretoria 0002 Republic of South Africa http://www.up.ac.za

Department of Criminology

CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE IN RESEARCH PROJECT

Participant’s name ……………………………………………… Date ……………….

Researcher: V. Hornschuh

Address: Box 1032

Derdepoort Park
Pretoria
0035

INFORMED CONSENT

1. Title of the study:

A Victimological investigation of farm attacks with specific reference to farmers’ perceptions of their
susceptibility, the consequences of attacks for farmers and the coping strategies applied by them after
victimisation

2. Purpose of the study:

The purpose of the study is to explore the opinions of victims of farm attacks on the susceptibility of members of
the farming community to criminal victimisation and to determine the consequences of victimisation.

3. Research procedure:

I shall be expected to recount the happenings during the victimisation event and to offer any information that I
feel I might have on the reason(s) why I was (am) susceptible to criminal victimisation.

I shall have to elaborate on the consequences (e.g. physical injuries, emotional and social harm, economic losses
or expenses) of the victimisation event and the coping strategies applied by me.
4. Risks and discomforts:

I do not anticipate any risk or discomfort as a direct result of participating in the study.

5. Benefits:

I understand that I shall not benefit directly from participating in this project. However, I am aware that the
information that I provide could prove invaluable in preventing some future attacks and in preparing potential
victims for the possible consequences of criminal victimisation. Furthermore, sharing my emotional experiences
might assist other victims to cope more effectively with their distressing experience.

6. Rights:

I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I can choose to withdraw from the project at any stage if
I so wish without suffering any negative consequences.

7. Confidentiality:

I understand that the researcher will treat all information as confidential, will take the necessary steps to protect
my anonymity and that she will destroy the data should I withdraw. I further understand that the completed study
will be made available to the Department of Social Work and Criminology University of Pretoria, Human
Sciences Research Council, South African Police Service and to Agri South Africa.

I hereby declare that I understand my rights as a research subject and that I volunteer to participate in
the study.

Signature …………………………………..

Date ……………………………………….
 APPENDIX I

Pretoria 0002 Republiek van Suid Afrika

http://www.up.ac.za

Departement Kriminologie

TOESTEMMING TOT DEELNAME IN NAVORSINGSPROJEK

Naam van respondent …………………………… Datum …………………….

Naam van navorser: V. Hornschuh

Adres van navorser: Posbus 1032

Derdepoortpark
Pretoria
0035

INGELIGTE TOESTEMMING

1. Titel van die studie:

’n Viktimologiese ondersoek na plaasaanvalle met spesifieke verwysing na plaasboere se persepsies rakende hul
slagoffervatbaarheid, die gevolge van die aanvalle vir plaasboere en die oorlewingstrategieë wat hulle aanwend
nadat hulle geviktimiseer is.

2. Doel van die studie:

Die doel van die studie is om die menings van slagoffers te ondersoek aangaande die vatbaarheid van lede van
die boeregemeenskap vir kriminele viktimisasie asook om die gevolge van viktimisasie te bepaal.
3. Prosedure:

Daar sal van my verwag word om in my eie woorde van die gebeure gedurende die aanval te vertel, en om enige
inligting te verskaf waarom ek van mening is dat ek kwesbaar was (is) vir kriminele viktimisasie.

Ek sal moet uitbrei oor die gevolge (bv. fisieke beserings, emosionele en sosiale skade, ekonomiese verliese of
uitgawes) van die viktimisasie voorval en die oorlewingstrategieë wat deur my toegepas is.

4. Risiko:

Ek voorsien geen risiko of ongerief aan my as ’n direkte gevolg van my deelname aan die studie nie.

5. Voordele:

Ek neem kennis dat ek geen direkte voordeel gaan trek uit my deelname aan die projek nie. Ek is bewus daarvan
dat die inligting wat ek verskaf van onskatbare waarde kan wees om toekomstige aanvalle te voorkom asook om
potensiële slagoffers voor te berei vir die moontlike gevolge van viktimisasie. Verder, deur my emosionele
ervarings te deel, mag ek ander slagoffers help om meer effektief die onaangename ervaring die hoof te bied.

6. Respondent se regte:

Ek verstaan dat my deelname vrywillig is en dat ek op enige tydstip gedurende die onderhoud kan onttrek
sonder nadelige gevolge.

7. Vertroulikheid:

Ek verstaan dat die navorser alle inligting vertroulik sal hanteer, die nodige stappe sal doen om my anonimiteit te
bewaar en dat sy alle inligting sal vernietig sou ek onttrek. Ek verstaan verder dat die voltooide studie beskikbaar
gestel sal word aan die Departement Maatskaplike Werk en Kriminologie Universiteit van Pretoria, Raad vir
Geesteswetenskaplike Navorsing (RGN), Suid-Afrikaanse Polisiediens en Agri Suid-Afrika.

Hiermee verklaar ek dat ek vertroud is met my regte as respondent en dat ek vrywillig deelneem aan die
studie.

Handtekening: ……………………………………………..

Datum: ………………………………..
 APPENDIX II

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

1. Explain what happened during the incident.

2. What is your experience of the susceptibility of the farming community to
criminal attacks?
3. Elaborate on the consequences of the incident.
4. What advice would you give farmers and smallholders to minimise the risk
of victimisation attacks?
5. Would you like to add to the information already provided?

ONDERHOUDSKEDULE

1. Verduidelik wat gedurende die insident gebeur het.

2. Wat is u ervaring van die kwesbaarheid van lede van die boeregemeenskap vir
kriminele viktimisasie?
3. Brei uit op die gevolge van die insident.
4. Watter raad sou u boere en kleinhoewebewoners gee om die risiko van
viktimisasie te verminder?
5. Wil u graag nog inligting byvoeg?