ADV GCABASHE
Ms Nhlayisi, I just want to explore the subjective believe and those surrounding circumstances that you have referred to.  Really, those surrounding circumstances as I understood the evidence are as follows.
	This incident, the second shooting, occurred at about 2 o'clock in the afternoon, in broad daylight.  It's only the applicant who was armed, his friend was not armed.  They were not pursuing these particular persons in the sense that they were in hot pursuit but they had decided to come back to the school because they had realised that these chaps had run into the school, some of them had run into the school premises and as it was fairly contemporaneous but it was not a hot pursuit.  As they approached the school yard, these two persons emerged from the school yard essentially.  There's no evidence that they were wearing those distinctive red bands that the applicant and his friend had noticed earlier, vis a vis the vigilante group.  There is no evidence that they were running in any particular direction.  In fact when the translation was, it sounded like they were just walking by, passers by, so they were walking, yet - oh and then the applicant shouts at them to stop, which they do not do, they simply ignore him and he then shoots at them.  Now all of this in broad daylight.  Now just on the probabilities of him subjectively establishing that these two are persons who are part of that vigilinte group, I have a difficulty there.
	My second difficulty arises from again the probabilities.  Even if these two had been part of the vigilante group, which is what he believed, his intention is not to kill them, his intention is to arrest them and take them where to, 2 o'clock, broad daylight, brandishing a firearm, frog marching them or making sure they go to a particular place. I mean this the probabilities of that having been the intention and the consquences of his actions being that he was then going to take them to his comrades, the probabilities for me I still have a great difficulty with that.  I don't know if you can assist at all in narrowing the probabilities and saying it was quite likely, very likely that indeed all the things that he testified to were subjectively what he believed in.  Can you help me with this, having painted my own difficulties for you?