Superintendent Hailey, who was in charge of the police firearms forensic laboratory, examined the X-ray pictures and told the court that the object which was lodged in the plaintiff’s shoulder had the appearance of a bullet jacket. He stated that from its appearance the bullet was fired from a military rifle and not a civilian rifle. Superintendent Hailey told the court that FN rifles, which the police were using, are not suitable for riot control. Two issues that arose for determination in respect of liability were whether the plaintiff was injured by a bullet fired by a policeman, and whether the injury, if the police caused it, was justified. From the evidence that was led, the court was satisfied that a bullet that was discharged from an FN rifle by the police who were trying to suppress riots shot the plaintiff. On the second issue the court affirmed the position that one can kill in defence of another’s life or property. Having regard to the magnitude of the violence as described by the parties the court found that the police were totally justified in using firearms. The case turned, however, on the use of military weapons by the police. It was held that it is unreasonable and wrong for the police to use military weapons to suppress an urban uprising in the full knowledge that such weapons are dangerous and therefore not suitable for riot control. The police should not be excused for exposing people like the plaintiff who were going about their business to the risk of being hit by ricocheting bullets fired from weapons that should not be used to suppress riots. While the police have a duty to maintain law and order they should do so with the use of suitable equipment. The plaintiff was awarded Z$40,000 as general damages and Z$6,617.62 as special damages. Lovemore Musona His 17-year-old son Redius Musona was coming from school when the police shot him in the head. He died four hours later at Harare Hospital. The autopsy indicated that he had died of brain laceration caused by a gunshot wound. The police denied that the officers who were sent to Glen View on 20 January were armed at all. However, a police officer who investigated the matter was subpoenaed together with the docket. He told the court that, in his investigations, he had found out that members of the Support Unit and the Police Reaction Group had been sent to Glen View and that they were armed with guns. Although he was satisfied that the boy had been shot by members of the Zimbabwe Republic Police he had recommended that the docket be closed because no one could identify the police officer who had killed the plaintiff’s son. On the basis of this policeman’s evidence, and the evidence of the plaintiff and his wife, the court made the following findings of fact: • that the Support Unit and Police Reaction Group were at Glen View on the day in question; • that they were armed with guns; and • that they were firing their weapons. The court ruled that the question of whether it was the police who killed the plaintiff’s son was a question of inference from all the evidence led. The plaintiff had proved his case on a balance of probabilities, and on the basis of the evidence led the court found that it was reasonable to conclude that police had fired the shot that killed the plaintiff’s son. The plaintiff had claimed Z$30,000 for funeral expenses and Z$500,000 for loss of future support. The plaintiff was able to prove funeral expenses of $12,000. Judgment was accordingly entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $12,000 plus interest and costs. 15