Nic Dlamini's arm broken by Table Mountain rangers

[thisismyotherbike]

Yes, way too big.

 

The differences are numerous. I am sure young Nic was not armed nor had consulted with witch doctors to ensure he was safe from SANparks finest prior to cycling in their domain and certainly did not go looking for a fight.

 

Nic was passive, was minding he own business when accosted by these thugs.

 

No parallels.

 

Dude you are doing the classic Dominee thing and taking a verse from the bible which has an entirely different context when seen as a complete passage     

 

If we want to take a snippet that sums up the situation elegantly, here it is:

 

you have grown up in an authoritarian culture where law is violently enforced. 

[Mamil]

OK    - we were all either born into or raised by parents who were born into an authoritarian culture that enforced it's law through violence. As a result this violence and the fear of it are omnipresent in our society and burst through in incidents like this and others. What happens next in Nic's story is as much about how we as a society enforce the law as it is about broken arms and trail permits.

 

Also - don't hit your children.

 

summary in three lines please 

[thisismyotherbike]

OK    - we were all either born into or raised by parents who were born into an authoritarian culture that enforced it's law through violence. As a result this violence and the fear of it are omnipresent in our society and burst through in incidents like this and others. What happens next in Nic's story is as much about how we as a society enforce the law as it is about broken arms and trail permits.

 

Also - don't hit your children.

 

I'm allowed to hit my children in self-defense, right??

 

Brilliantly put, Mamil.  Seriously disconcerting, but as peaceful societies have evolved from violent authoritarianism elsewhere there is always hope for change in our own.  We just need to be willing.

[IceCreamMan]

Sure there are those differences - however both involve a massively disproportionate and violent response by an authority that sees itself as being disobeyed.

 

 

One was in a situation where people were armed, had consulted with witch doctors to make them invincible to police bullets , were looking for trouble and advanced on police who were fully armed. Additionally 2 days before security personnel had been brutally murdered by weapon wielding thugs with blood lust.

 

The other was an innocent, unarmed, passive cyclist  have a cycle.

 

There are hundreds of thousands of situations where brutality is not at play when arresting people. There is no excessive violence in those situations so law is not violently enforced in general. This is an exception to the norm, unacceptable for sure, but more the exception than the norm.

 

What boggles the mind is that some are of the opinion nic is to blame.

[Vetplant]

 

What boggles the mind is that some are of the opinion nic is to blame.

Yep. Like telling a girl who was harassed by police in the midnight hours that she shouldn't have been out driving alone at that time of day.

 

We need to be a society where that isn't even a reply to such horrendous actions by civil servants like Metro Police.

[LeoKnight]

Yep. Like telling a girl  who (skipped a red robot, failed to stop when requested) was harassed by police in the midnight hours that she shouldn't have been out driving alone at that time of day.

We need to be a society where that isn't even a reply to such horrendous actions by civil servants like Metro Police.

 

fixed it for you

[LeoKnight]

So explain me this. You see someone parked in mom&tots bay without a kid in sight and you need to use it.

You tell the person they are parked illegally and he tells you F-off! Do you now have the right to breaking his arm????

 

Good example...

 

No the attacker do not have the right to break his arm as that would be assault.. 

 

But then again if they did not park in the parking bay they would not have had to deal with an irrational bully - not victim blaming, just the risk they accepted.  

 

The two things are separate and yet connected

[Long Wheel Base]

I know these are not comparable situations but If those same SANparks rangers did that to a rhino poacher in the Kruger, I wouldn't be phased...................

[Gen]

fixed it for you

I am sorry.. I am a woman.. and if safe to do so (no traffic) I don't stop at red lights at night ..because it just isn't safe to do so.. I will also not pull over for a cop car at night until I am in a populated area where I feel safe..because there are far too many hijackers pretending to be cops.. just a few days ago a truck was pulled over on th N12 by what he believed to be cops and the bastards proceeded to try and highjack him.

[LeoKnight]

I am sorry.. I am a woman.. and if safe to do so (no traffic) I don't stop at red lights at night ..because it just isn't safe to do so.. I will also not pull over for a cop car at night until I am in a populated area where I feel safe..because there are far too many hijackers pretending to be cops.. just a few days ago a truck was pulled over on th N12 by what he believed to be cops and the bastards proceeded to try and highjack him.

 

Bit of the topic...

 

But that remains your decision how you want to react (ie not stop and drive to populated area), but you do assume the risk that they might overreact and shoot your car full of bullets. - we all hope that this would not happen and that the policy officers will understand the situation and not get irritated.

 

There was a story recently of a woman that said she did fall victim to a scam roadblock, and the next week when they wanted to pull her over she drove to the nearest petrol station, where they manhandle her into their van.  

 

Given the probabilities I would suggest to my wife that if she is on the road alone, and being directed to pull over, that she puts on her hazards, and drive slowly to the nearest public spot 

 

edit: ok maybe my fixup should have been a girl tailgating out of the shopping mall parking garage. 

[The Ouzo]

Bit of the topic...

 

But that remains your decision how you want to react (ie not stop and drive to populated area), but you do assume the risk that they might overreact and shoot your car full of bullets. - we all hope that this would not happen and that the policy officers will understand the situation and not get irritated.

 

There was a story recently of a woman that said she did fall victim to a scam roadblock, and the next week when they wanted to pull her over she drove to the nearest petrol station, where they manhandle her into their van.  

 

Given the probabilities I would suggest to my wife that if she is on the road alone, and being directed to pull over, that she puts on her hazards, and drive slowly to the nearest public spot 

 

edit: ok maybe my fixup should have been a girl tailgating out of the shopping mall parking garage. 

 

Even as a male this is what I would and have done.

Way to many dodgy people around.

I think as long as you give a clear enough indication that you have seen them and are complying in general you should be ok.

[River Rat]

Bit of the topic...

 

But that remains your decision how you want to react (ie not stop and drive to populated area), but you do assume the risk that they might overreact and shoot your car full of bullets. - we all hope that this would not happen and that the policy officers will understand the situation and not get irritated.

 

There was a story recently of a woman that said she did fall victim to a scam roadblock, and the next week when they wanted to pull her over she drove to the nearest petrol station, where they manhandle her into their van.  

 

Given the probabilities I would suggest to my wife that if she is on the road alone, and being directed to pull over, that she puts on her hazards, and drive slowly to the nearest public spot 

 

edit: ok maybe my fixup should have been a girl tailgating out of the shopping mall parking garage. 

Why do you believe that this would not result in the same overreaction you described earlier?

 

[King_Crispy]

You know this how? Were you there?

 

Every single one of your posts you have made wild assumptions. Unless you know exactly what happened your comments have no base. And even then....it's still no reason for the aggressive assault that occurred.

Wild assumptions? No buddy, that's my interpretation.

I'm allowed an opinion. I don't have to agree with your poofy way of thinking. I am of the opinion that had Dlamini complied, things would not have escalated the way they did.

There was no reason for the poor behavior from the official, but that's the way SA has become.

Analyse what happened. It's a very common occurrence these days. It has become a cultural norm.

Compare the domestic violence and murder stats at Diepsloot vs Douglasdale. Chalk and cheese.

[LeoKnight]

Why do you believe that this would not result in the same overreaction you described earlier?

 

 

You can just hope, but you never know for sure it won't.  It is the risk you accept

[Stretch]

Wild assumptions? No buddy, that's my interpretation.

I'm allowed an opinion. I don't have to agree with your poofy way of thinking. I am of the opinion that had Dlamini complied, things would not have escalated the way they did.

There was no reason for the poor behavior from the official, but that's the way SA has become.

Analyse what happened. It's a very common occurrence these days. It has become a cultural norm.

Compare the domestic violence and murder stats at Diepsloot vs Douglasdale. Chalk and cheese.

Its not an interpretation. An interpretation is an explanation based upon known data. What you are doing is making an assumption. There is no known data in this case... Well except for a video.. And my interpretation from that is that I'm seeing someone being assaulted... That is the only interpretation I can make based upon known data... What happened before that is an assumption because it is only known by dlamini and the rangers

 

Second point is that you love to argue by being offensive. You called me "poofy" there.. Earlier you accused someone of drinking

[Jewbacca]

I thought of a different scenario... 2 school kids. Let's call them Mikey and Paul.

 

Mikey is a bit dim witted and not exceptional, but he tries really hard and does what he is told.

 

Paul is the star rugby player, popular kid and is going places through hard work, talent and some well placed support.

 

Mikey is a hall monitor. He see's Paul bouncing his ball in the hall during peace time and says 'My job is to ask you to stop bouncing that ball in the halls and respect peace time'.

 

Paul doesn't like being told what to do, so he keeps bouncing the ball in the hall. Mikey doesn't really know what to do. The headmaster tasked him to keep the halls free of such things and ball bouncing is on the list.

 

'Stop bouncing you ball in the hall, it is not allowed'

 

Paul then decides he will continue to disregard Mikey and continues to bounce his rugby ball in the hall, contrary to the rules Mikey has been asked to uphold and police. 

 

He was never really told HOW to uphold and police the laws as the headmaster assumed that the kids would respect the Hall Monitor badge and do as requested. 

 

Mikey is now frustrated, he feels Paul is taunting him. Being a little slow but desperate to fulfill his job and follow the headmasters instructions, he attempts to take the ball away from Paul. As he does this, one of Paul's rugby friends starts filming it.

 

As Mikey lunges for the ball, his shoulder hits Paul and his elbow follows through and breaks his nose.

 

Paul can now no longer play Craven week and is incensed. He runs around telling everybody 'Mikey attacked me for no reason and broke my nose and now I can't play Craven Week!!!' 

 

The video clearly shows Mikey doing just that, but as he is now guilty, violent scum who completely over reacted to a simple 'no bouncing of balls in the hall' rule, no one belives him or even asks why he reacted how he did.

 

Paul garners all the support from parents and principle and Mikey is expelled. 

 

The parents and teachers repeatedly tell the other hall monitors that Mikey had NO authority to enforce the rules, he had no right what so ever.

 

A few months later, Sam dies after spending the night stuffed into his locker. The teachers and parents are outraged. 

 

'Where were the hall monitors!!!'

 

'We saw them do it, but without any real authority we took a photo and emailed it to the principle, like you suggested when Mikey was expelled'

 

The outrage is immense, the parents and teachers accuse the hall monitors of being useless, they are there to prevent such things......

 

'But how can we prevent anything after being repeatedly told we had no authority? How do we know who to apprehend and who to take pictures of?'

 

The headmaster replies 'The people doing no wrong will stop when asked because they are decent. The ones who ignore you are usually up to no good'...