porqui Posted December 30, 2019 Share "If I was parks I would ban all cycling on the mountain and in the park areas." Nooooo, then they'll all be on the roads, riding six abreast and giving everyone else the finger.. Please remove this post pleeeaase !!! Just now it gives them an idea and that area is my stomping ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Bob Posted December 30, 2019 Share Jeez, 25 pages and counting since this fred started on 28th and in holidays time too. Just looking at the comments on this last page (at the moment) it looks like it's escalated nicely into a vintage hub session. Can't wait to go back to the start and see who picked what view, who refused to budge and who started throwing haymakers... Christmas' may come and go, but as sure as a snowless boxing day in Cape Town, anything with SanParks and bikes will make people froth. Edited December 30, 2019 by T-Bob porqui, Long Wheel Base, mazambaan and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porqui Posted December 30, 2019 Share Jeez, 25 pages and counting since this fred started on 28th and in holidays time too. Just looking at the comments on this last page (at the moment) it looks like it's escalated nicely into a vintage hub session. Can't wait to go back to the start and see who picked what view, who refused to budge and who started throwing haymakers... Christmas' may come and go, but as sure as a snowless boxing day in Cape Town, anything with SanParks and bikes will make people froth. Just a btw it snowed (kapok) on the highest peaks in the WC on Christmas eve. (Yes it did) Wait till 2de nuwe jaar for this fred to develop it's just starting - good old days. T-Bob 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted December 30, 2019 Share Well, Nic wasn't trespassing. At worst he failed to buy/show a permit needed to access a public road in the park. That is not a crime just like overstaying your welcome in a parking bay isn't one. You may get a parking ticket but that does not make it a crime. Have you been drinking all afternoon? No. Had you ? As a rule being rational is not a general indicator of being drunk. However, aggression towards someone you disagree with often is.Dlamini was an intruder. He had not paid for the use of the amenities he was enjoying.That shows criminal intent. Let's start with a very simple lesson in law: Not everything that is unlawful is a crime. There are many administrative transgressions that are against the law but not crimes. You did not like my previous analogy, so here is a better one : it is unlawful to own a TV set without a TV licence but it is NOT a crime to do so. It may be wrongful to enter the park on a bicycle without having the permit on you, but it is NOT a crime. He knew what he was doing was wrong, or at least should've known it was wrong. I may have missed it, but I can't recall anyone saying Nic is blameless of riding without a permit - even though he may well have one, but left it at home (*) So he may well have been wrong, but riding without a permit does not constitute a criminal offence.The fact that he had an altercation with an official shows that the said official took the law into his own hands and dealt with the situation as he deemed proper. The official may NEVER take the law into his own hands, nor may he deal with the situation as he deems proper. He MUST deal with the situation within the law, and the law requires him to use minimum force. To not do so may constitute an assault (which is both wrongful AND a crime).As a law-abiding person can attest, the force used was improper and unnecessary, and needs to be dealt with. The first and only true thing you have said although I doubt you are as law abiding as you say. I suspect you may have done 85 up William Nichol once or twice, and maybe even accused someone of being drunk, which could constitute Crimen Injurea (which ironically is a crime).An important point not to miss is WHY this episode occurred in the first place.If Nic had complied in the first place, I doubt things would have escalated to the position they did WHY it happened is irrelevant to WHAT happened. The people who apprehended him are required to ALWAYS act within the law no matter what he had done. That is the simple fact of law. Maybe Nic gave him some lip, that does not allow the official to take the law into his own hands. Spoke101, xcd, DJR and 10 others 13 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCreamMan Posted December 30, 2019 Share All the Sanparks officials have been suspended pending an independent review of the incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Stewart Posted December 30, 2019 Share It is clearly signposted. I will try and get pictures tomorrow if I ride up there. ..in this wind??? you'll be a better man than me if you take a pedal in this gale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oomkoos Posted December 30, 2019 Share If Nic was doing a quick in and out illegally then he was asking for trouble. The rangers are acting how they have been instructed and management should be the ones to answer questions regarding behaviour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Stewart Posted December 30, 2019 Share Jeez, 25 pages and counting since this fred started on 28th and in holidays time too. Just looking at the comments on this last page (at the moment) it looks like it's escalated nicely into a vintage hub session. Can't wait to go back to the start and see who picked what view, who refused to budge and who started throwing haymakers... Christmas' may come and go, but as sure as a snowless boxing day in Cape Town, anything with SanParks and bikes will make people froth. Just remember that this is in fact the final Friday mash-up for 2019, and it turned into a proper match for once. eddy, T-Bob, BigDL and 1 other 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie Stewart Posted December 30, 2019 Share If Nic was doing a quick in and out illegally then he was asking for trouble. The rangers are acting how they have been instructed and management should be the ones to answer questions regarding behaviour. Vark me.... Did you really just say that? And to boot you picked a helluva topic as a first post (if indeed you are a first poster, rather than a hubber using a new, false alias....or are you one of the thugs of the video?) Who the heck will instruct a park ranger to break someone's arm if they are in contravention of some perceived law? What universe do you exist in? Long Wheel Base, Quagga and Mopkop 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oomkoos Posted December 30, 2019 Share Please remove this post pleeeaase !!! Just now it gives them an idea and that area is my stomping ground.Unfortunately behaviour like Nic’s could lead to bicycle being banned Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCreamMan Posted December 30, 2019 Share “ What boggles the mind is that some are of the opinion nic is to blame.” who said that Nic is to blame? I don’t think I have seen one post saying that this is Nic’s fault? Some have said that Nic’s action COULD have contributed to the escalation of the situation. I don’t agree with that, but lets grant those with that opinion the courtesy of not twisting their words to that of victim blaming. Please, do me the courtesy of not twisting my words either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy Posted December 30, 2019 Share No-one mentioned criminal action Actually, you did. That shows criminal intent. TOPJOLR645, Wayne pudding Mol, Patchelicious and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porqui Posted December 30, 2019 Share If Nic was doing a quick in and out illegally then he was asking for trouble. The rangers are acting how they have been instructed and management should be the ones to answer questions regarding behaviour. That is NOT what they would have been instructed Long Wheel Base, River Rat and Robbie Stewart 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oomkoos Posted December 30, 2019 Share Vark me.... Did you really just say that? And to boot you picked a helluva topic as a first post (if indeed you are a first poster, rather than a hubber using a new, false alias....or are you one of the thugs of the video?) Who the heck will instruct a park ranger to break someone's arm if they are in contravention of some perceived law? What universe do you exist in?Ja Robbie. The parks guys behaviour was excessive but if you are doing something wrong knowingly then you open yourself up to all kinds of repercussions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceCreamMan Posted December 30, 2019 Share Yoh. “Women who wear short skirts shouldn’t be surprised when they get raped”. Same logic. It’s called “victim blaming”. That’s an assault GBH, captured on camera. And a particularly vicious assault GBH at that. Conviction is pretty much a certainty. Young prosecutors cut their teeth on matters like this. If you, as a trained SANParks Ranger, honestly think that a lone, unarmed, cheeky 64kg lycra-clad boy-man in cycling shoes could possibly pose any immediate threat that warrants any level of physical force - let alone enough force to break a humerus - you’re probably demented. These thugs could each get five years in jail (the ones standing by are accessories). I think a good prosecutor could probably even have a go at securing a conviction for attempted murder. (As an aside, I’m not sure what the sentence is for not having a permit that probably costs R100 (if that), or what the sentence is for being cheeky or not listening to a SANParks ranger is. But maybe some of the lawyerly “three sides to a story” ghouls on this thread can fill me in on that part). Regarding statements like “Nic should have obeyed the law himself” and “this wouldn’t have happened if he’d had a permit”, the proximate cause of the assault wasn’t the failure to have a permit, nor was it the failure to listen to the Rangers, nor was it being cheeky to the Rangers (nor was it a combination of these). That proximate cause was the unhinged approach of the Rangers and THEIR total lack of respect and regard for the law (you can’t go around breaking arms of people when there is no immediate threat to you) and the rights of the victim. So whether or not Nic had a permit, whether or not he chirped the Rangers and whether or not he didn’t listen to them is not only completely and totally irrelevant in the determination of the criminal (and civil) liability of these Rangers, but should also be completely and totally irrelevant in condemning the actions of these thugs. Back to the victim blaming angle. Ignoring the legalities and just looking at this episode from a simple human perspective, making a statement like “this wouldn’t have happened if he’d had a permit/listened/hadn’t been cheeky” simply normalizes pretty f@$ng abhorrent behaviour. Puts you in a pretty special category of human. But I suppose that’s the way the world is going now. Two-year old kids in cages over Christmas on the US-Mexico border who haven’t seen their parents for weeks is also abhorrent, but is also easily normalized by saying “if their parents had obeyed the law, this wouldn’t have happened”. I despair for humanity. I thought I would just bring this above post up for the benefit of some people who may have missed it previously. Grogs, Mopkop, TOPJOLR645 and 2 others 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patchelicious Posted December 30, 2019 Share Please, do me the courtesy of not twisting my words either.I didnt, I literally quoted your exact words, will do so again: “What boggles the mind is that some are of the opinion nic is to blame.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now