Nic Dlamini's arm broken by Table Mountain rangers

[scotty]

Its alleged Nic refused to produce a permit and resisted the parks officials, in this case perhaps the officials can be issued with stun guns to subdue the person. 

[Robbie Stewart]

I am curious to the TMNP / Sanparks legal permissable actions in terms of apprehension and detaining of people. Did these rangers act in accordance to what they are legally allowed to do, in that were they allowed to enforce a detention or arrest?

 

As for their threats to Don for filming, it is legal to film any incident in SA without requiring permission. Even SAPS, Traffic and Law Enforcement may be filmed in the execution of their duties.

[DJR]

SANParks have been through this before:

 

A few years ago they arrested a couple of cyclists for riding without activity cards or day permits. One cyclist refused to pay the fine issued to him and insisted on going to court. In one case SANParks did not even bother to send an official to court on the day and the case was thrown out. In another the magistrate threw it out as a misdemeanor not worthy of the courts time. (From memory only, so the finer details may be somewhat dodgy  ) 

 

The equivalent for SANParks rangers arresting someone for not having a valid activity card, would be for the traffic police to arrest everyone who park illegally, or drive slightly over the speed limit, or turn without indicating, or run a red traffic light on a bicycle. It is simply ridiculous! Our constitution says that there should be very valid and serious enough reason to deprive someone of his freedom (that is what an arrest is). A serious crime should have been committed or else the arrest would be illegal.  

Edited December 28, 2019 by DJR

[Mamil]

So is there a body of opinion on the hub that believes that if one is on the wrong side of the law, one should rightly expect a physically violent response from the authority?

[Gen]

Punishment should also fit the crime.

 

These park officials are nothing more than thugs wearing issued clothes..they have that little bit of authority and 100% abuse it...you see and hear about it all the time, the same as that lady who was assaulted by the cops for not stopping until she was in a safe place.

[Warren_G]

As someone who have just spent 4 months totally off the bike with a broken arm and after that 4 more long months of slow and painful physio and rehab, to slowly build up to get the muscles strong enough to lift just the arm itself, not even a weight. Starting to ride again, nearly unable to hold the bars, and barely managing 15 minutes the first time, let alone spend 4 hours on a bike.

 

I have to pick Nicks' side. Nobody deserves a broken arm for anything that he could have done to the heavy handed ranger, for any permit infringement he might or might not have committed!

 

Footnote: That broken arm will cost him over a R100 000 just in medical expenses. Not even talking of rehab and lost earnings. That can run into many hundreds of thousands while expenses keep piling up. However they repair that arm, Nick is not going to ride and be his best for a whole season. In cycling that is an eternity. It is also possible that he will not regain full function and range of movement in that elbow. All of which to just say, I feel for him, I feel it in my own right arm!

I think his arm will be fine, had the same break in the same place, I'm sure he'll regain full funtion. I agree with recovery time though, could even be a little longer. I did my first MTB race 4 months after my surgery, obviously took it really easy though. Painful weight training helped to build up bone density after months of physio.

[Jewbacca]

So is there a body of opinion on the hub that believes that if one is on the wrong side of the law, one should rightly expect a physically violent response from the authority?

I haven't seen that at all.

 

I don't think one single person has condoned the rough handling of Nic.

 

What people have said is that he might not be an 'innocent' victim and that picking a side and joining in the 'Nic is right and Sanparks are horrible beasts' outrage without acknowledging that doesn't make sense.

 

YES, Parks officials were wrong. I don't think anyone has disputed that. What people are questioning is what led up to the incident.

 

I won't pick sides. I think both parties got themselves into this mess and they are all idiots for letting it escalate

[Gen]

https://twitter.com/cpt_stu/status/1210605998559416320?s=19

[kosmonooit]

The moral of the story here is simple, obey the rules! This is something South Africans habitually flout. There is one simple word for law and order and harmony and that is 'comply'.

Or face the wrath of a Room Temperature IQ NPB troll?  Bollox! 

 

He might have been riding in the reserver w/o a permit, There could have been a whole lot of reasons for that, but as I said, NOTHING justified the violent treatment he was given.

[Grogs]

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.

[SwissVan]

The moral of the story here is simple, obey the rules! This is something South Africans habitually flout. There is one simple word for law and order and harmony and that is 'comply'.

Very true, this would almost certainly avoided the use of excessive force resulting in a broken arm.

It’s a bit like some cyclists complaining about motorists ignoring the rules of the road while they only pause at stop streets and red robots.

 

On the facts presented so far it seems like they tried to stop Nic by knocking his handle bars causing him to fall off, question is what led to this did they clearly ask him to stop and did he refuse to stop? In this situation what options do the rangers have?

Should they have just let him continue without trying to stop him, or try to apprehend him and if so, how???

Edited December 28, 2019 by SwissVan

[kosmonooit]

I haven't seen that at all.

 

I don't think one single person has condoned the rough handling of Nic.

 

What people have said is that he might not be an 'innocent' victim and that picking a side and joining in the 'Nic is right and Sanparks are horrible beasts' outrage without acknowledging that doesn't make sense.

 

YES, Parks officials were wrong. I don't think anyone has disputed that. What people are questioning is what led up to the incident.

 

I won't pick sides. I think both parties got themselves into this mess and they are all idiots for letting it escalate

 

There is clearly one side responsible for the violence that led to breaking Nic's arm, Officials that deal with public and 'law enforcement' MUST be trained in handling all sorts of situations and deescalating them, and not responding with violence, unless its absolutely necessary.

[SwissVan]

So is there a body of opinion on the hub that believes that if one is on the wrong side of the law, one should rightly expect a physically violent response from the authority?

Obviously not, but some are saying that people need to start with step 1 and follow the rules first.

[Vetplant]

Very true, this would almost certainly avoided the the use of excessive force resulting in a broken arm.

It’s a bit like some cyclists complaining about motorists ignoring the rules of the road while they only pause at stop streets and red robots.

 

On the facts presented so far it seems like they tried to stop Nic by knocking his handle bars causing him to fall off, question is what led to this did they clearly ask him to stop and did he refuse to stop? In this situation what options do the rangers have?

Should they have just let him continue without trying to stop him, or try to apprehend him and if so, how???

The issue at hand is the breaking of Nic's arm while detaining him. Excessive force.

 

Nobody said that they should have let him go.

[aftershock]

Dough Ryder on Cape Talk this morning , Nic didnt know he had to pay to ride on that section of road ...he had ridden there many times even with some international team mates ?

[Vetplant]

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.

Bravo!