Tag Archive | "law"

Anarchy filters from the top down sometimes

Posted on 05 October 2009 by Nic Haralambous

It’s 09:31 on Monday morning. Yes, that’s right, 9:31AM in the morning and I already have a story to tell you.

Driving to work this morning I took my exit off the highway and stopped at the traffic lights. To my absolute shock the BMW did not stop at the red robot that we were both stopped at. He paused and drove straight through it.

This was not one of those, “It’s almost green for me I’ll go” moments. This was a proper red robot (traffic light) that had JUST turned red.

So I hoot to let the guy know that he has done something illegal. Because he had done something illegal.

Now the very interesting part of this story begins here. There are not many office parks that top the size of the one that I work at so chances are that I will bump in to anyone getting off that off-ramp at that time. And I did. In fact Mr BMW man was right in front of me as I entered my office park. So we both go through the booms but he senses that I am behind him.

He stops his car in the middle of the entrance, sticks his head of the window and proceeds to ask me if I have a problem. This is how the conversation went:

Me: Yes, I have a problem. You went through a red robot.
BMW: Who are you? The police? You are a nobody.
Me: I am not the police, but you broke the law and could’ve hurt someone.
BMW: You are no one, are you a traffic officer?
Me: No, but what if you had killed someone, can’t you see you did something illegal?
BMW: I don’t care, who are you, you are nobody, what’s your problem? You can’t do anything to me.

And sadly he was right. Sadly I honestly thought that upon inspection I would find some semblance of humanity. But alas, I was mistaken.

This is where I begin to get exceptionally irritated because I can almost bet my bottom dollar that this is the type of person (one who believes that red traffic lights do not apply to him) who will bitch and moan about anarchy in our nation and that he wants to leave and doesn’t feel safe because of all the crime.

Well let me just inform you of something. I don’t feel safe either, Mr BMW man, I don’t feel safe because of stuck up brats like you who believe that crime only means murder, rape and violence. Well you broke the law today and you made me feel unsafe on the road. I wish you would take your pseudo-importance and fancy almost-wealth and leave this country of mine, it would be a safer place without idiots like you.

So I conclude that occasionally, in fact probably more often than not, anarchy filters from the top down, not the bottom up.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Comments (8)

12 year old thief gunned down – what are your thoughts?

Posted on 10 April 2008 by Nic Haralambous

On Tuesday I was listening to the Fresh Drive on 5fm. I have not heard such a heated show in a very, very long time. Fresh prompted a discussion about the 12 year old boy who was murdered by his victim. yes that sentence is a bit screwy, but true.

The boy had just robbed a man of his cellphone. The man apparently chased the boy who dropped the cellphone in the process. The man picked up the phone, fired a warning shot and then shot the boy in the upper body which killed him.

The debate on the Fresh drive was fought, and I mean fought, between Catherine and Ruben (two of Fresh’s team).

Ruben was in favour of the murder. He was emphatic that the 12 year old got was coming to him and that crime has gone unpunished for too long in SA.

Catherine was fighting for a humans right to live and believed at the time of the conversation/debate that no one person has the right to take another humans life.

I must say I sat in my car and was grateful for the traffic for the first time ever. The traffic allowed me to catch most of the debate and I was absolutely involved in the whole thing. I was even talking to them and their callers. Some of the callers were exceptionally ignorant and even this morning someone phoned in and contributed to the conversation on Gareth Cliff’s show.

My opinion is extremely torn. I am extremely torn.

Let me begin by stating that I do not in any way, shape or form agree with or condone the death penalty. I believe that a person’s right to live supersedes almost and just about everything. This is a principal that I believe in, however I am well aware of the fact that this opinion could easily be changed by various violent circumstances. If I have to choose between my life or my attackers life, they die. Simple. And I know that this flies in the face of what I have just said, but so be it.

I do not believe that the man should have murdered the boy, and let’s not forget that this is what he did, murdered the boy. Catherine’s argument on the radio was that we do not have the right to judge the boy, his actions or his future because we just don’t know. This I agree with. She felt that the man should have taken the boy to the police. This I agree with. But at this point let me use Ruben’s rebuttal; there is no system in place in SA that is effective enough for people to know that if a 12 year old is taken to the police, a correctional service or any other educational facility, he will be helped to become a contributing member of society in a positive manner. Ruben is spot on.

This boy would’ve been taken in to a correctional service, or prison and become more of a criminal. Then when he is released 10 years (or however long) down the road he would become an educated, desolate youth with no future and no choice but to return to crime and develop this skill.

And with that let the catch 22 kick in. What is a person to do? Take the law in to their own hands? Become vigilantes? Rule with an iron fist and lead bullet? I cannot agree with this.

This man needs to be found and put away like the murderous criminal he is. The law is clear about this:

Researcher and retired police commissioner Johan Burger, of the Institute for Security Studies, said the law was clear on when people were permitted to shoot.

“You can only shoot at a person if your life or the lives of people in your immediate presence is in danger.

“So, only if a robber threatens you in a way that is serious enough to believe that a life is in danger can you use a firearm,” Burger said.

And this is my opinion. We MUST let the law be effective, we must HELP the law to do so, we must not take it in to our own hands and create our own sense of justice. This is not good and will not turn out well. Ever. Anarchy is not an effective situation for any coherent resolution. Ever.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Comments (22)

No kisses for the misses if you’re under 16

Posted on 29 December 2007 by Nic Haralambous

This is a very strange one but I just couldn’t help myself. Yes this is SA Rocks but there is a limit and I think that the moral police and politically-correct-ravaged have finally lost their minds…completely.

A new law has been passed that anyone under the age of 16 cannot kiss, embrace or even touch in public. If you are caught doing these things and you are under 16 you can be arrested and prosecuted. Are you freaking kidding me?

What is this? A flipping censored state? Surely education is the solution not restriction? Surely the government and Mr Mbeki cannot believe that this is the answer to HIV/Aids (this is the only thing I can think of as a justification)?

What’s next, no under-age expression? No opinion? No swearing, cursing, blasphemy, loud noises, noise, music, rock music, gothic music? I cannot express enough how silly I think this is. Surely the world is laughing at us, surely this is a move in the wrong direction and a move that we will regret in the future?

According to IOL online “The new law, passed two weeks ago under the Sexual Offences Act, sparked a huge uproar on the popular website [Facebook].” For the record, SA Rocks will be in full support of the protests being organised by the groups on Facebook. I will actively be going out and touching (holding hands), hugging and kissing my girlfriend. In fact I will go so far as to get my cousins (both under 16) to hug eachother in public. Is that a crime too?

This law must surely have ammendments to it that allow family to embrace and be affectionate?

What will happen at school socials, parties, private homes? Will police be actively seeking offenders? I can only imagine that this law is more of a hindrance to police than anything else? Not only do they have to catch rapists, murderers, thieves and the like but now they need to be on the lookout for teenagers kissing and hugging in public.

What a crock of shit. Stupid law.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Comments (17)


  • Popular
  • Latest
  • Comments
  • Tags
-->

Sponsored Links

-->
Afrigator