Agro biker copper in Chch

[davereid]

"All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore
autonomous and ungovernable. If the sphere of activity of each citizen is
determined by the natural division of work and by the choice he makes of a
profession, if the social functions are combined in such a way as to produce
a harmonious effect, order results from the free activity of all men; there
is no government. Whoever puts a hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy."

From 'Les Confessions d'un Revolutionnaire", 1849

This is actually the tip of a major iceberg.

I am sure we all agree that those who murder, rape or steal deserve the attention of the law, and any force required to bring the criminal to justice. I unreservedly support the police in these endeavors, and I absolutely support the use of force.

But what of the "crimes" that don't involve violence, risk to others, or dishonesty. How much force should we use in these situations ?

Do we extrapolate the idea that they are doing something that may increase the cost to us as taxpayers, or ACC payers as our "risk to others" as justification for police use of force?

If we feel this way, we certainly should not be on a motorcyclist web site. As we are 16-30 times more likely to cost the taxpayer money for every km we ride, according to this doctrine we should be banned.

We insist that the helmetless cyclist be treated as a criminal who can be violently apprehended for his own good, without considering ourselves as motorcyclists , scuba divers, private pilots, or rugby players!

Perhaps we should ask what right we have to use violence, or authorise violence against people who offer us no threat, no violence and no animosity. People who mjust want to make decisions about their own lives, without harming ours.

[James Deuce]

Bullets for everyone on two wheels!

[Monkeyboy]

"All men are equal and free: society by nature, and destination, is therefore
autonomous and ungovernable. If the sphere of activity of each citizen is
determined by the natural division of work and by the choice he makes of a
profession, if the social functions are combined in such a way as to produce
a harmonious effect, order results from the free activity of all men; there
is no government. Whoever puts a hand on me to govern me is an usurper and a tyrant; I declare him my enemy."

From 'Les Confessions d'un Revolutionnaire", 1849

This is actually the tip of a major iceberg.

I am sure we all agree that those who murder, rape or steal deserve the attention of the law, and any force required to bring the criminal to justice. I unreservedly support the police in these endeavors, and I absolutely support the use of force.

But what of the "crimes" that don't involve violence, risk to others, or dishonesty. How much force should we use in these situations ?

Do we extrapolate the idea that they are doing something that may increase the cost to us as taxpayers, or ACC payers as our "risk to others" as justification for police use of force?

If we feel this way, we certainly should not be on a motorcyclist web site. As we are 16-30 times more likely to cost the taxpayer money for every km we ride, according to this doctrine we should be banned.

We insist that the helmetless cyclist be treated as a criminal who can be violently apprehended for his own good, without considering ourselves as motorcyclists , scuba divers, private pilots, or rugby players!

Perhaps we should ask what right we have to use violence, or authorise violence against people who offer us no threat, no violence and no animosity. People who mjust want to make decisions about their own lives, without harming ours.

Um what??