Dutch crime reporter dies after being shot
reuters.com
reuters.com
Police are understaffed and seemingly really can't keep up. They make a lot of mistakes in the process, accidentally publishing the identity of key witnesses etc...
Anyways, the "legal" drug system is broken to it's core. The way it currently works is that Marijuana can be bought legally at a coffeeshop, but it cannot be produced for sale legally. It is the best possible outcome for drug producing criminals, as they can access the largest possible resale market through the coffeeshops, so its easy to distribute big volume, and there is little competition (only from other criminals).
I suspect this broken legal system is bankrolling these criminals and setting them up for the more profitable stuff such as cocaine.
It should be a healthcare issue. You go to some state run place, they give you the option of something to get you off drugs or the real thing. They provide a safe place and clean needles. You have to take some mandatory drug education on a weekly or monthly basis. They should offer all the support and information to help the ones that want to clean up.
It should be state run. Private business should not profit off hardcore drugs ever. There will never be an incentive to get them clean.
edit: Specifically, I'm not sure if combining the sale of drugs and the drug cessation treatment is the way to go. We don't do that with alcohol for example. Don't you think that most of what you want to achieve can be done by separating the two, where indeed drug cessation treatment is provided as part of the normal medical care system (but sale isn't)? Except (sorry if I put words in your mouth, consider it a general observation) you will have to let go of the idea that you must at all costs make those people who are wilfully and with informed consent using drugs stop using drugs.
In NL we already had (have? It was that way when I was young) The needles and the police checking dope quality at parties, why not go the extra mile? I am afraid this is not the good of the people but the money made from drugs somehow or is that too cynical?
I am from Spain. What are you talking about? Everything you just listed is not only illegal, but very illegal, considered hard drugs by the vast majority of the population, and will get you jail time if you're trafficking or even just possessing low quantities of it if you have previous legal convictions (not even drug related ones, any previous convictions!). And you can get them "everywhere"? lol
I am often amazed with the matter-of-fact tone that is frequently used on this site to speak about certain topics while being 100% wrong about them. The scary thing is, if I wasn't from Spain, I might've read your post and believed it. Makes me wonder.
Andalusia: it is really common and the guardia only arrests when there are dealers. Spain is big so I apologize for being too broad.
Where are you from because I did not see a difference in Madrid or Barcelona : it is illegal to have or deal but use is tolerated? You do not have this impression? I am definitely not talking about dealing. While I think every country should as it will kill the money incentive.
You will go to jail for dealing, and for possessing any quantities above a threshold of purity (you read that right: they do test the purity of hard drugs even for street-possession charges, and will slap you with a harder charge when the results come back). Nevermind that 90% of regular citizens find drugs very disturbing and will call the cops and treat you as a degenerate junkie the moment they even think that you might be on drugs, especially if you're a foreigner and you're outside a tourist-trap nightlife district.
Spain, or our neighbors in Portugal, it doesn't matter: you do something supposedly "light" and "tolerated" like smoking weed on the street, and the police will impose a hefty fine between €400 and €1200 (a person's whole salary in many cases), depending on the circumstances. It's the law. It goes without saying that they will confiscate everything. On top of that, if you're a foreigner/tourist and they think you're flaunting your drug usage or simply assume that you just don't give a damn about learning the law of the place you're visiting, they will put your ignorant ass in jail for the night on any charge they like, just for the annoyance. Like that. And then you can talk that 'but it's tolerated!' nonsense on your way to the back of a police van. And then, if still feel like getting smart with them, they'll bring you back to your senses. With a slap across the face, follow by an obstruction of justice charge. And you'll still go in the damn police van.
Take it from me, who's grown up here and have been living here for 30 years, or take your risk with taking idiotic internet tourist assumptions for granted. I strongly advise you to do the former, but as we say here: you're free to do as you please, and so is the police.
You think otherwise? Lol.
This is like a choir boy arguing weed is hard to find and "nobody they know does it".
Since drugs are so widespread and you seem so confident: why don't you go get some of these easily obtainable, semi-legal drugs and walk them up to a policeman, see if you're right about the issue or if maybe they semi-put your stupid ass in semi-jail for the semi-night? Please, please record the whole thing, me and my friends always welcome a good laugh.
Finally, a PSA: there are so, so many jokes about anglo tourists in Spain (I'm a native), and for some reason, a huge percentage of them are specifically about 'adventurers' who have 'seen the world' and 'know where the good stuff is'. Go figure lmfao.
Yes 100% this is in my view the best approach.
>In NL we already had (have? It was that way when I was young) The needles and the police checking dope quality at parties, why not go the extra mile? I am afraid this is not the good of the people but the money made from drugs somehow or is that too cynical?
Yes take the money out of the cartels. All profits from state run facilities go toward drug rehabilitation and/or mental healthcare in general.
Sourcing of the drugs is the part I am unsure about. Seems like they have to give production to a pharmaceutical company(s) (creating a new cartel). Buying from cartels is not an option as you are just pushing the misery out of your back yard and into Columbia, North Africa, or Afghanistan.
Are you an actual cartel member lol.
I don't buy that. I mean, it could be that the investigation into this criminal racket is understaffed, but the question of whether there are more or less police staff generally probably not that important here.
> They make a lot of mistakes in the process, accidentally publishing the identity of key witnesses etc...
Understaffing of an investigation + strategic "mistakes" raises some red flags IMHO.
> The way it currently works is that Marijuana can be bought legally at a coffeeshop, but it cannot be produced for sale legally.
Why has the Netherlands not decriminalized Cannbis-based products entirely? That is is, which political parties are against it, and what are their arguments?
> I suspect this broken legal system is bankrolling
A nitpick about your English phrasing: I'm sure you mean that current law is conducive to these criminal-industrial operations, not the legal _system_ and not bankrolling. i.e. no jurist is financing these crimes.
What are you talking about? A quick google shows extensive reporting on the lack of police staffing and working pressure. This has been pretty well-reported in NL over the last few years.
[0] 2018: https://nos.nl/nieuwsuur/artikel/2245189-personeelstekort-bi...
[1] 2019: https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/politievakbond-er-is-een...
[2] 2019: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/12/16/politie-heeft-te-weinig...
[3] 2019: https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/nieuws/nederland/artikel/4936156/po...
>Why has the Netherlands not decriminalized Cannbis-based products entirely? No one really cares. The state likes that it can regulate the shops. Police dont put you behind bars when they find drugs and will ask you if you 'willingly' do away with your stuff. Everyone is reasonably okay with the current arrangement.
As for everyone being ok with the current arrangement - the story illustrates how that is not the case: Production and distribution cannot be done legally. What you describe is a way for avoiding public outcry about the whole state of affairs through non-enforcement on consumers. This should really change IMHO.
While I take this to be a sign that the laws are wrong, I am more anarchic than the average UK voter. I can’t even compare myself to the average Dutch voter (ik spreek nur een bitje Nederlands, and even that is mostly because of how close it is to an average of English and German).
An interesting information:
"In 2018, the Dutch electricity provider (Netbeheer Nederland) was able to detect energy theft that could be related to 2 600 cannabis cultivation sites. People running these growing operations stole a total of 95 million kilowatt hours in 2018, costing the provider a total of EUR 60 million and the government about EUR 135 million in tax revenues. Based on police estimates of about 30 000 illicit cannabis cultivation sites in the Netherlands, these would consume and possibly steal about 1 billion kilowatt hours of electricity, equivalent to the annual consumption of all households in the city of Rotterdam, which has 650 000 inhabitants (Netbeheer Nederland, 2019)." - EU Drug markets report, EUROPOL.
Like for example being Polish.
Here in Colorado, every bit of legally sold cannabis (or it's refined products like edibles/concentrates) can be traced to the plant or collection of plants it was produced with.
Compared to other US states, the system is incredibly effective in its goal of maintaining a price floor and preventing oversupply like Oregon and California have. Oversupply is bad because growers become less profitable, and are more likely to sell on the black market as a result.
Most importantly, full traceability from the retail store to the producer prevents organized crime from supplying the retail locations.
The Netherlands should look at the Colorado model, and take it farther.
Why would the black market be more lucrative? Why does a black market exist when there is a cheap legal market? Is the implication that the black market exports to states where it isn't yet legal and thus prices are higher?
> Most importantly, full traceability from the retail store to the producer prevents organized crime from supplying the retail locations.
I like this mechanism.
Often the high taxes are supposed to be a disincentive for consumption or overconsumption. Cigarettes are too expensive for teenagers, etc.
See also bootleggers, cigarettes trucked from low-tax states (Eric Garner), etc.
The problem from what the grandparent post, is why legalize sales but not production? I don't really see the rationale for that (other than under the idea that the "real" problems are with production?). It seems to be the same problems as the war on drugs in the US, but pushed down to another level.
My guess is if everything were legalized, it change the dynamics of the situation.
In Europe too, you have the problem of what your neighbors are doing or not doing.
These are largely historical compromises. It doesn't change, because the conservative right-wing parties (e.g. CDA and VVD) generally want to completely ban soft drugs, whereas liberal left-wing parties (e.g. PvdA and GroenLinks). So, we don't really make progress in any direction.
Things like free and anonymous drug testing mean you can actually know what you are taking and that it's safe. There is also quite decent drug education; people generally know to stay away from heroin, meth and other highly addictive substances. If you do get addicted there is decent addiction treatment (afaik covered by health insurance).
The problem is that the production and selling is pretty much fully illegal creating this massive illegal market causing all sorts of problems. The drug usage is less of a problem than the crime caused by the illegality of drugs.
I don't think stricter laws would solve anything as people will take drugs anyway, it will only drive the prices up, basically funding crime. I think legalization is the way to go. If you look at countries like Portugal and the US legalization/decriminalization is a viable option.
The Netherlands might still be a good example: on how lax policies increase safety for users and at the same time how too strict policies create tons of problems and crime.
The problem of course is that society foots the bill for people's drug choices in the form of welfare, healthcare, policing, rehabilitation, or etc, and beyond that there's the opportunity cost--many drug users could be otherwise productive members of society, both economically and "morally" e.g., they could participate in community service, local politics, etc. And with respect to the subset of drugs that are addictive, it's also not an individual's choice.
So the moral framing of "bad people just trying to oppress the harmless free choices of others" is not very accurate. But yes, I think we agree that there must be a way to minimize the problem beyond what we've achieved with stricter drug control policies.
An Irish crime reporter was killed for being too curious by drug bosses. The subsequent Garda investigation was so intense and far reaching that it's estimated the the drug operations lost huge money over the coming years -- the Irish state implemented news laws and even the creation of 'Criminal Assets Bureau' came from Veronicas death.
I would be harmed by robberies on the street or in the home.
You live in a society where young people become addicts and rob and harm the people they love and then die prematurely.
Let's not make grand sweeping statements about societies which you clearly don't have a huge practical experience with (or if you do, of which you are grandly exaggerating certain problem spots in order to make your point seem more emotionally critical).
NL has a drug problem, and has had a drug problem since the 70's or so. It's been worse than it is today, but even today school age children are approached on a regular basis by pushers, plenty of them end up as addicts and quite a few of them do end up on the wrong side of the law to the point that we have special programs to deal with this.
None of our communities is immune from this, whether you live in Northern Groningen, Zeeland, Limburg, Gelderland or the Randstad, the problems are legion and so is the secondary fall out.
What you are describing has happened in the 70's and 80's. Education, special programs and (semi-)legalising weed (soft drugs) had though most kids how to avoid addiction. Since then alcohol abuse is a far bigger problem amongst kids [source: https://www.trimbos.nl/kennis/cijfers/alcohol-drugs-roken-sc...]
Sure, drugs is being sold to kids. For recreational (weekend) use and not full-filling some addiction. So does that make it a drug-problem? From my point of view most kids know exactly what they are doing. Plus I haven't met a single dealer in NL which needed to resort to 'pushing drugs to kids' to sell his stash. So maybe your sons were asked to buy drugs, which is a very different situation.
Thé most troublesome problem, involving drugs in NL is people slipping GHB into other people's drinks, to abuse them afterwards.
Other friends and their kids: multiple passes, dealers are either their school buddies trying to make some money on the side so they can buy fancy clothing or phones, or outsiders who are in it in a more professional capacity.
NL has a drug problem, like it or not it doesn't really matter, it's there and if we pretend it isn't there it is certainly not going to be resolved.
The biggest issue discussed in Groningen is lachgas ( nitrous oxide ). And alcohol.
The drug problems from the 70's and 80's were mostly heroine, not seen as a problem anymore as most of the users have died out.
Lachgas is a problem, but a very minor one in comparison to harder drugs, alcohol has been a problem for a lot longer than either harder drugs or soft drugs. Unfortunately Groningen is not an exception to any of this.
As for sources, here is one:
https://www.harendekrant.nl/nieuws/drugsdealer-learen-lees-m...
and I'm sure you'll find a reason to disqualify it but there is far more than this single article.
What should I google to find the 'far more' ?
If I google 'drugs school groningen', I come up empty.
If I google 'dealer school groningen', I come up with one article from 2017, minor incident, and best of all : that was my school.
So were can I find far more?
Those 'minor incidents' are two a penny. Even at the better schools kids regularly use drugs. If you don't know about it or don't want to know about it then maybe stop extrapolating from your limited experience to the rest of NL. And good luck when/if you have kids in school, watch out from round about the age of 11.
If the allegations are not supported by evidence then it's natural that anyone finds faults.
That, and your ad hominem, says everything about your accusations.
> Those 'minor incidents' are two a penny. Even at the better schools kids regularly use drugs.
If that is supposed to be any close to the truth then how do you explain the complete lack of evidence or even anecdotal accounts?
I mean, can you actually support any of your claims about the alleged torrent of cases that is everywhere but also nowhere to be seen?
And plenty of them elsewhere, but all in dutch.
Google terms "site:.nl drugsgebruik middelbare scholen nederland" "site:.nl drugsgebruik lagere scholen nederland".
Enjoy. And if a school in NL claims that they don't have a drug issue: find out if they really don't or if they are simply closing their eyes because it's too uncomfortable to discuss.
There is no evidence that schools in nl do not have a drug problem, but there is plenty of evidence that they do.
For instance, an article about Arnhem:
https://nos.nl/artikel/2322862-steeds-meer-blowende-jongeren...
No, I really can't. So far you've been unable and unwilling to do so. I see a lot of posts from you with unsubstantiated allegations followed up by desperate ad hominems.
And when you are pressed about it, you hand-waive, deflect, and redirect.
I repeat: if there were a tenth of the cases you alleged then you would have zero problems presenting a single convincing example.
But you even failed at presenting any relevant case at all.
Please read the link you just provided. It states the exact opposite of what you're claiming. That was the best example you could come up with after so many ad hominem and after being repeatedly pressed to support your unsubstantiated allegations. Your dozen of scaremongering posts in this discussion boil down to that, the absolute best example you manage to put together. And it contradicts your claims.
You should really reflect on what you're doing, because if you have a problem with reality not backing up your firmly held beliefs to the point you get so emotional about that delta then some contemplation is in order.
BTW, the whole article is about cannabis. Is this what you are worked up about?
The numbers sound about the same for my cohort, and our teachers were well aware, also who we were and it was discussed openly in class. And we felt safe enough to be open about it as well.
You seem particular puritan. One needs to remember the Dutch voted for gedoogbeleid ( laissez faire policy ) and it has been in place since the 80s.
That is just a baseless assumption on your part : I lived for extended periods in other cities.
I know some parents with children here, the subject has never come up. I don't recognize your characterization of the problem at all.
Maybe you should stop projecting your views on a city you apparently know little about?
The drug trade in Groningen is alive and well, you can take that to the bank. And if you still don't believe it then maybe have a chat with some LE and see where that takes you.
https://nos.nl/artikel/2326997-pillen-laten-rondgaan-in-een-...
The US average seems to be 5, worse cities can get to 20? 40?
The problem exists but let's not take it out of proportion
sounds like the description of a government
Quote from three years ago, after Mocro Maffia set up shop in Belgium. Belgium is a couple years behind The Netherlands. So there's no doubt about it, things are even worse in The Netherlands. Belgium is now in the throw-grenades-at-homes phase but no public executions yet. Matter of time...
I believe OP's point is that an exceptionally rare assassination of a random person does not compare to frequent robberies of people close to you.
The latter comes packaged with the former.
Meanwhile Dutch police doesn't investigate any of this "petty" crime. Instead they boast that the occupation of prisons is in all time low, and that they are rented prison space to other countries. Wonder, if anything will change, considering the prevailing "pragmatic" - "it doesn't affect me if my wallet isn't affected" attitude in the Dutch society.
The added benefit is that if you are using a playground you no longer have to be overly concerned about stepping into needles.
The junkies problem of the 70s and 80s died out, that generation is largely dead and with the changing culture and the closure of most kraakpanden ( squatting places ) no new junkies were added. The junkies died out.
https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/aantal-vergismoorden-sti...
and that's before we get into those cases where people were slaughtered in front of their spouses and children (and who sometimes were slaughtered right along with them).
Massive shoot outs with automatic weapons on the highways, in the cities and on one occasion on a small beach near Amsterdam.
If it doesn't include you then you are lucky. But it could be you, tomorrow.
https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lijst_van_criminele_liquidatie...
For perspective, the number of people who die from lightning strikes is about 2 per year.
And most of those progressive voters live in the areas which are affected ( Amsterdam, Randstad in general ).
And if they did not vote 'progressive', they voted VVD ( neoliberal, keep slashing funding until it is bare functional : our police ).
Ok, I think you've just disqualified yourself from further discussion. I'm not going to cross the HN guidelines to tell you off.
What is the point of your comment? Why comment at all?
Giving off some heavy sealion vibes here
They really aren’t a thing.
Certainly not in the Netherlands. Even in the US, it’s an exceptionally rare cause of death of no significance at all.
Also, in my previous apartment (Amsterdam), I’ve heard a gang execution (shots were fired) in the middle of the night.
I also know people who knows the DJ who was executed inside his car in the presence pf his family.
There’s a problem in the Netherlands.
I’m not saying that drug related violence is not a thing. It accounts for most of the gun related murders in the US, for example. Probably the same is the Netherlands.
However, innocent bystanders being at risk is not a thing.
They really are in the UK.
> cause of death of no significance at all
Of course, someone's needless death is of no significance. You have probably never heard of John Donne, but:
"Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in Mankind; And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
And maybe look up "county lines", which is corrupting children, and spreading the drug trade, and violence, to even small towns.
I am not against the use of drugs, and have used some at one point or another myself. But it is delusional to think that so long as drug use is criminalised, criminal gangs will not use extreme violence.
Also, this is 2021.
I do agree with you on this part of your original reply, though:
> But it is delusional to think that so long as drug use is criminalised, criminal gangs will not use extreme violence.
It's definitely the case that criminalization of drug use is one of the root causes of a lot of violent crime in the UK. I imagine we'd have other social issues to contend with if we followed the path of making many drugs legal, but we'd certainly have less crime related to their trafficking and distribution.
The UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicide in the world, so there is no reason to put 'low' in scare quotes in this context.
I'm not sure how representative pandemic stats would be, so it made sense to look at 2019. But I don't think you can seriously claim that drive by shootings have massively increased during the pandemic. Or at least, if you do claim this, it would be good to see a source.
Bollocks.
> 32 lives are insignificant
Nobody is saying this, anywhere.
More importantly, how many of those were innocent bystanders?
The point is not that people’s lives don’t matter, the point is that being caught in a drive by shooting is an absurd thing to be afraid of. You are more likely to get hit by lightening, or slip and hit your head in the shower.
> Crime reporter de Vries acted as a spokesperson and non-legal advisor for crown witness Nabil B. who is testifying against Ridouan Taghi, the alleged mastermind of the Amsterdam-based group which is seen as one of the Netherlands' largest cocaine distributors.
> Two people close to Nabil B. are already dead, allegedly murdered by Taghi's associates. In 2018, Nabil B.'s brother was murdered in broad daylight in Amsterdam and in 2019 his lawyer Derk Wiersum was gunned down outside his home.
> De Vries' work exposing the underworld has resulted in repeated death threats. Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf, where de Vries started his career, says he investigated more than 500 murders. In 2019, the journalist said he was on Taghi's hitlist.
Organized crime is completely out of control in the Netherlands. On a margin that far surpasses almost all other countries in the west.
https://tcdata360.worldbank.org/indicators/h3031de56?indicat...
They are tied with Switzerland with the 27th lowest homicide rate in the world:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intention...
Meanwhile, a dutch fruitcompany (https://www.bd.nl/bommelerwaard/fruithandel-de-groot-doelwit...) and its employees are attacked regularly because a load of drugs was caught in transit.
[0] https://video.vice.com/en_uk/video/vice-lean-weed-and-cocain...
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-50821542 (related)
I was already aware that the Netherlands had a drug problem in general, both by smuggling via their huge ports and by cartels producing them locally. I had even submitted a map [0] with locations of amphetamine production sites not long ago and most of them are in the Netherlands but the amount of crime that seems to accompany it is frightening.
[0] https://www.emcdda.europa.eu/media-library/map-location-site...
> the amount of crime that seems to accompany it is frightening
Do you have some kind of source that last statement? Do you mean frightening as in "big" or frightening as in "it scares me"?
Which developed country doesn't it surpass? From what I've seen the Netherlands is well on the road to becoming today's Mexico.
We're just not arresting drug users, that's it. But it's still very much a criminal enterprise to create the stuff.
I did add and clarify, but not remove.
Ironically, some of the US states are now among the most liberal and forward-thinking in the West - the Dutch are becoming more and more backwards (I live there).
It's all mocro mafia related. Comes down to access to the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp. In 2012 a shipment of 200 kilos of coke went missing in Antwerp. A war broke out. If you are slightly interested in this real life crime stuff, definitely search for 'mocro mafia'. I can really recommend the book called 'Mocro Mafia' by Wouter Laumans (very good book, and it's central theme is around a young Moroccan boy who's frustrated with life and becomes a criminal, to eventually be used as a hitman, very sad read).
These real life crime stories sometimes read like a movie script: - Beheadings? Check. - Bombs and rocket launchers? Check. - Executions in broad day light? Check. - Mistakenly killing the wrong people? Check. - Shooting with automatic rifles on police? Check. - Kids being hitmen for like 5.000 euro? Check. - Kidnappings? Check. - Attacks on press, laywers, mayors? Check.
You are currently enjoying what is an unprecedented apex of progress, wealth, security, and wellbeing of the Western society which only been there for a mere 40-30 years.
On a reasonably modern historical scale, it's very uncommon not only for the West, but much of other countries in the world.
It's hard for you to fathom a life other than this. You take it as something given, while it isn't.
Bad times can come back.
The problem we have in the west is that we we talk about problems and tradeoffs in abstract. For example, many people who argue that it would be good to defund the police have never lived in a situation where daily life was dangerous due to crime. Similarly, people who argue against pipelines rarely have an understanding of what it's like when there's no fuel or heat in the winter.
These issues are complex and there are two sides, but it does seem to me that the "hardship" side of the things is being under-valued and under-feared because it's outside of people's realm of experience.
Most people who argue for defunding the police live in a situation in which daily life is dangerous... due to the police. Who often harass them, lock them up, or even shoot them dead.
> Similarly, people who argue against pipelines rarely have an understanding of what it's like when there's no fuel or heat in the winter.
You're attacking a straw man. (Almost) nobody is arguing against having _any_ pipelines, whatsoever, anywhere. In the US, however, there is a custom of laying pipelines which are shoddily constructed, tend to burst and spill frequently, and are laid in along highly dangerous paths where they may contaminate drinking water sources and other sensitive locations.
And - people who argue for such pipelines rarely have an understanding of what drinking water mixed with petroleum does to you...
This is obviously a thorny topic but I think you're wrong. For example here in NYC, there has been a huge spike in crime and shootings, of which black people have been the most common victims. The number of people murdered this way dwarfs the number of people shot by the police in total.
When people are in actual fear of their lives, it's not the police they are worried about. And this has manifested itself in the election.
The democratic mayoral primary we just had, the black and latin neighborhoods heavily went for Eric Adams, the former cop. While the white/gentrifying areas were more heavily for the defund-the-police candidate.
I am curious your perspective? Are you actually someone who lives in the hood and has a fear of your life on daily basis, and fear cops more than criminals?
Or are you more in the "I read about this stuff" bucket, and if so, how does the above fit into your perspective.
1. I talked about police violence in general, not just shooting. Shooting is the more extreme case of violence.
2. There are crime problems elsewhere in the world - like that Netherlands issue in the story - and yet, the police essentially never shoot people unless shot at first. Or, you know what, maybe it's once every few years in the entire country.
3. Even if shootings were rare, the fact that the police _may_ just shoot you, means you are in danger of your life whenever you are in contact with the police. And the police - in many/most places - expect to be treated as those who have the power to decide whether you live or die. This is especially true since these killings are often arbitrary, i.e. it is not the most dangerous and violent people in the most suspicious of situations that get shot, or otherwise killed by police.
4. I don't live in NYC. Can you give some citation for the "dwarfing" part?
> When people are in actual fear of their lives, it's not the police they are worried about.
> And this has manifested itself in the election.
You mean the mayor elections in NYC? I don't live in the US, so I'm not well-versed at city-level politics at all. I basically know Yang ran and failed...
Anyway, from my experience and knowledge, that's usually/very often not true - depending on the level of social consciousness of course. In neighborhoods or cities where the state is perceived as being controlled by a rich and powerful minority, especially if it's mostly of a different color or ethnicity; and when the state is uncaring and oppressive towards you and your surrounding society - crime is perceived being to a great extent the result neglect and even active encouragement and collusion of the state and the regular and political police with criminal elements. In the US the political police would be some of the three-letter agencies I suppose.
This is actually a crisis faced by Palestinian society in Israel these days, which would merit an article of its own, but this is just a comment.
> I am curious your perspective? Are you actually someone who lives in the hood and has a fear of your life on daily basis, and fear cops more than criminals?
Well, first of all, I'm afraid of cops because of what they do to me and other people during popular protests or just demonstrations. I was standing next to a person when this cop grabbed his head and banged it against the curb. Cops stole my coat once as they were hauling me to be detained/arrested (although I'm not sure whether one of them took it or whether they just threw it away). Cops almost ran me over a few times, with motorcycles and with horses. Cops fired a stun grenade into a crowd right next to me just a couple of months ago. etc. etc.
I lived in a "semi-hood" for a few years; I was never fearful for my life, because the society I live in is much less violent than in the US, but I was still sometimes fearful. I was always more afraid of the cops than of groups of young men on a street corner. Of course, if I were not from the privileged ethnic group, i.e. if I were of Arab/Middle-Eastern rather than European descent, I would have been _really_ afraid of cops and probably even less worried about people in my neighborhood.
1. You're responding to a post that said "most people who argue for defunding the police have never lived in a place without police where they had to live in fear of crime". In your response, you confirmed that you're such a person. You never lived in a dangerous/violent place but somehow you take your safety for granted and see police as extraneous.
2. You asked for a citation of the fact that the recent spike in crime has taken more black lives than the police? To be frank your lack of awareness of the numbers (ie the actual crux of the matter) is pretty damning. If you don't have the command of the numbers and the scale of the issue, you're not in good position to suggest policy.
I can dig up the data if you don't believe me but from memory: the number of unarmed people shot to death by police in the US is a double-digit number across all races, with about 2/3rd of them being white. So if we said "30 unarmed black people were shot to death by police in the US in 2020" that would be an upper bound. (to be clear this number includes unarmed people who were nonetheless violent, but its ok)
In contrast, there were 7,484 Black homicide victims per year in 2019, which is before the latest spike in crime.
That's a ratio of ~250/1 using the most conservative assumptions (it's more like 400/1 probably)
It is often a quadruple-digit number. Here's an example for 2016:
https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-americans-do-cops-kill-eac...
and 2019:
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2020/06/05/policekillings/
it seems you are not quite familiar with how the US police treats people.
Your numbers munge everyone killed by the cops, which is stupid. "X pointed a gun at a cop so the cops shot him" does not translate into "cops are bad" in my mind.
It is a valid point to argue that the shooting in question is part of a broader pictuer of an increase in violence across the world, including in Western countries (Malta, Slovakia and others), threatening the democratic principles.
[1] https://cpj.org/data/killed/?status=Killed&motiveConfirmed%5...
I haven’t found any talk of evidence against this rapper. He’s a dark skinned man who was picked up by police in the vicinity of a crime.
9 times out of 10, people in that position had nothing to do with the crime. So I personally wouldn’t presume that person to be “involved” at this time.
So, a person getting shot dead is much more of an extreme event in the Netherlands (even disregarding the particular circumstances).
Statistic taken from here:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-death...
The US is an extreme outlier in this regard.