The Dresden Job | Hacker News Reader

The Dresden Job

gq.com

72 pointsaxiomdata31643 comments

For German speaking people that want more insights: The Spiegel and others did lots of Reportagen on the Remmo clan and the absurdity behind this is ridiculous.

For example, they legally receive money from the Agentur fuer Arbeit because they're registered as having no job; while riding a damn Lamborghini literally to the Agentur for Arbeit, on camera.

The police got one of the brothers who did the Dresden Raub, even found matching diamond dust at his place, locked him up - but then he got free because he "had to care for his sick dad", while he has 6 goddamn brothers who all live in Germany; coincidentially all jobless but too busy to care for this "sick dad".

The justice system failed so much against these two clans: The Remmo clan and Abou-Chaker clan in case you want to find more about them. They're the worst of organized crime with deep connections everywhere.

They steal everything, and the cultural heritage is lost because they don't give a damn about it. They even bragged on social media with the golden coin, just to mess with the police. And the police plays their cat and mouse game like rookies.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O42UW7rF8yA

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2s1uZZa2Bw

Correct.

The authorities don't want to be seen as racist, so nothing seems to happen. And the parties in power in Berlin (city/state) are on the left/green side, so that's not helping either.

I really doubt the problems here come down to some attempt at evading accusations of racism.

Please go to the streets in Berlin where both families reside. Police are everywhere, people are stopped frequently, people who happen to have the same (very common Arabic) last names are questioned all the time. It really isn't the case that the police is trying to keep some anti-racist PR up.

The issue here is that the laws are quite limited. Till a few years ago the authorities weren't even able to freeze accounts of people involved in these groups. Even now most of these cases are treated as singular even if the ties to organized crime are more than obvious. The issue here really isn't some attempt at not appearing racist, it's that often times the hands of the police are tied or that the star-lawyers (how do they afford them, wink wink?) hired by the accused get them more lenient sentences on total bureaucratic technicalities. Also - frankly - Berlin's government is pretty incompetent. Things are changing, albeit slowly.

Germany needs better racketeering laws. Right now it's way too simple for people involved in these groups.

As often, there are multiple sides to the story of Arabic clans in Germany. A journalist and a member of a Clan-Family sat down and did a 12-part podcast to try and clear up with some of the preconceptions people have about these clans. It's called "Clanland" (in German).

I don't want to play this awful heist down, the podcast gave me some perspective to clan structures in Germany though. What the thieves did is absolutely appalling.

Wissam Remo, who did the heist, was in court for the theft of of the big gold coin from the Bode Museum, but later they freed him because of reasons of 'court economy' (article didn't explain what that is) and because he had to care for his father. They didn't even keep him in custody because there was no 'risk of repeat offence', so he just did the heist while waiting for his day in court.

How they stole the gold coin; just got into the museum with a ladder and took the thing; and that was a 100kg whopper of a coin.

[1] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/berlin/einbruch-in-bode-museum-u...

There is probably a deeper connection between the clans and the german law enforcement and (counter) intelligence agencies. That would explain the sometimes absurd leniency.

About them getting the social security money in a lamborghini, lets not forget the other side of the coin: many of the original clan members never got a legal status in germany after immigrating. They were just "tolerated" and never could legally work (except when in prison). This is what created the clan economy in the 80s.

I got to tour the Green Vault twice before the heist. Just a month before I was going to go for my third trip to take my wife for the first time, this heist happened.

It’s a shame that so many valuables were stolen. On the upside, the thieves did not take the really interesting, unique pieces that I personally find more fun to look at. If you ever find yourself in Dresden, you need to go to the Green Vault.

I went to the Green Vault a year before the robbery and I remember telling myself how easy it would be to rob this place. It is located on the ground floor with a road passing by. The windows looked like normal windows, the only protection I could see were some old metals bars put outside of the window. The way it was secured was already an invitation for a robbery.

> The unit sifted through the physical evidence, reviewed closed-circuit-camera footage, and interviewed two unarmed security guards who had heard the commotion and locked themselves in the basement safe room during the robbery.

I wonder what the job description was for which these security guards were hired.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarecrow

As it says: unarmed.

Your job as an unarmed guard is to complement the alarm system with your eyes and ears, and if something is amiss, press the alarm button and get out of there. Which is what they did.

The article makes it sound like security was tight, but the museum was, according to news articles at the time, too stingy. If they had wanted to spend the money, they could have had armed guards, physical barriers other than simple glass cases and reinforced outer walls. But they were even too stingy for an insurance, and the insurer might have told them to up their security before taking the contract.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp2.handelsblatt.com/politik/d...

Armed guards would increase the risk that someone is killed. According to German law, a guard would only be entitled to use its weapon in self defense, not in defense of the things to be guarded. Using a weapon is only justified when no other means is sufficient to ward off the threat to one's own or someone else's life. Shooting and killing a thief can result in a murder charge against the shooter. It would also make the job of the guards far more dangerous, when burglars are expecting armed guards and would be tempted to use violence first.

Not quite. Weapon use would be possible as "Rechtfertigender Notstand", https://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/34.html . This doesn't just include protection of ones own life, but also of property. However, the force used has to be suitable and proportionate, so shooting someone dead would not be justified. Injuring someone would usually be justified, but will always land in front of a judge to apply 20/20 hindsight. And no one wants to accept that risk.

Armed guards are extremely rare in Germany. Legally possible, yes, but I doubt a museum could have them.

It's a shit job. You can get hurt for close to minimum wage and get prison time if you hurt someone. Just play it safe and report everything to the police afterwards.

I remember when I was paid minimum wage to be a receptionist in a building.

One day a man came in said someone was hurt. I ran outside to help with my friend but no one was there. We walked back in and a gang pulled a flat screen off a wall.

We werent sure what to do so we called security and to be honest were so confused we kept telling them to explain what they were doing. ( It was just a flat screen ).

I remember the thieves ( middle of the day ) Just saying something like " its not worth it just leave us alone".

Long story short. A few weeks later, instead of getting a raise for confronting a gang, or even a good arm shake, thanks, words of support or anything like that I received an email. A one sentence footnote in a long public email, said thanks for "trying" to deal with a scenario.

tl;dr; I put my health and possible life at risk for a flatscreen and I wasn't even properly thanked. Infact I think my boss thought I was incompetent in some way.

Dont EVER put your health at risk for a company unless it is already factored into your salary. Or you will probably even be punished let alone thanked. Truly be careful and understand what your minimum responsibilities are at the start of a job and understand where your limits are.

I had never heard of this before. I have been to Dresden once for new years 2017 iirc and while I was reading the article it felt like fiction. The city was swarmed with heavily armed police all throughout the city. All the police officers were incredibly polite and helpful and were more than happy to respond to any sort of questions. Mind you, they were all insanely heavily armed. I spent an afternoon at the Zwinger museum and while there was no apparent security anywhere in sight, my friend, being as curious as they come, stepped over the designated limits in the gallery on several instances. And there wasn't even a second before a security guard would pop out of nowhere with a "Miss, could you take a step back, please". A heist like the one described feels like it's about a completely different place.

I think that assuming more police means less crime is a problem. The article even mentions how that family join security companies to get insider information.

Of course not, it's not quantity that matters but quality. I've been to Germany multiple times and German police is incredibly well trained and prepared for all sorts of unimaginable scenarios.

> …flashy new generation of young outlaws…

I know i’m fighting a loosing battle but outlaw is not just an interestring sounding synonym for criminal. Being an outlaw means that the state has declared you to be outside of the protection of the law. Have you seen the movie The Purge? Like that, but only affecting you. Anyone, the police, your grandma, other criminals, that guy on the street can just knock your head in and they won’t even get a scolding. Being declared an outlaw is a terrible fate, and naturally no modern state practices it.

The term has been literally decimated. Irregardless of original meaning, it is now loost.

Considering the original meaning of the term „decimated“, that other term probably has not been decimated, at least not literally.

I do miss /.'s "whoosh", even if the rest of the place has gone to hell. But I'm firmly convinced that the commenter you're replying to is all too aware of the definition of "decimate", and the word's abuse at the hands of others. The rest of the sentence seems to make that clear, but could be missed by non-native English speakers.

Ha. The hill I'm ready to die on is never using the '\s' tag. If it's not apparent enough without it, then maybe it's not worth writing at all?

I can understand that. The only slight distinction I see is that if you make a sarcastic statement in real life, there are a number of other cues to inform the listeners of sarcastic intent. Tone of voice and body language would be the main ones, but prior knowledge of the speaker is also key. None of those survive into a digital space and so I think having some sort of convention to replace its loss seems reasonable.

It's not a slight distinction, the smirk is missing and is replaced by the '/s'

It awfully similar to humming or 'pretend percussion with your fingers' of the song you're hearing in your head. It's basically spot on for you but most of the time no one else has a clue what the hell are you trying to pretend to play

Except in this particular case several people picked up on the sarcasm without the /s. I would say "omit at your own risk".

No sarcasm can be apparent enough for everybody, according to Poe’s law.

Got me! I’m indeed not a native speaker, but I didn’t want that to stop me from giving it a try.

I think you missed the sarcasm. "Irregardless" "Literally" "loost" ...

I think I would have gone with “irregardless of what it once was, it did loose it’s original meaning.” But all’s swell that ends swell.

It's literally half of one, six-dozen of the other.

That's only one definition for the word. Most dictionaries include more than one definition, and those meanings are not less correct.

words often do not retain their original meaning. No modern state practices declaring people outlaws therefore if the word outlaw retained its original meaning the only reason we would have to use it would be in history books as an antiquated term, but it is used quite often.

Thus outlaw has new meanings, the most common one is criminal, but some people seem to go with a meaning very like that of Tom Robbins, from Still Life with Woodpecker:

"The difference between a criminal and an outlaw is that while criminals frequently are victims, outlaws never are. Indeed, the first step toward becoming a true outlaw is the refusal to be victimized. All people who live subject to other people's laws are victims. People who break laws out of greed, frustration, or vengeance are victims. People who overturn laws in order to replace them with their own laws are victims. ( I am speaking here of revolutionaries.) We outlaws, however, live beyond the law. We don't merely live beyond the letter of the law-many businessmen, most politicians, and all cops do that-we live beyond the spirit of the law. In a sense, then, we live beyond society. Have we a common goal, that goal is to turn the tables on the 'nature' of society. When we succeed, we raise the exhilaration content of the universe. We even raise it a little bit when we fail."

I personally hate that usage, because I knew a guy who would go around with a self satisfied smirk declaring that he was an outlaw because he sold a bit of weed and believed in freedom whereas other people who were doing drugs were just criminals. I expect he probably got busted and ratted out all his friends, because I have a low opinion of outlaws I guess.

That definition still seems to define “outlaw” as a kind of revolutionary, albeit with different, more nebulous, goals than the traditional kind of revolutionary.

I am of the opinion that words should retain their original meaning. Without that, we will forever struggle to understand our history.

That's just being silly. (Feel free to try to figure out exactly what silly has meant over the ages.)

you may be of the opinion that they should but I hope that you are aware that they don't and there are very few words that ever have.

> A prison term is considered a badge of honor. “The family says that ‘jail makes men,’ ” says Falko Liecke, a Neukölln politician who works to dissuade young people from pursuing criminal careers. “When the kids get out of prison, they throw them a big party and give them their first Rolex watch.”

so much for rehabilitation

Ivory vaults?

I’m feeling nauseated.

> commissioned or acquired by the early-18th-century monarch Augustus II

Different times, different mores.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com