Neither.
I’d say crime levels haven’t changed since the incident, regardless of the ethnic origin of the perp.
This is by and large still a very safe country, and Amsterdam’s still a pretty safe city. That doesn’t mean there aren’t any problems with Moroccan youths: there are. Dealing with this is very much an enforcement issue rather than a cultural one, I feel. There will always be a group that’s on the brink of society, the latest and least understood arrivals, whatever. That group changes over time. In Holland, we’ve gone through the Indonesians (50’s), Surinamese (60’s and 70’s), Turks (70’s and 80’s), and now the Moroccans, with I’m sure Eastern Europeans standing in line to take their place.
Neither of these groups is inherently criminal, at least, not more so than any other. And while we can debate cultural issues till the cows come home, I’m not gonna. The problem is that we’re creating revolving door criminals because theft and robbery gets you a slap on the wrist and a community service. Start sentencing these little fuckers proper, and the problem will decrease.
Now, on to this particular case. And my personal pet peeve: the cries for the “muslim/moroccan/immigrant community” to condemn this criminal behaviour within their midst.
WTF. Am I supposed to feel obliged to feel bad about myself when another white Dutchman robs or kills someone? Should I issue apologies to the victims for something I had nothing to do with?
Of course not. And neither should anyone except the perp and his accomplice (who lived).
Stop focusing on culture, start enforcing the law. You’ll soon pull the rug out from underneath populist scum like Wilders and Verdonk.
I think Germaine C. deserves to be jailed. I understand her anger, but the fact remains that she threw her car in reverse, and backed it into the fleeing scooter with considerable speed. That is not, and never should be, an appropriate response to a purse snatching. I feel for the woman, and I think the threats she has been receving are despicable. But those too will be a thing of the past when everyone in Holland learns to focus on the real issues, rather than hiding behind the scapegoat mentality of pointing fingers at the latest group of newcomers - and indeed, when those newcomers start acting like individual members of society rather than downtrodden member of some supposedly oppressed class.
Our Dutch Bureau of Statistics saw, between 2005/2006, a steady munber of violent crimes, but less theft, and the lessening of theft is a significant trend. As, unfortunately, is the trend towards more vandalism and rioting. Such stats aren’t broken down by minorities. But my impression is that there hasn’t been an increas of such crimes. As said before, it is really a core of 2000 Morroccan young men making all the really bad trouble, and that number stays the same while boys of the still-maladjusted-but-less-so-fringes travel in and out of that group.
There are two hopeful trends for the future, but they might not go improve things quick enough.
ETA On preview, Coldfire is right, as are the posters upthread that say that this case should be regarded without regard to race/culture. Justice isn’t blindfolded for nothing.
But the judge should IMHO certainly say something about race/culture in his or her sentence, if only to explain that it hasn’t or shouldn’t have been a factor. For at least 70% of the Dutch, it is a factor, and these people just don’t understand leavign the word “Moroccan” out of it.
That
First, young Moroccan *girls * of the second and third generation of immigrants are doing very well, and certainly better then many of their brothers. The girl’s culture of modestly paying attention to autorities, and not getting into trouble, makes them do very well in school. Also, many of these girls find academia a place where they and their achievements are valued more then they are at home, and as a result they throw themselves on their studies, leading to more and more young Dutch Arab women who may still wear headscarves, but are as well educated and eager to enter the Dutch job market as you’d wish.
Secondly, when the next Moroccan riot came along, last year (two dozen or so youngsters setting cars on fire in a poor Utrecht city suburb) there was more and more muttering amongst the Moroccan community itself along the lines of: “Cut it out, you young punks are giving us a bad name”. But it seems a part of Arab culture that while there is a firm intern culture of shaming, it is unusual for members of the community to speak up agains the rest of the Dutch with either a mea culpa or even an admittance of “Yes, they are annoying punks and we wish we could do something about it, too”.
Added on preview: Coldfire is right, as are the posters upthread that say that this case should be regarded without regard to race/culture. Justice isn’t blindfolded for nothing.
But the judge should IMHO certainly say something about race/culture in his or her sentence, if only to explain that it hasn’t or shouldn’t have been a factor. For at least 70% of the Dutch, it is a factor, and these people just don’t understand leaving the word “Moroccan” out of it.
This isn’t unique to Moroccans or Muslims, either. Many, many groups of people will criticize other group members for something they do, but will bristle and “circle the wagons” when someone who is not a member of the group makes the same criticisms. It’s the basis of the double standard that it’s OK to make jokes, even tasteless ones, about a group that you are a member of, but not about other groups. We’ve all known people who will criticize things that members of their family do, but who will get very offended if someone else criticizes their family.
I didn’t say or imply any such thing.
Cutting off hands is barbaric (especially if the person is later proved innocent).
On the one hand you have someone who snatches a purse through an open window and flees.
On the other hand you have someone who reverses down a city street at speed, trying to hit another vehicle and suceeding in killing the thief.
You deduce from this that the purse snatcher is likely to kill someone, and that it’s all right to murder him?
Of course not. According to Sharia lawsays it should, though. AFAIK such barbarity is only perpetrated in the heart of the Arab world; Jemen, perhaps. In fact, Morocco, like Turkey, is a very “modern” and rather westernized Arab country.
Good point, as I also thought when you made a similar point further upthread.
However, what is new, is that such mutterings, somehow, came out to the Dutch press more. That more and more Moroccans included the press or social workers in their condemnation of theur unruly youngsters. Because somehow their indignation reached mainstream Dutch media then, and no such indignation has reached Dutch media in the Germaine case.
OTOH, perhaps that difference isn’t a sign of integration, but rather reflects the difference in the cases; the car burners are still alive and need discipline, while Ali E. is dead.
Well, your assertion was that it’s not legal to shoot someone in your yard in any state…not that it’s an enormous pain in the ass.
I don’t know about technical legality in Lousiana, but functionally, acquitted in a criminal trial sounds like it’s either legal or not enforced consistently enough to count. He may have lost a civil trial but can’t people sue you for practically any reason? I don’t think that a suit establishes legal criminal precedent.
Sailboat
Not to mention that civil trials have nothing to do with whether an action was legal. They are merely a means to resolve disputes.
If I run you over, and am acquitted, my running over of you was legal. If you then sue me and win, it just means I am at fault in terms of causing your injuries (or death).
I think it’s pretty outrageous that someone who was being not only robbed, but physically attacked (and a mugging or purse-grab is an attack, make no mistake about that) and killed her assailant in self-defense is being penalized by the state for it – that she might actually do time for her actions is especially so. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I assure you, were I in a similar situation, I’d try my best to kill my assailant. My safety and my right to move as I will on the public street are non-negotiable,** and I value what I have more than I do the life of some vicious little asshole who wants to try to take it away from me and hurt me. It still surprises me when I encounter the viewpoints of those who, for whatever reason, don’t value themselves enough to feel the same way.
.
And why on Earth are the Moroccans who live there and *don’t *assault innocent people on the street (which would be most of them – hell, practically all of them) identifying so strongly with, and giving posthumous support to, a violent shitbag with whom they share a country of origin? Thieves are thieves, thugs are thugs, and the rest of a population are whoever they are. Every subset of humanity has its bad specimens, this guy was one such, and he got what he got; it’s not a matter to choose up sides over. I’m sure the young decedent victimized plenty of his fellow Moroccans in his time; why wouldn’t they write him off as just another of the curs and chancres of mankind, of which there are always a few to be found in every population?
thread title nitpicky question: can Moroccans be called Arabs in the strictest sense?
I would, too, if it were self-defense. If you have to chase someone down, it’s no longer self-defense.
Speaking of which, what this case reminds of is Bernard Goetz. It seems to be pushing a lot of the same buttons, too.
Yes and no. The indigenous people of the Maghreb (Muslim North Africa) are mostly Berbers, but there are plenty of “strict” Arabs there, plus intermixing of Berber and Arab stock is widespread and many Berbers also consider themselves Arabs.
Having gone back and reread the OP, I find that I mis-stated the circumstances of the case rather drastically, and must acknowledge my error. Chasing down the asshole who’d just grabbed her purse out of her car is not the same as fighting off attempted robbery; although it’s still justifiable that she tried to stop her victimization and recover her stolen property. To jump out of the car, Mace the little bastard, and then beat the shit out of him would be understandable and commendable, but running him over was perhaps uncalled for.
I stand by the underlying viewpoints expressed in my previous post; however, I apologize that I started talking about a situation that was not parallell to the subject under discussion and made myself look like a fool and a blowhard.
A crime is still a crime, even if we don’t like the victim of the crime.
WHOOSH.
– Edited to add; sorry, I didn’t realize this was MPSIMS. I guess we could talk more about this in the Pit. Suffice to say, uhh, YEAH.
There were somewhat similar cases in Britain and Ireland recently where farmers shot intruders on their property, killing them. In both cases the intruders were from the Travelling community.
There are indeed remarkable similarities. However, I have more sympathy for Goetz because he had been the actual victim of a violent robbery before. Germaine hadn’t.
What is lacking, or at least I don’t read about it in the Wikipedia article, is how the black NY community reacted to Goetz. Was he threatened?
He was charged with manslaughter, but based on what the jury thought of the actions of the youth, he was acquitted on grounds of self-defence.
A person may succeed in a defence if he was in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm, but this in no way means that a homeowner can legally shoot a person in his yard without there being such imminent danger.
In short, it is not legal to shoot people for trespassing in one’s yard in Louisiana. It is legal to shoot an assailant when one is in imminent danger of losing one’s life or receiving great bodily harm, regardless of where in Louisiana this might take place.