As a single person against a group of 20, you're screwed, so if you want to help, be loud, and get more people to help you while the police is called. You need to stall for time, not win a fight.
I agree, motivating others to join in defense, wins by numbers. Until the police arrives. Me myself, I just signed my kids up for Krav Maga, and as soon as I find trainings in the mornings, I'll join myself too. This shit is happening too often.
Just to make sure. Most of the marshal art experts advocate that the best tactic in street fight is running away. Even if you win easily, the chance to have a severe injury is high and not worth - e.g. hitting a skull with bare knuckle can lead to nasty hand fractures.
A course in self-defense could set a false sense of own capabilities and make things worse.
Yeah this. Also fighting back (well) could also be an easy way for the people you're fighting to escalate the situation. If they're worried they're losing the fight one of them might grab something heavy and hit you over the head with it.
Fighting back should always be a last resort, and even then to create some space to get the fuck out of dodge.
Sadly, while true, it only encourages bystander apathy. In this case there was only one boy who decided to take some of the hits for the mom it seems. They followed her through thru 3 different stores/ restaurants. She was badly beaten by the time the cops showed up.
As a bystander the best is to call 112 and then shout like crazy from a safe distance something in the sense:
"Policemen! Over here! He has a gun! Shoot him!"
"Run! Police is coming!!!"
Yes. The difference between being untrained and a martial artist becomes how well and how fast one is able to assess the situation, and how fast one is able to get out of "freeze,flight,fight" reaction and actually run away consciously.
Also, a bigger awareness of one's surroundings even before the event.
Also running faster and with less injuries, but any (running) training wih do for this.
Remember, they teach this in Defendo / Krav Maga too: in a fight against multiple opponents, your goal is to keep a safe distance, disable or repel the first attacker in the quickest way possible, not get surrounded, retreat.
I am a fighter, my recomendation to you is: don't learn Krav Maga it's useless and/or at best is less effective than boxing kickboxing etc
I'd teach the boys Boxing and girls Brazilian Jiujitsu. They'll be able to defend themselves should a bad situation occur
Krav maga is amazing. I knew a girl that was taught it. She was 10 times weaker then me but had me on the ground before I knew what hit me.
It already saved her from getting raped when she visited India.
I understand but that's the reason I am asking. Usually in a group like this they're cowards so if you knock a couple down hard the others will stay back.
Be aware that if one kids is carrying a knife, many of them will be. It’s is fair enough to say that knocking a couple of kids out will scare the rest away, in a fist fight with no weapons. Knives and numbers will bolster the courage of these young criminals. It takes no skill or strength to stab someone when you are in a group of people all trying to stab something .
Edit: spelling
Ja beetje zielig dat elk gevecht onvermijdelijk uitdraait op messen trekken tegenwoordig. Blijkbaar is niemand meer bang om een leven te nemen zonder nadenken?
How you gonna knock down two guys when you're being punched and grabbed by 18 others? Unless youre going to plow through the crowd in a car, I don't think you've thought this through.
You can not win. Simple as that.
You have every disadvantage: you're alone, you're defending someone, you have no weapons, and most likely not the stamina to keep fighting for more than your adrenaline lasts.
In any fight, using your head is the most important thing. Any simple math will tell you this is not a favorable condition for you, so you need to change it in to one that is. Be loud, ask people to record them, get their faces on camera, slow them down by talking, discussing, blocking them with whatever is around, but do not go in to a fist fight with 20 hyped up teens who carry weapons.
Nature does not smile on those who fight fair. Its about force, if you're 1 against 20, you have to convince each one of those that its in their best interest to walk away.
Thats a hard sell unless you have a decent firearm.
Yes, in this case where there were 20+ aggressive boys, I would try to block some doors and ask for other people to help hold while cops arrive. But I am asking because I want to know the Dutch law if I ever decide to intervene.
A few months back for example I was going back from work to the Central Station in Amsterdam and I saw a drunk/drugged dude harassing a woman who was most likely going back from work back home, it was around 18h, and nobody was doing anything, I asked the woman if she knew him and when she told not, I elevated my voice and commanded the guy to step away and took back my backpack to defend myself if needed. He ended up stepping back away from her and down next stop. So I want to know if I get attacked it would be ok to defend myself or others. I wrote about it at the time as I got pissed off about what happened.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/13vvypn/comment/kj7zsuf/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/13vvypn/comment/kj7zsuf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
And I can tell you honestly, yes, most of the time even if there are multiple aggressors if they notice you can hurt them(like knocking one of the most aggressive ones down) most of them will step back.
Imobilyzing in this situation would not make sense as too many of them were there. You need to make them scared of you.
You have a right to self defense but especially with minors you will easily be in trouble... they are quick to say you have gone 'overboard' and might get punished even when someone breaks into your house you might be in trouble if you hurt them. Our laws are nothing like the US castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. In practice i think there are only 2 options. You either commit to violance and neutralize the threat (and take the punishment you might get) or you don't act.. you can't really half ass attack someone now because you will likely get stabbed, these kids are all carrying knives and machetes right now. I have multiple weapons in my house to defend myself and my family and i have a crowbar and other 'weapons' in my car, after i watched someones car get attacked at Schiphol by some crazy idiots over nothing.
Step 1 in this: raise your voice and tell them to step down is always allowed. But you need to find a way to de-escalate the situation instead of making it worse.
Step 2, situation escalated:
people are raising voices, hands are lifted.
Still try to de-escalate. If people try to hit you, try to fend them off without hitting back.
Step 3: get hit:
Shoot that mo*^^rf%ckers kneekaps to smithereens and peel his eyes out so he take a closer look at himself
(Last bit is a joke)
If you ever get hit, you are allowed to use equal force to defend yourself. That means use enough force to find a way to flee the situation.
This is disgusting, their parents should be accountable, freaking imbeciles growing kids on the streets. I wish Netherlands had the Norwegian system in terms of childcare. You’re a shit parent? we’ll find decent ones.
I have been experiencing overwhelming sadness about this lately. So many kids doing shitty things on the streets. I'm supposed to start letting go of my pre-teen and I'm just so so sad to see what the youth is up to nowadays.
it’s all about spending time with them and enabling kids to spend their time on meaningful activities where they grow, like sports clubs, art clubs etc etc.
Instead what i’m seeing is teens roaming the streets after school, just loitering or roaming on those shitty fat bikes.
It’s their parents fault. The kids are bored and start doing shit, get involved with the wrong crowds.
If it’s 20 kids for real, we talking about a good 40 parents at least. Not sure what to do with em, but doubt locking them up instead will help.
Lock up the kids and see if anyone even comes for them.
Yes, you can intervene, there's two things to be aware of:
- if you see an opportunity for both you and the victim to retreat to safety, you have a duty to take it
- if you've disabled an attacker to the point where they are no longer a threat, you must stop attacking them (makes sense, but easy to forget in the heat of the moment)
- if you used any weapons that you had brought with you, you could get punished for carrying weapons in public. That also includes any legal "tools" that are legal to own but for which you had no good reason to be carrying them, especially not unwrapped and "within reach". On the other hand, if you started retrieving a tool or legal weapon after the situation has already started (from your home, from a shop, etc) that would be legal.
Yes, art. 41 of the Dutch Penal Code is the legal basis. It doesn't mean any amount of violence is always justified. Point blank shooting someone through the head because they were pickpocketing you: not ok. Punching them...probably fine.
But yeah, if you're going to go full Chuck Norris in the situation as described in this article, you'd probably get away with it.
I remember the term is proportional.
There have been cases in the Netherlands where somebody was arrested for having a gun but not for using it against this persons attacker as it was self defense, being threatened under gun point.
Yup or at least verify their intent to stab. Sadly whoever stabs first is more likely to kill the other.
Same thing if you wait for someone to punch you first in the head, you may not be able to punch back anymore.
So the safest thing to do in practice is attack first.
I have tried explaining this to Dutch friends but they do not seem to understand it. I feel like they’ve never been jumped by a group and not really been in fights?
These are minors though.. so the discussion of 'proportional violance' might bite you. Lets say you get the chain they are hitting you with and you knock six of them out with it.. with broken bones and skulls.. you might be fucked even while fighting for your life.
Sure. But how much violence would be proportional might be different, depending on their physical development and (if applicable) use of weapons. But you may use the force required to defend yourself, someone else, even property. So if they're 6, obviously you can't roundhouse kick them into the middle of next week. If they're 15 and have knives, you can justify as much violence as you'd use against someone who's 26.
> Punching them...probably fine.
No, it is not fine. Source - a friend of mine caught a robber in his house. He trained boxing and was ready to apprehend him. The robber fled. The police came and my friend asked if it was OK to use force to apprehend the robber. The police laughed - "Ofc not! All you can do is lock him in a room and call us. Robbery is cannot be answered with a violent act against a human. You were lucky you didn't had the chance hit him"
You're mostly right. However, people have successfully pled they felt their life was in danger, they believed the robber was armed...stuff like that. It's not as black or white as the police will tell you and fortunately it's not up to the police to decide what is and isn't allowed.
The Dutch Penal Code does include defense of property, so there is that as well.
However, it's risky. Especially if you're a trained boxer your defense will not be considered proportional very quickly.
But imagine how unlucky the burglar would have been if your friend had stumbled upon the burglar and accidentally had bumped into him, causing him to fall down the stairs. What a rotten bit of luck that would have been!
This is not true at all and it's very bad if a cop said this.
We have a thing called 'burgerarrest' which allows civilians to use force to apprehend someone when caught red handed. This force cannot exceed the force needed to make sure the suspect doesn't get away.
In case of a burgerarrest you must immediately hand over the suspect to the police.
Harassment or bullying behaviour is not tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to: brigading, doxxing, and posts and/or comments that are antagonistic or in bad faith.
HALT punishment? This isn't a 15-year-old boy stealing a bag of chips at the grocery store. This is attempted manslaughter. Regardless of their age, they should be tried as adults.
If they are tried as adults depends on their "mental development" which is judged by psychologists and psychiatrists.
The legal system is focused on rehabilitation primarily for children. Retribution or revenge have a (scientifically as well as a statistically) proven detrimental effect on said rehabilitation.
In other words, if you put a child in prison for longer durations, you will never be able to alter his behavior into a better citizen, and will only create a hardened criminal.
They are at an age where there is still a chance of "saving" them.
honestly, when you are at the point where you chase a mother and baby into several stores and do damage everywhere, then try to blunt force murder her with heavy lock and stab her there isnt much saving left.
even at 15 theres no way a healthy mind would go "yes, this is fine"
Agreed.
I was send to HALT as a kid because I tresspassed on some companies private property. Dumb, yes. But a mistake a curious 13 year old kid can make. Nobody was harmed by my 'crime'. It's great that HALT exists for cases like this. I learned, and moved on.
Chases a mother and trying to kill her? Yeah, that's not something that a 10 hours of community service can fix. This kids are a danger to society, and in order to protect society, they need to do some real time.
>I was send to HALT as a kid because I tresspassed on some companies private property.
I don't have experience with Halt, so don't know how severe it is. But that is tough luck.
Me and my friends did this, arround the same age, we even had fireworks (innocent fireworks like rotjes) but we just got told off.
Had to do 2 hours of community service in a thright shop. Cleaned some stuff, that was that. Nothing too bad. But the contact with the police scared me.
I never undestood this reasoning. It's like saying "we're giving free pass to people who are not "mentally developed" enough, because of that reason.
If someone has capacity to cause harm to innocent bystanders, and is not "mentally developed" enough, he should either be tried as an adult, or lockk him up. If he has enough power to cause harm, I don't see why his mental development matters. I don't care that he has no understanding of his actions. He will not be on trial for his way of thinking, but for his actions.
Let me ask you this: Would you argue a 5 year old be tried as an adult if they managed to cause the death of their baby sibling? If no, why not?
The brains of young adults are developing until they are about 21 years old on average. Just remember the stupid shit you pulled when you were young. I grant, its most likely not as severe as those kids, but you wouldn't do it now while you're older and can grasp the consequences better.
Imprisonment is always a temporary measure, and as such the system needs to prepare for the time after that imprisonment. If the imprisonment (or the duration thereof) has an adverse effect on the behaviour of those kids, we need to try to not have them a burden to society.
Heavier punishment has no deterrence effect on crime, so the only reason left is retribution (or revenge if you want to give it a cruder name).
It would have been best to prevent the children from being like this in the first place, but that ship has sailed. We now have to pick up the pieces and salvage the situation.
Comparing a 5 year old with a 15 year old is bullshit, and you know this as well as I do. you're not arguing in good faith here.
>
The brains of young adults are developing until they are about 21 years old on average.
So a 20 year old should be tried as a child for attemped manslaughter?
I am arguing in good faith. I'm asking you where the line is. They are both developing children. Which is "developed enough" by your standards to feel the full force of your punishment?
As a 20 year old has been determined to have his full faculties and developed sufficiently by professionals, he can be punished as an adult. It's not a black and white situation. There's nuances and mental health professionals at work.
It's certainly more nuanced than a couple of redditors arguing with their emotion.
a 15 year old who chases a woman and a baby in several stores while actively trying to kill her with a bikechain and knifes knows damn well what he's doing. He might not be able to oversee all the consequences of his actions at this age, but he's fully aware of his actions, fully aware that he's hurting someone pretty badly and fully aware that this a bad and illegal thing to do.
I'm not a psychologist, so I can't give you a number age wise. But I'd draw the line at an age where the person knows what they are doing and knows that it is a bad thing. 15 is absolutely far enough past that age.
The development of the brain mainly has to do with understanding consequences at this age, not at right or wrong. They know what they do is wrong they just don't understand / see the consequences.
If you need a source by specialists, here is one about knowing right from wrong:
[Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months – Association for Psychological Science – APS](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/research-shows-toddlers-understand-right-from-wrong-at-just-19-months.html)
Understanding consequences of their actions start at 6 and become much better at it at from 13 onward:
[When Do Children Understand “Consequences?” | Judy Arnall](https://judyarnall.com/2019/02/18/when-do-children-understand-consequences/#:~:text=Children%20are%20able%20to%20begin,punish%20children%20for%20their%20decisions.)
There is no bad faith here.
>Comparing a 5 year old with a 15 year old is bullshit, and you know this as well as I do. you're not arguing in good faith here.
Why can't we compare a 15 year old to a 5 year old but can compare that same 15 year old to a 18+ year old?
A comparison doesn't mean that they are the same. It means that they share certain aspects. In the case of the 5 and 15 year old, they both share the aspect of their brains not being fully grown yet.
In the case of the 15 year old and the 18+ year old, they both share the aspect of their brains being further developed than a 5-year old, but not equally developed compared to each other.
So yes, we wouldn't punish a 5 year equally as we would a 18 year old because of the difference between the development of their brains. Similarly, we don't punish 15 years old the same as we would 18 year old, because of the difference between the development of their brains.
But of course, the actual age is accounted for in the punishment, even if tried under juvenile law. A 15-year old is expected to understand the consequences of their actions better than a 5-year old and will thus receive harsher punishment.
Who's talking about retribution or revenge? It's about giving a punishment that fits the crime.
They tried to kill a woman who was holding baby. Community service does not fit here.
You mention only 3 reasons for incarceration
* Revenge
* Retribution
* Rehabilitation
You're missing a huge one. Protecting society. Every day these kids spend in juvenile or jail, they cannot harm an innoncent citizen. 5 years in jails means at least 5 years of more safety on the streets for woman, babies and other people.
Another important reason is closure for the victim. How would you feel if someone tried to murder you and they got away with it. What does that with your faith in our justice system? How safe do you think this woman feels everyday knowing that these kids still walk around and that they can do it again without real consequence.
There is way more at play here then 'revenge' or 'retribution'.
Indeed, this woman wont be able to have a normal life anymore, she's traumatized and those young criminals around the places she has to walk by. Fuck it, you try to kill somebody? Life in Jail, the only deterrant for these fuckers is that. They are too far gone, probably they wont even develop empathy and what makes a normal person. The only way to stop them is if they know the consequences of their actions is throwing their whole life away
All incarceration is temporary, and thus not a good means of protecting society in itself. There will always be a return to society, and you need to prepare for that.
The "closure" for the victim literally is the retribution or revenge.
We don't have to argue the "deterrence" function of a prison sentence because that also has been well established as not working.
>All incarceration is temporary
During which the person can do no harm, which is valuable for society. I never argued that that time shoulnd't be used to prepare the perpetrator for a return to society.
>The "closure" for the victim literally is the retribution or revenge.
No, it's not. Retribution or revenge is about harming the perpetrator. Closure is about healing and helping the victim. It's quite literally the complete opposite.
>We don't have to argue the "deterrence" function of a prison sentence because that also has been well established as not working.
I know. That's why I didn't use deterrence as an argument.
Since incarceration has a direct adverse effect on the reintegration and rehabilitation (especially at those ages) it potentially worsens the situation for society.
There is no healing the victim in locking up the perpetrator. Literally none. It's only satisfying the need for retribution.
>There is no healing the victim in locking up the perpetrator. Literally none.
You honestly believe the victim would not feel safer knowing the attacker is no longer free, probably living in close proximity to her? That he/she cannot get more closure the attacker is locked up instead of having to do 10 orso hours of community service?
I mean, you can believe that, but it's hardly a realistic take.
Tell me, So you'd argue we would need to keep the perpetrators locked up until the victim feels safe?
As this was not a targeted attack, but a "random" crime, there would be no upside to the actual safety by keeping them (him, because only one was actually arrested) locked up.
>Tell me, So you'd argue we would need to keep the perpetrators locked up until the victim feels safe?
That's not what I said nor what I implied.
>As this was not a targeted attack, but a "random" crime
It wasn't random. It was racially motivated. The upside for the victim would be the victim feeling safer in her own neighborhood. They might not actually come after her, but it's still a very valid fear people have after being attacked.
Please elaborate what you did mean exactly. It's unclear to me.
If it's racially motivated, it's random to such an extent that they were not specifically looking for the victim. She was a victim of opportunity.
I didn't say they can all be. The thing is, that if you go for the "revenge" way, it has shown they are definitely lost and will remain a "burden" to society.
With proper guidance, some *can* be saved
Oh I agree, the revenge thing doesn't solve anything.
I don't claim I have answers. But sometimes I find it annoying that people will say "A doesn't work, so we must do B". But what if B doesn't work either?
I find this kind of thing incredibly difficult. If 10% can be saved, should you really allow the remaining 90% to re-enter society and continue they way they were?
Again...I don't have the answer.
B has the best success rate of the tools we have at our disposal. They will get punished, but not as severely as an adult.
Professionals determine their mental development and investigate if they have the mental capacity to grasp what they actually did.
Imprisonment is always a temporary measure, and as such the system needs to prepare for the time after that imprisonment. If the Imprisonment (or the duration thereof) has an adverse effect on the behaviour of those kids, we need to try to not have them a burden to society.
This is why I say I don't have the answer.
But more experts should be brave enough to admit they don't either. It's a different discussion, but if you look at the recidivism rate among child molesters, it's too high. Am I saying we should just lock them all up for life? No, that's not what I want. But it would be better if experts would say they don't have an answer either. B isn't working terribly well, so we need to find options C and D.
It's a bit like a cure for cancer: if you only consider your current treatments, you're never going to find something that works better. You should focus on finding radically different approaches the MIGHT work, try them, evaluate and improve.
Adequate punishment is not retribution or revenge. Halting punishment and sending them home enables this behaviour.
Keeping them in prison might not benefit the individual so much, however leaving them out can lead to more dire consequences.
Then it's up to the rehabilitation program to effectively change the child's behaviour within the boundaries that ensure a safe society.
Please note that the HALT referred to here isn't about halting punishment it's about bureau [halt](https://www.halt.nl/) an institution that specializes in rehabilitating young people, don't know if parent understood that but it's useful info for anyone not familiar with the Dutch system.
I personally don't have any experience with them, but their punishments seem to revolve teaching children about **why** what they did was wrong and helping them find ways so they never do it again followed by an apology to the victim, figuring out a way to repay the damages and possibly some community service relevant to the committed offence.
I think this is a better option than putting them behind bars as that seems to stimulate recidivism and might put them in touch with organized crime.
Yeah well in this case I prefer preventive measures and teaching them manners, ethics and empathy before the incident. Not wait until shit happens and telling them “this is bad” with a lollipop as a reward.
Btw I totally agree with you about this approach but only for minor crimes like stealing for example. But we need better programs for dealing with more serious crimes.
There is a deterrence effect to punishment.
The fact that organized crime specifically uses children for violence is a unintentional consequence of existing philosophy.
You would think so, but deterrence of higher punishment is proven to be ineffective. There are even signs that it has the opposite effect, turning convicts into hardened criminals who don't any hope of leading a normal life.
https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2020/07/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime
Can this story be verified? This website is the only site reporting on it. A group of 20+ teens attack a mother and baby while destroying several shops, would probably be the kind of thing that major news outlets would pick up.
Yeah, this really struck me as incredibly weird. I can't imagine an doctor advising against a report in a case with this much violence. No way a doctor would care this much about the future of those attackers when he has a severely wounded woman who barely escaped death in his hospital.
Couldnt find it anywhere else.
But in the last 2 weeks there where quite a lot of verified stories of people getting kicked the shit out of them. Wtf is happening in Almere?
Wow it never occurred to me it could be fake? I hope you're right! But why would anyone spread this news if it wasn't true? What would they gain from it? I don't understand (but maybe I don't understand fake news in general haha)
Yep, this looks a lot like rage baiting fake news.
There is no mention of this event on the [website of Politie Almere](https://www.politie.nl/mijn-buurt/nieuws?geoquery=almere&distance=5.0).
The only other website posting this news item is Almere Zaken. [Their article](https://www.almerezaken.nl/nieuws/algemeen/60148/moeder-en-baby-zwaar-mishandeld-door-jongeren#:~:text=Een%2042%2Djarige%20Almeerse%20moeder,Die%20krijgt%20een%20HALT%2Dstraf) has the exact same text as the one OP posted. Both Almere Zaken and Almere deze Week list Rodi Media Midden Nederland as a contact.No other website makes mention of this event, which reads too serious to be ignored.
The content of the article is kind of wild too. The doctor recommended not to reach out the police for concern of “not ruining a young man’s life”? Really?
GTFO
@mods, are you asleep?
I cannot verify the story. But i do know large groups of so called "gangs" live in Almere.
I had the displeasure of meeting one of them after we tried to get back my friends stolen car. Suddenly we were swarmed by people. Things got so bad police picked us up instead. We were pretty badly hurt and we never saw the car again. This story wasnt even reported on btw, maybe also because we were not loud enough.
I can only find news about this incident on that specific site. Nothing else, and that is weird. Especially since an incident like this is insane enough to be picked up by bigger outlets, but nothing. Does anyone have more links because rn I'm sceptical about this.
While I agree that news (mainly internationally) is very Eurocentric I don't want to believe that it goes this deep with reporting heavy incidents as these. I mean I expect an outlet like powned to skip over it but something like the NOS, I don't want to believe that. Even generally left leaning outlets haven't reported on this.
Yes, but only in a defensive manner. If you take it too far and use more force than deemed necessary to end the dangerous situation you can get into legal trouble yourself. So if you do have the skill and restraint to help someone and leave it to the police after defusing the situation, please do. If you are one of those people who can't stop once the attacker is stopped, don't risk it.
That's true, but I'm not sure how a judge will look at that if you actively stepped in to protect someone else and not only defended yourself from an attacker. Because yes, if an intruder shows up in your kitchen and you bash their skull in with the cast iron pan you were already holding you probably won't be prosecuted. But stepping in to defend someone, grabbing that cast iron pan on your way there, not so sure they will interpret that as purely noodweer.
If the violence you use is proportional, there's no problem. If you fear for your own, or someone else's life (there is no distinction there), quite a lot of violence could be considered proportional. But, as is so often the case, it'll always depend on the specifics of the case.
In the case you describe, it depends. If you are behind someone who's about to hack someone to death with a machete and you grab that cast iron pan and bash them on the head with it once, you'd probably not be prosecuted.
But this is one of the wildest bits of Dutch legislation, there is so much room for interpretation that different judges may reach different conclusions.
The potential damage is not always proportional to the violence tho. Wouldn’t the end result matter?
For example: You just punched them, but you just got lucky enough to crack their skull or they fell afterwards and hit their head leading to permanent disability.
This is always complicated. Their age wouldn't really matter. If the outcome had been different (no real injury), obviously nothing would happen. Now that the outcome is bad, police are going to investigate. They're going to talk to witnesses. If they all tell the police that you clearly looked like you felt very threatened and punched them once...I suppose prosecutor might drop the case.
But they might not. Then it's likely the judge would rule in your favour, but it's definitely not going to be a nice situation to be in...
Well said, it’s still not a situation you’d want to be in. Just wish there was more legal incentive or protection for people to help each other out. In practice it’s too easy to ignore things like this.
It’s one of those things like when people say we need to “believe women” more when it comes to sexual abuse, but we can’t legally give women more weight as witnesses. Nor can we just allow anyone to take any violent action in response to an attacker legally.
Basically people's right to be innocent until proven guilty weighs more heavily than the desire to convict everyone who committed a crime. When you really think about it, that's not a bad thing. But sometimes it can feel like an injustice...or actually be one.
If knifes are involved just call police and keep your distant unless you really feel the need to jump in and act. One wrong decision and your life could be over.
Yes I understand but they were throwing rocks at a woman carrying a baby. One stone hits the baby's head and he is dead or might have lifetime consequences. They also knocked her out beating her so there was clearly a life at risk in this situation.
Since you have training like this, throwing punches may actually be considered disproportionate (depending on the biceps of your opponent).
You seem to have the knowledge to “disable” or “ground” your opponent, not using that but instead choosing to hurt him (as a lesson?) has a decent chance of making you liable in the process.
You can keep him restrained under a “citizens arrest”. https://www.politie.nl/informatie/mag-ik-als-burger-een-verdachte-aanhouden.html#
That’s how it always is tho. How does one man, a dictator, rule over millions, not to mention millions of soldiers who could turn against him? Same reason: Everyone’s afraid for themselves.
Yes, you can legally do that:
https://www.politie.nl/informatie/er-wordt-geweld-tegen-mij-gebruikt.-wat-mag-ik-doen-om-mezelf-te-verdedigen.html
The question is if you are physically able
You can involve to stop the attack but you never know what will happen just shoving someone can make them fall down and hit their head killing them so its still risky.
Well first it has to be proven it indeed happened as said.. Better hope some witnesses come forth if there are any. Anyway, at the proving point you’re already deep into legal fees. Don’t forget this can take years.
The article mentions that it's all captured on store CCTV so it's a pretty open and shut case. No judge is going to convict someone for pushing away an attacker that is beating someone unconscious with a bike lock / trying to stab them, regardless of what happens to the attacker after pushing them.
In this case maybe yeah, but in smaller cases, could be no one even bothers to check CCTV if there is one and you settle it out of court because it’s so much easier and faster. The footage is often not great quality and not so clear.
There was a great video piece made by a self defence expert on situations like this. The premise of this video was if you are usually a coward you will probably be a coward, if you are trained to fight you will most likely fight. At first glance this seems pretty straight forward and harsh but he then goes into more detail and used 2 real on video captured situations as examples. One of the video's was a man with a knife going around threatening people and one other man standing up for the crowd. The guy standing up for the crowd showed a decent stance and confidence, quite clearly he had some form of fighting background. The guy with the knife killed him. And ended up stabbing multiple other people.
The long and short of it is that sometimes it is not worth or smart to try and personally/physically do something. Eventhough you are trained or very sure of your own skills. The best thing you can do is call the police, warn people, close doors or obstruct hallways if its indoors. Going for the confrontation is almost never the right thing to do.
According to the law you can defend yourself.
Cases of extreme violence will always be brought to court so you will have to deal with a lot of hassle afterwards but art 41 describes what you can do.
A couple of years ago a jeweler got away with shooting and killing a armed robber that on all accounts seemed to have killed him and his wife if the jeweler wasn't first. It took quite a while before the verdict was made and there was extensive evidence including multiple angle security footage.
So even killing someone can be legal but the rule of thumb to keep in mind is that self defense is allowed basically only if the result otherwise is very likely going to be worse and that can be proven in court.
Why did I hear about this news only on Reddit?
This should make the front page on national news.
A mob of young guys were chasing a Brazilian mom and her baby, screaming "out with foreigners". Then attack her with blunt force trauma and a knife.
Yes, and even if you use more force than necessary it can be deemed as a criminal exclusion ground (on a few conditions ofcourse, so don't go around beating people up for no reason). You have the right to intervene
I could, but it depends on what I'm up against. One on one? Yeah, sure, I can defend myself. Did some combat sports as a teen. So I'm not going in a fight, flailing like a madman and I'm a big guy, I should be fine. But I rather not get in fights, keep distance and get out of there. You don't know your opponent that well; he might have a knife. Or you get jumped by a group.
Looking at the article; that shit looks like it's gotten so out of hand, there should've been done something about this already. "We willen een samenscholingsverbod", we even have that in my city, and we don't even have anything near this kind of violence
This isn't something bystanders should handle anymore. This is something the cops should already handle...
Is the whole far-right rhetoric unrelated to this kind of behavior? What kind of families bring up kids like this? Do police in the Nethetlands take such incidents seriously?
No they don't. They wait for someone to get hurt or killed and then they do something. The punishment is usually pretty light.. I have dozen examples of these things going terrible, with things such as stalking or having a mentally unstabe neighbour you are really fucked. Someone i know got attacked in his home by a neighbour, he hit his wife with a machete.. this escalated for years without them acting. We also have the example of the guy with the crossbow killing his neighbours.. similar case. Or the crazy student that killed his teacher in Erasmus University. The police don't do anything untill it's to late or they are set free to do it again. Then they invastigate 'how the institutions failed'...which should bring you closure. You can't count on the government to keep you safe in this country. It wasn't like this but things are getting worse and worse and with this extremism will rise again.
I see. I've only visited the Netherlands in the past and I always felt it's a safe country. But after being in this sub and similar subs here, I started wondering if Police are really efficient there. Bad things happen everywhere but I guess I always had a pretty rosy image of the Netherlands. Then I come across all these stories of scams in the rental market, theft, issues between neighbors and aggresive attacks like the one described here. Even homelessness that did not exist before.
I think the Netherlands has changed in recent year. Being so crowded and cramped, does not help either.
Make a scene. Scream at the top of your lungs, gather attention of a crowd, grab a stone and stick nearby, try to incapacitate, secure the victim, wait for the police would be my drill.
Worry about the legal implication later.
Close the fuckin doors of the fuckin shop. She went to at least 3 different stores. Why was nobody preventing the kids from entering the stores until police came? Put the lady and her family in a back room, in the toilet, wherever and get a group to stand between the door and the assholes. Geez. I'm so angry.
Actually yes, but be ready to prove what you did.
I destroyed a skinhead's kneecap when i kicked him and three of his buddies off a minor migrant (Kid was 14, the brave defenders of the superior race were mid twenties, as was I at the time.)
I spent 36 hours in holding for a charge of gbh. On Monday morning it took the judge about two minutes to toss my case, but the cops simply arrested me with not a single thought.
Defending another's safety is considered self defence, though there are limitations on what actions you can take.
My actions against limpy and his pals were considered proportionate as it was four against two, but the rules are rather strict.
Yes I do that but my question is. If in the process I hurt one of them. Would I be liable? Or is it a legal right so I couldn't be prosecuted or be liable to pay for medical care for the aggressor?
You would not be liable in such a case, depending on 'reasonable amount of force used'.
It's called 'noodweer' which covers the protection of yourself, your belongings, and other people.
Legally speaking you would, after having defended someone using force, be found 'guilty' of mistreatment ('mishandeling'), however the judge will pronounce you have used 'noodweer' and you be ineligible to be punished or receive a criminal record.
And unlike what others have said you are not forced to intervene. You are forced to help someone when their life is in danger, however, that law applies to an indiscriminate danger such as a perilous situation without an attacker that could turn on you for helping. These laws are reasonable, and so are the judges.
Edit: a word
IANAL.
Yes, you’re allowed to protect yourself or others using proportional force: this means any force that matches the force being used by the aggressor as long as needed to get out of the situation as soon as you can.
However, In this specific scenario if someone would have disproportionately hurt (or worse) the person doing this they’d most likely successfully be able to use the “noodweer exces” defence meaning you did use disproportionate force but it was justified in being scared of your or someone else’s life.
I'm not sure what the law dictates. But it would highly advice not stepping in unless you're with a larger group of people. Reason being that there are a lot of messed up people wielding knives who aren't afraid to use them. As well as scumbags who will kick you while you're down, potentially killing you. It's simply not worth it.
This is why I have a stash of homemade napalm cocktails. Everybody gangsta until they're on fire.
Only if this happens to my own family tho, sorry.
I don't have a wife, the napalm scared her.
Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
Imagine ketting hit with a chain, that must’ve hurt.
Guess the Holland were getting is Middle Eastern in nature with the “white appeal”.
Disgusting.
I hope she recovers and I hope those imbeciles die.
I can’t stand how we’re trying to rehabilitate these monsters.
One of the perpetrators was caught. And because these are apparently minors they will barely be punished. But if you fight back you will be punished much worse. You are only expected to call the police who may or may not respond. In this case there is media attention which tends to force them to take a problem seriously.
How would I know they were minors if they're close to not being? Based on many other answers here it seems under my legal right to intervene in a reasonable manner without the risk of being liable. So I am confused about your answer.
You can't know for sure if they are minors. And it's kinda hard to use reasonable measures when kids are stabbing you and beating you with metal locks. Maybe you are a martial arts guru who can take down 20 armed attackers by yourself?
If I can make an assumption - I'd say you mean white people.
The attackers however weren't white, as is heavily implied in the article. Hence you're original comment is wrong **IF** you implied white people. Which is why I asked.
"To the police, one of the suspects stated that my wife allegedly made monkey noises to the group"
Making monkey sounds is not something done towards people with a white appearance. It's done towards people with a black or African appearance as a way to insult them by comparing them to monkeys. The attacker claiming the woman made monkey noises towards the group would make zero sense if the group was white.
I wonder if verdict would be the same if wife of some politician or serious business owner was attacked.
Would it still be focused on rehabilitation or they would be judged more strictly?
Does the Dutch police uses any drone system for reaching out to places where crimes are being committed faster? And for tracking subjects? Patrolling areas?
I mean, with all this violence, I am full-on on increasing surveillance tremendously!
I would be careful, there was another post that described being attacked and called racial slurs. In defence, the victim bit the attackers' hand in order to try to get away and is now being sued by the attacker. Not sure what the outcome will be but you should be prepared in case this happens.
Pepperspray is illegal to even own, let alone carry.
That doesn't mean you can't use claim "self defense" against the assault/homicide charge iff your self defense was necessary and proportional, but:
1. you'll almost certainly will still be convicted of illegal weapon possession, which is pretty serious
2. in actuality, a lot of self defense end up being excessive, and the usual "heat of the moment" excuses are much more likely to be thrown out if there is premeditated carrying-an-illegal-weapon stuff going on, because that sure as hell gives the impression that you were looking for a fight.
By law, you need to provide assistance. Weapons wise I think you're only allowed to grab something on location (e.g. a chair), otherwise you have to go full Jesus and the Merchants.
But one against 20 is not gonna work sorry
If you live in almere you should ask yourself the question if you should move out of there. Its known that the trash people of the country live there. Terrible what happened to the mother tho…
As a single person against a group of 20, you're screwed, so if you want to help, be loud, and get more people to help you while the police is called. You need to stall for time, not win a fight.
I agree, motivating others to join in defense, wins by numbers. Until the police arrives. Me myself, I just signed my kids up for Krav Maga, and as soon as I find trainings in the mornings, I'll join myself too. This shit is happening too often.
Just to make sure. Most of the marshal art experts advocate that the best tactic in street fight is running away. Even if you win easily, the chance to have a severe injury is high and not worth - e.g. hitting a skull with bare knuckle can lead to nasty hand fractures. A course in self-defense could set a false sense of own capabilities and make things worse.
So you're saying the best self defense class you can take is actually athletics?
Combined with a bit of sumo - to push away those who block your way out...
Yeah this. Also fighting back (well) could also be an easy way for the people you're fighting to escalate the situation. If they're worried they're losing the fight one of them might grab something heavy and hit you over the head with it. Fighting back should always be a last resort, and even then to create some space to get the fuck out of dodge.
Sadly, while true, it only encourages bystander apathy. In this case there was only one boy who decided to take some of the hits for the mom it seems. They followed her through thru 3 different stores/ restaurants. She was badly beaten by the time the cops showed up.
As a bystander the best is to call 112 and then shout like crazy from a safe distance something in the sense: "Policemen! Over here! He has a gun! Shoot him!" "Run! Police is coming!!!"
I’ll keep that in mind thanks
Why was she attacked? Is there any clue?
She had darker skin and apparently these kids were saying “foreigners out!”
Oh I see...
Yes. The difference between being untrained and a martial artist becomes how well and how fast one is able to assess the situation, and how fast one is able to get out of "freeze,flight,fight" reaction and actually run away consciously. Also, a bigger awareness of one's surroundings even before the event. Also running faster and with less injuries, but any (running) training wih do for this.
Remember, they teach this in Defendo / Krav Maga too: in a fight against multiple opponents, your goal is to keep a safe distance, disable or repel the first attacker in the quickest way possible, not get surrounded, retreat.
First lesson of self defense, run away as fast as you can.
This! Investing in proper self-defense is the way to protect you and yours.
I am a fighter, my recomendation to you is: don't learn Krav Maga it's useless and/or at best is less effective than boxing kickboxing etc I'd teach the boys Boxing and girls Brazilian Jiujitsu. They'll be able to defend themselves should a bad situation occur
Krav maga is amazing. I knew a girl that was taught it. She was 10 times weaker then me but had me on the ground before I knew what hit me. It already saved her from getting raped when she visited India.
I understand but that's the reason I am asking. Usually in a group like this they're cowards so if you knock a couple down hard the others will stay back.
Be aware that if one kids is carrying a knife, many of them will be. It’s is fair enough to say that knocking a couple of kids out will scare the rest away, in a fist fight with no weapons. Knives and numbers will bolster the courage of these young criminals. It takes no skill or strength to stab someone when you are in a group of people all trying to stab something . Edit: spelling
Ja beetje zielig dat elk gevecht onvermijdelijk uitdraait op messen trekken tegenwoordig. Blijkbaar is niemand meer bang om een leven te nemen zonder nadenken?
This is not how it works...
How you gonna knock down two guys when you're being punched and grabbed by 18 others? Unless youre going to plow through the crowd in a car, I don't think you've thought this through.
You can not win. Simple as that. You have every disadvantage: you're alone, you're defending someone, you have no weapons, and most likely not the stamina to keep fighting for more than your adrenaline lasts. In any fight, using your head is the most important thing. Any simple math will tell you this is not a favorable condition for you, so you need to change it in to one that is. Be loud, ask people to record them, get their faces on camera, slow them down by talking, discussing, blocking them with whatever is around, but do not go in to a fist fight with 20 hyped up teens who carry weapons.
Kudos to you. Stay safe, we don't want "the bad guys" to become the majority.
Nature does not smile on those who fight fair. Its about force, if you're 1 against 20, you have to convince each one of those that its in their best interest to walk away. Thats a hard sell unless you have a decent firearm.
That is hell of an assumption to make. Are you willing to bet on that with your life, your well being or others' ?
Yes, in this case where there were 20+ aggressive boys, I would try to block some doors and ask for other people to help hold while cops arrive. But I am asking because I want to know the Dutch law if I ever decide to intervene. A few months back for example I was going back from work to the Central Station in Amsterdam and I saw a drunk/drugged dude harassing a woman who was most likely going back from work back home, it was around 18h, and nobody was doing anything, I asked the woman if she knew him and when she told not, I elevated my voice and commanded the guy to step away and took back my backpack to defend myself if needed. He ended up stepping back away from her and down next stop. So I want to know if I get attacked it would be ok to defend myself or others. I wrote about it at the time as I got pissed off about what happened. [https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/13vvypn/comment/kj7zsuf/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/Netherlands/comments/13vvypn/comment/kj7zsuf/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) And I can tell you honestly, yes, most of the time even if there are multiple aggressors if they notice you can hurt them(like knocking one of the most aggressive ones down) most of them will step back. Imobilyzing in this situation would not make sense as too many of them were there. You need to make them scared of you.
You have a right to self defense but especially with minors you will easily be in trouble... they are quick to say you have gone 'overboard' and might get punished even when someone breaks into your house you might be in trouble if you hurt them. Our laws are nothing like the US castle doctrine and stand your ground laws. In practice i think there are only 2 options. You either commit to violance and neutralize the threat (and take the punishment you might get) or you don't act.. you can't really half ass attack someone now because you will likely get stabbed, these kids are all carrying knives and machetes right now. I have multiple weapons in my house to defend myself and my family and i have a crowbar and other 'weapons' in my car, after i watched someones car get attacked at Schiphol by some crazy idiots over nothing.
Step 1 in this: raise your voice and tell them to step down is always allowed. But you need to find a way to de-escalate the situation instead of making it worse. Step 2, situation escalated: people are raising voices, hands are lifted. Still try to de-escalate. If people try to hit you, try to fend them off without hitting back. Step 3: get hit: Shoot that mo*^^rf%ckers kneekaps to smithereens and peel his eyes out so he take a closer look at himself (Last bit is a joke) If you ever get hit, you are allowed to use equal force to defend yourself. That means use enough force to find a way to flee the situation.
I hate the equal force bit so fucking much. You should be allowed to *disable* an attacker so he cannot continue the assault, by any means necessary.
This is disgusting, their parents should be accountable, freaking imbeciles growing kids on the streets. I wish Netherlands had the Norwegian system in terms of childcare. You’re a shit parent? we’ll find decent ones.
I have been experiencing overwhelming sadness about this lately. So many kids doing shitty things on the streets. I'm supposed to start letting go of my pre-teen and I'm just so so sad to see what the youth is up to nowadays.
it’s all about spending time with them and enabling kids to spend their time on meaningful activities where they grow, like sports clubs, art clubs etc etc. Instead what i’m seeing is teens roaming the streets after school, just loitering or roaming on those shitty fat bikes. It’s their parents fault. The kids are bored and start doing shit, get involved with the wrong crowds.
If it’s 20 kids for real, we talking about a good 40 parents at least. Not sure what to do with em, but doubt locking them up instead will help. Lock up the kids and see if anyone even comes for them.
Not saying locking up, but if parents don’t feel responsible for their kids, show them they are, monetary penalties can be an option as well.
Yes, you can intervene, there's two things to be aware of: - if you see an opportunity for both you and the victim to retreat to safety, you have a duty to take it - if you've disabled an attacker to the point where they are no longer a threat, you must stop attacking them (makes sense, but easy to forget in the heat of the moment) - if you used any weapons that you had brought with you, you could get punished for carrying weapons in public. That also includes any legal "tools" that are legal to own but for which you had no good reason to be carrying them, especially not unwrapped and "within reach". On the other hand, if you started retrieving a tool or legal weapon after the situation has already started (from your home, from a shop, etc) that would be legal.
Yes, art. 41 of the Dutch Penal Code is the legal basis. It doesn't mean any amount of violence is always justified. Point blank shooting someone through the head because they were pickpocketing you: not ok. Punching them...probably fine. But yeah, if you're going to go full Chuck Norris in the situation as described in this article, you'd probably get away with it.
Thank you. Love the Chuck Norris reference.
The rule of thumb i believe is you can use an equal amount of violence to defend yourself. Otherwise they could argue that you attacked them.
I remember the term is proportional. There have been cases in the Netherlands where somebody was arrested for having a gun but not for using it against this persons attacker as it was self defense, being threatened under gun point.
So you have to get stabbed first to stab someone back?
Yea this is it “oh ok now I’m dying I can kill you”. Works grrrreat. It’s why criminals live in such fear here…
Yup or at least verify their intent to stab. Sadly whoever stabs first is more likely to kill the other. Same thing if you wait for someone to punch you first in the head, you may not be able to punch back anymore. So the safest thing to do in practice is attack first.
I have tried explaining this to Dutch friends but they do not seem to understand it. I feel like they’ve never been jumped by a group and not really been in fights?
There’s the law (de jure) and then there’s facts (de facto).
No, you need to be in a situation where stabbing is an appropriate situation to defend yourself.
These are minors though.. so the discussion of 'proportional violance' might bite you. Lets say you get the chain they are hitting you with and you knock six of them out with it.. with broken bones and skulls.. you might be fucked even while fighting for your life.
I don't see why them being minors would change anything. Is there jurisprudence on this?
even when they are minors?
Sure. But how much violence would be proportional might be different, depending on their physical development and (if applicable) use of weapons. But you may use the force required to defend yourself, someone else, even property. So if they're 6, obviously you can't roundhouse kick them into the middle of next week. If they're 15 and have knives, you can justify as much violence as you'd use against someone who's 26.
> Punching them...probably fine. No, it is not fine. Source - a friend of mine caught a robber in his house. He trained boxing and was ready to apprehend him. The robber fled. The police came and my friend asked if it was OK to use force to apprehend the robber. The police laughed - "Ofc not! All you can do is lock him in a room and call us. Robbery is cannot be answered with a violent act against a human. You were lucky you didn't had the chance hit him"
You're mostly right. However, people have successfully pled they felt their life was in danger, they believed the robber was armed...stuff like that. It's not as black or white as the police will tell you and fortunately it's not up to the police to decide what is and isn't allowed. The Dutch Penal Code does include defense of property, so there is that as well. However, it's risky. Especially if you're a trained boxer your defense will not be considered proportional very quickly. But imagine how unlucky the burglar would have been if your friend had stumbled upon the burglar and accidentally had bumped into him, causing him to fall down the stairs. What a rotten bit of luck that would have been!
Yeah, I think he bragged about the boxing skill and was not even trying to think about "accidents"...
Using him as a punching bag is definitely not allowed. A few punches...that'll depend on your statement once the police arrive...
This is not true at all and it's very bad if a cop said this. We have a thing called 'burgerarrest' which allows civilians to use force to apprehend someone when caught red handed. This force cannot exceed the force needed to make sure the suspect doesn't get away. In case of a burgerarrest you must immediately hand over the suspect to the police.
[удалено]
Harassment or bullying behaviour is not tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to: brigading, doxxing, and posts and/or comments that are antagonistic or in bad faith.
You can't use force to apprehend if he's fleeing. But if the burglar attacks you then of course you can defend yourself.
You can always say that the criminal attacked you? After all it’s 1 story against the other.
HALT punishment? This isn't a 15-year-old boy stealing a bag of chips at the grocery store. This is attempted manslaughter. Regardless of their age, they should be tried as adults.
If they are tried as adults depends on their "mental development" which is judged by psychologists and psychiatrists. The legal system is focused on rehabilitation primarily for children. Retribution or revenge have a (scientifically as well as a statistically) proven detrimental effect on said rehabilitation. In other words, if you put a child in prison for longer durations, you will never be able to alter his behavior into a better citizen, and will only create a hardened criminal. They are at an age where there is still a chance of "saving" them.
honestly, when you are at the point where you chase a mother and baby into several stores and do damage everywhere, then try to blunt force murder her with heavy lock and stab her there isnt much saving left. even at 15 theres no way a healthy mind would go "yes, this is fine"
Agreed. I was send to HALT as a kid because I tresspassed on some companies private property. Dumb, yes. But a mistake a curious 13 year old kid can make. Nobody was harmed by my 'crime'. It's great that HALT exists for cases like this. I learned, and moved on. Chases a mother and trying to kill her? Yeah, that's not something that a 10 hours of community service can fix. This kids are a danger to society, and in order to protect society, they need to do some real time.
>I was send to HALT as a kid because I tresspassed on some companies private property. I don't have experience with Halt, so don't know how severe it is. But that is tough luck. Me and my friends did this, arround the same age, we even had fireworks (innocent fireworks like rotjes) but we just got told off.
Had to do 2 hours of community service in a thright shop. Cleaned some stuff, that was that. Nothing too bad. But the contact with the police scared me.
I never undestood this reasoning. It's like saying "we're giving free pass to people who are not "mentally developed" enough, because of that reason. If someone has capacity to cause harm to innocent bystanders, and is not "mentally developed" enough, he should either be tried as an adult, or lockk him up. If he has enough power to cause harm, I don't see why his mental development matters. I don't care that he has no understanding of his actions. He will not be on trial for his way of thinking, but for his actions.
Let me ask you this: Would you argue a 5 year old be tried as an adult if they managed to cause the death of their baby sibling? If no, why not? The brains of young adults are developing until they are about 21 years old on average. Just remember the stupid shit you pulled when you were young. I grant, its most likely not as severe as those kids, but you wouldn't do it now while you're older and can grasp the consequences better. Imprisonment is always a temporary measure, and as such the system needs to prepare for the time after that imprisonment. If the imprisonment (or the duration thereof) has an adverse effect on the behaviour of those kids, we need to try to not have them a burden to society. Heavier punishment has no deterrence effect on crime, so the only reason left is retribution (or revenge if you want to give it a cruder name). It would have been best to prevent the children from being like this in the first place, but that ship has sailed. We now have to pick up the pieces and salvage the situation.
Comparing a 5 year old with a 15 year old is bullshit, and you know this as well as I do. you're not arguing in good faith here. > The brains of young adults are developing until they are about 21 years old on average. So a 20 year old should be tried as a child for attemped manslaughter?
I am arguing in good faith. I'm asking you where the line is. They are both developing children. Which is "developed enough" by your standards to feel the full force of your punishment? As a 20 year old has been determined to have his full faculties and developed sufficiently by professionals, he can be punished as an adult. It's not a black and white situation. There's nuances and mental health professionals at work. It's certainly more nuanced than a couple of redditors arguing with their emotion.
a 15 year old who chases a woman and a baby in several stores while actively trying to kill her with a bikechain and knifes knows damn well what he's doing. He might not be able to oversee all the consequences of his actions at this age, but he's fully aware of his actions, fully aware that he's hurting someone pretty badly and fully aware that this a bad and illegal thing to do. I'm not a psychologist, so I can't give you a number age wise. But I'd draw the line at an age where the person knows what they are doing and knows that it is a bad thing. 15 is absolutely far enough past that age.
So you keep repeating. Apparently, the medial specialists disagreed in this case.
The development of the brain mainly has to do with understanding consequences at this age, not at right or wrong. They know what they do is wrong they just don't understand / see the consequences. If you need a source by specialists, here is one about knowing right from wrong: [Research shows toddlers understand right from wrong at just 19 months – Association for Psychological Science – APS](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/research-shows-toddlers-understand-right-from-wrong-at-just-19-months.html) Understanding consequences of their actions start at 6 and become much better at it at from 13 onward: [When Do Children Understand “Consequences?” | Judy Arnall](https://judyarnall.com/2019/02/18/when-do-children-understand-consequences/#:~:text=Children%20are%20able%20to%20begin,punish%20children%20for%20their%20decisions.)
There is no bad faith here. >Comparing a 5 year old with a 15 year old is bullshit, and you know this as well as I do. you're not arguing in good faith here. Why can't we compare a 15 year old to a 5 year old but can compare that same 15 year old to a 18+ year old? A comparison doesn't mean that they are the same. It means that they share certain aspects. In the case of the 5 and 15 year old, they both share the aspect of their brains not being fully grown yet. In the case of the 15 year old and the 18+ year old, they both share the aspect of their brains being further developed than a 5-year old, but not equally developed compared to each other. So yes, we wouldn't punish a 5 year equally as we would a 18 year old because of the difference between the development of their brains. Similarly, we don't punish 15 years old the same as we would 18 year old, because of the difference between the development of their brains. But of course, the actual age is accounted for in the punishment, even if tried under juvenile law. A 15-year old is expected to understand the consequences of their actions better than a 5-year old and will thus receive harsher punishment.
Who's talking about retribution or revenge? It's about giving a punishment that fits the crime. They tried to kill a woman who was holding baby. Community service does not fit here. You mention only 3 reasons for incarceration * Revenge * Retribution * Rehabilitation You're missing a huge one. Protecting society. Every day these kids spend in juvenile or jail, they cannot harm an innoncent citizen. 5 years in jails means at least 5 years of more safety on the streets for woman, babies and other people. Another important reason is closure for the victim. How would you feel if someone tried to murder you and they got away with it. What does that with your faith in our justice system? How safe do you think this woman feels everyday knowing that these kids still walk around and that they can do it again without real consequence. There is way more at play here then 'revenge' or 'retribution'.
Indeed, this woman wont be able to have a normal life anymore, she's traumatized and those young criminals around the places she has to walk by. Fuck it, you try to kill somebody? Life in Jail, the only deterrant for these fuckers is that. They are too far gone, probably they wont even develop empathy and what makes a normal person. The only way to stop them is if they know the consequences of their actions is throwing their whole life away
All incarceration is temporary, and thus not a good means of protecting society in itself. There will always be a return to society, and you need to prepare for that. The "closure" for the victim literally is the retribution or revenge. We don't have to argue the "deterrence" function of a prison sentence because that also has been well established as not working.
>All incarceration is temporary During which the person can do no harm, which is valuable for society. I never argued that that time shoulnd't be used to prepare the perpetrator for a return to society. >The "closure" for the victim literally is the retribution or revenge. No, it's not. Retribution or revenge is about harming the perpetrator. Closure is about healing and helping the victim. It's quite literally the complete opposite. >We don't have to argue the "deterrence" function of a prison sentence because that also has been well established as not working. I know. That's why I didn't use deterrence as an argument.
Since incarceration has a direct adverse effect on the reintegration and rehabilitation (especially at those ages) it potentially worsens the situation for society. There is no healing the victim in locking up the perpetrator. Literally none. It's only satisfying the need for retribution.
>There is no healing the victim in locking up the perpetrator. Literally none. You honestly believe the victim would not feel safer knowing the attacker is no longer free, probably living in close proximity to her? That he/she cannot get more closure the attacker is locked up instead of having to do 10 orso hours of community service? I mean, you can believe that, but it's hardly a realistic take.
Tell me, So you'd argue we would need to keep the perpetrators locked up until the victim feels safe? As this was not a targeted attack, but a "random" crime, there would be no upside to the actual safety by keeping them (him, because only one was actually arrested) locked up.
>Tell me, So you'd argue we would need to keep the perpetrators locked up until the victim feels safe? That's not what I said nor what I implied. >As this was not a targeted attack, but a "random" crime It wasn't random. It was racially motivated. The upside for the victim would be the victim feeling safer in her own neighborhood. They might not actually come after her, but it's still a very valid fear people have after being attacked.
Please elaborate what you did mean exactly. It's unclear to me. If it's racially motivated, it's random to such an extent that they were not specifically looking for the victim. She was a victim of opportunity.
I wonder how much scientific and statistical evidence there is that these "kids" can be "saved"...
We need proof
I didn't say they can all be. The thing is, that if you go for the "revenge" way, it has shown they are definitely lost and will remain a "burden" to society. With proper guidance, some *can* be saved
Oh I agree, the revenge thing doesn't solve anything. I don't claim I have answers. But sometimes I find it annoying that people will say "A doesn't work, so we must do B". But what if B doesn't work either? I find this kind of thing incredibly difficult. If 10% can be saved, should you really allow the remaining 90% to re-enter society and continue they way they were? Again...I don't have the answer.
B has the best success rate of the tools we have at our disposal. They will get punished, but not as severely as an adult. Professionals determine their mental development and investigate if they have the mental capacity to grasp what they actually did. Imprisonment is always a temporary measure, and as such the system needs to prepare for the time after that imprisonment. If the Imprisonment (or the duration thereof) has an adverse effect on the behaviour of those kids, we need to try to not have them a burden to society.
This is why I say I don't have the answer. But more experts should be brave enough to admit they don't either. It's a different discussion, but if you look at the recidivism rate among child molesters, it's too high. Am I saying we should just lock them all up for life? No, that's not what I want. But it would be better if experts would say they don't have an answer either. B isn't working terribly well, so we need to find options C and D. It's a bit like a cure for cancer: if you only consider your current treatments, you're never going to find something that works better. You should focus on finding radically different approaches the MIGHT work, try them, evaluate and improve.
Adequate punishment is not retribution or revenge. Halting punishment and sending them home enables this behaviour. Keeping them in prison might not benefit the individual so much, however leaving them out can lead to more dire consequences. Then it's up to the rehabilitation program to effectively change the child's behaviour within the boundaries that ensure a safe society.
Please note that the HALT referred to here isn't about halting punishment it's about bureau [halt](https://www.halt.nl/) an institution that specializes in rehabilitating young people, don't know if parent understood that but it's useful info for anyone not familiar with the Dutch system. I personally don't have any experience with them, but their punishments seem to revolve teaching children about **why** what they did was wrong and helping them find ways so they never do it again followed by an apology to the victim, figuring out a way to repay the damages and possibly some community service relevant to the committed offence. I think this is a better option than putting them behind bars as that seems to stimulate recidivism and might put them in touch with organized crime.
Do you really need a whole rehabilitation program to tell a teenager that attacking a mum with a baby is wrong?
No, but you need it to teach the teenager how to control themselves better and to fix the circumstances that lead up to this behavior.
Yeah well in this case I prefer preventive measures and teaching them manners, ethics and empathy before the incident. Not wait until shit happens and telling them “this is bad” with a lollipop as a reward.
Btw I totally agree with you about this approach but only for minor crimes like stealing for example. But we need better programs for dealing with more serious crimes.
What is (in your opinion) the function of limiting their freedom?
There is a deterrence effect to punishment. The fact that organized crime specifically uses children for violence is a unintentional consequence of existing philosophy.
You would think so, but deterrence of higher punishment is proven to be ineffective. There are even signs that it has the opposite effect, turning convicts into hardened criminals who don't any hope of leading a normal life. https://www.unsw.edu.au/newsroom/news/2020/07/do-harsher-punishments-deter-crime
Can this story be verified? This website is the only site reporting on it. A group of 20+ teens attack a mother and baby while destroying several shops, would probably be the kind of thing that major news outlets would pick up.
And the doctor who treated her allegedly advised her not to report the incident to the police.
Yeah, this really struck me as incredibly weird. I can't imagine an doctor advising against a report in a case with this much violence. No way a doctor would care this much about the future of those attackers when he has a severely wounded woman who barely escaped death in his hospital.
Anyone from Almere here who could verify? Like are the three shops trashed or closed?
Couldnt find it anywhere else. But in the last 2 weeks there where quite a lot of verified stories of people getting kicked the shit out of them. Wtf is happening in Almere?
It massively reads like fake news. Too many details for a news story.
Wow it never occurred to me it could be fake? I hope you're right! But why would anyone spread this news if it wasn't true? What would they gain from it? I don't understand (but maybe I don't understand fake news in general haha)
Polarisation.
And published on the day of the EU elections in NL :-/
Surprise!
Yep, this looks a lot like rage baiting fake news. There is no mention of this event on the [website of Politie Almere](https://www.politie.nl/mijn-buurt/nieuws?geoquery=almere&distance=5.0). The only other website posting this news item is Almere Zaken. [Their article](https://www.almerezaken.nl/nieuws/algemeen/60148/moeder-en-baby-zwaar-mishandeld-door-jongeren#:~:text=Een%2042%2Djarige%20Almeerse%20moeder,Die%20krijgt%20een%20HALT%2Dstraf) has the exact same text as the one OP posted. Both Almere Zaken and Almere deze Week list Rodi Media Midden Nederland as a contact.No other website makes mention of this event, which reads too serious to be ignored. The content of the article is kind of wild too. The doctor recommended not to reach out the police for concern of “not ruining a young man’s life”? Really? GTFO @mods, are you asleep?
More like De Speld content.
It read like some kind of fanfic.
I cannot verify the story. But i do know large groups of so called "gangs" live in Almere. I had the displeasure of meeting one of them after we tried to get back my friends stolen car. Suddenly we were swarmed by people. Things got so bad police picked us up instead. We were pretty badly hurt and we never saw the car again. This story wasnt even reported on btw, maybe also because we were not loud enough.
[удалено]
This is the same website
I can only find news about this incident on that specific site. Nothing else, and that is weird. Especially since an incident like this is insane enough to be picked up by bigger outlets, but nothing. Does anyone have more links because rn I'm sceptical about this.
I also find it weird that there's no national news outlets who reported this. It seems like an insane case.
Because the victim wasn't Dutch, so the media doesn't care.
While I agree that news (mainly internationally) is very Eurocentric I don't want to believe that it goes this deep with reporting heavy incidents as these. I mean I expect an outlet like powned to skip over it but something like the NOS, I don't want to believe that. Even generally left leaning outlets haven't reported on this.
Yes, but only in a defensive manner. If you take it too far and use more force than deemed necessary to end the dangerous situation you can get into legal trouble yourself. So if you do have the skill and restraint to help someone and leave it to the police after defusing the situation, please do. If you are one of those people who can't stop once the attacker is stopped, don't risk it.
There's definitely a risk, but we do have what's called noodweerexces, which could save you if you take your defence a bit too far...
That's true, but I'm not sure how a judge will look at that if you actively stepped in to protect someone else and not only defended yourself from an attacker. Because yes, if an intruder shows up in your kitchen and you bash their skull in with the cast iron pan you were already holding you probably won't be prosecuted. But stepping in to defend someone, grabbing that cast iron pan on your way there, not so sure they will interpret that as purely noodweer.
If the violence you use is proportional, there's no problem. If you fear for your own, or someone else's life (there is no distinction there), quite a lot of violence could be considered proportional. But, as is so often the case, it'll always depend on the specifics of the case. In the case you describe, it depends. If you are behind someone who's about to hack someone to death with a machete and you grab that cast iron pan and bash them on the head with it once, you'd probably not be prosecuted. But this is one of the wildest bits of Dutch legislation, there is so much room for interpretation that different judges may reach different conclusions.
The potential damage is not always proportional to the violence tho. Wouldn’t the end result matter? For example: You just punched them, but you just got lucky enough to crack their skull or they fell afterwards and hit their head leading to permanent disability.
This is always complicated. Their age wouldn't really matter. If the outcome had been different (no real injury), obviously nothing would happen. Now that the outcome is bad, police are going to investigate. They're going to talk to witnesses. If they all tell the police that you clearly looked like you felt very threatened and punched them once...I suppose prosecutor might drop the case. But they might not. Then it's likely the judge would rule in your favour, but it's definitely not going to be a nice situation to be in...
Well said, it’s still not a situation you’d want to be in. Just wish there was more legal incentive or protection for people to help each other out. In practice it’s too easy to ignore things like this. It’s one of those things like when people say we need to “believe women” more when it comes to sexual abuse, but we can’t legally give women more weight as witnesses. Nor can we just allow anyone to take any violent action in response to an attacker legally.
Basically people's right to be innocent until proven guilty weighs more heavily than the desire to convict everyone who committed a crime. When you really think about it, that's not a bad thing. But sometimes it can feel like an injustice...or actually be one.
Thank you that's what I wanted to find out. I have quite good self control and self defense training.
If knifes are involved just call police and keep your distant unless you really feel the need to jump in and act. One wrong decision and your life could be over.
Yes I understand but they were throwing rocks at a woman carrying a baby. One stone hits the baby's head and he is dead or might have lifetime consequences. They also knocked her out beating her so there was clearly a life at risk in this situation.
If you get into a knife fight, the only thing you know for sure, is that you're going to get stabbed.
Since you have training like this, throwing punches may actually be considered disproportionate (depending on the biceps of your opponent). You seem to have the knowledge to “disable” or “ground” your opponent, not using that but instead choosing to hurt him (as a lesson?) has a decent chance of making you liable in the process. You can keep him restrained under a “citizens arrest”. https://www.politie.nl/informatie/mag-ik-als-burger-een-verdachte-aanhouden.html#
That doesn't mean you are Steve Rogers. Just call the police.
World would be much better place if people actually do intervine and have balls to teach a lesson ones who missed it right at the spot
That’s how it always is tho. How does one man, a dictator, rule over millions, not to mention millions of soldiers who could turn against him? Same reason: Everyone’s afraid for themselves.
Yes, you can legally do that: https://www.politie.nl/informatie/er-wordt-geweld-tegen-mij-gebruikt.-wat-mag-ik-doen-om-mezelf-te-verdedigen.html The question is if you are physically able
You can involve to stop the attack but you never know what will happen just shoving someone can make them fall down and hit their head killing them so its still risky.
You'd be fine legally speaking in this particular situation if that's really all you did. Also nothing of value would be lost.
Well first it has to be proven it indeed happened as said.. Better hope some witnesses come forth if there are any. Anyway, at the proving point you’re already deep into legal fees. Don’t forget this can take years.
The article mentions that it's all captured on store CCTV so it's a pretty open and shut case. No judge is going to convict someone for pushing away an attacker that is beating someone unconscious with a bike lock / trying to stab them, regardless of what happens to the attacker after pushing them.
In this case maybe yeah, but in smaller cases, could be no one even bothers to check CCTV if there is one and you settle it out of court because it’s so much easier and faster. The footage is often not great quality and not so clear.
>Also nothing of value would be lost. Every life is of value, even those of disrespectful assholes and criminals
There was a great video piece made by a self defence expert on situations like this. The premise of this video was if you are usually a coward you will probably be a coward, if you are trained to fight you will most likely fight. At first glance this seems pretty straight forward and harsh but he then goes into more detail and used 2 real on video captured situations as examples. One of the video's was a man with a knife going around threatening people and one other man standing up for the crowd. The guy standing up for the crowd showed a decent stance and confidence, quite clearly he had some form of fighting background. The guy with the knife killed him. And ended up stabbing multiple other people. The long and short of it is that sometimes it is not worth or smart to try and personally/physically do something. Eventhough you are trained or very sure of your own skills. The best thing you can do is call the police, warn people, close doors or obstruct hallways if its indoors. Going for the confrontation is almost never the right thing to do.
According to the law you can defend yourself. Cases of extreme violence will always be brought to court so you will have to deal with a lot of hassle afterwards but art 41 describes what you can do. A couple of years ago a jeweler got away with shooting and killing a armed robber that on all accounts seemed to have killed him and his wife if the jeweler wasn't first. It took quite a while before the verdict was made and there was extensive evidence including multiple angle security footage. So even killing someone can be legal but the rule of thumb to keep in mind is that self defense is allowed basically only if the result otherwise is very likely going to be worse and that can be proven in court.
There is a point where treating children as children when they try and murder people, is not a good idea.
Why did I hear about this news only on Reddit? This should make the front page on national news. A mob of young guys were chasing a Brazilian mom and her baby, screaming "out with foreigners". Then attack her with blunt force trauma and a knife.
Yes, and even if you use more force than necessary it can be deemed as a criminal exclusion ground (on a few conditions ofcourse, so don't go around beating people up for no reason). You have the right to intervene
I could, but it depends on what I'm up against. One on one? Yeah, sure, I can defend myself. Did some combat sports as a teen. So I'm not going in a fight, flailing like a madman and I'm a big guy, I should be fine. But I rather not get in fights, keep distance and get out of there. You don't know your opponent that well; he might have a knife. Or you get jumped by a group. Looking at the article; that shit looks like it's gotten so out of hand, there should've been done something about this already. "We willen een samenscholingsverbod", we even have that in my city, and we don't even have anything near this kind of violence This isn't something bystanders should handle anymore. This is something the cops should already handle...
Is the whole far-right rhetoric unrelated to this kind of behavior? What kind of families bring up kids like this? Do police in the Nethetlands take such incidents seriously?
No they don't. They wait for someone to get hurt or killed and then they do something. The punishment is usually pretty light.. I have dozen examples of these things going terrible, with things such as stalking or having a mentally unstabe neighbour you are really fucked. Someone i know got attacked in his home by a neighbour, he hit his wife with a machete.. this escalated for years without them acting. We also have the example of the guy with the crossbow killing his neighbours.. similar case. Or the crazy student that killed his teacher in Erasmus University. The police don't do anything untill it's to late or they are set free to do it again. Then they invastigate 'how the institutions failed'...which should bring you closure. You can't count on the government to keep you safe in this country. It wasn't like this but things are getting worse and worse and with this extremism will rise again.
I see. I've only visited the Netherlands in the past and I always felt it's a safe country. But after being in this sub and similar subs here, I started wondering if Police are really efficient there. Bad things happen everywhere but I guess I always had a pretty rosy image of the Netherlands. Then I come across all these stories of scams in the rental market, theft, issues between neighbors and aggresive attacks like the one described here. Even homelessness that did not exist before. I think the Netherlands has changed in recent year. Being so crowded and cramped, does not help either.
Make a scene. Scream at the top of your lungs, gather attention of a crowd, grab a stone and stick nearby, try to incapacitate, secure the victim, wait for the police would be my drill. Worry about the legal implication later.
Close the fuckin doors of the fuckin shop. She went to at least 3 different stores. Why was nobody preventing the kids from entering the stores until police came? Put the lady and her family in a back room, in the toilet, wherever and get a group to stand between the door and the assholes. Geez. I'm so angry.
Actually yes, but be ready to prove what you did. I destroyed a skinhead's kneecap when i kicked him and three of his buddies off a minor migrant (Kid was 14, the brave defenders of the superior race were mid twenties, as was I at the time.) I spent 36 hours in holding for a charge of gbh. On Monday morning it took the judge about two minutes to toss my case, but the cops simply arrested me with not a single thought. Defending another's safety is considered self defence, though there are limitations on what actions you can take. My actions against limpy and his pals were considered proportionate as it was four against two, but the rules are rather strict.
that migrant's name? Albert Einstein
Oh look, it's a keyboard warrior who can only try to invalidate people's experience because they never achieved anything in their life.
true, I wish I beat up 4 guys simultaneously then the judge let me go without perusal for good sportsmanship tell me more about your cool life man
Yes I always do that! You have to intervene and defend the vicitim.
Yes I do that but my question is. If in the process I hurt one of them. Would I be liable? Or is it a legal right so I couldn't be prosecuted or be liable to pay for medical care for the aggressor?
An investigation will be started, but if your actions were within reason it will get dropped.
You would not be liable in such a case, depending on 'reasonable amount of force used'. It's called 'noodweer' which covers the protection of yourself, your belongings, and other people. Legally speaking you would, after having defended someone using force, be found 'guilty' of mistreatment ('mishandeling'), however the judge will pronounce you have used 'noodweer' and you be ineligible to be punished or receive a criminal record. And unlike what others have said you are not forced to intervene. You are forced to help someone when their life is in danger, however, that law applies to an indiscriminate danger such as a perilous situation without an attacker that could turn on you for helping. These laws are reasonable, and so are the judges. Edit: a word
what the F\*\* is happening to the Netherlands?
I am sure i can take on a few as I have experience with self defence. The problem with idiots like these is that they carry knives.
Best bet is to make a swift escape when police show up
IANAL. Yes, you’re allowed to protect yourself or others using proportional force: this means any force that matches the force being used by the aggressor as long as needed to get out of the situation as soon as you can. However, In this specific scenario if someone would have disproportionately hurt (or worse) the person doing this they’d most likely successfully be able to use the “noodweer exces” defence meaning you did use disproportionate force but it was justified in being scared of your or someone else’s life.
I'm not sure what the law dictates. But it would highly advice not stepping in unless you're with a larger group of people. Reason being that there are a lot of messed up people wielding knives who aren't afraid to use them. As well as scumbags who will kick you while you're down, potentially killing you. It's simply not worth it.
This is why I have a stash of homemade napalm cocktails. Everybody gangsta until they're on fire. Only if this happens to my own family tho, sorry. I don't have a wife, the napalm scared her.
[удалено]
Only English should be used for posts and comments. This rule is in place to ensure that an ample audience can freely discuss life in the Netherlands under a widely-spoken common tongue.
WTF
Imagine ketting hit with a chain, that must’ve hurt. Guess the Holland were getting is Middle Eastern in nature with the “white appeal”. Disgusting. I hope she recovers and I hope those imbeciles die. I can’t stand how we’re trying to rehabilitate these monsters.
[удалено]
Bigotry is not tolerated in posts or comments - including but not limited to bigotry based on race, nationality, religion, and/or sex.
One of the perpetrators was caught. And because these are apparently minors they will barely be punished. But if you fight back you will be punished much worse. You are only expected to call the police who may or may not respond. In this case there is media attention which tends to force them to take a problem seriously.
How would I know they were minors if they're close to not being? Based on many other answers here it seems under my legal right to intervene in a reasonable manner without the risk of being liable. So I am confused about your answer.
You can't know for sure if they are minors. And it's kinda hard to use reasonable measures when kids are stabbing you and beating you with metal locks. Maybe you are a martial arts guru who can take down 20 armed attackers by yourself?
Yet another racist attack
The attackers weren't white either.
First I never said that but the "go back to your country" is usually used by a very specific group
Which is?
Don't play dumb
If I can make an assumption - I'd say you mean white people. The attackers however weren't white, as is heavily implied in the article. Hence you're original comment is wrong **IF** you implied white people. Which is why I asked.
Where is this implied?
"To the police, one of the suspects stated that my wife allegedly made monkey noises to the group" Making monkey sounds is not something done towards people with a white appearance. It's done towards people with a black or African appearance as a way to insult them by comparing them to monkeys. The attacker claiming the woman made monkey noises towards the group would make zero sense if the group was white.
And you believe them? On the other hand it makes complete sense that a group of white youth would accuse a brown woman of acting like a monkey
I don't necessary believe them. But making the claim in the first place wouldn't make sense in the first place if the attacker was white.
I wonder if verdict would be the same if wife of some politician or serious business owner was attacked. Would it still be focused on rehabilitation or they would be judged more strictly?
Does the Dutch police uses any drone system for reaching out to places where crimes are being committed faster? And for tracking subjects? Patrolling areas? I mean, with all this violence, I am full-on on increasing surveillance tremendously!
I would be careful, there was another post that described being attacked and called racial slurs. In defence, the victim bit the attackers' hand in order to try to get away and is now being sued by the attacker. Not sure what the outcome will be but you should be prepared in case this happens.
Well, don't make me say it.
Yes, just use pepperspray.
Against a group of 20 with bike chains and knifes? While holding your baby?
Self defence can be argued about, sprays are illegal
Pepperspray is illegal to even own, let alone carry. That doesn't mean you can't use claim "self defense" against the assault/homicide charge iff your self defense was necessary and proportional, but: 1. you'll almost certainly will still be convicted of illegal weapon possession, which is pretty serious 2. in actuality, a lot of self defense end up being excessive, and the usual "heat of the moment" excuses are much more likely to be thrown out if there is premeditated carrying-an-illegal-weapon stuff going on, because that sure as hell gives the impression that you were looking for a fight.
By law, you need to provide assistance. Weapons wise I think you're only allowed to grab something on location (e.g. a chair), otherwise you have to go full Jesus and the Merchants. But one against 20 is not gonna work sorry
If you live in almere you should ask yourself the question if you should move out of there. Its known that the trash people of the country live there. Terrible what happened to the mother tho…