Posted on 06/28/2006 8:02:28 AM PDT by Tancred
“Youths” Kick Man to Death on Crowded Antwerp Bus
The Belgian state is no longer able to guarantee the security of its citizens. On Saturday afternoon Guido Demoor, a 54-year old Flemish train conductor on his way to work, was kicked to death by six “youths” on a crowded bus near Antwerp’s Central Station. The incident recalls the rush-hour murder ten weeks ago of Joe Van Holsbeeck, 17 years of age, in a crowded Brussels Central Station on 12 April.
Guido Demoor, a father of two, intervened when six “youths” got on bus 23 in Antwerp and began to intimidate passengers. There were some forty people on the bus. Demoor asked the “youths” to calm down, whereupon they turned on him, savagely beating and kicking the man. At the next stop thirty passengers fled the bus. The thugs kept beating Demoor. They then pulled the emergency brake and jumped from the bus leaving their victim to die.
Three Moroccans, two of whom are minors, were arrested today. The website of the Dutch paper De Stentor reports tonight that a fourth suspect, believed to be the ringleader, fled into a shop as the police were poised to arrest him. He managed to escape from the shop when dozens of “youths” came to his rescue. Witnesses had described the culprits as immigrant youths of between 18 and 21 years of age. During the weekend the police had called for witnesses as only four people had come forward. The police offered the witnesses absolute confidentiality and promised not to reveal their identities. “Obviously people fear reprisals,” Gazet van Antwerpen wrote today.
Belgians do not have a constitutional or legal right to bear arms, not even purely defensive arms such as peppersprays. With the police and the government failing to protect law-abiding citizens the latter are, however, totally unprotected. Saturday’s murder has shocked bus drivers and train conductors, but they stress that they are not in the least surprised. Violence on public transport has become a fact of life.
“You see what happens if you intervene,” one of Guido Demoor’s colleagues at Belgian Rail is quoted in the newspaper De Morgen today. “If Guido had not opened his mouth he would still be alive. [...] He was a good man. I would not have dared to do what Guido did. I was beaten up once and since then I have become very careful.”
Another colleague told the newspaper Het Nieuwsblad: “After the Van Holsbeeck murder some whined that no-one had intervened. Guido did intervene and paid with his life.” After the assassination of Joe Van Holsbeeck Belgium’s Cardinal Danneels had said that Joe was a victim of “the indifference in Belgian society” because no-one had come to his rescue when two youths stabbed him to death for not handing over his MP3 player.
Today the Cardinal issued a statement saying: “Guido Demoor acted very bravely. The fact that he paid with his life does not mean that he acted wrongly.” In contemporary Belgium it is heroic for an unarmed adult to tell immigrant youths to calm down.
An Antwerp bus driver told De Morgen: “These youths can be very aggressive. If you say one wrong word they throw themselves on you. I do not dare to say anything. I keep my mouth shut.” Public transport passengers declared: “They call you names in a language you do not understand, shouting and abusing you. What can you do? Who can you call for help? I do not know.”
A train conductor told Het Nieuwsblad: “This incident happened on a bus, but it could also have happened on a train. To be honest, I have been working in Brussels’ Midi Station [where the international trains from Paris and London arrive] for 27 years and I am happy to be still alive. I have been eye to eye with aggressive pickpockets on many occasions. These men have no qualms about hurting people. I am not sure that I would intervene if I witness an incident. I do not want to risk my life.”
The unrest among railroad employees after the Demoor murder is huge. Some want to go on strike to pressure the government to give them protection. The Independent Union of Train Personnel (OVS), however, has asked its members not to strike. “Laying down our work would only harm the passengers and make them the victims of incidents for which they are not to blame,” OVS spokesman Hugo De Rycke said. He stressed, however, that the authorities have to do something. De Rycke explained that bus 23 on which Demoor was murdered is known to be dangerous. “Because [bus 23] is so dangerous Belgian Rail at one point provided taxis to take employees to work [in Antwerp’s Central Station]. However, the taxi service was abolished because it proved too expensive,” he said.
Problems occur not only in major Belgian cities, such as Antwerp and Brussels, but also in provincial towns, such as Sint-Niklaas. Last week bus drivers in Sint-Niklaas refused to drive out in protest against the aggressive behaviour of immigrant youths on the buses. In today’s De Morgen drivers, who have all asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisals, relate experiences of “buses being demolished while en route” and of “youths harassing girls, who beg the driver to protect them.” One of the drivers said: “If they refuse to buy a ticket I leave it. I do not want to be beaten up for one and a half euros.”
Another driver said: “Last week an old man was beaten up on my bus. The youths were angry because he did not put away his luggage fast enough. They hit him on the eye and threw the luggage on his lap. [...] A bus drive lasts forty minutes. Sometimes they pester and provoke you for a full forty minutes. I remain calm, but some of my colleagues are not able to do so and get into trouble. If I ever get into trouble, I will do as one colleague did recently. He left his vehicle at the bus station and got off, never to return to this job.” Guido Demoor never even got off the bus.
Your "unarmed, civil police force" doesn't seem to be doing a very good job.
According to the US Department of Justice, in the years between 1981-1996, the rates of burglaries, assaults and motor vehicle thefts in the UK, actually reached and surpassed rates in the US.
More burglaries? Surely not! Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that the bad guys know the homeowner is unarmed?
Murder stats are another story, of course. The US is still way ahead.
However, if gangs and quarrelling idiots popping each other is the price I have to pay for being able to defend myself and repel burglars, I'm all for it.
'gun-terror-for-family
Did that take place in Britain? And by the by, you never did post that link about Mr. Caeiro being cleared.'
Yes it did take place in Britain. We do have gun crimes here, it's just we have the same number of gun crimes in a year that you have every 2 days.
Mr Caeiro was released the same day without charge:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm_objectid=14538620&method=full&siteid=50143&headline=the-protector-name_page.html
http://www.abc.net.au/correspondents/content/2004/s1262909.htm
Tony Martin was mentioned in the article as well.
'Interesting comment coming from a bloke what lives in a country oozing with CCTV cameras everywhere and speeding cameras out the whazoo. How free do you feel with cameras watching your every move? '
Fine thanks as they are only in public places. How do you feel about your govt tapping your private phone with the collusion of your phone company?
'Be that as it may, what about axes, especially those buried in the head of a black schoolboy in Birmingham? Have axes been banned in the UK yet? Or are knives still the crusade du jour in Blighty?'
No, we're concentrating on the sale of knives with blades over 2.5" to minors currently. That's a really rich criticism from a country with such a nanny state that it actually once banned it's citizens from drinking beer! LOL!
"If I confront a knife-wielding burglar with my rifle, I do not need to kill him unless he tries to stab me."
If a knife wielding burglar is within 20 feet of you and not running away, you better shoot him.
Thankfully, we have a U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, which delineate rights that are not eligible to be 'banned' or 'voted away'. My right to possess and employ deadly force in self-defense is not subject to the whims of hand-wringing ninny's.
The three firearms you retain (for now, because they too may become unpopular one day and become banned) are of little use for defending yourself or other innocents in an everyday urban setting.
If we ever decide we want handguns, we the people can vote democratically for it. But don't hold your breath as the British are quite willing to keep handguns banned as long as it means we can have the unique freedom of an unarmed civil police force who police by consent, not by armed force. We aren't willing to swap handguns for a heavily armed paramilitary police force like the US 'enjoys'.
I take it your quotes around 'enjoys' implies sarcasm. My state's constitution (Pennsylvania) allows me to be as equally well-armed as any police officer. The police are no threat to me, just as I am no threat to them. The vast majority of police shootings are justified and I can't imagine anything more useless than an unarmed cop. Would an unarmed cop engage 6 youths in a fist fight on a subway car, to protect an innocent civilian? Not unless he wanted to have his brains stomped out.
Only a handgun is truly effective at providing countervailing force against thugs, especially against multiple attackers who possess superior physical strength. That is an inarguable fact for civilians and police alike
Your country has chosen to trade away liberties in the interest of 'safety'. That is certainly your perogative. We chose differently. I will gladly risk the chance of being a victim of gun crime, as long as I have the liberty of arming myself for defense. I bid you a cordial 'Good Day' and depart with the words of Benjamin Franklin:
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
I tried that link twice. The site and all the filler comes up but, not the article. I'll give it one more try.
There is no story there. It's blank except for the site name, and various links at the top about gaming and such.
'Your "unarmed, civil police force" doesn't seem to be doing a very good job.
According to the US Department of Justice, in the years between 1981-1996, the rates of burglaries, assaults and motor vehicle thefts in the UK, actually reached and surpassed rates in the US. '
LOL - the figures from you govt disagree with the ones from Nationmaster.Com - I wonder who is the unbised one with a political point to make? ;-)
'More burglaries? Surely not! Could it possibly have something to do with the fact that the bad guys know the homeowner is unarmed? '
Evidently not - I'm a homeowner and I'm armed. It just means in the UK a burglar doesn't need to carry a gun as the homeowner probably won't have one. In the US a burglar must carry a gun, which is why your murder rate makes ours look highly insignificant.
'However, if gangs and quarrelling idiots popping each other is the price I have to pay for being able to defend myself and repel burglars, I'm all for it.'
Good for you. I have three guns to defend myself with and repel burglars.
Question: How often have assailants been repelled by killing them and no prosecution resulted?
Now place that number over the total number of assaults or burglaries and tell me the percentage. I'm thinking a number not unadjacent to zero.
Furthermore, your .303 and shotgun are of precisely no use once you leave your front door, unless you go to Safeway with them slung over your shoulder. That's where a handgun comes into its own.
If I am in no danger of being killed, I may not kill.
Excuse me?
If an intruder is on your property, and attempting to steal your possessions or demanding hand over of same, isn't your life in danger by definition? He has come to remove what doesn't belong to him and who is to say that your life is not in danger?
That comment speaks volumes and it confirms my statement that "reasonable force" does indeed have a very narrow definition in the UK.
If I confront a knife-wielding burglar with my rifle, I do not need to kill him unless he tries to stab me.
OK, so what if he simply brandishes the knife and doesn't lunge at you? I guess your life is not in danger, right? So if you shoot him, it's you who ends up in the hoosegow, yes?
If he runs away and i shoot him in the back like Tony Martin did, that is unreasonable force.
Stopping the flight of a robber is "unreasonable force"? Better to let him get clean away, I guess.
'If a knife wielding burglar is within 20 feet of you and not running away, you better shoot him.'
My .303 and my 12 bores make big holes - I'll quite happily let him get to 10 feet before I shoot. Anyone stupid enough to take on a 6'2" 220lb ex-soldier wielding a ten round SMLE with a knife deserves that extra few feet. Having said that, by the time he gets to 6' away, my bayonet will have re-arranged his internal organs, so I can save the cost of round.
I make a damn fine pot of tea. Perfect scones, too. ;-)
'I tried that link twice. The site and all the filler comes up but, not the article. I'll give it one more try.'
Sorry, it works for me.
brazzaville, I live in a Communist City - Chicago. The word GUN terrifies any and everyone here.
But the word Gangs, Rapists, Murderers etc are treated blase (accent over e).
And last month at my friends farm in MO I shot so much buckshot and 30/30 ammo, my shoulder got sore. It was a great feeling.
*Shrug*.
I quoted you the official government figures from the US DOJ.
If you think that the DOJ is simply making them up for the purposes of making Britain look bad, then that's up to you.
"Thankfully, we have a U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, which delineate rights that are not eligible to be 'banned' or 'voted away'. My right to possess and employ deadly force in self-defense is not subject to the whims of hand-wringing ninny's."
No ninny's but your Constitutional Right means nothing. Just ask the Mayor of Chicago, Oak Park and Wilmette to name a few.
'Thankfully, we have a U.S. Constitution and state constitutions, which delineate rights that are not eligible to be 'banned' or 'voted away'. My right to possess and employ deadly force in self-defense is not subject to the whims of hand-wringing ninny's.'
Except by the process of ammendment, which happens regularly if I recall. . . .
'The three firearms you retain (for now, because they too may become unpopular one day and become banned) are of little use for defending yourself or other innocents in an everyday urban setting.'
Yes, you are right. In the average UK urban setting only a desert eagle, twin AK47s and an Apache Longbow in support will do! :D I don't live in an urban setting though, quite the contrary, so for now my guns will do just fine for hunting and scaring the occasional burglar!
'I take it your quotes around 'enjoys' implies sarcasm. My state's constitution (Pennsylvania) allows me to be as equally well-armed as any police officer. The police are no threat to me, just as I am no threat to them. The vast majority of police shootings are justified and I can't imagine anything more useless than an unarmed cop. Would an unarmed cop engage 6 youths in a fist fight on a subway car, to protect an innocent civilian? Not unless he wanted to have his brains stomped out.'
No implication of sarcasm, just of sadness that you have no choice but to have an armed paramilitary force to control your citizens. My constiution allows me to be better armed than most police! :D And yes, British cop would engage a group of yobs on the underground - I've seen one do so, and he won with no-one being shot!
'Your country has chosen to trade away liberties in the interest of 'safety'. That is certainly your perogative. We chose differently. I will gladly risk the chance of being a victim of gun crime, as long as I have the liberty of arming myself for defense. I bid you a cordial 'Good Day' and depart with the words of Benjamin Franklin:'
You see handguns as liberty, I see an unarmed police force and much lower murder rates whilst still being able to own guns as a much greater liberty that your belief in handguns denies you. Cultural differences! ;-)
PS - nice quote from Ben, it seems a little lost on a country that loves guns but is being invaded through an open border and slowly de-Americanised by an unarmed foe. . . . .
I'll add that a Constitution or a Nation's Law means little today.
If someone who is up on Current Events and is an avid reader of the Free Republic disagrees, I've got to worry.
Voters pass a Proposition or bill; Judge rules Unconstitutional.
The public wants immigration laws enforced; Pols laugh and just keep taking $$$ from Business Lobby.
Man shoots an armed robber; County Atty charges homeowner with unlawful use of weapon or unregistered firearm.
Until Pols start to have a healthy fear of the Voter, it will get worse and more brazen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.