The German Press Edits Out Another Inconvenient Truth

As might be expected, German news sources have been all over the shooting of Terence Crutcher, a 40-year-old unarmed black male who was shot by police near Tulsa, Oklahoma a few days ago. The German TV channel RTL even calls him a "pastor", which is guaranteed to awaken false associations in Germans, who are unaware that this title is meaningless in the USA. (Ministers of the established German Protestant Church are staid, well-educated civil servants.) The Bild-Zeitung, Germany's highest-circulation tabloid, confidently announced (g): "These pictures leave hardly any questions." Another story suggests it's murder.

The police officer who fired the fatal shot claims Crutcher had repeatedly refused to follow instructions, was behaving erratically, and reached into his car. She claims she thought he was going for a weapon.

None of the many reports I've seen in the German press mentions a fact that is in almost every US news report: Police found PCP in Crutcher's car. There's no evidence yet whether he was actually under the influence of the drug at the time of his shooting, but officers at the scene claim he was acting in a bizarre manner which they thought looked like intoxication with some strong hallucinogen (and this was before they had searched his car).

What is PCP intoxication like? Let's turn to Drugs.com:

A moderate amount of PCP often causes users to feel detached, distant, and estranged from their surroundings. Numbness of the extremities, slurred speech, and loss of coordination may be accompanied by a sense of strength and invulnerability. A blank stare, rapid and involuntary eye movements, and an exaggerated gait are among the more observable effects. Auditory hallucinations, image distortion, severe mood disorders, and amnesia may also occur. In some users, PCP may cause acute anxiety and a feeling of impending doom; in others, paranoia and violent hostility, and in some, it may produce a psychoses indistinguishable from schizophrenia. Many believe PCP to be one of the most dangerous drugs of abuse....

At high doses of PCP, there is a drop in blood pressure, pulse rate, and respiration. This may be accompanied by nausea, vomiting, blurred vision, flicking up and down of the eyes, drooling, loss of balance, and dizziness. High doses of PCP can also cause seizures, coma, and death (though death more often results from accidental injury or suicide during PCP intoxication). Psychological effects at high doses include illusions and hallucinations.

People on PCP can display unusual strength owing to the adrenaline rushes caused by terrifying hallucinations. I worked for a while at a public mental hospital in Texas when I was younger. Every couple of weeks, we would get a new admission of someone who had done PCP and then been found in public screaming and/or naked and/or covered in feces and/or wandering in traffic, or some combination of the above. Often, they'd injured themselves or attacked people. The cops brought them to the mental hospital, where we had to deal with them. Usually the effects had worn off somewhat by the time they were delivered to us, but their behavior was still unpredictable. One of them, while locked in an isolation cell because of his violent outbursts, chewed his own thumb off and ate it.

PCP isn't 'just another drug'. It's incredibly dangerous, and everyone knows this. Anyone who would try it even once has serious psychological problems simply for wanting to try it. Here is a video of people under the influence of PCP, which is definitely not for the faint of heart:

Obviously, there should be a full investigation, mere drug possession or intoxication doesn't justify an unwarranted killing, etc. This could still turn out to be an unjustified shooting, in which case the officers should be punished and reforms introduced.

Nevertheless, evidence Crutcher possessed this drug and that officers believed he was under its influence is relevant to understanding the context of the video. But alas, the purpose of German news reporting on American is almost always to reinforce prejudices, not to foster understanding.


Captain Merkel, Germany's Matronly Taskmaster

After a series of electoral poundings, Merkel has finally struck a more self-critical note. She admits that her government had not prepared for the migrant influx of 2015, and that the influx was "out of control" for a certain time. She added: "God knows we didn't do everything right. We weren't world champions at integration. In a manner of speaking, we are going to have to outdo ourselves, and that applies to me as well." ("Wir haben, weiß Gott, nicht alles richtig gemacht. Wir waren keine Weltmeister bei der Integration. Wir müssen uns gleichsam selbst übertreffen, auch ich.")

In her own words, she's admitted her policy has imposed an unprecedented challenge on Germany which will require the country to somehow outdo all its previous efforts. In an area it's not very good at. And in which it might well fail, risking...?

Is there any wonder why Germans are asking questions such as: "How did one person get into a position to impose this massive national burden on us?" and "Why is this suddenly our problem?" and "Who asked us whether we thought this would be a sensible use of our nation's time, energy, and resources?"

It's as if Angela Merkel, Captain of The Deutschland, smashed the ship against a reef, ordered every passenger to start bailing out the water, and is now giving them speeches about how they're strong and disciplined and she just knows their days of backbreaking work will allow the ship to reach harbor safely.


Nuts and Rocks: The Right Analogy About Immigrants and Crime

As German news sources repeat over and over, the German FBI, the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA), has insisted that migrants are no more violent than "comparable" Germans, although there is never any detailed information about what the BKA considers "comparable" in the news reports. In any event the BKA report for the beginning of 2016 recorded 69,000 (g) attempted and completed crimes by foreigners, mostly theft and fraud.

Is this a problem? It depends on your perspective. If you think Germany has an obligation to offer a new life to millions of randomly-selected people from around the world, then you'll argue that some extra crime is to be expected, and we'd do best simply to ignore it.

The other perspective would be that Germany should proactively screen out as many criminals as possible. This is nowhere near as hard as people make it out to be. We have lots of information about what predisposes someone to crime. Past criminal history, low IQ, low impulse control, low levels of education, status of being a young male. Everyone who seeks to enter Germany without an existing job offer or university acceptance should have to provide detailed information and complete a series of tests.

Immigration into another foreign country is not a human right, except for refugees (and even refugees have a right only to locate to the first country in which they are no longer persecuted. The rest is migration). Countries are free to place whatever restrictions they choose on who gets to enter their country.

Germany is more stable, prosperous, safe, orderly, and humane than 95% of nations on earth. This leads to two conclusions. First, Germany has a lot of leverage, because tens of millions of people want to come live here. Second, Germany has a lot to lose, because letting in (1) large numbers of (2) the wrong kind of people could damage Germany's stability. As the German Social Democratic jurist Ernst-Wolfgang Böckenförde once said (pdf), "The liberal, secularized state is nourished by presuppositions that it cannot itself guarantee." Import enough people who don't share those presuppositions and you import social conflict.

This is why I say the ideal crime rate among immigrants is 0%. That is, Germany should aim to import people who are less likely to commit violent crimes than "organic Germans", to use the phrase which has popped up in Germany lately (bio-Deutsche). We'll never get to 0%, of course, but that should be the goal. We can certainly eliminate 80% of violent crime by migrants by not allowing in any uneducated, low-IQ young males.

The right analogy, in my view, is nuts and rocks. Here's my argument. When you harvest nuts, a certain number of small nut-shaped rocks enter the hoppers. If you bite down on a rock thinking it's a cashew, you may well lose a tooth, or more. In fact, this is one of the main sources of business for personal-injury lawyers. These days, food companies have gotten very, very good at removing rocks from nuts before they reach the consumer. 

Why? Because society has determined, by regulation and lawsuit, that the ideal number of rocks in nuts is 0%. Society decided 1 rock in 1,000 nuts is too much. In fact, 1 in a million is too much. Because if you're the person who bites into that 1 rock among a million nuts, you have suffered a serious, preventable, totally unnecessary injury. Nobody -- not even food packaging companies -- will argue that even 1 rock in a million nuts is an acceptable risk. Because it isn't.

This is the analogy we should use for migrant crime. Germany doesn't have to let any migrants into its borders, except those recognized refugees who flee directly to Germany without transiting a country in which they would be safe. Immigration is a voluntary choice by the receiving country. Allowing immigration is, in theological terms, supererogatory. 

Therefore, any serious crime committed by an immigrant is analogous to a rock among the nuts. It didn't have to happen. It could have been prevented. It's not simply an inevitable fact of life we must all accept. Crime by your fellow-countrymen is. This is why no country allows you to sue the police or the government for personal damages simply for not preventing a crime which happened to you. Not even if they had advance warning you were at risk. If the rule were otherwise, the courts would drown in litigation.

But I think the policy should be different for crime committed by immigrants. These crimes, unlike crimes committed by natives, are not simply part of the background radiation of risk we face. They happened in Germany, to you, only because the German government failed to responsibly screen immigrants. The German government let in a rock among the nuts. And trust me, it's letting in far more than 1 in a million.

We should strike to ensure the number of rocks among nuts in our supermarkets is 0.

We should also strive to make sure the number of serious violent criminals among immigrants to our country is 0.

We'll never get all the way there, but the goal should be clear: 0.


Fun with Pattern Recognition: Shots Fired by German Police, 2007-2015

MPmOnCpN50NkNtqVz6B8Tn5Pr3qls4pWo1mutLhe8uI

From reddit's Data is Beautiful. Gee, I wonder what caused the big jump in 2015?

The first 2 comments:

[–]TheGogglesDoNothing -- I suspect that this graph will correlate pretty well to a graph of "shootings by police in Chicago from 9/1-9/7".

 

[–]foll-trood -- that's not how you format hours and minutes


Goodbye, Nice Thing: German Train Personnel to be Given Pepper Spray, Attack Dogs

Attacks on German train personnel (g) have risen 28% over last year, with 1100 such incidents reported in the first six months of 2016. Both Deutsche Bahn and the train conductors' union are now reviewing plans to equip conductors with pepper spray and give them self-defense training. Security personnel will be provided with police dogs.

Does this mean that German pensioners are turning violent in their old age? Or that middle-class commuters have decided to save their Excel spreadsheets, close their laptops, and go in for a spot of ultra-violence?

If you're one of the dwindling band of belligerently naive Germans, you will insist this must somehow be the case. If, on the other hand, you're a sentient homo sapiens capable of Noticing Things, you will understand that this increase in violence against authority figures may have something to do with the influx of over 700,000 uneducated foreign males from the most chaotic countries on earth. A lot of them fit into most of the categories below:

  • speak neither English nor German
  • have mental problems
  • have no means of private transportation
  • no money to buy train tickets
  • no understanding of how to buy train tickets
  • no understanding of train etiquette in a modern society
  • no respect for authority figures

In fact, a lot of them fit into all of the above categories. I personally have witnessed more detentions and shouting matches on German trains (4) in the past year or so than I had in the previous decade. And yes, with heavy heart and bowed head, I am constrained to report that every one featured a young male migrant.

So now there will be pepper spray and police attack dogs on German trains. I can't wait to see the fun that ensues the first time a conductor uses pepper spray in a sealed train compartment traveling 300 km/hr.

This is why we can't have nice things. 

To be more precise, one of the Nice Things we are losing in Northwestern Europe is the existence of very safe and orderly public spaces in which members of all social classes can mingle freely with minimal risk of a threat, disagreeable spectacle, or bodily injury. Parks, public swimming pools, trains, plazas, outdoor festivals, sidewalks, etc.

They're still safe, of course -- stories about Germany descending into general chaos are silly hyperbole. However, the probability of encountering a weird, disagreeable, or dangerous situation on any random long train ride or long walk in the park has increased. Everyone senses this, and lots of people are talking about it. Lots of people. And definitely not just ethnic Germans. Experience and studies show that it takes only a small increase in perceived danger and lawlessness to drive large changes in individuals' risk-perception and behavior.

If nothing's done to intervene, what will happen is the creeping privatization of German life. Your neighborhood park will become too nasty, so you'll chip in with your middle-class neighbors to create a private one, or just get a Schrebergarten. After seeing your Xth unsettling confrontation in a German train, you'll finally say "screw this" and get a car. Certain neighborhoods will go from being the kind of place where you might not want to live to the kind of place you definitely would never want to live, increasing residential segregation to Parisian or Chicagoan levels.

It'll all happen gradually to us frogs in the warming water. But before long, Germans will start prizing (and paying for) insulation from the lower orders just as much as Americans do. An they'll know whom to thank.


Xenophobia and Racism Overcrowding Germany's Prisons

Welcome to the next installment of an occasional series I like to call Sartor Resartus, in which I report about Germany the way Germans report about the USA:

Xenophobic and Racist Judicial System Leads to Foreigners Overcrowding German Prisons

By Sartor Resartus

STUTTGART (SR Press Agency) -- According to a recent study released by the Justice Ministry of Germany's third-most-populous state, Baden-Württemberg, almost half of the prisoners in its jails are now foreigners, even though foreigners make up just over 10% of the population of that state.

A recent report in the newspaper Die Welt provides the numbers: "Conditions are particularly cramped in prisons: there, 6170 prisoners live in a system designed to hold only 6087 people as of June 2016.... The share of foreigners was 37 percent in 2014, 39 percent in 2015, and 44.6% in March of this year among the 6948 prisoners then in the system." Justice Minister Guido Wolf, a member of the Christian Democratic Union, described the increased in foreign prisoners as a result of the "refugee influx".

Andrew Hammel, a self-proclaimed expert on Germany's legal system whose opinions I will quote extensively without challenge and without seeking an opposing view, said: "Although the number of foreigners living in Baden-Württemberg is only 12%, they make up nearly half of the prison population. This clearly shows a pattern of discriminatory and disproportionate enforcement targeting 'the other'. I've spoken to numerous foreigners who report a pattern of police harassment for trivial or non-existent offenses. German judges, prosecutors, and police are also overwhelmingly ethnic German, and persons of foreign ancestry are under-represented in these positions. This means that they single out foreigners, whether consciously or not, for harsher treatment. This highlights Germany's dark historical legacy, and makes a mockery of the equality proclaimed in the German Basic Law."

What is particularly appalling, Hammel continued, is that "many are refugees. They came to Germany fleeing war and poverty, and now they find themselves mistreated by a justice system that sees them only as a problem and a threat."

In the company of a local activist from the Grey Wolves Turkish social movement, I visited a German prison and talked to some of the inmates. Here, in their own words, unedited and unverified, are their accounts of bias and abuse. The fact that these accounts are unconfirmed, sometimes outlandish, and come from people who have a motive to lie doesn't change the fact that they highlight the grave problems...

 


Belief in a Borderless World is 'Stupid and Lazy'

Michael Lind, a pretty interesting and sometimes contrarian American center-left political writer and critic of the Iraq War, looks at the ways in which academics and intellectuals ('Freaks') conflate their own preferences with the public good:

[I]t is natural for academics to view a borderless world as the moral and political ideal — natural, but still stupid and lazy. Make-believe cosmopolitanism is particularly stupid and lazy in the case of academics who fancy themselves progressives. In the absence of a global government that could raise taxes to fund a global welfare state, the free movement of people among countries would overburden and destroy existing national welfare states, or else empower right-wing populists to defend welfare states for natives against immigrants, as is happening both in the U.S. and Europe.

The views of intellectuals about social reform tend to be warped by professional and personal biases, as well. In the U.S. the default prescription for inequality and other social problems among professors, pundits, and policy wonks alike tends to be:  More education! Successful intellectuals get where they are by being good at taking tests and by going to good schools. It is only natural for them to generalize from their own highly atypical life experiences and propose that society would be better off if everyone went to college — natural, but still stupid and lazy. Most of the jobs in advanced economies — a majority of them in the service sector — do not require higher education beyond a little vocational training. Notwithstanding automation, for the foreseeable future janitors will vastly outnumber professors, and if the wages of janitors are too low then other methods — unionization, the restriction of low-wage immigration, a higher minimum wage — make much more sense than enabling janitors to acquire BAs, much less MAs and Ph.Ds.

The social isolation of intellectuals, I think, is worsened by their concentration in a few big metro areas close to individual and institutional donors like New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. (where I live) or in equally atypical college towns. It was never possible for Chinese mandarins or medieval Christian monks in Europe to imagine that their lifestyles could be adopted by the highly visible peasantry that surrounded them. But it is possible for people to go from upper middle class suburbs to selective schools to big-city bohemias or campuses with only the vaguest idea of how the 70 percent of their fellow citizens whose education ends with high school actually live.

Germany has a sizable contingent of 'make-believe cosmopolitans' who are endangering the Northern European welfare state, probably the most civilized and humane form of government ever devised. They don't know they're endangering it, because their thinking is 'stupid and lazy'. 


The Cheapest Suffering Preventer

Via Steve Sailer, by means of comment on the Somali man who went on a stabbing frenzy in Russell Square, this BBC piece from a few years ago:

The scenario is familiar in Somalia. A man has become possessed by spirits and the only option for his family is to restrain him and call the sheikh. But as the young man protests, a voice that challenges Somali tradition booms out.

"Stop with the chains!" the voiceover orders. "Take him to Dr Hab's hospital! If he's having mental problems, take him to Dr Hab. He won't chain him, he'll help him."

Dr Hab is not actually a real psychiatrist. Rather it's the persona of Abdirahman Ali Awale, a nurse who after three months of specialist training from the World Health Organization (WHO), has made it his mission to rescue Somalia's mentally ill. He claims he is able to treat everything from post-natal depression to schizophrenia....

"There is a belief in my country that hyenas can see everything including the evil spirits people think cause mental illness," says Hab. "So in Mogadishu, you will find hyenas that have been brought from the bush and families will pay £350 ($560) to have their loved one locked in the room overnight with the animal."

"We are trying to show people that this is nonsense," says Hab. "People listen to our radio advert and they learn that mental illness is just like any other and needs to be treated with scientific methods."

Hab's campaign was prompted by an incident in 2005 when he witnessed a group of female patients being chased through the streets by youths. "There was no-one to help them," he says. "I decided after that I would have to open Somalia's first mental hospital."

The Habeb Public Mental Health Hospital in Mogadishu became the first of Hab's six centres across Somalia. Together, they have now treated over 15,000 patients.

Hab faces a near insurmountable task. WHO estimates that one in three Somalis either is or has been affected by mental illness, compared to a global average of one in 10. In parts of the country, where the population has been the most psychologically scarred from decades of conflict, the rate is even higher. Cases of post-traumatic stress disorder are common and the situation is further complicated by widespread substance abuse.

As I've argued before, I think Germany got an unusually high number of young males with mental illness in 2015, judged by the frequency of reports of irrational and violent behavior. Assume you live in a country with rates of mental illness 3 times the global average, and a mental health system in which chaining people to trees and letting them be mauled by a hyena are frequent responses. 

If you have a young son who seems to be headed down this path, why not set him on a path north to potentially get asylum in Northern Europe? Assuming his illness is not so severe that he can't follow basic instructions, he might just be able to land in Northern Europe and, with luck, bring some family members with him. At the very least he'll be able to send some money back, at some point. And even if he lands in an institution up there, he'll be out of your hair, and getting far superior care to anything he could get back home. It's win-win.

For the Somali/Iraqi/Algerian family, that is.

For Germany, which is now burdened with lifetime care for someone who will never contribute to society and who will also present a higher risk of crime, including unpredictable violent outbursts, it's lose-lose.

You know what might be a better investment than spending millions in German taxpayers' money in lifetime court cases, social worker counseling, and psychiatric treatment for one Somali male in Germany? How about using that money to support the efforts of people like Dr Hab, which have the potential to help countless thousands of people in Somalia? With no risk additional risk to Germans?

In law and economics, there is the notion of the "cheapest cost-avoider". The idea is that if you want to reduce risks or costs (often the same thing), you should put the burden of reducing risks or costs on the person or organization which can prevent them most efficiently.

Example: Assume a refinery is emitting a harmful gas as a by-product of making a product everyone needs. The emission can be stopped by forcing the refinery to install a new filter which costs a million dollars and reduces efficiency by 5%. The alternative is to not force the refinery to install the filter. But that means that the 10,000 houses in the surrounding area will each need to put special filters on their windows, that residents will need to limit the time spent outdoors, and the number of respiratory diseases will increase. The total costs merely in updating the houses will be $10 million, and the costs for more medical treatment $5 million. The costs in diminished life expectancy and in having to limit time outdoors may not be readily quantifiable, but they are obviously huge. In this case, the refinery is the cheapest cost avoider, and it should be required to install the filter. You can even, if you wish, fully compensate the refinery owner for his extra expenses and still end up far ahead. 

This is why allowing unscreened, mentally ill people into Germany is a terrible decision not only from Germany's perspective, but from the perspective of the country which sent them. Improving conditions for treating the mentally ill in Somalia is incredibly easy, because they are so primitive now. Literally anything other than hyena-mauling and tree-chaining is an improvement. You could probably fund 400 patient beds in a cheap place like Somalia for what it takes to house one mentally ill Somali in a German psychiatric hospital for a year.

Plus, no Germans will ever be harmed by a mentally ill Somali man who never enters Germany.


The NY Times Shows German Journalists How It's Done Again

If you want to learn interesting background on events in Germany, you'll just have to wait until the New York Times gets on the case. There'll be a slight delay, but you'll finally get specifics:

To the German authorities, he was Mohammad Daleel, a 27-year-old Syrian traumatized by war who arrived in Europe seeking refuge.

To the Islamic State, he was Abu Yousef, a jihadist who went to Europe for medical treatment after being wounded, intending to return to battle....

[The bombing] has also reinforced doubts about whether the authorities actually know whom they have admitted into the country, and highlighted the challenges of verifying the identities, documents and back stories of those allowed to stay. A 17-year-old who carried out an ax attack on a train the same week that Mr. Daleel blew himself up, for example, has yet to be properly identified, even though he had already been assigned to a foster family in Germany.

As he sought asylum in Europe, Mr. Daleel appears to have either embellished or omitted key parts of his history in constantly shifting accounts....

Mr. Daleel was one of 290 asylum seekers who had appealed to the organization for help in November 2013. Mr. Daleel told the organization that he had no money and nowhere to live, and that he required medical treatment for his knee.

“I particularly remember this case because we don’t see people with shell fragments in their legs very often,” Ms. Savova said. “He told us he got the fragments in his legs when a shell exploded in his house and killed his wife and children.”

The Islamic State called Mr. Daleel a soldier, too, but in his case, it also provided a long account of his ties to the group, including as a fighter in Aleppo, Syria. Last week, the group said Mr. Daleel had first joined its ranks in Iraq and later fought in Syria, “where he was injured by shrapnel of a mortar.”

After seeking treatment in Europe, it said, Mr. Daleel wanted to return to Syria to fight but was unable to do so, and instead “started creating accounts” on the internet to support the Islamic State.

The German police say Mr. Daleel opened six Facebook accounts, at least one of which was under a false name.

The Islamic State also claimed that Mr. Daleel had studied how to make a bomb for three months, was in contact with a handler and had visited the site of the attack the day before.

Even before the attack, Germany had tightened laws to register and share data about newly arriving refugees. It has also been sending out teams of customs officers or soldiers to locate unregistered asylum seekers....
 
The teams record basic personal information and country of birth, and take biometric photos and fingerprints, said Andrea Brinkmann, a spokeswoman for the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees. Those are checked against the domestic intelligence office’s databases and data on refugees already registered elsewhere in the European Union. Since February, all offices dealing with refugees, from the border police to state and local officials, have been able to review that information.

But whether those steps will be sufficient remains to seen. Officials and humanitarian groups say they have long tried to balance the protection of refugees against security.

Comments:

  1. The German coverage of this case is so vague as to be near-useless, because it doesn't name names or give specifics. Also, just about every assertion of fact is prefaced by a 'supposedly' or 'is said to' wishy-washy hedging phrase. Except for things Yousef/Daleel himself reported (such as that his leg injuries came from a shell which killed his family) which were often reported straight ("His family were killed by a bomb," not "He said his family were killed by a bomb"). This is politically-correct taboos getting in the way of understanding. To avoid 'stoking anti-foreigner resentments', German journalists tend to leave out the most interesting facts and cover up others in a stultifying baffle of euphemisms.
  2. As always, German coverage provides a few superficial reports on what actually happened, then shifts immediately into stories about what politician X said about what politician Y said about politician Z's comments on the attack. Much easier to cobble together quotations from wire services than to leave your office, pound the pavement, collect leaked documents, and try to find out why a trained IS terrorist was allowed into Germany. Or, heaven forbid, how many others might in Germany now, patiently waiting for the right opportunity.
  3. This man was in the country for years, went to counseling sessions, got therapy and treatment and subsidies, and still nobody had an inkling what he was preparing to do. As I've said before, the language and cultural barriers are so immense in these cases that the authorities are basically flying blind.
  4. Not all the young men who entered in 2015 are terrorists, of course. But Germany has no way of knowing which ones are or may become terrorists. This is why the situation is so unsettling: Both of the recent attackers sent no warning signals, and were considered pleasant, helpful, and stable (note that these adjectives describe their demeanor, which is all you have to go on when there's a language barrier). IS specifically tells agents to lie low. Which is even easier to do when your hosts wouldn't even recognize any warning signs because they don't speak your language or understand your culture.