Brazil: decapitated bodies tossed over wall after drug gang prison massacre

[webfact]

Brazil: decapitated bodies tossed over wall after drug gang prison massacre

Catherine Hardy

 

 

MANAUS: -- Around 60 people have been killed in a prison riot in Brazil.

 

The fighting was sparked by a war between rival drug gangs in the Amazon jungle city of Manaus.

 

Officials say the death toll could rise as authorities get a clearer idea of the scale of the rebellion.
 

What happened?
 

The riot began late on Sunday.

 

A group of inmates exchanged gunfire with police and held 12 prison guards hostage late on Sunday in the prison.

 

It is the largest in Manaus, an industrial city on the banks of the Amazon River.

 

74 prisoners were reportedly taken hostage during the riot. Some were executed and some released.

 

The riot was brought under control by 7 am on Monday.

 

The authorities are still counting the prisoners to determine how many have escaped.

 

Decapitated bodies “thrown over wall”
 

Video footage is said to show dozens of bloodied and mutilated bodies piled on top of one another on the prison floor.

 

The Manaus’ Em Tempo newspaper reports that the decapitated bodies of several of the dead were thrown over the prison perimeter wall.

 

Turf wars
 

The prison massacre was the latest clash between inmates aligned with Brazil’s most powerful drug gang, the Sao Paulo-based First Capital Command (PCC) and a local Manaus crime group known as the North Family (CV).

 

Security analysts say a truce that held for years between the PCC and CV broke down last year.

 

This resulted in months of deadly prison battles between gangs.

 

Brazil’s overcrowded prisons
 

International watchdog groups sharply criticise Brazil for its prison system.

 

Conditions in many of the country’s institutions are described as “horrific”, with overcrowding said to be the norm and where riots routinely break out.

 

Sunday’s riot was the deadliest in years.

 

111 inmates died in a 1992 rebellion at the Carandiru prison in Sao Paulo state. Nearly all were killed by police as they stormed the jail.

 

Brazil’s prisons – Euronews fact check

 

In its latest World Report, the campaign group Human Rights Watch found:

 

Brazil’s prisons hold more than 600,000 people

This exceeds the intended capacity by 61%

Overcrowding and understaffing mean control is very difficult to ensure

Experts say inmates are left vulnerable to violence and gang activity

 

What they are saying

 

“Unfortunately, there were deaths. We had them outside the prison, they were thrown outside the prison by the criminals themselves. There were escapes. We don’t know yet how many but we are searching for the escapees,” – Manaus State Public Security Secretary Sergio Fontes says it is the biggest prison massacre in the state’s history.

 

 

-- © Copyright Euronews 2017-01-03

[sweatalot]

I wonder which prisons are more horrible - those in Brazil or those in Thailand

[Penicillin]

1 hour ago, sweatalot said:

I wonder which prisons are more horrible - those in Brazil or those in Thailand

I've seen both , however , what I was shown were exemplary models on a carefully guided tour.  But in answer to your question, Brazil's are far more violent, thus "more horrible". 

[hawker9000]

Congratulations all you druggies out there.  You might be too dim to grasp the fact, and most likely way too defensive or in denial to ever admit it, but you're part of savagery like this.  The drug gangs & cartels couldn't exist without your patronage.  And that's one reason why even lowly users deserve some hard time.

 

[swfsql]

@hawker9000 "Sure", and also the Al Capone existed thanks to "drunkers out there" and not by state prohibition (and therefore the redirection of profit towards dishonest, violent criminals and corrupt authorities).

[The man from udon]

They way thailands going it'll end up the same as a South American country in the near future.

[hawker9000]

2 hours ago, swfsql said:

@hawker9000 "Sure", and also the Al Capone existed thanks to "drunkers out there" and not by state prohibition (and therefore the redirection of profit towards dishonest, violent criminals and corrupt authorities).

 

    WAY before my time!  Nice try at the usual lame deflection though.  'Right out of the 'for dummies' playbook.  WERE drinking prohibited today, and fueling gang & cartel violence the way drugs ARE today, I simply wouldn't be drinking BECAUSE I'd definitely not want to be responsible for subsidizing that.   (And I'd expect anyone with an ounce of morals to do the same.)  Not all that big a deal actually.  When Thailand has its religions holidays and the selling of alcohol is banned, I'm totally observant of the fact, think it hardly worth mentioning, and not one of those moaning & whining about it.  I can see how a short-visit tourist might feel a bit put out by them, but that's just down to a failure to read ahead. 'Had a forebearer whose duty it was back during Prohibition to actually destroy the stuff when it was discovered.  He wasn't actually in favor of prohibition and thought it a waste to have to take an axe to barrels & crates of alcohol, but that was the law, he was a strong believer in the democratic system, and so he did as the law - and his sense of personal responsibility - required.

 

So.  Again.  Congratulations on your  "global affiliations".  You should take a trip and go see first hand how some of your - blaming it on "gu'mint" is just a lame rationalization addicts love to repeat - crime victims actually have to live.  Parts of Mexico, Colombia, etc., are nice this time of year, and the higher ups are always looking for hired help to assist with those mass graves.

 

[swfsql]

@hawker9000 First of all, you didn't refute my argument: state prohibition redirects profits towards violent criminals. "I don't consume it" doesn't refute that haha

 

Even so, if slavery existed nowadays, you would not consume/buy/use anything that uses cotton to not "subsidy" slave owners? Now that's a "reasonable" way of thinking! You probably also criticize who buys cheap goods originated from sweatshops, am I right? hahah That's easy to guess because it's clear you're not very into economics in general.

 

Quote

I simply wouldn't be drinking BECAUSE I'd definitely not want to be responsible for subsidizing that.   (And I'd expect anyone with an ounce of morals to do the same.)

Now.. whoa, let the MORAL PERSON walk thru!

 

First: legality doesn't implies morality. C'mon XXI and you still don't get that?

Sec: how can willing actors trading something they own be imoral? So stuff they own aren't theirs? The state owns it? Do you belong to your state? If so, why? Please explain to me how you think that's just/fair? If you can't (or if it can't possibly be), why should you obey this state demand - a plain wrong and contradictory demand? If you accept contradictions in justifications, sorry, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE MORAL.

Edited January 9, 2017 by swfsql
clarity

[hawker9000]

37 minutes ago, swfsql said:

@hawker9000 First of all, you didn't refute my argument: state prohibition redirects profits towards violent criminals. "I don't consume it" doesn't refute that haha

 

Even so, if slavery existed nowadays, you would not consume/buy/use anything that uses cotton to not "subsidy" slave owners? Now that's a "reasonable" way of thinking! You probably also criticize who buys cheap goods originated from sweatshops, am I right? hahah That's easy to guess because it's clear you're not very into economics in general.

 

Now.. whoa, let the MORAL PERSON walk thru!

 

First: legality doesn't implies morality. C'mon XXI and you still don't get that?

Sec: how can willing actors trading something they own be imoral? So stuff they own aren't theirs? The state owns it? Do you belong to your state? If so, why? Please explain to me how you think that's just/fair? If you can't (or if it can't possibly be), why should you obey this state demand - a plain wrong and contradictory demand? If you accept contradictions in justifications, sorry, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY BE MORAL.

 

Allow me to acquaint you with the concept of "contraband".  You CANNOT legally own it, and if you DO, you're committing a crime.  AND, if by owning it, you're aiding & abetting criminals who murder & maim, then that's immoral, and in fact, despicably so.  The "state prohibition" was something legally arrived at and for a moral purpose whether your habit prevents you from grasping the legality and the morality of it or not.  Not some tyrant's whim; not at some dictator's discretion; not some autocrat's agenda - the law of the land.  The will of the people, not the will of a repressive state.

 

State prohibition, even just state control or taxation, inevitably creates profit opportunities for criminals.  Duh!  You think you've stumbled onto some great hidden truth?  Get a grip!  The same can be said of murder.  Nuclear materials smuggling.  Child trafficking.  Tobacco.   Moonshine.   Guns.  There'll always be miscreants willing to violate the law for money.  You think that by subsidizing them rather than being them yourself you can hide under their skirts and remove yourself from culpability?  You're not the triggerman, but driving the getaway car!  As far as I'm concerned, people who do this can rot in the same place as the principals, and I have no problem with authorities rounding them up.

 

You?   "Moral person"??  Ah, find another hobby.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[swfsql]

On 1/9/2017 at 7:00 PM, hawker9000 said:

Allow me to acquaint you with the concept of "contraband".  You CANNOT legally own it, and if you DO, you're committing a crime.  AND, if by owning it, you're aiding & abetting criminals who murder & maim, then that's immoral, and in fact, despicably so.  The "state prohibition" was something legally arrived at and for a moral purpose whether your habit prevents you from grasping the legality and the morality of it or not.  Not some tyrant's whim; not at some dictator's discretion; not some autocrat's agenda - the law of the land.  The will of the people, not the will of a repressive state.

 

State prohibition, even just state control or taxation, inevitably creates profit opportunities for criminals.  Duh!  You think you've stumbled onto some great hidden truth?  Get a grip!  The same can be said of murder.  Nuclear materials smuggling.  Child trafficking.  Tobacco.   Moonshine.   Guns.  There'll always be miscreants willing to violate the law for money.  You think that by subsidizing them rather than being them yourself you can hide under their skirts and remove yourself from culpability?  You're not the triggerman, but driving the getaway car!  As far as I'm concerned, people who do this can rot in the same place as the principals, and I have no problem with authorities rounding them up.

 

You?   "Moral person"??  Ah, find another hobby.

 

"state proihibtion was something legally arrived at and for a moral purpose" lol sure, the state says: 

"I'm going to 'moraly' point a gun at you to make sure you will also be 'moral'". So that's your "morality", right? That's no different from a kidnaper's demands.

Oh, "The will of the people". You just forgot that there is no such a thing. Even if there is, it means absolutely nothing. A linch mob is also this "will" in it's own domain.

 

Now this is serious. You actually made a parity between ~"muder" or "child trafficking" prohibition~ and ~"tobacco" [growing/trading/smoking] or gun [trading/owning] prohibition~. You actually can't differenciate legality and morality! You, if lived in the past times, would denouce runaway slaves and would support their punishment for doing so. Maybe you would participate in a witch hunt, or would deny helping a jew trying to help their family escape. Or maybe denouce someone who were "contrabanding" pork meat while avoiding price controls under nazi germany.  Or criticize a plant smoking habit, just like you did now. The argument is all the same for you since legality implies morality.

 

In other words, you would be just another one of those "sheeps" that we often think we would never be one of.

Btw, I never said I was a moral person or not, it doesn't regards you and even if it did, you wouldn't know what it means anyway.

Edited January 12, 2017 by swfsql

[hawker9000]

6 hours ago, swfsql said:

 

"state proihibtion was something legally arrived at and for a moral purpose" lol sure, the state says: 

"I'm going to 'moraly' point a gun at you to make sure you will also be 'moral'". So that's your "morality", right? That's no different from a kidnaper's demands.

Oh, "The will of the people". You just forgot that there is no such a thing. Even if there is, it means absolutely nothing. A linch mob is also this "will" in it's own domain.

 

Now this is serious. You actually made a parity between ~"muder" or "child trafficking" prohibition~ and ~"tobacco" [growing/trading/smoking] or gun [trading/owning] prohibition~. You actually can't differenciate legality and morality! You, if lived in the past times, would denouce runaway slaves and would support their punishment for doing so. Maybe you would participate in a witch hunt, or would deny helping a jew trying to help their family escape. Or maybe denouce someone who were "contrabanding" pork meat while avoiding price controls under nazi germany.  Or criticize a plant smoking habit, just like you did now. The argument is all the same for you since legality implies morality.

 

In other words, you would be just another one of those "sheeps" that we often think we would never be one of.

Btw, I never said I was a moral person or not, it doesn't regards you and even if it did, you wouldn't know what it means anyway.

 

More blah blah blah.   I can actually differentiate between a lot of things, including conversations which make any sense having and not.   So please.  Have the last word.  You sound like you need it.

 

 

[swfsql]

It's possible that others read and get the idea so it's ok.

For anons reading thus far, this animation and speech contain most of the philosophy I stood for:

 

 

 

Edited January 14, 2017 by swfsql

[swfsql]

Btw this classic liberal or even libertarian thinking started to get popular here in Brazil over the past 3 years among youngsters such as myself.

Writers such as Frédéric Bastiat (minibook: The Law) and Ludwig von Mises (book: Human Action - took me 1+ year to read/study it entirely) are very good starting points.

Other random articles, such as this one from Rothbard (minibook: Economic Depressions: Their Cause and Cure) are also very interesting to know about.

 

But a more ethical aspect can be found on Rothbard (book: Ethics of Liberty) and Hoppe (book: The Economics and Ethics of Private Property) and (book: Democracy: The God That Failed).

 

You may get interested if you watched those videos. If you have any questions I'll be glad to answer (if I can) here or in private.