The aggressor, a 32-year-old Belgian-Moroccan, ex-bidded “S”, classified “proselyte and potentially violent”, had claimed the facts of the facts. “CACPTION”> by Jean-Pierre Stroobants (Brussels, correspondent)
The deadly aggression against a police officer committed by a radical Islamist, on November 10 in Brussels, became a state affair and two ministers were on the defensive, Monday, November 14, at an emergency meeting Belgian parliament. One, Vincent Van Quickenborne, holder of the justice portfolio, “stretching his hand” to the police unions to “see what we can do better” in order to ensure their protection. The other, Annelies Verlinden, responsible for the interior, advocating “serenity” and the refusal to add “from hatred to hatred”.
Shared between anger and misunderstanding, many agents had gathered the same morning in front of the capital’s courthouse to pay tribute to their 29 -year -old colleague, stabbed at the wheel of his vehicle while his teammate was injured . Their attacker, Yassine Mahi, a 32-year-old Belgian-Moroccan, ex-bidded “S”, classified “proselyte and potentially violent”, was injured and arrested by another patrol.
This attack quickly generated many questions, as well as calls for resignation. Because the author of the facts had, the same morning, called for psychological aid in order, he would have explained in a police station in his neighborhood, to prevent him from committing an attack because of his “hatred” of the police.
No manifest error
Driven into a hospital, he was able to disappear, without the police, before being taken care of. Hospital services indicated that the dangerousness of the individual had not been communicated to them, which implies that they could have acts differently towards him. Magistrates, based on procedures now questioned, said that despite threats he had proferified and his reputation as a manipulator, Yassine Mahi could not be stopped or forcibly placed in observation.
So all of, was everything done to avoid the death of the young policeman? To this question, even the Minister of Justice did not dare to answer, notably evoking the need to improve the rules of admission to psychiatry and the contacts between the services responsible for radicalization. With, in passing, a claw to social organizations which would organize “no return” to the federal services responsible for security by invoking respect for professional secrecy.
For the rest, the Minister took refuge behind the Attorney General of Brussels, author of a first investigation report which concluded that no manifest error could be noted. “Incomprehensible”, have judged members of the Flemish nationalist opposition, believing that the Brussels prosecutor’s office is “out of control”. “We are witnessing a huge mess: everyone has made their prerogatives respected, but everyone has known how to do the individual concerned,” deplored François de Smet, the independent federalist party.
You have 28.11% of this article to read. The continuation is reserved for subscribers.