If he is a dead mayor why shoot him? He’s dead already.
I expect to see headlines like this in the states within a year
I mean, there was a pretty major assassination less than a week ago
Was a step behind storming a building in broad daylight yet though.
Why shoot someone that is already dead…
Double tap.
The headline gore is real.
it’s a british/bbc-ism I learned the last time I saw a headline like this
Huh, I genuinely consume more British TV than I do US TV. And I’m well aware and familiar with someone getting “shot dead”. That’s clear. But putting the subject after the description just sorry of jackknifes the temporal understanding. Mayor shot dead. “Oh they were killed” Vs shot dead mayor “why are they shooting a corpse”.
I mean, I guess dead is an adjective. Which is often used before a subject to describe it. So grammatically it’s “correct”. If obtuse. But then I’m sure there are phrasings Americans use like that.
“Dead” is an adjective yes but that rule only applies if the adjective is describing that noun, but in this case it is being used as an adverb, which are usually placed after the verb unless the verb takes a noun, which in this sentence it does, making it grammatically incorrect.
Zombies. Obviously.
And Oaxaca‘s one of the safer states in Mexico. Maybe cartels are spreading there now.
If you’re a Mexican politician who has, in any way, crossed the cartel(s), you have to know there’s a target on your back.
My question is this: Do they not have access to government protection? Hell, even private protection?
I’m barely above average IQ, not a great shot, no formal combat training, yet I feel I could have fended with them off with my AR and a like-armed buddy. Again, I’m certainly no badass, but an AR with a mid-tier red-dot sight is literally a point-and-click interface. Some kind of panic lock and strong door would likely have gone a long way as well.
In May, the mayor of Santiago Amoltepec was shot dead in an ambush along with two other people who were in the car with him at the time of the attack.
THAT is different situation altogether, requiring professional security. But they couldn’t have a couple of armed men to guard a building? Just standing inside looking out the window? What am I not seeing here?
Police corruption will certainly come up, but I feel they have to keep that on the down-low, not, “Oh! It’s you guys! Come on in!”
It’s insane this got upvotes. You would be insane to take that job. Most mayors don’t have access to either, because either would cost a lot of money. Far more money than you’re imagining, and certainly more money than your average town hall could get access to. Most American towns wouldn’t be able to afford this.
Defense is unbelievably more difficult than you suggest. Defense requires constant readiness and paranoia, every single day. Offense requires a few minutes of aggression, once.
There’s not a lot of information here, but this doesn’t sound like “come on in”
Two municipal police officers were also injured in the attack
Any security would know what they’re up against, and the cartel would know the security’s there. Which means you’re not going to find just two good guards. If you don’t have a lot of money, you either have whatever local police you can get, or you maybe hire two wannabes who think an assault rifle is all you need to lock down a town hall. But they take days off. Or they take bribes.
Real security against the cartels would easily be millions of dollars over the course of the mayor’s time in office. Any security guard worth a damn isn’t going to risk their lives virtually alone looking out windows, that’s a death sentence.
I’m no Mexico expert but I can’t imagine Mexico is wealthy enough to afford this type of protection in the numbers they need. They also couldn’t likely rely on local hires without extensive background checking. Bear in mind that they would need people who are experienced and ready to shoot at all times. The best scenario would be to hire PMCs to provide security but they don’t come cheap and have their own logistical issues.
Why not just legalize drugs? Then you can just tax em. Fairly of course cause it still has to be profitable. The illegality of the drugs is why there’s so much crime down there. Take the money you’re putting into drug enforcement and put it into education on why the drugs shouldn’t be done in the first place. Give people the tools to make educated choices about what they put into their bodies you know? I guess I just don’t get it.
That’s part of a solution. Unfortunately the cartels have diversified from just drug trafficking. Extortion and kidnapping are now other big sources of revenue. Surprisingly even the avocado trade.
