Requirement: five years in prison for shooting incident Bilderdijklaan in Hoogeveen

According to the Public Prosecution Service, W. is guilty of attempted manslaughter. The man denies being the shooter. That was his cousin, who allegedly shot him, the man told the judge today.

W. was also on trial for seven car fires, extortion and throwing fireworks into a letterbox. Shortly after the car fires, the police arrested two men from Hoogeveen, aged 23 and 25. They confessed to the arson attacks on December 28, 2020 and will face the police judge in Assen next week. They designated the 31-year-old Hoogevener as their co-perpetrator. W. was arrested in early May 2021 for the arson.

He denied having anything to do with the arson. Nearby cameras captured the fires. W. is recognizable in this image, according to the Public Prosecution Service. W. admitted he was always around, but as a spectator, not an arsonist. He looked from the car at the extinguishing of the fire and honked, because he did not agree with the corona measures.

W. was released again on conditions. A few weeks later, heavy fireworks exploded in the letterbox of a house on Emmastraat. According to the Public Prosecution Service, much evidence can be obtained from camera images, messages on social media and telephone data that W. crammed the fireworks bomb into the bus. On June 22, the man was arrested and interrogated for this.

There had been a conflict with the resident for years, but W. denied being the thrower of the fireworks bomb at one o’clock in the morning. According to the prosecutor, there is no direct evidence that W. was indeed the thrower. He was not seen at the door, No fireworks were found on him. The prosecution asked the man to be acquitted of this fact.

W. was again detained after the shooting incident at his flat in Hoogeveen. The most serious offense for which the man is still incarcerated. A family quarrel precedes this incident. The (voice) messages that the cousins ​​sent each other that evening did not lie, the public prosecutor said. W. urged his cousin to come to the flat.

The shooting incident around 3 a.m. was seen by witnesses and put on film. Swearing can be heard between the two cousins, but also a dozen shots. The Public Prosecution Service is convinced that shots were fired back and forth, with W. being the first to shoot. W. denied having fired. After all, no weapon had been found with him, the man told the judge.

But this was explainable, the prosecutor said. The weapon is said to have been supplied by 23-year-old Lambert B. from Hoogeveen. This happened shortly before the shooting incident and was captured on camera. According to the Public Prosecution Service, it is not implausible that B. then removed the weapon. But there is no evidence for that, the prosecutor said.

There were bullet impacts on De W.’s car. The prosecution concluded from this that the shooting was aimed. Aimed at killing the other, she said. This makes attempted murder plausible. W. came into contact with the law as a young teenager and has a substantial criminal record of 24 pages. The man has been psychologically examined. This shows that W. has an antisocial disorder, aggravated by alcohol use. Yet the deeds should be fully imputed to him.

According to the public prosecutor, these are many and especially serious facts. The unrest in Hoogeveen flared up as a result. Violence was not shunned in any way, according to the complainant. Up to and including a shooting incident on the public road. Because of a family quarrel that apparently could not be settled with words, the prosecutor said. Given the seriousness of the facts, the long criminal record, according to the public prosecutor, it is time that W. disappears behind bars for a long time. Tomorrow the co-defendants De W. and B. will appear in court for their role in the shooting incident at the Bilderdijklaan in Hoogeveen.