Does this look justifiable to you?

[billydkid]

How is this not just murder?

http://www.wimp.com/baddeath/

[tyr_13]

Did the guy pull a gun and point it at the officer on the left? I mean, come on, this has no context, no sound, just the video. Did the police believe he had a weapon? Did he just shoot someone?

Without context I can't say, and neither can you. It sure looked like he had something in his hand right before he got shot, so I'll give the police the benefit of the doubt here.

[bpesta22]

This angle shows the guy shooting at a cop from about 3 feet before he gets shot.\\
http://www.liveleak.com/e/090bfa2ba5

[tyr_13]

That's how it's not murder. I can't believe they didn't shoot sooner.

[Uncayimmy]

It's not murder because the civilian missed the cop when he shot at him. Had he shot and killed the cop, it would have been murder.

Wait. You mean how is not murder when cops shoot an armed fleeing suspect who pointed a gun at a cop and was prevented from shooting, but given the next chance just seconds later actually fired a shot at the cops while evading capture in a public place.

I dunno. Ya got me there.

[Tapio]

Did the guy die?

If he did, then I have to say it's murder. I know it's different in the Wild West, but in Finland the police doesn't have the right to kill anyone, unless it's the ONLY option that can save many lives. Not even for self-defence.

The police could've shot the bastard in the legs or arm. They are trained, so as far as the video clips show it, it would've been possible.

If the guy didn't die, well...serves him right.

[chillzero]

The police could've shot the bastard in the legs or arm. They are trained, so as far as the video clips show it, it would've been possible.



...in low light... in a situation where they are under fire ... with an unpredictable suspect ....

I think if they shot him in the leg or arm, he'd have easily kept shooting - maybe hit a civilian, if not one of the cops brave enough to be getting close to this dangerous person.

Also - it isn't really clear from this clip exactly what happened. Any other related news stories cast more light on this?

[lionking]

The idea of a cop shooting someone in the arm or leg is fanciful. It only happens on TV. I'm pretty certain that cops everywhere are trained to fire at the largest body mass - the torso.

[ImaginalDisc]

I think if they shot him in the leg or arm, he'd have easily kept shooting - maybe hit a civilian, if not one of the cops brave enough to be getting close to this dangerous person.

Shooting someone deliberately in the leg or arm as a non-lethal take down is something out of bad TV and movies. Those targets are harder to hit and in any situation where a cop is justified in shooting at someone, they're justified in taking a life. Besides, a shot in the arm or leg can easily be lethal. It drives me nuts when some idiot lawyer tries to bring up the argument, "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg?"

There's no context or sound here, but it looks like the cops were entirely justified.

[chillzero]

Shooting someone deliberately in the leg or arm as a non-lethal take down is something out of bad TV and movies. Those targets are harder to hit and in any situation where a cop is justified in shooting at someone, they're justified in taking a life. Besides, a shot in the arm or leg can easily be lethal. It drives me nuts when some idiot lawyer tries to bring up the argument, "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg?"

There's no context or sound here, but it looks like the cops were entirely justified.

I completely agree.
I was thinking of making the point about movies, but I really wasn't sure how cops are trained.

Thanks.

[lionking]

FWIW I did work for Victoria Police, so can say with absolute assurance that this is how they are trained, and I would be astounded if it were different anywhere else.

[chillzero]

Thanks for that info, lionking.
:)

[JimBenArm]

You all are obviously missing the big picture! The police are authorities, and therefore bad automatically. Anything they do is authoritarian, and evil. It's obviously just part of the wickedness of the administration to take away the rights of a law-abiding citizen to use his firearm as he pleases. Jack-booted thugs, that's what they are! We ought to have the police arrest the lot of them! Then have the police arrest them after they arrest them! And so on...

[Drudgewire]

The idea of a cop shooting someone in the arm or leg is fanciful. It only happens on TV. I'm pretty certain that cops everywhere are trained to fire at the largest body mass - the torso.


Thank you for getting this out there early in the thread. It's all about center mass, because any other area of the body is not only much smaller but too mobile to be considered a real target.

Cops know better than anyone that regardless of how well trained you are, in the heat of the moment almost nobody is a sharpshooter. Shoot at the part of the body which is hardest to miss.


It drives me nuts when some idiot lawyer tries to bring up the argument, "Why didn't they shoot him in the leg?"

There's no context or sound here, but it looks like the cops were entirely justified.


In my concealed carry class, they STRESS not to shoot in the arm or leg. If you're at the point where you feel shooting is your only option you shoot to stop the threat. If you shoot the arm or leg, it says to a jury you felt you had other options... which is never going to help your cause to begin with but you're totally screwed if it hits an artery like the bullet that killed NFL player Sean Taylor.

[Dancing David]

How is this not just murder?

http://www.wimp.com/baddeath/

No context, just one POV, no data.

Is it this:
http://cbs5.com/local/chase.suspect.shot.2.775322.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/mar/30/local/me-shoot30
http://news.jacksonville.com/justin/2008/10/23/jacksonville-police-shoot-suspect-22nd-of-the-year/

[WildCat]

If he did, then I have to say it's murder. I know it's different in the Wild West, but in Finland the police doesn't have the right to kill anyone, unless it's the ONLY option that can save many lives. Not even for self-defence.
Can't possibly be true.

The police could've shot the bastard in the legs or arm. They are trained, so as far as the video clips show it, it would've been possible.
Speaking of the Wild West, I think you saw too many Lone Ranger episodes as a kid. It just doesn't work that way in real life.

[Dancing David]

Did the guy die?

If he did, then I have to say it's murder. I know it's different in the Wild West, but in Finland the police doesn't have the right to kill anyone, unless it's the ONLY option that can save many lives. Not even for self-defence.

The police could've shot the bastard in the legs or arm. They are trained, so as far as the video clips show it, it would've been possible.

If the guy didn't die, well...serves him right.

Have you ever played witha psitol, I don't think so. I am not a bad shot with a rifle. I have firnds who are crack shots and win competitions. I have seen them miss a milk jug full of water at three feet. Seriouls, you have such a short barrel on a pistol that there is little control. Now witha rifle you have some control.

But sorry, whne you shoot at police officers, there is a consequence.

BTW I do believe in registration of handguns and severe penalties for unlicensed possesion.

[Dancing David]

The other thing police are trained in is What to Do When You are Shot, which is imporatant to survival.

[JimBenArm]

I've seen episodes of "World's Wildest Police Videos" with both the police and bad guys shooting at each other at point-blank range, and MISSING! Not just a single shot, either, but emptying their magazines.
"Shoot them in the arm." Yeah, that's gonna work...

[Dancing David]

This is probably more a serious error of judgement:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081029/ap_on_re_us/front_yard_fatality;_ylt=AoS8vGsj0ELFSNCxW4f03TSs0 NUE

[Dragon]

Did the guy die?

If he did, then I have to say it's murder. I know it's different in the Wild West, but in Finland the police doesn't have the right to kill anyone, unless it's the ONLY option that can save many lives. Not even for self-defence.

The police could've shot the bastard in the legs or arm. They are trained, so as far as the video clips show it, it would've been possible.

If the guy didn't die, well...serves him right.I'm sorry but this is one of the most stupid posts I've seen here recently.
The police shot him - his survival would not absolve them of blame.
If you think that shooting in the legs or arms is an option in these circumstances then you are sadly uninformed. Police are trained to "shoot to stop". That means aiming for the "body mass" ie the upper body. That way the consequent trauma is most likely to disable the target and stop them shooting back.
In this particular case the suspect shot first. The police were more than justified.

[Tapio]

Ha...I must've poked at some really sore spot. Go on. Eye for en eye.

From that close range they could've hit the leg. The guy wasn't running fast.

Regarding the OP, I think it is murder. Legal or not, that depends on the country and the court.

[billydkid]

okay, I couldn't actually play much of the video on my computer, so you guys may well be right. The little bit I saw was the guy walking away and being shot in the back. I definitely did not see him pointing a gun or shooting at the police.

[chillzero]

Ha...I must've poked at some really sore spot. Go on. Eye for en eye.

From that close range they could've hit the leg. The guy wasn't running fast.

Regarding the OP, I think it is murder. Legal or not, that depends on the country and the court.

Doesn't murder require premeditation?
You think the cops went out that night with the intention of killing this guy?
I don't think they even got out of the car with the intention of killing anyone.

[chillzero]

okay, I couldn't actually play much of the video on my computer, so you guys may well be right. The little bit I saw was the guy walking away and being shot in the back. I definitely did not see him pointing a gun or shooting at the police.

A good lesson in evidence gathering and context, then.
;)

[Drudgewire]

This is probably more a serious error of judgement:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081029/ap_on_re_us/front_yard_fatality;_ylt=AoS8vGsj0ELFSNCxW4f03TSs0 NUE


That is sad, because the homeowner was ALSO in a heat of the moment situation. Only thing I can say is if you're confronting a burglar outside your house you've stepped knee-deep into the gray area of what is and isn't justifiable use of lethal force.

[PingOfPong]

Tell me Tapio, what if they tried to shoot him in the arm but it didn't stop him? Would you like it if he shot on of the cops dead, ran into the store, and took a hostage? Would that be better?

[Kuko 4000]

Going by the video, this is a VERY tough situation for the police. Is there any background available to this incident? It would be crucial in forming a better overall picture. I just spoke on a phone to a senior police officer about how things like this are handled in Finland and what the law says. Basically, the laws are very different in USA and in Finland.

In Finland, if a person shoots at you (like in this video) and misses, as a police officer, you are not allowed to open fire. The first thing you have to do is to verbally order the person to stop the illegal action. If the person does not obey the repeated orders and continues to act dangerously, by pointing his gun at the police for example, the police are now allowed to shoot a warning in the air. If he still doesn't obey the orders or does not change his behaviour, the police are forced to "suppress the resistance" by "using their own best judgement". They are allowed to shoot towards the criminal only as the very last possible option. They are instructed to shoot in the leg first. Even in situations with a bad visibility. They definitely train this in Finland.

But yeah, this video offers very limited information. No background, no sound, etc. As far as he knows, the law is significantly different in the US and again different in Russia. I'm confident that he knows his stuff regarding Finnish law system very well. I will show this video to him later today and ask another opinion after seeing the case himself.

[Tapio]

Doesn't murder require premeditation?
You think the cops went out that night with the intention of killing this guy?
I don't think they even got out of the car with the intention of killing anyone.

No, I don't believe they originally had the intention of killing the guy. But when he pointed the gun and shot at them, it must've blown out all "original intention" from their minds. After that they could choose to wound, or to kill. As I said, I don't know if the guy died. If he did, I believe it was intentional.

Now I'm not talking about if it's justified or not. I'm just saying that from what I can see in the video, they HAD a choice.

[Tapio]

Tell me Tapio, what if they tried to shoot him in the arm but it didn't stop him? Would you like it if he shot on of the cops dead, ran into the store, and took a hostage? Would that be better?

Would I like it?! What? When did this turn out to be a question of what i "like" or don't? Please, refrain from making this personal.

Shooting the arm in this kind of situation is not the wisest course. When somebody's running and you want to stop him by shooting at him, then the leg would seem to be the obvious choice.

Of course I understand the cops must've done the only thing they saw fit. I believe it was killing this guy. If he didn't die, then I believe the cops failed in doing what they intended.

[Kuko 4000]

Of course I understand the cops must've done the only thing they saw fit. I believe it was killing this guy. If he didn't die, then I believe the cops failed in doing what they intended.


Hmm, I have to wonder why you believe this to be the case? Could you clarify?

[chillzero]

Of course I understand the cops must've done the only thing they saw fit. I believe it was killing this guy. If he didn't die, then I believe the cops failed in doing what they intended.

I think they intended to stop him from killing anyone. How you think they would acheive that by shooting him in the leg is anyone's guess.

Kuko4000, I wonder how many officers die in these situations in Finland, while they wait and issue a warning, then wait and fire in the air, then wait and shoot to wound - hoping of course that the suspect won't still fire anyway? In all those pauses the beneficiary is the criminal who gains a lot of extra time to shoot them. Also, it seems to me that having an armed officer raise his weapon to the sky: to take that aim and possibly his attention away from the suspect, is an incredibly foolish guideline.

[billydkid]

A good lesson in evidence gathering and context, then.
;)
And you will notice that I didn't declare this to be murder. I asked if this was justifiable and how it was not murder. From what I could see it looked like murder.

[Kuko 4000]

Kuko4000, I wonder how many officers die in these situations in Finland, while they wait and issue a warning, then wait and fire in the air, then wait and shoot to wound - hoping of course that the suspect won't still fire anyway? In all those pauses the beneficiary is the criminal who gains a lot of extra time to shoot them. Also, it seems to me that having an armed officer raise his weapon to the sky: to take that aim and possibly his attention away from the suspect, is an incredibly foolish guideline.


I don't have any data, I hope to at least hear something from the police officer I'm seeing later today. What I do know is that it's not so unusual to see Finnish police officers prosecuted because they were not able to follow the guidelines in these kinds of situations. I have to say the balance seems very odd for a layperson like me.

[Tapio]

Hmm, I have to wonder why you believe this to be the case? Could you clarify?

Well...in this kind of situation, most of us (if we had a gun at hand) would return fire (well, most of us would duck and hide, but after that) and try to stop the guy in any possible means. Independent of what the local lawbook tells us is right or wrong. It just wouldn't be the first thing to think about in an imminent life-threatening situation. Most of us would probably miss and just make things worse.

These guys, however are supposedly experts on both the law AND using firearms. So they have a certin advantage in this kind of situation. They KNOW it doesn't matter if the guy is killed by their shot, because it's legal to kill in self-defence.

So I believe when the anger, fear and basic self-defence reflexes take hold of a person, it takes someone like a trained police officer (of course, the reaction depends on how long you've been a cop, how many similar situations you've run into, what's happened earlier in the evening etc.) to be able to use that tiny space in between reacting to the threat.

So I believe they had the space, time, knowledge and skills to react differently. But they didn't, so that's why I believe they decided to kill the guy.

It may sound ridiculous to you, but this is my honest opinion.

[Drudgewire]

And you will notice that I didn't declare this to be murder. I asked if this was justifiable and how it was not murder. From what I could see it looked like murder.


http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/quincy.jpg

"Getting shot at first is no excuse. It was MUUUUUUHDEEHRRRR, Sam."

[Professor Yaffle]

In the UK:


2. Firearms are to be fired by police officers only as a last resort when conventional methods have been tried and failed, or must, from the nature of the circumstances obtaining, be unlikely to succeed if tried. They may be fired, for example, when it is apparent that a police officer cannot achieve the lawful purpose of preventing loss, or further loss, of life by any other means.
...
Use of minimum force
8. Nothing In these guidelines affects the principle, to which Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 gives effect, that only such force as is reasonable in the circumstances may be used. The degree of force justified will vary according to the circumstances of each case. Responsibility for firing a weapon rests with the individual officer and a decision to do so may have to be justified in legal proceedings.
Warning
9. If it is reasonable to do so an oral warning is to be given before opening fire.
10. Urgent steps are to be taken to ensure that early medical attention is provided for any casualties.

http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jul/police-firearms-1987.htm

Denmark:

16. (1) The police may use force only if necessary and justified and only by such means and to such extent as are reasonable relative to the interest which the police seek to protect. Any assessment of the justifiability of such force must also take into account whether the use of force involves any risk of bodily harm to third parties.
(2) Force must be used as considerately as possible under the circumstances and so as to minimise any bodily harm.

17. (1) Firearms may only be used:
(i) to avert an on-going or imminent dangerous assault on a person;
(ii) to avert other imminent danger to the lives of persons or of such persons incurring grievous bodily harm […]
(iv) to secure the apprehension of persons who have or are suspected on reasonable grounds of having commenced or committed a dangerous assault on another person unless the risk that such persons will commit another such assault is deemed not to exist;
(2) Before the police fire shots involving a risk of harm to a person, the person must be informed in so far as possible, first by shouted warnings and then by warning shots, that the police intend to fire if police orders are not observed. It must also be ensured, in so far as possible, that the person is able to observe the order.
(3) In case of an obvious risk of hitting third parties, shots may only be fired as a last resort […]
(5) If police shooting has caused harm to a person, the person must immediately be examined by a doctor.

http://www.politi.dk/NR/rdonlyres/20DE43AF-33F4-48C5-A710-6A58457E35D2/0/Engelskresum%C3%A9afendeligrapport.pdf

If anyone has access to this paper, it would tell us the guidelines in Finland:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/3/3/3/1/p33314_index.html

[chillzero]

I don't have any data, I hope to at least hear something from the police officer I'm seeing later today. What I do know is that it's not so unusual to see Finnish police officers prosecuted because they were not able to follow the guidelines in these kinds of situations. I have to say the balance seems very odd for a layperson like me.

It seems to place a huge burden on the officers, and almost expects them to be prepared to be shot while they go through the red tape.
I think I'd prefer to face court for not following the guidelines to the letter, than to die.


As to Tapio's comment about them having space to deal with the situation - you may notice that they don't have the luxury of being able to duck for cover (like we could), and that they are very close to the man in question. They have nothing for protection, other than their weapons. and as for time - that all happens very quickly, and without sound, we don't know what warnings they issued, nor what the man responded with - other than gunfire.

[paximperium]

Shooting to wound is plain silly. If the decision to shoot a subject occurs, it should only be the use of deadly force.

You don't shoot someone to disable them, you use a "less than lethal weapon" such as a tazer or pepper spray etc.

When you decide to shoot someone, you shoot to kill. Missing them and taking out a bystander or missing them and getting killed is good enough justification.

[Professor Yaffle]

I think they intended to stop him from killing anyone. How you think they would acheive that by shooting him in the leg is anyone's guess.

Kuko4000, I wonder how many officers die in these situations in Finland, while they wait and issue a warning, then wait and fire in the air, then wait and shoot to wound - hoping of course that the suspect won't still fire anyway? In all those pauses the beneficiary is the criminal who gains a lot of extra time to shoot them. Also, it seems to me that having an armed officer raise his weapon to the sky: to take that aim and possibly his attention away from the suspect, is an incredibly foolish guideline.

It's probably a much rarer situation in Finland:


Finns have fourth most firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm) in the world per capita (right after United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), Yemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen), Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland)) totalling 1.8 million registered privately owned firearms and 100,000–200,000 unregistered firearms.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland#cite_note-2) Gun related homicides are rare, comprising 14% of the total number of homicides, which is comparatively low. Guns and other weapons are tightly regulated. One must separately apply for a gun license, which cannot be issued for "self defense reasons". Even other weapons, such as pepper sprays, are regulated. Carrying weapons, including guns and knives, in public is not allowed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland#Manslaughter.2C_murder.2C_homicid e

[Kuko 4000]

So I believe they had the space, time, knowledge and skills to react differently. But they didn't, so that's why I believe they decided to kill the guy.

It may sound ridiculous to you, but this is my honest opinion.


I also believe they had the space (not so sure about this though), time, knowledge and skills to react differently. But, I believe that they were hoping and trying not to kill, but first and foremost to stop, and the easiest and safest way to achieve this was to hit him in the place (torso) that would most probably stop him from operating his gun while still leaving him a small chance to survive. If they had succeeded in the very difficult moving target leg shot, it would've stopped him from moving for sure, but it would've also left him a chance to continue operating his gun.

[Moochie]

The video shows "SPD," so I figure it happened in a place whose name begins with "S." And the date on the video is March 15, 2003.


M.

[RoboTimbo]

Another popular misconception is that shooting someone in the back is bad. Not necessarily true, as seen in this case. That doesn't mean that you have the right to shoot someone running away from you and there is no immediate danger to yourself or others. From this video, it appears that the bad guy is still armed and already displayed a reckless disregard for life and was going towards more targets. Cop definitely made the right call in this case and should be commended. Thank chocolate for video.

[Kuko 4000]

If anyone has access to this paper, it would tell us the guidelines in Finland:

http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/3/3/3/1/p33314_index.html


Thanks for the informative post Yaffle. I hope someone has the access. Meanwhile, I'm trying to find something similar.

[chillzero]

It's probably a much rarer situation in Finland:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland#Manslaughter.2C_murder.2C_homicid e

Thanks for that, and I am glad it's a less frequent event there.

It would certainly explain the naivetee of the guidelines (probably written by people never in the field).

[Professor Yaffle]

Thanks for the informative post Yaffle. I hope someone has the access. Meanwhile, I'm trying to find something similar.

Acually it seems to be conference paper, so might be difficult to get hold of.

My lack of ability to speak Finnish is hampering me somewhat, so you might do better.

[Kuko 4000]

It seems to place a huge burden on the officers, and almost expects them to be prepared to be shot while they go through the red tape.
I think I'd prefer to face court for not following the guidelines to the letter, than to die.



Pretty much my thoughts. I've been thinking about this on and off for some time, usually pops into my mind when I see another headline about something like this.

[Professor Yaffle]

For comparison, the US situation:


Prior to 1985, a majority of the 50 states had laws that authorized the so-called "any-felony" policy - essentially, that police could use firearms or any other means of deadly force to arrest a person suspected of committing any felony. Some states permitted police officers by law to shoot fleeing persons, including those suspected of such property offenses as check forgery and auto theft. Other states had slightly more restrictive variants on the use of deadly force, limiting its use to persons suspected of having committed "forcible" felonies, such as a robbery. About 12 states had no statute at all on police use of deadly force.
In 1985, the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee v. Garner (471 U.S. 1) placed restrictions police use of deadly force. The ruled that: "deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Garner established a key legal parameter on the use of deadly force, but this decision does not resolve all of the issues surrounding the use of deadly force. Police departments still have a substantial responsibility in developing their own policies on the use of deadly force, training their officers in following these policies to carry out their duties, monitoring officer compliance with these policies, and establishing standard operating procedures for investigating all instances involving the use of deadly force.

http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/pdexcess.htm#41

[Tapio]

Thanks for that, and I am glad it's a less frequent event there.

It would certainly explain the naivetee of the guidelines (probably written by people never in the field).

I don't think the guidelines are naive. They are very effective in preventing a situation where somebody who just happens to work for the police could use his/her position to kill people due to "backbone-reaction" and get away with it. It is very rare in Finland for a police officer to get killed in a shoot-off.

[Kuko 4000]

Here is the firearm law in Finland, it's a Finnish text, I hope to go through it today @work.

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980001

[paximperium]

I don't think the guidelines are naive. They are very effective in preventing a situation where somebody who just happens to work for the police could use his/her position to kill people due to "backbone-reaction" and get away with it. It is very rare in Finland for a police officer to get killed in a shoot-off.
Which is why it is naive. If and when you shoot someone, there should be a significant and impending threat either to the officer or a civilian, then it should be with deadly force.

If you want to disable someone, use a tazer or pepperspray etc.

[Bikewer]

I've been in police work long enough to recall when we were empowered to shoot at "fleeing felons", even if the felony was merely a property crime such as burglary.

It was fairly early in my career that the court decisions mentioned resulted in this policy being changed nationwide. There were howls of protest among my colleagues; "how will we be able arrest anyone? They'll just run away!"
Well, we coped....

In this particular bit of video (which as others have noted has no context) we see an apparently armed individual being pursued, and when stopped he's waving his gun around.
As one member posted above, my first thought was "why didn't they open fire sooner?"

If you have a disturbed, armed individual flourishing a weapon in a public place, you simply cannot take time to negotiate with him. At any second he can fire at the officers, at passersby, etc. The situation is volatile and must be controlled quickly.

Any criticism of the officer for shooting the fellow in the back is unfounded. The man has a gun in hand! In a fraction of a second, he can turn to fire at officers or at anyone else in the area.
You give him the order to freeze/drop the weapon. If he fails to do so....

As others above have pointed out, "shooting to wound" is fiction.

[Kuko 4000]

Here is the firearm law in Finland, it's a Finnish text, I hope to go through it today @work.

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980001


And here is the police guidelines. I hope to check them today.

http://www.intermin.fi/intermin/images.nsf/files/8CB0061B0C6FD3AAC2256B89003CE698/$file/poliisinaseenkaytto.pdf

[Tapio]

[snip]As others above have pointed out, "shooting to wound" is fiction.

Why? Why? Why?

[Drudgewire]

Why? Why? Why?


It's been answered several times this thread... although "fiction" isn't necessarily the right word since we just had a thread where a dude from the Air Force did it.

It would be better phrased as "shooting to wound is highly unpractical for both safety and legal reasons."

[tyr_13]

Why? Why? Why?

Because it doesn't work. It has been shown not to work, all evidence is it will get you killed.


You want to know how naive the Finland regs actually are? Any cop following them in the US would be reprimanded and maybe charged because he fired his weapon in the air. Do you have any idea how bad an choice that is? Those bullets come down and can kill innocent people.

Hitting anything while under fire is difficult, let alone an arm or a leg. You aim for those and you could miss and kill a bystander, or even hit and kill a bystander from shoot-through.

Looking at the crime rates, it would seem that the US has a little more experience in this field.

As for the police having to be experts with firearms and the law, yes, but not super-cops. Most gun enthusiast I know are better shots than most cops I know. That is because cops are busy people in general, and don't have hell of a lot of time to practice, or not as much as people who shoot for fun.

[fuelair]

I think they intended to stop him from killing anyone. How you think they would acheive that by shooting him in the leg is anyone's guess.

Kuko4000, I wonder how many officers die in these situations in Finland, while they wait and issue a warning, then wait and fire in the air, then wait and shoot to wound - hoping of course that the suspect won't still fire anyway? In all those pauses the beneficiary is the criminal who gains a lot of extra time to shoot them. Also, it seems to me that having an armed officer raise his weapon to the sky: to take that aim and possibly his attention away from the suspect, is an incredibly foolish guideline.
I guarantee the Finns of the Kalevala would not have a set of idiot rules like that - and I do not think the US would have any police if we did.

[Professor Yaffle]

I suspect that the Finnish rules are similar to the Danish and UK ones that have reasonable caveats.


Before the police fire shots involving a risk of harm to a person, the person must be informed in so far as possible, first by shouted warnings and then by warning shots, that the police intend to fire if police orders are not observed.


If it is reasonable to do so an oral warning is to be given before opening fire.

[Modified]

I'm just amazed that many criminals wear their pants in a fashion that makes it impossible for them to run away.

[Beerina]

okay, I couldn't actually play much of the video on my computer, so you guys may well be right. The little bit I saw was the guy walking away and being shot in the back. I definitely did not see him pointing a gun or shooting at the police.

That's why everybody wants more information before making a judgement. Compare that to the worldview of some parts of society that want to see the police in a bad light because it reinforces their worldview, and the rest naturally follows.

What web site did you get this from originally? Was it someone posting a "see how evil the police are!" type thread?

Did anybody respond as the people did here? And if so, did the other police haters agree the claim is a crock of (effluvia)? :)

[PingOfPong]

Would I like it?! What? When did this turn out to be a question of what i "like" or don't? Please, refrain from making this personal.

Shooting the arm in this kind of situation is not the wisest course. When somebody's running and you want to stop him by shooting at him, then the leg would seem to be the obvious choice.

Of course I understand the cops must've done the only thing they saw fit. I believe it was killing this guy. If he didn't die, then I believe the cops failed in doing what they intended.


You're the one who brought up the idea of shooting someone in the arm to disable them. I asked you if you would like the consequences of what I described because I know the answer. Of course you wouldn't like it. You just fail to see the risk of "shooting to disable".

Many posters are saying they need more information. I saw as much as I needed to to. When the suspect makes his first appearance he clearly raises his weapon and aims it (at an officer most likely). There is no sound but I'm sure the officer was yelling "drop the weapon!" up to the point where the suspect points his weapon a second time. He gave the suspect more chances than he deserved.

[Drudgewire]

I'm just amazed that many criminals wear their pants in a fashion that makes it impossible for them to run away.


I wish I could remember the CT I read about that years back when I believed such garbage. It had some "explanation" of why the NWO promoted that look to urban teenagers, and I'm almost sure it WASN'T because it made them easier to catch.

[Dancing David]

The video shows "SPD," so I figure it happened in a place whose name begins with "S." And the date on the video is March 15, 2003.


M.


If it is this story:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_22_103/ai_102453142

It would be a poor choice.

More here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=shreveport+police+shooting+March+15%2C+2003.

[Drudgewire]

aim for those and you could miss and kill a bystander, or even hit and kill a bystander from shoot-through.


What kind of moron doesn't have hollow points in his carry weapon in this day and age. :mad:

[Kuko 4000]

It's probably a much rarer situation in Finland:

Finns have fourth most firearms in the world per capita (right after United States, Yemen, Switzerland) totalling 1.8 million registered privately owned firearms and 100,000–200,000 unregistered firearms.[3] Gun related homicides are rare, comprising 14% of the total number of homicides, which is comparatively low. Guns and other weapons are tightly regulated. One must separately apply for a gun license, which cannot be issued for "self defense reasons". Even other weapons, such as pepper sprays, are regulated. Carrying weapons, including guns and knives, in public is not allowed.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland#Manslaughter.2C_murder.2C_homicid e


In response to this, a little clarification (I don't have time for a proper translation so a couple of Google Translations will hopefully serve the purpose):

Conservation, collection and transportation
Firearms and should be kept, locked containers, or otherwise locked or so that fire-weapon belonging to a gun can be kept separate. Fire-arms and weapons components is not so much when stored may be kept at the place where they are easily anastettavissa.

If you retained a particularly dangerous firearms, or a total of more than five pistols, revolvers, self download a single fire in a functioning rifles or self download a single fire in a functioning Section 6, subsection 2 paragraph 12 of the other shooting weapons, the weapons must be kept by the Interior Ministry's regulation under the locked security cabinet. The security cabinet did not, however, if the weapons storage facilities the site of the Police Service has approved the storage areas. (29.6.2001/601)

Firearms and receives public places, as well as the premises on which the public has access only to carry the loads intact, as well as the cap position, and carried only when there is acceptable reason. Motor vehicle, Firearms and may only be carried loads intact, or the cap placed in a protected space, as well as a position only when it is acceptable reason. Firearm hunting transporting respected addition to the hunting law and pursuant to the statute.

And the patron of dynamite and Teeth for a substance containing a particularly dangerous MUNITIONS preserving and transporting are also subject to what the explosive substances on the Law and the transportation of dangerous substances on the Law (719/1994), and their virtue in particular.

http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1998/19980001

Looking at it, I think I may have to come back for a clarification of the clarification :p

[Kuko 4000]

And here is the police guidelines. I hope to check them today.

http://www.intermin.fi/intermin/images.nsf/files/8CB0061B0C6FD3AAC2256B89003CE698/$file/poliisinaseenkaytto.pdf


Another GT due to lack of time:

The police force consideration must be developed and policies
Align of force situations. Under the terms of
organization of basic and job training is given to men the police
the most commonly occurring situations suitable for the approved policies and
develop the skills to providing solutions that reduce the unjustifiable
use of force.
If a policeman has reason to suspect the meeting with the violence, is his
expect to use a gun. Raised a gun and a
Firearms readiness does not have a gun use.
Gun threats and sparked the shooting are the weapon used.

If you use a gun conditions are present, is the use of a gun
warn the effective way in advance, if this situation and the circumstances
taking into account the possible and appropriate.
Gun threats means the orientation of a gun, so that
the target person has a life of the general experience is that the legitimate reason for thinking
of being the most strictest force on a subject he is complying with
it Commandments, which is more effective policeman of a gun.


3. FIRE-gun and a gun OTHER USES OF POLICE LAW 27
Section N to situations covered
Police Act Section 27 lays down the conditions under which the condition of police officer
is the official capacity of the right to the use of force.
3.1. Breaking resistance
Only alongside someone refers to a person's physical, active or passive
the behavior of police for lawful goal-oriented activity
avoidance. Such a break of resistance has no right to firearms
use.
Firearm use may be, however, possible to in paragraph 3.6.
those conditions and circumstances.
3.2. Person's place of elimination
The person to remove the scene has no right to firearm use.
By shooting tear gas or a similar substance lamauttavaa can be
to try to force the person to leave the place to which he is, for example
linnoittautunut if it can happen in police law policing
General principles.
3.3. Catching
Catching just been ended because of the act does not allow the use
Firearms and unless the situation related to in paragraph 3.6. the said criteria.
3.4. Have lost their freedom of flight Blocking
Flee impoundment does not allow the use of firearms, weapons, unless the situation related to
Paragraph 3.6. the said criteria.
3.5. Removing a barrier
The barrier can be removed using a set when it is the situation with regard to the
appropriate. The measure does not entail an unacceptable risk.
An example may be considered to be urgent and important task carried out,
HOME AFFAIRS MINISTERIAL ORDER 4 (8)
ORDER COLLECTORS
F: \ department website \ instructions and orders \ police aseenkäyttö.doc
the transmission of a locked door or another to occupy the opening of purpose
in a gun or a barrier to be angry dog, an end when it
official to perform a task is necessary, and not be able to head immediately
to do otherwise harmless.
3.6. Immediately the threat of crime or any other dangerous act or
Blocking event
A police officer may, if not softer way to deal with the situation exists, asettakin
to stop using a direct and serious danger to someone's life or health
to cause a person operation. The use of a weapon must be based on
the target person's situation immediately preceding the operation,
arming, häiriytyneisyyteen or analogous to those causes.
4. The mob disbanding (Poll Section 19)
The disintegration crowd is not used for shooting a gun.
5. VEHICLE DETENTION (Poll 21 and 54 of the Constitution)
The vehicle stops, does not use force for shooting a means of weapons,
unless there is a case of 3.6. satisfying the conditions of the situation. If the vehicle is
more people will paragraph 3.6. conditions are fulfilled for all.

Since hätävarjelun and forced the state provisions are contained in the Criminal Code, no
the use of a weapon in such a situation be allowed to apply. A situation it is
reason, however, consider the following:
If an official mission of the Criminal Code arises, Chapter 3, 6 or 7 in Section
hätävarjelutilanne intended, may resort to a police weapon to fight
himself or another person targeted to serious violence or of an
violence, the immediate threat. Property and the home of peace against a targeted
against aggression is not appropriate to use a setting other than the
conditions that an attack can be said to constitute the etäisemmän
a serious threat to someone's life or health or that the attack target
is an exceptionally valuable or attack intended to cause
a very great harm.


http://www.intermin.fi/intermin/images.nsf/files/8CB0061B0C6FD3AAC2256B89003CE698/$file/poliisinaseenkaytto.pdf

[Professor Yaffle]

Does it mean you can only carry firearms in a public place if you are going shooting?

ETA - regarding the first translation, that is.

[Neally]

This deranged suspect could have at any point shot a cop. Then we wouldn't be having this debate. Thankfully, he was shot before that point. There is no way to predict if or when he would have shot the cop.

Not murder at all. Completed justified self defense.

[tyr_13]

Actually, it is more than self defense. It is defense of another, and in the United States, you actually have more legal protection when using force to protect another than when you are using force to protect yourself.

[bpesta22]

Did the guy die?

If he did, then I have to say it's murder. I know it's different in the Wild West, but in Finland the police doesn't have the right to kill anyone, unless it's the ONLY option that can save many lives. Not even for self-defence.

The police could've shot the bastard in the legs or arm. They are trained, so as far as the video clips show it, it would've been possible.

If the guy didn't die, well...serves him right.

I think the logic here is that a cop should shoot someone only when deadly force is required. If deadly force is required, shoot to kill, anything less is dangerous for protecting yourself and any innocents stuck in the situation.

I'd say getting shot at from 3 feet or so justifies deadly force.

[bpesta22]

It seems like people missed the second video of the same event (post number 3 here). It's clear that the suspect just shot at a cop three feet behind him before the cops took him out.

From this angle, it's clear the cops were justified (at least in America, where killing for self defense is ok with jesus).

[Professor Yaffle]

If it is this story:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1355/is_22_103/ai_102453142

It would be a poor choice.

More here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=active&q=shreveport+police+shooting+March+15%2C+2003.


Yes, it looks like you have the right story there. In which case the guy was unarmed, but I think it would have been a difficult call for the police to make.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRB_enGB226GB226&q=shreveport%20shooting%202003&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=shreveport%20police%20shooting%202003&hl=en&emb=0

[ponderingturtle]

That is sad, because the homeowner was ALSO in a heat of the moment situation. Only thing I can say is if you're confronting a burglar outside your house you've stepped knee-deep into the gray area of what is and isn't justifiable use of lethal force.

Except in Texas.

[ponderingturtle]

Would I like it?! What? When did this turn out to be a question of what i "like" or don't? Please, refrain from making this personal.

Shooting the arm in this kind of situation is not the wisest course. When somebody's running and you want to stop him by shooting at him, then the leg would seem to be the obvious choice.

And highly illegal. You can not shoot someone just because you are afraid they will get away, they need to be presenting an immediate threat to someone.

Of course I understand the cops must've done the only thing they saw fit. I believe it was killing this guy. If he didn't die, then I believe the cops failed in doing what they intended.

The intent is to stop someone from continueing what they are doing as fast as possible. This often results in their death but the intent is to stop them, not kill them.

[tyr_13]

I know the general rule in New York is that if you can run you should. This is of course different if someone else is being attacked or fleeing would be more dangerous to yourself than using force.

[fuelair]

What kind of moron doesn't have hollow points in his carry weapon in this day and age. :mad:
Black Talon or glazers even better (I got my talons before they vanished).

[thaiboxerken]

The USA is like the wild-west. C'mon guys, it's murder. The cops could've shot the gun out of the guy's hand, ricocheted a bullet into his foot, and incapacitated the man by throwing a nightstick into his legs.

[chillzero]

I know the general rule in New York is that if you can run you should. This is of course different if someone else is being attacked or fleeing would be more dangerous to yourself than using force.

and of course cops don't have that luxury.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm just amazed that many criminals wear their pants in a fashion that makes it impossible for them to run away.

Look these people want to be viewed as criminals, and hopefuly go to prison where the fashion started from ill fitting clothes, who are you to stop them from ataining their dream of incarceration?

[Drudgewire]

Black Talon or glazers even better (I got my talons before they vanished).


Yeah, I'm a Speer and Hornady TAP (they're so pretty) man myself but for historical purposes I have both a box of the original Black Talons and one of the Ranger SXTs (Same eXact Thing). :D

[tomwaits]

I wish I could remember the CT I read about that years back when I believed such garbage. It had some "explanation" of why the NWO promoted that look to urban teenagers, and I'm almost sure it WASN'T because it made them easier to catch.


From what I've heard, it's a style that simulates the clothes they give teens in jail, which are usually way too big for the teen. This outfit, ironically, makes it easier for cops to chase the teen and send him back to jail.

[Kuko 4000]

Yes, it looks like you have the right story there. In which case the guy was unarmed, but I think it would have been a difficult call for the police to make.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRB_enGB226GB226&q=shreveport%20shooting%202003&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=shreveport%20police%20shooting%202003&hl=en&emb=0


It seems to be the right case, dates match from the video.

Police Chief Jim Roberts says that after ignoring several commands to stop, Hudspeth, who stood "4 or 5 feet" from the officers, turned and pointed a "chrome, shiny" object that appeared to be a gun but was later discovered to be a cell phone.

"He was holding it like you'd hold a pistol in your hand," said Roberts. The officers then fired multiple shots from their Glock .40-caliber handguns.

Videotape from the dashboard-mounted cameras in the patrol cars revealed that 15 shots were fired, eight of them hitting Hudspeth in the back. The tapes show him falling to the ground, at which point the officers stopped shooting.

[Madalch]

Arms and legs are harder to hit because they are thinner, and more likely to be moving.

If you shoot someone in the leg, they can still shoot back.

I've never touched a pistol, and I live in a country where guns are for filling the freezer with venison, and even I know that.

[tyr_13]

Well if more police adopted the FN Five-seveN system, this would be less of a problem. Although I know some prefer a shorter pistol for faster draw.

EDIT: I mean with respect to shoot-through, not mistaking people acting like they have a gun with people who actually have a gun.

[Uncayimmy]

From that close range they could've hit the leg. The guy wasn't running fast.

Think this through...

First, any gunshot to the body can be lethal. Thus, one doesn't undertake shooting at a human unless death is to be considered a legitimate outcome. The only exception is a sharpshooter shooting at a stationary target, but that's rare.

Second, how do you know the cop wasn't aiming at the leg and missed?

Third, most shots fired at armed humans miss. Firing a pistol under stress is exceedingly difficult. This brings us back to the first point in that a shot aimed at the arm could just as easily hit a spot much more likely to be lethal. So, don't shoot unless death is reasonable outcome. In this case we had a moving officer and a moving suspect, so hitting a specific target would be even tougher.

Fourth, by definition an armed suspect fleeing the police is a danger to the public. They were at a gas station, and the lights appeared to be on inside. It was clearly a populated area not a remote field, so the assumption for public safety is to stop someone who is armed.

Fifth, the guy aimed once at a cop and was prevented from firing by a second cop. A few seconds later he appears to turn and fire at the pursuing cop. If the cop stopped the pursuit, the suspect could have easily turned and fired again. The expectation then is to kill him before he kills you.

Sixth, why kill rather than just stop? An armed man shot in the leg or arm can still fire his weapon. If anything you've given him a stable platform from which to fire. How would this make the situation any better?

[Drudgewire]

Sixth, why kill rather than just stop? An armed man shot in the leg or arm can still fire his weapon. If anything you've given him a stable platform from which to fire. How would this make the situation any better?


What was stressed to us over and over again was "you're not NECCESSARILY shooting to kill. You shoot and keep shooting until there is no longer a threat." What this means is "until he's no longer capable of raising a weapon or advancing towards you."

If you can shoot accurately, it's basically nothing more than a matter of semantics. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

[Tapio]

Thanks ya'll for baring with me and helping me realize what the case was about.

I'm now more certain than in the beginning of this thread, that it was murder. Knowing that by firing a weapon towards a person one can kill that person, and still doing it, is murder to me.

Call it justified in the name of self-defence, call it the wrong thing to do...it's all the same to me. It was murder.

Back to the OP. Can it be justified? In the Wild Wild West, seems to me that most definetely. In Finland, not so easily. After this small dialogue with you people, I'm glad (once again) I'm living on this side of the ocean.

Good night, sleep tight. Don't forget the tazers and talons and whatnot from under your pillow. Maybe you'll get lucky...

[Drudgewire]

Good night, sleep tight. Don't forget the tazers and talons and whatnot from under your pillow. Maybe you'll get lucky...


Hey now, the tazer under my pillow is just to help me wake up after an especially hard night of boozing. :cool:

[cwalner]

Thanks ya'll for baring with me and helping me realize what the case was about.

I'm now more certain than in the beginning of this thread, that it was murder. Knowing that by firing a weapon towards a person one can kill that person, and still doing it, is murder to me.


Tapio,

I believe that my signature applies to you.

murder is a legal term that refers to the unjustified taking of a human life (many societies may differ on what is considered justified but that does not change the meaning of the word) not simply intentionally killing another human being.

By your defenition, the US currently has about 30,000 murderers in Iraq fighting against several thousand (estimates vary) other murderers. Since justification is irrelevant, what side of a war one is on is also irrelevant and anybody who ever put on a soldiers uniform and fought in a war is therefore a murderer (or at the very least a conspiritor to commit murder). Since this assertion is patently ridiculous, this is why justification (or lack thereof) is a critical part of determining whether a homicide is a murder or not.

Similarly by your defenition, intentionally shooting and killing somebody who is brandishing a knife and charging you is murder. Thankfully, most of the civilized world recognizes self defense and defense of others as justifiable homocide, and not murder.

[tyr_13]

Thanks ya'll for baring with me and helping me realize what the case was about.

I'm now more certain than in the beginning of this thread, that it was murder. Knowing that by firing a weapon towards a person one can kill that person, and still doing it, is murder to me.

Call it justified in the name of self-defence, call it the wrong thing to do...it's all the same to me. It was murder.

Back to the OP. Can it be justified? In the Wild Wild West, seems to me that most definetely. In Finland, not so easily. After this small dialogue with you people, I'm glad (once again) I'm living on this side of the ocean.

Good night, sleep tight. Don't forget the tazers and talons and whatnot from under your pillow. Maybe you'll get lucky...

Thank you for clearing up your extreme views. We will know in the future that on this subject you are extremely biased towards the uber-pacifist ideology and address you accordingly. We will also keep in mind your apparent bias towards the US.

[Uncayimmy]

What was stressed to us over and over again was "you're not NECCESSARILY shooting to kill. You shoot and keep shooting until there is no longer a threat." What this means is "until he's no longer capable of raising a weapon or advancing towards you."

If you can shoot accurately, it's basically nothing more than a matter of semantics. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/clint.gif

I'm gonna have to disagree. What does it matter if the person is incapable of advancing towards you? An immobile yet armed person can still present an imminent deadly threat, so throw out the second half of your statement.

The key here is the perception of threat and the consequences of your perception being wrong. If you need to discharge your weapon, the goal is to incapacitate the other person. And the reality is that one common symptom of being incapacitated by gunshot is death. Therefore, when firing your weapon, your expectation should be to kill. If the other person is fortunate, they survive. But that's not your concern. Well, it could be if you're willing to sacrifice your life for someone you perceive to be willing to take yours or that of someone else.

Now, as much as I have issues with the police abusing their power, I cut them an enormous amount of slack when it comes to shootouts. If the suspect has his weapon out and is conscious, he is still a potential threat. Therefore, I don't expect a policeman (or anybody for that matter) to back off until the other guy is not an imminent threat.

If the other person is in an unmoving heap *and* you can with reasonable certainty easily fire another shot if that person moves, then I expect you to stop firing. Likewise, if the other person's weapon is no longer available to them, stop firing. It's a judgment call about the imminent danger.

It's utter nonsense to talk about being a good shot. Check out this article (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_/ai_n21156072) which states, "Even within a range of 6 feet or less, the police miss more often than they hit -- 57 percent of the shots at that distance miss and 43 percent hit."

With that kind of accuracy the only prudent course of action is to go for the torso repeatedly until the other guy goes down in a heap.

[Drudgewire]

I'm gonna have to disagree. What does it matter if the person is incapable of advancing towards you? An immobile yet armed person can still present an imminent deadly threat, so throw out the second half of your statement.


In a perfect world I'd agree with you 100%. In the real world douchebag lawyers WILL try to convince a jury shooting a guy on the ground is excessive use of force, whether it's civil or criminal court.

[Uncayimmy]

In a perfect world I'd agree with you 100%. In the real world douchebag lawyers WILL try to convince a jury shooting a guy on the ground is excessive use of force, whether it's civil or criminal court.

Better to be alive in court to defend yourself than dead or maimed.

[Drudgewire]

Better to be alive in court to defend yourself than dead or maimed.


I know, judged by 12 or carried by 6 and all that. Still, if you can stay out of the gray area completely you've truly won the day.

[Abooga]

Cops should be issued gun-tazers, guns with a disabler implement (tazer). And only allowed these type of handguns. This way they´s have more "options". At least at short range situations like the one of the OP.

[luchog]

FWIW I did work for Victoria Police, so can say with absolute assurance that this is how they are trained, and I would be astounded if it were different anywhere else.
Every cop I've ever known was trained that way; and I was trained that way in the National Guard.

[luchog]

Ha...I must've poked at some really sore spot. Go on. Eye for en eye.

Nope, just trying to point out your profound ignorance.

From that close range they could've hit the leg. The guy wasn't running fast.

1) The leg is a very difficult target to hit, it's small and moves fast. It's very difficult to hit someone full in the body. Actually learn how to shoot, under those circumstances, or STFU.
2) A leg shot is every bit as potentially lethal as a body shot; thanks to happy little biological bits known as the "femoral artery", "popliteal artery" "femoral vein", and "great saphenous vein". A round which hits one of these will cause a body to bleed out within minutes; possibly less than a minute. Learn some anatomy or STFU.
3) Probably the most important: A CRIMINAL WHO WILL SHOOT AT AN ARMED COP WILL NOT HESITATE TO SHOOT AT AN UNARMED CIVILIAN. I don't know if you'ld be happy about having that kind of person running around the streets, but I certainly wouldn't be; and I'm sure there are plenty of your countrymen would would agree with me.

Regarding the OP, I think it is murder. Legal or not, that depends on the country and the court.
Fortunately, that's only your opinion. The rest of us deal in provable fact.

[luchog]

In Finland, if a person shoots at you (like in this video) and misses, as a police officer, you are not allowed to open fire. The first thing you have to do is to verbally order the person to stop the illegal action. If the person does not obey the repeated orders and continues to act dangerously, by pointing his gun at the police for example, the police are now allowed to shoot a warning in the air. If he still doesn't obey the orders or does not change his behaviour, the police are forced to "suppress the resistance" by "using their own best judgement". They are allowed to shoot towards the criminal only as the very last possible option. They are instructed to shoot in the leg first. Even in situations with a bad visibility. They definitely train this in Finland.
If this is true, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

What kind of mental defective requires a warning shot? People get killed by warning shots. That bullet has to fall somewhere. American cops are not allowed to shoot warning shots because of the risk to innocent bystanders. That's something that only happens in the movies. In the US, cops are trained that they only fire if the suspect proves a clear and present danger, and must be stopped, not "suppressed".

Leg shots are stupid as well. They're harder to hit, and are just as potentially lethal as a body shot. Doesn't anyone in Finland responsible for making these policies know anything about human anatomy?

Not to mention the fact that every shot that misses the target has the potential to hit an innocent bystander. Police are trained to minimize this risk to the maximum extent possible, but sometimes circumstances can cause some pretty bizarre things to happen. That's the reason real cops don't all carry .357 and .44 magnum firearms like they do in the movies -- the dramatically higher risk of overpenetration and injury to bystanders.

[luchog]

I'm just amazed that many criminals wear their pants in a fashion that makes it impossible for them to run away.

For some people, fashion always trumps common sense.

[luchog]

What kind of moron doesn't have hollow points in his carry weapon in this day and age. :mad:
Hollowpoints are not magic. Like everything else, they can, and do, fail to work as intended. There are numerous examples of hollowpoints failing to expand, and over-penetrating their targets.

[Drudgewire]

Hollowpoints are not magic.

Explain how they pull rabbits out of hats then Mr. Smartypants. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

[tyr_13]

Explain how they pull rabbits out of hats then Mr. Smartypants. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/colbert.gif

They get nitro-express to do it for them.

[Bikewer]

The "Black Talons" suffered from bad PR as much as anything. We are issueing the "Golden Saber", which is essentially the same design, but with a fuzzier name.

Jeff Cooper, the well-known combat shooting authority, kept files of incidents in which individuals both in military combat and police incidents were struck by 9mm or .38 caliber weapons and kept fighting.
There were more than a few in which soldiers in combat were hit by FMJ 9mm round and were not aware of the fact until after the firefight was over and friends pointed out that they were bleeding.

Even powerful handguns with modern ammunition have nowhere near the shocking and tissue destructive power of military rifles.
Shooting someone in a limb may well cause death if an artery is cut, this is quite common with leg wounds.
If the femoral artery is cut, it is very difficult to control without immediate surgery; even tourniquets can't handle all that muscle tissue.
However, this takes time, and until the blood loss gets to a critical stage, the individual is quite capable of fighting.

Police may only use deadly force to protect against deadly force. This means that the officer (or someone else) is in immediate danger, and the attacker must be stopped as quickly as possible.

[Morrigan]

Finland is lucky to have really low crime, because their police regulations are downright retarded and dangerous.

[ImaginalDisc]

Arms and legs are harder to hit because they are thinner, and more likely to be moving.

If you shoot someone in the leg, they can still shoot back.


Maybe, maybe not. I've read summaries of medical cases (why I read these for leisure, even I'm not sure) of cases where a person has been critically wounded in a vital organ and not had any clear idea just when or how they got shot and only noticed they were wounded when someone else pointed it out (I think the one I recently read was about a cop who was involved in a firefight) and plenty of other cases where someone has exsanguinated from an amputation or artery hit caused by a handgun. If you get shot in the femoral artery, for example, it could easily be the death of you. There's no reliably "non-lethal" place to get shot, and there's no good target on a person in a police situation (extremely rare sniping aside) but the torso.

This is the same reason I'm not critical of cops who shoot several times an armed belligerent person posing a threat. If the situation the police officer faces justifies firing at a person, then it justifies killing them. Firearms don't have a "shoot to wound" setting.

As you said, I've never fired a gun, and even I know that. I've had a cop point a pepper spray bottle at me once in my life (I was at a party in a rich suburban neighborhood where there was a recent outbreak of teenage gang knife attacks, and I was carrying a prop sword to a party of my friends where we were preparing for theatrical stage combat, so when the neighbors saw us, they thought we were a gang, rather than thespians) and I was extremely cooperative because I knew that a stupid move on my part might lead to a justifiable escalation in force.

[Kuko 4000]

I'm now more certain than in the beginning of this thread, that it was murder. Knowing that by firing a weapon towards a person one can kill that person, and still doing it, is murder to me.

Call it justified in the name of self-defence, call it the wrong thing to do...it's all the same to me. It was murder.

Back to the OP. Can it be justified? In the Wild Wild West, seems to me that most definetely. In Finland, not so easily.



1: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/murder

I'm sure the US law goes further in describing what murder means, but I'm not sure if this is what you really want to say here? Choice of words can fully transform the meaning. On the other hands, maybe it is exactly what you want to say, and that's cool, you and I have all the more interesting topics to discuss with on our free time! I don't share that view, and would like to know more about it. Looking at the quoted part, I can pretty much agree about the last two paragraphs, except for the word murder. Especially in cases like this, I don't think that's empty semantics at all.

[Kuko 4000]

Cops should be issued gun-tazers, guns with a disabler implement (tazer). And only allowed these type of handguns. This way they´s have more "options". At least at short range situations like the one of the OP.


According to my source, this is what's happening more and more in Finland, I for one think it's a great direction. Without these, there's not much you can realistically do if you want to stop and disarm a dangerous person in short range, especially if he's holding a firearm, knife or some other deadly weapon.

[Kuko 4000]

If this is true, this is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

What kind of mental defective requires a warning shot? People get killed by warning shots. That bullet has to fall somewhere. American cops are not allowed to shoot warning shots because of the risk to innocent bystanders. That's something that only happens in the movies. In the US, cops are trained that they only fire if the suspect proves a clear and present danger, and must be stopped, not "suppressed".

Leg shots are stupid as well. They're harder to hit, and are just as potentially lethal as a body shot. Doesn't anyone in Finland responsible for making these policies know anything about human anatomy?


The person I talked to has been in the streets of Helsinki for 18 years and another 15 years doing research and investigation work in the office. He quit the streets for self defence of the best kind, prevention. He could be wrong, for all I know, but regarding these issues, he has proven to be someone on the mark way more often than not, so I'm giving him the benefit of a doubt for now.

The Finnish police are naturally carefully instructed and trained on how the warning shot has to be performed to eliminate any immediate danger to anyone. I have to add that I should've clarified this the first time I mentioned it, I just wrote "a warning shot in the air", which is misleading in all kinds of ways. Sorry for that. Thanks for the info btw, I didn't know that the US police are not allowed to shoot warnings. Aiming for the leg, hmmm, I might be motivated to send a mail or something to confirm their official position and reasoning on this.

He watched the vid and commented on the lack of info, but also said that generally the Finnish police would not ever approach the suspect in this way, but understands that in other countries it might be necessary. He also said that, regarding their instructions, the current model works very well in the streets. I was a bit surprised in hearing that, he didn't feel that the regulations limit their work in any dangerous way. I guess I must've been uninformed / exaggerating when I mentioned about incidents popping in the news. Of course he had many stories to tell and examples to give, but in general, stuff like this is VERY rare in Finland.

[DC]

The idea of a cop shooting someone in the arm or leg is fanciful. It only happens on TV. I'm pretty certain that cops everywhere are trained to fire at the largest body mass - the torso.

afaik in Switzerland the Police gets trained to shoot in the legs, theyr goal is normaly not killing suspects.

[lionking]

afaik in Switzerland the Police gets trained to shoot in the legs, theyr goal is normaly not killing suspects.

Do you have any evidence of that because it flies in the face good policing practice?

As I mentioned earlier, I worked for Victoria Police some years ago, and I simply cannot envision how police can be trained to do that.

[DC]

Do you have any evidence of that because it flies in the face good policing practice?

As I mentioned earlier, I worked for Victoria Police some years ago, and I simply cannot envision how police can be trained to do that.

No, i googled alot about it, but cannot find details about their shooting training.

but the next cop i come across i will ask :)

but i think we cannot compare swiss police with US or Australian cops (not sure about australia cops) im sure in the US they dont train to shoot in the legs. I think beeing a cop in the US is extremly more dangerous than in switzerland. Not that we have no criminals, but its is relatively seldom to have gunfights here.

[Dancing David]

Yes, it looks like you have the right story there. In which case the guy was unarmed, but I think it would have been a difficult call for the police to make.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?hl=en&rlz=1T4GFRB_enGB226GB226&q=shreveport%20shooting%202003&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#q=shreveport%20police%20shooting%202003&hl=en&emb=0


I agree, the issue is that the suspect made a movement that the police took as him firing a weapon or threatening to fire a weapon.

There are times when it does not bode well to threaten police officers.

(Too many guns if you ask me, I come from a gun family and I like shooting too.)

[DC]

Do you have any evidence of that because it flies in the face good policing practice?

As I mentioned earlier, I worked for Victoria Police some years ago, and I simply cannot envision how police can be trained to do that.

I just called the Police in Basel and asked. First they wanted to know exactly who i am and why i ask such a strange question lol.
But then i got a Shooting instructor of the Basel Police and he told me alot about the shooting training.

Indeed it was an old "philosophy" to shoot in the legs some decades ago, they mainly trained shooting the leg.
But this changed, cause it turned out that when you shoot the leg and you dont hit a bone, but only flesh, the suspect will not feel it and it will not stop him. but still today they are training to shoot the legs, but mainly they do train shooting on the torso. What they will aim for in a real situation is dependent on the situation, in a case like here in the OP, they go for the torso. there is no rule that says you have to aim for that or that, they try to harm a suspect as lss as possible, when a cop thinks a shot in a leg will be enough he aims for the leg, if he thinks it will not be enough he goes for the torso.

Also he told me, that a few days ago they had a gathering with experts from diffrent countrys, among them someone from Norway, a guy that works with Flemming, Flemming seems to be a big experts on this things from Norway.
In Scandinavian countrys, it is still today usual to mainly train shooting the legs, but this is under critique by their own specialists, for the same reason like the swiss police changed, the leg wounds often dont stop someone. but it is still the scandinavian "philosophy" to go for the legs.

[lionking]

Well thanks for this, but I'm not sure that I would ask police how they would shoot at offenders. They would certainly be able to identify where the call came from. :(

[DC]

Well thanks for this, but I'm not sure that I would ask police how they would shoot at offenders. They would certainly be able to identify where the call came from. :(

you are welcome

i am sure they checked my ID, i gave my real name and birth date :)
but after explaining why i ask, and metioning this discussion here, they didnt suspect anything :)

he was very friendly and informative.

[mrbaracuda]

What's that? A Dictator Cheney coming back several times after saying he wouldn't return?

[HarryKeogh]

Why couldn't the police officer just aim for the bad guy's trigger finger? Or better yet just shoot the gun out of his hand.

[Tapio]

This is truly a wonferful forum for discussing any topic! I'm extremely happy that I was introduced to it.

Now, reading through the whole thread I noticed a couple of arguments, assumptions and phrases I'd like to address. Because I'm new to the forums, but hoping to stick around for as long as possible, I don't want to leave false impressions from the start. I'm a father at home with three under three-year-old kids, so my time of writing to this forum is extremely limited, and sometimes results in too simplified and not elaborated enough posts (now I'm sick and my wife takes care of the trio so I have time to write the way I wish I could do every time).

Of course I'm aware it's difficult to understand what's written the way it's meant no matter what, because of the language barrier and everyone's own way of interpreting read words. Despite of this I'll now try to make some sort of summary of my opinion regarding the OP and other topics discussed in this thread.

1) The leg is a very difficult target to hit, it's small and moves fast. It's very difficult to hit someone full in the body. Actually learn how to shoot, under those circumstances, or STFU.
2) A leg shot is every bit as potentially lethal as a body shot; thanks to happy little biological bits known as the "femoral artery", "popliteal artery" "femoral vein", and "great saphenous vein". A round which hits one of these will cause a body to bleed out within minutes; possibly less than a minute. Learn some anatomy or STFU.[snip]

Thanks to many of you, I have understood the flaw in thinking of shooting for a limb when attempting to disable a person. I've studied plenty of anatomy, and have most of my life understood how a shot anywhere in the body can be potentially lethal, so that wasn't the case. My ignorance concerned more the handling of firearms. Thank you all for clarifications on this subject.

Reflecting in this new light upon the Finnish guidelines for the police, they truly seem inadequate and upright dangerous.

murder is a legal term that refers to the unjustified taking of a human life (many societies may differ on what is considered justified but that does not change the meaning of the word) not simply intentionally killing another human being.

By your defenition, the US currently has about 30,000 murderers in Iraq fighting against several thousand (estimates vary) other murderers. Since justification is irrelevant, what side of a war one is on is also irrelevant and anybody who ever put on a soldiers uniform and fought in a war is therefore a murderer (or at the very least a conspiritor to commit murder). Since this assertion is patently ridiculous, this is why justification (or lack thereof) is a critical part of determining whether a homicide is a murder or not.

Similarly by your defenition, intentionally shooting and killing somebody who is brandishing a knife and charging you is murder. Thankfully, most of the civilized world recognizes self defense and defense of others as justifiable homocide, and not murder.

This is where I still disagree to some account. I'm well aware what murder means in English. The equivalent for it in Finnish (murha) has the same meaning. My argument in calling what the police did in the video murder, is based on the belief that it's possible, even probable for a human being, when facing an imminent life-threatening situation because of another human, to want to kill the person who's responsible for the threat. I believe police officers are no excuses in this. On the contrary, when knowing that they have the law on their side in situations like this, it would be rather easy to release some stress through the trigger, so to speak. Or if not stress etc., the feeling of wanting to revenge.

Can any of you tell for certain, that it is not POSSIBLE that even one of the policemen in the video was, even once, pulling the trigger in the frame of mind that counts as murder?

As for the US troops being in Iraq...well, let's just leave that out of this discussion. What we probably can agree on, is that the justification of killing people varies and always depends on the moral of the individual.

Regarding the OP, I think it is murder. Legal or not, that depends on the country and the court.
Fortunately, that's only your opinion. The rest of us deal in provable fact.

I'm not an expert on shooting anyone, but I would think shooting someone 15 times in the back is a bit exaggerated, if the intetion is to stop the person from being a threat. This, among a couple of other things, constitutes to the base of my belief that the police were in fact intending to kill the guy. Alas, no one of us can ever know this for sure. The true intentions of these police officers will be only their's to know.

The facts are (if this video truly shows the case Dancing David dug up) that the guy actually wasn't a threat, and that the police reaction was in no way appropriately measured. THIS is where I still think some parts of the Finnish guideline for police in the use of firearms are more developed (at least in moral terms) than in the US. Who knows, if the police had waited for just ten seconds more, the guy would've surrendered or thrown away his phone or, or, or...at least in Finland, this kind of pondering after the damage is done, is reduced to minimum. For if a Finnish police officer kills a suspect by shooting him, it most certainly will be the last, and very last option.

In my oppinion the low crime rate (in which firearms are used) in Finland, or the low rate of police being shot at, or wounded/killed by shooting has a lot to do with the overall attitude towards using firearms, which is quite negative.

Thank you for clearing up your extreme views. We will know in the future that on this subject you are extremely biased towards the uber-pacifist ideology and address you accordingly. We will also keep in mind your apparent bias towards the US.

How are my views so extreme to you? I feel in no way to be uber-pacifistic, least of all biased toward it. From whatever side I try to view my position on this subject, I feel it's based on clear thinking. Of course there's always room for self-developement, and that's why we're going on, right?

I support that which is necessary in order for the safety and well-being of everyone concerned. If an individual poses a threat for the rest, I think we should apply the most efficent and non-injuring means possible by which that threat can be eliminated. I understand that in some cases the only option is killing the person(s) posing the threat. This, however, should be the most extremely rare case. From what I can understand regarding the OP, this incident wouldnt've necessarily had to end in the guy dying.

As for my "bias toward the US", I think you're going too far. Let me clarify. What I meant by telling I was happy to be living on this side of the ocean, was that I'm glad that in Finland the police aren't allowed to shoot people (and call it justified) as easily as it seems to be in the US. I have a history of extreme activism of all sorts, and although I've never physically threatened the police, I've been in several situations in which I have a good hunch, that would've they taken place in the US, I'd been shot at. So living in Finland has made sure that I've lived through some fanatic, wreckless and irresponsibly wild teenage years, even though I've been in really tough situations with the police.

Anyway, I think it's too much you calling my (whole) attitude towards the US anything based on these few words I've written to this thread.

[Drudgewire]

In my oppinion the low crime rate (in which firearms are used) in Finland, or the low rate of police being shot at, or wounded/killed by shooting has a lot to do with the overall attitude towards using firearms, which is quite negative.


And yet:

The widely cited Small Arms Survey 2007 by Graduate Institute of International Studies in Geneva Switzerland claims there are some 3 million firearms in Finland, or 56 per 100 civilians.
-Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland)


Granted, the US has like 90 firearms per hundred civilians but that's still a pretty high number of gun owners to suggest "a quite negative attitude" towards them. And percentagewise the number of gun owners per capita is probably a lot closer to ours considering how many Americans have multiple firearms (got six myself).

Finland and Switzerland are two of the countries us gun lovers point to as proof that guns themselves AREN'T as relative to gun crime as some would like to suggest.

[Tapio]

Finland and Switzerland are two of the countries us gun lovers point to as proof that guns themselves AREN'T as relative to gun crime as some would like to suggest.

As I said: The attitude towards USING firearms is negative. And THAT attitude is the one I think that counts.

[Lonewulf]

HRegarding the OP, I think it is murder. Legal or not, that depends on the country and the court.Well, if that's really how your own country works, then it's one I want to avoid.

Sorry, but I don't enjoy the idea of getting hit by a stray bullet from a police officer as he tries to do some fancy shooting. Nor am I wanting to see police officers get shot from wounded suspects that are still perfectly capable of firing a gun.

[Bikewer]

And that, Tapio, is the difference. In many areas of the country here, police have a high expectation that suspects they encounter will be armed, and that they will have little or no hesitancy to employ their weapons against police.
In gang-ridden big cities, even young children may well be "packing", and they have little regard for life. They will shoot rival gang members merely for trespassing on their "turf". Ambush shootings at police are common.
Even outside of big-city areas, police are often confronted with drug smugglers and traffickers who are often heavily armed and who will not hesitate to shoot to avoid arrest.
Add in the occasional fringe-group lunatic or "militia" member....
You get the idea.
We also have the unique problem of "suicide by cop". That's where an individual forces police to take his life by attracting attention and then threatening the officer with a firearm or other weapon. These individuals may simply be unable to muster the will to take their own life, or they may wish to "go out in a blaze of glory". Motivations are hard to access...

So, while police in European countries generally may have a very low expectation of violent resistance from suspects, this is not the case here.
In fact, in many areas, there is very little respect for law enforcement. There's an old saying from the "Third District" here in St. Louis...."Well, this is the Third. If you want to arrest me, you have to whip my ass."

[Tapio]

Yes, Bikewer, so I've heard, and so I know. As a person who's travelled quite extensively, I'm well aware that compared to many places Finland is "like a bird's nest" (is it how you say it English also?)

I'm definetely not trying to imply I have the faintest clue on what an average day for a police officer in your area's like. No sir. It's obvious that the cops in the video are in a completely different situation than if the same thing happened in Finland. And that's exactly why I feel my belief has more support.

Since it is so likely to run into armed people, it's also more likely to get shot at. With this constant fear on you, this kind of chase must be nerve-wrecking to some degree. So it also (at least to me it seems reasonable) must make the actual choice of pulling the trigger and making your shot deliberately as lethal as possible more easy. So I'm not blaming the cops for shooting. I'm saying I believe they intended to kill the guy that way.

[Bikewer]

Cops should be issued gun-tazers, guns with a disabler implement (tazer). And only allowed these type of handguns. This way they´s have more "options". At least at short range situations like the one of the OP.

It is the case generally throughout the country that Tasers are being issued by police departments. We have been using the device for about 5 years now.

They can be effective, and in a variety of cases can control individuals who would otherwise have to risk being injured by impact weapons or even shot.
However, they do not replace firearms, and they are not used in defense against deadly force.
They are used to control out-of-control people.

At the present state of these weapons, they are a one-shot device that has a rather limited record of reliability. They can fail for a variety of reasons, and then you have nothing...
They are also limited in range, and don't function well at extremely close quarters.

At such time as they market a reliable "Phaser" that can be set on stun to instantly incapacitate a suspect, I'll be first in line.

[Lonewulf]

The police used the tools they were issued, as they were trained to use them.

From what I saw of it, "shooting 15 times" wasn't the way I saw it. I saw four shots, three by one officer, one by another. They couldn't exactly read each other's minds (I'm sad to say we aren't the Borg yet), so it's not like they could coordinate their shots in perfect time and know exactly how many times they fired, or when their partner would be firing so they know when to fire.

The first two to three shots were overall ineffective. The man was still standing and still seemed able to fire back. They stopped firing as soon as the man fell to the ground, and was no longer a threat.

Police officers in the states are usually issued 9mm handguns, and I can only assume that they went with a standard load-out (no hollow points). 9mm are an "okay" handgun, although I've met many police officers who are dissatisfied with their ability to make a suspect no longer a threat. I've also heard that they bounce off windshields at far too high a rate.

If these police officers were issued tazer-guns, then it's very possible that they could have used the tazer instead of the gun function at that distance. However, we don't quite have such a system in place.

I also believe that if you're going to shoot someone, you DO intend to kill them. Otherwise you wouldn't be using a gun. Guns are not notorious for being less-than-lethal. Sure, many survive being shot by a firearm, but they are specifically designed to propel a bullet at high velocity thanks to ignited gunpowder in a small barrel. They penetrate flesh and do severe damage to tissue and bone, as well as vital organs. They are not designed to incapacitate without killing, they are designed to do severe damage to the human body, which is often times fatal (whether immediately, or over time thanks to massive external and internal bleeding).

Less-than-lethal alternatives for bringing down criminals without duly impacting their ability to take down dangerous suspects in general are becoming more and more in use, but it will take a lot to outfit all police divisions with such a thing.

[WildCat]

Cops should be issued gun-tazers, guns with a disabler implement (tazer). And only allowed these type of handguns. This way they´s have more "options". At least at short range situations like the one of the OP.
What the hell is a "gun-tazer"?

If it's what I think it is (and I don't think they exist) think of the consequences of pulling the wrong trigger when you're tryng to taser someone.

No way in hell should those 2 weapons be combined into one.

[DC]

What the hell is a "gun-tazer"?

If it's what I think it is (and I don't think they exist) think of the consequences of pulling the wrong trigger when you're tryng to taser someone.

No way in hell should those 2 weapons be combined into one.

i guess he ment a tazer-gun.............
http://www.securityprousa.com/stunguns1.html

http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

ETA: No he didnt ment tazer guns, there seem to bee indeed a dual version :/

[Abooga]

According to my source, this is what's happening more and more in Finland, I for one think it's a great direction. Without these, there's not much you can realistically do if you want to stop and disarm a dangerous person in short range, especially if he's holding a firearm, knife or some other deadly weapon.

Well, I should have explained better... what I meant is a new type of gun, with a bullet option and a tazer option. Both in one. Two triggers always at finger-reach. That way, in every one of these type of standoffs, at close range, they´d always have the option of using the non-deadly option.

I´d say the procedures could even be changed so that when cops have to stop/catch/disable/whatever a suspect and they get within tazer range they should (unless in special circumstances like if the suspect is behind some obstacle etc.) inmediately put their finger on the tazer trigger of this double weapon I just invented. Well, it´s probably already invented and being perfected...

(same idea as in science fiction beam weapons, which often have a "stun" option)


Wouldn´t this be a good idea? It should be possible to build one of these guns with current technology... or if not, soon.

[mrbaracuda]

(I'm sad to say we aren't the Borg yet)

I knew your avatar was suspicious! :boxedin:

[Abooga]

What the hell is a "gun-tazer"?

If it's what I think it is (and I don't think they exist) think of the consequences of pulling the wrong trigger when you're tryng to taser someone.

No way in hell should those 2 weapons be combined into one.

Yes it is what you think it is.

"think of the consequences of pulling the wrong trigger when you're tryng to taser someone"

I´ll be honest and say I didn´t think of that. But you could still have a simple tazer if you think the situation is not too dangerous (unarmed suspect for example) And you´d pull out the gun-tazer in the same situations as when you now pull out the normal gun. So your objection is meaningless in these conditions.

Taking the OP as an example, (I couldn´t hear the sound but from what I saw of the vid) the cops were following him and shouting (I guess ordering him to drop the gun etc.) the suspect while pointing at him with their guns. Well, he´s a dangerous suspect, waving a gun, if they had my gun-tazers, they´d have tazered him as soon as they saw he wasn´t obeying the orders. And the situation would have been solved 1. With less risk to the cops 2. with an uninjured suspect.

[Uncayimmy]

So I'm not blaming the cops for shooting. I'm saying I believe they intended to kill the guy that way.

In a situation like you saw there's not enough time to wait and see if you actually hit the guy and if the wound inflicted is serious enough to incapacitate him and remove the threat. Thus you keep firing until you believe he's incapacitated. Pretty much any exchange of bullets works out like that.

We also know the reality is that a single bullet striking a human body has a very good chance of killing that body. The more bullets that hit, the greater the chance.

In armed confrontations half the shots fired by police from six feet miss the target completely. Therefore, "strategic" aiming is out the window. Shoot for the largest mass and hope for the best. That means the vital organs as a group are your primary targets.

These basic premises hold true for the bad guy as well except for accuracy. The average mope on the street is not going to have the same training as police officers, so he's probably even less accurate.

So, when you put it all together, engaging in a shootout by definition means that death to your opponent is a likely outcome. So, while you say the cops were shooting to kill I say the cops were shooting in a way that killing was a likely outcome because there is no safe alternative.

To say they were shooting *to* kill implies an intent or hope that we cannot know for sure. If that was the intention, so what? It wouldn't change their behavior one iota.

But here's the thing: When the bad guy went down in a heap, the cops stopped firing. They could have killed him if they wanted, but they didn't. If the cops went down, do you think the bad guy would have shown the same restraint? Considering that he was willing to risk the death of the officers for a mere chance at freedom, I'd say it's a reasonable expectation.

[Uncayimmy]

Taking the OP as an example, (I couldn´t hear the sound but from what I saw of the vid) the cops were following him and shouting (I guess ordering him to drop the gun etc.) the suspect while pointing at him with their guns. Well, he´s a dangerous suspect, waving a gun, if they had my gun-tazers, they´d have tazered him as soon as they saw he wasn´t obeying the orders. And the situation would have been solved 1. With less risk to the cops 2. with an uninjured suspect.

That's like recommending the rhythm method for birth control.

The response to lethal force is lethal force. A Taser was not an option in this situation. Taser guidelines say that you need to reassess the situation after hitting the suspect. If getting shot during that time is a real possibility, it's stupid to even try it.

Tasers have a place in law enforcement, but that place doesn't include shootouts. The safety of the officers trumps that of the suspect. We can't ask officers to place their lives in imminent danger in the hopes that something like a Taser might work.

[DavidS]

Doesn't murder require premeditation?
While I'm not a lawyer, during a lengthy jury selection process the judge explained carefully that premeditation was a legal requirement for a "capital murder" designation.
You think the cops went out that night with the intention of killing this guy?
I don't think they even got out of the car with the intention of killing anyone.
The judge also explained carefully that's not what the law means by "premeditation". There's no magic threshold for pre-planning; it's enough to form intent to cause death at the last instant before the action. Basically, it boils down to whether you meant to kill at the moment.

No, I wasn't selected for that jury. No, I don't know why. I suspect the defense didn't like my lack of resistance to capital punishment, and the prosecution didn't like my recognition that I've never been put in position to actually decide whether somebody lives or dies. Yes, I was relieved to be excused. No, I made no attempt to "game" the system, though for a capital case getting excused is as easy as saying "hang 'em all" or "capital punishment is murder".

FWIW, I found the process to be very instructive, spanning several day-long sessions of jury instruction and superficial questioning by the judge before individual interrogations by the attorneys.

The hard part was showing up for each session and walking past the somber couple sitting quietly outside while the process unfolded to decide their son's fate.

[tomwaits]

No, I wasn't selected for that jury. No, I don't know why. I suspect the defense didn't like my lack of resistance to capital punishment, and the prosecution didn't like my recognition that I've never been put in position to actually decide whether somebody lives or dies. Yes, I was relieved to be excused. No, I made no attempt to "game" the system, though for a capital case getting excused is as easy as saying "hang 'em all" or "capital punishment is murder".

Yes, one of my pet peeves is when people interview themselves. :D

[Abooga]

That's like recommending the rhythm method for birth control.

The response to lethal force is lethal force. A Taser was not an option in this situation. Taser guidelines say that you need to reassess the situation after hitting the suspect. If getting shot during that time is a real possibility, it's stupid to even try it.

Tasers have a place in law enforcement, but that place doesn't include shootouts. The safety of the officers trumps that of the suspect. We can't ask officers to place their lives in imminent danger in the hopes that something like a Taser might work.

Fair enough, but I meant using the tazer before the situation requires the use of that lethal force. If it does require it, well, you have trigger number two at finger-reach.

The disturbed suspect gets out of the car waving a gun. After he ignores the first warning you taze him. In the case of the OP, he´d have been tazed way before he took that shot to the cop. The cops would,ve been pointing at him with gun-tazers all that time they were warning him, instead of with those all-or-nothing guns.

You have to realise this would require a certain change in the way these things are handled. Just like someone commented before, at some point when they changed the regulations and cops couldn´t shoot at fleeing burglars any more, this change was met with opposition, but now it´s accepted. What I´m proposing requires a similar change of paradigm. Dangerous looking armed suspects within close range... try to taze them before the situation gets too nasty. Suspect actually shooting ? Aim to center mass. And press trigger number two. (The one that shoots real bullets, just to be clear)

[Bikewer]

The very idea of a combined firearm/Taser is frightening. Departments that issue the Taser (such as ours) specify that the Taser be carried on the opposite side from the firearm.
This to essentially eliminate drawing the wrong weapon....There is at least one case on file where an officer drew his "Taser" which proved to be his Glock....The results were fatal.

Those not having experience in such matters may think that police are calm, controlled individuals who approach violent suspects with Zen-like untroubled minds....

However, we are as human and anyone and get big shots of adrenaline when involved in such things. Fine motor control goes out the window and the stresses of combat inflict severe restraints on judgment and well-honed skills.

Here's an interesting factoid. For as long as anyone has been keeping records on such things, police have had about a 25% hit ratio when firing at suspects. One out of four shots hit. This despite the fact that firearms training for police has increased dramatically over the last century. We now have reality-based shooting scenarios, "Hogan's Alley" shoot-houses, F.A.T.S. programmable video-scenario training.....
But still only about 25% hits.

The reason for this is the stress-induced effect on fine muscle control I mentioned above.
There have been scientific studies on this; researchers have found that during a combat shooting incident, a number of physiological effects are common. These include a diminishing of auditory capability (officers frequently maintain they did not hear orders to "cease fire" for instance), tunnel vision, "target fixation", and so forth.
Note that these very same effects occur in military combat, and are frequently noted in fighter pilots.
As a result of all this, trainers in both firearms and "defensive tactics" are emphasizing techniques which feature "gross" body movements and instinctual postures; to try to take advantage of these natural tendencies rather than overcome them.

Research continues....

[ponderingturtle]

afaik in Switzerland the Police gets trained to shoot in the legs, theyr goal is normaly not killing suspects.

No one has a goal of killing a suspect, the goal is to stop them as quickly as possible, and lethal and potentialy lethal injuries seem to be the most effective method available.

[Tapio]

No one has a goal of killing a suspect, the goal is to stop them as quickly as possible, and lethal and potentialy lethal injuries seem to be the most effective method available.

Bolding mine.

No one? Aw, c'mon...what world are you living in?

"Oh, I just saw a halo flashing by my window, it must be the cops!"

[luchog]

The Finnish police are naturally carefully instructed and trained on how the warning shot has to be performed to eliminate any immediate danger to anyone. I have to add that I should've clarified this the first time I mentioned it, I just wrote "a warning shot in the air", which is misleading in all kinds of ways. Sorry for that.

The problem is, there is no completely safe way to fire a warning shot. Period. A shot into the ground or solid background always has the risk of a ricochet. A shot into a building has the risk of ricochet or penetration, depending on the type of building material. A shot up into the air is going to come down somewhere, with enough energy to penetrate a skull.

That is why the majority of police in the US are trained that they do not fire their weapon unless there is a clear and present danger, and the only way to eliminate the danger is to shoot the suspect. In that situation, you don't have time to be messing around with multiple warnings (which are typically given long before that point), or warning shots. You shoot to end the danger in the most effective way possible.

There is no completely safe way to fire on a suspect, either; but in that case the benefit outweighs the risk (and cops are trained to minimize risk). Definitely not the case with warning shots. The risk is still rather low in most circumstances; but the utility is effectively zero.

He watched the vid and commented on the lack of info, but also said that generally the Finnish police would not ever approach the suspect in this way, but understands that in other countries it might be necessary. He also said that, regarding their instructions, the current model works very well in the streets. I was a bit surprised in hearing that, he didn't feel that the regulations limit their work in any dangerous way. I guess I must've been uninformed / exaggerating when I mentioned about incidents popping in the news. Of course he had many stories to tell and examples to give, but in general, stuff like this is VERY rare in Finland.
I'm guessing that Finland has a negligible gang problem. What are Finland's drug laws like? The majority of the time that a police officer in the US is required to shoot a suspect, the incident is gang-related, and gangs exist in their current form primarily due to the huge back-market drug trade profits.

People castigate the US for it's violence, and act as if all Americans are psychotic murderers waiting to happen as soon as they get their hands on a firearm; but that's a grossly unfair stereotype. The vast majority of the violent crime in the US is gang-related, usually extended disputes over drug distribution territory. Much the same way that alcohol prohibition financed the rise of organized crime in the '20s.

Because of the drug money, gangs have been a much bigger problem in the US than they have in most of the rest of the developed world. This has been mainly due to the fact that we're one of the most prosperous nations, therefore we have far more money to spend on drugs; as well as having some of the most restrictive drug laws in the developed world, which encourages the growth of the underground economy and criminal enterprises. Although from my reading, the UK is beginning to see a significant increase in violent gang activity as well.

[luchog]

Fair enough, but I meant using the tazer before the situation requires the use of that lethal force. If it does require it, well, you have trigger number two at finger-reach.

Unfortunately, that's been proven not to work. Humans simply don't have the capacity to consistently make those sorts of fine-control split-second decisions.

The disturbed suspect gets out of the car waving a gun. After he ignores the first warning you taze him. In the case of the OP, he´d have been tazed way before he took that shot to the cop. The cops would,ve been pointing at him with gun-tazers all that time they were warning him, instead of with those all-or-nothing guns.

The other problem is that you are assuming tazers are effective enough to stop a suspect like that. They aren't. There have been numerous examples of suspects being tazed or pepper-sprayed, then proceeding to attack officers or bystanders. Certain drugs, like PCP -- which is gaining popularity in the US again -- greatly increase the likelihood of tazers simply being ineffective. Many of the highest risk individuls, gang types, tend to dress in very loose-fitting and bulky clothing as part of their "uniform", which can render tazers less effective. Even under normal circumstances, reactions to tazers vary widely. Many suspects require multiple shocks to incapacitate them, during which time they can easily fire a shot or two at an officer or bystander.

On top of that, tazers have a very limited range. Far more limited than firearms. The police issue models typically have a range of less than 25 feet. Many, if not most, encounters with firearm-armed suspects take place at much greater distances. If you're facing a suspect armed with a firearm within that range, a tazer is typically going to be far too slow. If the suspect is not fully disabled with the first shot, then he's going to be at point-blank range, and not likely to miss when he shoots back. And as others have mentioned, tazers are much less accurate than firearms at range. It's going to be much easier to miss.

Tazers are best used for "crowd control" situations, dealing with beligerant but unarmed, or lightly armed (eg, blunt/thrown objects, or possibly knives) suspects at close range. They are considerably less than ideal for suspects armed with a firearm

[luchog]

My argument in calling what the police did in the video murder, is based on the belief that it's possible, even probable for a human being, when facing an imminent life-threatening situation because of another human, to want to kill the person who's responsible for the threat. I believe police officers are no excuses in this. On the contrary, when knowing that they have the law on their side in situations like this, it would be rather easy to release some stress through the trigger, so to speak. Or if not stress etc., the feeling of wanting to revenge.
[/quote]
The psychological literature is against you on this one. In fact, killing another human being is something that must be trained, and trained hard. All police officers are given mandatory counselling after every shooting; particularly since many of them have turned to alcohol or other self-destructive behaviours to deal with the consequences. Being a police officer is an extremely stressful job; and the need to kill dangerous suspects only makes it more stressful, not less.

Can any of you tell for certain, that it is not POSSIBLE that even one of the policemen in the video was, even once, pulling the trigger in the frame of mind that counts as murder?

Can anyone tell for certain, that it is not possible that you're not planning, even once, on raping any particular woman you encounter? Proving a negative is impossible.

However, there are reams of literature and case studies regarding the psychology of police officers and police work; and in most jurisdictions, officers receive substantial amounts of ongoing screening for just this reason. Such an occurrence is extremely rare. It happens, but no more often for police officers than for anyone else in their socio-economic brackets.

There is also the issue that every shooting is evaluated. Every single one. By a completely independent police organization known as "Internal Affairs", whose sole purpose is to police the police, and ensure that these issues are addressed properly. A "bad" shooting will result in an officer being suspended, demoted, fired, and yes, even tried for murder, depending on the circumstances.

You appear to be getting far too much of your information from movies and television; because most of what you're proposing is exactly like the bad stereotypes from those sources, and has little to do with real-life policing.

[Tapio]

Thanks for still going on with this. Your messages are very helpful and provoke necessary thought in me to evaluate the "other" side of the story as well.

The psychological literature is against you on this one. In fact, killing another human being is something that must be trained, and trained hard. All police officers are given mandatory counselling after every shooting; particularly since many of them have turned to alcohol or other self-destructive behaviours to deal with the consequences. Being a police officer is an extremely stressful job; and the need to kill dangerous suspects only makes it more stressful, not less.

I'm skeptical towards your two first sentences. I would imagine, that if there were statistics done on how many people are killed in self-defence per day in the world, killing another person in a blink of an eye wouldn't seem that difficult, and would absolutely be possible without training. The question is, regardless of the case: How can we know for sure the killing happened in self-defence and not as an act of rage towards a person who's threatening the killer's life?

We can't know for sure, and that's my point. Even after all the great new knowledge I've got from this thread regarding police work in the US and using firearms and tazers, I think what the police did in the video is most likely murder.

Can anyone tell for certain, that it is not possible that you're not planning, even once, on raping any particular woman you encounter? Proving a negative is impossible.

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.

There is also the issue that every shooting is evaluated. Every single one. By a completely independent police organization known as "Internal Affairs", whose sole purpose is to police the police, and ensure that these issues are addressed properly. A "bad" shooting will result in an officer being suspended, demoted, fired, and yes, even tried for murder, depending on the circumstances.

It would be interesting to know the results of the evaluation and conclusions of this particular case.

You appear to be getting far too much of your information from movies and television; because most of what you're proposing is exactly like the bad stereotypes from those sources, and has little to do with real-life policing.

Wrong. I haven't got a tv, and never have liked movies with shooting. I'm not claiming any stereotypes either. I'm talking about ONLY THIS ONE INCIDENT.

PLease, is it so hard to accept that I have a different view on this subject than you? And, that this view is not because of a biased understanding of facts, but due to what I saw on the videos, read in the article, serious thinking and reseach on the human psyche?

[Lonewulf]

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.

Seems like you missed his point.

[Professor Yaffle]

we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour.

We can? Please expand...


ETA: It seems like you would like the presumption of innocence changed to the presumption of guilt in all cases involving death. Is that the case?

[Dancing David]

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.



You need to flush out your head gear dude, it would appear your brain is full of fecal matter.

First off, you are making a very bad analogy that has no relation to the topic at hand.

Secong RAPE Is A CRIME OF VIOLENCE!

I don't know what you mean by this stupid statement "because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour", what palnet did you get that from? Sometimes there are marks and signs that would differentiate it from willing vaginal sex and sometimes there aren't, do you get you data from a cereal box?


The question was about INTENT, and now you can't tell the difference between action and intent.

Here is the deal, rape is an act of violence that uses sex as a means of harming, intimidating, subjugating, humiliating and terrorizing the victim. The intent is to act in violence towards the victim using sex as a tool of violence.

The actions are similar but there are ways that rape is not like sex, but they will based upon 'subjective criterai of the participants'.
1. Consent of the victim.
I know there is a language barrier but you need to read what INTENT is, and anwers questions without delving into realms of stupidity.


Apparently some countries might ahave a problem in general as to what constitues rape:
I take Amnesty witha grain of salt:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Amnesty+International+criticises+Finnish+rape+legi slation/1135239507838

Is this true that if a victim is asleep or intoxicated/unconscious then it is not rape?

Wow.

Rape does not need violence to occur, restrainst and intimidation are commonly used.

Wow.

[Tapio]

You need to flush out your head gear dude, it would appear your brain is full of fecal matter.

First of all, I suggest you take a minute, in this case maybe ten, before you answer a comment that gets you emotional. There is no need to get personal. You show incredibly bad taste and a complete lack of proper conversation with your comment. It feels bad, because I'm truly trying to explain my view, without attacking anybody. As I said, I'm new to the forums, so maybe I don't know your secret language codes of being rational and competent, but this kind of commentary is completely unnecessary.

First off, you are making a very bad analogy that has no relation to the topic at hand.

I don't understand. What part do you mean of my writing?

Secong RAPE Is A CRIME OF VIOLENCE!

Oh my...really? I thought it to be the latest macarena?

I don't know what you mean by this stupid statement "because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour", what palnet did you get that from? Sometimes there are marks and signs that would differentiate it from willing vaginal sex and sometimes there aren't, do you get you data from a cereal box?

Once again, please refrain from making mocking arguments, if you wish to keep up a dialogue with me. What I wrote is true, and if several surveys of rapist behavioral patterns, rape as a physical act, the mental counseling for rape victims and indepth conversation with sexual therapists (hired to work on a large pedophile scandal in Finland a couple of years back) count as "cereal box" reading, fine.

My studies have led me to the impression that in most cases gynecologists find physical trauma on a rape victim, usually absent after willing intercourse. Of course, most rapes don't get reported (one reason being that most rapes, at least in Finland, are comitted by a close relative), and if they are, many are reprted so long (due to psychological shock, shame etc.), after the incident, that the worst physical trauma has healed.


The question was about INTENT, and now you can't tell the difference between action and intent.

Here is the deal, rape is an act of violence that uses sex as a means of harming, intimidating, subjugating, humiliating and terrorizing the victim. The intent is to act in violence towards the victim using sex as a tool of violence.

The actions are similar but there are ways that rape is not like sex, but they will based upon 'subjective criterai of the participants'.
1. Consent of the victim.
I know there is a language barrier but you need to read what INTENT is, and anwers questions without delving into realms of stupidity.

AND AGAIN. I will not answer another post from you, if you don't get gentile.

Of course I understood what luchogs POINT was. But I think it's NOT a good comparison. For, if I:

1) Passed by a woman on the street and raped her in my imagination, but do nothing to indicate her of what I was thinking, what would she know? What harm would it do her? In the case of the OP, this would be equivalent to the cop thinking about shooting the victim, but actually doing nothing.

2) Passed by a woman and whispered "If you don't (whatever), I'm going to rape you" in her ear, it would equal the warning shout of the police: "Freeze, drop down your weapon, or we'll open fire!" Thus threatening the object of violence. BUT STILL NOT DOING ANYTHING. Of course, in this case, the woman would be already harrassed and would have cause to react, whereas the guy in the video is merely being given a last chance to cooperate.

3) Passed by a woman, imagined I'd rape her, threaten her AND THEN DO IT, only then would it be the proper equivalent to what happened in the video.

So luchog's comparison would've worked in an original situation as in number 1. That's why I think it is not a good example. Intending to rape somebody, but not doing anything is not a crime. As is not thinking about killing somebody. Get my point now?

Apparently some countries might ahave a problem in general as to what constitues rape:
I take Amnesty witha grain of salt:
http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Amnesty+International+criticises+Finnish+rape+legi slation/1135239507838

Is this true that if a victim is asleep or intoxicated/unconscious then it is not rape?

Wow.

Rape does not need violence to occur, restrainst and intimidation are commonly used.

Wow.

If your trying to attack my feeling of nationality, it won't work. It's only for you US guys (at least you guys seem to take your country somewhat personally when reading through the threads). I've lived abroad and travelled way too much to have any emotional attachement to the piece of Earth that's been decided to be called Finland.

I think the laws on rape in Finland are proposterous. Actually, I'm part of a group which is forcefully driving campaigns to get people's awareness on the subject. So no preaching needed here, thank you.

Now, I couldn't find one decent argument in your post taking the conversation on the OP an inch further. If you have nothing worth saying regarding it, save some adolescent nagging, maybe you should keep your dancing fingers off the keyboard on this one. It's really a shame to run into this kind of behaviour in such a short time as a member of these forums.

[Professor Yaffle]

Once again, please refrain from making mocking arguments, if you wish to keep up a dialogue with me. What I wrote is true, and if several surveys of rapist behavioral patterns, rape as a physical act, the mental counseling for rape victims and indepth conversation with sexual therapists (hired to work on a large pedophile scandal in Finland a couple of years back) count as "cereal box" reading, fine.

My studies have led me to the impression that in most cases gynecologists find physical trauma on a rape victim, usually absent after willing intercourse. Of course, most rapes don't get reported (one reason being that most rapes, at least in Finland, are comitted by a close relative), and if they are, many are reprted so long (due to psychological shock, shame etc.), after the incident, that the worst physical trauma has healed.

Are the differences reliable enough to be presented as evidence in court? Is so, why do so many cases end with an acquittal because the accused's defence is that the sex was consensual? Do you have any references for this?

You also seem to have avoided answering whether you think that in all cases with a killing there should be a presumption of guilt rather than a preumption of innocence. Because if you are calling all killings murder because of the possibility that the shooter's main intention was to kill - do you think it should be treated this way in law, or just in your own head. Do you treat all crimes this way, or just ones that result in death?

ETA - when you say "a close relative" what exactly do you mean?

[Tapio]

Are the differences reliable enough to be presented as evidence in court? Is so, why do so many cases end with an acquittal because the accused's defence is that the sex was consensual? Do you have any references for this?

It's past midnight in Finland, so I'll check for papers tomorrow.

But all in all, at least in Finland, you constantly hear of women who go to report their being raped to the police, and the first response they get is: "what did you do, so that this happened?"

Actually, there's this one case where a woman started keeping her own blog after being raped, and this was used as an attack by the defence in court. She was questioned whether she "planned on getting raped to get a reason to start a blog". Unfathomable, eh?!

If this kind of attitude is present in court (not saying it is, but knowing a couple of cases where it very likely seems to be the case), I believe it won't be hard for the defense to convince the judge, in spite of having medical records on physical trauma, that "they just had it a bit rough."

You also seem to have avoided answering whether you think that in all cases with a killing there should be a presumption of guilt rather than a preumption of innocence. Because if you are calling all killings murder because of the possibility that the shooter's main intention was to kill - do you think it should be treated this way in law, or just in your own head. Do you treat all crimes this way, or just ones that result in death?

Sorry, missed that question while trying to cope with the emotional attack of Dancing David there.

I think "all cases of killing" is way to broad to discuss here. But if we say "all cases in which a suspect is shot to death by an on-duty police officer", I'd say the presumption to be innocence. I believe in the majority of police men and women to be doing their utmost best to keep things safe and secure. But this doesn't mean they're not suspects to primitive human reaction.

Once more. The OP asks : Does this look (emphasis mine) justifiable to you? My answer is no. Not to me. Maybe a hundred other cop-shoots-suspect videos would, but not this one. So please understand that I'm not (at least conciously) trying to generalize in any way. I'm trying to keep my opinion on topic.

I'm in no position in my life to "treat crimes" in one way or the other. Or do you mean by treating how I position myself according to them? I disagree with the Finnish law in many points, and have committed acts of civil disobience throughout my life. So I've really had to think about these things, interesting food for thought as they are.

ETA - when you say "a close relative" what exactly do you mean?

Sorry, noticed a wrong word there. I mistook "relative" to meaning "somebody who you lnow well". So replace the word with that, and you'll get my point. Thanks for pointing that out!

[luchog]

I'm skeptical towards your two first sentences. I would imagine, that if there were statistics done on how many people are killed in self-defence per day in the world, killing another person in a blink of an eye wouldn't seem that difficult, and would absolutely be possible without training.

I suggest that you look into the literature. In the US at least, killing in self-defense is very uncommon, and very often has serious negative repercussions for the individual defending himself. They also typically end up in counselling, and have a suicide rate higher than the general population; as do police and military personnel.

Other parts of the world are not comperable; particularly the Third World, since human life is given very little value, and killing has an entirely different psychological impact. No, I'll have to amend that, the amount of killing that happens in those regions is a direct result of the dehumanization and depersonalization which is so common. It's not possible to kill without serious psychological consequences without that level of dehumanization and depersonalization.

The question is, regardless of the case: How can we know for sure the killing happened in self-defence and not as an act of rage towards a person who's threatening the killer's life?

That is what police investigators are trained to determine.

We can't know for sure, and that's my point. Even after all the great new knowledge I've got from this thread regarding police work in the US and using firearms and tazers, I think what the police did in the video is most likely murder.

Based on what evidence? There is nowhere near enough evidence available to us to make a determination either way; although the nature of police work and it's history and accompanying psychological literature would tend to work against your conclusion, and more in favour of the officer.

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.

Your English skills are lacking, since you appear to have completely missed the point of my comment. There is no way that anyone can know for sure that you don't intend to rape a women, just as there is no way to know for sure that a police officer doesn't intend to kill a suspect. It's called "proving a negative" and is a logical fallacy.

You are starting with a presumption of guilt, and demanding that someone else prove a negative. That is impossible, and an invalid argument. The rest of us are starting with the facts, and basing our conclusion strictly on what evidence is available to us.

PLease, is it so hard to accept that I have a different view on this subject than you? And, that this view is not because of a biased understanding of facts, but due to what I saw on the videos, read in the article, serious thinking and reseach on the human psyche?
No, it's clearly biased, since you started out this thread with the conclusion that the incident was murder, and have clearly been approaching all the facts with that conclusion in mind, demanding other posters to prove negatives. The reasonable, skeptical approach would be to start with no conclusions, and simply follow what the facts are in this case. There is nowhere near enough evidence in the videos that have been posted to make any kind of determination of intent. That is why all police departments in the US, and I'm assuming western Europe as well, have personnel -- investigative officers and psychologists -- who are trained on doing exactly that.

[luchog]

If this kind of attitude is present in court (not saying it is, but knowing a couple of cases where it very likely seems to be the case), I believe it won't be hard for the defense to convince the judge, in spite of having medical records on physical trauma, that "they just had it a bit rough."

You evaded the question, you didn't answer it.

The fact is that the physical evidence is more often than not insufficient to completely differentiate between rape and rough sex; and almost impossible when the victim is unconscious or unresisting.

Once more. The OP asks : Does this look (emphasis mine) justifiable to you? My answer is no. Not to me. Maybe a hundred other cop-shoots-suspect videos would, but not this one.
You are not a trained investigator, and have access to only a very very small fragment of the entire incident; so you cannot possibly make such a determination with any kind of accuracy. Continuing to insist on your viewpoint is strong evidence of bias, not rational evaluation of the evidence.

[Dancing David]

Tapio, I have worked in domestic violence and with rape victims, you are uninformed, show the data.

RAPE is non-consensual sex, I think you are misinformed if you can come up with valid research that makes your point.

there are not physical markers that are always present in the case of rape.


BTW I notice you have already evaded this question before, figures.
that is where i ams aying you are misinformed, but by all means act as though you feelings are hurt.

RAPE is non-consensual sex, and you made an unsupported assertion.

I do not support handgun possesion either and some of your claims about hand guns and shooting poeple in the arms or legs are unsupported as well.

You can now show your data.

My contentions still stands, less rudely stated.

You do not know of which you speak, you can not differentiate rape from consensual sex by evidence of truama to the vagina and cervix. The precense of black eyes, bites marks, hand restraint bruises would not be present in non battery cases of rape/

How can you tell is the perpetrator threatened to fire someone and used intimidation to force rape Tapio?

Lets us see the data you allege that you have.

[Matthew Best]

It seems the conversation has drifted from the original incident quite a bit, but I thought this link might be of interest. It's a look at the videos by a crime scene analyst and forensic photographer. (http://www.alexanderjason.com/shreveport.htm)

[Lonewulf]

Huh, that was very in-depth and detail. I agree with him that this case seems a clear cut case of the fault being with the perp, and not with the police. So yes, I think this is justifiable.

I'm sad that he wielded a cell phone as if it was a weapon. I'm wondering if this was suicide by cop?

But yeah, apparently cell phones might just be a hidden firearm. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxIjkBVEtyE

Scary stuff.

[Moochie]

It seems the conversation has drifted from the original incident quite a bit, but I thought this link might be of interest. It's a look at the videos by a crime scene analyst and forensic photographer. (http://www.alexanderjason.com/shreveport.htm)


Yeah, it confirms what I thought happened upon a first viewing of the video, and on learning the guy didn't have a gun but a cell phone, which one can clearly see him brandishing and pointing toward the officer behind him in a gesture that makes it look like he is going to shoot.

Suicide by cop.


M.

[jsiv]

Also he told me, that a few days ago they had a gathering with experts from diffrent countrys, among them someone from Norway, a guy that works with Flemming, Flemming seems to be a big experts on this things from Norway.
It has to be put into context though.

Norway has traditionally not had much gun-related crime. It has usually been restricted to someone getting their shotgun out in an argument with a neighbor, or someone killing their family with a military reserve weapon.

As a result, Norwegian police do not carry firearms. And even when they do respond to a call that requires them to arm themselves (if the suspect is reported to be armed), the standard sidearm is in most cases still a revolver.

Things are changing though, as violent crime is becoming more common.

[Travis]

My step-dad was in the CHP for 35 years and he said they had what they called "no-sense shooters" which is a situation where, after being pulled over, someone just starts shooting at the officer for no apparent reason. They don't have warrants for their arrest or any drugs in the vehicle. They just start shooting for reasons that are usually never determined because they usually end up dead. This happens frequently enough here in California that everyone in the CHP is expected to encounter it at some point in their career. For my step-dad it happened near Merced after he pulled a guy over just to give him a littering ticket. That guy ended up dead and my step-dad took a bullet to the shoulder that still causes him problems to this very day.

Because of things like "no-sense shooters" I tend to side with the idea that cops should be allowed to use lethal force in the heat of the moment.

[Tapio]

Dancing David. I know this imust be frustrating to you. Please, first read again what I've really written earlier in the thread, then evaluate your assumptions again.

After this, would you please specify on what subject do you wish me to present data I've claimed to have the knowledge on?

The rest of you. After the last few posts I'm starting to sense we're talking about two different things here. I've been posting on the topic on if what happened in the video looks justifiable to me, as stated in the title of this thread. Wheras the lot of you go on gathering evidence from different sources to decide whether it IS justifiable by law. No wonder it seems impossible for you to agree to disagree with me.

I took the title literally, you as an invocation to dig deeper behind the scene. I genuinely respect that. But it was not what I understood the thread to be about. I gave my opinion on the subject according to the title, only based on the video, you waited to get more evidence. I respect that also, but didn't understand the thread to be about such behaviour.

Now I know better. This has been very educating.

I see I have a lot to learn in the ways of a skeptic. I'm grateful for the new information aquired here.

[Dancing David]

That example has now relevance whatsoever on this subject. And, is a poor example anyway, because we can physiologically most likely differentiate rape from normal, willing sexual behaviour. And after most rapes, as horrid as they are, the victim stays alive to tell us her/his side of the story.




Here it is this is the statement, of many strange ones that you made that is unsupported by the evidence.

As I stated earlier, other than the testimony of the victims, if there is no battery of the victim, it will be impossible to tell rape from consensual rough sex. Also if sex is coerced through intimidation there may be no bruising, tearing of the vagina and cervix.

And the subject of intent is very germane, you are the one who said that the shooting should be murder, now hasty and subject to review yes, but not automatic murder.

Which is why the issue of intent is crucial, which is why i said that rape is a crime of violence, the intent is not to have sex, it is to humiliate, terrify and abuse the victim. The pleasure of the sexual intercourse is secondary, at best, to the perverse thrill of coersion.

Now perhaps you will support your statement in bold.

The rest was anger at your statemenst that seem to make a strange case about the physical evidence in rape. The comments about Finnish law are regards the strangeness of having sex with a passed out individual and not considering it rape, or having non-physical violence (battery) and it not being rape. If I threaten to fire you, evict you or kill your puuppy to force you to have sex with me, it is violence and it is rape. Does Finnish law allow for marital rape?

Now Finnish law may not be what Amnesty reported as well.

[Euromutt]

Police officers in the states are usually issued 9mm handguns, and I can only assume that they went with a standard load-out (no hollow points).
You're a little out of date. High-capacity 9mm Parabellums were popular in the late 1980s/early 1990s, but since then, the .40 S&W has become the most popular cartridge for law enforcement, hands down. Part of the reason, or so I'm given to understand, is that the .40 S&W is comparatively bad at penetrating body armor, making it more difficult for cops to be fatally shot with their own guns. The .357 SIG is gaining some popularity (the state police forces of Iowa and New Mexico use it, I believe), but the NYPD is probably the largest police force to still use 9mm Para. The NYPD was also one of the last agencies to switch to hollowpoints, after the Diallo shooting.

I think somebody earlier in the thread quoted an article that the two officers in this incident were using .40-cal Glocks (i.e. model 22 or 23), loaded with hollowpoints. I seem to recall from having read about this incident some years ago that the guy who got shot was seriously out of his head on something.

ETA Correction: I don't know that Marquise Hudspeth (the guy shot) was on something, but he did lead the cops on a 120 km/h-speed chase for 8 km through a city after one cop tried to pull him over for suspected drunk driving, so there may have been alcohol involved, and definitely a lot of adrenaline.

[Tapio]

The rest was anger at your statemenst that seem to make a strange case about the physical evidence in rape. The comments about Finnish law are regards the strangeness of having sex with a passed out individual and not considering it rape, or having non-physical violence (battery) and it not being rape. If I threaten to fire you, evict you or kill your puuppy to force you to have sex with me, it is violence and it is rape. Does Finnish law allow for marital rape?

Has it occured to you, that because of my not speaking English as my mothertongue there might be some thoughts I want to express, but which I fail to do in a detailed and (to you) fully comprehensable manner, simply because I don't know how to do it? Have you, even once, in your anger given a moments pause to ponder on the fact that what I'm writing is but a translation. Maybe a little better one than the average Finn could manage to do, but in the end, still a translation. I go through great lengths in trying to succeed in making my posts as adequately spelled, and use the right words to describe things accordingly, but it's all bound to fall short in my not being able to express exactly what I mean. Can you see how this might result in you getting the wrong impression from what I write, and how it could be recommendable for you to first check if you've understood me correctly (by asking from me, as you would hopefully do with anyone, let alone a person who's an amateur in writing English) before lashing out in anger?

As I stated before, Finnish laws on rape are abhorring. They do not allow marital rape, but count marriage as a "reducing circumstance" (I don't know the right word and couldn't find it). There's also a very unsettling new decree regarding the settling of home violence and sexual abuse. If somebody decides to drop charges against her/his husband/wife and agrees to go and try settle it with the aid of this special social worker of sorts, without going to court, after that they can't press charges agin, even if the settlement is unsatifying to them. So this has made it possible (in many cases proved afterwards) for the accused violator to intimidate the victim into settlement, after which everything goes back to square one again. Also, if after settling some incident once, the same kind of thing happens again and the victim goes to report it, they might well get a really dull reception in the way of "oh, c'mon, this was already settled before by us. Can't you just handle it yourself this time?" This has been recorded to happen alarmingly often, especially in cases with the women as victims.

Here it is this is the statement, of many strange ones that you made that is unsupported by the evidence.

Now perhaps you will support your statement in bold.

Hm. First of all, I'm not "evading" the question. I happen to have a life of my own (shared with four other members of my family) outside these forums. Excuse me for being a bit slow in responding.

I suspect that this is one of the misunderstandings due to how I use English. I get the feeling you consider me to be a moron. Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, but you really don't seem to believe me when I say this is a subject I've studied a whole lot about. I'm not claiming to be a professional sociologist, specialized in the research concerning rape, but I have educated myself fairly well on the subject.

As you can see, in the claim I wrote "most likely". There I'm taking into account ALL different kinds of rape, ranging from babies to old people, and the rapes of both women and men. The average amount of physical injuries on +/- 20-year-old women varies a bit depending on the study, but most of the data puts it to somewhere around 50% of all cases. However, physical trauma on children and young teens is a lot more common. Also, you completely disregarded the sentence after the bolded one. There I was trying to elaborate further my view of how also the phychological aspects of rape victims can (and must) be used to help in differentiating consensual sex from rape.

Here's a couple of links to English texts regarding this. I have a lot of material in Finnish, but don't have the time to start translating it right now. I will, if you wish, but I don't see the point, because the results are quite congruent with most of the ones in English.

http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:89888 (http://lib.bioinfo.pl/meid:89888)

http://books.google.fi/books?id=-o6ZXECf6A4C&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=physical+trauma+caused+by+rape&source=bl&ots=wbHG1aVdNX&sig=FJi-vDP2wHdsxRehftBcsZGAppc&hl=fi&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result#PPA88,M1

The "rape fact sheet" from CDC

http://www.medhelp.org/NIHlib/GF-617.html

Here's a brief history of the definition itself with some relevant figures

http://www.acvcc.state.al.us/asads/sexualassault.htm
(http://www.acvcc.state.al.us/asads/sexualassault.htm)

From here you can also find some general figures of rape in the US. I picked out the ones concerning physical injury below the link.


http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm (http://www.paralumun.com/issuesrapestats.htm)


- In 47% of rapes, the victim sustained injuries other than rape injuries.
- 75% of female rape victims require medical care after the attack.
- Non-genital physical injuries occur in approximately 40% of completed rape cases.18 As many as 3% of all rape cases have non-genital injuries requiring overnight hospitalization.19
- Victims of rape often manifest long-term symptoms of chronic headaches,18,20fatigue20, sleep disturbance20, recurrent nausea,20 decreased appetite,21 eating disorders,22 menstrual pain,18 sexual dysfunction,23 and suicide attempts.21 In a longitudinal study, sexual assault was found to increase the odds of substance abuse by a factor of 2.5.24
- Estimates of the occurrence of sexually transmitted diseases resulting from rape range from 3.6% to 30%.18,22 HIV transmission risk rate from rape is estimated at 1 in 500,22,25 although a few probable cases have been documented in Sweden and Great Britain. 26,27
- Victims of marital or date rape are 11 times more likely to be clinically depressed, and 6 times more likely to experience social phobia than are non-victims. Psychological problems are still evident in cases as long as 15 years after the assault.28
- Fatalities occur in about 0.1% of all rape cases.29,30
- A study examining the use of health services over a five year period by female members of a health maintenance program found that the number of visits to physicians by rape victims increased 56% in the year following the crime, compared to a 2% utilization increase by non-victims.31


This one's also interesting (on how it might be harder to detect physical trauma on dark-skinned women)


http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_70605.html (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_70605.html)

After this I don't know a better word to use than "most likely", when talking about if we can differentiate rape from consensual sex using the physical marks and the psychological state of the victim. Maybe you can help me find an adequate word.

And the subject of intent is very germane, you are the one who said that the shooting should be murder, now hasty and subject to review yes, but not automatic murder.

I didn't say it should be murder. In answering the title of the thread I said to me it looked like murder. Now it appears, that at least according to the law, it wasn't. Fine by me, though it still looks unjustified to me.

[Dancing David]

Sorry, I get het up (angry) about certain issues and from what you are saying now, your statement appears to be more reasonable. And my response very unreasonable.

So you agree, to the point I made, you can not tell if rape occured just from physical evidence.

You have pointed to what I was discussing, that it is the marks from what would be termed battery or unlawful restraint that you are talking about. Which was the point I was referencing, that you can not distinguish rape from consensual sex solely on the basis of the physical evidence.

I apologise for my anger, but most of my statements still stand, if not the tone of them.

You have explained yourself and I appreciate that, although my reference to your evasion is in response to Luchog's posts.

I apologise for my apparent and intended rudeness.

There is a real problem when it comes to rape and I mis-interpreted what you wrote. I do appreaciate the problems of cross language translation, I have lived in another country for large amounts of my childhood and appreciate language difficulties.

So I apologise for my rudeness and vehemence. You were not saying what I thought you were saying and ended up agreeing with the point I was making.

As someone who has not supported the Presidency of the US for 5 of the 8 terms since I have been able to vote, I do not hold you to blame for the laws of your nation. It is in fact a glaring problem for most countries and a real sore point here in the US, the legal system fails miserably when it comes to rape and domestic violence.

I regret my actions towards you and apologise.

[Drudgewire]

I'd like to think we'd all be able to come together and agree there's absolutely no justification for raping guns. :)

[Dancing David]

After this I don't know a better word to use than "most likely", when talking about if we can differentiate rape from consensual sex using the physical marks and the psychological state of the victim. Maybe you can help me find an adequate word.
.

I would avoid the most likely since non-consensual sex often occurs without physical violnce. It is just a sore point for me.

In Illinois the child sexual abuse laws had to be modified from the original, which involved penetrative sexual contact with a minor. (Outside of the Romeo/Julliette scenario) It now has to be phrased as 'activity meant to provide sexual gratification of the perpetrator' and the reasons for this is that, voyeurism, non-penetrative contact, masturbation in the presense of, viewing pornography in the presense of the minor were not illegal under the original defintion. In fact I have had to argue with DCFS (Department of Children and family Services) Hotline workers about this.
Many adult perpetrators are well aquainted with the exact wording of the law and use it to their advantage.

Just as it was not 'child abuse' to choke your child, unless you left bruises on them. (They changed that to 'actions which are at considerable risk of harming the child'.)

And a myriad of other legalistic terms in the law, the legislature is responsive fortunately, but the sad things is that non-consensual sex often does not involve physical violence.

So I should have made that very clear and left the vitriol out.

[gumboot]

Finland is lucky to have really low crime, because their police regulations are downright retarded and dangerous.


Finland has the third highest reported crime rate in the world.

[gumboot]

If the police gun use regulations in countries like Finland are as they are being presented in this thread, I must say I am quite disturbed.

New Zealand, in many ways, resembles countries like Finland. We have stringent gun control laws, and self defense is not a justified reason for using a gun. We also have very high rates of gun ownership. And we have, rare in this world, an unarmed police force. Any incident involving an armed police officer is news-worthy. The only difference I can see between Finland and New Zealand is we have far less crime.

And yet, New Zealand police always shoot to kill. They never fire warning shots, and they always aim for the torso.

Worse still, is the attitude behind these Finnish laws. Someone mentioned something about Finnish police not being allowed to approach a dangerous offender in this situation.

Fundamentally, the job of the police is to protect the law abiding innocent civilian population from criminals. As part of this job they are expected to put themselves in harm's way to prevent criminal activity, and to protect civilians.

It seems to me that these Finnish laws are designed to protect criminals from the police. You have to ask why Finland even bothers to have a police force at all, given their attitude.

Perhaps that's why they have such a high crime rate.

[tomwaits]

And we have, rare in this world, an unarmed police force.

Aren't unarmed police forces common in Europe? Do you mean unarmed as in no guns, or unarmed as in no weapons at all?

[tyr_13]

I'd like to think we'd all be able to come together and agree there's absolutely no justification for raping guns. :)

Come on! Did you see the finish it had? It was just asking for it. (Insert 'half cocked' and 'slider' jokes here.)

[Tapio]

Dancing David. Wow.

This is the only forum I've ever seen anybody apologize. I respect your showing me through your last posts, that the true skeptical frame of mind is a wonderful and adaptable one. Apology accepted. I've learned a valuable lesson on giving comments and how to be more careful in the way I put my words. Thanks for it! I will be more spesific and thorough from now on.

[Dancing David]

Dancing David. Wow.

This is the only forum I've ever seen anybody apologize. I respect your showing me through your last posts, that the true skeptical frame of mind is a wonderful and adaptable one. Apology accepted. I've learned a valuable lesson on giving comments and how to be more careful in the way I put my words. Thanks for it! I will be more spesific and thorough from now on.

Um, I apologise about every six months, again i was rude and over confrontational. i am sorry.

You deserve a better welcome than you got from me. :(

Welcome to the Forum. :)