Does this look justifiable to you?

Tapio said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Tapio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
billydkid said:
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.
Click to expand...

A good lesson in evidence gathering and context, then.
;)
 
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?
 
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.
 
chillzero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
PingOfPong said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tapio said:
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.
Click to expand...


Hmm, I have to wonder why you believe this to be the case? Could you clarify?
 
Tapio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
chillzero said:
A good lesson in evidence gathering and context, then.
;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
chillzero said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
Kuko 4000 said:
Hmm, I have to wonder why you believe this to be the case? Could you clarify?
Click to expand...

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.
 
billydkid said:
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.
Click to expand...


quincy.jpg


"Getting shot at first is no excuse. It was MUUUUUUHDEEHRRRR, Sam."
 
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2005/jul/police-firearms-1987.htm

Denmark:

16[FONT=KDIBEH+Garamond,Garamond]. (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.
[/FONT]
17[FONT=KDIBEH+Garamond,Garamond]. (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.
[/FONT]
Click to expand...
[FONT=KDIBEH+Garamond,Garamond] [/FONT]
[FONT=KDIBEH+Garamond,Garamond]http://www.politi.dk/NR/rdonlyres/20DE43AF-33F4-48C5-A710-6A58457E35D2/0/Engelskresum%C3%A9afendeligrapport.pdf[/FONT]
[FONT=KDIBEH+Garamond,Garamond]
[/FONT]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
 
Kuko 4000 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
chillzero said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Finland#Manslaughter.2C_murder.2C_homicide
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom