Does this look justifiable to you?

Tapio said:
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.
Click to expand...


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

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.
 
chillzero said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
http://www.usdoj.gov/crs/pubs/pdexcess.htm#41
 
chillzero said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
Tapio said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Tapio said:
Why? Why? Why?
Click to expand...


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."
 
Tapio said:
Why? Why? Why?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

If it is reasonable to do so an oral warning is to be given before opening fire.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'm just amazed that many criminals wear their pants in a fashion that makes it impossible for them to run away.
 
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...

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)? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom