Does this look justifiable to you?

[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

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!

 

[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.

 

[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