Does this look justifiable to you?

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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:
 
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_homicide


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

ETA - regarding the first translation, that is.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 

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/videosear...q=shreveport police shooting 2003&hl=en&emb=0
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 

Back
Top Bottom