Cops shooting.... not just black people..

[Laila]

So, in Sweden, they actually say they should shoot to "incapacitate."

So, let's see how Sweden stacks up to England, where they will not shoot to wound.

Swedish population: 9.6m
UK population: 64.1m

Number of shots fired by police towards citizens in Sweden in 2013: 30. 17 warning shots, 13 at the targets
Citizens killed by police in Sweden in 2013: 4

Source: http://www.nrk.no/rogaland/svensk-po...est-1.11911161


Number of shots fired by police toward citizens in the UK in 2013: 3.
Number of citizens killed by police in the UK in 2013: 0.

Double Source http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/p...oting-someone/
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...8/armed-police


So, 7 times more citizens.

1/10 as many citizens shot by cops.

0 killed vs 4 killed.


Which one is doing it right again?

[Bakis]

Comparing countries and years in a vacuum and with no other parameters is always nice.
On the good side though you finally believe everyone does not shoot to kill on I felt slightly threatened basis.

How common is it to police use of firearms?
It is unusual. On average shoot police for effect against a person at about 20 times per year. It can be set against the police makes a total of 1.3 million interventions per year. For effect means that the police shooting of a person or an object, such as a vehicle, to meet and stop the person or vehicle.

Upon further about 20 times per year shoot police warning shots. This means that fires the weapon to warn that it will be used. A warning shots directed in a safe direction so that no one is likely to meet. The most common way that the police use the firearm is that only threaten it without firing shots. It occurs at less than 200 times per year

How often killed one of the police?
It is very rare that someone dies after being shot by police. Each such case is tragic for everyone involved, and of course any police wants to avoid. But the legislature has given police the right to use firearms, and in some situations, lethal violence is inevitable to protect others.
Over a longer period, the last twenty years, an average of one person per year died. But the statistics vary over the years. Some years dies no one, other years more. The highest number of deaths was four and occurred in 2013. In 1999, killed three people which was the second highest number. During the years 1996, 1997, 2007, 2008, 2012 killed no one.

[Laila]

Also, it bears mentioning that the Swedish policy is from 1969, when far, far, far less scientific understanding of both the actual physics of hitting that size target had been sought, and there was far less understanding of the role stress plays as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Comparing countries and years in a vacuum and with no other parameters is always nice.

It's freaking hard to find those statistics here. However, that same article mentions that just a few months into 2014, they'd already killed 3 more, while in the UK there was only 1 for all of last year. We're also talking about a citizenry 1/7th the size in Sweden.

On the good side though you finally believe everyone does not shoot to kill on I felt slightly threatened basis.

Stop it with this garbage, I have told you over and over I am espousing LESS firearm usage, this strawman shit is the argument of someone that's completely worthless to talk to.

I guess I should have figured that out about you like 10 pages ago, though.


It's especially ironic given that you keep resorting to "hurr durr stupid violent american" while using the arguing tactics of the infamous gun-nuts and far right militant "cops are always right no matter what they do as long as it's not to me" crazies, all while espousing more violence than me.

[Bakis]

All I hear is bla bla from someone proved wrong with what the discussion was about.

[Deleted]

i guess arresting a wounded guy on the floor is quicker, then chasing him around for a few minutes.
unfortunately all cops had the same idea of "wounding" him and therefor riddled him.
#onlyinamerica #gunsftw

[Wildtree]

Ah finally found exactly what Laila said was lies.

Legislation on when and how to use fire arms by police in Sweden

Courtesy of Google Translate.

Here's the German Police law excerpt.

§ 66
Allgemeine Vorschriften für den Schußwaffengebrauch

(1) Schußwaffen dürfen nur gebraucht werden, wenn andere Maßnahmen des unmittelbaren Zwanges erfolglos angewendet sind oder offensichtlich keinen Erfolg versprechen. Gegen Personen ist ihr Gebrauch nur zulässig, wenn der Zweck nicht durch Schußwaffengebrauch gegen Sachen erreicht werden kann.

(2) Schußwaffen dürfen gegen Personen nur gebraucht werden, um angriffs- oder fluchtunfähig zu machen. Ein Schuss, der mit an Sicherheit grenzender Wahrscheinlichkeit tödlich wirken wird, ist nur zulässig, wenn er das einzige Mittel zur Abwehr einer gegenwärtigen Lebensgefahr oder der gegenwärtigen Gefahr einer schwerwiegenden Verletzung der körperlichen Unversehrtheit ist.

Transl:
§ 66
General rules for the use of firearms

(1) Firearms may only be used when other measures of direct force are applied unsuccessfully, or any promise of success. Against persons their use is allowed only if the purpose can not be achieved by the use of firearms against property.

(2) Firearms may only be used against people to disable them from attacking or escaping.
A shot that is lethal with near certainty, is admissible only if it is the only means to avert imminent danger of death or the present risk of a extreme injury of physical integrity.

So, double whammy.....
There's a situational requirement as to when a cop is even allowed to fire.... And if he does, there's a heap of laws how to use said force...
There's more paragraphs dealing with the matter... It wouldn't be Germany if there weren't laws and regulations the size of the bible. lol
damn "inventors" of the bureaucracy.

[Laila]

All I hear is bla bla from someone proved wrong with what the discussion was about.

Oh, so now you're just outright stating it when you're ignoring the facts and data, k.

You found one 50 year old policy from one country.

You want proof of my statement that most of the informed world agrees with me? Google shoot to wound, see how many results you find that are negative vs positive.

(Hint: all you'll find from credible sources are arguments against it.)

[Wildtree]

Which one is doing it right again?

You know Sweden has an escalating violence problem for some years with asylum seeker/immigrants gangs, right?
Judging from that, Sweden does a mighty fine job, still..

[Bakis]

Oh, so now you're just outright stating it when you're ignoring the facts and data, k.

You found one 50 year old policy from one country.

You want proof of my statement that most of the informed world agrees with me? Google shoot to wound, see how many results you find that are negative vs positive.

(Hint: all you'll find from credible sources are arguments against it.)

What are you arguing now, it all boils down to your claim being proved wrong TWICE and you are seem upset about handling that fact.
Googling didnt prove anything to you yet you want it to prove your point.

/facepalm

[Laila]

A shot that is lethal with near certainty, is admissible only if it is the only means to avert imminent danger of death or the present risk of a extreme injury of physical integrity.

This doesn't mean what you think it does. A shot to center mass from most distances is not "lethal with near certainty."

This is prohibiting them from like shooting someone in the face from point blank range unless they absolutely have to, or just unloading on people like the ridiculous American policy to basically make sure they're dead instead of stopping within reason.

- - - Updated - - -

You know Sweden has an escalating violence problem for some years with asylum seeker/immigrants gangs, right?
Judging from that, Sweden does a mighty fine job, still..

You know England has literally had that same problem at a multitudes higher level for centuries, right?

[Wildtree]

This doesn't mean what you think it does. A shot to center mass from most distances is not "lethal with near certainty."

This is prohibiting them from like shooting someone in the face from point blank range unless they absolutely have to, or just unloading on people like the ridiculous American policy to basically make sure they're dead instead of stopping within reason.

it means to disable..
The top priority, the number 1 premisses is.... Arrest.
That's where the difference lies, likely to the US handling...
The arrest comes above all else.

You know England has literally had that same problem at a multitudes higher level for centuries, right?

No, that is incomparable.
Sweden is in a very unique situation with this problem, and it's magnitude. It's also a rather recent problem, for maybe some 4 - 5 yrs, I'd say.

I really don't know how much more proof people have to give, at this point.

You were given a court case, where a Swedish Cop has been convicted for manslaughter, killing a suspect that was chasing another police officer. The conviction was only overruled because of the fact that the cop did not receive proper training and instructions. And not because shooting people dead is permissible.

Besides..... No one's ever said that every center mass shot is deadly. I am pretty sure I've said that it only increases the fatality dramatically vs shots at extremities. And if firing at center mass as "not always deadly" serves as an excuse, then I'd say we can discard a guy throwing around a few pebbles, entirely..
Go out of the house, grab a few small rocks from the ground. Run, and throw them..
See how well you are doing... See how much actual force you can produce while running backwards/sideways, like the guy in the vid does.

[Moadar]

I like how this is called straight up murder but when that white kid answered his door and was killed by a cop for holding a wii remote people here said just chalked it up to cops making a mistake.

[Wildtree]

I like how this is called straight up murder but when that white kid answered his door and was killed by a cop for holding a wii remote people here said just chalked it up to cops making a mistake.

Unlikely did the people that are calling this case a murder say it was a mistake with the kid.
Generalizations are NEVER an argument... And you've just generalized.

[madmanx]

You know Sweden has an escalating violence problem for some years with asylum seeker/immigrants gangs, right?
Judging from that, Sweden does a mighty fine job, still..

Where the hell did you get that stupid idea??

Sweden has a problem with idiot, uneducated, poor-white-trash Swedes from Hicksville that would rather than grow a spine and fix their own problems, blame it on people from Somalia. That is the opinion of a majority of Sweden's population btw and trust me when I say that...they aren't wrong.

[Bluesftw]

if you act all twitchy and do sudden moves in the country where cops suspect everyone to carry concealed gun, i call that natural selection.

[Wildtree]

Where the hell did you get that stupid idea??

Sweden has a problem with idiot, uneducated, poor-white-trash Swedes from Hicksville that would rather than grow a spine and fix their own problems, blame it on people from Somalia. That is the opinion of a majority of Sweden's population btw and trust me when I say that...they aren't wrong.

The problem is two sided..
And it doesn't change the argument... It is a unique outlier situation that creates a for Sweden unusual higher violence situation.
He tried to shame Sweden for something that is caused by unusual circumstance.