-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man attempts to kill artist of the controversial Muhammad cartoons, and is arrested.
- Thread starter xelios
- Start date
- Status
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Boogie said:
Yet no passer by has been harmed by a warning shot yet, at least not in Sweden as far as I know. Most of the times when they shoot for a limb it also sems that the criminal is fairly stationary and cornered and not moving around too much but remaining very threatening (maybe slowly advancing with a knife, for instance). But again, it also depends on the situation. I mean, there's a special task force for the severe and dangerous situations.
EDIT: It seems like the danish police force also uses a type of hollow point ammuntion which reduces the risk of ricocheting according to that PDF someone posted earlier. Since the introduction of that, there hasn't been any case of the bullet going through and hitting a third party in Denmark.
Jean-Claude Picard
Banned
Boogie said:
:lol Where exactly do they allow people like you to carry a gun? Just from the bullshit you spout it's clear you should stay as far away from anything law related as possible.
blame space
Banned
Jean-Claude Picard said:
:lol
:lol :lol
Dabookerman
Member
blame space said:
:lol I love the symbolism. I think a pig should be involved for massive damage.
No, encouraging the use of a firearm for non-lethal purposes is what's stupid. A gun does only one thing well, seriously injure or kill people, or I guess animals, that's it. That's what they're made for. Encouraging the use of a deadly weapon in non deadly scenarios is just begging for innocent people to get hurt. I'm a gun owner myself, was an ex-infantryman in the Army and have used firearms a lot, I would never use a gun so casually, if I pull it on you and the initial intimidation factor alone doesn't stop you, your ass is dead, at least that's what I'm going to try and do, if fate deems otherwise and you get hit in the shoulder or arm, well it was your lucky day but I'm going to try and kill you, that's what the gun's for and that's why I'd use it. If I was absolutely intent on bringing you in alive I'd try to physically restrain you instead, pulling that gun with the intent of using it without hurting you too much is beyond idiotic. It's some fantasy shit.Jean-Claude Picard said:
So you know I'm not above killing people nor care if people are killed while committing crimes but that doesn't mean I think people have to die. Understand, there is a difference in that statement. Shooting someone to stop them is legitimate, but I don't feel it's some metric you should measure people by. If the criminal was lucky enough to survive the shot but gave up the fight and survived, more power to him and the police to bring him in alive, I'm not against that, but to actually encourage your police to shoot to wound, it's stupid.
But, look at the fucking differences in crime in Denmark, they can afford to be stupid with their SOP's when the type of crime that'd require pulling a firearm is so low compared to the United States. But it doesn't change the fact that it's stupid.
But it really begs the question, if the intent is not to kill, why give them guns? That's what makes no fucking sense, there's a myriad of weapons out there better suited to the task of incapacitating criminals without lethal force that the entire concept of using a gun for that purpose is just retarded. Retarded. I don't care what kind of ammunition you load or the caliber you use, it's just beyond logic.
I do think warning shots are stupid but not so much because of ricochets, but because it wastes a bullet. I mean, most gun fights aren't in crowded groups of people, and if it were is their chance of getting hit by a ricochet really any more dangerous then the mere act of them being caught in a fucking gunfight? It's already such a dangerous situation that I don't know if their chance of getting hit by a bullet's really increased by a warning shot or not. It's just, well, if pulling the gun on the criminal alone isn't going to do it, why aim your gun in a safe direction for a moment and waste a round? It gives them a chance to close the distance and you have to reacquire your target all so some violent criminal can either get one more chance at life or a better chance to attack you. Better to just draw the gun, get a good bead and make your demand, if it's not followed, take the shot and let fate determine whether the piece of shit lives or dies from that point on.
But my honest opinion of the whole situation is that if the police are in some situation where the general populace thinks a warning shot or shooting an extremity is a valid option, then they're probably in a situation that can be resolved without using the firearm at all which again brings me to why use guns in that manner? I don't see how it's more logical to try and come up with some non lethal gun use than instead have an escalating use of force that ends with firearm usage, by the time it gets to the gun bringing the suspect in alive shouldn't be a concern any more.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
macodin:
How much insight do you have in the danish police routines and the type of crime they encounter, really? And what's up with your examples? "If I was absolutely intent on bringing you in alive I'd try to physically restrain you instead"? A lot of the times when I read about someone being shot in the leg it seems to be unstable persons with a knife for instance, not rushing the police but definitely acting very threatening and dangerously. And while they might not actually fire their weapons a lot I'd bet it's not uncommon for them to draw their weapons.
How much insight do you have in the danish police routines and the type of crime they encounter, really? And what's up with your examples? "If I was absolutely intent on bringing you in alive I'd try to physically restrain you instead"? A lot of the times when I read about someone being shot in the leg it seems to be unstable persons with a knife for instance, not rushing the police but definitely acting very threatening and dangerously. And while they might not actually fire their weapons a lot I'd bet it's not uncommon for them to draw their weapons.
Jean-Claude Picard
Banned
mAcOdIn said:
You don't get the point. It's about the responsibility to cause as little damage as possible. If the suspect is yielding an axe you don't shoot his body, you shoot his legs. And if you can't or don't want to do that you have no place being armed.
Your whole argument has little to do with real life situations in Europe where the police is forced to draw a gun. Not giving warning shots because it could hit bystanders for example. You think unsafe for the police to make warning shots but then they'll try to directly hit the suspect? :lol
Obviously very little, but I still imagine there's better shit like tazers and the like for mentally unbalanced guy with a knife acting shifty, even in Denmark.ItsInMyVeins said:
I have no problem with drawing a weapon, but if it's actually fired it's silly to try and do heroics with it. I'm just saying, if they get into a situation where they're firing their weapon yet still looking out for the safety of the criminal that there has to be a better way for both parties involved. They obviously need guns because it'd suck to be a cop and actually run across a truly violent criminal and not have some kind of equal equipment at your disposal, but to use a gun as your non violent means of restrain is silly.
I mean seriously, we have rubber bullets, tazers, stun guns, pepper spray, bean bag rounds, gas, tranquilizer guns, annoying sound generating thingies, annoying light generating thingies and yet we're trying to find a way to use a standard firearm with a low velocity round to not kill a person? It just seems idiotic and counter productive to me.
I'm not against not killing the individual, I'm against using a gun in a situation where you don't want to kill the assailant and the gun doesn't need to be used anyways in the first place.
And apparently you have no place being on the internet because you can't read, what's your point?Jean-Claude Picard said:
I wasn't the one who said I believed a ricochet had a real chance of hitting a bystander, I'm against warning shots because I'd have to take my gun off the criminal, find a safe point to fire my weapon and then reacquire the criminal. That means if he makes a move while I go to fire that warning shot my next shot is a quick reactionary shot, where as had I not fired a warning shot I could have a really good shot all lined up, but because of that damn warning shot I'm forced to take a shot I have to take and not the shot I wanted to take.
Lets be honest here, if the attacker is stationary, I'm stationary with my gun drawn, yeah I can probably hit his legs. If I move my gun off him to shoot the ground and he starts to rush forward I've really lost that ability, I gotta reacquire him and shoot before he gets to me. Not only is it a more dangerous shot for him and I but for bystanders as well. But fuck ricochets, the chances of that are nuts.
Further, if my intent is to cause as little damage as possible what's wrong with trying the tazer first? Why is skipping all the way up to a gun somehow the responsible thing to do to limit damage?
Situation will dictate though, I wouldn't mind trying a stun gun on an axe wielder if I had a partner next to me ready to shoot him if he's not affected but I could see where it'd be loony to ask an officer to face a man with an axe with nothing but a stun gun. The situations important and I couldn't begin to write the kind of SOP that'd satisfy you here, I'm just arguing against the general concept. That there may in fact be times where you can pull off a non-lethal shot with a firearm and it's your preferred method in a certain scenario has nothing to do with if it's the preferred method across the board, which I think it's clearly not.
Because gun violence has escalated in Denmark in recent years. One year ago someone broke into a military training facility and stole more than 100 guns and riffles.mAcOdIn said:
I'd like you to explain to me how a police officer is supposed to defend himself against a criminal who throws an ax at him and then charges him with a knife. Sure the officer could've pulled a knife and re-enacted a scene from Rambo but unless the officer is Sly himself then I don't see why they should risk it. Better to equip the police with superior equipment than to take chances, don't you think?
Edit: And yes the Danish police force is also equipped with pepper spray.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
mAcOdIn said:
Europe != America
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
mAcOdIn said:
I'm not sure, but I don't think they've got tazers. They don't here at least, although there's been some debate about whether or not they should have. They've got their weapon, a baton and pepper spray.
According to the PDF posted earlier, when the danish police fire their weapons it's typically at a distance of between 1-5 metres, by the way. It's not about heroics but procedure. I assume that if the criminal's actually got a gun and is trying to shoot them that it's a different thing.
Bitmap Frogs
Mr. Community
mAcOdIn said:
You are questioning the way the danish police works comparing it to american cops.
Things are different here.
heliosRAzi
Banned
bjaelke said:
For your example, the officer should shoot him in his center mass, not the leg, arm, or feet or whatever. If a man is charging at you with an axe and knife, at least in the US, that's a go to use lethal force.
Jean-Claude Picard said:
In that situation, at least in the US, you can use lethal force to stop him. You can kill him. But you can also use a taser to stop him if you don't want to cause too much damage.
However, I must point out that someone getting shot in the leg doesn't mean that they'll stop. Sometimes the perp will keep going, not realizing that he has been shot. Also, thee bullet can hit an artery in the leg, and he can bleed out extremely fast, faster than it takes to get to the hospital.
Also, in high tension situations, like gunfights, your aiming goes to shit. Aiming for something so small and is constantly moving, you have a high chance of missing.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
heliosRAzi said:
Even so, wouldn't being hit in the leg by a hollow point bullet pretty much render a leg useless? And yes, clearly a wound to the leg can be fatal but not to the same extent as one to the chest.
heliosRAzi said:
In 25% of situations where the danish police fire their weapons it happens 15 minutes or later after they've arrived at the scene.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
Jean-Claude Picard said:
I think you're being deliberately obtuse.
Warning shots are dangerous. Either to the shooter, innocents in the immediate area, or anyone in the trajectory of the bullet if you idiotically shoot it into the air. They are an irresponsible way to use a gun. If Denmark trains their police force to do otherwise, they are putting their officers in harms way, through either naivety or deliberate ignorance.
A gun is a weapon. It's purpose, like a sword, is to kill people. When firing a gun, like swinging/stabbing a sword, you are exercising lethal force, no matter how carefully you try to avoid vital areas. Again, and this is key, you can easily kill a man by shooting him in the arms or legs.
Here in this thread, you've had several people with police, military, and general handgun training telling you that 99% of the world's defense forces aim for center mass for for effectiveness and safety.
If your target is slow, unmoving, or close enough that you can line up a precise hand/foot/knee shot, I too would have to question your use of a firearm in the first place to apprehend the suspect.
ItsInMyVeins said:
That explains it then. They're taking point blank shots at unmoving targets.
Nope, just this one aspect, there's a few nuggets of wisdom American cops should take from the Danes, like not trying to kill everyone.Bitmap Frogs said:
I feel that safe gun use is universal not some it works in Denmark but not in the US bullshit. Frankly, I feel the Danes are a tad too silly with their gun use and American cops are too over zealous of deadly force with their guns, I'd like to think there's a middle. Of course I guess a lot of people have thought that as well so we just switched our over reliance on the firearm to the wanton care free use of the tazer to the point we now have to question the safety of tazers. It's a funny thing.
I'm not arguing against the Danes, I don't know their entire SOP, what they tell their guys and shit like that, I'm arguing against people on the internet who happen to think shooting to wound is the best thing ever in almost every situation, that's what I'm arguing against. Again, I know there will be times where you can reasonably shoot someone in the leg, there'll be times where you can't. I'm not arguing against that, I'm arguing against this notion that all shots should be non fatal attempts.
Me being ignorant on Danish Police could never say for certain if they're expected to pull of 100% extremity shots(which I'd find absurd) or if it's encouraged to do so if they feel they can do it(I'm not against that entirely but would question why the gun needed to be used in some scenarios). There's endless possible scenarios, I have no idea how general or specific the Danish are when people quote that PDF. If it's 100% shoot to wound, yes I think they're being stupid, if it's shoot to wound when you know you can do it, not much to argue against that outside of was there a way without shooting in the first place.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Yes, and that's what I've been trying to get across. I don't know if they're not moving though.
Quoting the danish police PDF (again):
In the 23 shooting incidents examined, 14 suspects were armed, predominantly with stabbing weapons. 9 suspects threatened or attacked police officers physically in person or by driving a car at them or a third party.
So what you can gather from that is that maybe they should use even less lethal force, maybe opt for at least having rubber bullets availible for certain situations where the suspect might be unstable and not really running around.
It was a moving target...
To make a point that the gun is superior to the knife. Most of the equipment you mentioned isn't really usable in the situation. Even a pogo stick (pepper spray, handcuffs, tazer etc.) would render you vulnerable to a knife wielding maniac. Don't get me wrong. I hate guns but if it can keep people like him behind bars then I'm okay with our police force using it.mAcOdIn said:
My "example" is from the event in the OP.You already explained why he didn't shoot him in his center mass:heliosRAzi said:
The guy was very close to the officer when he got shot (he swung the knife at the office one time according to a Danish paper).heliosRAzi said:
Jean-Claude Picard
Banned
Sho_Nuff82 said:
Yes, and they all argue against actual cases, actual instances where they already proceed in said way. This is not a proposal of mine, that's how it's already handled. And judging from the success rates I'd rather have European police not listen to their superior oversee "specialists".
heliosRAzi
Banned
Sanjay said:
Technically, the situation called for lethal force to be used.
In all honestly, it is up to the individual officer to make that kind of decision. He knew the totality of circumstances. It's good that the suspect is alive, although a bit maimed. I think those of us here on the other side is just trying to get the point across that going for extremities shots is extremely risky and isn't something that can be done in every situation.
TheLastFantasy
Member
Ok, I don't wanna turn this into an endless discussion, but I just wanna point some stuff out.
First of all, what that guy -who claims to be a Muslim- did, is absolutely unacceptable. In Islam, we deeply respect and honor every aspect of our religion including Mohammed the prophet, there's nothing wrong with that of course. When somebody makes fun of Mohammed in a way that isn't even funny like drawing a bomb as a head for him, we get a little offended because everybody should know by now that those terrorists just claim to be Muslims when they are absolutely not. I just wanted to tell you guys why we get offended by those cartoons, but I still believe that trying to murder a man for a reason like "drawing an offending cartoon" is ridiculous and unacceptable.
As I said, I don't wanna turn this into a discussion, so this is my only post in this thread.
First of all, what that guy -who claims to be a Muslim- did, is absolutely unacceptable. In Islam, we deeply respect and honor every aspect of our religion including Mohammed the prophet, there's nothing wrong with that of course. When somebody makes fun of Mohammed in a way that isn't even funny like drawing a bomb as a head for him, we get a little offended because everybody should know by now that those terrorists just claim to be Muslims when they are absolutely not. I just wanted to tell you guys why we get offended by those cartoons, but I still believe that trying to murder a man for a reason like "drawing an offending cartoon" is ridiculous and unacceptable.
As I said, I don't wanna turn this into a discussion, so this is my only post in this thread.
elrechazado
Banned
How gracious of you to concede that murder isn't a proper response to editorial cartoons.TheLastFantasy said:
There was a case recently where a mentally ill person after injuring two police officers (one of them badly) with a knife was killed by a close range gunshot to the head. No warning shot was fired. So it does happen and there has been an increase in fatal shootings by the police in recent years but overall I'm confident our police generally uses an appropriate level of force. I certainly understand the arguments about aiming for center mass but at the same time Denmark is not US so I'm not sure American protocols have much relevance here. Either way I certainly don't see American conditions as something to aspire to.mAcOdIn said:
Jean-Claude Picard said:
I note that you did not answer my query as to your own qualifications. I shall therefore assume that you are a fifteen year old pasty boy posting from your mom's basement.
ie. Shut the fuck up you lame ass troll.
ItsInMyVeins said:
And that is why it's a dangerous policy. If it's a life and death situation and the subject is within 1-5 metres with a fucking axe, then he's already in stabbing range and aiming for a limb is putting the officer's own life in danger.
ItsInMyVeins said:
Oh gee, looks like someone didn't read the article I posted. And some of you people wonder why I get rude and start throwing out insults in threads like these.
NO, hitting the leg does NOT render a leg useless instantly.
cybamerc said:
Oh. I didn't know that the laws of physics and human biology were different in Denmark than they are in North America and that all Denmark police are crack super-snipers who can shoot circles around North American police officers.
GaimeGuy said:
No. I'm saying that in this situation the police are damn lucky that their policy worked and that they didn't get their own ass killed and that, regardless of the outcome of this specific situation, having a policy that requires warning shots and aiming for non vital areas is an illogical, dangerous policy that puts the public and the police at risk and relies on luck, not training, to succeed.
Also that, perhaps the only reason they can get away with having policy like this is that they are small, mostly ethnically homogeneous countries without the gun culture or gun violence that exists in North America, and that consequently, the number of instances requiring police to use a firearm are few enough that their policy, fortunately, hasn't come back to bite them on the ass.
I find it difficult to argue that showing a reasonable amount of restraint is dangerous. It's not like you have to fire off a warning shot if a fuse is being lit on a bomb or something, lol.Boogie said:
If the situation permits for you to be able to fire off a warning shot or to immobilize someone and subdue them without killing them, I see no reason why an officer should not be encouraged to pursue such measures, as long as they do not endanger anyone else.
Please. Surely you don't suggest that there is only one way to handle criminals? Different societies, different norms and practices. Denmark is a small and relatively peaceful country which is reflected in crime statistics. I think it's rather arrogant of you to suggest that because our police doesn't shoot to kill somehow they don't know what they're doing or at least not as competently as police that uses lethal force as a rule of thumb. If it works for them why is that a bad thing?Boogie said:
GaimeGuy said:
GaimeGuy, I'm going to resist quoting your tag and ask you to re-read my arguments.
Police officers are responsible for every round that leaves their firearm. Warning shots are dangerous because they are unaccountable. If fired into the air, the bullet will come back down, and could hurt an innocent bystander. If fired into the ground, the bullet can ricochet, and hurt an innocent bystander.
And aiming for limbs is, quite simply, impossible to do consistently, and therefore also puts bystanders at unacceptable risk, and also cannot guarantee stopping a threat, as people do not simply fall back when being shot in the hand.
I don't shoot to kill either. This is the part where I start to call you a fucking moron for not reading and understanding my posts, and generally not knowing what the fuck you're talking about.
cybamerc said:
Yes, different societies can deal with criminals different ways. But in a situation representing the threat of death or grievous bodily harm to the police or the public, in which a gun is going to be used regardless of Denmark's general crime rate, this policy is fucking bonkers.
I'm not saying that Danish police don't know what they're doing. I'm not saying they are not competent.
I am saying that the policy is dumb and dangerous.
And it's a "bad thing" because it only works for them until it gets themselves or a member of the public killed.
It's a "bad thing" because, regardless of what the policy says, you cannot train the human body to consistently hit a limb with a firearm in a high-stress situation. The policy only succeeds, if it succeeds, due to good fortune, not police training.
Jean-Claude Picard
Banned
Boogie said:
:lol Ok, please don't pull your gun on me, Mr Officer!
I'm not saying eveyrone should aim for the kneecaps first off or shit like that, that would bes stupid. I'm just saying that once you fire your first shot, you don't have to keep shooting until they're dead in all situations.Boogie said:
I think we're both kind of speaking about this with a different scenario/situation playing out in our minds, and this isn't being conveyed sufficiently in words.
I am not saying police should fire their bullets irresponsibly or aim at small targets. I'm just saying that if a policeman does shoot someone and immobilize them, they don't have to continue unloading bullets until the person is dead..
There's a difference imo between shooting with the intention of killing (I will shoot you in order to stop you, and am prepared to kill you in the process), and shooting with the GOAL of killing. I don't think I'm adequately conveying my intended statement, and that fault lies with me.
Oh, and there was no need for the dickish "I'm going to resist quoting your tag, hur hur." statement at the beginning of your post. You came off as a condescending prick while trying not to be one. Next time, just give me something like this:
I simply do not believe that.Boogie said:
You say that the policy is dumb but the policy doesn't say that police can't shoot at the torso. However if the police officer feels comfortable shooting at the legs I really can't see the problem in that. You talk about innocent bystanders a lot but I'm quite sure there aren't always people around when the police fire their weapons.
I'm also quite sure that relatively more innocent people are injured in the US than in Denmark or most of Europe for that matter even with your apparenty superior policies. Not because your police isn't well trained or is reckless but simply because the situations are different.
GaimeGuy said:
When did he say that the police are supposed to "keep shooting until they're dead?" Deadly force is just force that the user knows is significantly likely to cause death or serious harm, not force that the user absolutely intends to cause death. The deadly force here is the use of the firearm, which in any case is going to at least cause serious harm no matter where it strikes the target. Have you really heard of police walking up to someone they've just immobilized with a shot to the center of mass and firing again into their head just to be sure?
GaimeGuy said:
Nobody said that they do. You're arguing against nothing with that last sentence.
Police in NA shoot to stop the threat, not to kill. Your final paragraph demonstrates that you seem to understand the distinction. Good.
cybamerc said:
A police officer who feels confident in aiming for a limb with his pistol is a police officer who does not understand the limitations of his abilities.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
Boogie said:
Dude, you're the one spewing all kind of bullshit about situations where you have little to no knowledge of. Yes, I get it -- you're a police in Canada. And there in lies the difference. Clearly, this type of tactic works in several european countries. If a man within five metres attacks I have no doubt that they're allowed to shoot, but if he's moving slowly and acting generally unstable they might move forward to a point where they can get a clear shot at his leg before he attacks, or maybe back away if he's walking towards them and then shoot if he doesn't stop even after a warning shot. That's how most newsstories I've read about here have played out.
I mentioned rendering a leg useless since I thought hollow point bullets did more damage and therefore are more likely to actually stop a person who's shot in the leg. If the person doesn't stop at that I guess they'll shoot him since there's pretty much always several other officers around in those types of situations.
I think this guys response to me sorta sums up our disagreements here.bjaelke said:
There's essentially three weights all of us are using to determine what our ideal protocol would be.
Safety of the officer.
Safety of the public.
Safety of the suspect.
You basically rank these 3 into which you think is the most important and from there determine what the best method for gun use would be.
Shooting to wound as a rule benefits the suspect the most and places their safety highest, the officers safety second and the public's safety third. Fair enough, I disagree with it but it's a choice that has to be made. Shooting to stop the target places the safety of the officers first, public second and suspect last, that's my preferred ratio myself.
bjaelke mentioned that expecting police officers to rely on a stun gun or some other non lethal method would place the police at a higher risk than using a gun. This is 100% true. What he fails to mention however is that expecting an officer to attempt to wound and not to merely stop also places the officer at an elevated chance of risk. It's all basically a risk slider.
It's true that Denmark has lower violent crime than the US and they seem to have done a good job up to this point but I do feel it's completely realistic and probable that if they continue to use the concept of shoot to wound and warning shots that an innocent person will be hit more likely than had they not used either of those two. Seeing how rarely they have to use their firearms over there it could be quite some time before I'm proven correct but I feel justified in saying that I am correct.
If people are ok with that choice, placing the extended public and police at greater risk in an effort to protect criminals, fine, but I will always find that stance funny.
Tannhauser
Neo Member
The fundamental problem here is Islam itself. A lot of people all over the world are tiptoeing around this affirmation saying it's a problem of religion, seemingly without realising they're making even wider blanket statements than the one they're trying to avoid (generalising Muslims) by looking at every adherent of any religion in the world to solve the problem, which is absurd. Of course it can be argued that to tackle the problem of Islamic terrorism it is religion itself which must be brought down, which sounds dramatic but probably makes practical sense. You can easily draw parallels with Christianity in the early modern period and probably earlier Judaism to get an idea of what Islam actually is, for so many Muslims in today's world.
itsinmyveins
Gets to pilot the crappy patrol labors
mAcOdIn said:
Well, if they're aiming for the legs you minimize the risk of hitting someone further away since you're aiming slightly downward (assuming that there even is anyone else near in the area).
Count Dookkake
Member
arab said:
:lol
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked