The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[The Brain]

FWIW my impression from the little info in the article is that it's a situation where Swedish cops would have shot him in the leg.

Wait, Swedish police shoot for the leg?

Yes? Obviously if possible not until after having tried less dangerous means.

[Barrister]

FWIW my impression from the little info in the article is that it's a situation where Swedish cops would have shot him in the leg.

There is no concept of shooting in the leg in the US.  Shooting someone in the leg is still dangerous and can kill them, the only safe option is to shoot at the center of mass, or head if at point blank range.

The reasoning isn't that shooting in the leg is still dangerous.  It's that it's a lot harder to shoot in the leg, in particular in a dynamic situation.  And because the only justification for shooting is a fear or grievous bodily harm or death, it'd be negligent to take the more risky shot if you could instead shoot centre mass.

For the same reason I don't think they're ever taught to shoot in the head either.

Obviously this is all WRT law enforcement.  Military does its own thing by its own rules.

[The Brain]

In the army our procedure (if someone were to approach us while we were on guard duty) was to first order him to stop, then warn him that you were about to shoot him, then fire a warning shot, and then, if he still was advancing towards you, to drop him center mass (we were not cops).

People have been advancing towards me with sharp implements in Stockholm, in my civilian life. I backed the fuck up, my life wasn't in immediate danger. If I had killed him in that situation the government would have gone "lol wtf" and sent me to gaol for years. And I'm not even a trained cop.

[DGuller]

You really go to gaol for years if you kill someone?  In Sweden? 

[The Brain]

You really go to gaol for years if you kill someone?  In Sweden? 

Is there such a thing as too Machiavellian?

[crazy canuck]

FWIW my impression from the little info in the article is that it's a situation where Swedish cops would have shot him in the leg.

Wait, Swedish police shoot for the leg?

Yes? Obviously if possible not until after having tried less dangerous means.

You should probably check to see if you are correct about that assumption.  shooting for the legs is not something I have ever scene in a use of force option.  If using a gun becomes necessary it is because the circumstances require lethal force.  At that point it would be ridiculous to try to hit the legs.  At that point police are trained to aim centre mass.  If the situation does not require lethal force, then no shot is justified.

Would look good in a movie though.

[The Brain]

FWIW my impression from the little info in the article is that it's a situation where Swedish cops would have shot him in the leg.

Wait, Swedish police shoot for the leg?

Yes? Obviously if possible not until after having tried less dangerous means.

You should probably check to see if you are correct about that assumption.  shooting for the legs is not something I have ever scene in a use of force option.  If using a gun becomes necessary it is because the circumstances require lethal force.  At that point it would be ridiculous to try to hit the legs.  At that point police are trained to aim centre mass.  If the situation does not require lethal force, then no shot is justified.

Would look good in a movie though.

I'm shocked that different countries have different ways of doing things. Whowuddathunkit?

Police shooting people in the leg is a fairly common news story in Sweden, and it's not because they are lousy shots and missed center of mass. This is from the website of Swedish police (Google translate):

"If the police shoot at a person, they should strive to neutralize the person only at the moment. The shots should primarily be aimed at the legs, but if the circumstances require it, the police may fire directly at the upper body - for example if the threatening person is close in the distance and the attack goes fast."

https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befogenheter/polisens-ratt-att-anvanda-skjutvapen/

Note: parts of the website is available in English but I didn't find an English version of this particular page, which describes the way the police use firearms.

[Barrister]

In the army our procedure (if someone were to approach us while we were on guard duty) was to first order him to stop, then warn him that you were about to shoot him, then fire a warning shot, and then, if he still was advancing towards you, to drop him center mass (we were not cops).

People have been advancing towards me with sharp implements in Stockholm, in my civilian life. I backed the fuck up, my life wasn't in immediate danger. If I had killed him in that situation the government would have gone "lol wtf" and sent me to gaol for years. And I'm not even a trained cop.

Okay, so I'll note there's nothing about shooting the leg here, but anyways...

I don't think we're really disagreeing here about much.  If you go back to my fancy Use of Force pinwheel you'll notice that communication (order to stop, warn him), and tactical repositioning (back the fuck up) are always valid options at any level of resistance.  I don't know about a warning shot (what goes up must come down), but that's still all good advice - if you have time.

[The Brain]

In the army our procedure (if someone were to approach us while we were on guard duty) was to first order him to stop, then warn him that you were about to shoot him, then fire a warning shot, and then, if he still was advancing towards you, to drop him center mass (we were not cops).

People have been advancing towards me with sharp implements in Stockholm, in my civilian life. I backed the fuck up, my life wasn't in immediate danger. If I had killed him in that situation the government would have gone "lol wtf" and sent me to gaol for years. And I'm not even a trained cop.

Okay, so I'll note there's nothing about shooting the leg here, but anyways...

I don't think we're really disagreeing here about much.  If you go back to my fancy Use of Force pinwheel you'll notice that communication (order to stop, warn him), and tactical repositioning (back the fuck up) are always valid options at any level of resistance.  I don't know about a warning shot (what goes up must come down), but that's still all good advice - if you have time.

Tiny additional detail: the army warning shot was in the ground in front of the guy. Just as a curiosity (the risk to second and third parties is significant, but we weren't cops...).

[Maladict]

This one doesn't seem very contentious (other than that the officers did not use - or maybe even have - a taser).  It smells a lot like suicide by cop.

I don't know, it does look fairly excessive in the video.

[Maladict]

I'm shocked that different countries have different ways of doing things. Whowuddathunkit?

Police shooting people in the leg is a fairly common news story in Sweden, and it's not because they are lousy shots and missed center of mass. This is from the website of Swedish police (Google translate):

"If the police shoot at a person, they should strive to neutralize the person only at the moment. The shots should primarily be aimed at the legs, but if the circumstances require it, the police may fire directly at the upper body - for example if the threatening person is close in the distance and the attack goes fast."

https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befogenheter/polisens-ratt-att-anvanda-skjutvapen/

Note: parts of the website is available in English but I didn't find an English version of this particular page, which describes the way the police use firearms.

Shooting in the leg is pretty common here as well. It's typically used to stop a suspect getting away, though. Shooting at center mass is only allowed in self defense and as a last resort.

[crazy canuck]

FWIW my impression from the little info in the article is that it's a situation where Swedish cops would have shot him in the leg.

Wait, Swedish police shoot for the leg?

Yes? Obviously if possible not until after having tried less dangerous means.

You should probably check to see if you are correct about that assumption.  shooting for the legs is not something I have ever scene in a use of force option.  If using a gun becomes necessary it is because the circumstances require lethal force.  At that point it would be ridiculous to try to hit the legs.  At that point police are trained to aim centre mass.  If the situation does not require lethal force, then no shot is justified.

Would look good in a movie though.

I'm shocked that different countries have different ways of doing things. Whowuddathunkit?

Police shooting people in the leg is a fairly common news story in Sweden, and it's not because they are lousy shots and missed center of mass. This is from the website of Swedish police (Google translate):

"If the police shoot at a person, they should strive to neutralize the person only at the moment. The shots should primarily be aimed at the legs, but if the circumstances require it, the police may fire directly at the upper body - for example if the threatening person is close in the distance and the attack goes fast."

https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befogenheter/polisens-ratt-att-anvanda-skjutvapen/

Note: parts of the website is available in English but I didn't find an English version of this particular page, which describes the way the police use firearms.

I am likewise shocked Swedish police are trained to shoot when lethal force is not required.   

[The Brain]

FWIW my impression from the little info in the article is that it's a situation where Swedish cops would have shot him in the leg.

Wait, Swedish police shoot for the leg?

Yes? Obviously if possible not until after having tried less dangerous means.

You should probably check to see if you are correct about that assumption.  shooting for the legs is not something I have ever scene in a use of force option.  If using a gun becomes necessary it is because the circumstances require lethal force.  At that point it would be ridiculous to try to hit the legs.  At that point police are trained to aim centre mass.  If the situation does not require lethal force, then no shot is justified.

Would look good in a movie though.

I'm shocked that different countries have different ways of doing things. Whowuddathunkit?

Police shooting people in the leg is a fairly common news story in Sweden, and it's not because they are lousy shots and missed center of mass. This is from the website of Swedish police (Google translate):

"If the police shoot at a person, they should strive to neutralize the person only at the moment. The shots should primarily be aimed at the legs, but if the circumstances require it, the police may fire directly at the upper body - for example if the threatening person is close in the distance and the attack goes fast."

https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befogenheter/polisens-ratt-att-anvanda-skjutvapen/

Note: parts of the website is available in English but I didn't find an English version of this particular page, which describes the way the police use firearms.

I am likewise shocked Swedish police are trained to shoot when lethal force is not required.

Seems to me that there may be some advantages to having a fairly non-lethal response completely ready even while you have a lethal response ready, so you can pick your response depending on the action of the person. You don't pull your gun unless lethal force may be required.

[Admiral Yi]

Set your phasers on stun!

[Barrister]

I'm shocked that different countries have different ways of doing things. Whowuddathunkit?

Police shooting people in the leg is a fairly common news story in Sweden, and it's not because they are lousy shots and missed center of mass. This is from the website of Swedish police (Google translate):

"If the police shoot at a person, they should strive to neutralize the person only at the moment. The shots should primarily be aimed at the legs, but if the circumstances require it, the police may fire directly at the upper body - for example if the threatening person is close in the distance and the attack goes fast."

https://polisen.se/om-polisen/polisens-arbete/polisens-befogenheter/polisens-ratt-att-anvanda-skjutvapen/

Note: parts of the website is available in English but I didn't find an English version of this particular page, which describes the way the police use firearms.

Shooting in the leg is pretty common here as well. It's typically used to stop a suspect getting away, though. Shooting at center mass is only allowed in self defense and as a last resort.

See here use can not use lethal force merely to prevent someone from escaping.  At all.  Even shooting at the leg is much to high a risk to the suspect and to bystanders.  If the suspect is running you better go catch them.  Of course this is where canine officers come in so handy...