The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[DGuller]

See here use can not use lethal force merely to prevent someone from escaping.  At all.

I don't think that's completely true, at least not in the US.  The nut who killed four cops in Washington was shot while running away, and that was the official story.  It was rules justified given the danger he posed to the public.

EDIT:  Actually, now that I checked, there was a claim that he reached for something before he was shot.  But I do recall reading that shooting him while he was running away would've been justified.

[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.

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.

Sure, but firing a gun is not a "fairly non-lethal response"  unless your cops have some secret technique that allows them to always hit the target they want when they discharge a firearm.  And if they are not pulling their gun unless lethal force is required how the hell do they have time shoot for the legs.  Clearly there are other options open to them if they have time to do a trick shot.

[crazy canuck]

See here use can not use lethal force merely to prevent someone from escaping.  At all.

I don't think that's completely true, at least not in the US.  The nut who killed four cops in Washington was shot while running away, and that was the official story.  It was rules justified given the danger he posed to the public.

EDIT:  Actually, now that I checked, there was a claim that he reached for something before he was shot.  But I do recall reading that shooting him while he was running away would've been justified.

Check again.  That would be surprising.  But Brain has taught us that there are nutty rules out there for cops.

[Barrister]

See here use can not use lethal force merely to prevent someone from escaping.  At all.

I don't think that's completely true, at least not in the US.  The nut who killed four cops in Washington was shot while running away, and that was the official story.  It was rules justified given the danger he posed to the public.

Well then he wasn't shot for running away - he was shot for being an ongoing risk of grievous bodily harm to the public (to use the Canadian language).

[DGuller]

Check again.  That would be surprising.

Checked again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

[derspiess]

Aiming at anything other than center of mass at normal distances just does not seem practical.  These are pistols, not sniper rifles.

[crazy canuck]

Check again.  That would be surprising.

Checked again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

Good, now read your link and read your post and you will see the test for shooting is much higher than you stated.

[Barrister]

Check again.  That would be surprising.

Checked again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule

I really don't like relying on Wiki for legal conclusions, but even your own link says that although the common law authorized the use of deadly force on a fleeing suspect, the USSC in Tennesse v Garner said it was llimited to non-lethal force.

In Canada (because I know y'all love your Canadian criminal law) criminal law has been codified and the common law rules largely don't exist any longer.  Under s. 25 a police officer can use force likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm only if such force is necessary to protect the officer or any other person from death or grievous bodily harm.

So a fleeing suspect armed with a gun might qualify, depending on the totality of the circumstances.  But a fleeing suspect with no weapon, even if they committed a horrible crime, does not allow for the use of deadly force to apprehend.

[DGuller]

It says it right there that it's limited only in most cases:

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[3]

[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.

Sure, but firing a gun is not a "fairly non-lethal response"  unless your cops have some secret technique that allows them to always hit the target they want when they discharge a firearm.  And if they are not pulling their gun unless lethal force is required how the hell do they have time shoot for the legs.  Clearly there are other options open to them if they have time to do a trick shot.

Most people who are shot in the legs by cops in Sweden survive. Obviously not all, that's why I explicitly said "fairly" non-lethal. The techniques for shooting at legs are not secret AFAIK, they are techniques taught to cops during training in Sweden (my layman guess is that they involve aiming at the legs). Obviously there are never any 100% guarantees in anything, if that is the standard then we have to stop human activity so I assume you weren't being literal about that. And how is your reading comprehension? I explicitly said lethal force "may" be required. How did you make that into them not pulling the gun unless lethal force is required?

Given that earlier today you weren't even aware that there are countries where cops aim at legs, are you sure you have thought this whole thing through enough?

[Barrister]

Most people who are shot in the legs by cops in Sweden survive. Obviously not all, that's why I explicitly said "fairly" non-lethal. The techniques for shooting at legs are not secret AFAIK, they are techniques taught to cops during training in Sweden (my layman guess is that they involve aiming at the legs). Obviously there are never any 100% guarantees in anything, if that is the standard then we have to stop human activity so I assume you weren't being literal about that. And how is your reading comprehension? I explicitly said lethal force "may" be required. How did you make that into them not pulling the gun unless lethal force is required?

Given that earlier today you weren't even aware that there are countries where cops aim at legs, are you sure you have thought this whole thing through enough?

I really can't speak to what Swedish law says.  I can however speak to what makes sense.

Police have lots of non-lethal force options.  They can use strikes, punches or kicks.  They can use their baton.  They have OC spray and a taser.  Canine officer can let lose their police dog.  Heck they can draw their firearm to a low ready.

But once you open fire that's a use of potentially lethal force, no matter what you're aiming at.

Edit: LOW ready.

[crazy canuck]

Given that earlier today you weren't even aware that there are countries where cops aim at legs, are you sure you have thought this whole thing through enough?

I concede I was not aware that police were are allowed to shoot in your country when other options are still available.  The fact that Sweden has a daft use of force rule is grounds for one of us to reconsider if they have thought this through, but I don't think it is me.

[crazy canuck]

It says it right there that it's limited only in most cases:

Under U.S. law the fleeing felon rule was limited in 1985 to non-lethal force in most cases by Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1. The justices held that deadly force "may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others."[3]

Dude, it says right there "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm"  not just to posing a danger to the public, which is what I said would be a surprising result.  If the test was that low the police could shoot pretty much anyone fleeing.

[The Brain]

Most people who are shot in the legs by cops in Sweden survive. Obviously not all, that's why I explicitly said "fairly" non-lethal. The techniques for shooting at legs are not secret AFAIK, they are techniques taught to cops during training in Sweden (my layman guess is that they involve aiming at the legs). Obviously there are never any 100% guarantees in anything, if that is the standard then we have to stop human activity so I assume you weren't being literal about that. And how is your reading comprehension? I explicitly said lethal force "may" be required. How did you make that into them not pulling the gun unless lethal force is required?

Given that earlier today you weren't even aware that there are countries where cops aim at legs, are you sure you have thought this whole thing through enough?

I really can't speak to what Swedish law says.  I can however speak to what makes sense.

Police have lots of non-lethal force options.  They can use strikes, punches or kicks.  They can use their baton.  They have OC spray and a taser.  Canine officer can let lose their police dog.  Heck they can draw their firearm to a low ready.

But once you open fire that's a use of potentially lethal force, no matter what you're aiming at.

Edit: LOW ready.

Yes? Shooting is of course always the last resort, after other methods have failed or are impossible. Why would anyone assume that Swedish cops don't do those? The Swedish thinking is that, given a situation that the cop actually has to open fire, it is better if the person is only wounded and not killed by the gunfire. This thinking is not controversial in Sweden.

From the Swedish Police website:

"What are the police doing to avoid shootings?

The basis for the police is to try to solve situations by talking to those involved as far as possible. In the vast majority of interventions, the police succeed. Even in very threatening and dangerous situations, the police primarily try to use verbal communication to resolve conflicts, sometimes with the help of specially trained negotiators or dialogue police.

But sometimes the threat is so serious that it requires the police to use one of the tools the police have for the use of force - handcuffs, batons, pepper spray or guns. Firearms are the absolute last resort.

The police have a strong focus on training, partly in basic training for police officers, and partly through continuous training in the business. A large part is about communication, mental preparation and being able to make quick decisions in different situations. The police also train practically in using physical techniques and the various aids."

[DGuller]

Dude, it says right there "significant threat of death or serious bodily harm"  not just to posing a danger to the public, which is what I said would be a surprising result.  If the test was that low the police could shoot pretty much anyone fleeing.

Dude, I mentioned this in the context of the story about a Lakewood shooting of four cops, and a likely attempted ambush of another cop that ultimately killed the suspect.  I thought it was clear enough from the context what I meant by "danger to the public" that I did not have to tediously elaborate, and I still think that it was.