- 17,316
- United Kingdom
Dad calls cops on son, cops kill son
- Thread starter NLxAROSA
- 113 comments
- 3,207 views
ShobThaBob
Premium
- 2,651
- rosooftw
So how would you suggest police remove someone from a car that's evaded arrest, run through red lights, narrowly avoided accidents, and hit 2 police vehicles? Ask politely? Wait for his vehicle to run out of fuel?
Ibonibo
Premium
- 5,440
- Luxemburg
- Already paying my Isp 4 Access
So after watching the video, yes the kid was obviously looking for trouble.
Over here, it would have gone 2 ways :
either they stop pursuit as it gets to dangerous. They knew who was driving so accountability later was not the problem.
If the kids thinks he evaded the police he will calm down.
or it would have gone the same way as in the vid. Maybe trying to stop the car with spikes, but I suppose the 4 minutes were not enough for that.
And I need to say: the cop car from which the video is from did his job really good. His driving was never aggressive or endangering.
But on the other hand, the huge police chases are kind of an American thing. It happens here, but not with the media hype, and neither on the same scale. It's really rare.
It comes mostly down to one thing already mentioned here : parenting. The dad should have thought more about calling the cops or handling the whole situation, but he's just a human too (he seemed to drive normally until he noticed the cop) And obvious teaching of responsibility with a car (which is a weapon in the wrong hands) and the respect for others and authorities.
But as life is never black and white: it's still an adolescent, even if kids grow up faster, mainly because education and society, doesn't mean our body grows older more quickly.
THe hormornes levels of adolescents are abnormal. We all know it, we all went through it, and some here even experienced it as a parent. It's not rational. It's a kid, adolescent, teen,... We all screwed up a few times as younsters. If always the worst case scenario happened (which happened here for the kid) we all would be crippeled, death or in jail.
That's why we still have juvenile laws. They need to be readressed for some instances but teens should never be treated as adults.
Over here, it would have gone 2 ways :
either they stop pursuit as it gets to dangerous. They knew who was driving so accountability later was not the problem.
If the kids thinks he evaded the police he will calm down.
or it would have gone the same way as in the vid. Maybe trying to stop the car with spikes, but I suppose the 4 minutes were not enough for that.
And I need to say: the cop car from which the video is from did his job really good. His driving was never aggressive or endangering.
But on the other hand, the huge police chases are kind of an American thing. It happens here, but not with the media hype, and neither on the same scale. It's really rare.
It comes mostly down to one thing already mentioned here : parenting. The dad should have thought more about calling the cops or handling the whole situation, but he's just a human too (he seemed to drive normally until he noticed the cop) And obvious teaching of responsibility with a car (which is a weapon in the wrong hands) and the respect for others and authorities.
But as life is never black and white: it's still an adolescent, even if kids grow up faster, mainly because education and society, doesn't mean our body grows older more quickly.
THe hormornes levels of adolescents are abnormal. We all know it, we all went through it, and some here even experienced it as a parent. It's not rational. It's a kid, adolescent, teen,... We all screwed up a few times as younsters. If always the worst case scenario happened (which happened here for the kid) we all would be crippeled, death or in jail.
That's why we still have juvenile laws. They need to be readressed for some instances but teens should never be treated as adults.
- 3,190
- Devon
- julessy98
- Jahhaj6
I personally think that the cops should've tried to pull him out of the car before just shooting him. Maybe the father shouldn't have called the cops but, how was he supposed to know that they were going to shoot him dead? This was a very stupid move on the Officer's part.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
That's how the police do it here. And it seems to work reasonably well. Also I'm sure that most kids would drop what they're holding if shot anywhere on the body.
They do shoot to kill if deemed absolutely necessary of course. But I think their limit is much higher than in America.
Edit: I'm probably making the mistake of comparing Sweden to America here. We're obviously very different "climates" when it comes to crime.
- 87,563
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Your police are trained to shoot at an inch wide target that's obscured every half stride? Sounds dumb.
Presumably they wait to see if the threat's real by counting their dead colleagues.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
- 87,563
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
I'd love to see some information corroborating the fact that Swedish firearms police are trained to shoot people brandishing weapons and running at them in a brachial nerve cluster - rather than the torso two-step taught pretty much everywhere else.
Why? People are people everywhere. The nationality of the guy behind the barrel pointed at you doesn't really matter.
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,318
- United States
Except for myself. Can't stand them.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
Well the few times you read/hear about the police opening fire here in Sweden it's almost always in the leg. The Swedish police is meant to strive to shot to incapacitate, not kill. Therefore shots should be aimed at the legs first and foremost. This according to the swedish police website.
Well, in America everyone and their mum is packing heat. Not so much here. So they can probably afford to take chances American officers can't.
- 87,563
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
How does exactly does a leg shot incapacitate a man holding a gun? Is there some weird gravity in Sweden that means arms become immobile when lying on the floor?
So just to check, when it's myriad innocent people with firearms you have to kill them, but when it's pretty much a guaranteed criminal you can "afford to take chances" and shoot them in the leg to stop them shooting you?
What?
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
It would seem to me that being shot anywhere would be a big enough shock to incapacitate most people. Maybe I'm wrong. Also if someone pointing the gun I'm pretty sure lethal force is used.
No my point was that you're a lot more likely to run into a bad egg armed with a firearm in America than in Sweden. Even during a routine stop on the freeway, American cops need to be wary it seems.
- 87,563
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
You're thinking of tasers.
Well thank goodness it gets to the point where the armed criminal isn't just flopping the firearm around uselessly and he's aiming it at people before the decision's made that he's a ruffian.
And mine was that if you run into someone with a firearm in public the USA, there's a 99.996% chance they're an innocent person - but in Sweden it's a 100% chance they're a criminal (what with them being illegal in public).
And the Swedish police can "afford to take chances" with people brandishing firearms in public!
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
You cannot kill someone just because they're a ruffian. The police aren't allowed to kill someone for just holding a gun over here. Like it or not.
Yes, but American criminals are a lot more likely to be armed with firearms than swedish ones.
That's not at all what I said, or at the least not what I meant. They can afford to take bigger chances with criminals (or whoever they deal with) because there's a much smaller chance or risk rather, that they'll have a gun.
- 87,563
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Nor can they in the USA - what with it being legal (with the appropriate permits) and all. Someone holding a gun is at the very least an actual criminal in Sweden.
Except we were talking about how the police shoot at people with firearms. I said it didn't matter what the nationality of the gun-holder was and you said that because everyone in the USA is packing heat (which isn't true), Swedish police can afford to take more chances...
You assure me that the Swedish police shoot them in the legs to incapacitate them. I find that ludicrous as it's a small, moving target that doesn't take the gun in their hands out of play (does Sweden have knee-operated firearms?) - whereas two shots to the torso is easy (by comparison), will put them down, take the gun out of play and stand a middling chance of not killing them.
It's not films, where every unit's got one guy who can shoot the flame off a candle from a quarter of a mile, left-handed. It's a guy pointing a gun at you. Legshots will not stop him.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
It just seemed like you were implying simply holding the gun would authorize lethal force. I must have missread something.
I think I made a mistake by talking about situations where the police deal with criminals that are armed, not just with firearms but any type of weapon. Which is off-topic I suppose. It seems to me that officers in the states deal with any type of deadly weapon equally. Shoot to kill wether the guy is aiming a gun at them or come charging at the with a plank with a nail in it from far away.
That's what it says on their own website. And that's what I've read in several news reports about police taking down armed suspects, sometimes even armed with guns.
Last edited:
- 3,824
Well after watching the video i have zero sympathy for the kid, If they didnt shoot him he sure as hell deserved the beating of his life, However what really bugs me with police chases is that they drive as recklessly as the car they pursue thus also endangering innocent lives (not so much in this video though), The ploice here though made a bad judgment as there was no need to pursue him which doesnt inspire confidence in the police
GTsail
Premium
- 2,472
- Florida
- GTsail2/GTsail3
I'm in agreement with Famine on this.
IMO, if someone is running at you with a knife, you don't have time to be choosey about where you should shoot them.
I remember watching an episode of "Mythbusters" where they did a test with one guy with a paint-ball gun and the other guy with a knife. And they had the guy with the knife suddenly charge at the guy with the paint-ball gun.
Inside of about 15 feet, the guy with the knife was almost always able to reach the guy with the gun and stab him before getting shot.
Outside of about 25 feet, the guy with the gun was usually able to fire first and hit the other guy in the torso with a paint-ball or two.
The point of the Mythbuster show was to show that at close range, a knife was just as deadly as a gun. And that having a knife-wielding attacker run at you was scary and this made it harder to get off a quick and effective shot.
Shooting an attacker in the leg is effective in the movies, but in real-life, I doubt that it would be taught by many Police forces as the recommended course of action.
Respectfully,
GTsail
Last edited:
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
- 2,238
- Brisbane
- Fisho_Man
My thoughts also that the way he REACTED when the law became involved is exactly as he is 'trained' to do IF he has been playing the game. The law of averages says this is a distinct possibility. As I said, at that age he is still just a kid and still hopefully in the process of learning action/consequence. There is a reason why the stock the armed forces with kids...they are also still going through the learning/understanding of reality/fear concepts and are more likely to mindlessly charge into danger.
He didn't make a rational decision or choice, he acted and then reacted on instinct. Granted, the way his instincts had been shaped do seem flawed. But he was still learning. At 17, in terms of learning/growing into life and an understanding of those life concepts, he is just a babe.
With regard to the law enforcement here in Qld...at least there isn't what seems to be an instinctive or conditioned mindset of pulling the trigger as the first resort. Which is how it does seem to be in the States.
Were he someone close to you I wonder would you display the same degree of callousness.
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
A bit OT, but I just read on FBI's site that last year 47 police officers lost their life on duty. That's 16 more than in the last 113 years in Sweden.
Must be a real scary job.
Must be a real scary job.
- 23,800
- Philippines
If someone I knew rammed a police cruiser then proceeded to lead it on a chase at those speeds in a built-up area and on campus, I wouldn't be very surprised if he got shot.
When you see takedowns where officers pull a perp out of a car... that's always when they've got the car completely pinned, have disabled it (with spike strips... trying to shoot the tires out with a pistol (not a shotgun) is stupid and homicidally reckless)) and have overwhelming force. And officers still get injured and are in danger of being killed.
With a single officer on scene, actually trying something like that is recklessly suicidal.
Whether it was the proper call to give chase... you can't make that call if you're not on the scene. If the kid has proven dangerous and reckless, letting him off scot-free is not a good option without the abilty to set up police roadblocks further down the road.
Citation needed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Swedish-police-shoot-HEAD-armed-robbery.html
But that's a gun. Knife?
Swedish police shoot dead suspected killer(and he was only holding a knife)
Two officers. Felt intimidated by the man, shot him when he refused to comply.
Riots after police shoot an immigrant
They had overwhelming force. They tried a negotiator, then went in after the man. They used a flashbang, but in the end, shot him, despite being in full gear and outnumbering him a million-to-one.
So, where's the "shoot the leg" policy?
If they hit someone in the leg, it isn't because they're aiming at it. All police officers, unless they're snipers with a long arm and a nice, restful perch, are trained to double-tap (at a minimum) an assailant center mass. No firearms trainer worth his salt would train a force to shoot at the legs. Whether individual officers feel gung-ho enough to try is another matter entirely.
Last edited:
- 4,035
- Gothenburg
- Agremont
http://polisen.se/Aktuellt/Nyheter/Gemensam/april-juni/Fakta-om-Polisens-anvandning-av-skjutvapen/ - From their website, in Swedish obviously. It says that officers should strive to use their gun to incapacitate, and that shots should be aimed at the legs foremost. Second paragraph, the two last sentences, if you want to run in through a translator. Now this would obviously depend a bit on the situation but it's the routine of the Swedish police.
Quite rare occurences. Certainly haven't gone uncritized.
They do have the right to shoot to kill, I never said they haven't, just that routines are different.
Joel
Premium
- 8,141
- Halifax, NS
- Noob616
It's all about exposure to guns. If you've never handled a gun it's hard to appreciate how hard it is to hit a moving small target, let alone when you're talking about 9mm handguns. 360 no scope headshots are easy in Call of Duty and everyone in the movies is a crackshot, but real life doesn't work that way.
Similar threads
- Poll
