5 ms·

Is it naive to think that police officers can restrain someone holding a knife and being non compliant, potentially dangerous? I’ve seen police in Switzerland

by dgb23 4y ago

Is it naive to think that police officers can restrain someone holding a knife and being non compliant, potentially dangerous? I’ve seen police in Switzerland do this. Specifically once a large man with a large knife. He made a very weird, unstable, unnerving impression on me. He got surrounded and restrained by about three policemen. They had some kind of gloves on. Happened very quickly. I think they did tge right thing there. They predicted potentially life threatening danger and then handled it in a non-lethal way. If they pulled a gun and shot the guy I would have some questions...

bjornsing 4y ago
> Is it naive to think that police officers can restrain someone holding a knife and being non compliant, potentially dangerous? Swedish law is not that the police should attempt this. The basic idea (which today is hard to understand, I know…) is that it’s a rather minor crime to hold a knife in public and it’s not a crime at all to be non compliant with police instructions. So the police does not have legal authority to shoot [1]. They essentially have to wait it out and see what happens. But what has changed over the last 20 years is that the concept of self defense (“nödvärn”) has been expanded enormously when applied specifically to the police, in an extrajudicial way, so that it now more matches your expectation: “if he seems dangerous / could do something bad in the future, shoot!” 1. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/kungorelse-196984-om-polisens-anvandning-av_sfs-1969-84 https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-f...
- naasking 4y ago
  > But what has changed over the last 20 years is that the concept of self defense (“nödvärn”) has been expanded enormously when applied specifically to the police, in an extrajudicial way This is a dangerous road that leads to US-style policing.
  - bjornsing 4y ago
    I agree. Sweden has changed a lot since 1984 when the current police law was passed. I really like it, but it was written for a different time. It would be much better to pass a new one with more formal authority for the police to use force (“laga befogenhet”), instead of letting a culture of courts looking the other way / bending the law build up even further.
- the_af 4y ago
  I think the person you are responding to is not arguing they should shoot, but quite the contrary. I think you're essentially in agreement. My own opinion: I think shooting someone should always be the last resort. Obviously police officers must look for their own well-being and should not expose themselves to obvious risk of death if possible. On the other hand, someone holding a knife or being non-compliant is not something that must be immediately handled by shooting at the person. Maybe waiting it out, maybe talking, maybe swarming him/her with multiple officers, maybe using tranquilizers, who knows. Every option has a risk and nothing is foolproof, but killing someone is the ultimate, irreversible option and should not be the default, even when the person is resisting or noncompliant. I don't understand why in some countries, like the US, police officers are so eager to resort to violence or killing -- though it's certainly the easy way out.
  - bjornsing 4y ago
    Yea, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was referring to the expectation that the police must somehow apprehend the person (immediately).
  - lo_zamoyski 4y ago
    > I don't understand why in some countries, like the US, police officers are so eager to resort to violence or killing Police training has become heavily influenced by military tactics (take the case of Israeli training of American officers and "police exchanges"). This was not always the case. Now, I do not deny that such tactics can be useful in certain circumstances, but overemphasis on them can be a problem just as much as laxity.
- cess11 4y ago
  To expand on this, the expansion that has happened in courts and mainly in cases involving police is based on the legal idea of 'inbillat nödvärn', i.e. defending against an imagined threat, in contrast to an actual threat. If someone is holding a gun the threat is material, if they're gesticulating with a phone the threat would be 'inbillat', imagined. This has freed police from murder in a case where a person with mental disabilities that posed no real threat was shot to death, https://www.thelocal.se/20191004/three-police-officers-cleared-over-fatal-shooting-of-man-with-down-syndrome/ https://www.thelocal.se/20191004/three-police-officers-clear.... I'd disagree that it's extrajudicially expanded, it's courts and prosecutors privileging police, probably because politicians have made it clear that they think Sweden needs many, many more police and currently very few and fewer suitable persons let themselves be recruited. The pay is bad, the job is not fun, a large portion of recruits join to serve a few years and then get a much nicer job. If they also risked getting jailed for panicking on the job even fewer would join the force. As a side note, police commonly practice at the shooting ranges run by sports shooting clubs and considered a nuisance since they are sloppy and bad at hitting the target.
  - the_af 4y ago
    > probably because politicians have made it clear that they think Sweden needs many, many more police Why is this? Is Sweden experiencing a sudden rise of crime that can only be prevented with more police presence?
    - klooney 4y ago
      Yes- Sweden has had rising gun and gang violence over the past decade.
      - cess11 4y ago
        Mainly due to police work, which famously doesn't mend the cracks violent street gangs seep through, instead it just irregularly takes away the leaders and cause further instability and violence around the business they do.
  - 4y ago
- dgb23 4y ago
  In my worldview self-defense, including defending others, always uses the minimal amount of force to reduce further harm. And I would expect a police officer to have the skills and composure to do so in the general case. Bad things can happen and mistakes are human and all. The trend you describe is disheartening. Not just for individual ethical concerns you mentioned, but also in the context of state violence. We give the police the right to use violence. It's a massive responsibility and when it's abused, it leads to spiraling effects.
nonethewiser 4y ago
Grappling a knife wielding man is a wildly unreasonable ask of police officers.
- pwthornton 4y ago
  People get very unrealistic ideas from movies and TV shows. If you go to attack someone who has a knife and you are barehanded, you almost assuredly will lose that altercation.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  Of course it is. And I explicitly address that in my comment… There is no such ask.
- uoaei 4y ago
  It is something they signed up for. This is the cost of protecting your community. Not all of us are so brave as to become a police officer. But there comes a time when you need to stand up not just for the people around you, but the values you all organize yourselves into communities for. Protecting a community's way of life is literally the job description of the police. This includes protecting your community from being dominated by a police force empowered to murder with no warning or accountability. The officers are the ones who make the decisions to ensure that their communities remain safe from threats of all kinds. We don't give our armed forces excuses when they violate the Geneva convention and ROE, why would we do it with police?
- cess11 4y ago
  OK. Would it be unreasonable to ask them to form a barrier between the violent person and other people in the area and defuse the situation with either patience, wit or talk?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
  I agree. We should have a special body of people trained explicitly to deal with violent behaviour and threats to life, such as men wielding knives and similar weapons. They should be given training and equipment to disarm, or otherwise neutralise,such threats, without putting anyone's lives in danger, their own, the general public's, or the people acting in a threatening manner.
pwthornton 4y ago
If the police have a taser or other weapon that can immobilize someone, sure, but otherwise, you should not try to attack a person wielding a knife with your bareheaded. Knives are incredibly dangerous. Police also do not wear body armor to protect against knives. Their body armor protects against bullets. In places where guns are very uncommon, they could switch to body armor aimed at protecting against knives, but I am not sure if there are places where that tradeoff is common. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the police to risk their lives to try to subdue someone with a weapon. Taser first and then a gun is preferable to someone using a knife to kill someone.
chrisweekly 4y ago
I will never understand why non-lethal force (eg taser) isn't given more consideration. It's a false dichotomy! Using lethal force (guns with bullets), or risking officer harm (wrestling suspects into submission) are not the only options!
- speed_spread 4y ago
  "Non-lethal" weapons are actually lethal enough (they can kill) that their use is considered similar in outcome to bullets BUT they can also be completely ineffective against intoxicated and or somehow "shielded" targets (clothes, etc.). So it's really a dice shot. Given this, the logic is that if you're gonna need a gun because you fear for your life, better pull a real one. Otherwise, just keep you distance and wait for backup.
  - chrisweekly 4y ago
    > "need a gun because you fear for your life" To me this is an essential part of the problem. "Kill or be killed" is an escalation relative to the vast majority of situations. The percentage of suspects killed by police shootings who actually posed a direct, imminent, lethal threat to the arresting officers is a very small minority. The idea that guns and tasers are considered similarly lethal is ~laughable. Consider "don't tase me, bro" vs gunfire. Your point about potential ineffectiveness in a critical situation is well-taken. But improving the quality / effectiveness of mace and tasers (or equivalent non-lethal tech) would be a budgetary rounding error compared to the cost of the status quo.
    - speed_spread 4y ago
      Let's just make sure that all usage of non-lethal weapons follows rules of engagement as strict as firearms. For example, non-lethal weapons should not be a quick cop-out from proper deescalation tactics nor should they be used against non-violent political action.
- cess11 4y ago
  A common criticism regarding tasers is that since they're perceived by police as safe they'll be overused, including in cases where it would rather amount to torture than policing, or as a method to punish suspects that are otherwise complient for things like name calling or spitting on the ground. Personally I prefer that police risk something when they use force, that encourages them to have solid reason for it.

by dgb23 4y ago

bjornsing 4y ago

> Is it naive to think that police officers can restrain someone holding a knife and being non compliant, potentially dangerous? Swedish law is not that the police should attempt this. The basic idea (which today is hard to understand, I know…) is that it’s a rather minor crime to hold a knife in public and it’s not a crime at all to be non compliant with police instructions. So the police does not have legal authority to shoot [1]. They essentially have to wait it out and see what happens. But what has changed over the last 20 years is that the concept of self defense (“nödvärn”) has been expanded enormously when applied specifically to the police, in an extrajudicial way, so that it now more matches your expectation: “if he seems dangerous / could do something bad in the future, shoot!” 1. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/kungorelse-196984-om-polisens-anvandning-av_sfs-1969-84 https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-f...

naasking 4y ago
> But what has changed over the last 20 years is that the concept of self defense (“nödvärn”) has been expanded enormously when applied specifically to the police, in an extrajudicial way This is a dangerous road that leads to US-style policing.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  I agree. Sweden has changed a lot since 1984 when the current police law was passed. I really like it, but it was written for a different time. It would be much better to pass a new one with more formal authority for the police to use force (“laga befogenhet”), instead of letting a culture of courts looking the other way / bending the law build up even further.
the_af 4y ago
I think the person you are responding to is not arguing they should shoot, but quite the contrary. I think you're essentially in agreement. My own opinion: I think shooting someone should always be the last resort. Obviously police officers must look for their own well-being and should not expose themselves to obvious risk of death if possible. On the other hand, someone holding a knife or being non-compliant is not something that must be immediately handled by shooting at the person. Maybe waiting it out, maybe talking, maybe swarming him/her with multiple officers, maybe using tranquilizers, who knows. Every option has a risk and nothing is foolproof, but killing someone is the ultimate, irreversible option and should not be the default, even when the person is resisting or noncompliant. I don't understand why in some countries, like the US, police officers are so eager to resort to violence or killing -- though it's certainly the easy way out.
- bjornsing 4y ago
  Yea, sorry if I wasn’t clear. I was referring to the expectation that the police must somehow apprehend the person (immediately).
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  > I don't understand why in some countries, like the US, police officers are so eager to resort to violence or killing Police training has become heavily influenced by military tactics (take the case of Israeli training of American officers and "police exchanges"). This was not always the case. Now, I do not deny that such tactics can be useful in certain circumstances, but overemphasis on them can be a problem just as much as laxity.
cess11 4y ago
To expand on this, the expansion that has happened in courts and mainly in cases involving police is based on the legal idea of 'inbillat nödvärn', i.e. defending against an imagined threat, in contrast to an actual threat. If someone is holding a gun the threat is material, if they're gesticulating with a phone the threat would be 'inbillat', imagined. This has freed police from murder in a case where a person with mental disabilities that posed no real threat was shot to death, https://www.thelocal.se/20191004/three-police-officers-cleared-over-fatal-shooting-of-man-with-down-syndrome/ https://www.thelocal.se/20191004/three-police-officers-clear.... I'd disagree that it's extrajudicially expanded, it's courts and prosecutors privileging police, probably because politicians have made it clear that they think Sweden needs many, many more police and currently very few and fewer suitable persons let themselves be recruited. The pay is bad, the job is not fun, a large portion of recruits join to serve a few years and then get a much nicer job. If they also risked getting jailed for panicking on the job even fewer would join the force. As a side note, police commonly practice at the shooting ranges run by sports shooting clubs and considered a nuisance since they are sloppy and bad at hitting the target.
- the_af 4y ago
  > probably because politicians have made it clear that they think Sweden needs many, many more police Why is this? Is Sweden experiencing a sudden rise of crime that can only be prevented with more police presence?
  - klooney 4y ago
    Yes- Sweden has had rising gun and gang violence over the past decade.
    - cess11 4y ago
      Mainly due to police work, which famously doesn't mend the cracks violent street gangs seep through, instead it just irregularly takes away the leaders and cause further instability and violence around the business they do.
- 4y ago
dgb23 4y ago
In my worldview self-defense, including defending others, always uses the minimal amount of force to reduce further harm. And I would expect a police officer to have the skills and composure to do so in the general case. Bad things can happen and mistakes are human and all. The trend you describe is disheartening. Not just for individual ethical concerns you mentioned, but also in the context of state violence. We give the police the right to use violence. It's a massive responsibility and when it's abused, it leads to spiraling effects.

nonethewiser 4y ago

Grappling a knife wielding man is a wildly unreasonable ask of police officers.

pwthornton 4y ago
People get very unrealistic ideas from movies and TV shows. If you go to attack someone who has a knife and you are barehanded, you almost assuredly will lose that altercation.
bjornsing 4y ago
Of course it is. And I explicitly address that in my comment… There is no such ask.
uoaei 4y ago
It is something they signed up for. This is the cost of protecting your community. Not all of us are so brave as to become a police officer. But there comes a time when you need to stand up not just for the people around you, but the values you all organize yourselves into communities for. Protecting a community's way of life is literally the job description of the police. This includes protecting your community from being dominated by a police force empowered to murder with no warning or accountability. The officers are the ones who make the decisions to ensure that their communities remain safe from threats of all kinds. We don't give our armed forces excuses when they violate the Geneva convention and ROE, why would we do it with police?
cess11 4y ago
OK. Would it be unreasonable to ask them to form a barrier between the violent person and other people in the area and defuse the situation with either patience, wit or talk?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
YeGoblynQueenne 4y ago
I agree. We should have a special body of people trained explicitly to deal with violent behaviour and threats to life, such as men wielding knives and similar weapons. They should be given training and equipment to disarm, or otherwise neutralise,such threats, without putting anyone's lives in danger, their own, the general public's, or the people acting in a threatening manner.

pwthornton 4y ago

If the police have a taser or other weapon that can immobilize someone, sure, but otherwise, you should not try to attack a person wielding a knife with your bareheaded. Knives are incredibly dangerous. Police also do not wear body armor to protect against knives. Their body armor protects against bullets. In places where guns are very uncommon, they could switch to body armor aimed at protecting against knives, but I am not sure if there are places where that tradeoff is common. I don't think it is reasonable to expect the police to risk their lives to try to subdue someone with a weapon. Taser first and then a gun is preferable to someone using a knife to kill someone.

chrisweekly 4y ago

I will never understand why non-lethal force (eg taser) isn't given more consideration. It's a false dichotomy! Using lethal force (guns with bullets), or risking officer harm (wrestling suspects into submission) are not the only options!

speed_spread 4y ago
"Non-lethal" weapons are actually lethal enough (they can kill) that their use is considered similar in outcome to bullets BUT they can also be completely ineffective against intoxicated and or somehow "shielded" targets (clothes, etc.). So it's really a dice shot. Given this, the logic is that if you're gonna need a gun because you fear for your life, better pull a real one. Otherwise, just keep you distance and wait for backup.
- chrisweekly 4y ago
  > "need a gun because you fear for your life" To me this is an essential part of the problem. "Kill or be killed" is an escalation relative to the vast majority of situations. The percentage of suspects killed by police shootings who actually posed a direct, imminent, lethal threat to the arresting officers is a very small minority. The idea that guns and tasers are considered similarly lethal is ~laughable. Consider "don't tase me, bro" vs gunfire. Your point about potential ineffectiveness in a critical situation is well-taken. But improving the quality / effectiveness of mace and tasers (or equivalent non-lethal tech) would be a budgetary rounding error compared to the cost of the status quo.
  - speed_spread 4y ago
    Let's just make sure that all usage of non-lethal weapons follows rules of engagement as strict as firearms. For example, non-lethal weapons should not be a quick cop-out from proper deescalation tactics nor should they be used against non-violent political action.
cess11 4y ago
A common criticism regarding tasers is that since they're perceived by police as safe they'll be overused, including in cases where it would rather amount to torture than policing, or as a method to punish suspects that are otherwise complient for things like name calling or spitting on the ground. Personally I prefer that police risk something when they use force, that encourages them to have solid reason for it.