3 ms·

> 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 po

> 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.

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.