3 ms·

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. defendi

by 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.
bjornsing 4y ago
> 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. It’s debatable if extrajudicial is the right word. It can be used to describe sentencing entirely outside of the formal legal system (as e.g. in “extrajudicial execution”). But that’s clearly not what I’m referring to here. In my view it can also be used to describe the case where a court makes decisions outside of the law, without legal authority or in direct conflict with law. So in my mind what you are describing is essentially an extrajudicial expansion. We have a civil law system where it shouldn’t matter what politicians say. The only thing that should matter is when 175+ members of parliament press the green button. To the best of my knowledge they have never done so with the intent to expand police use of force in self-defense. The example you bring up I think is a poor one (from my perspective), since the court’s verdict was not entirely unreasonable. A better example is the case where a police officer beat a very drunk unarmed man with her baton and let her dog attack him because he refused to lay down on the street. The appellate court (“hovrätten”) found her not guilty based on her statement that she could see from a tightening of the muscles in the man’s face that he was about to attack [1]. I’ve read the judgement and deem it bizarre enough to warrant the extrajudicial label. Another reason I think it’s fair to call it an extrajudicial expansion is that several police officers I’ve talked to think of this kind of use of force as now within their authority. The line between legal use of force and what a police officer “can get away with (essentially by lying in court)” has been blurred, and for many it’s the latter that they see as relevant. 1. https://www.dn.se/nyheter/polis-frias-for-batongslag/ https://www.dn.se/nyheter/polis-frias-for-batongslag/

by cess11 4y ago

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.

bjornsing 4y ago

> 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. It’s debatable if extrajudicial is the right word. It can be used to describe sentencing entirely outside of the formal legal system (as e.g. in “extrajudicial execution”). But that’s clearly not what I’m referring to here. In my view it can also be used to describe the case where a court makes decisions outside of the law, without legal authority or in direct conflict with law. So in my mind what you are describing is essentially an extrajudicial expansion. We have a civil law system where it shouldn’t matter what politicians say. The only thing that should matter is when 175+ members of parliament press the green button. To the best of my knowledge they have never done so with the intent to expand police use of force in self-defense. The example you bring up I think is a poor one (from my perspective), since the court’s verdict was not entirely unreasonable. A better example is the case where a police officer beat a very drunk unarmed man with her baton and let her dog attack him because he refused to lay down on the street. The appellate court (“hovrätten”) found her not guilty based on her statement that she could see from a tightening of the muscles in the man’s face that he was about to attack [1]. I’ve read the judgement and deem it bizarre enough to warrant the extrajudicial label. Another reason I think it’s fair to call it an extrajudicial expansion is that several police officers I’ve talked to think of this kind of use of force as now within their authority. The line between legal use of force and what a police officer “can get away with (essentially by lying in court)” has been blurred, and for many it’s the latter that they see as relevant. 1. https://www.dn.se/nyheter/polis-frias-for-batongslag/ https://www.dn.se/nyheter/polis-frias-for-batongslag/