6/21/2009

A different way of doing things


I was surfing the internet last night and came across this story about a Swedish officer involved shooting.

Apparently a guy tried to rob a gas station with a machete. He fled the scene but the officer found him hiding nearby. This next part is where it gets strange:

The officer tried to persuade him to come out and to disarm him, but was unsuccessful. Instead, the arm man came at the officer, threatening with the machete, as well as verbally.

The officer fired a warning shot, but was then forced to shoot the 58-year-old in the leg.


Um what?

I was trained in the academy that warning shots are only used in the movies. We were taught that what goes up must come down and your bullet could end up in someone else's head. And what is this business about shooting someone in the leg?

I mean, I am glad that a life was saved but the officer took a big risk. What if he had missed and the guy stuck that machete up his Swedish ass? I have talked to several Swedish police officers and they don't do very much marksmanship training even though they are all armed with Sigs (228s I think). However that is really not the issue. People who are hyped up on adrenaline or drugs sometimes don't feel it when they are shot. I have read several examples where a suspect was shot several times and just kept on fighting.

I guess this is just another example of the difference in attitudes of European police versus the USA. Any American cop would tell you that if they got attacked with a machete, the suspect would have several holes in their chest. Before the anti-cop types start up with accusing us of shooting to kill, there is another reason we shoot center mass.

First, it is hard as hell to hit a moving target with a pistol. This is especially true when you are scared for your life and are pumped up with adrenaline. Anyone who has narrowly avoided a car accident probably remembers how their hands and legs were shaking. This is the adrenaline in your system. Now imagine trying to shoot a pistol with those shakes. We aim for the biggest target (chest) because we want to hit something.

Another reason is that most major organs are in this area and several shots to the chest will overload the nervous system (hopefully) and cause the body to go into shock. This means the bad guy will stop trying to shoot, stab, or hit you in head with a hammer.

For more information on the problems with shooting to wound, check out this article on Policeone.com.

I remember talking to a Swedish cop once and she (the force there is about 50% female) told me about how they don't handcuff arrested suspects unless there is an articulable reason why it was necessary. Apparently handcuffing is considered a use of force there and they felt it took away the dignity of the arrested person.

Um what?

I asked how they transported their suspects and she said in the backseat of their cars. I looked at their car (a Volvo station wagon) and saw that it didn't have a cage in the backseat.

She said that there usually isn't any problem but they have had some issues with drunks and recent immigrants so the policy may get changed. Good grief, I hope it gets changed.

I think that their crime rate is so low that it lets them neglect some common sense officer safety tactics in a real bad way. My old academy instructors and FTOs would have had a stroke if they had heard that conversation.

9 bits of radio chatter:

PC Plastic Fuzz said...

Hay there. Just wanted to drop you a line to say Im off. My final blog post is now up. Take care and good luck!

Anonymous said...

Same here (UK), handcuffing is common assault and as such must be justified (ie have grounds). Which are normally pretty simple.

Beat And Release said...

Holy smokes. If I get out with someone and he's acting the least bit hinky, he gets hooked up until I'm done. As long as I can articulate the reasons for the detention in a report, it's all good.

We used to have a lot of state troopers getting shot in my state. They would bring the violator back and let them sit in the front passenger seat while they ran records checks and wrote the cite. They changed that policy a number of years ago.

One Time said...

In a deadly force situation, taking anything other than a head shot, or aiming for the ten ring, is absurd.

Anonymous said...

Europeans are total pussies,USA isnt too far behind,the infection is rampant.
Warning shots are bad for a number of reasons:

Waste of ammuntion.
You are responsible for where that bullet goes.

Mad Jack said...

I'm guessing that you meet a different class of criminal in Sweden than in the US.

I know that in years past the policy for the Ohio State police was that 'You'll take an ass whippin' before you pull that pistol', but that may have changed. Too bad.

Bob G. said...

JL:
Good points made there!

Arresting takes away "dignity"?

(that's a new one on me)

But that explains WHY we, here in the USA no longer use mobile WATER CANNONS to dispell rioters.
(but we still MAKE them...and sell them to everyone else that wants them...go figure)

Center-mass shot...only way to go in most situations when YOUR life in in jeopardy (along with anyone else in the general area).

Common Sense...it DOES (still) save lives, people.

Good post.
Stay safe.

SunTzu said...

Hello from Sweden!

Pretty much the only instances where cops are killed in the line of duty in Sweden, is when cornering bankrobbers, or psychos, and they shoot to kill in those scenarios. Warning shots are allowed, when its felt that they're useful, mostly in handling suspects armed with close-combat weapons (Knifes, mainly). It gets most drunk/high/manic offenders to drop their weapon and lie down, when the mere threat of a weapon does not. It is however not mandatory, and its left up to the officer to decide the kind of threat and what needs to be done about it. In this case, obviously the policeman felt he had the skill, time and distance to both fire a warning shot, and then aim for the leg. I think its a very good thing that despite his life being in danger, he still didnt overreact, or use more force then neccesary.

Cops in Sweden are very, very rarely fired upon, or killed. I think thats partly because they dont escalate situations to where deadly force becomes something a lowlevel criminal feels forced to use. Also, the punishments in Sweden are far more lenient then in the US, so they dont have as much of a reason to "fight their way out". Pretty much the only people that does that are people with mental problems (They're all out to get me AARGH! type), or murdering bankrobbers. Unfortunatly, both groups are often armed.

If u wanna discuss further, feel free to drop me an email!

SunTzu said...

Hello from Sweden!

Pretty much the only instances where cops are killed in the line of duty in Sweden, is when cornering bankrobbers, or psychos, and they shoot to kill in those scenarios. Warning shots are allowed, when its felt that they're useful, mostly in handling suspects armed with close-combat weapons (Knifes, mainly). It gets most drunk/high/manic offenders to drop their weapon and lie down, when the mere threat of a weapon does not. It is however not mandatory, and its left up to the officer to decide the kind of threat and what needs to be done about it. In this case, obviously the policeman felt he had the skill, time and distance to both fire a warning shot, and then aim for the leg. I think its a very good thing that despite his life being in danger, he still didnt overreact, or use more force then neccesary.

Cops in Sweden are very, very rarely fired upon, or killed. I think thats partly because they dont escalate situations to where deadly force becomes something a lowlevel criminal feels forced to use. Also, the punishments in Sweden are far more lenient then in the US, so they dont have as much of a reason to "fight their way out". Pretty much the only people that does that are people with mental problems (They're all out to get me AARGH! type), or murdering bankrobbers. Unfortunatly, both groups are often armed.

If u wanna discuss further, feel free to drop me an email!