Swedish tourist cops in NYC showing how it should be done

[Will Wiley]

Hopefully the "real" cops will shoot the homeless man once the Swedes have left (only joking)

 

[repoman]

I do actually feel bad for these cops and hope that they stay in a controlled media environment where they can't accidentally make the NYPD look bad. Twitter is doing a good enough job at that.

There is something a bit cringey about this. Many, not all of the NYPD do deserve some shit for sure. The callousness needs to be greatly reduced.

 

[Lugubert]

Two reasons might inflate the number of rapes in Sweden compared to some other countries:

The victims are encouraged to report, and there are increasing efforts to help them cope with the experience - and cope the legal procedures, and discussions in media stress that there should be no social stigma applied to victims.

The definition of rape in Sweden is very wide. A guy in a relationship who screws his fiancée when she's asleep might be considered as having raped her. I think (I haven't been sufficiently interested to find out exact details) that genital fondling without penetration might be classified as rape in Sweden and not in several other countries. Etc.

 

[Togo]

Sweden covers under 'rape' actions that in most other countries are 'sexual assault'.

As far as I'm aware the actual incidence of offenses that in other countries would be considered rape is lower than average for the EU.

 

[Derec]

Isn't Sweden the rape capital of the world?

Only because they define "rape" as anything a woman thinks was "rape".

Back to Swedish cops, what would have happened if the perps had pulled out guns and started shooting at them?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Isn't Sweden the rape capital of the world?

Only because they define "rape" as anything a woman thinks was "rape".

Back to Swedish cops, what would have happened if the perps had pulled out guns and started shooting at them?

I'm thinking they would have altered their methods. But interesting view on what actually happened, ie, well trained officers being able to subdue a person that was an actual threat, causing actual harm, all without killing him.

 

[Derec]

I'm thinking they would have altered their methods. But interesting view on what actually happened, ie, well trained officers being able to subdue a person that was an actual threat, causing actual harm, all without killing him.

I am sure US police do that every day. It's just that those cases do not make the headlines.

 

[thebeave]

I'm thinking they would have altered their methods. But interesting view on what actually happened, ie, well trained officers being able to subdue a person that was an actual threat, causing actual harm, all without killing him.

I am sure US police do that every day. It's just that those cases do not make the headlines.

Yup. Its like how you never hear details about the thousands of planes that take off and land safely everyday. Only the ones that crash and burn horrifically every so often.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm thinking they would have altered their methods. But interesting view on what actually happened, ie, well trained officers being able to subdue a person that was an actual threat, causing actual harm, all without killing him.

I am sure US police do that every day. It's just that those cases do not make the headlines.

And how do they manage not to get killed in the process? Are you suggesting that it is possible to subdue a naked man without having to kill him first?

 

[dismal]

I am sure US police do that every day. It's just that those cases do not make the headlines.

Yup. Its like how you never hear details about the thousands of planes that take off and land safely everyday. Only the ones that crash and burn horrifically every so often.

I asked early in the thread if the NYC police had ever broken up a fight without killing someone and no one produced any evidence they ever had.

Hence this is big news.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yup. Its like how you never hear details about the thousands of planes that take off and land safely everyday. Only the ones that crash and burn horrifically every so often.

I asked early in the thread if the NYC police had ever broken up a fight without killing someone and no one produced any evidence they ever had.

We presumed it wasn't possible because a stone from 100 feet could penetrate bullet proof armor, a naked man is too dangerous to subdue, a knife from 50 feet is a serious enough threat to warrant a shooting, a man fleeing from an officer is a threat to the officer (these are all arguments made at this forum). In fact, there have been almost no cases of a shooting where there haven't been excuses made for the officer.

Hence this is big news.

Well, typically officers don't jump onto the hood of a car (after over 100 bullets have been fired into it) and then unload about 15 more shots into it either.

 

[barbos]

But these Swedish cops had no guns.

 

[ronburgundy]

US cops arrest criminals for violent crimes 500,000 per year without any notable harm to the criminals. And unlike this incident, about 150,000 times per year the violent criminal has a gun or knife.

BTW, this does not include the millions of arrests per year that were for non-violent crimes but where the criminal was resistant and violent during the arrest itself.

This incident was news because it was tourists who did the subduing, not because they didn't use guns. Note that the criminals did not have guns either which is often not the case. Also, note that if the violent assault occurred with no one stopping it, then it also would not have made the news, because that happens every single day, which is the context of constant violence and threat in which the police operate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

US cops arrest criminals for violent crimes 500,000 per year without any notable harm to the criminals. And unlike this incident, about 150,000 times per year the violent criminal has a gun or knife.

BTW, this does not include the millions of arrests per year that were for non-violent crimes but where the criminal was resistant and violent during the arrest itself.

This is odd because we've been told that stones will hurt a cop, knives are dangerous from 50 feet, naked people are an imminent deadly threat, fleeing suspects could potentially unflee and attack. There has been no case where an officer has been shown to have used gross force by a few on this board.

This incident was news because it was tourists who did the subduing, not because they didn't use guns. Note that the criminals did not have guns either which is often not the case.

We've been told by some that subduing a person that is mentally ill is nearly impossible. So hard in fact that even if naked and clearly unarmed, subduing without gun violence ins simply not possible.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Isn't Sweden the rape capital of the world?

Only because they define "rape" as anything a woman thinks was "rape".

Back to Swedish cops, what would have happened if the perps had pulled out guns and started shooting at them?

I have seen no indication that their system makes false claims true.

There is most certainly a reporting issue due to how they define crimes: They have a single term for a wider range of acts than we do.

 

[ronburgundy]

This is odd because we've been told that stones will hurt a cop, knives are dangerous from 50 feet, naked people are an imminent deadly threat, fleeing suspects could potentially unflee and attack. There has been no case where an officer has been shown to have used gross force by a few on this board.

In nearly ever case discussed on this board you have blindly presumed excessive force without having hardly any of the actual specific facts that would be relevant, and you have irrationally ignored facts that are relevant to the threat posed. Others have merely pointed out that your highly incomplete and distorted facts are not close to sufficient to conclude (as you usually do) that the suspect could not possibly have posed any threat to anyone. We aren't making conclusions of certainty either way, just pointing out the irrational bias in your certain conclusions of the cops. guilt.
Your claim of "fleeing suspects" is a perfect example. A person suspected of having a weapon or of having committed a violent crime is very clearly a real threat to other people, regardless of whether they are fleeing from the cops. That is why the law allows use of force (including shooting) against such fleeing suspects. The fact that you blindly ignore this reality and argue that all fleeing suspects should be allowed to go, shows how uninterested you are in any reasonable discussion of the issue, as does your denial that rocks could ever possibly hurt a cop,or that knives cannot be thrown.

This incident was news because it was tourists who did the subduing, not because they didn't use guns. Note that the criminals did not have guns either which is often not the case.

We've been told by some that subduing a person that is mentally ill is nearly impossible. So hard in fact that even if naked and clearly unarmed, subduing without gun violence ins simply not possible.

You've been told no such thing. You have claimed that all naked persons can always be subdued without any threat to the cop. That is the ridiculous premise on which your argument is based, because only then is a violent, attacking, mentally ill naked person the total non-threat your argument requires. The fact that some naked people can be subdued without a gun does not mean that no naked person ever poses a threat to warrant shooting them, especially when there is a strong chance the person is on PCP. Your argument presumes that no charging person is ever capable of physically overpowering anyone that should be a cop. That is ridiculous. Engaging a person in hand to hand combat greatly increases the threat to the officer, and therefore the threat to all nearby citizens that the person might go after if he gets away. The fact that cops very almost always do increase the threat to themselves by not shooting suspects, does not mean they are morally or legally required to do so in all circumstances. IOW, there is nothing odd about the stats I posted in relation to incidents when cops do use deadly force.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In nearly ever case discussed on this board you have blindly presumed excessive force without having hardly any of the actual specific facts that would be relevant, and you have irrationally ignored facts that are relevant to the threat posed.

You can feel free to cite two or three of those cases.

Your claim of "fleeing suspects" is a perfect example. A person suspected of having a weapon or of having committed a violent crime is very clearly a real threat to other people,...

The guy didn't have a weapon and the officer knew as much as he appeared to plant the tazer on the man he shot.

The fact that you blindly ignore this reality and argue that all fleeing suspects should be allowed to go...

You can feel free to cite where I made that statement.

...shows how uninterested you are in any reasonable discussion of the issue, as does your denial that rocks could ever possibly hurt a cop,or that knives cannot be thrown.

All it shows is your interest in strawman arguments.

This incident was news because it was tourists who did the subduing, not because they didn't use guns. Note that the criminals did not have guns either which is often not the case.

We've been told by some that subduing a person that is mentally ill is nearly impossible. So hard in fact that even if naked and clearly unarmed, subduing without gun violence ins simply not possible.

You've been told no such thing.

Do I need to cite each and every one of these threads?

You have claimed that all naked persons can always be subdued without any threat to the cop.

Please cite this claim.

That is the ridiculous premise on which your argument is based, because only then is a violent, attacking, mentally ill naked person the total non-threat your argument requires. The fact that some naked people can be subdued without a gun does not mean that no naked person ever poses a threat to warrant shooting them, especially when there is a strong chance the person is on PCP. Your argument presumes that no charging person is ever capable of physically overpowering anyone that should be a cop. That is ridiculous. Engaging a person in hand to hand combat greatly increases the threat to the officer, and therefore the threat to all nearby citizens that the person might go after if he gets away. The fact that cops very almost always do increase the threat to themselves by not shooting suspects, does not mean they are morally or legally required to do so in all circumstances. IOW, there is nothing odd about the stats I posted in relation to incidents when cops do use deadly force.

I agree with your claim here that naked people can be subdued by Police officers.

 

[ronburgundy]

You can feel free to cite two or three of those cases.

Your claim of "fleeing suspects" is a perfect example. A person suspected of having a weapon or of having committed a violent crime is very clearly a real threat to other people,...

The guy didn't have a weapon and the officer knew as much as he appeared to plant the tazer on the man he shot.

The argument that once a suspect flees, deadly force shouldn't be used has come up in several threads, including instances where the suspect is armed. Also, they don't need to be armed. An unarmed rapist fleeing his crime can (legally) and should (ethically) be stopped by deadly force is needed. Many violent crimes (regardless of whether the person has a weapon at the time) warrants use up to deadly force to apprehend the person to protect likely future victims from a violent threat.

The fact that you blindly ignore this reality and argue that all fleeing suspects should be allowed to go...

You can feel free to cite where I made that statement.

You just did make a claim that logically presumes this. As with your fellow ideologues on this issue, you lack basic awareness of the what your own arguments logically presume, so when people like me call you out on those inherent presumptions, you demand proof you said those exact words, further demonstrating your fundamental ignorance of the the difference between logical presumptions inherent to an argument and explicitly stated claims that rest on those presumptions.
You claimed that a fleeing suspect is evidence that force against them is "gross force" and dismissed counter claims that merely the act of fleeing from the cops at that moment does not reduce the threat the person poses to others, including the cops at a future moment. This argument presumes that unless they can be stopped from fleeing without the use of force, then they must be allowed to go. This presumes either that they pose any serious threat to anyone once they flee, or that you think cops' duty is not to stop serious threats people pose to others.

This incident was news because it was tourists who did the subduing, not because they didn't use guns. Note that the criminals did not have guns either which is often not the case.

We've been told by some that subduing a person that is mentally ill is nearly impossible. So hard in fact that even if naked and clearly unarmed, subduing without gun violence ins simply not possible.

You've been told no such thing.

Do I need to cite each and every one of these threads?

Yes you do, but be sure not to follow the typical strategy of gross misrepresentation and omission of critical context and facts. You must show that someone claimed that no naked unarmed person can ever possibly be subdued without shooting them. Note that it is not relevant that people claim that a some potential naked and unarmed persons cannot be subdued without guns, because that does nothing but note the possibility that the potential threat is greater than zero. It must be a claim that all and every person in all and every context can only be subdued with gun violence.

You have claimed that all naked persons can always be subdued without any threat to the cop.

Please cite this claim.

Again, you fail to grasp the inherent logical presumptions of your own arguments. You dismissed as invalid the claim that a naked and unarmed person could still pose a serious threat and you claimed that force used against such a person is "gross force". Those arguments logically presume that all naked and unarmed persons can be subdued without any potential threat to the cop or others. Since we never have all of the contextual facts, the fact that a person was naked and unarmed only supports your claim of unjustified force if those facts alone are sufficient to rule out the possibility of threat across all possible contexts and persons.

That is the ridiculous premise on which your argument is based, because only then is a violent, attacking, mentally ill naked person the total non-threat your argument requires. The fact that some naked people can be subdued without a gun does not mean that no naked person ever poses a threat to warrant shooting them, especially when there is a strong chance the person is on PCP. Your argument presumes that no charging person is ever capable of physically overpowering anyone that should be a cop. That is ridiculous. Engaging a person in hand to hand combat greatly increases the threat to the officer, and therefore the threat to all nearby citizens that the person might go after if he gets away. The fact that cops very almost always do increase the threat to themselves by not shooting suspects, does not mean they are morally or legally required to do so in all circumstances. IOW, there is nothing odd about the stats I posted in relation to incidents when cops do use deadly force.

I agree with your claim here that naked people can be subdued by Police officers.

Wrong. As nearly always, you distorted what I said and left out critical information. I said "some naked people" can be subdued. You deliberately omitted the "some" so that it implies "all". Only if it is "all under all circumstances" does the fact that the man was naked provide support for your conclusion of excessive force when a gun is used. Thus, you make an argument that presumes "all" but then deny that you are saying that, even though if it is merely "some", then it actually implies that there are "some" who cannot be subdued and thus deadly force can be justified, regardless of the person being naked, unarmed, or fleeing.
Is sum, anything short of "all under every circumstance" supports that the use of force in that situation could be justified. Thus, based upon those limited facts around which these threads always revolve, no reasonable conclusion of excessive use of force can be made. The threads would be a pointless waste of time that no one would bother creating an OP for, except the OP and their ditto-heads all start with the unstated premise that "all" instances that share those limited features must pose no real threat thus the force must be unjustified.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You can feel free to cite two or three of those cases.

The guy didn't have a weapon and the officer knew as much as he appeared to plant the tazer on the man he shot.

The argument that once a suspect flees, deadly force shouldn't be used has come up in several threads, including instances where the suspect is armed. Also, they don't need to be armed. An unarmed rapist fleeing his crime can (legally) and should (ethically) be stopped by deadly force is needed.

The law says that unless the suspect is known to be an imminent danger to the officer or people, deadly force can be used. However, if a fleeing suspect is not an imminent danger to anyone, deadly force is against the law.

Many violent crimes (regardless of whether the person has a weapon at the time) warrants use up to deadly force to apprehend the person to protect likely future victims from a violent threat.

Wait, is this a review of The Minority Report?

The fact that you blindly ignore this reality and argue that all fleeing suspects should be allowed to go...

You can feel free to cite where I made that statement.

You just did make a claim that logically presumes this.

Can you even quote me where I said it?

You claimed that a fleeing suspect is evidence that force against them is "gross force" and dismissed counter claims that merely the act of fleeing from the cops at that moment does not reduce the threat the person poses to others, including the cops at a future moment.

The Police Department never for a moment indicated the Officer believed the man was a threat to any bystanders. And in fact, the Officer, according to the video, planted the tazer on the suspect to set up his own narrative of what happened.

This argument presumes that unless they can be stopped from fleeing without the use of force, then they must be allowed to go.

You do realize the difference between Deadly Force and Force and getting back up to find a guy who is on foot and without his car which is currently in the possession of the Police? You do understand the canyon that exists between killing and subduing?

This incident was news because it was tourists who did the subduing, not because they didn't use guns. Note that the criminals did not have guns either which is often not the case.

We've been told by some that subduing a person that is mentally ill is nearly impossible. So hard in fact that even if naked and clearly unarmed, subduing without gun violence ins simply not possible.

You've been told no such thing.

Do I need to cite each and every one of these threads?

Yes you do, but be sure not to follow the typical strategy of gross misrepresentation and omission of critical context and facts. You must show that someone claimed that no naked unarmed person can ever possibly be subdued without shooting them.

Odd, because I was just going to cite the actual case where a naked man was shot and killed, and the officer wasn't assaulted and the defense people made of that shooting. I wasn't going to try to establish a strawman position.

You have claimed that all naked persons can always be subdued without any threat to the cop.

Please cite this claim.

Again, you fail to grasp the inherent logical presumptions of your own arguments.

No. There is large doubt when an officer shoots someone that was completely unarmed and makes no attempt to evade someone that is clearly not in their right mind. So instead of moving, calling for help, they just shoot. There are again, options available to the Police, especially when not cornered and having no other option than to use deadly force.

You dismissed as invalid the claim that a naked and unarmed person could still pose a serious threat...

That was never said, nor does what I have said indicate that such a situation can not happen. You are inaccurately extrapolating.

That is the ridiculous premise on which your argument is based, because only then is a violent, attacking, mentally ill naked person the total non-threat your argument requires. The fact that some naked people can be subdued without a gun does not mean that no naked person ever poses a threat to warrant shooting them, especially when there is a strong chance the person is on PCP. Your argument presumes that no charging person is ever capable of physically overpowering anyone that should be a cop. That is ridiculous. Engaging a person in hand to hand combat greatly increases the threat to the officer, and therefore the threat to all nearby citizens that the person might go after if he gets away. The fact that cops very almost always do increase the threat to themselves by not shooting suspects, does not mean they are morally or legally required to do so in all circumstances. IOW, there is nothing odd about the stats I posted in relation to incidents when cops do use deadly force.

I agree with your claim here that naked people can be subdued by Police officers.

Wrong. As nearly always, you distorted what I said and left out critical information.

I did. I thought it was obvious that I did. I was trying to make a point about taking a small thing noted in a large paragraph and taking it out of context. You know, like you did.

 

[arkirk]

It is true that nearly everything meaningful we do in life "increases the possibility of our getting injured by some statistical amount...drive a car, turn on a lightbulb, bake a cake, eat a taco off a taco truck....well, these "threats" do not warrant a person always being ready to apply deadly force. The truth be told, everybody who totes a firearm at the ready automatically becomes a threat to all the people and animals he encounters...this too is statistical.

We need a healthier attitude toward lethal weapons....that being to avoid them. These cops just proved that they could act in this situation without blowing a rather rotten offender away.

Also, the situation in Sweden has been exacerbated by unjustifiable U.S. "liberations" in the middle east. American military and CIA actions in the middle east has brought about catastrophic displacements of millions of people and for many of them (because these conflicts have been maintained for so long) there is a huge flood of refuges arriving in places like Sweden. They bring with them the mentality of people who have lived in constant danger and who have seen and in some instances have participated in rape and other forms of personal violence and torture. To point to Swedish rape statistics as proof their system of governance is defective is disingenuous. It is just being subjected to unplanned on outside stresses for which it was never designed.