Modern American Police

[Thanas]

So far, no innoncent bystanders have been hit by warning shots AFAIK.

[Broomstick]

Police do shoot at legs and arms in germany precisely because it is reputed to be less deadly. The courts themselves have come up with a three-stage test for that. In ideal circumstances (no life threatened etc) this is how it works:

If no one's life is at risk then how on earth do use justify the use of deadly force in the first place? Because in the US firing a gun at all is considered the use of deadly force, and merely drawing it is the thread of deadly force. How can you justify that is no one's life is at risk?

[Darth Wong]

Police do shoot at legs and arms in germany precisely because it is reputed to be less deadly. The courts themselves have come up with a three-stage test for that. In ideal circumstances (no life threatened etc) this is how it works:

If no one's life is at risk then how on earth do use justify the use of deadly force in the first place? Because in the US firing a gun at all is considered the use of deadly force, and merely drawing it is the thread of deadly force. How can you justify that is no one's life is at risk?

They have obviously made a conscious decision to increase the threat to innocents in order to decrease the risk to assailants themselves. I would assume this is some moral decision which is based on a different morality than the one governing US culture and law. In the US, it is assumed that the criminal's life is worthless compared to that of an innocent, so it is never acceptable to increase the risk to innocents in order to decrease the risk to the criminal.

[Thanas]

Police do shoot at legs and arms in germany precisely because it is reputed to be less deadly. The courts themselves have come up with a three-stage test for that. In ideal circumstances (no life threatened etc) this is how it works:

If no one's life is at risk then how on earth do use justify the use of deadly force in the first place?

Because at that time the officer or a bystander might be in severe danger of life or limb if deadly force would not be used. That is the justification for it.

[Colonel Olrik]

'I'm studying' might mean 'we've just started the unit.'

I fricking hope so. I had heard that European colleges and universities sucked, but if he's been working on that for more than a week and a half then his stat professor shouldn't be a professor.

Engineering schools are good. Maybe he's studying economics.

On-topic, every time I fly to Europe I'm surprised at how heavily armed European police are when they're just walking around airports and such. They all carry sub-machine guns in plain-sight. In the US, all police have a service pistol, but I'm used to seeing that. I'm also sure they have shotguns and rifles and such in their police cruisers, but not when they're just walking around.

Only at airports, and this has only started in September 2001. I'm guessing that there has been a decision at the EU's level to up the security of airports to machine guns after it. I still remember the 90's and how light security was. However, the hardest and most "humiliating" treatment I've received by the police was at US airports.

"What's your job in Europe?" - I'm a neurologist
"Answer the question, what do you do in Europe" - I'm a medical Doctor, a Neurologist..
(it continued)

And people yelling at us because, guess what, we don't know what we're supposed to do inside glass boxes, which incidentally are also sound proof.

[Thanas]

I fricking hope so. I had heard that European colleges and universities sucked, but if he's been working on that for more than a week and a half then his stat professor shouldn't be a professor.

[/quote]

European colleges and universities most assuredly do not suck.

[Broomstick]

If no one's life is at risk then how on earth do use justify the use of deadly force in the first place?

Because at that time the officer or a bystander might be in severe danger of life or limb if deadly force would not be used. That is the justification for it.

How is "severe danger of life or limb" NOT a threat to life itself? Maybe it's a language thing or maybe I'm operating out of a different ethical scheme. If there is a danger to life then use of deadly force is justified, even if that force is not used to kill. If there is not a danger to life, then use of deadly force probably isn't justified.

In the US, it is assumed that the criminal's life is worthless compared to that of an innocent, so it is never acceptable to increase the risk to innocents in order to decrease the risk to the criminal.

Well, not worthless, summary execution isn't OK, but yes, in the US a criminal's life is seen as worth less than a non-criminal's, particularly if said criminal is perpetrating a violent or felonious act at the time in question. The preference is for no one to be dead at the end of the day, but if the choice is between innocent life and a criminal's life then the criminal loses.

[Darth Wong]

Only at airports, and this has only started in September 2001. I'm guessing that there has been a decision at the EU's level to up the security of airports to machine guns after it. I still remember the 90's and how light security was. However, the hardest and most "humiliating" treatment I've received by the police was at US airports.

I've had annoying experiences at US airport border security (most notably the time my son David was identified as being on the no-fly list), but I've never felt "humiliated" or subjected to any kind of intense scrutiny. Mind you, I only fly across with my family in tow, and I think that having a family automatically puts you into a lower suspicion level.

[Colonel Olrik]

I've had annoying experiences at US airport border security (most notably the time my son David was identified as being on the no-fly list), but I've never felt "humiliated" or subjected to any kind of intense scrutiny. Mind you, I only fly across with my family in tow, and I think that having a family automatically puts you into a lower suspicion level.

And you're Canadian. I don't know what bug they have up their asses at San Francisco's airport, but apparently a Portuguese and a German (admittedly with an Eastern European, impossible to pronounce surname) couple is the second closest thing to Alqaeda.

[Broomstick]

On-topic, every time I fly to Europe I'm surprised at how heavily armed European police are when they're just walking around airports and such. They all carry sub-machine guns in plain-sight. In the US, all police have a service pistol, but I'm used to seeing that. I'm also sure they have shotguns and rifles and such in their police cruisers, but not when they're just walking around.

Only at airports, and this has only started in September 2001. I'm guessing that there has been a decision at the EU's level to up the security of airports to machine guns after it. I still remember the 90's and how light security was.

When I was in Europe in 1982 I saw guards with "sub-machine guns" at every international border as well as at airports. So the 1990's were a change from prior years.

That said, I never felt particularly threatened by any of those gun-toters, but then I am an American and don't fear guns in and of themselves. They were just border guards, some of them looking bored, and all of them very polite and formal on the rare occasion any of them said anything.

I would have to agree with others, though, that US borders/customs are the worst of the lot. I'm an American citizen and I don't like dealing with US customs, can't imagine it's pleasant for anyone else.

[Thanas]

If no one's life is at risk then how on earth do use justify the use of deadly force in the first place?

Because at that time the officer or a bystander might be in severe danger of life or limb if deadly force would not be used. That is the justification for it.

How is "severe danger of life or limb" NOT a threat to life itself?

Hmm...I guess something is getting lost in translation. Let's try this again.
It is, but in the german system you are not allowed to use deadly force unless you are almost dead certain you yourself will be severely harmed if you don't use it. So if a police officer is being attacked by a criminal, he will have to use the three steps described above unless the situation does not allow for it (e.g. the criminal is already firing with a gun at close range at him) and even then he is not immediately allowed to kill someone. He first should have to shoot to disable, then kill if disable does not work.

[Netko]

Its probably instructive to look at the first case from the OP from the European perspective to clear this up. A deranged woman armed with a knife is cornered in a park. She lunges for the officers. Now, in the US, she initiated deadly force, the binary switch for deadly force for police is triggered, and she is shot center mass, killing her in the process. In most of Europe, acting like this would get the officers fired at a minimum, and possibly looking at manslaughter charges, since they have an additional level of force, that of immediate deadly force, being necessary before being allowed before being able to shoot the perpetrator to kill directly. In practice, that means armed with a gun aimed directly at an officer or civilian with a shown intent to fire (either previously firing or declaring intent verbally) - depending on the circumstances, even a gun "simply" aimed at officers might not be enough (for example, a scared child that picked up the gun and by all appearances doesn't have the actual intent to shoot), or being armed with a gun and engaging in a firefight with the police (in that case the officer can take the shot if he sees the opening even if the gun is not pointed at a person at the time). Or something like having a bomb strapped on threatening to blow it with a detonator in hand, or an armed grenade in hand, etc.

In the case from the OP, which obviously doesn't meet that criteria, the officers have a duty to try to dodge her attack, fire a warning shot, then fire for disablement (this criteria might be optional depending on jurisdiction, but it is universally preferred for Continental/Central European police), and only if that doesn't stop the attack can they fire center mass.

[Netko]

Ghetto edit - I looked up the applicable laws and regulations for Croatia, to be sure. Its pretty much what I stated above, the only thing I was wrong about was the warning shot - since the '07 law, police have an option of firing one (and that is recommended if circumstances allow it), but are not mandated to do it - instead they are mandated to yell "Stop, police!" and "Stop or I'll shoot!" before being allowed to fire - and that is only allowed for stopping the perpetrators of crimes which carry a sentence of 10 years or more, which basically means murder, rape, torture etc., and which doesn't include assault. So they have to wait until it becomes attempted murder to use deadly force, which leads to the scenario described above. One thing the law does give them power to do is to shoot at such perpetrators even if they are fleeing (after issuing the warnings). So if you murder someone in sight of the police, they have the authority to shoot you if you attempt to flee. The regulations also qualify when deadly force is allowed, and direct application (without warnings or other steps of escalation) is only allowed when the person is showing armed resistance, "oružani" being used for armed, which means firearms or grenades or similar.

[Broomstick]

Interesting.

I'd like to mention that while US police certainly have the option to use deadly force under some circumstances they are not obligated to do so. If police can find an alternate means of resolving a dangerous situation they are certainly allowed to do so, and may even be commended for it. So yelling "Stop!" or "Put down the gun!" is entirely acceptable, is something that police officers do, and while I don't doubt there are a few eager shooters (given the sheer number of US police officers that is almost inevitable) I don't think most of them really want to get into a serious firefight.

However, in the US shooting a fleeing person, i.e. "shooting someone in the back", is not viewed positively. Now, there certainly may be situations where a police officer is able to justify doing that, but any officer shooting someone else in such a circumstance is going to be subject to a very thorough inquiry. Remember that any time a US police officer shoots someone, even if a fatality does not occur, there will be an investigation and if it is found that the shooting is not justified the police officer can be brought up on criminal charges. It is rare, but it has occurred. A police officer is allowed to shoot, he or she is not allowed to do so with no consequences whatsoever.

[Netko]

I found it curious as well. I believe it is a remnant of the Yugoslav days, when the police had a much more paramilitary function (which even their name from those days, "milicija" (militia), suggests). Still, you have to remember the crimes that fall into that category. Like most of Europe, sentences are lower then in the US, so to get into that 10+ years club you basically have to murder (manslaughter doesn't count), brutally rape (plain jane rape doesn't get you there), torture, do a warcrime or two or... well, that's pretty much it. So its basically a "murderer on the loose" statute. And, of course, they can only shoot to stop the fleeing - if the perpetrator stops, the police loose the option of firing. It isn't much used, if at all - I can't seem to find any examples of it being used in a situation that wouldn't be covered by one of the other grounds.

[CmdrWilkens]

Police do shoot at legs and arms in germany precisely because it is reputed to be less deadly. The courts themselves have come up with a three-stage test for that. In ideal circumstances (no life threatened etc) this is how it works: If you have to shoot, first you do a warning shot. Then you shoot to disable (leg, arm) and only then are you permitted to fire deadly shots. That is the law as interpreted by our courts and that is why police shoot at arms and legs first.

Wilkens, here is a link to some statistics that show number of shots fired at persons and deadly shots.

What is funny is those numbers look almost identical (well they are identical for 04 and 04) to the ones I pulled from salm's PDF. So that being said lets work forward from this additional bit of data. The 21,100 number derived earlier for the US includes the threat (verbal and drawing of the weapon) and the use of weapons by officers. The number of those incidents which translate into deaths is higher in Germany than the US by ~3% for the data set I was working with. If I incorporate the 2002 data (which salm's PDF didn't include) there were a total of 443 incidents including warnings (against persons), engagements (against persons), and illegal usage (against persons) which resulted in 18 total deaths for a 4% incident rate.


Now the one thing I did here which does render things a bit off is use the 22yr average rate for the US rather than a recent 3 year group. Were I to use the equivalent 3 year group for the US then I would get 341, 371, and 368 for 02-04 respectively. The contact with police changes at the same time. The best point is the 2002 survey where there were a total of 45.3 million contacts with police in the US of which 664,500 resulted in "use of force." The study I linked to WAAAYYYY back incidated that roughly 5% of incidents involving force will include the use of the firearm in some manner so that would give us 33,225 incidents per year. [Note the survey linked to gives a much higher incidence rate of firearm involvement at 125,872 incidents minimum]. Based on that data over the 3 year period there were roughly 1080 police homicides for 99,657 incidents or almost exactly 1% of the time.

Including that data would indicate in Germany you are FOUR times as likely to die once the situation escalates to that point BUT you are more likely to have it escalate to that point in the US. In other words pick your poison, it is more likely (in terms of incidents /100,000 persons) that you will encounter a threat or use of a firearm in the US but were you in Germany should it get to that point it is more likely that you will wind up dead.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Hmm...I guess something is getting lost in translation. Let's try this again.
It is, but in the german system you are not allowed to use deadly force unless you are almost dead certain you yourself will be severely harmed if you don't use it. So if a police officer is being attacked by a criminal, he will have to use the three steps described above unless the situation does not allow for it (e.g. the criminal is already firing with a gun at close range at him) and even then he is not immediately allowed to kill someone. He first should have to shoot to disable, then kill if disable does not work.

Interesting. This is a good example of a system that works in one place but wouldn't work in another. Here in the US the use of that system would result in more dead innocents and police. I'd quit immediately if they told me I wasn't allowed to kill someone if they were shooting at me. That's absurd.

[Tribun]

You know I have a post IN THIS THREAD where I gave you the data. Since you must have missed it earlier.

I did miss it.

Looking through the numbers, now that I do know where to find them, the whole thing adds up with your math. My comment came only from the wrong assumption (because of the missed post) that you simply put two percentages into the room.

Sorry, my bad.

[Thanas]

Hmm...I guess something is getting lost in translation. Let's try this again.
It is, but in the german system you are not allowed to use deadly force unless you are almost dead certain you yourself will be severely harmed if you don't use it. So if a police officer is being attacked by a criminal, he will have to use the three steps described above unless the situation does not allow for it (e.g. the criminal is already firing with a gun at close range at him) and even then he is not immediately allowed to kill someone. He first should have to shoot to disable, then kill if disable does not work.

Interesting. This is a good example of a system that works in one place but wouldn't work in another. Here in the US the use of that system would result in more dead innocents and police. I'd quit immediately if they told me I wasn't allowed to kill someone if they were shooting at me. That's absurd.

Well, here you are allowed to kill him as in "you won't face any negative consequences out of it", but you are supposed to shoot to disable first.

Police do shoot at legs and arms in germany precisely because it is reputed to be less deadly. The courts themselves have come up with a three-stage test for that. In ideal circumstances (no life threatened etc) this is how it works: If you have to shoot, first you do a warning shot. Then you shoot to disable (leg, arm) and only then are you permitted to fire deadly shots. That is the law as interpreted by our courts and that is why police shoot at arms and legs first.

Wilkens, here is a link to some statistics that show number of shots fired at persons and deadly shots.

What is funny is those numbers look almost identical (well they are identical for 04 and 04) to the ones I pulled from salm's PDF. So that being said lets work forward from this additional bit of data. The 21,100 number derived earlier for the US includes the threat (verbal and drawing of the weapon) and the use of weapons by officers. The number of those incidents which translate into deaths is higher in Germany than the US by ~3% for the data set I was working with. If I incorporate the 2002 data (which salm's PDF didn't include) there were a total of 443 incidents including warnings (against persons), engagements (against persons), and illegal usage (against persons) which resulted in 18 total deaths for a 4% incident rate.


Now the one thing I did here which does render things a bit off is use the 22yr average rate for the US rather than a recent 3 year group. Were I to use the equivalent 3 year group for the US then I would get 341, 371, and 368 for 02-04 respectively. The contact with police changes at the same time. The best point is the 2002 survey where there were a total of 45.3 million contacts with police in the US of which 664,500 resulted in "use of force." The study I linked to WAAAYYYY back incidated that roughly 5% of incidents involving force will include the use of the firearm in some manner so that would give us 33,225 incidents per year. [Note the survey linked to gives a much higher incidence rate of firearm involvement at 125,872 incidents minimum]. Based on that data over the 3 year period there were roughly 1080 police homicides for 99,657 incidents or almost exactly 1% of the time.

Please keep in mind that the german numbers do not include threatening people with weapons. If those numbers were incorporated (I can't find them) the number of encounters with german firearms will most likely be significantly lower, as would the number of persons shot dead indicate. For example, if you have 1080 police homicides over three years, then you have (contrasted with 17 over a three year period in Germany) a total rate that is ~64x higher than the german one.

Including that data would indicate in Germany you are FOUR times as likely to die once the situation escalates to that point BUT you are more likely to have it escalate to that point in the US. In other words pick your poison, it is more likely (in terms of incidents /100,000 persons) that you will encounter a threat or use of a firearm in the US but were you in Germany should it get to that point it is more likely that you will wind up dead.

That is a good summary. It is too bad I can't find the numbers for total use of force in Germany, that would most likely put the german numbers more in perspective.

[fgalkin]

Sorta related but not warranting its own thread:

And then, there are the fucking scum who abuse their position of power

CNN) -- A former California police officer accused of sexually assaulting a motorist during a traffic stop pleaded guilty in federal court, federal prosecutors said Friday.

Feliciano Sanchez, 34, admitted in court Thursday that while on duty on May 16, 2007, he pulled over a female driver in a traffic stop and forced her to perform oral sex on him, according to a news release from U.S. Attorney Thomas O'Brien, who heads the office for the Central District.

Sanchez, then of Los Angeles County's Bell Police Department, stopped the woman for speeding or weaving down the road, said central California U.S. attorney spokesman Thom Mrozek, citing court documents.

After learning the woman, identified as R.H. in court documents, did not have a driver's license with her, Sanchez told her he suspected her of drinking and her car would be towed, Mrozek said.

Sanchez offered to drive R.H. to her job, but instead drove her to the parking lot of an auto repair outlet in Bell, Mrozek said.

Sanchez placed his hand on his gun and forced her to perform sex on him in his patrol car, Mrozek said. Afterward, Sanchez drove R.H. to her work place, Mrozek said.

"Officer Sanchez brutalized a person he had sworn to serve," O'Brien said in the release. "As a result of his criminal conduct, Mr. Sanchez now faces a substantial amount of time in federal prison. His conduct eroded public confidence in law enforcement and cast a pall over his former colleagues who obey the law, proudly working to preserve public safety."

Federal prosecutors charged Sanchez with a civil rights violation, according to the release.

The crime carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison upon sentencing. Sanchez has been held without bond since his arrest in May 2007, Mrozek said. Sanchez's sentencing is scheduled for November 18.

Sanchez resigned as an officer after his indictment, Bell Police Department Capt. Anthony Miranda said. Miranda said Sanchez's case was a first for the department.

"We were in shock, and actually, disbelief," he said.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Axis Kast]

Only at airports, and this has only started in September 2001. I'm guessing that there has been a decision at the EU's level to up the security of airports to machine guns after it. I still remember the 90's and how light security was. However, the hardest and most "humiliating" treatment I've received by the police was at US airports.

That may be true of Germany, but sub-machine guns were a commonplace in Greek and Italian airports well before 11 September 2001. This is a somewhat interesting discrepancy, since the logic for heavily armed security in the international terminals of Rome and Athens - past experience with terrorism - is just as applicable in Berlin or Bonn.

Let it not be forgotten that while American law enforcement is justifiably linked to S.W.A.T. and swagger, Europeans are unique in their possession of paramilitary constabularies and dedicated riot police - both historical curiosities.

[Thanas]

Only at airports, and this has only started in September 2001. I'm guessing that there has been a decision at the EU's level to up the security of airports to machine guns after it. I still remember the 90's and how light security was. However, the hardest and most "humiliating" treatment I've received by the police was at US airports.

That may be true of Germany, but sub-machine guns were a commonplace in Greek and Italian airports well before 11 September 2001. This is a somewhat interesting discrepancy, since the logic for heavily armed security in the international terminals of Rome and Athens - past experience with terrorism - is just as applicable in Berlin or Bonn.

Why?

Let it not be forgotten that while American law enforcement is justifiably linked to S.W.A.T. and swagger, Europeans are unique in their possession of paramilitary constabularies and dedicated riot police - both historical curiosities.

They are not curiosities, they both serve two different purposes. Please do read up on them before opening your mouth.

[Master of Ossus]

They are not curiosities, they both serve two different purposes. Please do read up on them before opening your mouth.

Well, seriously, though: what is a gendarmarie? What role do they serve that isn't handled by normal police forces? Mind you, I realize that other countries have them, too, and I understand their function in basically third world countries where they can't trust local police to uphold the law and you frequently need a group that answers to a national authority, but virtually every nation in Europe makes fairly extensive use of them. What's with that?

[Simon_Jester]

The 'historical curiosity' thing might hinge on your definition of the phrase.

I don't think it would be right to call gendarmerie a historical curiosity in the sense of "Ah, this country has gendarmes, how quaint!"

But the fact that some nations have gendarmes and others don't is a sort of historical accident, one that could just as easily have ended up differently. France or Germany don't have to have gendarmes in the sense that they have to have, say, a ministry of finance.

And the existence of gendarmes is a historical accident one that can legitimately make people curious: "Ah, this country has gendarmes, interesting, how are they different from the 'normal' police and why do they have them here when we don't have them at home?"

[Thanas]

They are not curiosities, they both serve two different purposes. Please do read up on them before opening your mouth.

Well, seriously, though: what is a gendarmarie? What role do they serve that isn't handled by normal police forces? Mind you, I realize that other countries have them, too, and I understand their function in basically third world countries where they can't trust local police to uphold the law and you frequently need a group that answers to a national authority, but virtually every nation in Europe makes fairly extensive use of them. What's with that?

Well, first there are historical reasons for them. In the modern era, the police was not tasked with preventing crime at first, but more of a regulatory agency aka. is your building clean enough. That was the job of the gendarmes. This however quickly dissolved. Nowadays, dedicated riot police is maintained at a local level (in germany, the states). The gendarmes or their equivalent serve as a failsafe, but they also can be deployed as a surge capacity if the states cannot organize personal transfer with each other in case something big happens - police transfer is a bit of a legal nightmare.

SWAT teams are maintained both at the local and national level, with their functions differing wildly from those of the riot police.

So they a) serve as a failsafe against coups etc. b) allow for surge capacity c) in france, allow the state to handle terror threats without having to use the military, which considering european states still have conscripts is a very wise thing to do d) do not have the national politics beholden to state politics if police deployments are needed e) in theory prevent the formation of a single police model.

The basic difference is IMO that you do not waste Swat teams with anti-riot deployments.


Specifically, in the case of france, it allows the french to have a quasi-military unit steeped in police traditions and with military training, something that comes in very handy in peacekeeping and nation-building. Also, the last attempted coup in france was during the algerian war - definitely not long enough ago that one should abolish safeguards.