Sometimes, when the offense is minor its OK to let the bad guy get away. Firing repeatedly at a moving vehicle in a crowded parking lot is never ok, even if someone might get away with murder.

Polizei seemed much more calmly methodical and much less cowboyish. I can't imagine this situation occurring in Germany.

(1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02...

> Sometimes, when the offense is minor its OK to let the bad guy get away.

Especially since, with a bit of methodical work, you usually have a good chance of catching them later.

People made fun of this, because when criminal has a gun, he won't be shooting in the air 3 times, nor targeting policeman legs, so law was changed to be less strict about cops shooting.

But we still have strict regulations about "allowed defence". For example courts judged a few times, that man that shot burglar with legal gun he had in his house was guilty of "overstepping allowed defence", because burglar only had knife. It's ridiculus IMHO.

Still - I've never heard or seen a real gun or knife fight in my life, and neither had anybody I know (or at least they had not told me about that). I think it's general tendency, that gun crimes and homicides in general are much less frequent in Europe.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1199/can-a-bullet-f...

Furthermore not all warning shots fired into the air are fired at high enough angles that the bullets decelerate to terminal velocity before hitting something.

Even if it reaches terminal velocity and doesn't hit anyone, in an urban area it can easily hit someone's property and cause property damage to roofs windows or walls.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-12-20/news/30540094_1_a...

Edit: this particular bullet would have been on a ballistic trajectory and would have retained a significant amount of its original velocity.

The Finnish police forces are only allowed to use a gun when no other force is effective or available. So, it's the worst-of-the-worst case choice. All policemen I know haven't fired a single bullet during their entire career.

Further, generally each shot fired (or use of any weapon) in duty will require the policeman to report the case to his superior officers and the internal investigations will determine whether what happened was within the laws that limit the use of force in duty. The fact that officers who shoot are generally suspected for breaking the criminal/police law is a constant counter-force to limit the usage of firearms. Mostly they don't and investigations cease but each case will be considered.

Thus, the policeman needs to be 101% sure the situation warrants firing a gun until he will use it. In most cases where shots are fired there's a prior permission from the superior officers. There must be a case where a single policeman had to fire a gun based on his own judgement but I don't remember reading about one. The patrol calls do involve armed civilians but the clear majority of the offenders are talked down.

This creates a general atmosphere where criminals know not to shoot back to the police. They know that because of the strict laws governing gun use in force, the Finnish police mean it when they announce they're prepared to use armed force. There's an occasional nutcase with a gun and who doesn't give up and he might be surrounded for hours or even days but even those cases rarely escalate to an actual firefight with the police.

There was a homeless person here in San Diego because he had a tree branch and looked like he was going to use it against the officers (the person was mentally ill). Not to mention the guy who jumped the White House fence who had a butterknife (the President wasn't in the country at the time). The butterknife guy was shot and killed, since he didn't follow orders to put the knife down.

I believe it is a lack of respect for human life along with the fact that these cases have made it to the Superme Court which ruled for the officers, if the officer feel they are in danger, they can shoot to kill. And they do so.

My guess is German police offers don't care if a person has a tree branch, butterknife, stones or whatever they go in and make the arrest without just shooting the person. There is some risk of personal injury but probably nothing that 10 officers with billy-clubs can't handle.

I'm pretty sure policy is if the guy is holding a knife, you warn them and draw your gun. Then if the guy comes at you you've got the possibility to fire to avoid injury or death.

While use of guns by the police is extremely scrutinized (it's often big in the news when it happens). The guns are a last resort in the really messy situations when there's no other way out. (And you have to prove that later on)

It all comes down to the value of human life: how much personal effort and risk are you willing to go to in order to protect a murderous criminal? Should you chance a little light judo to make him drop the blade? Or should you just put a cap through his eye socket and go to lunch?

I know which category I'm more willing to be policed by.

I once wanted to be a police officer, and went through police training in Florida. I also currently study Aikido and Kali (Eskrima). I have practiced many knife disarm techniques and some defensive/offensive knife use. Taking a knife from someone who is actively trying to hurt or kill you with it and has even minimal training in how to use it for that purpose is extremely difficult. You will almost certainly be cut, and a cut to the arm can disable your hand. A baton improves the odds, but it's still very risky. Most police body armor does not provide significant protection from knives, nor does it cover the arms, legs or neck, which are excellent targets for a knife.

Disarming or disabling a knife-wielding attacker requires tools that can be used from a long distance. Pepper spray and Tasers are good less-lethal options, especially when multiple officers are present. These should be tried in most situations before going to a firearm, but if a suspect charges an officer with a knife there isn't time to wait and see. The range of a Taser happens to be the same (21 feet) as the distance most people can cover in the amount of time it takes for most officers to draw and fire a pistol. If the Taser fails or misses, it doesn't hold a second shot and can't be reloaded quickly. Most of the time, I'd want the officer to risk trying the Taser, but it's not reasonable to ask someone to go up against a knife unarmed.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10260298

And personally, I wouldn't be keen on the police being armed all the time - I suspect it would make them a lot less approachable.

As a law abiding American, I can confirm that statement. There are a lot of scary looking characters that you can see while strolling through my city but none of them make me as nervous as police officers.

[NB I'm in Edinburgh which is usually full of tourists so I suspect the police are particularly well behaved here!]

It's more things like this I'm talking about:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpjFsmTDWuQ

It's obviously an extreme example but it illustrates the point, as does that business on the white house lawn.

(Also I'd contend that in practice most knife-wielding assailants, far from being even moderately trained, are probably clueless and scared.)

I don't agree with shooting anyone who is brandishing a knife, but trying to disarm them is a horrible idea as well. As others have mentioned, using beanbag guns or a taser or tear gas or rubber bullets or just about any less-lethal option (with other officers ready to shoot if the assailant charges) is the best solution.

IMHO police violence is reactive to crime violence, which is reactive to punishment toughtness. Is a growing violence spiral that can be stoped if there is a change in the way punishment is understood ( after all you must grand an honorable exit even to your worst enemy).

Then you have (again, you are trained) the option to shoot him in the head, heart, stomach all of which are usually quite lethal OR you can hit the leg, knee, shoulder, arm. Why use LETHAL force? Actually, in almost all cases of police violence in the US; why did they use lethal force and not just cap someone's knee? Unless the person is on PCP (or a zombie; note that in Resident Evil when the first zombies come in, they first shoot in the knee; it's obvious right? Basic training?) (which, tiring to say, you can see if you are trained) she/he will drop their weapon (even guns mind you) if their knee is capped or shoulder is pulverized...

You've been reading too much Martial Arts Wow literature. Taking a knife off someone is highly likely to get you cut, badly. Police don't aim for 'non lethal' parts of the body, because if you're using the gun, your life is being threatened, and you are using deadly force already - trying to hit anything other than the torso under these conditions (especially if the target is moving, or any real distance away) while your heart is pounding and your hands are shaking is very very difficult.

And the martial arts wow depends on the case; I have only been in knife fights were the knife was pulled by a drunk guy. No problem taking that away. I would imagine this is often the case; depending on the drug it would not be hard, especially with a baton in hand. No guns needed.

The stories I read here today, in the article and generally in the EU press about US shootings just show shoddy police work though. But that's because it's press; they don't really want to publish things that go well; only things that go bad.

> trying to hit anything other than the torso under these conditions (especially if the target is moving, or any real distance away) while your heart is pounding and your hands are shaking is very very difficult.

Real distance away? Talking about someone coming at you with a knife in hand...

Moving => yes but towards you and I would like to bet most (by far) people will run at you in a straight line when attacking.

But yes, of course, if you fear for your or someone else's life, you would shoot to kill. My whole point is that in the US it seems (i'm being careful here not to go with all public opinion :) police is far to trigger happy also in cases were it makes no sense at all.

Edit: also if you read 'ajuc' his comment about Poland (and it's the same in NL and DE and probably the rest of EU); you have to shoot at the legs first. It's how we are raised to think and when there are police shootings here often (mostly) people are just wounded.

You also overestimate the martial arts training most cops receive. If they're interested in martial arts on their own, they might be very good. Otherwise, a few months of training at any martial arts style that teaches immediately practical aspects like holds, joint locks, grappling, etc. will teach more than what cops know. It's not practical. Police procedure is designed to prevent officers from ever needing to get into serious hand to hand fights with criminals.

Most cops do not shoot violent criminals in the knees or shoulders because they are not that accurate.

In the Diallo shooting [1], 4 NYC police officers hit Diallo 19 times out of 41 rounds fired.

If a cop is a good shot, and is not under pressure, he or she can hit a suspect's knee. Most shootings occur under high pressure, and most cops are not good shots. Most cops qualify periodically as required under police regulations and that's all the firearms training they care about.

[1] http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl...

Because a gun, by definition, is lethal force.

Because shooting to wound is a fancy way of saying 'shoot to miss'.

Look: you train to shoot at center mass because that's what it takes to kill a person. If you don't intend to kill that person, then you have no business drawing a weapon.

With a pistol, shooting at anything but center mass is foolish.

If an aspiring police officer is not willing to submit to those rules, he or she will have to look for a different job.

It's easy for you to say that this is foolish, but in the end much less tragedies occur, because neither the offender, nor the police officer will feel like their lives are threatened in those heated situations. They'll catch the criminal anyways later on.

I do wonder where you got that idea, though. You can post the document, I speak German.

What I know is that when I asked years ago about the rules when it is allowed to use a weapon, that I was told, that in most cases it ends bad for the defender, because courts accept the use of fireweapons as justified in rare situations.

So shooting at burglar or somebody attacking you without a gun will cause you major troubles if the attacker should die.

It's just heavily discouraged here to solve any problem by aggression. Even for slapping or insulting someone publicly you'll be held accountable for that in court.

IANAL, and it varies by jurisdiction, but I believe the general standard for using deadly force is ..

'Not allowed to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another when they have reason to believe they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm'

Paraphrasing from memory.

In other words, I can employ deadly force against an attacker if I believe he could kill me. Doesn't matter if he's armed with a club, a knife, or a bazooka.

I can't shoot a guy if he's running away.

This seems prudent, but that (he smiled) might be a cultural thing.

Where I grew up they used to say 'God made man, Sam Colt made them equal' and I guess I still believe it.

My issue with this is that it abstracts 'gun' into 'non-lethel tool'.

Culture and law aside, a gun exists for one thing, and it's only good for one thing, and that is to kill a person.

Your laws can say otherwise, but that law is an ass.

But hey - your country, your rules.

It does depend on a countries situation and culture, how excessively such weapons are used, and in which situations. When a countries population on average tends to not escalate situations, and shoot burglars or people running away, you can end up in a situation where it is hardly justifiable to use such weapons against persons.

And then such laws are okay. I mean there are criminals here like everywhere, but I honestly don't know anyone personally here that has ever been threatened with a gun or a knife, though I know of one case, where someone was beat up by a burglar. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't see a lot of use for a gun as a tool for protection if you lived here.

Good point. You can kill animals for food, and I myself have enjoyed punching holes in paper.

But this ...

You could shoot the tires of a fleeing car, or you could stop a person by shooting into his leg.

No, no, no.

Shooting at a moving target is real hard. Shooting at a tire is stupid - the bullet is going to hit the rim, and be flung into who knows what direction.

You're not getting this: if you shoot a bullet into a person, anywhere, you run the risk of killing him, or at the least crippling him for life. A shoot into the knee is a life-changing crippling event. Tear into the femoral artery and your target is going to be dead in just a few minutes.

a civilian probably wont be able to pull this off successfully in stressful situations

I think you are imagining the cops have a lot more juju with firearms than they do. To attain the kind of skill you are a talking about - reliably hitting a guy in the legs - takes way more range time than is going to be practical.

If people tell you something long enough you start to believe it right? That's the same for both sides. I've been raised in television, papers etc (and real life to an extend) that you shoot to disarm, not to kill. You have been taught by the same media (and real life?) that you have no choice. Why is yours right? It seems a bit weird saying that comparing police kills by guns (and violence in general) on both sides to me. I think you have a choice but you are taught not to even consider it; is that a possibility?

Edit: It's a serious question, not something other than that. I'm curious as to the way I was raised and have lived and the way you were. I have been to the US a lot of times, but never more than a few months. I read global news (try to read from not too bad sources), but i've been taught & raised in the EU and even the reactions from non-EU give me the feeling there is something just very different in your attitude towards 'shooting people'. The 'no other choice' thing is very strange to me.

Could be. Although I tend to think in mechanical terms: switch A goes into tab B the same way in German, or English. Guns is guns, and the laws of physics apply no matter what the jurisdiction is.

You have been taught by the same media (and real life?) that you have no choice.

The latter. Though it's by the Grace of God that the single time I did draw my weapon that I was not compelled to use it.

In other words - he put his hands right up in the air.

I think you have a choice but you are taught not to even consider it; is that a possibility?

I believe you mis-understood.

You are not _forced_ to use your weapon if it comes out of the holster. But one never draws it as a threat, without intending to shoot. You deploy the weapon only if deadly force is warranted.

I'm curious as to the way I was raised and have lived and the way you were.

Middle class suburbs of Oklahoma. Then I joined the Marines for eight years, did some time at a Navy base where we had top secret clearance and got a lot of classes on how and when to use deadly force.

even the reactions from non-EU give me the feeling there is something just very different in your attitude towards 'shooting people'. The 'no other choice' thing is very strange to me.

The US - as you know - is a big place. Lots of room for cultural differences. A guy from California, who never handled a firearm outside of a video game is going to have a much different attitude than a guy from the midwest who is comfortable and familiar with 'guns'.

Worth repeating: it's not that one does not have a choice, but that one should never, ever, never deploy a weapon unless the circumstnances justify killing. You can always -not- shoot, but recongize that pulling it from it's holster is only done under dire circumstances.

A gun is a tool, is all. A very, very specialized tool.

Another way to put it - and this might be a money-grubbing attitude unique to Americans - is to internalize that -if- one deploys a firearm as a civilian one should expect to pay out $20,000 bucks minimum. That's the average legal bill a guy faces if he shoots someone in the US.

Wow :) That's really interesting to put it like that. I didn't know that. But police would have a different outlook on that right?

I believe this to be so.

Downside is these plates aren't flexible (conformt is an issue if have to wear your vest all day at 30° C in summer) and they become heavier and more bulky.

But again, that's what if been told by some german cops and I'm no expert in that.

As far as I know, it's primarily a matter of policy. Gun use is the ultima ratio, only to be used when other means are insufficient. Constitutionally, this is a reflection of the principle of proportionality [1] in conjunction with article 1 and 2 of the German constitution. This means that police officers are required by law to use the least intrusive means available to stop a crime and not use disproportionate means (obviously, with due regard to the difficulty involved when making split-second decisions or judgements based on incomplete and insufficient information).

On a practical level, this is ensured by two mechanisms. Firstly, these principles are part of the firearms training for police officers. Secondly, each gun use by a police officer in the course of his or her duty automatically triggers a criminal investigation (even if it is obvious self-defense). This adds a high inconvenience factor even for justified uses that discourages casual shooting. (In 1993, allegations that a GSG-9 member had executed the terrorist Wolfgang Grams [2] nearly led to the dissolution of the GSG-9 and, along with the botched execution of the raid, caused the resignation of the Minister of the Interior.)

[1] http://sas-space.sas.ac.uk/3907/1/1458-1702-1-SM.pdf

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Grams

Firstly, some UK police forces are routinely armed -- the Nuclear Police and the Transport Police who patrol airports pretty much always carry automatic or semi-automatic weapons. (The first cop you see entering a British airport concourse will probably be carrying an MP5.)

Secondly, all UK police forces have specialist Armed Response Units, and all UK police have radios: if an armed incident is reported (including knives, not just guns and bombs), the armed units will turn up to handle them.

British police officers who carry guns are required to put in range time more than once a week and are trained specialists. Their usual tools are a Glock-17 and an H&K MP5, plus body armour, although specialist snipers are also on call.

So: while ordinary police patrols are "unarmed" (as in: they wear anti-stab vests and carry batons, pepper spray, and in some cases tasers -- just no firearms) any incidents that involve weapons will be responded to very rapidly by marksmen.

The policy difference is simply that British police forces treat firearms use as a speciality, and cops who carry guns need to be trained to a high level of proficiency. Given that the average American police officer draws and fires their gun in anger once in their career, if that, it follows that they're either under-trained or a huge amount of training is wasted on people who don't need it. The argument for arming them -- that it's a big country with a lot of violent armed criminals and specialist backup may not be available in time -- doesn't apply in the UK (small, dense country, very few firearms in private hands, relatively easy to summon armed specialists as needed).

Last week, a friend told me that when he flew into Amsterdam some years ago, there were people with automatic weapons standing around, and he was told it was routine.

Can I ask what the hell Europe is expecting that the US isn't? Because aside from some deployments in the immediate wake of 9/11 (which I vaguely recall were such a joke that the rifles weren't even loaded), we don't do that here.

As for what they're expecting? This is a genuine Scottish tabloid newspaper cover from a couple of years back:

http://current.com/entertainment/wtf/88862229_i-kicked-burni...

There have been attacks on British airports in recent memory: not often, but often enough to justify the permanent armed police presence. And then there are the security nightmares everyone in the security biz remembers, such as the Lod Airport massacre:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lod_Airport_massacre

Hell, I've seen policemen with machine guns in the subway. (I'm not a gun person, by the way, so maybe "machine gun" isn't the right term, but it's definitely the kind of gun that doesn't require you to pull the trigger per bullet fired.)

TSA everywhere, but nobody carrying anything remotely rifle-like.

Probably terrorist attacks like these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_and_Vienna_airport_attacks

Can you explain how?

Because the police is primarily a state-level power (as in the USA), with the federal government having only a limited role (in fact, the BKA as the German counterpart of the FBI probably has less power than the FBI), this should not affect totals too much.

The threshold for firing a weapon is rather high for law enforcement and criminals know this. They also know that pulling a gun or even firing at an officer when things go wrong will easily add 10 years to their sentence. As a result, most chases and arrests are not a life-threatening situation.

Let me illustrate this with a story: My neighbor had a break-in, the alarm went off and the burglar was caught in the act. Burglar pepper sprays my neighbor, her friend and two police officers and escapes via the roof. Police officers had their guns drawn but wouldn't use them. Burglar knew this and didn't bring a gun of his own in the first place. Everybody lives.

Nobody is as well armed as Americans.

But really I'm pretty sure it's down to policy. The police doesn't 'shoot first, ask questions later'. No need to escalate to using guns unless you're directly threatened with a weapon yourself - say if the guy is threatening with knife. And I really think it's the fewest of people who are desperate/stupid enough to try something like that.

Also note how 49 of those 85 bullets were warning shots fired into the air.

Second, I am pretty sure there is another culture of violence and fighting with the police in the US. Car chases, for example, are way less often in Europe - criminals tend to give up, instead of fighting to death.

Europe is a big and quite diverse place..

All data in homicides per 10000 inhbitants in 2010

    USA - 5.0
    North America - 4.7
    Western and Central Europe - 1.2
    East Europe - 7 (mostly thanks to Russia with 15.0)
    Overall Europe - 3.5
    World - 6.9

I believe violent criminals in Germany are more professional types. They know when they have lost and they will switch to damage control mode instead of escalating the situation. It's mostly organized crime as far as I can tell. Lawyers instead of gun fights.

It may be (I dont' know) that German police are trained to minimize firing, and American police training may put relatively more emphasis on how to fire guns to resolve situations.

The. War. On. Drugs.

This mentality is the major factor.

Gangs alone aren't an adequate explanation, but if you're looking for a single factor, maybe the reasons people go into gangs would be broad enough to account for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw5pZpGh5Hg