Moreover, Iceland is a much less violent society to begin with. Apparently the country had just one murder in 2011, which would be equivalent to about 1,000 murders in a country the size of the U.S. In actuality, the U.S. has 14-15,000 murders per year.
A more interesting statistic might be to compute the ratio: police killings divided by total homicides. If Iceland has the same ratio as the U.S., and averages one homicide per year, one would expect about one police killing every ~40 years. If Iceland had the same ratio as NYC (16 police killings in 2012 divided by 414 homicides), one would expect about one police killing every 26 years.
I'm not sure if we have an "ultra-violent" style of policing, or rather just policing consistent with a very violent society.
"10 people and one cat was provided with trauma counseling" http://www.visir.is/arbaejarkirkja-veitti-10-manns-og-ketti-...
emphasis mine. As much as Iceland seems like a lovely place, I'm sure officers there have killed people in the line of duty before and it's more just the "armed police operation" that represents the difference.
I'm from Denmark, which is culturally fairly close to Iceland and we still talk about the riot in 1993 where the police fired 111 shots in the most violent encounter with rioters since the second world war (noone was killed or seriously injured). We're a country of 5 million and we have less than one person a year that gets shot to death by the police. In Norway they're right now discussing whether the police should even be allowed to carry weapons.
If you're American I can understand your disbelief, since it's an extremely violent country, but as a scandinavian it seems quite believable.
[1] http://www.politi.dk/NR/rdonlyres/20DE43AF-33F4-48C5-A710-6A...
And I just meant that I would assume that, unless the article further elaborates on this "first", at some point in the entire history of the country of Iceland, somebody had died at the hands of law-enforcement. Even at a rate of once per decade.
I assume you could argue that this does not include police killing people by beating them or running them over with their cars, but I'd say we're safe.
[1] http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_i...
Seriously, I've encountered these kind of denialist reactions all over the place, and it so pisses me off.
It's not normal for cops to shoot at people in any civilized country ("not normal" as in "national news if it happens"), and for a country the size and nature of Iceland it's perfectly plausible (not to mention simply true) that this is the first time someone was killed by the police.
The ultra-violent American way of policing is the aberration here, not Iceland.
It will take more than one ambiguously-qualified offhand sentence in an article to convince me of otherwise.
- Friend: "Have you heard the news about the Iceland police killing a man for the first time?"
- American cop, confused: "What do you mean? The first one today?"
It also reminds me of this story:
http://www.thewire.com/global/2012/05/german-police-used-onl...
German police shot 85 bullets against people in the whole year, while American cops shot that many in a single person. The rapid rise of militarized SWAT teams that attack people in their homes even for minor offenses is also very scary.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m...
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/10/militarized_police_overreach...
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=the+population+of+icela...
I bet American special forces would need counselling if they were away from combat for too long.
"Police regret this incident and would like to extend their condolences to the family of the man," Icelandic police chief Haraldur Johannessen told reporters.
Would any negatives of living in Iceland (every country has negative points) be outweighed by this seemingly very safe environment?
> "Police regret this incident and would like to extend their condolences to the family of the man," Icelandic police chief Haraldur Johannessen told reporters.
Is it because the Icelandic state is more humane? Maybe, but more likely, it's because it was unprepared for such an incident. I can't imagine a standard police department issuing regret because it would be a statement that could easily be used against them in court (justified or not).
A couple of recent NY incidents come to mind:
- A couple months ago, the NYPD shot at a man they considered dangerous...not only did they miss the man (who they later tasered), they ended up shooting two innocent women, as it was Times Square. No statement of regret made: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/16/nyregion/firing-at-man-in-...
- A year ago, police shot and killed a man who had just gunned down another man near the Empire State building. They hit their target...and injured nine bystanders. A lawsuit was filed in that case: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/justice/new-york-nypd-lawsuit/
Made me quite happy, because I was reminded of all the Americans who vehemently insist that shoot to kill is the only option ever, even if the person only has a knife.
The way it was explained to me when I asked the very same question (I don’t necessarily agree, just offering this officer’s viewpoint): discharging a firearm is a deadly act, which always carries with it potentially deadly consequences. It should only be done to save a life, whether yours or someone else’s. The problem is that if you shoot without the intent to kill, you’re saying that you weren’t really in fear for your life, you were just stopping a lesser threat.
It's that center-body-mass is the largest target to shoot at, and therefore the safest to shoot at in a public area. Safest for everyone except the one being shot at, that is.
God, does that make sense? It's hard to explain that. You want the largest part of the bad-guy to catch the bullet, to make sure the people around him don't. Therefore, shooting at the (relatively) stable center of his chest is a heck of a lot easier and safer than shooting at his moving arms or legs.
In a life or death situation (which is the only time it is acceptable to shoot a person), nobody has time to make trick shots. If the target deserves to die, aim center mass. If not, don't shoot at all.
Imagine if the cops tried to "shoot to non-fatally disable" someone who didn't deserve to die, but killed him anyway? That would be murder. You don't shoot at anyone if killing them isn't justified.
Then if you miss and shoot the gun out of their hand, or whatever the movies have told you is the easy, humane thing to do, well, that's a bonus. You can breathe easy knowing you didn't end up killing anyone.
America is a country where the right to bear arms is held as sacred by many. It is a country with a lot of heavily armed people. It is a country with a lot of well trained, heavily armed people. Police response over the years has evolved to meet the challenges posed by a well armed civilian population. The number one priority for police forces anywhere in the country is to not get hurt followed closely by apprehending any suspects. If you believe your suspect may have assault rifles and your priority is to not get hurt then your response will be something larger than assault rifles.
It's kind of insane to think that this is considered normal in developed country.
Killed people by police in 2012:
U.S.: 587
Germany: 3
(From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc... + the links at the bottom)
It's obvious enough why this would be the case. Keep in mind, in America police departments will be financially liable to the dead person's family if they admit an error, anything they say can be used against them in court, and shootings like this happen a lot.
Examples?
And you may need to hit center mass a few times before they actually stop, so don't get cute trying to shoot off fingers when innocent lives are on the line. Which is the only time it is acceptable to shoot anyone, ever.
The reason people shot center body is that it is largest part of the body and it contains the most vital organs. Thus a shot there is most likely to be fatal and to keep that person from continuing to be a viable threat.
Given all of that it is easy to see that shooting an armed and dangerous individual in the leg is not a good way of dealing with them. It makes for a great feel good story but in reality it is not a good tactic.