Officer in the Hague shoots axe wielding man in the chest, he is going to be prosecuted

[Goshin]

.
Netherlands isn't the US, and the US isn't the Netherlands... and that's OKAY... every place doesn't have to be like somewhere else. Customs, cultures, populations, circumstances and laws differ.

This seems a little harsh to American eyes, given the circumstances... but I expect the officer will be acquitted in the end.

If I, as a private US citizen with a carry permit, shoot someone, I know the odds are I'm going to have to go to court and prove it was justified... with my continued freedom in the balance. As a reasonable person then, I am very reluctant to shoot. I'd prefer to scare them off, warn them off, or use some lesser mode of force, unless pushed to the last desperate end.

Maybe it wouldn't be QUITE so terrible if US police worried a little more about the legal consequences of pulling the trigger? Just saying, and I'm an ex-cop...

 

[Peter King]

What is all the evidence that will be presented in the case?

That will be revealed during the case. We do not hold a public court, the name of the officer will not be known even if found guilty.

 

[Fledermaus]

While a 36 year old man is waving with an axe a police officer shot him in the chest. Prosecution not convinced of self defense.

An agent who shot a suspect in the Neptunusstreet in the Hague is going to be prosecuted by the prosecutors office. The police officer shot the man while he was waving around an axe. The prosecution however is not convinced of imminent danger.

The 36 year old man was walking through Scheveningen (a neighborhood in the Hague) in May of 2020 and his behavior seemed to be one of a man with mental issues. He was hitting doors with the axe and had injured 2 people on the street. Officers who had rushed to the scene took their weapons out of their holsters and ordered the suspect to surrender.

The man did not respond to any directions given by the police. At a certain moment the officer aimed, according to his own statements, at the stomach of the suspect. He hit the man in the chest. The suspect was seriously injured and transported to the hospital. The officer said he shot out of self defense because the man with the axe was an imminent threat to a fellow officer.

As usual in cases where an officer used his weapon to target and hit someone, an investigation is done by the National Detective unit. During the investigation into the shooting, the National Detective Unit staged a reconstruction of the shooting incident in the Neptunusstreet (last November). The investigation has been concluded and studied in detail by the prosecution office (OM), this was reported today.

The prosecution is of the opinion that there are insufficient clues to view this as a case of self defense. Because of this decision the officer will have to stand trial, The prosecution thinks it is important to have a judicial verdict in this case.

When the case will go to trial is yet to be decided.

The Dutch article this translation was based on.


I think it is a very good decision of the prosecution to make. Officers are in principle the only people in the Netherlands who have the authority to legally use deadly force. But that use of deadly force needs to be justified and appropriate. We cannot have officers just go and shoot people without there being a very good reason for it. Especially because the officer who he said was in danger did not feel the need to shoot his weapon. The officer did not give off a warning shot to try and make the person listen and comply and he shot immediately at the core of the person, the region of the body that is most likely to lead to fatalities. In the Netherlands officers are also trained to shoot out the leg so that the thread is neutralized.

We are going to have to wait and see what the judges will decide (because this will be done by a 3 judge panel).

Warning shots can kill innocent people.

Shoot the legs? Even trained officers have difficulty hitting center mass in a high stress situation. What about the misses?

 

[Bodi]

While a 36 year old man is waving with an axe a police officer shot him in the chest. Prosecution not convinced of self defense.

An agent who shot a suspect in the Neptunusstreet in the Hague is going to be prosecuted by the prosecutors office. The police officer shot the man while he was waving around an axe. The prosecution however is not convinced of imminent danger.

The 36 year old man was walking through Scheveningen (a neighborhood in the Hague) in May of 2020 and his behavior seemed to be one of a man with mental issues. He was hitting doors with the axe and had injured 2 people on the street. Officers who had rushed to the scene took their weapons out of their holsters and ordered the suspect to surrender.

The man did not respond to any directions given by the police. At a certain moment the officer aimed, according to his own statements, at the stomach of the suspect. He hit the man in the chest. The suspect was seriously injured and transported to the hospital. The officer said he shot out of self defense because the man with the axe was an imminent threat to a fellow officer.

As usual in cases where an officer used his weapon to target and hit someone, an investigation is done by the National Detective unit. During the investigation into the shooting, the National Detective Unit staged a reconstruction of the shooting incident in the Neptunusstreet (last November). The investigation has been concluded and studied in detail by the prosecution office (OM), this was reported today.

The prosecution is of the opinion that there are insufficient clues to view this as a case of self defense. Because of this decision the officer will have to stand trial, The prosecution thinks it is important to have a judicial verdict in this case.

When the case will go to trial is yet to be decided.

The Dutch article this translation was based on.


I think it is a very good decision of the prosecution to make. Officers are in principle the only people in the Netherlands who have the authority to legally use deadly force. But that use of deadly force needs to be justified and appropriate. We cannot have officers just go and shoot people without there being a very good reason for it. Especially because the officer who he said was in danger did not feel the need to shoot his weapon. The officer did not give off a warning shot to try and make the person listen and comply and he shot immediately at the core of the person, the region of the body that is most likely to lead to fatalities. In the Netherlands officers are also trained to shoot out the leg so that the thread is neutralized.

We are going to have to wait and see what the judges will decide (because this will be done by a 3 judge panel).

What do I get out of this...?

The Americans cops shoot and slaughter innocent unarmed people every day and get away with it and a European cop shoots one person with an Ax and they hold him accountable for a reckless shoot. American cops? **ck y** you de***ca*le pieces of ***.

 

[Peter King]

Warning shots can kill innocent people.

Shoot the legs? Even trained officers have difficulty hitting center mass in a high stress situation. What about the misses?

1. the law says he only can do a warning shot if it is safe.

2. yes, shoot the legs, that is the law/general police practice.

 

[holbritter]

While a 36 year old man is waving with an axe a police officer shot him in the chest. Prosecution not convinced of self defense.

An agent who shot a suspect in the Neptunusstreet in the Hague is going to be prosecuted by the prosecutors office. The police officer shot the man while he was waving around an axe. The prosecution however is not convinced of imminent danger.

The 36 year old man was walking through Scheveningen (a neighborhood in the Hague) in May of 2020 and his behavior seemed to be one of a man with mental issues. He was hitting doors with the axe and had injured 2 people on the street. Officers who had rushed to the scene took their weapons out of their holsters and ordered the suspect to surrender.

The man did not respond to any directions given by the police. At a certain moment the officer aimed, according to his own statements, at the stomach of the suspect. He hit the man in the chest. The suspect was seriously injured and transported to the hospital. The officer said he shot out of self defense because the man with the axe was an imminent threat to a fellow officer.

As usual in cases where an officer used his weapon to target and hit someone, an investigation is done by the National Detective unit. During the investigation into the shooting, the National Detective Unit staged a reconstruction of the shooting incident in the Neptunusstreet (last November). The investigation has been concluded and studied in detail by the prosecution office (OM), this was reported today.

The prosecution is of the opinion that there are insufficient clues to view this as a case of self defense. Because of this decision the officer will have to stand trial, The prosecution thinks it is important to have a judicial verdict in this case.

When the case will go to trial is yet to be decided.

The Dutch article this translation was based on.


I think it is a very good decision of the prosecution to make. Officers are in principle the only people in the Netherlands who have the authority to legally use deadly force. But that use of deadly force needs to be justified and appropriate. We cannot have officers just go and shoot people without there being a very good reason for it. Especially because the officer who he said was in danger did not feel the need to shoot his weapon. The officer did not give off a warning shot to try and make the person listen and comply and he shot immediately at the core of the person, the region of the body that is most likely to lead to fatalities. In the Netherlands officers are also trained to shoot out the leg so that the thread is neutralized.

We are going to have to wait and see what the judges will decide (because this will be done by a 3 judge panel).

Yup, they should have just let the guy keep going and injure, possibly kill, some more people on the street. Or they should have just walked up to him as he kept swinging that axe, and allow themselves to get chopped up.

A warning shot? Watch the video. There was a warning shot.
Bad, bad police!

 

[Peter King]

Yup, they should have just let the guy keep going and injure, possibly kill, some more people on the street. Or they should have just walked up to him as he kept swinging that axe, and allow themselves to get chopped up.

Nonsense, watch the video, nothing like that was happening or going to happen.

A warning shot? Watch the video. There was a warning shot.
Bad, bad police!

Just because it is not done in the US does not make our police "bad police".

 

[Fledermaus]

1. the law says he only can do a warning shot if it is safe.

2. yes, shoot the legs, that is the law/general police practice.

1. Where is it safe in an urban setting?

2. And just like the warning shot..... Where is it safe in an urban setting?

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

1. Where is it safe in an urban setting?

2. And just like the warning shot..... Where is it safe in an urban setting?

Which is why there is a trial, all of that will be presented and if accepted the cop will not face punishment.

 

[Peter King]

1. Where is it safe in an urban setting?

2. And just like the warning shot..... Where is it safe in an urban setting?

1, in an urban setting where the area is closed down to the public and it is just the police and the suspect.

2. how would I know, I am not trained in giving off a warning shot. But as said it is either or, on a freeway where there is a hell of a lot of noise, giving clear and very loud verbal commands might be difficult, but a warning shot will be heard by the suspect.

 

[Peter King]

Which is why there is a trial, all of that will be presented and if accepted the cop will not face punishment.

It may also be a way to create jurisprudence, either one way or the other. If the judge convicts then the police knows that that is the limit and if he is freed the police and prosecution can decide when to fire and when to prosecute or not. There are loads of situations that are not totally described in the law. That is where jurisprudence comes in.

 

[gino]

In the US, warning shots are not allowed. For good reason. A warning shot could ricochet. And it takes time that you might not have. I have never heard it taught to shot for a leg instead of center mass. Both of these "observations" by the OP go against EVERYTHING we teach police in the US. It sounds like the prosecutor in this case does not understand why police have certain procedures, especially during a high risk event.

Sorry, but his seems to be an example of a prosecutor who does not understand the situation, and made a bad decision.

 

[code1211]

While a 36 year old man is waving with an axe a police officer shot him in the chest. Prosecution not convinced of self defense.

An agent who shot a suspect in the Neptunusstreet in the Hague is going to be prosecuted by the prosecutors office. The police officer shot the man while he was waving around an axe. The prosecution however is not convinced of imminent danger.

The 36 year old man was walking through Scheveningen (a neighborhood in the Hague) in May of 2020 and his behavior seemed to be one of a man with mental issues. He was hitting doors with the axe and had injured 2 people on the street. Officers who had rushed to the scene took their weapons out of their holsters and ordered the suspect to surrender.

The man did not respond to any directions given by the police. At a certain moment the officer aimed, according to his own statements, at the stomach of the suspect. He hit the man in the chest. The suspect was seriously injured and transported to the hospital. The officer said he shot out of self defense because the man with the axe was an imminent threat to a fellow officer.

As usual in cases where an officer used his weapon to target and hit someone, an investigation is done by the National Detective unit. During the investigation into the shooting, the National Detective Unit staged a reconstruction of the shooting incident in the Neptunusstreet (last November). The investigation has been concluded and studied in detail by the prosecution office (OM), this was reported today.

The prosecution is of the opinion that there are insufficient clues to view this as a case of self defense. Because of this decision the officer will have to stand trial, The prosecution thinks it is important to have a judicial verdict in this case.

When the case will go to trial is yet to be decided.

The Dutch article this translation was based on.


I think it is a very good decision of the prosecution to make. Officers are in principle the only people in the Netherlands who have the authority to legally use deadly force. But that use of deadly force needs to be justified and appropriate. We cannot have officers just go and shoot people without there being a very good reason for it. Especially because the officer who he said was in danger did not feel the need to shoot his weapon. The officer did not give off a warning shot to try and make the person listen and comply and he shot immediately at the core of the person, the region of the body that is most likely to lead to fatalities. In the Netherlands officers are also trained to shoot out the leg so that the thread is neutralized.

We are going to have to wait and see what the judges will decide (because this will be done by a 3 judge panel).

When a person is threatening to perform lethal actions against you, he has made a commitment to kill.

If you don't do something to stop him, you have made a commitment to die.

 

[Fledermaus]

1, in an urban setting where the area is closed down to the public and it is just the police and the suspect.

2. how would I know, I am not trained in giving off a warning shot. But as said it is either or, on a freeway where there is a hell of a lot of noise, giving clear and very loud verbal commands might be difficult, but a warning shot will be heard by the suspect.

1. Bullets don't care about what is closed off to the public.

2. Does your police not have tasers?

 

[Peter King]

When a person is threatening to perform lethal actions against you, he has made a commitment to kill.

If you don't do something to stop him, you have made a commitment to die.

Except that is nonsense, that might be what US officers are told/are taught. Japanese officers, Dutch officers, English officers, many EU police officers do not see not killing a dangerous person (if there is not a need to) as a commitment to die.

 

[Peter King]

1. Bullets don't care about what is closed off to the public.

2. Does your police not have tasers?

1. if it is possible to give good verbal commands then shooting a warning shot is not needed.

2. this year they have started using tasers. Before an officer is allowed to wear a taser they have to comply with a 3 day course in the safe and effective use of tasers.

 

[Goshin]

Warning shots can kill innocent people.

Shoot the legs? Even trained officers have difficulty hitting center mass in a high stress situation. What about the misses?

Against my training as well. Warning shots are especially problematic, and are illegal in many states.

The US does not recognize "shoot to wound" for two reasons: shooting for the legs is much harder (under stress esp) than shooting center-mass and more likely to create misses, which go somewhere. Two, anywhere you shoot someone is potentially fatal. There's the femoral artery in the leg, the brachial artery in the arm and shoulder, etc. Not to mention infection.

But again, this is the Netherlands, a different country. I gather it is rare news for the police to shoot *at all*... its a small county, different culture. What works here may not work there and vice-versa.

 

[Fledermaus]

1. if it is possible to give good verbal commands then shooting a warning shot is not needed.

2. this year they have started using tasers. Before an officer is allowed to wear a taser they have to comply with a 3 day course in the safe and effective use of tasers.

1. That still does not stop a bullet.

2. While tasers aren't 100% they will usually prevent having to shoot someone.

 

[Peter King]

In the US, warning shots are not allowed. For good reason. A warning shot could ricochet. And it takes time that you might not have. I have never heard it taught to shot for a leg instead of center mass. Both of these "observations" by the OP go against EVERYTHING we teach police in the US. It sounds like the prosecutor in this case does not understand why police have certain procedures, especially during a high risk event.

Sorry, but his seems to be an example of a prosecutor who does not understand the situation, and made a bad decision.

Great, then the US does not use it, other police forces do have the ability for officers to choose to use that option.

And it is obvious that this is taught in US police academies, that is why we have almost no fatalities from police bullets. We also do not have many officers shooting their clips empty at 1 suspect. Because I think shooting 50 times at a suspect by several officers is rather more dangerous than a warning shot IMO. Because shooting 137 times are 2 individuals (as happened in the US) is a bit more risky than a warning shot.

A Dutch police officer almost never empties his gun on a suspect/person. Why? Because that would be (most likely) not OK with our laws because police is only allowed to use necessary violence.

In the Netherlands a man with a box cutter would not have been shot 30 times, that is way too many bullets to stop a suspect or would be seen in the Netherlands as not being necessary violence.

When the police was attacked by a mob of people in Rotterdam and cornered the police in a very violent manner the police made several warning shot rather than shooting to kill. No officer was hurt and no protesters were killed.

No, the prosecutor saw all the evidence and I think it is very irresponsible to claim he is making a bad decision. Especially because we all (not even me) knows the full police conduct instructions, the firearm instructions, the evidence from the witnesses or the evidence of the reconstruction of the shooting. We have to believe the prosecutor has a very good reason to prosecute.

 

[Peter King]

1. That still does not stop a bullet.

2. While tasers aren't 100% they will usually prevent having to shoot someone.

1. only hardened criminals who kill for a living will shoot at he police, because the suspect knows that shooting and hurting a police officer will lead to dozens of years in jail, whereas not shooting will lead to a short prison sentence.

2. that is why our police is getting them, but if you taser someone many times it can also be just as deadly.

 

[Fledermaus]

1. only hardened criminals who kill for a living will shoot at he police, because the suspect knows that shooting and hurting a police officer will lead to dozens of years in jail, whereas not shooting will lead to a short prison sentence.

2. that is why our police is getting them, but if you taser someone many times it can also be just as deadly.

1. Shooting a policeman in the US often leads either to a death penalty or life without parole.

2. Tasers are not "just as deadly".

 

[Goshin]

Great, then the US does not use it, other police forces do have the ability for officers to choose to use that option.

And it is obvious that this is taught in US police academies, that is why we have almost no fatalities from police bullets. We also do not have many officers shooting their clips empty at 1 suspect. Because I think shooting 50 times at a suspect by several officers is rather more dangerous than a warning shot IMO. Because shooting 137 times are 2 individuals (as happened in the US) is a bit more risky than a warning shot.

A Dutch police officer almost never empties his gun on a suspect/person. Why? Because that would be (most likely) not OK with our laws because police is only allowed to use necessary violence.

In the Netherlands a man with a box cutter would not have been shot 30 times, that is way too many bullets to stop a suspect or would be seen in the Netherlands as not being necessary violence.

When the police was attacked by a mob of people in Rotterdam and cornered the police in a very violent manner the police made several warning shot rather than shooting to kill. No officer was hurt and no protesters were killed.

No, the prosecutor saw all the evidence and I think it is very irresponsible to claim he is making a bad decision. Especially because we all (not even me) knows the full police conduct instructions, the firearm instructions, the evidence from the witnesses or the evidence of the reconstruction of the shooting. We have to believe the prosecutor has a very good reason to prosecute.

You have a point, regarding the 137 shots and the risk involved in that many bullets flying. That is, of course, an extreme case and not typical.

Again, we're talking about two very different environments, two very different countries. In the US, cops are more likely to encounter criminals with firearms. In the US, despite harsh penalties, criminals are more inclined to shoot or kill cops. Possibly this is related to the relatively harsh US justice system, where you can be locked up for decades for non-violent offenses in some cases. Perhaps it is the drugs/gangs situation here, and/or the cultural balkanization.

Possibly, its just a more violent culture in general. While there are quite a few nations with higher per-capita homicide rates, they're generally "developing"/poor countries. Still, we'd been getting better since 1979, with lower homicide and violent crime rates, until 2020.

Different countries, different circumstances.

 

[Peter King]

You have a point, regarding the 137 shots and the risk involved in that many bullets flying. That is, of course, an extreme case and not typical.

Again, we're talking about two very different environments, two very different countries. In the US, cops are more likely to encounter criminals with firearms. In the US, despite harsh penalties, criminals are more inclined to shoot or kill cops. Possibly this is related to the relatively harsh US justice system, where you can be locked up for decades for non-violent offenses in some cases. Perhaps it is the drugs/gangs situation here, and/or the cultural balkanization.

Possibly, its just a more violent culture in general. While there are quite a few nations with higher per-capita homicide rates, they're generally "developing"/poor countries. Still, we'd been getting better since 1979, with lower homicide and violent crime rates, until 2020.

Different countries, different circumstances.

But officers do regularly empty their clip when they are shooting, that would never happen in the Netherlands and even more officers shooting at the same time is also not that likely in the Netherlands.

If you have 4 officers shooting their weapons fully empty, when are you going to know when to stop firing? And the man on the freeway who was shot 30 times for holding a box cutter was also overkill.

And you are right IMO, if you get life in jail for just possessing drugs, what is the benefit for the suspect to not try to violently get away. If the punishment for armed robbery where the weapon was just used to threaten and the punishment for actually using the weapon against police officers who are trying to catch you after the robbery is little to nothing, you invite violence IMO.

 

[Goshin]

But officers do regularly empty their clip when they are shooting, that would never happen in the Netherlands and even more officers shooting at the same time is also not that likely in the Netherlands.

If you have 4 officers shooting their weapons fully empty, when are you going to know when to stop firing? And the man on the freeway who was shot 30 times for holding a box cutter was also overkill.

And you are right IMO, if you get life in jail for just possessing drugs, what is the benefit for the suspect to not try to violently get away. If the punishment for armed robbery where the weapon was just used to threaten and the punishment for actually using the weapon against police officers who are trying to catch you after the robbery is little to nothing, you invite violence IMO.

US police training is different.

The standard used to be the "double tap", which derived from a WW2 era military pistol drill. Fire two shots center mass quickly, then assess if more is needed.
Then quite a few US police got killed or wounded by subjects who were not stopped by the double-tap. Policy was changed to "fire until subject is down and/or stops all threatening action."

Add in stress reactions to potentially lethal threats, and this is where you get police emptying their magazines in a shootout.

As for the multiple officers firing, again I think it carries over from the military mindset (lots of police here are former military)... to whit, that if your buddies are shooting you need to shoot also, because someone is threatening your team. It's hard to explain if you've never been in a similar situation but the adrenaline-fueled impulse to react as a group is a powerful one.

In the US, the fire-one-shot-and-stop-to-assess is not really a thing.

A lot of this comes back to training, and the environment you're operating in. Increasing "militarization" of the police has been a major influence in recent decades, and was starting about the time I got out of the profession.

Bear in mind I've been advocating from the ground-up reform in US policing for some time now. While I don't know that European models would work here due to the different environment, I think we are definitely in need of major changes in training and policy, balancing officer/public safety with greater restraint to reduce unnecessary shootings.

I will always come back to the point that the US and the Netherlands are very different policing environments, however.

 

[Peter King]

US police training is different.

The standard used to be the "double tap", which derived from a WW2 era military pistol drill. Fire two shots center mass quickly, then assess if more is needed.
Then quite a few US police got killed or wounded by subjects who were not stopped by the double-tap. Policy was changed to "fire until subject is down and/or stops all threatening action."

Add in stress reactions to potentially lethal threats, and this is where you get police emptying their magazines in a shootout.

As for the multiple officers firing, again I think it carries over from the military mindset (lots of police here are former military)... to whit, that if your buddies are shooting you need to shoot also, because someone is threatening your team. It's hard to explain if you've never been in a similar situation but the adrenaline-fueled impulse to react as a group is a powerful one.

In the US, the fire-one-shot-and-stop-to-assess is not really a thing.

A lot of this comes back to training, and the environment you're operating in. Increasing "militarization" of the police has been a major influence in recent decades, and was starting about the time I got out of the profession.

Bear in mind I've been advocating from the ground-up reform in US policing for some time now. While I don't know that European models would work here due to the different environment, I think we are definitely in need of major changes in training and policy, balancing officer/public safety with greater restraint to reduce unnecessary shootings.

I will always come back to the point that the US and the Netherlands are very different policing environments, however.

Our police is not nearly as militarized, things like Swatting someone is not really a thing. We also are lucky not to have problems like:

1. shoot first without a word because you are scared (or claim to be scared shit) if they go on someone without announcing themselves and shooting innocent people who happened to hold a phone or think they are being robbed and have a gun to protect themselves but end up being shot without warning. Sure this has to do with the loads of guns on the streets but shoot first ask questions later.
2. traffic stops with sovcits/moorish citizens, etc. arresting and signing for tickets is also not needed
3. hitting the wrong house
4. snitches who claim to have bought drugs somewhere