For context, the U.S. has about 1,000 times as many people as Iceland, and here police kill about 300-400 people per year.
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.
"first time someone has been killed in an armed police operation"
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.
While I don't know the facts it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the police has never killed anyone in Iceland. It's a small and peaceful country.
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.
> The gunman who died during a police shootout in Reykjavík this morning was the first person to die from a police shot in Iceland
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.
I don't recall any other incident. By the way the only armed police force in Iceland are the special forces. Regular police officers and agents are not armed.
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.
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.
A few weeks ago I was reading in a local paper (Berliner Morgenpost, I think) about how the police in Berlin had shot an armed person in the leg, thereby succeeding in arresting him without any further injury.
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 rapid rise of militarized SWAT teams that attack people in their homes even for minor offenses is also very scary.
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.
"Police regret this incident and would like to extend their condolences to the family of the man," Icelandic police chief Haraldur Johannessen told reporters.
The most striking thing about this, besides the (morbid) milestone, is this statement:
> "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/
rayiner|12 years ago
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.
jacalata|12 years ago
edit: [0] http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22288564
pi-rat|12 years ago
"10 people and one cat was provided with trauma counseling" http://www.visir.is/arbaejarkirkja-veitti-10-manns-og-ketti-...
Pxtl|12 years ago
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.
mixmax|12 years ago
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.
scarletham|12 years ago
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...
thoradam|12 years ago
bowlofpetunias|12 years ago
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.
salient|12 years ago
- 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...
TillE|12 years ago
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.
dopamean|12 years ago
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.
heydenberk|12 years ago
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=the+population+of+icela...
pi-rat|12 years ago
w1ntermute|12 years ago
I bet American special forces would need counselling if they were away from combat for too long.
toomuchtodo|12 years ago
"Police regret this incident and would like to extend their condolences to the family of the man," Icelandic police chief Haraldur Johannessen told reporters.
kevincennis|12 years ago
davb|12 years ago
Would any negatives of living in Iceland (every country has negative points) be outweighed by this seemingly very safe environment?
gaius|12 years ago
unknown|12 years ago
[deleted]
danso|12 years ago
> "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/