|
The Danish police’ inadequate response to Somali would-be axe killer
(Note: as of January 6, the discussion continues.)
A. Zarkov writes:
Most news reports say that the Danish police shot the axe wielding Somali in the arm and the leg. For example, API said,
“East Jutland Police Chief superintendent Morten Jensen said when officers arrived, the man tried to attack one of them with the ax and he was shot in his right leg and his left arm. Jensen said the wounds were not serious.”
Does “attack” mean the Somali Muslim swung the axe at the police? Or did he actually throw the axe, as in this BBC report: “Police shot the suspect in the arm and leg when he threw his axe at a police officer, officials say.” I call attention to this because merely shooting the Muslim in the arm and the leg was an awfully timid and risky response if the perpetrator was still holding and swinging the axe.
I once heard a story of a policeman (it might have been an Oakland policeman) who was killed by an axe-wielding assailant even though the policeman shot his attacker in the chest several times. It’s actually very difficult to stop a crazed attacker without a lot of firepower. That’s why many American police today use shotguns and 45-caliber pistols. Moreover, aiming for an arm or a leg is extremely risky defense strategy. For one thing limbs are small targets compared to the torso, and in many cases limb wounds won’t stop an attacker hell-bent on killing you. According to Wikipedia, the Danish police use the Heckler & Koch 9MM Compact Pistol. In my opinion this is a poor choice of weapon. While Heckler & Koch make extremely fine weapons this particular model seems ill-advised. Why the Compact model? The uniformed police have no need for concealed carry, and the short barrel compromises stopping power. The 9 mm cartridge is more of a military bullet (NATO uses it), and the military prefers wound shots to lethal shots.
I think the Danish police were very lucky not to have been killed. If the Muslim had a firefighter’s axe like this, he had a very formidable weapon because these axes have six-pound heads instead of the four-pound head normally found on hardware store variety axe. The fire axe would be the natural choice for someone breaking into a house and a safe room. Next time the Danish police might not be so lucky, and we know that as day follows night, there will be a next time. The reason I go into such detail is to show the incompetence of the Danish authorities. They should know better, but it looks like they don’t, or the politicians have tied their hands.
The whole attack on Westergaard along with the timid rules of engagement used by the Danish police, including their inadequate weapons, demonstrates European weakness in confronting Islam, the enemy in their midst. As Muslims become more numerous they will become bolder and more dangerous. Yet the Europeans just stand back at watch themselves get checkmated.
N. writes:
A. Zarkov critiques the Danish police response to the axe-armed jihadi and finds fault with the two hits, one in the arm and one in the leg. He no doubt assumes that the police hit what they were aiming at. I am skeptical of this assumption. Police in the US that receive more training than their European counterparts are taught to shoot at the center of mass and they still miss over 1/3 of the time.
More likely the Danish police were surprised by the attack, and hastily fired their sidearms in the direction of the Somali jihadi. It would be interesting to know how many shots were fired; more than two, very likely.
None of this detracts from the main point, that the European police forces are poorly prepared for violence of this sort. In fact, they may be even worse off than appearances suggest with regard to firearms training and use-of-force doctrine.
Van Wijk writes:
A. Zarkov wrote: “It’s actually very difficult to stop a crazed attacker without a lot of firepower. That’s why many American police today use shotguns and 45-caliber pistols. Moreover, aiming for an arm or a leg is extremely risky defense strategy. For one thing limbs are small targets compared to the torso, and in many cases limb wounds won’t stop an attacker hell-bent on killing you. According to Wikipedia, the Danish police use the Heckler & Koch 9MM Compact Pistol. In my opinion this is a poor choice of weapon.”
I agree, with a few caveats.
A 9mm pistol will have certain advantages over a .45, mainly lighter weight, less recoil, and higher magazine capacity. Your standard .45 pistol will generally hold no more than eight rounds, while a 9mm can hold twice that. The tradeoff, as Zarkov said, is in stopping power. The 9mm has consistently failed to stop physically powerful criminals, particularly when they are under the influence of drugs. Use of jacketed hollow-point or hollow-cavity rounds have enhanced the stopping power of the 9mm somewhat, but if I were being rushed by an axe-wielding (and possibly drugged-up) maniac, I would definitely prefer to have a .45.
That being said, a service firearm must be one that all officers or soldiers are able to handle and fire effectively. This is part of the reason why the U.S. military moved away from the heavy wood-and-steel battle rifles toward lightweight assault rifles like the M16; they needed a weapon that literally anyone could fire. In my opinion, the prevalence of females in the police force (especially in Europe) was the primary cause in moving from the .45 to the 9mm. (For some reason, the first thing I thought of when reading Mr. Zarkov’s comment was that one of the police officers involved in the shooting was female.) Lighter weight and less recoil would be very important for officers with less arm and wrist strength. Moving from standard size to compact reduces the weight even more. Though the .45 and .40 are more prevalent in America than Europe, there are certainly American police forces who have adopted the 9mm as their service pistol.
Regarding the shooting itself, it doesn’t make sense for a cop in that situation to aim for an arm or a leg. As Mr. Zarkov stated, they are very small targets compared to the torso, and they are constantly moving. Shoot and miss, and you’ve just vastly increased the likelihood of hitting a bystander. As a soldier, you’re trained to aim for the torso first, head second. I’d say it’s likely that the Somali’s wounds were due to poor marksmanship on the part of the officers rather than doctrine. But having such a doctrine in place would not surprise me, the state of Europe being what it is.
Ferg writes:
A. Zarkov writes:
The whole attack on Westergaard along with the timid rules of engagement used by the Danish police, including their inadequate weapons, demonstrates European weakness in confronting Islam, the enemy in their midst.
While I don’t dispute Mr. Zarkov’s point, it needs to be enlarged. The Danes are no different from other continental European nations in not understanding the utility of good defensive handguns or what constitutes a powerful cartridge. They think the nine is adequate as they consider guns to be largely threat weapons, and that they will not actually need to shoot. As for the wounds in the shoulder and leg, I have no information on them but would not be at all surprised to find that they were the result of poor marksmanship rather than intent.
Only in America is handguning taken seriously and serious calibers carried by police and civilian alike. Also, we are the only people to take training with the handgun to a serious level, again both police and civilian. The British used to at least use a real caliber but gave that up after WWI in the military and never did have serious ones in the police. In fact, the harbor police in Britain who were always armed went back to the cutlass for years because they rightly considered the handguns they were issued to be useless.
None of this has anything to do with the Muslim threat, but rather the European attitudes toward personal defense and weapons use. They think the use of shotguns with buckshot by our police to be barbaric. To the European mind in general, the handgun is a status symbol of authority, not a practical weapon. We are unlikely to see this attitude change. I have seen training videos of Spanish and German elite police units that are simply laughable. No American civilian who has been through a good pistol training school here would make the kind of tactical and marksmanship blunders that these supposedly elite units were making.
LA replies:
This is a very informative comment.
“To the European mind in general, the handgun is a status symbol of authority, not a practical weapon.”
Fascinating point.
January 5
A. Zarkov writes:
N. writes, “He no doubt assumes that the police hit what they were aiming at. I am skeptical of this assumption.” I agree completely. I was assuming that the Danish police were trained to avoid firing at the head and torso. It is more likely that the police fired in a state of panic after the Somali attacked them with his axe. I would not be surprised if some of the police were women who freaked and began to shoot wildly. While some women make excellent police officers, most don’t, and many US police departments have lowered their standards to accommodate them.
Mr. Van Wijk writes,
“A 9mm pistol will have certain advantages over a .45, mainly lighter weight, less recoil, and higher magazine capacity. Your standard .45 pistol will generally hold no more than eight rounds, while a 9mm can hold twice that.”
The magazine capacity for the 9 mm Heckler & Koch USP holds 15 rounds, while the .45 version holds 12 rounds, see here. You only sacrifice three rounds. If magazine capacity were the issue the Danish police would not be using the Compact version because then the 9 mm magazine only holds 13 rounds. As I wrote before, I can see no reason for uniformed police using a compact pistol. However after doing some research on the Internet, I see that various military and police organizations throughout the world have op-ed for compact models. They might want a lighter weapon, or one that’s not as bulky. It could also be a result of more women in these forces who find they have better control with a lighter weapon with less recoil.
Ferg’s comments are excellent. I agree with him completely.
Finally a word on the .45 caliber handgun. Legend has it that the .45 caliber M1911 Automatic Colt Pistol was developed for US Armed Forces to use in the Philippines during the Moro Rebellion because smaller caliber handguns did not have enough stopping power. Who are the Moros? Fanatical Philippine Muslims who fought the US during the Spanish-American War. The legend is discussed here. The M1911 is still popular today and many people recommend it as the best defensive handgun. It has an avid following and many law enforcement units use it. I have heard that the basic model needs customization to make it accurate. Many anti-gun people believe pistols are not useful for self defensive because they are too inaccurate. One of my friends told me that you might as well throw rocks. I think this piece of misinformation comes from the inaccurate M1911s in wide use. To anyone who doubts a .45 caliber handgun can’t be fired accurately, I recommend going to a firing range and watch good marksmen fire tight clusters.
Richard P. writes:
I have to disagree with the comments of Zarkov and Van Wijk on the 9mm round. There has been a revolution in ammunition design in the last couple of decades. We now have 9mm +P rounds with fragmenting bullets or rapid-expansion hollow points that can produce nasty wound channels that just weren’t possible with the common 9mm ammo from the 1980’s or early 1990’s. There has been some really great innovation in the ammo industry recently. I feel completely comfortable with a Glock 19 as a self-defense weapon, which is the same size and caliber as the Danish police issue Heckler & Koch. Ammo choice is the key.
The problem with the 9mm as a military weapon is that the military is restricted to full metal jacket rounds because of the century-old Geneva/Hague rules of warfare. FMJ ammo, especially in 9mm, is not particularly effective. Unfortunately, those same rules are what restrict soldiers in using shotguns. In WWI U.S. soldiers often used Winchester shotguns called “trench guns” loaded with buckshot. They were so devastating that the German command threatened to execute any soldier captured with a shotgun. Ironic considering that they had no problem using chlorine gas. Shotguns were later banned by Geneva/Hague as being “inhumane”.
January 6
Ferg writes:
Snouk replies:
There was a time not too long ago that the police hardly needed to carry pistols at all in the Netherlands. And still most Dutch policemen do not use their guns in their entire career on the police beat. 20-30 percent would fail their shooting exams if they had to take the prescribed test. In most districts police has not done the annual pistol training for seven to eight years.
We only have had serious gun crime for 15 years in the four big cities.
This is direct verification of my point on the attitudes of European police on handguns and handgun training. The whole point of a handgun is it is an EMERGENCY weapon that is small enough and light enough to have with you at all times. If you are EXPECTING trouble you should have if possible a shotgun or rifle, and preferably several equally well armed associates. The point in the handgun is to be there when you DON’T think you will need it. This in no way diminishes the need for constant realistic and high level training in its use. If anything it increases the need, for the simple reason that it will be needed suddenly and in great urgency, when you are least prepared to act. The fact that there has been little need for many years, and that even now there is little need except for four large cities is not an excuse for poor training habits, but the opposite. The point is to be ready for the UNEXPECTED, as by definition you will be ready for the expected, hence the expertise in use of the riot baton.
“What about the British police? Their constables do not carry guns at all but rely on “special response teams” with rifles. The joke is that to stop a miscreant British policemen shout “Stop,” or all say “Stop again!.” English people get nervous when they see Continental policemen carrying guns.”
I have heard the joke and it would be funny if it were not pathetic. It also is not entirely true as there have always been armed British police, the Harbor Police for one, the Flying Squads and certain elements of Special Branch. Still, when Britain was a homogenous country made up of ethnic Britons, there was not so much need for armed police. They need to re-assess that policy. But note what Snouk states about the Flying Squads or “special response teams.” They are armed with rifles. Why? Because they are called on when trouble is already happening. The prior knowledge I spoke about above. This in no way diminishes the need for emergency response weapons, that is handguns. If you know there is going to be trouble, the Flying Squads should already be there. It seems to me Mr. Snouk has made my case for me.
I might add that prior to the nineteen seventies most American police outside of certain major cities never drew their weapons in anger either. But they still carried them and they still qualified with them.
JP writes:
LOL … Larry, thanks for the humorous thread. I am always amused when a political discussion turns towards the topic of guns. The civilian gun enthusiasts inevitably come out of the closet in droves. You can always count on them offering detailed opinions on the efficacy of different types of gun frames, bullets, magazine capacity, etc. Unfortunately, none of these guys has a clue about what really happened when those cops encountered that guy with the axe. It doesn’t matter though, because speculating about it affords them the opportunity to use terms like “rapid-expanding hollow points” and “wound channels.” They get to drop names of different models of guns and debate the issue of “stopping power.” The best is when they assert what weapon system they would prefer in a similar situation (an opinion most likely formulated from reading lots of gun magazines and occasionally putting some holes in paper targets at the local shooting range). The problem with their assertion is that they will most likely never face a similar situation because they don’t carry a gun and aren’t charged daily with running towards society’s little problems that might require the use of said gun to solve. So please forgive my chuckle at the back and forth that always arises from such discussions. Let me, however, make this one observation: After investigating numerous homicides resulting from gun shot wounds and attending the corresponding autopsies, I have learned one thing. A bullet, no matter how big or small, no matter what weapon from which it was fired, will kill you deader than dead if it hits you in the right place. ;)
LA replies:
While I can see from a certain angle a comic way of viewing the discussion, I don’t like your superior tone. There’s something unpleasant about a person declaring himself “amused” at an entire group of people, thus placing himself on a higher level.
Also, you add nothing useful. People were engaged in an interesting exchange about the exigencies of the life and death situation at Kurt Westergaard’s house. Some thought the Danish police deliberately shot to wound, others said, it was probably just chance that they didn’t wound the suspect more seriously. The comments about European police” attitudes toward guns were enlightening.
So, again, I would drop the disdainful, amused tone. If you have a legitimate criticism to make of the discussion, make it. If you have something useful to contribute, contribute it.
JP replies:
OK … that’s a fair response. I actually hesitated hitting send for fear that what I found amusing would be interpreted as condescending. And perhaps it was. It’s just that so much of that thread was uninformed speculation and gun talk grandstanding. But you’re right. I did not add to the discussion in a meaningful way.
As far as the appropriateness of the Danish response, what do we really know? We have news accounts that say that the police responded, encountered a hostile male subject with an axe, and ultimately shot and wounded him. I think it is ridiculous to speculate that the Danes train or mandate their police forces to shoot to wound or to aim for limbs. Those type of officer involved shootings are rapidly evolving and stressful events. In spite of regular training it is often common for officers to miss their intended target area. [LA replies: but some of the commenters, whom you dismiss, made that same point.] No police force I’m aware of has the manpower or resources available to train to a level of expertise as say a military special forces rapid deployment unit.
As far as the opinions offered about the European attitude toward the handgun, especially as it is used and viewed by the police, I am a little dubious of the commenter’s experience that informs such an opinion. It’s one thing to observe that Europe does not share our history and culture with regards to gun ownership, especially the handgun. But to suggest that a modern European police force has such a frivolous institutional attitude towards handguns that they don’t seriously train and that they select inappropriate weapons systems to be effective is a significant stretch. [LA replies: why is it a stretch? Are you kidding? Look at Europe! Look at its governments and their surrdner to criminals and Muslim extremists! Look at the way the British police abjectly retreated before a Muslim mob.] And, the tired back and forth about the efficacy of the American .45 vs the European 9mm doesn’t really add much to the discussion either, does it? [LA replies: if you’re not interested in the topic, you don’t have to read it. For a non-gun person like myself, it is interesting.]
I regret that my tone came across as disdainful and I respect that you strive to keep your discussion threads civil and appropriate.
Ferg writes:
Richard P. writes:
I have to disagree with the comments of Zarkov and Van Wijk on the 9mm round. There has been a revolution in ammunition design in the last couple of decades. We now have 9mm +P rounds with fragmenting bullets or rapid-expansion hollow points that can produce nasty wound channels that just weren’t possible with the common 9mm ammo from the 1980s or early 1990s. There has been some really great innovation in the ammo industry recently. I feel completely comfortable with a Glock 19 as a self-defense weapon, which is the same size and caliber as the Danish police issue Heckler & Koch. Ammo choice is the key.
Yes, no, kinda, maybe. I agree to some extent, but there are too many ways and too many instances of hollow points and fragmentation bullets failing to perform in the real world as expected. Among problems are failures to expand, failures to penetrate adequately, deflection on bone, defeat of performance by heavy Winter clothing, reliability problems in many guns, and illegality in some jurisdictions (New Jersey for one). Given any kind of choice I will choose something with more authority than the nine. That being said I now shoot a lot of nine in my defensive pistol sports for reasons of economy. I now spend as much per one hundred rounds of nine as I did for one hundred rounds of forty-five less than three years ago, and about six dollars more per hundred than I used to pay for forty in the same time frame. I shoot a minimum of one hundred rounds a week in the cold months and two to four hundred per week in the warm months. Just can not afford a steady diet of forty and forty-five. But they are still my choices for defense in an auto pistol.
In W.W.I U.S. soldiers often used Winchester shotguns called “trench guns” loaded with buckshot. They were so devastating that the German command threatened to execute any soldier captured with a shotgun. Ironic considering that they had no problem using chlorine gas. Shotguns were later banned by Geneva/Hague as being “inhumane.”
Yes, but the U.S. military still issue and use them, most especially in Special Operations teams. Most U.S. police departments also issue and use them. They are both very effective as weapons, and very effective as threats. Many civilians I know keep them for home defense.
Ferg replies to JP:
You wrote:
“As far as the opinions offered about the European attitude toward the handgun, especially as it is used and viewed by the police, I am a little dubious of the commenter’s experience that informs such an opinion.”
Sir, I assume you are in law enforcement in some capacity and thank you for your service. I will not go into my background at this time, other than to say that I do carry a firearm on a daily basis and have considerable formal training in its use. I submit to you the following however from a Dutch blogger.
Snouk wrote:
There was a time not too long ago that the police hardly needed to carry pistols at all in the Netherlands. And still most Dutch policemen do not use their guns in their entire career on the police beat. 20-30 percent would fail their shooting exams if they had to take the prescribed test. In most districts police has not done the annual pistol training for seven to eight years.
I think that makes my case better than my own statement. But just for your information I informed Mr. Auster that I took no credit for the observation about the attitudes of the European police, but was in fact paraphrasing Lt. Col. Jeff Cooper in one of his earlier books.
You say:
A bullet, no matter how big or small, no matter what weapon from which it was fired, will kill you deader than dead if it hits you in the right place. ;)
Yes, no doubt about it. Where the doubt arises is whether or not it will stop your aggression in time to do me or others any good. That is all that matters, killing is not the point.
You say:
Unfortunately, none of these guys has a clue about what really happened when those cops encountered that guy with the ax.
If you will read my original post on the subject I made just that point. I also stated I would not be surprised if the location of the hits on the ax wielding would-be killer were not intentional, but the result of poor marksmanship. I stand by that statement but agree that the pressure of the moment can have a huge effect on where bullets impact, regardless of marksmanship ability.
You say:
It’s just that so much of that thread was uninformed speculation and gun talk grandstanding.
I don’t know about the grandstanding part, but I plead guilty to having offered more opinion in response to other opinion than was necessary, or even interesting. I will state that my opinion is “informed” opinion, not “uninformed”. However, I am content to leave the editing to Mr. Auster, he is good at it. If he wants to include what I write, that is up to him. I am flattered that he finds things I write worth including at his site.
January 7
Van Wijk writes:
JP wrote: “The civilian gun enthusiasts inevitably come out of the closet in droves. You can always count on them offering detailed opinions on the efficacy of different types of gun frames, bullets, magazine capacity, etc.”
JP conveniently forgets that a great many “civilian gun enthusiasts” at VFR and elsewhere are military veterans or ex-law enforcement. But since we are apparently not to be trusted regarding the efficacy of firearms, who, in JP’s opinion, should speak with authority on this topic? Not soldiers, since we’re veterans. Not cops, since we’re ex-law enforcement. Who does that leave? Bureaucrats of the state? Politicians-in-fatigues like George Casey, perhaps? (Here is an article I consider very illuminating when it comes to the opinions of “experts” on firearms.)
And I’ll remind JP that the “let the professionals handle it” attitude does not sync with the American experience. It was the armed private citizen who wrested this land from foreign tyrants and savages, and the armed private citizen remains the only guarantor of American liberty, not a government employee who wears a badge or pixellated camouflage.
LA replies:
I’m going to bring this discussion to a close now.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at January 04, 2010 07:18 PM | Send
|
