218
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

Sweden’s prime minister on Thursday said that he’s summoned the head of the military to discuss how the armed forces can help police deal with an unprecedented crime wave that has shocked the country with almost daily shootings and bombings.

Getting the military involved in crime-fighting would be a highly unusual step for Sweden, underscoring the severity of the gang violence that has claimed a dozen lives across the country this month, including teenagers and innocent bystanders.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said that he would meet with the armed forces’ supreme commander and the national police commissioner on Friday to explore “how the armed forces can help police in their work against the criminal gangs.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Stovetop@lemmy.world 53 points 1 year ago

Law enforcement should not be militarized. Sweden just copying America's mistakes.

[-] remotelove@lemmy.ca 35 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Bear with me for a second. I am going to agree and disagree with you a bit.

While our law enforcement has more than its share of problems, I can't really think of any instances where it was militarized. Believe me, I am absolutely not a fan of police overreach or some of the idiot, power hungry cops that are out there.

There were some cases where different police agencies did receive surplus military equipment, for whatever reason. Weird, sure. Militarized, not quite. One or two armored personnel carriers does not make a military out of a police department.

We do have the national guard, and they have come in handy a few times. When the US has riots, we tend to have them on a fairly grand scale. It takes some serious manpower to manage them and local police simply don't have the resources. (1967: 12th Street riots; 82nd and 101st Airborne had to be called in after the National Guard)

Personally, I have been in ordered to shelter in place a couple of times when I lived in the D.C. area when SWAT had to lock down a block or two. Honestly, given the circumstances, I am quite glad that they had the equipment they had. The US has some really nasty places, for sure.

Should the a military be deployed because of rampant gang violence? Sure, if the manpower is needed and it's for a short time. However, it absolutely should bring laser focus on the fact that these gangs weren't disolved properly to begin with. If the government is being forced to apply controls to the entire population, there is something seriously wrong.

So, in short, the police shouldn't be militarized themselves, but sometimes having additional manpower on standby can be a good thing.

It can go absolutely overboard and I think we can look at the instability in Africa right now to prove that.

[-] Bluetreefrog@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago

Bear with me for a second. I am going to agree and disagree with you a bit.

Have an upvote for excellent Netiquette.

In Germany, the military cannot be deployed to use force inside Germany's borders in peacetime. This is part of the constitution. The military must not be used as a domestic instrument of power. You can guess where this is coming from. As such I always view it quite critically when other countries do this, because there is definitely a danger to it.

[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed, this is how you stop the police from militarizing themselves.

[-] 3ntranced@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Police in America: Poopy Diaper Police in other developed countries: Fresh Diaper

As ACAB as I am, at least the units they seem they will deploy have more than a daycamps worth of training. The problem with militarized forces in these situations is it can aggravate it further if not handled properly.

I'm looking at you 1985 Phillidalphia MOVE standoff. Even though they weren't a 'gang' but just defying the law together in a non-threatening way; the police took to just bombing the whole city block.

When you say they should focus on the dissolving of the gangs is exactly correct. Bringing force en masse to combat situational instances won't stop the problem from growing, you need to strategically remove the kingpins quickly to have the lower echelon fall apart. This also in turn with leaneancy on potential criminal whistleblowers, so those associated already have a 'scapegoat' to get out of that environment.

I could be totally wrong though, this is all based off my perceptions as a Midwest American. I just assume the offenders are members of the same community.

[-] jasory@programming.dev 2 points 1 year ago

All of this applies to the US. US law enforcement hasn't been militarised since Reconstruction in the 1870s. When people say "militarised police", they mean armored cars that can stop up to .308 rounds and carrying .223 rifles, both things that civilians can legally purchase. There is no police department in the US that has actual military equipment (outside of Coast Guard and DOD).

[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

Agreed, this is how you stop the police from militarizing themselves.

[-] ribboo@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Meh, this military stuff is such an exaggeration. It’s mainly about politicians wanting to look like they are strong and doing stuff.

The military are by law allowed to carry out some tasks the police force can. The main example that has been brought up, is to guard buildings of importance. They also have other skills when it comes to technology, and could help the police with knowledge there. That’s the gist of it.

Would not call that copy anyone’s mistakes at all to be honest.

Uh, America doesn't mobilize the fucking army when a handful of gang members shoot each other.

[-] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago

No, the military has rules of engagement and accountability, when they shoot the wrong person they go to Leavenworth, not paid vacation.

There are pretty fair number of Iraqis that would disagree with your claim in regards to factual reality, but yes, and Posse Comitatus is one of those rules.

[-] MindSkipperBro12@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Why not? Why shouldn’t they bring in all of the necessary equipment to ensure success and to protect themselves?

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
218 points (98.2% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2588 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS