[dda]

Originally Posted by Kargool

Obioras only fault was to be a man in a desperate situation.

Originally Posted by article

(Obiora) reportedly went berserk in a social welfare office.

Have you been privy to all of the information as to what this means? The social welfare folks were obviously quite concerned with his actions and they called for the police. Do you know what information was given to the police when they were dispatched to this location? It would appear, from the fact that FOUR officers were dispatched, that they were given information going in which would have caused them to believe that force might be immediately needed.

Originally Posted by article

"it took four officers to subdue Obiora"

This would seem to indicate that the force of four officers was NECESSARY to gain control of Obiora.

Originally Posted by kargool

Now, you would think that this would be used against him seeing as this was a very similar case

Actually, I would think nothing of the kind. In the US, at least, a criminal, when brought before the court has the right to be judged on the basis of his current actions alone. The theory is that people very commonly jump to the conclusion because someone committed a prior similar act, that the accusations in the current case must be true (shock gasp). It would seem that human nature in Norway is very similar to that in the US. I would accord an accused criminal the very same right which was accorded the police. If you are going to make an accusation against someone, either criminal or police, you should do it on competent evidence not on speculation that they have acted in accordance with prior perceived bad acts.

Originally Posted by kargool

the clear shout from the masses is that the people responsible for killing Obiora should be dismissed from the police.

Shouid a system be based on the "shout from the massed"? If so then I won't be coming to Norway in the near future.

Originally Posted by kargool

However I just love the fact that this bastard is being held accountable for his own actions.

Nice conclusion, however, other than your "feelings" what true facts do you have which puts you in such a good position to judge? Would you want your legal situation judged by people with the same amount of knowledge of your actions which you have of the police officer?

Originally Posted by kargool

So, now we got a lot of people with no respect at all for the police, and jury members who have openly expressed that in the future they will see policemen with a more prying eye than before.

This is probably true, but it doesn't mean that there is any justification for this position.

Originally Posted by kargool

choking a desperate man to death

How do you know he was deperate? What was he desperate about. "Berserk" sounds more like he was extremely angry and at least potentially violent.

Originally Posted by kargool

when they were 4 policemen who could easily have talked their way out of it

You probably haven't had a lot of experience attempting to control a potentially dangerous situation. I had a case recently where a man was stopped outside of his house by the police. He needed to be handcuffed for the safety of the officers. He was asked to submit to handcuffing by getting on his knees and then on his stomach and to put his hands behind his back. He refused and the officers used a tazer to subdue him. Problem was that this deperate man wasn't fazed by the electric shocks administered. One officer used a riot baton to strike at the side of his knee to bring him to the ground. Still no success. A second tazer was deployed but still no success. It finally took 7 officers to bring him to the ground and to handcuff him. It turns out he had just murdered his room mate. Talking doesn't always work.

A carotid restraint, which the police applied in the Obiora case, is applied to restrict the flow of blood through the carotid artery to the brain thus depriving the brain of oxygen and causing the person to pass out in 20-30 seconds if effectively applied.

Unless you have some reason for believing that the officer was trying to kill Obiora then you should assume that it was unintentional. Any application of force will have the occasional unfortunate result. However, that does not necessarily mean that the force was excessive or unnecessary.

Now, the first demo I attended i actually walked over to the head of the police in Trondheim and said my piece, in front of a few other youths. I told him who i was, and why i was protesting.

Originally Posted by kargool

So my question to the policechief was simply: How can you allow that your men decides to use excessive violence instead of actually trying to talk to the man? There was numerous witnesses to the killing and everyone pretty much tells the same story, that the police just walked straight over to him, and tried to put him on the ground, without any talks and without any provocation from the man's side

By "pretty much" I assume that you mean some but not all of the witnesses agree with this account. Without examining the position and the predispositions of these witnesses, it is difficult to ascertain who was being accurate.

The police were there to protect the public from the "berserk" actions of Mr. Obiora. They didn't initiate the situation. They should have, and apparently did, attempt to make sure that Mr. Obiora didn't go "berserk" again. How would the police have been perceived if they had strolled in and begun to chat Obiora up only to have him pull a knife, say, and have cut the throat of one of the social workers? Do you think there would have been criticism of the police inaction in such an event?

Originally Posted by kargool

of course when it happened he fought back, he was from Nigeria, a place where if you get arrested by the police, chances are you don't come back.

This would make him MORE dangerous then.

Originally Posted by kargool

To add to this, the police has of course now banned this choke hold maneuver from being learned and from being used. (But they still refuse to say that the policemen did anything wrong)

The fact that things went wrong in a situation like this is not evidence that the police did something wrong. They may indeed have done something wrong but you can't judge the action solely by its outcome. The fact that there is a hysterical public and press reaction to a situation is also no evidence. The fact that the police have decided to eliminate a tool as too dangerous in order to avoid future public outcry is likewise no proof that the officer didn't act reasonably.

Originally Posted by kargool

I guess Norway simply isn't as nice a place as we thought.

I will agree with you on this point.

In summary, the police have a very difficult job to do. They have to make decisions on the use of force that most of us would not be comfortable in making. They have to make it on incomplete information and they have to make it very quickly. They do not have the luxury of hindsight or of waiting for the good advice of the press and the public before they make those difficult decisions.

If people do not like the way the police do their job then they should, if young enough and phsically fit enough, join the police and thus change the police culture. If they are not young enough then they should encourage right thinking young people such as you and your friends to go in to law enforcement so that they can effect positive change by doing the job better.