Sweden’s leader turns to the military for help as gang violence escalates
apnews.com
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.”
Law enforcement should not be militarized. Sweden just copying America's mistakes.
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.
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.
Agreed, this is how you stop the police from militarizing themselves.
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.
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).
Agreed, this is how you stop the police from militarizing themselves.
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.
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.
Why not? Why shouldn’t they bring in all of the necessary equipment to ensure success and to protect themselves?
And the authoritarians keep moving up their positions.
The debate over here is fucking crazy, the post-fascist backed government is sneering at any proposed solution with any nuance or suggested preventative measures included. It's all fucking military intervention, insane deregulation of policing, surveillance, harsher punishments, regressive drug policy, and anti immigration populism.
Do we have an uptick in violence because of a very specific ongoing gang conflict, yes. But Jesus Christ, not anywhere near the level that would excuse anything close to this.
I agree that the current government is implementing exactly 0 long-term strategies to help deal with the root cause of the problems, like strengthening and financing social services and welfare, healthcare and mental healthcare, schools and social programs, decriminalizing some drugs etc, to curb influx of underage criminals into the gangs and remove some of the economical incentives. The opposition is coming out with good suggestion after good suggestion, and the right-wing (by Swedish standards) government has basically just slashed welfare across the board in practice. They are going for only the hard-on-crime approach, which as far as I know has no real scientific proof of long-term efficacy unless paired with social/community interventions.
However, I think many swedes agree that the police need more resources - particularly people watching possible targets of future bombings and just more eyes on the gangs. We have one of the lowest number of police per capita in Europe, slightly higher than the rest of the Nordic countries tbf, but with much bigger problems with organized crime and violence.
I'm also horrified at this general societal development, but I can see the merit of involving some of the military in more eyes-on-the-ground kinds of operations for a few years until we have more of a grip on the gang situation. I prefer that to visitation zones, harsher punishments and more generalized surveillance of non-suspects being allowed.
But maybe I'm just naïve to the implications.
Yeah, I don't really disagree fundamentally with any of this apart from the fact that I don't think involving the military at this point is anywhere near warranted. We'll have to see what happens I guess, I think it could be mostly saber rattling. "Look how seriously we're taking this!".
But more police, and specifically more police on tasks that actually matter and aren't just being pursued to pad their stats? That's fine.
Yes, agreed, some of it is probably just bluster to seem like they're doing something.
However, even if we agree that more police resources are necessary, I don't know how we should get more of competent, educated police in the short term unless we involve military (who do have some education at least). The last thing I want is for us to rapidly employ new "police" (ordningsvakter) with only weeks or a few months of training - that's how we get additional problems with US-style police violence on top of the gang violence problems...
Agreed. There are not really any good options here.
In Ireland we have the special criminal court, it allows for the views of officials to be taken as evidence. Absolutely ripe for corruption but so far it hasn't been used for that. It is a closed door court with only the accused and the verdict being open to the public.
These fascist fucks love to pretend that gang violence and poverty just appear out of nowhere, and their immediate recourse is always escalation of very same state violence that generated the unrest.
It was the Social Democrats (Swedens' biggest socialist party) who suggested the use of the military.
But of course, you have no goddamn clue as to what the hell you're talking about and your ignorance shows.
And anyone up voting these sentiments: the issue is more complex, and please read up on the issue and build a complete picture.
"Socialists" can be fascists too, if they're using government violence to quell dissent caused by government failure.
Yeah ok but these aren't fascists numbnut
Are you suggesting that Socialdemokraterna is a fascists organization!?
Lmao, get out if here just stfu.
Are they using violence to quell dissent generated from their failure to adequately represent their population? Your answer is the same as mine, if you're honest.
No. So what in the goddamn hell are you talking about?
I'm talking about this, idiot.
Again, wtf are you talking about? Quelling dissent and fighting crime is the same in your eyes?
Fucking tinfoil hat lunatic...
Happy populations with all their needs met don't have drug addiction, poverty, homelessness, or nearly as many impulsive violent crimes. Shit rolls downhill, but responsibility can never be delegated. The people at the top are responsible for every crime that happens within their borders because they declare what is illegal, they control the conditions, and they allocate resources to either supporting, imprisoning, enslaving, or murdering their dissident populations.
This is native at best and really fucking wrong at worst. Please don't ever hold a position of responsibility.
I mean the "venstre" party in Denmark are also teetering close to far right idealisms as well? The vitriol in your comment seems wildly misplaced for something that could have been otherwise politely explained.
This was re-posted to the same community, 13 hours later, by the same person.
I prefer actual cross-posts over detached reposts, but still hope this was a mistake. It splits the comment sections.
Thanks for spotting this. Looks like the article changed its title and updated the text after I posted it the first time.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
STOCKHOLM (AP) — Three people were killed overnight in separate incidents in Sweden as deadly violence linked to a feud between criminal gangs escalated.
Hours later, one man was killed and another was wounded in a shooting in Jordbro, south of the Swedish capital.
Two gangs — one led by a Swedish-Turkish dual national who lives in Turkey, the other by his former lieutenant — are reportedly fighting over drugs and weapons.
Earlier this week, two powerful explosions ripped through dwellings in central Sweden, injuring at least three people and damaging buildings, with bricks and window sections left spread outside.
On Thursday, Anders Thornberg, the police chief, said the feud “is a serious threat to the safety and security of the country” of 10 million people that is often considered a safe place with a low crime rate.
Strömmer said that it was “not relevant to deploy the military,” but that he was prepared to listen to all parties when it comes to solving the wave of violence.
The original article contains 479 words, the summary contains 168 words. Saved 65%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Well, here comes violence against people who look brown…
Poor bastards.
About twenty years ago, a black and female coworker moved to Sweden, because the culture was more accepting and offered her better work and wages. No place is safe. I’m very sorry to think of how she might be faring.
Okay who the fuck downvoted you?
I see the Swedish experiment is going just fine