Dutch police have an international reputation for being soft, some say too soft. The officers themselves appear to confirm this image, with one in four of those questioned in a police survey admitting they try to avoid the use of force. When faced with street fights, burglaries or rioting, they’d prefer to walk the other way.
“The Netherlands has developed a culture of sorting things out through dialogue. We’ll have to get tough again if that’s what’s needed.”
Shooting range
Officers complain they haven't had enough training and that it doesn’t prepare them properly for violent situations. Once they qualify as policemen and women, they don’t get enough hours of practice on the shooting range.
A spokesperson from the Dutch Police Union explains:
“The average officer only gets to the shooting range four times a year. Someone who wants to join a shooting club will have been to a range 18 times. The training given to the police just has to get better.”
Their lack of training means officers lack confidence. They either become unwilling to get involved in risky situations, or end up employing excessive force. The latter scenario results in both police officers and suspected criminals suffering injuries which could have been avoided.
Dialogue
It’s also a question of culture: Dutch police attempt to solve problems through dialogue, only resorting to force as a last resort. This approach is often met with incomprehension abroad - or for that matter from foreigners living in the Netherlands. Dutch police are ‘sheep in uniforms’, they’re ‘too soft’ and ‘too polite’ – how can they command your respect?
Frans Heeris heads the Central and West Brabant police force. He explains the background to the present situation:
“It was of course a sign of the times that we said, ‘let’s try and organise society in as non-violent a way as possible’. We taught officers how to tackle incidents: first talk, whether it’s in a hostage or any other kind of violent situation. First warn, then try to get people away. And only as a last resort, use force.”
‘Three Ds’
Dutch police are trained according to the ‘three Ds’: first, Dialogue; then De-escalation; and then, only if it’s really necessary, Duress – the use of force or violence. But Mr Heeris thinks something’s gone seriously wrong around that use of duress.
Cor de Lange, chief of police in central Groningen agrees that the balance has swung too far in one direction:
“Since the 1980s, when I joined the police, we’ve been taught more and more to sort things out by talking. But the way I see it now, when there’s no other way, we need to get tougher again. Put it this way, ‘friendliness if possible, force if it’s the only way’.”
Gun-use taboo
It’s standard practice in the Netherlands to investigate incidents in which officers have employed violent methods. These investigations are often very lengthy. Officers are made to feel that every form of force is scrutinised. That’s why they steer clear of it if possible.
On top of this, Dutch police don’t feel that they are supported properly by their commanding officers. Four in ten of those asked in the survey said that it went down badly with their boss if they employed a tough approach. They complained that those in command would look the other way: ‘At the end of the day, your use of force is at your own risk’.
Labour MP Attje Kuiken says many senior officers haven’t got a clue about the violence with which their policemen and women are confronted:
“Some of the bosses have had little experience of violence in their training and have a tendency to look down on officers who use force. It’s a vicious circle. We have to break through the taboo about using guns. If you do something, you shouldn’t have to worry for weeks – ‘Am I going to be prosecuted’ or ‘Will the boss back me?’ We have to ditch the motto ‘The police should only talk’. No, they should also be allowed to take action.”
(mw/imm)
© Radio Netherlands Worldwide
Email this Article
Printer-friendly version
would the Netherlands want something like this ?
Police response an utter failure, coroner finds
Paul Bibby
October 14, 2011 - 12:00PM
Salter's father: No to armed police
The father of Adam Salter, a man shot dead by police in 2009, is calling for NSW police to put their guns away.
There is strong evidence that a policewoman who shot a mentally disturbed man in the back in 2009 accidentally used her gun instead of her Taser, a coroner has found.
Adam Salter was shot and killed in the kitchen of his Lakemba home in November 2009 after police responded to a call that the 36-year-old was stabbing himself with a knife.
The shooter, Sergeant Sheree Bissett, and NSW Police claimed that Mr Salter was threatening another officer with a knife and that lethal force was her only option.
Shooting victim Adam Salter with his sister Zarin.
But the inquest into Mr Salter's death learnt that Sergeant Bissett shouted "Taser, Taser, Taser" before firing her gun, and Deputy State Coroner Scott Mitchell has found that it was more than likely Sergeant Bissett had made a terrible mistake.
Describing the police response as "an utter failure", Mr Mitchell said: "There is a very strong flavour of confusion and mistake and, given her cry of 'Taser, Taser Taser', I think it is more likely than not that Sergeant Bissett mistakenly chose her Glock, having intended to employ her Taser.
"Police killed the person they were supposed to be helping.
"They forgot to remove or to secure the knife from the sink.
"They removed from the kitchen the very person, his father, most likely to be able to contain him.
"They left Adam Salter in the care of a young and inexperienced and ... ineffective and unresponsive officer."
Mr Mitchell told the Coroners Court in Glebe it was more than likely that, far from representing a threat to police, Mr Salter posed a threat only to himself.
Despite this, "without any proper warning or challenge, Sergeant Bissett fired the fatal shot".
Mr Mitchell also slammed the internal police investigation that followed the shooting.
He said the critical incident investigation report, written by Detective Inspector Russell Oxford of the NSW Homicide Squad, was "seriously flawed".
He said the investigation report "provided the commissioner with a very unreliable view of the circumstance of Adam Salter's death and will have failed to persuade the community that the circumstances surrounding Adam Salter’s death were investigated scrupulously and fairly".
Mr Mitchell did not make any recommendations and said he would not refer the matter to the Police Integrity Commission (PIC).
However, he left this option open for the family.
Outside the court Mr Salter's father, Adrian Salter, said the family were still considering whether or not they would pursue the matter with the PIC.
"What’s important to us is that Adam's life was taken unexpectedly, tragically and unnecessarily," he told reporters.
"I think that what happened was a tragic mistake and wouldn't have happened had the police not been carrying guns."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/police-response-an-utter-failure-coroner-finds...
As far as I know the police is in law enforcement and not in the coffee and doughnut business; sometimes they have to be tough to get the laws enforced.
To Awesome Ted: The population of the Netherlands is 16.6 million. You are saying that 20 % of the people in the Netherlands don't feel safe walking the city streets at night. Awesome, you stated "Dutch crime rates have been dropping". Do you think the following quote has anything to do with the reporting of crime: " The officers themselves appear to confirm this image, with one in four of those questioned in a police survey admitting they try to avoid the use of force. When faced with street fights, burglaries or rioting, they’d prefer to walk the other way." I guess the stats would show a drop in crime if one in four officers walked away from "fights, burglaries or rioting". I guess those two ladies who moved to the Bible belt were part of the 20 percent who did not feel safe. You can't imagine what it could be? They, the police, are confronted on the streets by violent crimes and they get no support from the Dutch judical system and the public. No wonder there aren't many criminals in prison. They are out committing crimes and 20 percent of the people are wise enough to know it.
Ha ha. Yes, the streets in Holland are flowing thick with blood. Don't believe the postcard images. You're hilarious.
One in four police, according to the article, turn away from the violent crimes. Twenty percent of the public, per your statement, are afraid to go out into the streets at night. Your the one that one that came-up with the one in five stats. When one looks at your facts and the article's, one could say the streets are not safe but you laugh because you got caught in your own words. Your statement "Yes, the streets in Holland are flowing thick with blood" is a respone from getting caught. The streets are no safer in the Netherlands than any other major nation. You know it, 20 percent of the people know it, and the police know it.
Violent crime rates vary radically by country. See assaults as an example: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_ass_percap-crime-assaults-per-capita It's a shame that even here some people still don't have a sense of security. But maybe 20 percent are kids who are afraid of the dark. Maybe 20 percent are xenophobic paranoiacs like yourself.
Awesome, 20 percent of the Dutch population is a "Red Flag". Now you stated "It's a shame that even here some people still don't have a sense of security. But maybe 20 percent are kids who are afraid of the dark." Why is a shame that "some" people don't have a sense of security? Your previous mentioned statement implies you are making your judgement of the crime and it's causes from a solipism point of view. If 20 percent of the Dutch people feel uneasy about going out on the streets and you belitttle those 20 percent, then you have a lot more problems than the xenophobic paranoiacs like me and those 20 percenters.
"Solipist" isn't a word. The Netherlands is safer than your country by every measure. Maybe you should concentrate more on that and less on 'soft' Dutch cops.
Solipism is defined as "extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption." Read my comment again and look at the word again. I never said "Solipist". Your extreme preoccupation with yourself is evident in your writings and the name you have given yourself. Let me give some free advice. Drop the "awesome" and just call yourself Ted.
Check again, Hiram. I learned what solipsism and solipsistic meant decades ago. I approve of you trying to learn fancy new words. But if you choose the avenue of insults, you'd do well to make sure you're spelling them correctly.
On the other hand, if you want to have a adult debate about the subject matter, I'll try to be less mean. For example, you could take issue with the statistics I posted. Or propose that rough cops make for safe streets. Try to put some intellectual effort into it.
Ted, you are the one who did the insults "... Maybe 20 percent are xenophobic paranoiacs like yourself." Ted, rough cops don't make the streets safe and neither do cops who walk away from crimes. I gave an comment/opinion on a subject, and you didn't like it; therefore, you started your insults. Ted, you have a good day.
Better. Your opinion was based on vague statement from a weakly written article. So I ridiculed it. 25% try to avoid the use of force. What does this mean to you? Have you ever avoided the use of force when you had a conflict? Why? Think about the issues.
No, Ted, you insulted. It was an opinion and nothing more. You didn't like the opinion and you did what you normally do. You insulted. Now, that you re-defined insult as ridiculed, you now realise that anything I say to you is not an insult but merely a "ridicule". Okay my friend?
Yes, do read again. It's spelled solopSism and solopSist is a word.
You are right, Anoymous.
If you lived in Philadelphia you'd be taken away to the slammer first, then have to fight made-up charges using your own money or sit there for months until a public defender is assigned to you. Its horrible.
It's strange that they are having this clearly unjustified talk about giving police more right to use force when there is a big protest coming up in Amsterdam and the Hague against government austerity and the neo-liberal ideology.
Dutch crime rates have been dropping. Prisons are closing. 4 out of 5 people feel safe walking city streets at night. If the Dutch police have been doing something wrong, it's hard to imagine what it could be.
It's all idle talks.A serious talk would be:how many arrested people were beaten by policemen in the police stations?
Then,as regards the Dutch prisons,is there any "caste" division among prisoners in Dutch prisons,in particular are there "parias" considered to be "inferior" by other prisoners and used for homosexual intercourse?
Holland/Amsterdam has high rate of "foreign businesses", there is also a strong tourist trade. The reputation of well-mannered and peaceful police officers contribute to this fact. Brute force and violence would be a step in the wrong direction.
Our training is as follows: Ask them, Tell them, Make them.
...If was in Brazil...
Post new comment
Please be reminded all comments must be in English, short and to the point - guideline 250 words. Abusive and inappropriate comments will be removed.