Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Police is saying the culprit had linked neo-nazi sites on his Facebook page. The school is apparently in the bottom 10 in the country, and the neighbourhood (Kronogården), where the residents are primarily immigrants, is infamous for its higher-than-average criminality.

As for the name Trollhättan, while it literally means "the troll bonnet/cap", it's a corruption of the dialectal "Trôleta", which means (or meant, it's archaic) "to pull upwards, to drag", (c.f. English "trawl"), referring to the fact that ships had to be beached and towed past the Trollhättan rapids when journeying along the Göta river to and from lake Vänern in the old days.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Sad. A prayer for the victims and their families.

Lets try to keep the politics out of it ok?

The politics is already in it. Within the first half hour Swedish politicians and press are blaming far-right radicalisation.
We dont even know the perpetrators name yet.

What are you reading that blamed anything so quickly? Neither of the "big three" newspapers (DN, Aftonbladet, Expressen) we're blaming it on anyone for at least four hours, and AFAIK they only started reporting on the far-right angle once the perpetrator's linking of neo-nazi propaganda on Facebook became known.

Politics in it already. Lots of people we talked to blaming far right with some locals we talked saying they barely if ever knew him. Quiet guy of some sort. Some said that a far-right connection is likely as the far-right is rising again after the huge immigrant influx Sweden has to bear right now. Most locals still shocked despite knowing it being a bottom tier school.

Terrible event. I am enjoying all the names though.

Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Does anyone know if it is a school with a lot of ethnic minorities or one with primarily Swedish kids? Could his motives be far-right?

That was my first thought. I watched interviews with the students, lotta brown kids. Not sure on the ethnicity of the teacher, but look at foolio's stupid nazi hat.

I'll kick a kid off a 10 speed bike it it WASN'T racial.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

Just out of curiosity, does it make it better that the perp suffered a couple of hours before he died rather than dying at the scene?

I'm not sure I understand the difference. It would seem the cop(s) shot to kill. Not sure how them doing their jobs/following their training equates to 'summary execution'. For goodness sake, they were confronting some dude who was armed and had already killed someone and attempted to kill others.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

Yes, better to let a maniac on a killing spree wander off instead of immediately taking him out and thus potentially saving innocent lives.

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the difference. It would seem the cop(s) shot to kill. Not sure how them doing their jobs/following their training equates to 'summary execution'. For goodness sake, they were confronting some dude who was armed and had already killed someone and attempted to kill others.

I think "shoot to kill" means something slightly different here. I.e. "aim for centre of mass, and bring the person down", as opposed to the US police interpretation: "aim to empty your clip into someone already on the floor".

 Smacks wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure I understand the difference. It would seem the cop(s) shot to kill. Not sure how them doing their jobs/following their training equates to 'summary execution'. For goodness sake, they were confronting some dude who was armed and had already killed someone and attempted to kill others.

I think "shoot to kill" means something slightly different here. I.e. "aim for centre of mass, and bring the person down", as opposed to the US police interpretation: "aim to empty your clip into someone already on the floor".

Police are trained to aim for 'center mass' here in the USA too - to say otherwise is rather unfair and certainly unnecessary.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

Yes, better to let a maniac on a killing spree wander off instead of immediately taking him out and thus potentially saving innocent lives.

Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.

Rather than capturing them, and then instead of arresting him to be put on trial the cop just puts a bullet in their head, which I believe is what PW was suggesting.

Terrible news. My thoughts and prayers are with the families of the victims.

 Alpharius wrote:
Police are trained to aim for 'center mass' here in the USA too - to say otherwise is rather unfair and certainly unnecessary.

I was thinking specifically about the shooting of Ernesto Duenez (who was unarmed). Officer James Moody fired 13 shots at him point blank. In fairness 8 of those did hit centre mass, so I'm not really taking issue with that part. It's the sheer volume of bullets and the 4 shots that him him when he was already on the floor that I was commenting on. There is shooting to kill, and then there's shooting to kill.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

 Goliath wrote:


Rather than capturing them, and then instead of arresting him to be put on trial the cop just puts a bullet in their head, which I believe is what PW was suggesting.

^ Yep.

Yes, I think we all understood that you were in favor of extralegal executions at police discretion.

I'd expand about why that's a problem, but what are you supposed to say to that kind of person? I mean really.

But when Obama's jackbooted thugs do it we complain about socialism.

But seriously, can we stop calling for extrajudicial summary executions and gloating about the death of anybody and just be happy there were not more victims and keep their families in thought?

 d-usa wrote:
just be happy there were not more victims.

Wouldn't that imply that we should be unhappy when there are more victims? For example, those "other" spree killings...

 Frazzled wrote:
Lets try to keep the politics out of it ok?

Why? Talking about politics is why half of us hang out here. Even if we don't talk about it right now. I'm definitely bringing it up next gun debate anyway, so there's no escape!

Hope we find out the reasoning, was it a right wing agenda, or did he go crazy on shrooms thinking he was fighting dark jedi's

 Orlanth wrote:

We dont even know the perpetrators name yet.

Honestly, I hope we NEVER know the perpetrators name. Let the fether rot in anonymity, especially when numerous experts on these sorts of things say that publishing names and "kill counts" and such only fuel future events.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

Leave him in a cell for the rest of his life, denying him an early and relatively painless death ?

 LethalShade wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Cops should have killed him on the spot. Thats what terrorists get.

Good thing you're not in charge of anyone's justice system. Summary execution is friggin' abhorrent.

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

Leave him in a cell for the rest of his life, denying him an early and relatively painless death ?

Exactly this.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

Obviously you're supposed to spray him with glitter and happy feelings until he decides to put down the sword and surrender to the power of love.


Cops did exactly what they are supposed to, stop more kids from getting stabbed, and the crazy sword swinging guy got exactly what he deserves.

Heard about this almost after it happened, seems American FB groups are already using this to fuel the gun debate. Even though most people cannot seem to tell the difference between Switzerland and Sweden on FB anyways.

It irks me as it does everything but remember the victims.

Also, I have a selfish (as it kinda applies to me, my bad,) semi on-topic-but-barely-so type of question. I wonder if attacks like this and the massive influx of refugees will negatively affect the embassy process for normal immigrants?

I don't live in Sweden so I can't tell, but it will probably be the case, imo.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

We dont even know the perpetrators name yet.

Honestly, I hope we NEVER know the perpetrators name. Let the fether rot in anonymity, especially when numerous experts on these sorts of things say that publishing names and "kill counts" and such only fuel future events.

Too late, it's out.

 Jehan-reznor wrote:
Hope we find out the reasoning, was it a right wing agenda, or did he go crazy on shrooms thinking he was fighting dark jedi's

Police has said that they've got enough material that they're investigating it as a hate crime.

As for the people that cannot see the difference between shooting to stop someone from killing people and killing someone out of a perverted sense of "justice", you scare me.

 stanman wrote:

 Peter Wiggin wrote:

You're talking about someone that ran into a school with a sword, killed a teacher, and attacked children.

What else are you supposed to do with that kind of a person? I mean really.

Obviously you're supposed to spray him with glitter and happy feelings until he decides to put down the sword and surrender to the power of love.


Cops did exactly what they are supposed to, stop more kids from getting stabbed, and the crazy sword swinging guy got exactly what he deserves.

Because of course there is no point that lies in between "Let him go so we don't hurt his feelings" and "Captured and disabled, so we put a bullet between his eyes".

There's absolutely no leeway whatsoever.
In fact, should we even try to capture people alive? Just evacuate the students and burn the school to the ground after sealing the exits; that way you know he's going to die, and it's excruciatingly painful. And that's what justice is all about.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
As for the people that cannot see the difference between shooting to stop someone from killing people and killing someone out of a perverted sense of "justice", you scare me.

Ah, but don't you know? Trials and the legal process are for people who are, to quote Chongara; SOFT ON CRIME

It's all about the extrajudicial killings and summary executions.

 Goliath wrote:
Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.

Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about something on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus endanger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.

Execution refers to taking it alive and then killing it. That's another matter.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.

Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about someone on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus danger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.

You're right. A bullet in the legs or the shoulder can be as lethal as a chest shot anyway.

 LethalShade wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.

Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about someone on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus danger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.

You're right. A bullet in the legs or the shoulder can be as lethal as a chest shot anyway.

Even a shot in the legs can be deadly if you get (un)lucky enough, hit a critical spot, target bleeds out.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Goliath wrote:
Did he say that? He said that he shouldn't be summarily executed, not that he shouldn't be stopped or shot. It is possible to shoot to kill in order to stop someone and then attempt to keep them alive once they're down.

Hollywood stuff. Shooting in the legs? Not in reality. Aim for centre mass, i.e. put at least 3 bullets straight to the core to achieve enough stopping force. We aren't talking about a random bystander suddenly acting out, we are talking about something on a killing spree. There's no discussion, if you got a clear shot, immediately take it. If one of my children was at risk and cops would hesitate to immediately shoot and thus endanger them, I'd happily sue them for years to come.

Execution refers to taking it alive and then killing it. That's another matter.

And I'm referring to the latter, not the former. The latter is what Wiggin is referring to. I've been on this forum long enough to know about common gun misconceptions and all that gak.

By all means, shoot to kill in an attempt to stop them, but once you have him captured and he is no longer a threat you try and keep them alive, you don't then just shoot them in the forehead because "they're a terrorist and they deserved it". That's what we have trials for.

And a trial followed by a life sentence would be way more punitive than an execution.