(edit title) "Guilty Unless Proven Innocent" Police Attitude In Sweden Options

[Migga]

i don't see how you might have first hand experience. (i guess) you are white swedish; what? the other night when you were driving you saw non-white people on the street a ... (show full quote)

i don't see how you might have first hand experience. (i guess) you are white swedish; what? the other night when you were driving you saw non-white people on the street and there wasn't any police harrasing them? is that what you call a "first hand experience that conflicts with her"? ... (hide full quote)

Hypocrite. You are doing the same thing you accuse others of doing, only difference is that you are swaping the minority for the majority;

almost anytime someone talks about discrimination, racism or any other matter that mostly overlooked by the majority, the replies they get aren't answers but questions; tr ... (show full quote)

almost anytime someone talks about discrimination, racism or any other matter that mostly overlooked by the majority, the replies they get aren't answers but questions; trying to make them look as if they are lying or lack credibility or they exaggerate. ... (hide full quote)

[whoye]

allright then, share your experience and show my hypocrisy. what you have claimed to have is wrong by definition no matter what you might have. generally that's the main source of problems; everyone acting as if they held an absolute truth and no matter what conditions are they are always right and their codes of ethics are unconditionally indisputable. give a doubt a chance, will ya?

[Migga]

I am of the same opinion, that`s the reason why I´m on this site. I like to give another view of the situation and give a more balanced perspective of things. In this case there is one view that the police is racist, I`d imagine that there is another view.

But considering the original poster haven`t written anything more I guess it`s just another troll.

[klubbnika]

Why do you think your view is balanced? It is balanced maybe from your perspective, but not necessarily from other people's.

[klubbnika]

Did I say that you said that? I asked a question. Why do you take it to heart, did I hit a soft spot? When you write "by nature" it`s not a far fetch to interpret it like I did.

And why did you make a connection between my suggestion and biology? How was it relevant to what I said? Looks like I hit a soft spot and you jumped to a conclusion.

Ok so it`s only your and a few peoples personal and unique experiences. That`s good to know. Nothing to draw any general conclusions from.

Do you have more "general" facts/experience to claim the opposite? Otherwise, it is just a wishful thinking.

How do you know that? I`d say that a person wandering around alone in the middle of the night fits the profiling of a person prone to crime. It has nothing to do with race.

Yes, you'd say that. But then you are a Swede, raised in a culture where people are more suspicious and xenofobic than in some other countries.

[Pursuivant]

opposite of what free countries like America and other countries tackle things.

Yeah, in America it would have taken 15 seconds and you'd been pumped full of lead.

[Fears]

Hold your horses guys, it's simple matter!! let me ask you, is there a law in Sweden says that the police have the right to stop and question anyone any time any where!! just only because he or she looks weird..! if there's such law then it's our mistake that we didn't read the Swedish laws? if not! it means that the police Dudes are playing there own foot ball?

[Hisingen]

Always thought that the job of the police was the PREVENTION & DETECTION of crime, and in order to do that they need, at times to stop and question anyone. Therefore to stop someone and question them is a way even of preventing a crime, since having been stopped and identified, a person is less likely to go on and commit same.
Not always, of course, but sometimes at least. I do not believe there is a law against being stopped and questioned, and irrespective of race, creed, colour or sex, they can ask anyone for means of identification. Generally speaking it is favourable, when stopped, to be cooperative and supply the necessary information. If all is in order, and the person stopped is not under the influence of drink or drugs, and is cooperative, that is the end of the matter. It is only when the person stopped gets bolshie that the problems can arise, and what might have been a simple question and answer then turns into an arrest, for which said person often only has him/herself to blame, and possibly spend the night in the slammer instead.
As Gilbert & Sullivan so rightly wrote:- 'A policeman's lot is not a happy one'. But they can - if necessary, make it a LOT unhappier for someone else if that someone isn't pleasant about being stopped.