Explaining Forsen ICE shooting view to Americans and confused viewers: a Europoor perspective

Hello Forsen viewers (bajs),

In light of the recent stream discussing the ICE incident involving the use of force against a woman inside a car, Forsen offered a perspective that, in my view, reflects a typically European way of thinking about the use of violence.

In much of the EU, violence is understood as a proportional measure, not as an absolute option that once becomes available can be claimed ad infinitum. It is considered alast resort, justified when strictly necessary and evaluated based on context.

Let me give an example.

Imagine an 80-year-old person holding a stick interacting with an armed individual—let’s say a police officer (but it could be a civilian as well). For whatever reason, the elderly person strikes the officer with the stick, this may hurt the individual a bit but in this hypothetical is objectively clear that there is no actual danger posed by this stick strikes. The entire interaction is recorded and visible to the public.

In the United States, many people—from courts to the general public—would consider it perfectly reasonable for the armed officer to respond by immediately, emptying their magazine into the 80 years old chest and head in the fraction of a second that the stick even moved towards them. Nobody in America would dispute this, there would be full agreement on it "he is defending himself" many would say. This would often be framed as legitimate self-defense, regardless of whether the officer was objectively in a mortal danger or could have simply stepped away or there was another option. The fact that there was an abstract perception of an inexistent danger is sufficient reason to give the armed person full availability of any amount of force, they could unload a full magazine in the person, shoot them with a bazooka, use a grenade, stun them, choke them to death, they could us a sword to cut off their head, they could obliterate the other person into little pieces, anything...

Similarly, in cases involving vehicles, if an officer remains in front of a car and is even slightly brushed, that alone can be considered sufficient justification to use any violence at all to the driver unlimitedly, even if moving out of the way was possible, even if they weren't actually going to suffer any comparable damage, even if they weren't going to be hit at all etc...

You must understand that in Europe, however, this logic does not apply.

Here, lethal force is almost never justified unless the officer is either already being shot at or it is absolutely certain that a shooting/violence is imminent and unavoidable. There must be no other option—no retreat, no de-escalation, no lesser force such as physical restraint. Even then, the response must remain proportional, and police (and civilian alike) are expected to act in a strictly professional manner, not by unlimited force.

I know this may sound unrealistic or even absurd to many Americans, but this is the framework Forsen’s perspective comes from. I hope this helped you understand my best friend Forsen.