The Public Prosecution Service of North Holland has decided not to prosecute two police officers for their involvement in a shooting incident that occurred on October 29, 2024, in Alkmaar. A 52-year-old man was injured in his buttocks and abdomen. Based on the investigation results from the National Criminal Investigation Department, the Public Prosecution Service believes that the shooting was justified: the police officers acted in accordance with the Instruction for Police Officers and the Police Act.
Background
On October 29, 2024, around 1:00 PM, mental health care workers, assisted by police officers, went to the home of the 52-year-old man in Alkmaar. They were there to issue a care mandate to the resident - a court order imposing mandatory care on someone with a mental disorder. The resident was home but did not open his front door. The police then entered the home by forcing the front door. During this intervention, the resident threatened the police officers with a knife and lunged at the head of a police officer who was standing in the hallway of the house. An attempt was made to subdue the man with a Taser, but this failed. The police officers decided to withdraw and call for backup to arrest the man, who had become a suspect due to his actions.
Incident
Shortly after 2:00 PM, police dog handlers arrived who wanted to arrest the man using a so-called shield procedure. As they positioned themselves, the man came through the living room door into the hallway with a knife. In response, one of the dog handlers fired his weapon, hitting the man. The man retreated back into the living room. The use of pepper spray and attempts by police negotiators who had now arrived were unsuccessful.
Around 3:30 PM, the Special Intervention Service (DSI) was deployed.
They entered the house. The man, who had barricaded himself in the bathroom, threatened the DSI officers with a knife. The DSI then used multiple means of force, including beanbags (fired bags with lead pellets to temporarily incapacitate someone) and a Taser. This had no effect. A DSI officer then fired once at the man. This also had no effect on the man.
The DSI dog was then deployed, which bit the man in the leg. The man responded by stabbing the dog with a knife, prompting the DSI officer to shoot a second time at the man. He then fell forward to the ground, and the DSI members were able to gain control of him.
Investigation
The National Criminal Investigation Department subsequently conducted an investigation into the use of firearms by the two police officers at the request of the Public Prosecution Service. Bodycam footage, witness statements, and other investigative data from the file show that there was a threatening and frightening situation that took place in a very small space. The police officers were confronted with a confused man holding a knife, who had attacked a police colleague just before. He did not respond to other interventions, such as being called by the officers, Tasers, pepper spray, beanbags, and the use of the police dog. Despite the actions of the police officers, the man continued to pose a threat. The police officer who first drew his service weapon assessed the situation in a split second as explosive and life-threatening for himself and his colleague, who was standing right behind him in the small hallway. The DSI officer who fired did so after multiple means of force had no effect (first shot) and after the man had stabbed the police dog with his knife and continued to make stabbing motions (second shot).
A police officer is expected to actively intervene in the face of imminent danger rather than flee. According to the Instruction for Police Officers, it is permitted to use a firearm in certain cases to avert direct danger to life or to prevent serious bodily harm. The Public Prosecution Service believes that this was such a case. Physically overpowering the man was not possible due to the presence of the knife, the very small space, and his unpredictable aggressive behavior.
The other means of force that were deliberately applied in a staged manner were also ineffective. There were no alternatives available to respond differently during the incident.
Conclusion
Based on the investigation results from the National Criminal Investigation Department, the Public Prosecution Service believes that the shooting was justified: the police officers made lawful and legitimate use of their firearm, entirely in accordance with the Instruction for Police Officers and the Police Act.
Criminal Case Against the Man
The Public Prosecution Service suspects the man from Alkmaar of attempted manslaughter and threatening police officers. This criminal case is scheduled for August 14.