That a policeman being convicted of violence in the service does not happen often, the vast majority of reports against the police are dropped long before they become a case that is heard in a courtroom. But this week it happened.
The case became known like the “police violence case in Kongsberg”, but where it happened means little. How far the police can go is highly relevant to all citizens.
After having having been acquitted in the district court, the police officer was convicted in the court of appeal. The sentence was twice what the prosecution asked for. In other words, a straight “not good” from the majority in court.
The verdict has been appealed to the Supreme Court and thus not legally binding, which is important to have with you.
I was like several others mildly surprised by the acquittal in the district court. Last summer I wrote in this newspaper about this case in particular, and police violence in general.
That the Court of Appeal came to the opposite conclusion that the district court, and in addition went on and increased the penalty, is, in my opinion, a sign of health. This makes us all safer when dealing with the police. For law-abiding citizens, it is easy to think that it can never happen to you, or yours. But suddenly one day there are too many drinks on the Christmas table and suddenly you are the one to be reprimanded by law enforcement. Or maybe you have a son or daughter who likes to go out on the town sometimes?
It is fundamental to know that we have a professional police force that takes care of us in all situations. Even if we are the ones to be arrested. The defenders of the convicted policeman spoke of the fact that this sentence could set a dangerous precedent. I would say the exact opposite. If the 14 blows for which he was convicted had been allowed to pass, we would have a more unsafe society.
Moreover, the precedent would would have been miles more unfortunate if the explanation of a policeman who was fined for having deleted evidence in the same case laid the premises for the verdict. Yes, it actually happened. A police colleague of the man who has now been convicted took the phone from a person at the scene and deleted the recording. And got fined for it later. In the district court, he was considered a credible witness.
You have to be quite creative if you don’t see a policeman completely losing his temper on the video from the incident. Both creative report writing and the deletion of evidence afterwards probably indicate that the colleagues at the scene may also have partially agreed. It was probably best if the full extent of the matter did not see the light of day.
But what about the victim? Before the appeal, the defense tried to have the trial stopped. The reason was that Kevin, which is his name, was allegedly charged with fraud in another case as well as a gun seizure. During the district court case, it emerged that Kevin had also had both a knife and a baton in his pocket, which became a big issue for those who supported the policeman.
The problem is the following: We would not have had much of a rule of law if the fact that you were accused in a completely different case means that you are without rights when dealing with the police in all other cases. 14 punches in the neck late at night will no longer be legal, even if you are charged in another case. Everyone must have legal protection against illegal use of force by the police. Regardless of any criminal record, open cases or background. It simply has absolutely nothing to do with the case. Of course, the lawyers for the policeman know this very well. But they have a job to do, and they do it.
When it comes to found in Kevin’s pocket, it emerged afterwards that the policeman had no idea of this until he threw him to the ground and went after him. Then of course it becomes completely irrelevant.
The Norwegian Police Union (PF), the police union, is also doing its job. Apart from the convicted policeman himself, PF unfortunately comes out worst. I understand that this is a trade union that is supposed to assist a member who has just been convicted in a case of violence, but here it misses the mark.
To NRK stated the head of the union that she was afraid the sentence would “become a topic” in the police and that they would be reluctant to enter into the toughest situations. This should worry society, she said. That which should worrying are precisely these statements. To the extent that something has changed with this judgment, it is that both the police and the public have received clarification.
The police have none reason to fear for its monopoly of violence after this judgment. What it does is set a limit. The police pyramid of power, which starts with presence and ends with firearms, is fixed. Any police officer who believes they have been given a narrower toolbox as a result of this judgment should first of all assess themselves and whether they are suitable for the job.
The spirit of the police force is often the subject of discussion. So the claim that police officers always, no matter what, defend each other. I think the association is doing its members a disservice if they do not come to terms with what happened in Kongsberg.
Disproportionate violence, erasure of evidence and, to put it mildly, special police reports should be clearly avoided. Most police officers do not act like this, and should not be saddled with their own union in an attempt to defend a member giving the impression that this type of panicky, unprofessional behavior is within.
In sum is all of us, the public and the police, a little safer after the Court of Appeal’s verdict. Then we’ll see if the Supreme Court messes it up.
