[ad_1]
A mysterious incident took place on Sunday in the Drobė constituency, located at the Kaunas Youth and Adult Training Center in Šančiai, for which the police decided to launch a pre-trial investigation. So far, a violation of public order. And this is the only incident in the last election that has received so much attention from Kaunas law enforcement officials.
That hasn’t happened yet
The kauno.diena.lt portal currently has two versions of this event. One was published this morning, in a letter to the editor received around five. Another is the official comment that Vladas Sungaila, president of this electoral commission, made this morning to the portal.
“I have worked in district electoral commissions for 20 years. And I have not had to face the blink of an eye yet,” V. Sungaila tended to emphasize. He admitted that around 6 pm a blond stranger who had arrived at his electoral commission, dressed in a red jacket, was seen arbitrarily filming in the room not immediately. And when asked what he was doing here and who he was, this enigmatic guest responded to the president of the electoral commission with the same question: “And who are you?” Additionally, confusion began to erupt when some of the people photographed for their vote of guess began demanding that their photos be deleted. “We do not know where they will be used!” Was the secret argument of the perpetuated ones. However, the stranger began taking pictures and disciplining anyone who tried.
When the phenomenon called the police officers, they had to forcibly remove the confused guest because he was also willing to communicate with the officers.
Paris version
“Why he chose our neighborhood, even though he didn’t even vote here” is unclear. Maybe he lives nearby. Although probably the full moon, because visually the guest was sober ”, V. Sungaila shared his opinion and that of other members of the commission on this incident, adding that none of the voters knew this arrogant fanatic, who appears to have worn a mask protective, and then for a time the police came back to them to question him himself.
The aforementioned email, which the portal received five mornings today, says: “I decided to capture the Seimas elections with my camera.” It is true why this particular constituency of Šančiai is being silenced. She is not named at all. In addition, the author of the letter assures that he tried not to disturb anyone, to get away from the flow of voters and did not say anything, he only took photos. And he tried to remind the dissatisfied members and observers of the electoral commission that this was a public place. However, they told him that the photograph could only be taken with the permission of the commission. The author of the letter alleges that his omission violated his rights enshrined both in the country’s Constitution and in the Public Information Law, which, incidentally, defines the rights, duties and responsibilities of journalists. Therefore, it is not clear why the alleged violation of public order also covers it.
Police traditionally don’t talk much
According to Odeta Vaitkevičienė, representative of the Kaunas police, who launched a pre-trial investigation into this incident in 1992. the suspect, who was born in 2006, was detained for several hours as allowed by law while the original material was collected due to a possible violation of public order committed by him.
After establishing the suspect’s personality, it turned out that he was not a local, although he was from Kaunas, and according to preliminary data, the police had not disturbed him so far. And his future fate will depend on how officials figure out the purpose for which he photographed voters in this particular area and what he intended to do with his images. According to O.Vaitkevičienė, the police do not have any information that this person officially represents any media.
“Whoever, in a public place, has disrespected others or the environment through blatant behavior, threats, malicious intimidation or vandalism and has altered the seriousness or order of society will be sanctioned with a public work or fine, or restriction of liberty, or arrest or imprisonment for up to two years. ” It states in the article of the Penal Code that it initiated a pre-trial investigation for this fact.
[ad_2]
