The court evaluated the behavior of the participant of the quarantine party interrupted by the prominent official: the decision was unexpected

The record of the arrest was spread lightly on social media on January 10. Records a known officer beating a participant at a quarantine party with a telescopic pole. The police have previously ruled that tactical errors were made during this arrest.

And on Tuesday, the court ruled that this party was organized in violation of quarantine requirements, for which a 500 euro fine was imposed on its participant L.Žilionis.

The police had also written another administrative misconduct protocol to L. Žilionis, due to disobedience to the officials’ legal demands.

However, according to the court, the man did not commit this violation. As Delfi explained to Judge Inga Štuopienė, who made the decision, the request by the police to go outside to write a report on the quarantine violations was legal.

“But the demands are not clear enough,” the judge reasoned his decision.

According to her, she could not verify from the file that the people in the apartment evaded the requirements.

“They said their questionnaires and obviously they were preparing to leave, they were already looking for their jackets in the AS corridor. The officer had an oral conflict with L. Žilionis, during that conflict he was constantly required to go outside. I appreciate that L. Žilionis did not he could have heard or fully understood those demands during the conflict due to the stressful situation. “

The judge pointed out that the conclusion of the police inspection on this detention also indicated that the officer was obliged to clearly rename those requirements and explain the consequences of his non-compliance.

“It just came to our attention then. When L. Žilionis was asked what requirements, a blow was dealt and then all that chaos followed, the judge explained and added.” I evaluated that if the official had clearly established the requirements and explained the requirements. consequences of non-compliance with them, L. Žilionis would have fulfilled them “.

According to I.Štuopienė, in such a situation, when there is an unethical and inconsistent behavior of the official, which caused and supported the conflict, in his assessment it is not correct to punish L.Žilionis for failure to comply with the official’s requirements. .

The judges also found it strange that the demands were made to all the participants of the party, but the protocol on their non-compliance was written only to L. Žilionis, who received a stick.

“And after that coup, none of them had a chance to meet the requirements,” said I. Štuopienė.

The officer succumbed to provocation.

The officials themselves had previously explained that when they arrived at the scene they encountered an aggressive company, as it turned out that the return of a man from prison was taking place.

“We just wanted to collect data and write a protocol for the quarantine breach. Then people started filming us, and the guy who left the area whispered to the others,” Con *** am these musarus. ” Seeing inappropriate behavior on the part of the people on the scene, the help of colleagues was requested. The guy against whom the telescope was used posed a real threat to us with his actions, as did the other remaining men, “said the officers. involved in the arrest in a comment that circulated after the images were released.

However, after official inspection, it was decided that tactical errors had been made during the arrest and a warning was issued to V. Vaitkevičius.

As Ramūnas Matonis, representative of the Police Department, previously explained to the BNS, during the inspection it was established that the official’s language was inappropriate, it did not reduce, but further increased the aggression of offenders.

“Although the requirement to go outside to draft a protocol was legal, it was not clear what led to further escalation of the conflict. Experts in police tactics assessed the fact that the officer approached the offender in an unsafe manner, did not maintain a safe distance and caused him greater danger and greater stress in this situation, ”R. Matonis told BNS.

According to him, although the people in the department complied with the agents’ requirements slowly or not at all, the police officer did not warn the offender or the legal consequences of non-compliance with legal requirements or the use of coercion.

The police officer had to repeat the request and warn of the use of coercive measures in case of non-compliance. Failure to meet the repeated requirement should have turned into passive resistance. Therefore, the strike of a policeman with a telescopic pole was valued as unreasonable and inappropriate to the current circumstances ”, explained the representative of the Police Department.

According to him, when summarizing the situation, it should be noted that V. Vaitkevič did not fully assess them, gave in to the provocation of the offenders with his actions and, as a result, used inappropriate coercive actions.

“During the official inspection, this was valued as a tactical error, which caused a new situation, for which an official sanction was imposed on the official, an observation,” summarized R. Matonis. According to him, to avoid such situations in the future, the conclusion of the inspection was passed on to the police psychologists and the police school to draw attention to tactical errors during training. A court decision on a warning can be appealed to the Vilnius Regional Court within 20 days.