Cop complains about kick by boss

Risto Berendson
, reporter
Copy
Please note that the article is more than five years old and belongs to our archive. We do not update the content of the archives, so it may be necessary to consult newer sources.
Photo: Elmo Riig

New standard set at solving differences on the job: a policeman just thoroughly demoted during reforms tells internal audit his new superior kicked and verbally abused him at exercises. The kick was a reality, but this week prosecutor’s office closed the case due to lack of necessary elements of criminal offence. 

Having risen to Lääne-Harju police station head after numerous restructurings two months ago, for the first time in his 23-years-long career Veiko Randlaine found himself faced with criminal investigations.

Police internal audit was interested to know if and why Mr Randlaine kicked colleague Andre Raud who played a burglar, at a catch-a-crook training at the beginning of October. At that, the latter had allegedly been verbally abused.

The situation was complex and retaliation could not be ruled out. During the fresh reforms, Mr Randlaine had demoted Mr Raud from being Saue constable department regional head to the lowliest job of all – patrolling. In salary Mr Raud lost nothing, but the career fall was of the notable kind.

Kicked breathless

As Mr Raud filed his complaint on October 20th, it was obvious the case was no ordinary one. Within the police, rarely do colleagues claim crimes between them.

But what happened, then?

Mr Randlaine and Mr Raud are no friends, that’s for sure. As the recent reforms unfolded, Lääne-Harju station only retained two constable departments out of former six. Five old regional heads lost their positions, Mr Raud being one of them.

Indeed, Mr Randlaine had offered Mr Raud other outwardly respectable positions, but the man rejected these and used every opportunity to criticise the new boss. Thus, Mr Raud found himself in patrol, back at the starting point of a law/order career.

On October 8th, in the Northern police sports hall at Pärnu Highway, Tallinn, practical training in how to catch a crook was taking place. At the end of the event, there arose a situation which in theory ought to have been avoided from the start – Mr Randlaine and Mr Raud happened in the same group, and on opposite sides.

Mr Randlaine played a warehouse keeper who discovers burglars in his company and calls the police. Mr Raud played one of the two burglars supposed to attack the policemen.   

For starters, all went well. Police patrol pinned Mr Raud to the ground, handcuffed him behind the back and went after the other intruder. At interrogations afterwards, Mr Raud said he was quietly on the corridor floor waiting for further instructions as, out of the blue, he got a heavy kick against his left shinbone.

Going into great detail, Mr Raud described how he was breathless by the kick, after which the patrol guys a bit further off told the kicker «what are you doing and get off». Only after the kicker answered «this is the guy I fired» Mr Raud said he realised this was Mr Randlaine.

Therefore, Mr Raud took the kick very personally. As all afterwards gathered round to discuss the training, he headed straight to Mr Randlaine and, while the colleagues overheard, demanded from him an answer. Mr Randlaine replied that Mr Raud is imagining things and he did not think he kicked too painfully at all.

In the locker room, the argument continued and it initially felt like that was the end of it. However, four days later Mr Raud took his hurting leg to Mustamäe Hospital, secured a doctor’s medical certificate and filed sick leave. A week later, the man applied to internal audit department for criminal case.

For Mr Randlaine, such developments naturally were a shock. Firstly, the man is rather known as the friendly style superior. Secondly, he’s no ordinary police officer but hold the second job as security teacher at Estonian Academy of Security Sciences.

Swift apology

At interrogations, Mr Randlaine said he was just improvising in his role and, to add a playful twist, decided to imitate a kick towards the captured crook on the floor. At that, being «warehouse keeper», he had rather said: «I do know him, he used to fork for us and we fired him, he’s back now for revenge, to claim his wages.»

According to Mr Randlaine, he had no ulterior motives whatsoever playing the scene and as he realised Mr Raud might have taken his thoughtless words as personal insult, he was taken aback himself.   

With policemen as eyewitnesses to the incident, this was not the typical word against word situation. As told to investigator by one of the patrollers, he saw Mr Randlaine kicking Mr Raud on the floor. Whether the kick was playful or not, he was unable to tell.

However, another patroller overheard Mr Randlaine afterwards trying to apologise before the victim in locker room, saying: «Hey, forgive me for kicking you. It wasn’t on purpose.»

For investigators, legal conclusions were complicated by several witnessed claiming the same. Immediately before kicking Mr Raud, Mr Randlaine had told the patrol involved in exercises and the instructors that he had quit his «role» and was now only participating as observer.

After a month of investigations, on November 24th investigators and Prosecutor’s Office at long last arrived at the decision to end the criminal case. To substantiate, they cited an earlier case at Supreme Court saying that elements necessary for a criminal offence must be characterised by intent by attacker to hurt the victim.

As the statements by both participants are contradicting and the victim’s behaviour immediately after the kick referred to anything but being strongly hurt, they say it is unlikely Mr Randlaine intentionally caused pain to the victim.

Both parties continue to work at the same structural unit, at police.

Comment

Veiko Randlaine

Lääne-Harju police station head

I definitely did not want to offend my colleague. That the words and actions in training situation and related to a role led to criminal procedure is thought provoking. As a leader I realise there must be serious offence behind the colleague’s actions. During large-scale change, tensions are understandable and these need to be resolved. But thus needs to be done with words, trying to understand one another. I am sorry this is still not the case and has led to such an outcome.

Comments
Copy
Top