Which of the two versions, do you think, fits best to describe the situation today? Having to choose between the extremes, which would you prefer, while imagining yourself in roles of policemen, and then of the rioting fellow citizen?
If, when mentally trying to answer, you saw there’s quite some space between the two ditches – for acceptable behaviour – you’re on the right path. A few years ago, the entire Estonia heard of an incident in Viljandi where the police, due to thinness of ranks and faulty actions (in hindsight) proved helpless to overcome a gang of troublemakers partying and rioting in a residential area.
The police was being whipped till extra forces arrived from Tartu. The message being: at least in initial phase, the police was unable to ensure security of citizens. What shocked the public most was that the policemen, called and trained for our protection, were pitifully beaten by crooks with considerable criminal records.
The other extreme would be to claim that police violence is always justified. As told to err.ee, yesterday, by security businessman and politician Jaanus Rahumägi: «Police will never intervene without a reason. Accordingly, the security man was not using tear gas just for fun, like a deodorant. It had to have been preceded by an aggressive event.» Probably, Mr Rahumägi was mainly thinking about the definite case and the current Estonian situation. Even so, taken literally, this would be giving free licence to anything police and security guys might do. Who would trouble the righteous? Alas, history is rife with power gone overboard and troubling whoever it is expedient to trouble.