Prem evaluated the recording from the body camera and pointed out nine violations that, in his opinion, were committed by the intervening individuals. He claimed that one of the police officers only provided their rank, without a name, and that the officers did not explain the actual reason for the identification. Referring to Article 15 of the Police Act was, as he wrote, insufficient to justify this action. According to Prem, there were also no legal or factual grounds for the identification, which he considered unlawful. The author also accused the police officers of violating the principle of least intrusive action as per Article 15(6) of the Police Act. He considered a mocking comment directed at the man and an approach within 45 cm to be a manifestation of psychological pressure and a violation of dignity. He also wrote that the order to move to another location had no legal basis. Prem asserted that the officers used physical force without prior calls to comply with the law and warnings required by Article 34 of the Act of May 24, 2013, on measures of direct coercion and firearms. He listed possible consequences: violation of personal inviolability under Article 217 of the Penal Code and potential abuse of power or failure to fulfill duties under Article 231 § 1 of the Penal Code, which carries a penalty of up to 3 years of imprisonment. He regarded the most significant issue to be the man's escape from the grip. According to Prem, if the grip was unlawful, the citizen would not, in principle, have committed an offense under Article 222 or Article 224 of the Penal Code, and self-defense against the unlawful action of a public officer would not be punishable. #policja #prawo #uczciwość (translated)
