“My colleagues and I were not taught to hit people”

Why did you write this post?

- All my adult life, starting from the moment when I stopped being a cadet and began teaching at the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, I taught disciplines that belong to the civil law cycle - civil law and labor law.

I wanted to say that my colleagues and I did not teach to beat people. We have always been for the observance of the law and, at the same time, for the use of force, taking into account not only the content of the legislation, but also the principle of good conscience. I did not expect that my word would be definitely heard and that it would have a serious impact on the police and military personnel, including those from the Russian Guard. But I felt the need to do it anyway.

- Did you work only at the university?

- I entered the service in 1996 and until 2000 I was a cadet and student at the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and then I worked there as a teacher: I was a senior teacher, associate professor, professor. In 2014, I transferred to the Far Eastern Law Institute (FYuI MIA), where I worked until 2016. Almost all of my work has been related to teaching. There was only a short period in 2000 when I worked in the department of special combat and physical training and sports of the personnel department of the Internal Affairs Directorate of the Omsk region.

- Violence by the security forces was not only at the latest protests, but also at previous rallies, including a few years ago. Why did you decide to write about it right now?

Let's dot the i's. Do what you must, and come what may. If you have the opportunity to call for the observance of the law, to remind people that there is a conscience, then it is better to do it. In general, law enforcement officers and military personnel are mindful of this and often act in good faith. When their actions go beyond the law, in my opinion, this is not due to their desire, but to the political situation that exists in the country now. It is obvious to me that the ongoing changes in society are very difficult to accept by different people, including power structures. And in such a situation, not only citizens become hostages, but also ordinary law enforcement officers, those guys who put on body armor and other ammunition and go out into the street. They, too, often become victims, and not just citizens. But the citizens also get what to say.

However, one must understand that the taxpayers are still citizens, not the police. It is not the police or the National Guard that feed the population, but vice versa. I think that every law enforcement officer and every soldier should be aware of what is happening and have a sense of duty.

- In the summer, when news broke about police brutality in Belarus, many said that this was the future of Russian protest. Did you think so too?

- I will answer your question more broadly: most people are not able to generate any rules of behavior, they learn the rules by observing others. That is, we see how others act, and we begin to copy it - upbringing by our own example is built on this. How I behave is how my son, daughter, maybe even my wife will behave. Since the Belarusian people are very close to us in spirit, the things that we saw there, our society in one part or another will copy, reproduce and act out the same situations.

But I believe that the interaction between law enforcement and civil society here and in Belarus will be very different. The security forces in Belarus have a significantly higher standard of living in relation to the bulk of the population than law enforcement officers in Russia. Everything is relative. From my point of view, our law enforcement officers belong to the category of low-income citizens. What I observe, looking at specific law enforcement officers, including those who studied with me, confirms this. Do they have enough money? Young people, of course, do not have enough. It is especially difficult for those who work in the first years. The media imposes very high standards of life on us. Everyone wants a car, an apartment, to go on vacation. Can the average security officer afford it? No. And, of course, this leads to an increase in internal negativity in people.

Since in our country there is no such clear opposition between the security forces and citizens, as in Belarus, I do not think that it will come to such crackdowns that took place there. There is a certain political and cross-border component here: Lukashenka's security officials have someone to support from abroad - Russia. directly about this President Vladimir Putin spoke . And who can our law enforcement officers ask for support?

- Can the security forces be instructed to demonstrate force at rallies, to beat civilians?

“I don't think it should be. Violence is still not encouraged, even if it is not advertised. I assume that there may be some kind of reporting system on the number of citizens detained and brought to the department and, accordingly, the number of protocols, but nothing more. And if we talk about a fixed number of beaten - no, of course, they still understand what this can lead to. Violence is still an excess.

- Then why are there so many beaten people in different cities for a peaceful protest?

Forceful detention in situations where it could be dispensed with, for example, when a person is taken to the police department, is a show of force. Not like intimidation, but simply a show of strength - so that they know their place. But when someone is harmed, it is certainly an excess. It would never occur to any healthy person to tell them to do this. I did not know and do not know such employees in the internal affairs bodies and the National Guard.

- With what feeling did you enter the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in 1996 , how did you treat law enforcement officers then?

- In the 1990s, it was prestigious to serve in the internal affairs bodies, and for a long time it was prestigious. Unfortunately, many of the changes that are taking place make working in the bodies less prestigious. This is due to the level of material well-being of the average employee of the internal affairs bodies, who does not burden himself with corrupt connections and schemes, and the high level of workload, and the need to carry out assignments that one does not always want to carry out. Not so rarely, law enforcement officers have to act contrary to the law, because there are some economic prerequisites for this and the interests of the powerful are involved in this - in some cases, interests, maybe even political ones.

- What problems do you see in the legislation regulating the activities of the police?

- In fact, our legislation in this area is not so bad. By the way, some of the people who developed this legislation worked at the Omsk Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Many of the positive features of the modern law "On the Police" migrated there from the law "On the Police", on which the Omsk Higher Police School also worked. However, it should be noted that this is not a matter of legislation. Now they are constantly scolding the laws: the law “On Service in the Internal Affairs Bodies”, the law “On the Police”, they let the dogs down on the law “On the National Guard Troops”. But I don't see any failing things there that would prevent employees from conscientiously fulfilling their official duties.

It seems to me that the reason must be sought elsewhere: not in the content of the law, but in unstable law enforcement practice, in the absence of a court as such, and, of course, in the low level of monetary remuneration of law enforcement officers.

In order to demand a high level of consciousness, it is necessary to provide law enforcement officers, first of all, with housing. Many of the guys who come to serve have no housing. The question arises: in such a situation, how can they provide for themselves in this life? Many of them face a difficult choice. A lot of decent people leave, but many remain. I emphasize that there have always been, are and will be more good, decent employees than scoundrels, corrupt officials and those who infringe on the rights of citizens. At the same time, I do not belittle the problems that exist: in particular, the huge workload on law enforcement officers sometimes leads to the fact that they approach some things carelessly. We have to respond to the most painful problems first and put aside less significant things somewhere that actually also require a reaction. But due to the huge workload, including documents, they do not always manage to do what the citizens would like, although citizens have the right to claim it.

- Do students at the university pay attention to inconsistencies between theory and law enforcement practice?

- Of course, the cadets understand a lot, they can't close their eyes - this is a generation adapted to gadgets. I can hardly understand how, on some topics: “Criminal process”, for example, when studying the stage of initiating a criminal case, it is possible to bypass burning issues, such as the question of refusing to initiate a criminal case in the situation with the poisoning of Alexei Navalny.

No matter how we feel about Alexei Navalny, the problem exists, and the authorities must answer this problem. And the authorities are silent. I ask myself what a conscientious law enforcement officer should tell himself about what is happening in this situation. For me, as a person who no longer wears shoulder straps, it is easier to answer these questions. But it is difficult to say what to do with a person who is weighed down by the status of an active law enforcement officer.

The same situation, for example, with constitutional law. What to say, talking about the principle of change of power within the framework of the course of constitutional law? I don't know how, without hypocrisy, to come up with an honest, more or less objective answer in the light of the events that took place in July.

— Have there been such contradictions before?

2020 has been a critical year in this regard. It became clear that the dogma of law, that is, following the rule of law and studying it in accordance with its literal meaning, does not work. This happened when entrepreneurial activity was restricted by regional acts , it happened when amendments were made to the Constitution, both in terms of substantive changes, and in terms of a small clause, the so-called “grandfather clause”, to extend the deadlines.

- In what cases do you consider it legal to use force at rallies?

Any crowd can enter a state where it becomes dangerous. Of course, the crowd is always perceived negatively by employees. When they understand that the transition from the state of a free assembly of intelligent individuals to the state of a crowd is easy, they begin to act proactively. I think this is wrong.

The excesses that I personally saw on January 31, in my opinion, go beyond the current law on the National Guard. This law contains Article 19. I will allow myself to reproduce its first part: “A serviceman (employee) of the National Guard troops has the right, personally or as part of a subunit (group), to use physical force, including combat fighting techniques, if non-forced methods do not ensure the implementation tasks assigned to the troops of the National Guard, in the following cases. These cases are listed below. But the key word or key phrase that is forgotten is "if non-forceful methods do not ensure the fulfillment of the tasks assigned to the troops of the National Guard." That is, as long as it is possible not to use force, it should not be used.

- Do you go to rallies to show your civic position, or do you look at all this as an observer?

— We have the right to freedom of movement on the territory of the Russian Federation. I was not going to participate in the rally in the sense that I was not going to and am not going to speak, but I am interested in watching this situation.

In order to draw conclusions and understand what is happening, you still need personal observation. In order to understand how the crowd works, how it acts, what the psychology of the crowd is, it is necessary to see this very crowd. But the designation of those people who gathered on the 31st as crowds would be inaccurate.

Crowd is a word that has a negative connotation, but what I saw was a gathering of civilians, yes, not entirely positive towards the current government. But here a natural question arises: what did this current government do in order to be treated well?

Russia has a lot of successes, but there are also a lot of failures. Citizens ask this authority: please report - and express their dissatisfaction, including with those criminal procedural reactions that the state allows, and the lack of a criminal procedural reaction that is expected from this state, including in connection with the attempt on the life of one of the politicians.

- Where do the security forces get the installations “come out against the authorities = enemies of the people”, “rallies = undermining the state system”?

“Professional activity always leaves a certain imprint on us. Among other things, there is the concept of professional deformation. A person who has been working in law enforcement agencies for a long time begins to look closely at this situation, and some ethical aspects are no longer visible to him. It seems to him that it is necessary to carry out the order the way everyone else does.

Law enforcement officers in this situation are hostages. One should not think that the guys who go out in uniform to protect public order think negatively about all citizens who go to rallies and other mass events. They are not negative, they understand that among these people there may even be their relatives.

I would not blame law enforcement for anything, and, of course, they often deserve support. But this does not mean that I would justify all those actions that are excesses. For example, when an elderly woman was kicked in the stomach for no apparent reason, without any manifestation of aggression. In my opinion, such cases should be sorted out.

- Do you notice that the practice of applying the law is selective in relation to law enforcement officers? A law enforcement officer who kicked a woman in the stomach is not prosecuted, but a protester who touched or hit a policeman is prosecuted right away?

- At mass events, participants and employees who ensure security have a special state of mind. In some cases it is indeed very difficult to differentiate where the safe behavior of a citizen ends and where the unsafe behavior begins. Of course, for this, law enforcement officers undergo special training, but when the number of protesters is significant, the psyche automatically adjusts in a certain way. In addition, if the law is applied strictly enough to employees, this can lead to the fact that law enforcement officers will turn a blind eye to violations and stay away from the crowd, which will also not have a positive effect. Therefore, there is no single solution to this problem.

In this situation, it is not the state authorities and law enforcement agencies that are sick, the whole society is sick, because the law enforcement system is part of the social system. There is no separate state system and no separate law enforcement system, in my opinion. We can talk for a long time about the fact that our society and the state are on opposite sides of the barricades, but this is not entirely true.

- How strong is geopolitical propaganda in educational institutions for future law enforcement officers? Do they have the ability to think critically?

- Any information can be found, there would be a desire. It would be correct to put the question as follows: is there such an opportunity for a cadet, taking into account the level of service load? Eat. Anyone who wants can get the right education.

You asked a question, in fact, not about training, but about agitprop, about the general development of these people. This is a worthy development, trust me. Among our cadets there are a large number of people who can support a conversation on various topics. I have never felt discomfort when communicating with an educational audience, and I recall with pleasure the classes at the universities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs system.

In 1999, I went to the professional skills competition "Profi 02" while still a cadet. We met there with the filmmakers who were filming the contest. And closer to the end of the season, they said: “We never expected that there could be such wonderful guys in the internal affairs bodies.” This is the question of professional deformation. As for the cadets, they are wonderful boys and girls. Sometimes life in the future, including a huge load, deforms them.

— You finished working at the Omsk Academy in 2014. Was it connected with the annexation of Crimea?

No, it's not related. Although distant relationships, correlations can always be found, see " butterfly effect ". But I do not see a direct relationship, it was more connected with my personal, professional interests and relationships.

— Why did you later also leave the post of professor of the Department of Civil Law Disciplines at the Far East Institute of Law?

- I served in the internal affairs bodies for 20 years, which I needed to receive a pension, and left this place because I had other plans. Let's face it: I did my PhD in civil law. How relevant is civil law, how professional growth is possible within the framework of civil law specialization, if we are talking about a person working in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs?