The death of a black American George Floyd from Minnesota, who died after his arrest caused a wave of protests. The unrest in the U.S. — not the first case when tough police action provoked a reaction, because the relationship between citizens and law enforcement is a potential conflict environment. And Russia is no exception. Any negligence or error in the actions of the police, the Russians perceive as neglect of their rights and freedoms, whether hard of detention, planted drugs or arrest of protesters. About potentially dangerous errors that allowed the Russian police, and how they react to the citizens, “the Tape.ru” said the General-the major of FSB in the reserve Alexander Mikhailov.
the Ribbon.ru: What do you think about the riots in the US? This chain of accidents or pattern?
the Alexander Mikhailov: In the context of the epidemic in the fashion industry, the degree of tension and intolerance rises significantly. We all observed the exhaust steam. In such a hypertrophied form it occurred in the United States and Europe.
In the United States — the rebellion of African-American misfits. Such a confrontation on the grounds of race is rooted in the past. It was always acute, often enough spark to fire. Today it just happened.
If you look closely at the actions of the American police, it was more a tragic accident than malice. But blacks no matter what it was, to them an important occasion, and he was quite serious.
African Americans acutely and in many different ways react to death of brethren in the United States. Today it is detonated across the country, and the American authorities will be very difficult to cope with the situation. It is not about justice, but about the claims of the population — racial, political and economic.
In the States the situation is complicated by the fact that during these protests there are leaders who are beginning to put forward political slogans. This process will be long. You may be able to repay, but it will still smoulder, and any other occasion again explode the society.
with In Russia there is a civic solidarity in response to police brutality? Not riots, and mass protests from which it all began.
Are we facing the same thing in America? My point of view — no. We have a society of citizens, but there is no civil society. In dark skinned population of the United States an amazing ability to unite. Americans have a feeling of comradeship, based on knowledge of their rights. They quickly unite against the government and, note, very aggressive.
Of course, we have foci of excitation in response to the improper actions of the police, but such a violent reaction does not occur. Although there are hot morals in the regions of the Caucasus where people live on adoplion��m traditions, there are possible reactions.
Even in the 90s, when the country had a lot of rallies and demonstrations, all of them were intelligent in nature. I analyzed the mass protests in Russia, especially recently, and noticed one very important thing: often, the fears of the authorities about the protests is very high.
People show aggression when they see a threat from law enforcement. Where the police were without equipment, people behaved much calmer. They saw the same people with open faces, who live among us and do your duty.
Look at the police in the UK during the protests — they have no special equipment — no masks, no helmets. They are armed only with batons. But when put “astronauts”, the crowd immediately exploded: she saw a well-protected soldiers, ready to attack. And people react to them aggressively.
I don’t think it was solidarity. It was, in my opinion, a spontaneous protest. Solidarity involves some prolongation and development, and then, when the detained journalist, a protest arose, and then left does not put forward any special beyond logic demands, and it does not show new leaders. Remained the same person to whom the attitude is very ambiguous.
Many are then simply accumulated moral fatigue — not from the actions of the police. The fatigue caused by financial problems, the inability to realize the rights that are guaranteed.
Case Golunova was just a detonator lazy protest. The protesters looked more like a kitchen unite, and protest nothing happened. From a private matter followed a serious development.
there Was a feeling that it Golunova has gathered many just because of the mass of cases of planted drugs, it’s such a common crime among the police…
People saw the opportunity to realize their negative energy: they came because they were tired of everything. The specific lawlessness of the police was secondary — just an excuse, not a cause. And the reason is that society builds up a negative potential, dissatisfaction, which periodically spills.
In such cases, everyone has their own reason for protest, but nothing changes overall. However, the protests that occur on a local issue, can one day develop into something in common is the need to understand.
of Why our law enforcement agencies can not in clear language to convey their position to the public? We’re not talking about R��dovich employees — even the official representatives speak as if the Protocol is read out.
Dialogue with society is an integral part of law enforcement. And the dialogue is not formal, not on the prompter as it is now. I’m sick of how girls are in front of the camera read prompter Protocol phrase. And to say that they can build constructive dialogue with society, it is meaningless.
No system of cooperation between the interior Ministry and the company is now the no. All these dry reports that a thief stole a jar of coffee in the shop, not bothering anyone, and merely serve to illustrate a failure of information policy of the Ministry of interior.
the Maybe this is a specially selected tactics of removal and distancing from society?
No, it’s not on purpose — all depends on the person. MIA began to drive all his information flows through a Central apparatus, which, by and large, an obvious nonsense. After all, one can not comment on the developments, for example, in Dagestan. A local rotok threw the handkerchief.
When I served in the interior Ministry, every Tuesday was the press conference could come journalists, representatives of public organizations, ask questions, Express their point of view. Today there is no such. System designed to work with the population, pupated and turned into the machine.
Now tell me, who in this situation is a provocateur — one who has gone, or the one who arrested him? Police also did not solve the problem. It is possible to prosecute for any reason. In Soviet times was a joke: a real police officer can complain about even to post.
You can be fined to get. We have some bosses bathe in prohibitions, like pigs in the mud, and get pleasure from it, but the problem is not solved. Today ten people were detained, and twenty-delay tomorrow, the next day thirty. But the discontent will grow.
Because what we have now love to immediately turn his head. Begin to compress people for no reason. The reaction should be understandable, no need to invent to justify a quarantine or something. If people came to protest — invite him for a conversation, listen to his point of view, provide their point of view. It’s hard work. Warn finally, it is important, who and how says.
I sometimes had to work with people that I don’t digest organically, but was forced to work with them. I understood: no matter how bastard he was, if today this is not done, not to start a dialogue with him, but to use repressive methods (and in the Soviet Union it was easier), you will not win anything. Eventually the system will lose, and society will be initiated.
Not using the teleprompter to communicate with people and society — need a simple human conversation.
the And where did this permissiveness to the police? We all remember the manifestations of unjustified violence, which is rarely the perpetrators are responsible.
Any law-enforcement system and security services are trying to achieve the greatest preferences for formal occasions: give us those rights and that… And our members were willing to meet them. But before you give rights, it is necessary to look at what was already available.
Here is one the MP has proposed to introduce criminal responsibility for the involvement of adolescents in political activity: the bill is sanction — till ten years of imprisonment. Has anyone analyzed the application of the administrative measures prescribed in administrative code on this issue?
There are sanctions — 50 thousand rubles for individuals and 500 thousand for legal entities. What is the practice of applying these sanctions, how many people prosecuted under the administrative code and received these fines? Not at all, because for her to prove criminal intent almost impossible.
But at the same time, having a resource that has not been used, it is proposed to throw it into the criminal code. What UK will work? We must understand that as soon as a new article in the criminal code, it is immediately included in the statistics: last year, one was convicted under this article, this should be condemned two, and three. This is an attempt to play in the clearing bans and tougher penalties, and no good it will not.
of what do you think about a bill to expand the powers of the police?
There is nothing expands the powers is not, by and large. There is a formalization of real practice to omit the charges. They say that police will be allowed to shoot — so they now have it right. There is a clear instruction on the use of a weapon.
Our very rarely shoot, unlike American policemen. None of our would not use the weapon, knowing that the Prosecutor would arrest him tomorrow. Any use of a weapon will be considered by the Prosecutor, and if it was justified, the officer will be convicted.
During his service in the Ministry, I was engaged in intelligence of the death of criminals at the hands of police officers and policemen at the hands of criminals. The ratio was one to three, and in some regions one to five. That is one dead perp had three to five of the slain policemen.
The most vulnerable were district officer went to the brawl without weapons, came a man �� an axe and hacked him to death or shot through the door. Drivers operating vehicles likely to die. Investigators rushed to the address, and the offender jumped out the window and the only one in the place, is the driver operating the machine: he runs after the criminal, and he kills him.
There were many such cases, and then it was decided to actively use the weapon to kill to protect the lives of law enforcement officers. It was an explanation of the Minister… after some time we have analyzed and the ratio was one to one. The police felt that behind her is the truth.
But in some towns, like dumplings in the heat, stuck our law enforcement, prosecutorial and investigative authorities to deal with criminals. Eligible police officer used the weapon against the criminal authority.
In my experience in Federal service for control over drug trafficking (FSKN), this situation was in Tula. Our employee shot competent authority who had the weapon in his hands, and he has used these weapons against law enforcement officers. The authority received a bullet in the forehead.
The district attorney said the legitimate use of weapons. And regional elected officer the measure of restraint and was put in a cell. There he killed those he got locked up for drug trafficking. Therefore, as our police did not use weapons, and will not, whatever laws we may have taken. And this is also the distrust of existing institutions.
As soon as people feel that the police should guard their interests, the attitude towards the police will change, but this is a laborious question that she does not know how to solve. And most importantly, the police convinced themselves that what we observe today, is the norm. But the conversation with society, the vague language of the Protocol using the teleprompter, without direct contact, makes no sense.
