Police again dismisses Tuusula moped crash as an isolated case

Police repeatedly described a Tuusula moped crash as an isolated incident during a Yle A-studio interview, Yle investigative desk reporters Jouni Munukka and Eelis Bjurström write in an analysis. A police officer is suspected of forcing a 15-year-old moped rider off the road at high speed.

Ari Järveläinen, a senior police inspector at the National Police Board, called the incident an isolated case five times during Monday evening’s programme. The National Police Board is responsible for overseeing police operations.

Järveläinen also said he did not believe the incident would have much effect on Finns’ trust in the police. Asked to explain his view, he said citizens were capable of understanding that the incident concerned only one case.

The wording echoes the police’s response to a wide-ranging investigation by Yle’s MOT programme last spring into police misconduct that had endangered people’s health or lives. After the investigation caused an uproar, National Police Commissioner Ilkka Koskimäki said the police were ashamed of the cases but stressed that they involved individual officers and personal decisions.

Munukka and Bjurström write that describing such events as isolated cases can deflect questions about whether something is wrong within the police organisation or its culture.

The Tuusula incident quickly became a major topic of discussion in Finland. The officer who forced the moped rider off the road became suspected of crimes and was transferred to other duties. The 15-year-old was injured and became the subject of a criminal investigation. Young people in Tuusula were frightened, while experts described the police action as an overreaction.

The writers say the circumstances could have offered the police an opportunity to build trust through self-reflection and humility.

MOT’s earlier investigation found that police officers had been convicted of assault or causing injury at least 19 times in just under a decade. Six of the cases involved minors. The number of convictions is not large in relation to the number of police duties, but the writers say repeatedly referring to such incidents as isolated cases creates a dismissive impression of conduct that has rightly caused public anger.

Many of the cases began when police responded with disproportionate force to poor behaviour or a minor offence by a young person. In some cases, the writers say, officers simply lost their temper.

The investigation into the Tuusula incident is still incomplete. No charges have been brought and nobody has been convicted. It also remains unclear whether the officer decided independently to force the boy into a ditch or was acting on an order. Another unresolved question is whether an ambulance was called only about an hour after the incident.

MOT’s investigation also identified several cases in which police officers did not tell the truth and surveillance camera footage revealed what had actually happened. Several videos exist of the Tuusula incident, and without them the investigation might have relied largely on accounts from the police, the moped rider and witnesses.

The writers say the regular use of dashboard cameras and mobile recording systems would ensure that police footage was also available in such cases. They argue that this could further strengthen trust in the police, which is high in Finland but should not be taken for granted.

One witness to the crash, a friend of the injured boy, told Yle that the incident had not changed his view of the police. He said that one officer making a foolish decision did not mean that everyone in the police acted that way.

However, messages posted on videos by the injured boy and his acquaintances suggest that many other teenagers who ride mopeds have become disappointed and angry. They are asking how the police could have acted in such a way.

The writers say the public debate can easily become polarised, with some young people defending their peers and some adults defending the police. Even if a moped rider acts wrongly or breaks the law, they argue, the police cannot do anything they want because the police have power and the right to use force, while the young person does not.