Published: 18/06/25 | 16:02
A video obtained by Yle shows a police officer aggressively pushing a 17-year-old boy against a wall inside a store. The senior officer involved was an experienced constable and was later convicted of assault.
The teen had purchased chocolates at a grocery store but had weighed them using the cheaper price of loose candy and gained a profit of €1.20. Security guards caught him and escorted both him and a friend to the detention room of the Kaleva Prisma store in Tampere. Police arrived shortly after.
What unfolded in the following minutes led to criminal charges against one officer. The Pirkanmaa District Court emphasized on the matter earlier this spring but the events originally took place in March 2023.
Footage from the store’s surveillance camera captured the assault.
Although the recording played a central role in the court proceedings the district judge initially refused to release it to Yle. However, Yle eventually accessed the video through a public records request made to the Office of the Prosecutor General.
Yle decided to release the footage publicly because it depicts on-duty police violence against a minor and casts doubt on both the official police report and the testimony of the security guard present. Without the video evidence the incident might have remained unpunished.
The footage (credits: Yle), begins with police attempting to place the teen in handcuffs and taking him by the arm. The officer and the security guard then forcefully press the boy against a table.
Police justified their actions by claiming the teen refused to identify himself and needed to be taken to the station for further investigation. According to their reports the youth resisted being handcuffed and acted defiantly.
“He wasn’t hostile toward us specifically but he didn’t want to cooperate,” the officer stated in his interrogation. After successfully handcuffing the teen the officer abruptly lifted him upright and slammed him into a wall causing the boy to hit his head and back.
Moments later another push against the wall followed. The teen ended up on the floor and was then escorted out.
A criminal inquiry began in early 2024. Investigators asked the officer why it had been necessary to hurl a restrained teen into a concrete wall.
The officer replied, “He was so light that when I lifted him he flew into the wall.”
Earlier in the interrogation the officer had said the boy had “directed himself” toward the wall. The officer claimed the force used was minor and only meant to gain compliance.
The security guard present was questioned as a witness which legally requires truthful testimony. According to the guard the officer pulled the youth in another direction and the teen “somehow slipped” and partially fell to the floor. The guard said he didn’t believe the boy struck the wall at all and noted that he tried to review the situation later on video.
Despite denying the charges the officer was prosecuted. According to the prosecutor the teen “flickered” during the event which is an ambiguous description.
The Pirkanmaa District Court rejected the police version of events and sentenced the officer to fines totaling €860.
The youth did not sustain serious injuries but did experience pain and soreness as a result of the assault. A junior officer who was present as a trainee claimed he did not witness any assault or use of excessive force noting that he did not see the boy thrown against the wall.
Although the teen’s friend was also present he was not interviewed as a witness.
Yle contacted Mikko Masalin who is Chief of the Inner Finland Police Department for comments on the case.
Masalin said he could not recall viewing the video himself but he was aware of the court’s decision.
When asked about the conflicting police statements and specifically the claim that the handcuffed teen either “flew” or “staggered” into the wall Masalin responded, “As a criminal suspect there is no legal obligation to tell the truth. Everyone makes their own choice and I can’t comment on that. There’s no penalty for not being truthful.”
When asked if it wouldn’t be better for the police’s credibility to be honest even under suspicion he replied, “I can’t answer that and I don’t want to.”
Investigators concluded that because the teen was restrained and that he could not break his fall or protect himself. When asked how dangerous he thought the officer’s actions were, Masalin said, “Any head injury is inherently dangerous. I don’t find this act acceptable in any way and our ruling reflects that. The fortunate part is that there were no serious injuries.”
Regarding the impact on public trust in law enforcement he added, “When incidents like this come to light they’re thoroughly investigated and appropriate consequences follow. These situations are extremely rare compared to our overall personnel numbers.”
The Inner Finland Police Department took civil disciplinary action against the officer and issued a formal warning. They determined that a suspension would have been too harsh.
In court the officer attributed his behavior to personal stress stemming from difficulties in his private life.
