[Collapsed Public Authority] "Dismissal Driven by Public Opinion... Legitimate Exercise of Public Authority Further Weakened"

<strong>'Discipline First' Sparks Outrage<br><br>Acknowledgment of Inadequate Response to 'Incheon Weapon Rampage'<br>Rising Dissatisfaction Over Dismissal After Two Weeks<br>Prioritizing Human Rights, Hesitation Amid Various Lawsuits<br>Citizen Groups Oppose 'Criminal Responsibility Reduction'<br>"Balance Between Public Authority and Human Rights Needed" Voices</strong>

National Police Chief Kim Chang-ryong stated on the 3rd in response to a Blue House public petition regarding the inter-floor noise stabbing incident, saying, "It is a clear wrongdoing that betrays the police's mission and reason for existence," and "I sincerely apologize for the police's failure to meet expectations and will work to improve the police system." [Image source=Yonhap News]

[Asia Economy Reporter Lee Gwan-ju] The police force is in turmoil after two on-site officers involved in the Incheon inter-floor noise stabbing incident, who faced criticism for their ‘inadequate response,’ were dismissed just two weeks after the incident. While the response was clearly flawed, criticism mainly centers on the fact that dismissal was rushed ‘like roasting beans over a lightning fire’ due to public opinion, despite formal investigative procedures being underway. Ignoring ongoing calls for increased manpower and systemic improvements and opting for disciplinary action first could, some argue, actually undermine proper law enforcement.

Earlier, the Incheon Police Agency abruptly decided on October 30 to dismiss Sergeant A and Police Officer B, who were dispatched to the scene. This was only two weeks after the incident occurred. The case is often compared to the death of a 16-month-old adopted child in Yangcheon-gu, Seoul last year (known as the ‘Jung-in case’), which sparked public outrage. In that case, disciplinary action against the officers for inadequate response was finalized four months after the incident, in February this year, following thorough internal investigations and consultations with external experts.

On-site officers have voiced their frustrations on the police internal network and social media, saying, “Deciding on disciplinary measures without systemic improvements first could actually intimidate officers dispatched to the field.” A representative of a local police station’s workplace council posted on the internal network, “This is a case under investigation following a citizen group’s complaint, but rushing to impose severe disciplinary action before the results are out, pressured by public opinion, is a grave mistake,” adding, “Blaming all faults solely on the officers dispatched will further intimidate field police.” The post also detailed the challenges faced by on-site officers. He pointed out, “There are no legal provisions to reduce civil or criminal liability for officers if injury or death occurs during legitimate official duties without intent or gross negligence, nor have officers been provided with protective safety equipment. Calls for increased field personnel have been ignored, and budgets have not been allocated even for new recruits to practice using tasers during training, yet only the officers involved are being held responsible.”

Previous controversies regarding police responses mostly involved excessive force, such as the ‘Yongsan tragedy’ and the late farmer Baek Nam-gi case. Currently, field officers say that prioritizing human rights protection and being burdened by numerous lawsuits have rather suppressed legitimate police activities. In fact, the ‘Police Legal Insurance’ program, introduced by the National Police Agency in June 2018 to support officers sued during lawful duty, has provided assistance in 159 cases as of October this year. Additionally, the ‘Public Officials Liability Insurance,’ benchmarked from the Police Legal Insurance and introduced by the Ministry of Personnel Management last year, has supported 179 cases as of October.

Only after the controversy erupted has the National Assembly accelerated the passage of amendments to the Police Duty Execution Act, which would reduce criminal liability for officers acting in the course of legitimate duty. However, civil society voices caution against expanding police authority. The People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy has demanded a halt to the amendment process, arguing, “Police duty involves physical force and, if excessive, can lead to human rights violations. Therefore, the approach should focus on gradually reducing risks and the necessity and danger of physical force.”

Despite these concerns, the demand from field officers to guarantee lawful enforcement so they can protect citizens’ lives and safety is gaining traction. The Police Democratic Workplace Council, a coalition of police workplace councils, stated, “We do not deny that the cause of this incident lies in the officers’ immature response,” but also diagnosed, “In addition to a lack of individual officers’ sense of mission, the weak and passive police authority, which can only shrink back, exacerbated the situation.” They added, “Police authority and human rights must be balanced like two wings of a bird,” emphasizing, “This is not for the convenience or self-interest of the police but for the safety of the people.”

Meanwhile, Commissioner General Kim Chang-ryong of the National Police Agency expressed repeated apologies for the incident and pledged to strengthen on-site response capabilities in his reply to a Blue House public petition. Kim said, “We recognize this issue not just as a problem of individual officers or the involved station but as a structural and organizational problem, and we hold a grave sense of crisis. We humbly accept the public’s criticism and promise to improve the police system with extraordinary determination by preparing measures to prevent recurrence so that such incidents never happen again.”