Human Rights Commission: "Police Mocking Self-Harm Attempted Person Constitutes Human Rights Violation"

The National Human Rights Commission of Korea (NHRCK) has ruled that police officers laughing at a person attempting self-harm or arresting them as a suspect without informing them of their Miranda rights constitutes a human rights violation.

On the 2nd, the NHRCK announced that on the 24th of last month, it recommended that the police chief of Station A have the involved officer attend a special human rights training organized by the commission regarding the incident where the police made inappropriate remarks to a person attempting self-harm and arrested them as a suspect. Additionally, it recommended job training for the officers at the police substation, including the involved officer.

According to the NHRCK, the police responded to a 112 emergency call reporting that complainant B was attempting an extreme act. However, the responding officers neither stopped B from self-harming nor showed concern; instead, they laughed and made provocative remarks. They then handcuffed B’s wrists behind their back without informing them of their Miranda rights, arrested B as a suspect, and transferred B to the police station without providing medical treatment for the self-inflicted wounds.

The police stated that their remarks were intended only to persuade B to put down the self-harm tools and were not meant to mock or encourage self-harm. They also added that since B struck an officer’s head with a mobile phone, they arrested B on charges of obstructing official duties after informing them of their Miranda rights and handcuffing them behind their back, and that emergency medical aid was provided by the 119 rescue team at the scene.

The NHRCK said, "The police did not attempt to calm the complainant at the scene or retrieve the self-harm tools, but instead made remarks sufficient to provoke B, who was in an extremely agitated state. Considering that B sent messages implying an extreme act to family and acquaintances, causing multiple police dispatches, and that the police arbitrarily judged B not to be at risk of an extreme act simply because B opened the door upon arrival, the police violated B’s personal rights."

Furthermore, "B was a person in need of emergency aid, and the claims regarding the mobile phone assault differ between the complainant and the respondent. Given that B was arrested at home wearing only underwear, making escape unlikely, and that B’s identity was confirmed, the arrest as a suspect was not lawful," the commission explained. It added, "After arresting B as a suspect, the medical treatment was insufficient, and despite prolonged questioning at the police station, no information about support institutions such as suicide prevention centers or mental health centers was provided to B, violating the duty of post-management for persons attempting extreme acts."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.