The Provincial Court of Madrid has acquitted the civil guard who killed with two shots a young man who was suffering from a psychotic break in Manzanares el Real (Madrid) in September 2020. The Fourth Section of the Provincial Court of Madrid has applied the defense of legitimate defense to acquit the agent of the crime of homicide due to intentional recklessness of which he was accused. To this end, the court has argued that the testimony of two people who claimed to witness how the agents shot Diego in the back contradicts that of the rest of the civil guards who participated in the operation and is also contradictory with the expert examinations carried out.
The victim, 26 years old, suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, and at the time of the events he was going through an episode of decompensation of his illness. He was shouting in the middle of the street, threatening with knives, one in each hand with six and six and a half centimeter blades, and uttering expressions like “sons of bitches, get out of here, I’m going to kill you” or “I’m going to die killing police officers.” “, relates the sentence.
In a phased manner, according to the ruling, various Civil Guard patrols arrived at the scene, starting an operation composed of a total of twelve agents, who were unable to subdue Diego despite the low danger of the Swiss army knife and another of similar size. that he carried. At one point, Diego fled and a chase began. The young man screamed that they wanted to kill him.
Two of these agents fired up to four deterrent shots into the air, which did not help the man to change his attitude, but “rather,” the sentence provided in the attached file clarifies, “increased his nervousness and agitation.” “Thereafter – as stated in the proven facts of the resolution – the victim made a sudden turn again and attacked the accused, wielding the knives with the intention of attacking with them.”
At that moment, “in defense of his physical integrity (the agent) fired, from a distance of approximately one and a half meters and in a frontal position with respect to the deceased, two shots in a row”: one superficially hit the victim’s right hip. and another the left leg. The bullet that penetrated the inner thigh caused the polypteal artery to rupture. Transferred to La Paz hospital, he died on September 29 as a result of hypovolemic shock resulting from massive bleeding that caused the artery to rupture.
In the first session of the trial against a civil guard for the death of Diego Martínez-Conde, a resident of Manzanares el Real claimed to have witnessed how the agents shot the victim in the back, while he fled and refused to stop. Previously, the civil guard accused of reckless homicide had told a very different version: Diego rushed at him carrying two small knives and he had no choice but to shoot him in the legs twice to save his life. A second witness confirmed the version of the crime from behind.
The family of the victim, Diego Martínez-Conde, requested four years in prison for the agent who fired the two shots for reckless homicide, while the Prosecutor’s Office reduced their request to a fine, considering that the agent did not commit serious negligence. On behalf of the accused civil guard, the State Attorney’s Office requests acquittal.
The magistrates acquitted the accused upon understanding that in this case “there is a complete defense of self-defense that can only lead to a ruling of acquittal”, which is why, they add, “it is not appropriate to impose any civil liability”.
The court does not doubt the “sincerity” of the witnesses
The court assures, regarding the two neighbors who witnessed Diego’s death, that “it has no doubt about the sincerity of their testimony” nor does it question its impartiality. They saw everything, they said, from the windows of their home, close to the scene of the events. But while the versions of the accused civil guard and his companions coincide with the expert evidence carried out, that of the witnesses shows contradictions that, the ruling states, respond to and “are typical of the speed of the situation, moments experienced with great tension and nervousness, where sensory perceptions can be very different.”
They said they were watching television, and alerted by the screams late at night, each one went out to a different area of the house that faced the street. One of the witnesses, in fact, goes out to an area of the house from which what is happening cannot be seen and says he changed to another area once the shooting started. “This information – the sentence states – gives less time for its direct perception.” “Next,” it is added, “both say they see how the agents shoot the victim in the back, who after the shots turns around, makes an extreme movement, ‘like a dance’ and collapses.”
At this point, with two very different versions of the facts, the court recalls that “since it is not possible to guess in an almost magical way which witnesses are telling the truth, all that remains is to prudently compare the content of such testimonies with the rest of the evidence.” evidence”.
In this line of argument, the court resorts to the statement of the doctor who performed the autopsy. “The shot that caused death most likely came from a more or less frontal position. It is true that at this point – he continues – we cannot have exact certainty, since we are dealing with two bodies, that of the shooter and that of the recipient of the shot, in a dynamic situation, but the possibilities of a more lateralized shot or rear decrease considerably.” The forensic doctor even speaks, says the resolution, of “very relevant” or “much more relevant in terms of probability” probability that the shot was frontal.
Furthermore, the ballistics report and the chemistry report, both departments of the Civil Guard, carried out through the residue on the deceased’s clothing also corroborate the defense version, by ruling out “the point-blank shot” and establishing a distance of one and a half meters between the weapon and the body, data more compatible with the situation narrated by the Civil Guard agent than the version according to which agents shot the victim in the back.
Once the account of the facts has been established, the judges are finally left to establish whether the defense of self-defense exists in the actions of the accused civil guard, a question to which they answer in the affirmative, despite the fact that it is, as is proven, a non-culpable assault and being a law enforcement officer who defends himself. And they answer affirmatively, considering that the accused responded proportionally, given the legal rights that were at stake – his physical integrity -, despite the fact that in this regard the legislator – the judges remember – does not speak of “proportionality”, but rather of “a clear distinction between necessary defense and state of necessity.”
#civil #guard #shot #dead #young #man #psychotic #break #acquitted #acted #legitimate #defense
