Jury acquits police of ‘door-knocking’ and backs use of beatings to break into party during pandemic.

A popular jury that in the past two weeks convicted two agents of the National Police who forced their way into a house in Madrid in March 2021 where a party was being held that did not respect state restrictions. The alarm exempted them from criminal liability. . By nine votes to zero, they agreed on a not guilty verdict, as reported in his X report by Juan Antonio Frago, a lawyer for the sub-inspector who led the police operation. The other four agents who were charged were already acquitted last week when the charges against them were dropped.

The jury’s conclusion is that the intervention of the police, who smashed the door with a battering ram, was justified because at the hearing it was confirmed that the people at the party by refusing to identify themselves committed a gross crime of insubordination. , exactly as the agents asked them to in 28 cases. After sentencing, the court will acquit both agents.

The procedure stems from a party in a building in the Salamanca district of Madrid that took place almost two and a half years ago. It went viral After a video was released showing how the police beat down the door. In July 2021, the court accepted a complaint filed by a tenant of a house in Spain who sought to prosecute police officers for the crime of breaking and entering. He accused the police of “excessive and disproportionate use of force” and of raiding his home “for no legitimate reason”.

The prosecutor’s office defended the acquittal of the policemen. The prosecution understood that they had committed a crime of breaking and entering because the fact that there was a party that did not comply with the COVID-19 regulations did not involve a violent police intrusion. However, he argues that “it is not appropriate to impose any fine”.

Regarding the five subordinates, he considered that the full protection provided by the Criminal Code “in the performance of duty” should be applied to them. That is, they were limited to following the orders of their superiors. As for the head of the group, it amounts to what is legally defined as a “visual error”, which is a figure used for someone who, due to a lack of diligence, acts in the mistaken belief that he is not committing a crime. In this case, the punishment is permissible in its reckless modality, but it is a modality that does not allow the crime of breaking and entering. So he also asked for his acquittal.

Source: El Diario





related posts

Post List

Hot News