The Madrid Provincial Court acquitted the civil guard who killed with two shots a young man in the grip of a psychotic crisis in Manzanares el Real (Madrid) in September 2020. The Fourth Section of the Madrid Provincial Court applied the defense of self-defense to acquit the agent of the crime of homicide for intentional imprudence with which he was accused. To this end, the court argued that the testimony of two people who claimed to have witnessed 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 in contradiction with the expertise carried out. .
The victim, aged 26, 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 street, threatening with knives, one in each hand with six and six and a half centimeter blades, and uttering expressions like “son of a bitch, get out of here, I’m going to kill you.” or “I’m going to die killing police officers,” the phrase goes.
Gradually, according to the judgment, various patrols of the Civil Guard arrived on site, starting an operation made up of a total of twelve agents, who failed to control Diego despite the low danger of the Swiss knife and another similar in size. .that he wore. At one point, Diego ran away and a chase began. The young man shouted 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 “on the contrary”, specifies the sentence provided in the attached file, “increased his nervousness and agitation.” “Subsequently – as the proven facts of the resolution indicate – the victim again abruptly turned and attacked the defendant, brandishing the knives with the intention of attacking with them.”
At that moment, “to defend his physical integrity, (the agent) fired, at a distance of approximately one and a half meters and in a frontal position in relation to the deceased, two shots in a row”: l One superficially touched the victim’s body. right hip and another the left leg. The bullet which penetrated the inside of the thigh caused the rupture of the polypteal artery. Transferred to La Paz hospital, he died on September 29 following hypovolemic shock resulting from massive hemorrhage that caused the rupture of the artery.
During 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 ran away and refused to stop. Previously, the civil guard accused of reckless homicide had told a very different version: Diego had rushed at him with two small knives and he had no choice but to shoot him twice in the legs for him save 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 against the agent who fired the two shots for reckless homicide, while the prosecution reduced their request to a fine, considering that the agent had not committed gross negligence. On behalf of the accused civil guard, the prosecution requests acquittal.
The magistrates acquitted the accused, knowing that in this case “there is a complete defense of self-defense which can only lead to a decision of acquittal”, which is why, they add, “it is not not appropriate to impose any civil liability.” .
The court does not doubt the “sincerity” of the witnesses
The court assures, concerning the two neighbors who witnessed Diego’s death, that it “has no doubt about the sincerity of their testimony” and does not question its impartiality either. They saw everything, they say, from the windows of their house, near the scene of the events. But while the versions of the accused civil guard and his companions coincide with the expertise carried out, that of the witnesses shows contradictions which, says the judgment, respond to and “are typical of the speed of the situation, of 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 went to a different area of the house that faced the street. One of the witnesses, in fact, goes to an area of the house from where we cannot see what is happening and says that he moved to another area once the shooting started. “This information – says the sentence – gives less time for its direct perception.” “Then”, it is added, “both say they saw the agents shoot the victim in the back who, after the shots, turned around, made an extreme movement, ‘like a dance’ and collapsed. “.
At this stage, with two very different versions of the facts, the court recalls that “as it is not possible to guess in an almost magical way which witnesses are telling the truth, all that remains is to cautiously compare the content of these testimonies with that of the witnesses. the rest of the evidence.
In this argument, the court uses the statement of the doctor who performed the autopsy. “The shot which caused the death most likely came from a more or less frontal position. It is true that at this stage – he continues – we cannot have exact certainty, since it involves 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 body the shot or the rear decreases considerably. The forensic doctor even speaks, says the resolution, of a “very relevant” or “much more relevant in terms of probability” probability that the shot was frontal.
In addition, the ballistic report and the chemical report, both services of the Civil Guard, carried out from the residues on the clothes of the deceased, also corroborate the defense version, excluding “point-blank shooting” and establishing a distance of one and a half meters between the weapon and the body, data more compatible with the situation recounted by the Civil Guard agent than the version according to which the agents shot the victim in the back.
Once the account of the facts has been established, it finally remains for the judges to determine whether the excuse of self-defense exists in the actions of the accused civil guard, a question to which they answer in the affirmative, although it is, like this is proven, not guilty assault and being a law enforcement officer defending himself. And they respond in the affirmative, considering that the accused responded proportionally, taking into account 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 not “proportionality”, but rather “a clear distinction between necessary defense and the state of necessity”.
