The Supreme Court has confirmed the sentence of one year in prison and three years of disqualification of a local police officer from Sant Esteve Sesrovires (Barcelona) for killing a person by asphyxiation when he was arrested in 2014. The events occurred around 4:30 a.m. on the 16th. June 2014, when two police officers from that town went to the Can Estrella industrial estate, after receiving a request from a security guard from a company, from inside a toilet, in which he had locked himself out of fear, warning of the presence of two people who would have accessed it.
When the two agents arrived at the scene, they located a person – 37 years old with bipolar disorder and a degree of disability of 55% – hanging around the industrial estate, so they approached him to identify him, but he ran away.
However, the convicted agent managed to reach the man after having fallen to the ground and a struggle began in which the victim showed strong resistance to his immobilization, throwing punches and kicks that caused injuries to both agents. This, the sentence continues, caused the convicted agent “with the sole purpose of restraint, to immobilize him by the neck area,” while his partner tried to put handcuffs on him.
The resolution says that the agent, “with omission and contempt for the basic techniques for restraining people,” manipulated the detainee’s neck with his nails or fingers, while placing his arm around it, exerting strong pressure, for a period of time. indeterminate amount of time, causing acute respiratory failure and asphyxiation. The arrested person died at 05:58 hours.
The Barcelona Court sentenced him to one year in prison and three years of disqualification for a crime of serious professional imprudence with the mitigation of undue delays, a sentence that has now been ratified by the Supreme Court.
During the trial, the agent alleged that the reduction or immobilization maneuver was done following protocol, which is why he denied that he put pressure on the man’s neck, causing his death. But the high court emphasizes that “the omission of the duty of care and excess in the action was evident” to such an extent that “a person’s life ended as a result of that excess.”
He explains that “this was a police officer who was required to exercise greater caution in his actions and not put pressure on an area of ??the body where excess and time, intensity and temporality could make it clear that it would end the person’s life.” . “The possibilities were high of acting as he did and of continuing to do as he did, and yet he persisted in his behavior,” adds the court, which, while highlighting that “his actions were excessive,” specifies that he did so “without intent to kill, hence it is reckless.”
