The Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de Tenerife has refused to annul the sentence imposed on a Arona local police and his son for considering them authors of a crime of minor threatsof which two agents of the National Police were subjected.
The sentence imposed and ratified now consists of the payment of 730 and 130 euros respectively by each of the two convicted men.
The sentence considers proven that a year ago the agents of the National Police addressed the defendant, after having observed that he had stopped his vehicle in an illegal manner in the Juan Carlos I Avenue of Los Cristianos and more specifically in a prohibited place, as it was marked.
When the police officers warned the driver that he could not stop the car at this location, the accused gave them a dismissive gesture with his arm and remained in the same place.
After returning to ignore the orderone of the officers got out of the vehicle and approached the accused to inform him that he was standing in a prohibited place, to which the driver again reacted angrily and with contempt.
Specifically, he told them that he could remain there if he stayed inside the car, that he was a local Arona police officer, that they had no powers to sanction him and that he refused to leave the place.
After asking them for their identity document up to six times, the defendant refused on all of them, telling them that they could not do it either and that he would only identify himself to his colleagues in the unit. Local police.
Finally, he agreed to show his ID but without allowing the agents to touch him, so when one of them stretched out his arm and grabbed it, the accused became angry and He scolded the agent, demanding that he return the document..
During this altercation, the municipal officer repeatedly shouted: “I already have two of your colleagues reported, so be careful what you do, they are going to regret this, I don’t have to give them my ID, I will only do it to my colleagues.” and I’m not going to talk to you anymore, I will only do it with your partner.”
According to the complainants, the defendant did not stop at any time in his “disrespectful, provocative and threatening” attitude, until he was finally arrested and taken to police stations.
The Court considers it proven that minutes after this confrontation and when he was transferred to the Los Cristianos Health Center, the detainee’s son rebuked an agent, telling him: “These are the smart ones from the other time, you are going to…” in reference to an altercation that took place in 2020 in which his father confronted other national police officers, also for having the car parked illegally in a place not authorized for it.
The appeal before the Court is based on the fact that the statements of the agents do not meet the requirements to be considered credible and in fact they point out that there are three versions such as the one from the report, the one from the investigation and the one offered at the trial and that there are also contradictions. between them.
The defendant maintains that the sentence is disproportionate and that his words were magnified, since he limited himself to pointing out that the National Police has no powers in traffic and the son justified his attitude because when he saw his father detained he became nervous, but he denied having issued threats.
The Court now concludes that the assessment of the evidence in the first instance has been “correct and reasonable” and is supported not only by the agents who participated in the arrest but also by witnesses, so the judge finally gives greater credibility to the complainants.
The magistrate rejects that the version they offered was contradictory and contrasts it with that of the accused who limited himself to denying the facts or justifying them by appealing to questions of police powers “in the face of the flagrant traffic violation” committed, so under the point From the point of view of the Court, “it cannot be justified at all that he made threats when the agents were carrying out their duties.”
In short, it is indicated that instead of there being several versions of what happened, the truth is that throughout the process the testimony was completed with more details, since the passage of time means that many things are not remembered at first. .
The Court considers that the son’s attitude “It clearly constitutes a minor crime of threats” and remembers that his words were spoken in front of a witness, as the latter recounted during the hearing.
