Local police officer tries to crush an RC car: "I'll smash it"
An officer twice tries to run over a remote-controlled car in the roadway with his patrol vehicle and threatens the owner: "I'll smash it".
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Two attempts to crush a remote-controlled car from the patrol vehicle
A radio-controlled car rolls along the roadway. A local police patrol drives by and, instead of getting out to file a report, tries to run over it. Twice. Afterwards, according to the video that was released, the officer berates the toy's owner with an "I'll smash it" that sums up the scene. There is no incident report, no identification, and no official version from the town council. Just an audiovisual recording and an argument that, curiously, does not dispute the facts: it disputes who is fundamentally right.
Can you play with a remote-controlled car on a public road?
There the margin is narrow. An RC car is not a vehicle for traffic purposes: it is a toy, and its place is parks, empty lots and areas closed to traffic. Taking it onto an open roadway is a reckless act that is resolved, at most, with an order to remove it or an administrative fine.
And that same rule is what sinks the officer. If the problem was improper use of the road, the procedure is to get out, identify and fine. Maneuvering the patrol car against a toy object is not a regulated action: it is a show of force. Threatening the kid afterwards completes the performance. It is argued that the officer was fundamentally right. The problem is that being fundamentally right does not justify force in any way.
From verbal excess to the theory of origin
Part of the argument drifted towards the origins of those involved to explain why the officer acted cocky with some and not with others. That angle does not move a comma of the legal analysis and is left out here: police overreach is judged the same regardless of who suffers it. What is relevant is more boring. If there were two attempts to damage someone else's property and a verbal threat, there is grounds for a formal complaint.
The analysis stalls right where it begins: with no incident report, no identified officer and no municipal statement, there is no way to know whether this was a one-off excess on an afternoon or something more entrenched.
A radio-controlled car rolls along the roadway. A local police patrol drives by and, instead of getting out to file a report, tries to run over it. Twice. Afterwards, according to the video that was released, the officer berates the toy's owner with an "I'll smash it" that sums up the scene. There is no incident report, no identification, and no official version from the town council. Just an audiovisual recording and an argument that, curiously, does not dispute the facts: it disputes who is fundamentally right.
Can you play with a remote-controlled car on a public road?
There the margin is narrow. An RC car is not a vehicle for traffic purposes: it is a toy, and its place is parks, empty lots and areas closed to traffic. Taking it onto an open roadway is a reckless act that is resolved, at most, with an order to remove it or an administrative fine.
And that same rule is what sinks the officer. If the problem was improper use of the road, the procedure is to get out, identify and fine. Maneuvering the patrol car against a toy object is not a regulated action: it is a show of force. Threatening the kid afterwards completes the performance. It is argued that the officer was fundamentally right. The problem is that being fundamentally right does not justify force in any way.
From verbal excess to the theory of origin
Part of the argument drifted towards the origins of those involved to explain why the officer acted cocky with some and not with others. That angle does not move a comma of the legal analysis and is left out here: police overreach is judged the same regardless of who suffers it. What is relevant is more boring. If there were two attempts to damage someone else's property and a verbal threat, there is grounds for a formal complaint.
The analysis stalls right where it begins: with no incident report, no identified officer and no municipal statement, there is no way to know whether this was a one-off excess on an afternoon or something more entrenched.
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (40 replies).
More summaries
-
Gorliz council worker reported for threatening police officer
A Gorliz municipal employee has been reported for threatening an interim local police officer with blocking her permanent position during an altercation that left an officer on sick leave.
-
Local police shut down makeshift barbershop on Gijón beach in Spain
A chair, a comb and a pair of clippers were all it took to set up a barbershop on San Lorenzo beach; local police removed the entrepreneurs with four officers.
-
Spain's 'La bola negra' sparks culture war with €4.7M opening
'La bola negra' grosses €4.7 million in its first weekend and divides Spain between critical praise and accusations of propaganda and historical sectarianism.
-
Homosexuality in Spain: individual freedom vs the LGBT lobby
In Spain, homosexuality divides those who defend individual freedom from those who see the LGBT movement as a political lobby. An analysis of the debate.
-
Steam Deck in Spain: 'woke' console flop or just noise?
The Steam Deck has arrived in Spain already labelled 'woke' and a failure. With no sales data available, the debate reveals more about prejudices than about the console itself.
-
O2 offers free calls to Venezuela amid crisis
O2 has opened free calls to Venezuela amid the crisis. Solidarity or marketing? The controversy drifts between a real emergency and suspicions of a hoax.