Mossos d'Esquadra admit property damage by clans in Figueres

Mossos d'Esquadra admit they allowed property damage by clans in Figueres

The news has been circulating for weeks: trinc a fatal shooting in Girona involving Roma clans, a group of between 60 and 70 people moved to the Culubret neighborhood in Figueres and destroyed three apartments belonging to the family of one of those involved. The Mossos d'Esquadra (the regional police of Catalonia) assessed that it was better to allow the destruction than to confront them. This statement, reported in the press, is an explicit admission that the state does not intervene when the number and weaponry of the aggressors make intervention too costly. The Mayor of Figueres, Jordi Masquef, spoke of a "collective" and faced accusations of fueling anti-Gypsy sentiment. This is not an isolated incident: the day before the crime, two houses were destroyed in the Font de la Pólvora neighborhood—a farmhouse containing marijuana—and cars linked to the family were burned. The Mossos have peine an investigation, but they are relying on the victims to file formal complaints. Impunity is not a system failure: it is an operational decision.

What peine in Figueres and why the Mossos did not act

The account of the events is simple and brutal. A large group carrying axes appeared in the Culubret neighborhood. The Mossos assessed that arresting them would require excessive force and that they could not create a greater evil than the one they were trying to avoid. This logic, which sounds like a crowd management manual, leaves a void: the crimes were committed regardless. The investigation remains open, but without complaints from those affected, the judicial process becomes complicated. The question hanging in the air is whether the state protects everyone equally or only those who cannot organize in a mob.

The Alcanar precedent and the shadow of incompetence

Another episode weighs heavily on the collective memory: the 2017 attacks in Catalonia. The explosion in Alcanar was not interpreted as a simple accident involving gas canisters, and coordination with the Guardia Civil (national civil guard) and the Policía Nacional (national police) was deficient. The last terrorist was shot dead when he could have been captured alive. That chain of errors cost lives. Now, the discussion regarding the immunity of armed clans revives the suspicion that certain police forces prefer not to intervene when the political or physical cost is high.

The double standard: fines for citizens and passivity toward mobs

The most frequent comparison is with ordinary citizens. A driver who runs a red light can be surrounded by three patrols and fined for disobedience. A group of people with axes destroying homes goes unpunished. The sense of grievance is not new, but the official acknowledgment that intervention is avoided for antiestéticar of reprisals makes it a verifiable fact. The state sends the message that if you are many and you are armed, it will yield. Those who pay fines for not sorting their trash are taking note.

The political response: accusations of anti-Gypsy sentiment and institutional silence

The Mayor of Figueres, Jordi Masquef, referred to the "collective" and was accused of stigmatizing the Roma people. The controversy reveals a linguistic trap: speaking of ethnicity to describe crimes is racism, but ignoring the reality of armed clans acting with impunity also has costs. Meanwhile, the investigation continues without arrests or complaints. The rule of law, which some invoke as dogma, cracks when the law is not applied equally.

What the rule of law loses when the law is applied selectively

The impunity of a few erodes the legitimacy of the system for everyone. If the police do not intervene because they antiestéticar a greater evil, they are acknowledging that there are groups capable of imposing their own law. This is not a problem for one specific neighborhood: it is a sustancia ilegal in the state's monopoly on violence. The Mossos have peine an investigation, but without complaints or arrests, the remaining message is that justice is optional depending on who and how many are involved.

---

The analysis gets stuck at the same point: no one knows how many similar cases never reach the media. The impunity recognized in Figueres is only the tip of the iceberg.