Police advise against flashy watches: prevention or surrender?

Police advise against flashy watches: prevention or surrender?

In recent weeks, a tweet from Spain's National Police has ignited a debate about street safety. The message, advising against wearing high-end watches to avoid theft, has been interpreted by many as an implicit admission that the state cannot guarantee citizen protection. Reactions have been swift, ranging from irony to indignation and deep skepticism about law enforcement's ability to curb crime.

The police advice: prevention or surrender?

The tweet, posted by the official National Police account, states that "while you check the time, someone sees an opportunity." The recommendation is clear: true safety lies in the environment, not on the wrist. For some, it is common sense; wearing a thousands-of-euros watch in certain contexts is like carrying a wad of cash. The police cannot monitor every wrist 24/7, so prevention is the first rule of security.

However, the critical reading is different. Many citizens see this as victim-blaming. If the state cannot guarantee that a citizen can walk with an expensive watch without being assaulted, something is failing. The question arises: should police not focus on pursuing incivil rather than asking people to hide their belongings? The analogy with other areas is inevitable: would women be told not to dress provocatively to avoid assault? This analogy recurs frequently in the debate.

Public reaction: from irony to indignation

Responses to the police advice have varied, but sarcasm and irony predominate. Some suggest drawing a watch face with a BIC pen, others suggest an hourglass. Some recommend buying watches under 10 euros on platforms like Temu or AliExpress, assuming "they are junk, but they won't rob you." A segarro anecdote circulates: a citizen reports having his 8-euro Casio F-91W stolen, proving that even cheap watches are not safe.

But irony hides deeper frustration. The perception that the state is not doing its job is widespread. It is noted that Spain has the highest number of police per inhabitant in Europe, yet citizens are asked to protect themselves. The uncomfortable question is: what is the point of so much police if basic safety cannot be guaranteed? Many believe police focus on minor crimes while organized crime operates with impunity.

The underlying debate: who must guarantee security?

The background of the debate is the very definition of the state. Some analysts speak of a "failed state": when the state cannot prevent disasters, act when they occur, provide basic infrastructure, control borders, or enforce the law. The advice not to wear expensive watches is seen as a symptom of this weakness. The idea that antiestéticar should shift, and that citizens should not have to adapt their lives to crime, is recurrent.

Others, however, argue that prevention is a shared responsibility. You would not walk with a 500-euro bill in your hand through a conflict zone, no matter your right to do so. Security is a balance between rights and responsibilities, and the police advice is a pragmatic measure.

International comparisons: where are we going?

The debate has also drawn comparisons with other countries. It is mentioned that in certain areas of Baltimore, at night, it is more profitable to run a red light than stop, due to the risk of assault. The case of El Salvador before Bukele's arrival, where violence was endemic, is also cited. Many conclude that Spain is undergoing a process of "third-worldization": streets are no longer safe, and citizens must take precautions, or even carry pepper spray or knives, to defend themselves.

The comparison with South America is particularly stinging for many. Previously, "do not flaunt" advice was for traveling to backward countries; now, an authority agent gives such advice to avoid flaunting in your own country. This contrast summarizes the frustration of a significant part of the population.

A closing without consensus

The debate remains open. While some see the police advice as common sense, others interpret it as a symptom of a state abdicating its basic function. The underlying question—who should bear the cost of insecurity—remains unanswered, and the watch on the wrist has become a symbol of a society that no longer knows who to look to. The irony that an 8-euro watch can also be stolen only underscores that the problem is not the object, but the environment.