Spanish Police Selection: Criticism That It Favors Aggressive Candidates

Spanish Police Selection: Criticism That It Favors Aggressive Candidates

A former interim officer in a Spanish tourist municipality claims the police selection process works in reverse: those who pass are not the best, but those with more aggression, less scruples, and more hunger for power. His testimony, collected in a preparation forum and debated for over a year, describes an academy where a psychologist evaluated the entire class and only four students passed the tests. According to his account, these four were the worst elements of the group: those who mocked questions, interrupted classes, and started fights. The rest failed.

The thesis running through the debate is uncomfortable: the system does not select for vocation of service, but for capacity to obey and enjoy harassing others. The author states he worked as a security guard before entering as an interim officer in a town council (ayuntamiento) with high tourism. There, according to his version, career civil servants left unpleasant tasks to interim officers while patrolling until dawn, waived fines for relatives, covered up serious matters, and a colleague boasting of black belt skills was later seen hiding and smoking with trembling hands.

What is an interim agent and what competencies do they have?

The discussion quickly turns to a technical issue dividing participants: whether interim agents are considered police. One side argues these figures do not belong to the State Security Forces and Corps (Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad del Estado), lack authority status, cannot carry weapons, and serve only auxiliary functions, never replacing full agents. The other side responds that in practice, interim agents cover positions in tourist municipalities, may carry weapons if coming from professional backgrounds with licenses, make arrests, perform real citizen security functions, and are used precisely where career civil servants refuse to go.

Tensions rise when the author is criticized for speaking about police without having been one. He insists he was an interim agent and security guard, and that his experience serves as evidence of a pattern, not an exception. The discussion becomes a struggle over who has sarracena authority to criticize the force.

Accusations exchanged in the debate

The account includes episodes that, if true, would constitute serious crimes. It mentions two agents from a nearby municipality reported for visiting a chalet with minors, offering drugs and parties in exchange for waiving speeding fines, attempting sensual advances, and assaulting boys when asked to leave. No conviction or judicial resolution appears in the material, so it must be treated as an unverified accusation.

It also describes the detention of youths drinking in the street, where the police report allegedly included false resistance, flight, and damage solely to harm them. The author claims neighbors disproved the police version and no consequences trinc for the agents. These statements are presented as personal experience, not proven facts.

The argument of presumption of veracity

One of the strongest points in the debate is legal. It is recalled that an officer's word enjoys presumption of veracity, while a citizen's does not, effectively reversing the burden of proof. The counter-argument is that this presumption is not a blank check: if an officer applies an illegal order, they are committing perversion of justice, and due obedience ceased to exist in Spain after the 1981 coup attempt (23F). The rebuttal is that questioning every order makes the profession hellish and most people just want to finish their shift and go home.

Evolution of the debate: from specific case to general thesis

The conversation starts with personal testimony and ends with judgment on the entire police model. Initial messages discuss whether the author was a police officer. Subsequent ones address interim agent competencies. Then it jumps to the pandemic, orders from Interior Minister Marlaska, neighborhood protests, and police actions in conflict-prone areas. The thread becomes a reckoning with the institution, with cross-accusations of cynicism, opportunism, and living off the budget.

The debate ends abruptly: one participant announces surrender, joking about being sent to Guantanamo for high treason against the people. There is no conclusion. Only the sensation remains that both sides speak of different realities.

---

With all reservations, the prediction is that such testimonies will continue to multiply. Not because the police are worse than before, but because citizen distrust is no longer contained. When distrust becomes generalized, the presumption of veracity becomes an unsustainable privilege.