Tweet claims judge freed suspects in attack on 70-year-old man in Spain
A tweet by Dani Dsk claims five men armed with katanas attacked a 70-year-old man in Barcelona and that the judge released them. The case reopens the clash…
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Tweet claims judge freed suspects in attack on 70-year-old man in Spain
An incident in Barcelona once again brings up the same old clash: the street demands answers and the courts, according to the story going around, refuse to give them. The starting point is a tweet by Dani Dsk, the public face of Desokupa, denouncing that five men armed with katanas tried to kill a 70-year-old man, who ended up in hospital and whom the judge set free. The scene, as it is told, is that of a neighbourhood still living in antiestéticar and residents begging for help. From there, the matter stops being a news story and becomes a gauge of the national anger.
What is known about the attack and the court's decision
The only source of facts is the tweet: five men, katanas, a 70-year-old man in hospital, a judge who sets them free. Nothing more. No names, no court, no date. On that skeleton, the first criticism that appears is of a judge who "sides with incivil", in the words of one participant. Another reframes it more sharply: maybe the problem is not the judge, but the laws. And a third adds the finishing touch: the judge's job is to apply the law, so it is the law that is badly made, "I'd bet DELIBERATELY badly made".
Some flatly doubt the story is true. "All lies like everything that circulates on these forums", says one. Another asks whether the source is reliable. It is the logical reaction when the origin is a tweet and not a press release: distrust competes with outrage and, for now, the latter is winning.
The pre-trial detention argument and unequal treatment
One of the most quoted analyses in the thread compares this case with another well-known one: if the flight risk is extremely high and there is no address or papers, why is pre-trial detention not applied? The answer the message itself gives is bitter: because they are not from here. The comparison with high-profile cases where pre-trial detention was applied serves to underline the feeling of a double standard. It is not a verified fact, it is a perception, but it is the perception that dominates.
The fine print of the matter is that pre-trial detention requires a risk of flight, reoffending or destruction of evidence. If none of the three is proven, the judge is obliged to release them. That comforts no one, but it explains why the anger is aimed as much at the judge as at the lawmaker.
The neighbourhood response and the security business
The tweet is not just a complaint: it is an advert. "We are going to help the residents. FREE OF CHARGE." There is the hook. And there the internal criticism appears: why help some and not others? The shadow of selectivity in the service hangs over the whole affair. The discussion drifts towards whether private security can replace public security and who decides who gets protected.
The political drift and fatigue with the narrative
The thread splits into two camps. One calls for a hard line, mob justice and even bullets for traitors. Another, cooler one, recalls that a country's level of justice is inversely proportional to its number of laws. And a third, minority one, warns that going out on the street with a katana is a terrible idea: you either end up in prison or end up dead, and it does the resident no good either.
There is no closure. The question of whether the judge acted well or badly goes unanswered because no one has the ruling in front of them. There is only a tweet, a frightened neighbourhood and a law that, according to several people, does not protect those it should.
Voices from the forum
"It's possible the judge had no choice but to release them; after all, his job is to apply the laws. What's badly made are the laws."
"In theory you get locked up if there's a risk of flight, reoffending or destruction of evidence. These sons of bitches, who are surely already causing trouble, have two out of three and walk free."
"Getting involved in stories involving weapons is a very bad idea. If you draw a weapon and use it, you go to jail; if you don't use it, they kill you."
An incident in Barcelona once again brings up the same old clash: the street demands answers and the courts, according to the story going around, refuse to give them. The starting point is a tweet by Dani Dsk, the public face of Desokupa, denouncing that five men armed with katanas tried to kill a 70-year-old man, who ended up in hospital and whom the judge set free. The scene, as it is told, is that of a neighbourhood still living in antiestéticar and residents begging for help. From there, the matter stops being a news story and becomes a gauge of the national anger.
What is known about the attack and the court's decision
The only source of facts is the tweet: five men, katanas, a 70-year-old man in hospital, a judge who sets them free. Nothing more. No names, no court, no date. On that skeleton, the first criticism that appears is of a judge who "sides with incivil", in the words of one participant. Another reframes it more sharply: maybe the problem is not the judge, but the laws. And a third adds the finishing touch: the judge's job is to apply the law, so it is the law that is badly made, "I'd bet DELIBERATELY badly made".
Some flatly doubt the story is true. "All lies like everything that circulates on these forums", says one. Another asks whether the source is reliable. It is the logical reaction when the origin is a tweet and not a press release: distrust competes with outrage and, for now, the latter is winning.
The pre-trial detention argument and unequal treatment
One of the most quoted analyses in the thread compares this case with another well-known one: if the flight risk is extremely high and there is no address or papers, why is pre-trial detention not applied? The answer the message itself gives is bitter: because they are not from here. The comparison with high-profile cases where pre-trial detention was applied serves to underline the feeling of a double standard. It is not a verified fact, it is a perception, but it is the perception that dominates.
The fine print of the matter is that pre-trial detention requires a risk of flight, reoffending or destruction of evidence. If none of the three is proven, the judge is obliged to release them. That comforts no one, but it explains why the anger is aimed as much at the judge as at the lawmaker.
The neighbourhood response and the security business
The tweet is not just a complaint: it is an advert. "We are going to help the residents. FREE OF CHARGE." There is the hook. And there the internal criticism appears: why help some and not others? The shadow of selectivity in the service hangs over the whole affair. The discussion drifts towards whether private security can replace public security and who decides who gets protected.
The political drift and fatigue with the narrative
The thread splits into two camps. One calls for a hard line, mob justice and even bullets for traitors. Another, cooler one, recalls that a country's level of justice is inversely proportional to its number of laws. And a third, minority one, warns that going out on the street with a katana is a terrible idea: you either end up in prison or end up dead, and it does the resident no good either.
There is no closure. The question of whether the judge acted well or badly goes unanswered because no one has the ruling in front of them. There is only a tweet, a frightened neighbourhood and a law that, according to several people, does not protect those it should.
Voices from the forum
"It's possible the judge had no choice but to release them; after all, his job is to apply the laws. What's badly made are the laws."
"In theory you get locked up if there's a risk of flight, reoffending or destruction of evidence. These sons of bitches, who are surely already causing trouble, have two out of three and walk free."
"Getting involved in stories involving weapons is a very bad idea. If you draw a weapon and use it, you go to jail; if you don't use it, they kill you."
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 (100 replies).
More summaries
-
Spain pays €12,000 for 18 months wrongful detention
A man acquitted after 18 months in preventive prison receives €12,000: €666 per month, less than Spain's minimum wage.
-
Zapatero pretrial detention hoax sparks outrage in Spain
A hoax about former Spanish PM Zapatero being held in pretrial detention fuels anger and reopens the debate over the jewels case and political impunity in Spain.
-
Israel: False Accusations Lead to Six-Month Pretrial Detention
In Israel, false accusations can result in six months of pretrial detention, shifting the burden of proof onto the accused man.
-
Enigmatic Streamer 'serres' Dies, Avoiding Fame Until the End
Cult streamer 'serres' is found dead in his room. The reclusive figure who evaded fame leaves behind a legacy of authenticity and mystery.
-
The clock change that promised savings and no one can find
The clock change promised energy savings and no one has found them. The real debate is whether we prefer to wake up with sunlight or have long evenings.
-
Rajoy raised VAT to 21% with a 9.4% deficit and empty coffers
Rajoy promised not to raise taxes, then pushed VAT up to 21% with a 9.4% deficit. Spain's debt went from 1.16 to 1.76 trillion euros: who pays for the party?