Wheelchair Man Kills Alleged Thief: Self-Defense & Fear Analysis

In recent days, there has been enormous media coverage of the case that occurred in the Bon Pastor neighborhood, in Barcelona, in which a 66-year-old man with severely reduced mobility, wheelchair user and dependent on oxygen, wounded an 18-year-old young man with a knife, who died at the scene. The version most widely reported in the press maintains that everything occurred in the context of an alleged robbery: according to the defendant’s entourage, the young man had tried to snatch a chain from him and, in that struggle, the man had pulled out a knife and caused the fatal wound.

The first thing that must be said, with absolute clarity, is that we do not know how the events actually occurred. We do not have access to the proceedings, we do not yet know the complete content of the investigation, nor the complete statements, nor the autopsy, nor the judicially verified version of what happened. The only thing that exists, to this day, is the information published in the press, which also presents some relevant discrepancies. Therefore, any serious legal analysis can only be done in hypothetical terms, based on the most widespread journalistic version and with all precautions.

That said, the case raises two legal concepts of enormous criminal interest: self-defense and insurmountable fear. (The content of this article has no value as legal advice)

What is self-defense?

Self-defense, provided for in article 20.4 of the Penal Code, is a justification defense. This means that, if its requirements are met, the conduct ceases to be unlawful and therefore exempts from criminal liability.

What if the elderly man acted with insurmountable fear?

Insurmountable fear gains even greater relevance here

While self-defense raises a serious debate about proportionality of means. However, the defense of insurmountable fear is very closely related to the characteristics of this case.

Unlike self-defense, insurmountable fear does not make the act lawful. Its foundation lies in the impossibility of demanding different conduct.

The subject acts under such intense psychological pressure that the Law understands that different behavior cannot reasonably be demanded of them.

Requirements of the insurmountable fear defense

Jurisprudence requires the concurrence of four elements, whose content must be interpreted rigorously:

• Existence of serious fear
  Any concern or emotional pressure is not enough. It must be intense fear, capable of significantly affecting the subject’s decision-making capacity.
• Foundation in a real, effective and proven fact
  The fear cannot be based on mere assumptions or imaginings. It must originate from an objective situation, really existing and capable of being proven in the proceedings.
• Insurmountable nature of the fear
  The fear must be of such magnitude that it cannot be controlled or overcome by ordinary people in that same situation, always considering the specific circumstances of the case.
• Fear as the sole motive for action
  The conduct must be essentially determined by that fear, without other relevant motives such as revenge, profit or aggression.

Could the insurmountable fear defense be applied in the case of the elderly man in a wheelchair who k

Procedural situation and possible trial by Jury Court

As of today, and according to published information, the defendant is in pretrial detention, ordered by the competent investigating court.

If the proceedings continue through ordinary channels and there is no dismissal or substantial modification of the legal classification, it is foreseeable that the facts will be tried by the Jury Court, as it involves a homicide crime, whose jurisdiction corresponds to this body according to article 1 of the Organic Law of the Jury Court .

In that scenario, it will be citizens —not professional judges— who determine the facts and the guilt or innocence of the accused. The jury will be composed of nine regular members and two alternates, in accordance with current legal regulations.

It is worth remembering, moreover, a key aspect that is often unknown: to render a guilty verdict in a homicide case, at least seven unfavorable votes from jury members will be necessary, as it involves an unfavorable ruling for the accused.

In a case with as much media coverage as this one, in which a good part of public opinion questions whether circumstances such as self-defense really exist or not, it will be precisely citizens outside the legal field who, as jury members, will have the responsibility of evaluating the facts and deciding on the defendant’s guilt.

Frequently asked questions about the case