December 31, 2016

Keymer Ávila | @Keymer_Avila

On November 9 at CELARG, within the framework of the III CLACSO Conference in Venezuela , we met different researchers whose object of study is violence from different perspectives. It was an opportunity to present some work that has been done at different universities and from the Activism and Research Network for Coexistence (REACIN) of which I am also a part. There I presented the results of the investigation into the deaths by homicide of State security officials at the AMC. The objective was to characterize these cases, part of the results demystify some assumptions that are assumed as a priori truths, among which the following stand out:

Myth 1 : The assassination of security officials is a recent phenomenon . Fake. This phenomenon had been analyzed since the 1980s, and for that time it was not exceptional or novel. It is noteworthy that the fact that the first and only study that has been carried out on this subject is from that decade does not mean that it did not exist before.

Myth 2 : They are killed because of their status as policemen, which suggests a direct and contemporary link with the performance of their duties . Fake. 73% of the deceased officers were not in the exercise of their duties; 67.9% were not in uniform and 51.8% were not identified in any way as civil servants. In the cases in which it was possible to detect a previous conflict between the victim and the perpetrator, in 72.8% of these the conflict that generated the act was not linked to the provision of the police service.

Myth 3 : The perpetrators of deceased officials are Colombian paramilitaries . Fake. The nationality of the perpetrators was Venezuelan in 86.8% of the cases in which the nationality could be verified. The rest did not present information on nationality, no cases of foreign perpetrators were found .

58.5% of the victim officials who were not in the exercise of their functions were armed; however, this did not serve as protection; on the contrary, this situation may have promoted his death

Myth 4 : Law enforcement officials should be armed even when off duty because the weapon provides them with more security. 58.5% of the victim officials who were not in the exercise of their functions were armed; however, this did not serve as protection; on the contrary, this situation may have promoted his death. 25% of these officials previously provoked their perpetrator with some real threat against his life. This constitutes 60% of the cases in which there was this type of provocation. Only in 5.4% of the total cases did the victim official manage to kill his perpetrator and both died on the same day. These data seem to indicate that carrying weapons outside of duty hours does not protect officials, but rather exposes them. It would be interesting to compare these results with cases in which officials did manage to save his life, thanks to carrying his firearm out of service, as well as their motives, to assess the usefulness and real impact of this tradition. On the other hand, it should be considered that among the items stolen from deceased officials, firearms represent the first place (54.3%), which constitutes 33.9% of the total cases. Additionally, it was observed that 10% of the weapons with which officials are killed come from the security forces themselves. For all these reasons, it would be necessary to evaluate to what extent carrying the firearm out of service ends up being an element that not only increases the vulnerability of the official, but also becomes a source of arms supply for crime, increasing the insecurity of the citizenry in general. to assess the usefulness and real impact of this tradition. On the other hand, it should be considered that among the items stolen from deceased officials, firearms represent the first place (54.3%), which constitutes 33.9% of the total cases. Additionally, it was observed that 10% of the weapons with which officials are killed come from the security forces themselves. For all these reasons, it would be necessary to evaluate to what extent carrying the firearm out of service ends up being an element that not only increases the vulnerability of the official, but also becomes a source of arms supply for crime, increasing the insecurity of the citizenry in general. to assess the usefulness and real impact of this tradition. On the other hand, it should be considered that among the items stolen from deceased officials, firearms represent the first place (54.3%), which constitutes 33.9% of the total cases. Additionally, it was observed that 10% of the weapons with which officials are killed come from the security forces themselves. For all these reasons, it would be necessary to evaluate to what extent carrying the firearm out of service ends up being an element that not only increases the vulnerability of the official, but also becomes a source of arms supply for crime, increasing the insecurity of the citizenry in general. firearms represent the first place (54.3%), which constitutes 33.9% of the total cases. Additionally, it was observed that 10% of the weapons with which officials are killed come from the security forces themselves. For all these reasons, it would be necessary to evaluate to what extent carrying the firearm out of service ends up being an element that not only increases the vulnerability of the official, but also becomes a source of arms supply for crime, increasing the insecurity of the citizenry in general. firearms represent the first place (54.3%), which constitutes 33.9% of the total cases. Additionally, it was observed that 10% of the weapons with which officials are killed come from the security forces themselves. For all these reasons, it would be necessary to evaluate to what extent carrying the firearm out of service ends up being an element that not only increases the vulnerability of the official, but also becomes a source of arms supply for crime, increasing the insecurity of the citizenry in general.

Myth 5 : Criminals are better armed than the police . Fake. When the weapons of the victims and the perpetrators are compared, it is observed that the former had a higher percentage of long weapons than the latter. In these few episodes, they involved military victims and perpetrators. In most cases, both victims and perpetrators carried pistols and their weapons were similar.

Myth 6 : They kill them because they live in the same neighborhoods as their victimizers (criminals) . Fake. The relationship between the domicile or residence of the perpetrator and the victim only coincided in 2 cases (3.8%). Which is statistically insignificant. A civilian has a greater chance of being assassinated in his parish of residence (71.6%) than an official of the security forces (41.1%).

These demystifications, except the first, are not intended to be universal or timeless, but to provide true information for the design of policies and rational decision-making, based on evidence and reliable information, seeking to protect the lives of all.

The complete investigation can be downloaded  HERE.

Publicado originalmente en Provea.