Police accused of the death of attorney Javier Ordóñez are dismissed and disqualified for 20 years



[ad_1]

The ruling was read this Tuesday by Aura Fajardo, delegate of the Attorney General’s Office. The Public Ministry concluded that the patrols acted “with brutality and intent.”

“It can be affirmed, without any doubt, that Mr. Javier Humberto Ordóñez Bermúdez was subjected to physical violence despite the state of defenselessness in which he found himself, while he remained at the CAI Villa Luz,” the delegate said at the hearing, broadcast by Noticias Caracol.

According to the document read by the official, “without any consideration or reason and with brutality, Javier Humberto Ordóñez Bermúdez received forceful blows from the uniformed Juan Camilo Lloreda Cubillos and never received help or attention despite his laments and despair due to the ailments that they affected him. ”

The Attorney General’s Office assures that the patrolmen lied in the reports they gave and that there was excessive use of force.

“The intention of causing the death of citizen Ordóñez Bermúdez is inferred from the training received by the police officers and their experience, which teaches them where to strike according to the intended purpose. If they had simply wanted to injure themselves, the kicks and fists would not have been the same forcefulness and would have been directed at the legs or arms, “explained the delegate.

As explained by the representative of the control entity, the videos and images collected “allow evidence of the patrolman Lloreda Cubillos hitting the person on the ground with his feet and hands repeatedly, and he is present there, crouched, the patrolman Harby Damián Rodríguez “.

He indicated that Javier Ordóñez’s death was caused by internal bleeding that caused the “cruel and cowardly beating” to which he was subjected, which ended up bursting a kidney and causing him to lose 3,500 cubic centimeters of blood.

For all of the above, the Public Ministry described the behavior of the ex-patrolmen today as a “very serious fault” and found them responsible for abuse of authority and excess of force, for which it imposed the maximum penalty.



[ad_2]