Legitimacy of force in Mexico City

The legitimate use of force is one of the most delicate tests of a state's institutional maturity. It's not about how many bullets, uniforms, or operations are carried out, but rather how, when, and why they are used.

In a society governed by the rule of law, force from an authority reacting to an emergency and the use of firearms against law enforcement officers is the ultimate tool. Even in such conditions, it is legitimate and often, in extreme situations, unavoidable.

Mexico City faced that test yesterday when a CrossFit instructor was deprived of his liberty inside the Pastoral Center for Youth Care, at the San Jorge Church, in the Gustavo A. Madero borough.

This situation, caused by an alleged unlawful or illegal removal of the attacker from the center where he worked, put a life at risk and alerted the entire community. The outcome, with the use of lethal force after the direct attack on a negotiator from the Attorney General's Office, confirmed actions that adhered to the law, proportionality, and the desire to provide care.

When the armed attacker burst in, barricaded himself in, and took the instructor hostage, the State intervened. From the Security Cabinet, which was in session at the time, the head of government, Clara Brugada, instructed the action to be taken in accordance with institutional protocols.

In a coordinated manner, independent of any particular interests, the Attorney General's Office and the Secretariat of Citizen Security launched a joint operation. The intention was not to confront, but to deter.

After nearly two hours of dialogue, when the assailant shot the negotiator—who suffered superficial wounds to the neck and left wrist—the protocol changed: SSC tactical personnel activated the use of lethal force as a means to protect lives. The perpetrator was killed.

From a legal perspective, the action falls within the framework of the National Law on the Use of Force, which in its sixth article authorizes lethal force when there is no other option to protect the lives of others or one's own. The same legal framework mandates exhausting all non-lethal means of persuasion and restraint. That happened. There was a clear legal basis for intervention.

The action demonstrates the type of corporations formed in Mexico City: trained to know when to contain, insist, and intervene with proportionality and rationality. First, as the Mayor mentioned, is the peaceful resolution of conflicts through the intervention of institutions such as the Legal Counsel or the Citizens' Council.

The legitimate use of force can coexist with the logic of care, which requires moral strength, emotional restraint, institutional coordination, and the ability to respond to risk.

@guerrerochipres