According to the police, Mirabete had been armed and tried to resist arrest. Miranda
claimed that during the struggle that followed his service weapon accidentally fired,
wounding Mirabete in the head. By claiming that the shooting was accidental, official
sources imply that because Mirabete ran from the police he was guilty of some crime,
thereby justifying the actions of Miranda. However, the news article does just report on
the official story. It also quotes Mirabete’s family, who state that they considered the
incident to be a case of gatillo fácil and allude to the existence of witnesses who could
testify that Miranda executed Mirabete. In addition, a second report of Mirabete’s death
appeared on March 1, 1997,citing forensic evidence that suggests that the gun found near
Mirabete had not been used, and that he had been shot at the base of the skull, execution
style, a fact that contradicts the police’s claim that Miranda’s gun discharged
accidentally. This case shows that although official sources continued to justify police
violence by showing that the victim was guilty of a crime, and therefore deserving of the
violence committed against them, some news reports rejected the official version of
events by including other points of view.
81
Editorial Discourse and Violence 1996-1997
The editorials sampled for Argentina’s democratization period reflect concerns
about rising levels of “violence” and “criminality,” claiming that the Argentine state has
failed to protect its citizens because of widespread “corruption” and “inefficiency.” An
editorial printed on September 5, 1996, states,
81
“Murió el joven al que baleó un policía.” La Nación. March 1, 1996. 1; “Aún no hay
condenados por el caso Mirabete.” La Nación. March 1, 1997. 14.
Convention