Orville Taylor | Zero violence! Period

Violence has a place and time. However, it should only be used under circumstances consistent with the use of deadly force policy. The decision to use any kind of physical force against another cannot simply be because such person has insulted the victim. As hurtful as it is, angry instructions to investigate the private internal confines of one’s maternal parent is never any justification for ‘pulling your firearm, knife or even your fist’.

Indeed, the rule of thumb when one contemplates violence against another should be the internal question, “Am I prepared to accept the consequences if this person dies as a result of the blow?”

There is the often nonsensical argument that the user of a firearm, including a police officer, should have attempted to shoot the attacker rushing towards him with a two-sided machete, sharp like hypocritical friends, in the foot or leg. Clearly, such critics have never shot off anything except their mouths. Every single police officer soldier or legal firearm user with whom I have communicated have advised that a moving target is very difficult to hit. Which is why one is trained to aim towards the largest target, because one may not get a second chance to defend oneself.

Using force, deadly or otherwise, must be proportional and should end at that point where the threat no longer exists. An individual who was discharged all of the rounds in his firearm and has missed the targeted police officers is no longer a threat. If that empty weapon is no longer in his hand or is visibly empty, the police could have a difficult time escaping a murder charge.

NO DIFFERENCE

Between police officers and civilian shooters there is really no difference as regards the rationale or legitimacy in using deadly force. The threshold is very clear: proportional force, including lethal weapons, can come into play, if one is attempting to save the life of another human being, including oneself. For the record, the attacker does not have to be armed. He could be a martial artist, boxer or simply larger than the other who is exercising so much malice that the continued aggression could lead to the death of the attacked. An individual, lying on the floor, unresponsive or unable to defend himself, is at risk of being killed.

An innocent bystander or knight in shining armour could easily be legally supported if he sees an adult about to stomp an infant. So let us be unambiguous on the subject of violence, even if someone looks you straight in the eyes, describes you as a fissure occupied by a feline and says he we kill you; nothing legitimises pulling or pointing a weapon, unless in pursuance of this, he attempts to make good on his threat. Of course, the law has certain mechanisms to address threats. But even so, while it might be consistent with street or garrison behaviour, such provocation is only mitigating factors after being found guilty of homicide or assault.

Believe it or not, given the kinds of offensive instructions have been given regarding my mother and spouse, they should have been anaemic decades ago. Remember this! There is a lot of wisdom in the expression ‘word is wind but blows are unkind’.

Never hit someone, without justification.

This has to be the starting point for those demonstrators and others who unwittingly defile the noble wearing it for every single negative campaign. In the present case, where a video surfaced, showing large man beating a white clad nurse, I honestly would have preferred if in solidarity with her, everyone including nurses, flooded the place with white. After all, a small flock of egrets is more visible than a more numerous murder of crows.

HYBRID OF HULK

Yet, as horrific as the scene was, boiling my blood and turning me into a hybrid of Hulk and Mr. Hyde, it occurred to me that the last videos and reports of the most savage beating a woman or female child received were at the hands of other girls or women. This includes schoolgirls in uniform and another with permanent disability.

Someone curiously asked me; would it have made a difference if it were a 230-lb six-footer, mercilessly beating another male, a foot shorter and 100 lb lighter? This last one is not hypothetical; there was such a case, which caused major repercussions to persons who dared to comment on it.

Doubtless, the optics hit us worse because she is our mother, sister and daughter. However, be not mistaken! After viewing the older boy beating and stomping the grade three pupil, I had to go on my knees and pray to the Lord to take away the spirit of vengeance.

What we need to confront as a country is that we are simply too violent. And yes, there are historical and other social and psychological antecedents which lead to the propensity towards abuse. But until we get to that point where we enforce in our daily relations, the same use of deadly force policy; these interpersonal acts of cruelty violence irrespective of the age sex, size or social status will continue to take place.

We are a society that still calls for blood, that devalues human life if one is different from us. With the clamour for hanging, we are still sending the signal that some humans are not worth living. The position taken by civilised members of society must be that violence, including the death penalty, must only be used in the circumstances outlined above.

Yet in all this, my daddy always told me that discretion is a better part of valour. Never engage in a fight that you have no chance of winning. If you do not have the ability to defeat your aggressor, take evasive action and follow up later with the law.

We are all humans. Would you feel different if that victim were your wife, spouse sister, daughter, little brother, son or husband?

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at the Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.