Myriad dangers in police operations

Glenn Tucker, Contributor

In 1978, a young policeman told me that when he and colleagues went out on patrol, an extra gun is usually taken. This was done, he said, to protect themselves if they decided to shoot someone. The death could then be described as a 'shoot-out'. I questioned him for some time to determine whether he was serious, and subsequent statements left me satisfied that he was speaking the truth. I was shocked.

This situation continued without much public outcry from that section of society which usually gets the attention of those in authority. So reckless had the police become, that even when the gun recovered from the 'shoot-out' was shown on TV, no concern was paid to the fact that the same gun was presented for several 'recoveries'. It was left to the grieving relatives of several men slain at different times and places to point out that "a di same tape-up handle gun dem a show wi every time".

Later on, a recitation was prepared, ingested by an unquestioning media, and regurgitated at least three times each week. The information in this recitation suggests that a party of heavily armed members of the security forces were patrolling when a man just decided to shoot at them. The shooter usually misses by a mile. Then the security forces fire at the shooter who, unbelievably, refuses to take evasive action. A search of the area reveals that he is suffering from gunshot wounds. He is taken to hospital where he is pronounced dead. Of course, ways are found to assure the public that the dead men are essentially just criminals. So, a grateful public breathes a sigh of relief and relaxes. In time, the public lionises these policemen and even encourages them to increase their tally.

Our justice system is essentially two tiered. The police investigates, apprehends and takes suspects before the courts. The courts determine guilt and appropriate punishment. There is a reason for this. If I, peeved at the fact that a younger, better-looking man is gaining the attention of my girlfriend, can tell the police that he was responsible for two murders, then, acting on this 'intelligence', the police can go to his house and kill him. If the police are allowed to be judge, jury and executioner, the dangers are myriad. It is not much of a leap from this to what the cynics describe as 'guns for hire' in the force, and further claim that this is why many killings go unsolved.

Hypocrisy

A few days ago, policemen were caught on tape beating a man and then shooting him to death. The relevant minister, along with the upper echelons of the Jamaica Constabulary Force, expressed 'shock' that such a thing could have happened. It is this kind of hypocrisy that is preventing progress in many critical areas of national life. Do these people think that the grief-stricken relatives we see bawling on TV several times a week are all liars? But, even if it is true, they are just 'ol neagga'. So, what about Amnesty International that has remained highly critical of extrajudicial killings by our security forces for years? Has the minister been reading the New York Times? It is not Dudus that concerns them. It is what our State is doing to us.

One of the ironies of this police problem is that with this trail of blood behind them, the persons who by their inaction, sanction these murders, have the temerity to come to us and, with a straight face, ask us to support the police in 'their efforts'. May I ask them this: Is there something in the occupational role of the police that requires the illegal or extra-legal use of violence? Is violence the property of the state on loan to the police?

To our PM, I have this to say: the Jamaican prime minister has more power in his country than the president of the US is in his. If it was the wish of our PM to stop this reckless slaughter of our people it would stop immediately. Why is this still happening, Mr Golding?

On the rare occasions, when concern is raised by that small section of uptowners who are listened to, we hear about some community-policing programme designed to improve relations between the police and the public. The people have no interest in this because they know it is really just designed to improve the image of the police.

The powers that be were not 'shocked' because of the shooting of a citizen. They were shocked because the shooting of a citizen was caught on video.

I am, etc.,

GLENN TUCKER

Kingston 9