'Animals' have rights too

Commissioner of Police Owen Ellington cut straight to the chase and ordered the immediate arrest of three of the policemen involved in the (amateur camera phone) videotaped and televised beating and fatal shooting of a suspected murderer on Thursday, July 29, in Buckfield, St Ann. The surreptitiously taped incident also revealed 'law-abiding' citizens egging on the policemen. The official release on the event contained the customarily formatted statement saying, inter alia, that the suspect attacked the police after fatally stabbing his common-law wife and they shot him (in self-defence).

The killing was terrible because, from the video, at the time of the shooting, the actions of the suspect did not warrant the use of deadly force. I hope this revitalises serious consideration of acquiring stun guns for the constabulary. The killing was unfortunate because it portrayed the police in an extremely unfavourable light and brings into question statements released following supposed 'righteous' police shootings.

By now, we can all accurately recite what the official version of police shootings will sound like. It makes us wonder what percentage is woefully inaccurate or contrived. These two examples will sound very familiar to anyone hearing or reading news from Jamaica: "The police patrol came upon a man/group of men acting suspiciously; he/they pointed a firearm in the direction of the police. Shots were fired, the police returned fire and he/they/(a certain number) were found suffering from gunshot wounds. One/(a certain number of) firearm(s) was/were recovered." And, "John Brown fired at/attacked the police with a machete/knife, he was shot and injured. He was taken to the hospital where he was pronounced dead."

Errant behaviour

Now, more than ever, because of the events at Buckfield, when residents dispute the police version of a killing, we have to wonder. Although (hopefully) isolated, that incident severely erodes the trust in the police that is needed if we are to effectively tackle crime as a nation. This is why I am extremely pleased that the commissioner is taking a no-nonsense approach to errant behaviour within the force. The actions of a few (who chose to break from their training) must not be allowed to taint that entire organisation.

Indeed, the Buckfield shooting should come as no surprise. What can we expect from our society when a parliamentarian can stand up in Gordon House and announce that human rights are for humans? He was obviously swiping at human-rights advocates by inventing his own distinction between law-abiding citizens (humans, deserving of human rights) and the suspected/accused/ convicted criminals ('animals' that he thinks deserve no human rights). The inciting remark drew no disapproving howls from the other side, so we must conclude that all were in agreement.

Interestingly however, laws for the rights of (lower) animals existed long before laws for the rights of children. Therefore, whether you are an animal or an 'animal', you are deserving of the rights that safeguard you against cruelty.

The real 'animals'

Furthermore, who was it that spawned the so-called 'animals' of which they now complain? Who benefited from the political divisions, violence and the dependency syndrome so rampant in underprivileged communities? Who started handing out guns for the 'animals' to kill each other with? Who groomed these 'animals' into the habit and business of murder? Who is culpable for unleashing these 'animals' upon society? Who are the real 'animals'?

If we treat an entire group of society like animals, they will become 'animals'. Is that what we really want?

Garth A. Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice. Feedback may be sent to garthrattray@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com