Stephen VasciannieSEVEN YOUNG men, some still in the first flush of youth, were shot and killed by the police in Braeton two Wednesdays ago. The episode has generated a storm of controversy, sharply dividing the country, and prompting us to reflect, yet again, on the nature of the society we have created for ourselves and our children. It has also brought into focus, for the umpteenth time, perceptions of the police force and issues concerning the role of law enforcement officers in a crime-infested community.
At another level, the Braeton killings have also highlighted the way we allow our preconceptions our world view to influence our assessment of facts and possibilities. Thus, in much of the discussion that has occurred since the killings, many have placed more emphasis on notions about the proclivity of the police to abuse young, oppressed Jamaicans, while others have rallied to the defence of the hard-pressed police, many of whom are working in pressurised circumstances to assist beleaguered, law-abiding citizens.
These two assumptions bad cop, good cop are easily understandable in the Jamaican context. As to the bad cop, ours is a society in which the police killed 151 and 140 persons, respectively, in the years 1999 and 2000, and in which there are numerous incidents in which individuals are reported shot by the police in circumstances that strain credulity.
And as to the good cop, ours is also a society in which the police must face a steady stream of attacks from vicious, ruthless gunmen, many who shoot first, and raise no questions of human rights and self-defence as they confront law and order.
In 1999 and 2000, 8 and 11 policemen respectively, were brutally cut down by the forces of evil, their deaths standing as testimony to the frightful working conditions that face law enforcement officials in Jamaica.
In the deliberations concerning the Braeton killings, some persons have sought to take advantage of these differing perceptions of the police. Their line of argument went something like this: the police and citizenry are living in difficult times, the police are threatened by gunmen, and must take draconian steps to overcome criminal brutality; the society should be sympathetic ('give them some slack') when the police take strong measures, because this amounts to self-defence, and defence of the society. To this they added the canard that human rights groups care nothing about law-abiding citizens, and are simply determined to defend criminals.
This line of argument must be stopped dead in its tracks because it is dishonest, short-sighted and unprincipled. It is not true that human rights advocates are unconcerned with the shocking level of murder and mayhem in Jamaican society. On the contrary, those who argue for police accountability take as their foundation the sanctity of life, and simply posit that the due process of law must be respected when the police confront persons believed to be criminals. This position of principle cannot be equated with support for gunmen. Rather, it proceeds on the basis that the mere accusation of wrongdoing by the police does not amount to guilt.
In our system, the police cannot act as judge, jury and executioner, but must, instead, allow the State to follow time-honoured procedures for the determination of guilt or innocence. The seven young boy/men in Braeton were entitled to the presumption of innocence in exactly the same way as the Prime Minister of Jamaica.
In my opinion, then, human rights advocates are absolutely justified in calling for a full, careful, and public inquiry into the killings in Braeton. As the matter has evolved over the past two weeks, there are essentially two competing versions of what happened in the wee hours of that fateful morning. On one view, advanced by Senior Superintendent Adams and others, the police suspected persons in the Braeton house of being involved in the murders of Constable Dwight Gibson and principal Keith Morris; when the police surrounded the house and called out to the occupants, they were met by a barrage of bullets. The police, in this account, then returned fire, killing all seven persons. This version has weaknesses, not the least being the fact that it is contradicted by several persons, including a Gleaner reporter whose story was inexplicably confined to the back of last Sunday's paper. However, even assuming the truth of the police version of the killings, several questions arise.
Why would seven boy/men with four handguns try to engage 60 policemen, some with high calibre weaponry? Assuming that the police returned fire in self-defence, did they use excessive force? If the police had the area surrounded, why did they find it necessary to fire their guns in self-defence, when they could have used tear-gas, or at least have waited on the boy/men to surrender? Seven boy/men, four guns, why did it not occur to at least one of the unarmed boy/men to run from the house? Why would the boy/men have tried to shoot at the police through closed windows, as is apparently the case? And is it true that the dead boy/men show signs of having being shot at close range? The police have to give clear and convincing answers to such questions.
Our society is overrun by criminals, but, to repeat, that should not give licence for the police themselves to become criminals. They have procedures, the due process of law works for all of us, and murder is murder, whether committed by persons with red seams or with no seams at all. We cannot know what really happened in Braeton without an enquiry. The police, like the seven dead boy/men have the presumption of innocence on their side: but they must answer the case. Otherwise, we will all live with the fear that some of our policemen are quite literally loose cannons ready to kill when the inclination touches them. We will be on the slippery slope to a police state.
Stephen Vasciannie, an attorney-at-law, teaches at the University of the West Indies.
