THE SHOOTING OF THE TWO YOUNG MEN

Oct 15, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

 

 

Last Saturday night there was a shooting incident in Georgetown in which two young men were killed and another seriously wounded. The survivor, who has since died, was speaking to the press giving versions of what took place but there were contradictions and inconsistencies in what was being said.
His versions- and there is more than one if the reports in the newspapers are to believed- is that he and the others were shot by the police without cause. The police on the other hand said that they came under fire and responded.
This column has little empathy when it comes to persons who fire on the police. Any police officer who is fired upon has to take steps to defend his life.
An officer of the law is usually justified in using deadly force if he or she feels that his or her life is under threat. If a police is fired upon, then that police must of necessity assume that his or her life is being endangered and therefore may use deadly force to retard that attack.  When you are being fired at, then the issue of retaliation by the use of deadly force assumes a different character than say, if the police are executing a routine operation and encounters an aggressive suspect.
Recently in Washington DC, a woman believed to be mentally unstable was killed by security services after she rammed a protective barrier with her car and then took security agents attempting to apprehend her on a car chase. She was eventually shot and killed even though no weapon was found on her and a small child was in the car.
There have been concerns raised about the use of deadly force in this incident.   Some commentators have said that the police should have used other options to capture the woman since no deadly weapon was found in her possession.  But they seem to be overlooking the fact that the woman herself was using her car as a deadly weapon. In fact, not only did she ram barriers, she also hit down one agent. The outcome for those trying to stop her could have been worse had the security agents not been nimble.
That incident has raised issues concerning what constitutes justifiable force and when this may be lawfully used. The general principle is that justification for the use of deadly force depends on the facts of the case which must be examined in its totality and not through selective isolation of facets.
In the case of the shooting of the young men on Saturday night in Georgetown, the same principle should apply. Those who have to investigate the use of force by the police must consider the overall evidence that is before them. If at that hour of the night and under the cover of darkness, the police come under fire then, what other options do they have to defend their own lives than to respond with deadly force?
The circumstances under which the men were shot need to be determined. Various versions about what happened is being attributed to him by different newspapers.
One newspaper reported the survivor as saying that he went to the park (car park) to meet a friend and afterwards decided to buy some ice cream at Demico, Camp Street. The first question is why the ice cream was not purchased from the Qik Serv near to the park? Why go all the way to Camp Street and South Road to a branch which has been closed for more than two years now?
The survivor said after he realized that the Demico Branch was no longer at Camp Street he was waiting on a bus. Well if he was waiting on a bus what was he doing on South Road? Why was he not waiting for the bus on the other side, that is, on Croal Street? Perhaps when he spoke to the newspaper he was confused. Perhaps?
The other version is provided by another newspaper in which the survivor is reported as saying that he was going to reach his girlfriend in South Road. This is of course different from the previous version which stated he had met a female at the park and was proceeding to buy ice cream.
These inconsistencies still however do not settle the circumstances that led to the shooting but they do indicate that one should be circumspect about accepting what the survivor states in his present condition since there are contradictions and inconsistencies in what he has told the various media houses. When his condition improves perhaps a clearer picture will emerge.
The newspapers should be very careful also in how they report what eyewitnesses said. They should ensure that these eyewitnesses are credible before they add to the speculation that exists about what happened last Saturday night.
There was once a time in this country when an eyewitness said that he saw the police remove grenades from a bag during a confrontation with protestors. That eyewitness later held a discussion with the then Commissioner of Police and recanted that version of events.
The way to settle these matters is to have timely inquests into these unnatural deaths. Unfortunately, the system does not always work in a timely manner and thus helps to fuel speculation.

 

 

---

---