This week’s featured development as Newsmaker of the Week just ended is National Security Minister, Dr Horace Chang, standing firmly behind his comments that police officers should “fire back” if they are engaged by gunmen in fire fights.
Two Thursdays ago, Chang, who is also the Deputy Prime Minister, made headlines when he said police personnel should not miss when they respond to criminals who use deadly force to resist being arrested.
“They (the police) not out there shooting down people like that. There are fatal shootings because man shoot gun after dem. I not telling police not to fire back, and a say it right here in Westmoreland, I not sending no ambulance out there either,” declared Chang on September 15.
He was then addressing a ground-breaking ceremony for a new Frome Police Station in Westmoreland.
“Anytime a man take up a gun after police, I expect the (police) commissioner to train the police when they must not miss,” he indicated then.
Still, there were several criticism of Chang’s remarks, with many suggesting that he used the term “shoot to kill” in his statement.
Chief among them were the Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) and some human rights groups, such as Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ).
For his part, Opposition Leader and People’s National Party President, Mark Golding, described Chang’s remarks as having been “ill-advised”, and said it “sends the potential signal of endorsing unlawful killings”.
“I don’t think there was anything there to withdraw or to change. It was felt that the circumstance in which I said it would stimulate the police officers to take, maybe, unusual action. I don’t think so,” he stated.
“I think training of the police force is now adequate, strong, and is creating a force (not only) for good, but a highly disciplined operation,” he said.
File photo of a police team patrolling a hotbed community.
In relation to armed confrontations, Chang maintained that while all citizens have a right to life, in a situation where the police and gunmen are in armed combat, the first right to life is relative to the law enforcers.
“… In a combat situation…, the first right to life, I think, is that of the policeman who is acting to protect (himself) and the wider society,” Chang insisted.
Added the minister: “… I said if they (the police) are attacked by criminals, or policemen come under attack by criminals, they should return fire. The term I used was ‘fire back’.
“It’s a standard use-of-force policy anywhere on the globe. If you come under deadly attack, you are entitled to respond.”
“… I further indicated that I am entreating the commissioner of police to train them (the police) well. If they are not properly trained and they miss, they get killed and (maybe) other members of the community.
“That’s my position, and that’s what I said, and I don’t expect anyone to consider that if I am sending police officers out there, I would be committing an act of negligence if I send half-trained police officers to face hardened criminals with firepower which they (the police) don’t have,” said the national security minister.
According to him, the Government is “not allowed” to provide police with the types of weaponry that the gunmen now have.
While in the presence of Chang on Wednesday during a tour of Spring Village, St Catherine, where three persons were shot dead and six others injured at a football field on Sunday, Police Commissioner, Major General Antony Anderson, threw his support behind the minister and echoed his sentiments.
“I hear calls all over the place to ask me to comment on what the minister had said about shooting. Every single time that the police and gunmen engage, the police must win,” the commissioner declared.
According to Anderson, the police force ensures that its members are well trained.
“We shoot centre of mass; that’s where we shoot, that’s where we are trained to shoot… We ensure that our members are well-trained,” he said.
Police Commissioner, Major General Antony Anderson.
Turning to Sunday’s mass shooting incident in Spring Village, Anderson said: “The enemy has a face and is identifiable, and you saw them the other day. That’s how they look like, and that’s how they operate. They don’t care!
“They (the gunmen) can shoot randomly. If you pressure them, they just kill everybody. We (the police) are constrained and restrained in how we function.
“So when you hear the nonsense, trying to make those guys — those youngsters (young policemen) who put themselves in harm’s (way) to protect the rest of Jamaica — as the problem, it’s nonsense,” declared the commissioner.
Public support has been growing for Chang’s remarks, as well as that of Anderson’s relative to the view that police should “fire back” and “win” against criminals during armed conflicts. That support has spread across various social media platforms.
“Don’t take back you talk minister, say it again one more time, every time the crowbate them defend them gunman friends and family and no defender for the victims,” commented Wayne Montaque, a Facebook user.
See also
Shared author Kwame McPherson: “Well said Chang. Any gunman mad enough to challenge the police in a gun battle, shoot to kill should be the response… no argument.”
But Loraine McKay-Lewis disagreed, and commented that, “They (criminals) have right to life fi real. A somebody pickney dem to.”
Kassian Neil agreed with that sentiment.
“Law and order is the standard procedure and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, Mr Chang. Please retract those remarks because it sends the wrong signal internationally,” Neil opined.
Still, there were more persons who commended the deputy prime minister for not backing down from his remarks.
Whitbourne Johnson commented: “I stand with the police. Argument done”.
Facebook user Emmanuel Dunn wrote: “Sir, I stand with you 1,000%. When gunman a shoot people, they are shooting to kill, so if the police come under fire, why shouldn’t they shoot to kill?
“I am not for any of these government in Jamaica, but I am calling it like I see it,” he added.
Robert Martin commented: “Yes, I like how the (police) commissioner backing the minister, because police must win when they confront criminals. No if, but nor maybe there.”
However, another social media user had reservations about the views that were being proffered in support of Chang.
“Listen, I have no issue with the police taking evasive action against gunman, but what happen to the corrupt cop who will now use excessive force because he’s blood thirsty or have a grudge?” questioned Pauline James.
Andrea Lowe shared her perspective: “No police is going to stand and let criminals fire at he or she and they don’t fired back.
“My concern is knowing most of the corrupt police, they’re going to use this opportunity to kill innocent (people).”
But William Mimmie told Lowe that, “No innocent person going to fire at the police”.
Echoing a similar sentiment was Vincent Cole, who opined: “No innocent citizen firing back at police in shootout, so all who a chat, chat and a talk, a tek side with criminals point blank, and it done desso!”
