Killer Cop

Constable Kevon Gordon had no logical choice but to cooperate or else INDECOM would have charged him under the ACT and prosecuted him for failing to comply with a lawful request of the Commission to give statements.

We wonder how Resident Magistrate Judith Pusey managed to accept such a groundless argument from Neita-Robertson as being a reason for granting bail to the cop? It is mind-boggling how a Resident Magistrate (or even a judge) could entertain such an argument; that consideration should be given to the fact that Constable Gordon “cooperated”, when, in fact, he was bound to comply with the request of INDECOM, unless he wanted to be prosecuted and imprisoned.

The manner in which Constable Gordon operated against the citizen was arbitrary, oppressive and unconstitutional, and it rises to the level of aggravation. In addition to the criminal prosecution against him, the estate of the deceased man should sue the Attorney General, Constable Gordon (and others), inter alia, for constitutional contraventions and exemplary damages.

The police abused their authority!

If the police visited a dance session to shut it down because it was operating without the requisite permit, why was it necessary for the policeman to draw gun and shoot the man and kill him?

Even if the deceased man had drawn a knife and stabbed after the policemen, as they cleverly posited in their defense statements, does that require the police to shoot to kill? Couldn’t they have used a baton to reasonably restrain him to get the weapon out of his hand, and if the alleged attacker persisted with imminent threat then threaten to shoot him in a limb?

We find the following scenario fascinating:

– A civilian man witnesses three policemen who were duly trained and skilled at detecting crime.  The civilian man, knowing very well that the policemen were armed and had the potential of using some form of force in carrying out their operations, since tempers usually flare when dances are in breach and are to be shut down, stabbed at the armed policemen.

We could not properly deduce logic from this defense statement which was made by Constable Kevon Gordon. In fact, we find that this was a blatant fabrication by the concerned officer. It defies logic that any civilian man would actually see not one, and not two, but three armed policemen and draw a knife to stab at the police.

The force used by the police must always be proportionate to the threat. The gun should never be used to claim the life of a citizen, whether they are innocent or not, just because of allegations that a knife was drawn.

The policemen (all three of them) could have easily used tact to retrieve the so-called weapon from the “attacker”. If they could not, then what would be the purpose of their training? Less lethal weapons like batons are available to restrain an attacker in such an event and it must be utilized over the gun.

We have no reason to believe that the video evidence was tampered with which, effectively, is prima facie evidence which should have led to the remand, without bail, of Constable Gordon. But why was he granted bail?

He took the life of a citizen, as far as the prima facie evidence goes, without ANY justifiable reason under the law, over a Ganja spliff. The video evidencing the unlawful actions of the police, the positive identification by all the witnesses, and the accounts of all the witnesses are strong elements for remand. Why, then, would the learned magistrate offer bail at all, and worse, in the sum of $250,000.00?

What of the compelling prima facie evidence, learned magistrate?

Download The Jamaican Blogs™ App for your Android device: HERE