NATIONAL Security Minister Wayne Munroe. Photo: Austin Fernander
By JADE RUSSELL
jrussell@tribunemedia.net
NATIONAL Security Minister Wayne Munroe said yesterday that just as others are presumed innocent until proven guilty, police should be given the same treatment.
His comments came when asked to respond to concerns over the recent fatal police-involved shootings.
On Monday police shot a wanted suspect dead in Gamble Heights after he allegedly pulled a gun on officers. Prior to that incident, police said a teenager allegedly involved in an armed robbery was fatally shot on Saturday after pulling a gun on officers.
Mr Munroe said based on the information he received in both cases the suspects fired at the police.
“Our system assumes that criminals, people who are put before the courts as criminals are innocent until they’re proven guilty. The police deserve at least that much.
“The public would have seen we’ve upped the use of body cams and dash cams. Police officers are put before the court in circumstances that are appropriate and that will continue to happen. But we will continue to give the police the same benefit of the doubt that we give persons who go before the court charged with crimes,” Mr Munroe said.
However, the lack of public inquests to determine the lawfulness of police-involved shootings has also been alarming to some. Two years ago, inquests were initially delayed because of COVID-19.
In April, Mr Munroe confirmed that police related coroner’s inquests had not resumed as the director of public prosecutions has yet to appoint a lawyer to marshal the cases.
When asked about the Coroner’s Court in relation to the police involved shootings, Mr Munroe said the police will do their duty whether the court is sitting or not.
“The issue of the Coroner’s Court, it’s just a matter of the court adjudicating who died, where they died, the manner of their death. The Coroner’s Court does not adjudicate responsibility one way or the other. That’s what the Coroner’s Act says.
“And so, the police will do their duty, whether the Coroner’s Court is sitting or not sitting, they will continue to do it.”
On Tuesday, when contacted for comment, attorney Christina Galanos told The Tribune addressing police-involved killings is urgent because it affects the public’s confidence in the police.
“What is going to happen is that the public confidence in the police force is going to whittle away where persons are being killed by police officers, rightly or wrongly, because there are justifiable police involved killings. But that needs to be properly determined by a court. And if we don’t get down to doing that, sooner or later, the public confidence in the police force and the court system is going to go down - is going to decrease. So, I think we need to act with a matter of urgency to get it up and running,” Ms Galanos said on Tuesday.
Comments
Emilio26 2 years, 2 months ago
The public would have seen we’ve upped the use of body cams and dash cams. Wayne Munroe said. The national security minister also stated how Police officers are put before the court in circumstances that are appropriate and that will continue to happen. But we will continue to give the police the same benefit of the doubt that we give persons who go before the court charged with crimes,”. Well how come the last police involve shooting we had where a Defense Force Marine was gunned down and absolutely no body cam footage was released for the general public to see what actually took place between officers and the Marine that allegedly charged at one of the officers on duty that night?
bahamianson 2 years, 2 months ago
They racist; they do not like black people.
hrysippus 2 years, 2 months ago
It would be quite easy for the police to bag the hand of the person who the police killed so that the hand could be tested for gunpowder residue and thereby provide solid evidence that the man who was killed by the police had actually fired a firearm. Since the police do not do so the suspicion remains that just possibly the man killed never had a firearm and that the police who killed him was carrying a throwdown gun to justify his action.
LastManStanding 2 years, 2 months ago
Your premise is a bit flawed in the sense that someone doesn't need to discharge a firearm to be considered an active threat. Simply having a gun pointed at you is more than enough reason to be in fear for your life and justify the use of deadly force.
hrysippus 2 years, 2 months ago
In most cases of police killings, the officer who killed the person has said that the deceased person fired at them first, OK, so why not prove that they did actually fire a gun, it is simple to do and happens in all developed countries. If they did then the police are most probably being truthful. To give trust to a police just because he or she is a police is just silly, there have always been crooked police and always will be.
LastManStanding 2 years, 2 months ago
I mean, I'm pretty sure that they probably perform crime scene forensics in these cases. There has to be a report drawn up for these kinds of incidents and I'm sure all of that is documented.
Body cameras should be standard imo, would remove all doubt about the situation.
Proguing 2 years, 2 months ago
So you're saying that when a criminal is directing a weapon at the Police, they have to wait to get shot at before returning fire? This is insane.
TalRussell 2 years, 2 months ago
Nah ― comrade crown minister, how can it be so if the public 'perceives' ... if 'you' and your constabulary's top brass .... hosts the 'green flag's' mixed 'shoot to ( )' messages. Crown minister, you never heard the phrase "violence begets violence, whether the fatal bullet is fired from a crown owned gun. Matters not if wearing crown's security uniform" ― Yes?
sheeprunner12 2 years, 2 months ago
Only white/rich people are presumed innocent until proven guilty ......... If you are black/poor, only God can help you. Where are the white drug dealers who were caught in Exuma??
The exception is when petty vindictive politicians want to crush their rivals ......... then they sell the propaganda that the other fellas (like Adrian Gibson) are guilty from the first day that their henchmen (police) start to "investigate and impound"
TalRussell 2 years, 2 months ago
@ComradeSheepRunner, Long Island's red House-seated MP Adrian Gibson, like anyone has the same right and expectations of any political person charged with an offence to be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...... but like Comrade ``Sister" MyLady Cheryl Grant-Thompson said, in the meantime, Nah ― my court's no Stop n' Shop where you get go browse the isles judge shopping ... And indeed, whilst in MyLady's courtroom, he will remain seated in the prisoner's dock ― Yes?
sheeprunner12 2 years, 2 months ago
Tal, you looking for jokes .......... We all know that the "MyLady" you referred to is a political hack for the present Government
TalRussell 2 years, 2 months ago
@SheepRunner, regardless, isn't it judiciary refreshing that students @Eugene Dupuch Law School, got to see a MyLady sister, presiding over her High Court ... Where a legal challenge to courtroom's seating arrangement ... didn't give way be politically compromised. And, comrade, you get to reside on an out island's settlement where it's a constitutional expectation that a MyLady's family members, has and shall continue to hold and express contrary political views. What's there still to learn about how the HireCar businesses are doing in general on your settlement of Long Island ― Yes?
Proguing 2 years, 2 months ago
If you learned a bit of history of this country, you would understand why drug dealers can operate in our waters, and it has nothing to do with skin color...
sheeprunner12 2 years, 2 months ago
I hear you ....... Everyone has a price and a boss.
Sign in to comment
OpenID