Veronica Atherley, the newspaper vendor who was accidentally shot at Stabroek Square on Saturday, succumbed yesterday to her injuries while on a life support machine in the Intensive Care Unit of the Georgetown Public Hospital.
Scores of relatives and friends who had turned up to visit the woman at the usual 4 pm visiting hour went into the ward only to find her lifeless body on the bed. Relatives burst into loud wails and screams. As they cried, they lamented how good and hard-working a woman Veronica was. They also expressed surprise at the woman’s death, calling it sudden. As they cried and held on to each other, they said that even though the woman was in a critical condition, they had remained hopeful that she would have recovered.
According to hospital sources, the woman died at approximately 3 pm while still attached to the life support machine.
Atherley was sitting at her stand in the Stabroek Market area on August 29 selling newspapers, when she was shot by a licensed firearm holder. According to reports, two men attempted to rob the firearm holder in the Stabroek Market area and while attempting to flee, the man opened fire on the duo, missing his target but hitting the vendor. Atherley was hit in the region of her hip and was immediately rushed to the public hospital, bleeding profusely from the wound. The shooter attempted to flee after he realized that he had shot the woman but several persons pursued him and he was apprehended. Stabroek News understands that the man was released on station bail on Tuesday.
The injured woman was initially admitted a patient to the female surgical ward of the GPH but was subsequently moved to the ICU after her condition took a turn for the worse.
Questions have been raised about the charge that could be brought against the shooter. With Atherley’s passing, legal sources say the shooter could be charged with manslaughter.
Legal sources have observed that the licensed firearm holder is not exempt from prosecution because he was a victim and/or was targeted by criminals, and have argued that the act of discharging a firearm in a crowded area amounts to extreme recklessness.
“He ought not to face any charges if he had no intention to hit that woman, but he also ought not to discharge his firearm in a crowded area, such action amounts to extreme recklessness and the law is also cognizant of that”, a source said. By recklessly discharging his firearm in Stabroek Market square, the source said, Atherley’s wounding was the consequence and that the man is therefore criminally liable in the eyes of the law for unlawful wounding.
This newspaper was told that the law recognizes lawful as well as the unlawful use of a firearm. The source said the shooter, in this instance, unlawfully used his weapon. It was explained that as a licensed firearm holder he is empowered to use his gun in defence of himself and his property, and that he could have shot at the men under different circumstances without his actions attracting criminal liability. “He was not defending himself or his property because he had already been attacked and the men were fleeing when he shot at them”, the source added.
According to the legal source, a police officer has certain legal powers to use reasonable force to apprehend criminals which are not afforded to a layman- which means that the officer could have drawn his weapon and fired while the robbers were fleeing. But the source observed that the environment where the incident occurred calls for greater precaution even when it is an officer who is at the centre of a similar scenario.
Further, the source pointed out that it is of no material importance that the bullet which hit Atherley was not intended for her because of the legal doctrine of transferred malice. The source said that the doctrine speaks of the intent to commit a wrongful act being transferred to the unintended victim of that act.
