Dear Editor,
Mr Francis Carryl’s letter captioned ‘Should the police shoot to kill or disable?’ in which he cited a letter I wrote on the subject, completely misrepresents the thrust of my letter. Mr Carryl said, “Mr Robin Williams, the author of the letter argued in effect that police regulations and training did not promote shooting to wound. The corollary of that argument is ‘Police regulations and training promote shooting to kill.’”
He went on, “I am indeed troubled for two reasons. The first is that Mr Williams, seemed to be unaware of the principles of ‘opening fire.’” Both these statements represent evidence that he did not carefully peruse the contents of my letter.
For Mr Carryl’s information and that of so many who continue to ask these questions without bothering to avail themselves of an awareness of the Guyana police training and regulations, mine was not an argument for the right of the police to shoot to kill. Mine was an argument that policemen, soldiers et al, the world over are not trained to wound their targets. Thus, the incessant and, excuse me, ineffectual lament that continues to be the basis for examination of police shootings is redundant. Like I said in my previous letter, which should have convinced anyone that I was not supporting the indiscriminate use of deadly force by the Guyana Police Force, the time spent on this argument takes away from the scrutiny of circumstances in many police shootings that suggest blatant abuse of that power. What is it about us in this country that we leap over that which conditions an argument or an assertion, in order to find something to dovetail with our opposing view?
Mr Carryl states that I seem to be unaware of the principles for opening fire. From which authority did he glean those principles he references? Surely if we are examining the use of deadly force by the police in Guyana the legal principles we are compelled to reference would be what is inscripted in Police Regulations and the Laws of Guyana. That principle basically states that policemen are authorized to resort to deadly force when they come under attack and cannot defend themselves by any other means. We will seek in vain to find any proviso under those statutes, acts or ordinances, that advises that the police should aim to wound the target. So where does Mr Carryl draw this implication he uses to impeach my position?
Mr Carryl reproduces the Police Regulations which essentially support my comments on when the police are authorised to use deadly force. But then he gets into the confused mode of arguing that those regulations do not point out where to aim. FYI would occur in training. Let me republish my comment in that regard. I wrote, “What you would have discovered, is that law enforcement officers are not trained, instructed or advised to shoot to wound when they are compelled to resort to deadly force in order to neutralize a suspect.” Law enforcement officers do not learn how to shoot from the regulations. That informs them when they can shoot. Law enforcement officers learn how to shoot from physical training instructions. If Mr Carryl was in training in 1973, he would have undergone that training under the TSU, and he would have been instructed to focus his fire at the body of the target. He would not have been instructed to shoot at the legs or arms of the target.
Mr Carryl’s argument about targeting the portion of the body where no vital organs are located relates to the use of implements like the baton. That is what you learn when using your baton. Use of the baton does not come under the heading of deadly force. Use of a firearm does. I would argue that it is counter-productive to train law enforcement officers to aim at the legs of targets when such a policy can result in serious injury or death to innocent bystanders. This is a romantic illusion gleaned from confusing the shooting we see in western movies with real life scenarios.
I yield no ground to Mr Carryl in terms of my advocacy for scrutiny of the use of deadly force by law enforcement. I have been a critic of that since Kit Ceasar was shot in Tiger Bay eons ago. My awareness in this context continued throughout my years in law enforcement, and up to my examinations of similar situations in the US. My consciousness is not a recent emotional epiphany that detracts from my ability to examine a situation based on what exists, and to put forward suggestions for resolutions. An internal inquiry should follow every use of deadly force by a law enforcement official in Guyana. But beyond that, there should be a civilian review board made up of persons capable of carrying out objective examinations of the circumstances under which deadly force is used. Unless police training and regulations unambiguously and specifically direct law enforcement officials how and when to shoot to wound, and how and when to shoot to kill, the continued occupation with that line of reasoning is akin to fiddling away argumentatively while the house burns to cinders. Neither Mr Carryl nor all of the king’s horses and all of the king’s men will be able to change the regulations from where they are at. The conscious and sincere mindset seeking intervention in this issue will understand that independent scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the use of deadly force by law enforcement in Guyana will infinitely benefit the victims or potential victims of such force, rather than the wailing lament that the police should be shooting to wound.
Yours faithfully,
Robin Williams