Dear Editor,
I learnt with much grief about the death of Police Sergeant 16934 Leonard La Rose. Both Kaieteur and Stabroek News of March 2 carried stories about his death. He was murdered at Matthews Ridge. Two of his subordinates were wounded and the assailant was shot in the leg. News of this irreparable loss struck me like a bolt from the blue. I believe that all those knew Leonard are equally perturbed.
I first came into contact with La Rose when he was enlisted in the Guyana Police Force as a constable. We thereafter developed and maintained a strong friendship until his death. He displayed excellent interpersonal skills and worked well with his superiors, peers, subordinates and members of the public. When I was the police commander in charge of E and F Division he worked under my command at Orinduik Police Station on the Guyana-Brazil border. I vividly recalled an occasion when he was ill. There was no medical facility at that location. La Rose was able to influence his Brazilian counterparts on the opposite side of the border to assist. They provided a helicopter to fly him to a town in Brazil where he received medical attention. He spent two days there and the chopper flew him back to Orinduik. After that I nicknamed him the ‘Sheriff.’ From then until his death he was my Sheriff. He had clean hands, a warm heart, a cool head and a passion for the job. That was the manner of man Leonard La Rose was. To his bereaved family, relatives,friends and the Guyana Police Force I extend my deepest sympathy in their moments of sorrow.
I trust that by now the police would have activated the Benevolent Fund established by Commissioner Laurie Lewis, the Fallen Heroes Fund set up by Commissioner Seelall Persaud and the government benefits set aside for members of the force killed in the line of duty. The police should also assist the family with funeral arrangements, help them to complete the paperwork required to receive benefits and provide continued support to the survivors.
No matter how routine an assignment might seem, a police officer’s life is often at risk. Death lurks around the next corner. Since 2002, thirty-five policemen were killed in the line of duty. The deadliest year was 2003, when nine policemen died. No police were killed in the line of duty during 2005, 2009 and 2011. Excluding those years an average of three policemen died in the line of duty each year. It amounts to one policeman killed every four months of a year. These stats are alarming for a small police force like Guyana. Should not the police conduct an analysis looking at trends, patterns and hotspots to develop and implement a strategy to prevent their most precious resource from being killed?
The killing of Sergeant La Rose and the most recent disaster in the Georgetown Prison raised many issues and concerns, including the code and conduct of law enforcement officers; the use of force; excessive force; the use of deadly force and many others.
The International Association of Chiefs of Police, Law Enforcement Code of Ethics states: “A police officer will never employ unnecessary force or violence and will only use such force in the discharge of duty as is reasonable in all circumstances.
“Force should be used only with the greatest restraint and only after discussions, negotiations and persuasion have been found to be inappropriate or ineffective. While the use of force is occasionally unavoidable, every police officer will refrain from applying the unnecessary infliction of pain or suffering and will never engage in cruel, degrading or inhuman treatment to a person.”
The IACP defines force as “the amount of effort required by the police to compel compliance from an unwilling subject.” This includes physical, electronic and firearm force. It defines excessive use of force as “the application of an amount and/or frequency of force greater than that required to compel compliance from a willing or unwilling subject.”
The GPF Force Orders 33/69 gives guidelines to members of the force as to when they may fire as it relates to the use of firearms. These are (a) When they are attacked and they apprehend serious danger to their person and arecunable to defend themselves by any other means; (b) when property they are ordered to defend is attacked and they are unable to safeguard it by any other means; (c) when an attack is made to rescue persons in lawful custody; (d) When anyone is found committing or about to commit felony, burglary, store-breaking, house-breaking, arson or larceny and does not desist after warning and cannot be deterred or arrested by any other means; (e) to prevent any police station or outpost from being overrun; (f) when so ordered by a superior in rank. This order has been in existence for forty-seven years. It has remained pristine. Not a word has changed. It was applicable then. In this changing environment should we not revisit it to ascertain whether or not it is relevant now?
Officers must use only the level and amount of force necessary to accomplish a law enforcement objective. Many types of force options continue to exist. The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center of the United States of America, Use of Force Model can be very instructive. It has five levels. Level one is the Compliant Level where no use of force is usually reasonable. Level Two is the Resistive (Passive) Level where the subject does not follow the officer’s commands. Force options here including guiding or directing the subject through hands-on techniques. Level three is the Resistive (Active) Level which occurs when a subject actively resists arrest. This option includes joint manipulation or restraints, leverage techniques, pressure points or even OC (pepper) spray, with a warning given first under proper circumstances. Level Four is the Assaultive (bodily harm) Level, a direct physical attack on an officer or others. Appropriate force options at this level include strikes with hands, fists, elbows or knees, kicks, baton strikes, and forcefully directing the subject to the ground. Level Five is the Assaultive (serious bodily harm or death) Level, where the appropriate response would be deadly force.
Police officers cannot sacrifice their personal safety for the sake of avoiding possible litigation. Use of Force specialist Nowicki (2000) says, “There are three rules relating to the use of force by an officer. Rule number one is that you go home the same way as when you went to work: alive. Rule number two is that you don’t go to prison. Rule number three is that you keep your job. If your use of force is reasonable, you protect yourself, your agency, the community and even the assailant. But if in doubt, always remember rule number one.”
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Conway
Retired Assistant Commissioner of
Police
