Comments on: Police: Magistrate Gilhuys firearm not licensed for 2008

By: Cheryl

Cheryl — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 22:25:53 +0000

SN very good, no he sey, she sey u r going to get into, u have always checked ur facts b4 reporting, they r looking 4 a scape goat, they barking up the wrong tree, keep up the good works. Now, wasn’t it reported that the cop was shot from the back,? that means he was either walking/running away, fancy this, the attending physician cannot state the ingress and egress of the bullet, nonsense, someone is covering up, as usual. although as stated, the police men were not supposed to be in that area, they were there anyhow, so, what this have to do with the shooting,? some policemen,(I was told,) goes around that area to peek at nights, whether this was so or not, the magistrate stated, he was there to relieve himself, the policemen were not supposed to be there, and the magistrate was not supposed to be there either to urinate, the time he took to drive there to urinate, I’m sure he passed many shops,(and being a magistrate,) no one would have refused him to use their bathroom, so get real, not hearing of the other person who was in the car with him.

We want to hear the reason why this magistrate would not be charged for an unlicensed weapon, I could not have used an unlicensed weapon and not be charged, locked up, without bail and taken to this same magistrate, and not served time, so the laws changes for the higher-ups and the every day poor man feels the pinch.

I remembered reading that this magistrate was sitting in his car, at the time he was approched by these cops, if the magistrate sole purpose was to drive there to urinate, why was he still sitting in his car, would’nt he have urinated and drove away.?

This maigstrate was a cop also, he studied and gained his position thereafter, simple day to day people, down to earth people, can think better.

The DPP needs to look into this matter further, come on DPP, what about the unlicensed weapon.?

By: gtintrouble

gtintrouble — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:56:52 +0000

I don’t know what will be the fate of the acting Commissioner of Police now that he has exposed and embarrassed the DPP. This confirmation is particularly important and clearly Mr. Gilhuys ought not to return to the bench. Possession of an unlicensed firearm is a straightforward charge for the police to institute. It’s either he had a licence and the police records would indicate that or he didn’t. This whole sordid affair has tarnished the already bad image of the justice system. It’s rather fishy that the police who collect witness statements in criminal matters had no sight of the victim’s statement requesting no further police action. Very sad case indeed.

By: drumup_change

drumup_change — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:05:43 +0000

……………………….thank you west.bank………………….there is more in the mata than the dam pessle……………ag greeeeeeeeeeen!!……………… very well know what went on that night when gilhyus check in at brickdam …………….rule of tumb …………when somethings of this nature occour……..who do you contact?……….why did they ask him to turn in all the wepons he had in a earlier report ……………………this story got teeth…………..!! and we the people watching………………all the government operatives trying to save gilhyus…………………….

By: MR, WEST.BANK

MR, WEST.BANK — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:41:37 +0000

Mr Gilhuys refused to lodge his gun at Brickdam when the cops
told him to do so, can’t be charged for disobeying the police
orders Mr GREEEEEENE ???????????????, You don’ t need
Ms Ali-Hack advice on this one.

By: MR, WEST.BANK

MR, WEST.BANK — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:27:38 +0000

An early report had stated that Gilhuys did not return his gun
when he left the Guyana Police Force to sit on the bench, now
i’m hearing that he did not renew his gun for 2008, is this
the same gun ????????, if so why ????????, he is not a
cop.

By: decanadianCarlVeecock

decanadianCarlVeecock — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:26 +0000

Coolieman….my earlier response to you got axed and I suspect two reasons:

1. that I started it with your name (an apparent NO NO )

2. that it was direct to you.

Well ah gun try again but dis time mek it longer fuh de Moderator !

You write about “some bloggers who sometimes go off course”, but like you
forget yourself ! man meh tell yuh, lot of times you get me lost with your
“off course ” comments, so now ah really surprise dat you would accuse
others of the same ting dat you doing !

Check it out next time , man.

Right now SN don”t have to defend itself cause it publishes the facts…
true true facts !

By: malaika06

malaika06 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:52:10 +0000

Hey OP
That was directed to Colt45 and not you

By: Melainie

Melainie — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:17:29 +0000

What is good for the goose should be good for the gander,these people are crazy trying to defend this mans actions.

By: drumup_change

drumup_change — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:15:48 +0000

………………….Ulrick.!!!!……………….Gilhyus………………..hmmmmmmmmm!!……….he new what he was up against……………!!!………..he new of the fire arm state he had tuck away……………this police department made a call for all fire arm holders to renew their fire arm……………………..this year was half gone and he was still packing and tucking away an unlicesed fire arm……………now officer george in pain…………….because he poor……….and don’t have money………..let us follow him as he live through the rest of his life………………..

By: MOST

MOST — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:15:22 +0000

Yo fellows let me see one of u tell me how to pronounce your magistrate’s name GILHUYS.I keep hearing something like GILHOUSE,GILHUGHES,GILHUSS etc.Thanks.I may win a $20 bucks mates so help me on this cool.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:10:36 +0000

Hey bro I forgot to mention that my Attorney in requesting the return of my firearm the Magistrate H.W. Maxwell Edwards said ” I cannot grant same as i was in a similar position as your client and the Police are never there to see the threat levelled at you to decide you had no right to discharge your weapon”

There are a quite a few injustices meted out to me in our system but this one i had to pen as you rightly said “if you have a godfather, uncle or someone in the GPF you safe well i don’t have one my brother so i had to feel John Q Public pain. You know what though I still chasing bandits through the streets of the city and caught a few too that has been sent to prison.
I aint hate the Police you know is the system. as there are still some good members in the force that are doing their jobs “Protect and Serve”

By: MOST

MOST — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 18:10:03 +0000

Hey SN very good reporting and don’t let GPF cop lead u into gaff.You keep stating the facts just how u get it,I like that.Way to go SN.you c how u have Greene shaking.I look to c how this develops.SN I look for ur take in the Roger Khan breaking news.

By: Pessimist

Pessimist — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:12:52 +0000

Well this is simply an indication of the altered motto of the GPL. It is no longer To Protect and Serve but Pretend to Serve. People are denied bail in Guyana for possession of spent shells. They are charged by the Pretend to Serve Police. Here is an individual with an unlicensed weapon. I was unaware that the COP has to seek the DPP’s permission to institute a charge for an unlicensed weapon. Maybe the COP as a qualified attorney is attempting to establish a precedent for when he practices or he is just Pretending to Serve.

By: malaika06

malaika06 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:33:17 +0000

Hush, you speak from both sides of your mouth. I seem to recall the other day you supporting the DPP’s decision not to prosecute Gilhuys

By: Optimistic Pessimist

Optimistic Pessimist — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:54:02 +0000

Is that so Ricardo???

See? Same thing I did deh sehing. One is in either of two positions with regards the laws of Guyana; either above it or beneath it.

By: Optimistic Pessimist

Optimistic Pessimist — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:52:13 +0000

The facts speak for themselves coolieman, SN is demonstrating class by not getting into a “dem seh she seh” affair.

By: Optimistic Pessimist

Optimistic Pessimist — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:49:28 +0000

(cheering) BRAVO!!! Colt, we seein eye to eye on this one bannas… there is hope for us yet.

OBVIOUSLY we see here that there is a different interpretation of the laws of Guyana relative to which side of the law you stand on.

If you are John Q Public with no ‘Godfather’ in politics or uncle or cousin an officer in the GPF, then you get treated to the full measure of the law plus some. If you enjoy the protection of the prevailing government of the day or if you find yourself in the ranks of those who pledge to uphold the laws of Guyana, the laws of Guyana does not apply to you… ah mean after all, if you gun uphold de laws of Guyana then dem laws doan really apply to you does it?

Convoluted reasoning, advantage taking, and friends in high places? You bet!

By: MACK

MACK — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:00:42 +0000

There will be no change. What can the acting Commissioner not do today that he will be able to do if he is conformed. I don’t think he should be confirmed. We need someone who is competent. This government don’t seem to be able to find competent people though.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:28:03 +0000

Well! well! well! I fired my licensed weapon in the air because of an imminent threat on my life and business and you know what my license was revoked. You know what was their rationale behind this. “You should have waited for them to make their first move, then fire your weapon” My answer to them was simple “had i let them make their first move and i was shot, you would have said we are issuing licences to civilians and they are not using it to protect themselves”
At my trial the magistrate asked the prosecutor ” when is it right to fire a licensed weapon as the police are not there to say the level of threat to the individual” he could not answer. Guess the level of threat to Mr. Gilhuis was extremely high.
As i said previously GPF law “Do as i say not as i shoot”

By: coolieman

coolieman — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 14:02:42 +0000

Stabroek should have defended itself on this one why wait on some bloggers who sometimes go off course

By: guy123

guy123 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:56:56 +0000

I think we should try and look at this thing from a different angle and we will see that the police tried to advantage the wrong man,I am not defending Gilhuys,these policemen have been shooting first and asking questions after,but in this case it was a man who knew the game only too well,he could teach them a thing or two,it was just a case of the boot on the other foot anyhow you look at it.

By: Ulric

Ulric — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:48:24 +0000

The big picture of the episode involving the magistrate and the constable is missed by many. Yes, the policeman was investigating what was to him a vehicle that was “heavily tinted”, and to his police instincts (credit to him) was suspicious. What is missing here is that the police force does not have the operational capacity, or did not employ this capacity to illuminate the suspected vehicle and properly identify themselves. The big picture,therefore is not what occured and its aftermath;not the statements by Stabroek news or the Commissioner of Police, but what should the public expect from the police going forward when officers employ their investigative taticts regarding tinted vehicles, or any other vehicle, in limeted lighting or unlighted areas. I agree with Vecock that the magistrate should have been charged with the possession of an unlicensed firearm. My question to the COP is: when will he charge the magistrate for the crime of “possesor of unlicensed firearm holder with intent ? I say no more

By: colt45

colt45 — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:25:16 +0000

wha nonsense dis we hearing. Man discharging unlicensed firearm and he na deh in lackup yet. He bove the law or what.

By: John Smith

John Smith — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 13:14:58 +0000

Well,well, this is Guyana, beautiful Guyana. I dare any civilised country in the world to copy our system, lets see if it is going to work.