Dear Editor,
I am truly troubled by the caption and contents of a letter which appeared in the SN of September 9, which read ‘There should be a civilian review board for all police killings.’ 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.’
I am indeed troubled for two reasons. The first is that Mr Williams, seemed to be unaware of the principles of ‘opening fire,’ and the second is that the competent authorities such as the police and army have remained silent on this most sensitive matter. Let me hasten to add that the principles of ‘opening fire’ are really the legal guidelines for when a policeman may shoot at a human being. One of the dangers of remaining silent is that those who seem to have a proclivity for shooting at the human target may accept the misconception that they have a right to shoot to kill.
Mr Williams chides the editor of the SN for not doing enough research on the matter, but I believe that if prior to penning his letter Mr Williams himself had done some research he may have discovered that the rules and guidelines for ‘opening fire’ most definitely imply that the object of shooting is to wound and not to kill.
Further, I am not sure that Mr Williams is correct in his advice that the Police Act is the authority on instructions and guidance on the use of “deadly force.” That act gives no such instruction. In this regard I would respectfully recommend that he do further research.
In the meantime, allow me to say that in 1973 when I was trained as a policeman I was taught that the main purpose of shooting at a human being was to destabilize him and not to kill him.
In those days when the most familiar weapon carried by a policeman was the Smith and Wesson point 38 revolver we were taught that whenever the weapon was to be removed from its holster that it must be for a definite purpose. That purpose was to shoot and immobilize a human being who posed a definite danger to your life or the life of another person, the destruction of property or a police station, etc.
These days police ranks can be seen brandishing their weapons at people, posing with them and so on.
As a matter of fact, the standard operating procedure of the police force at that time dictated that whenever a policeman uplifted a firearm to proceed on legitimate duty the Firing Orders had to be read to him by the senior rank in charge. But what exactly are the Firing Orders?
The Firing Orders are contained in Police Force Orders and fall under the caption of ‘When You May Fire.’ I do not recall the number of the force orders but the contents are as follows:
You may fire:
1. when you are attacked and you apprehend serious danger to your person and are unable to defend yourself by any other means;
2. when property you are ordered to defend is attacked and you are unable to safeguard it by any other means;
3. when an attack is made to rescue a person in lawful custody;
4. when anyone is found committing or about to commit a felony, eg, murder, dangerous violence to a person, robbery, burglary, shop-breaking, store-breaking, house-breaking, arson or larceny, and does not desist after warning and cannot be deterred or arrested by any other means;
5. to prevent any police station or police outpost from being over-run;
6. when so ordered by a superior in rank.
Now! These orders are plain, simple and easy to understand. They do not instruct as to which part of the body the fire should be directed, but in class and on the drill square ranks are taught that one must always aim at the lower part of the body where no vital organ is located.
Further, these orders certainly do not advise that a fleeing suspect should be fired upon.
Therefore, the circumstances under which Mr Carlyle Benn was recently shot makes one wonder whether the Firing Orders are still in effect. They make me wonder also, whether or not the police are indeed trained to shoot to kill as implied by Mr Robin Williams or are they trained to shoot to wound and disable.
I think that the motto of a soldier worldwide is kill or be killed, but I am yet to learn of a police force in any democratic society whose legitimate policy is shooting to kill.
It is therefore my burning desire to invite the competent authorities including the Commissioner of Police, the Head of the Guyana Defence Force and the Chairman of the Police Complaints Authority as I hereby do, to pronounce on this issue.
Thus far they have all remained silent, but if they choose to reject my invitation by remaining in their silence let me remind them of the following speech by President Abraham Lincoln who said, “To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.”
Finally, all properly organized private security companies whose employees are supernumerary ranks bearing arms have adopted the Firing Orders as part of their policy, and for that reason I respectfully invite the head of the Private Security Association to also pronounce on the matter. Should the police shoot to kill or shoot to disable?
Yours faithfully,
Francis Carryl
