Dear Editor,
I must confess that at the first reading of Mr. Robin Williams’ vain attempt to dispose of my contention that police are not trained to shoot to kill, I was confused. From his incoherent and jumbled assertions I concluded that he may have employed his emotions rather than his intellect to deal with the subject.
Allow me to categorically state that I have never disputed that all police shootings should be thoroughly investigated. There is a constitutional mechanism for so doing but whether or not that mechanism is functioning is entirely another matter. Therefore, there was absolutely no need for Mr. Williams to refer to that in his rebuttal.
Certainly, when he said “Thus the incessant, and excuse me, ineffectual lament that continues to be the basis for examination of police shootings is redundant”, he could not have been referring to anything that I had said.
Further, the fact that Mr. Williams could have asked for the authority from which I gleaned the principles of ‘Opening Fire’ is evidence that he did not take time to carefully read my letter. I said that these are contained in an instrument called Force Orders and I now invite him to research them. Is it that Mr. Williams is reckless?
I believe that it may be a waste of time to debate him on the matter as he seems fixed in his thoughts. However, before taking my exit, I would respectfully request of him to identify the Title, Chapter and Section of the Law or Police Regulations which speaks about the use of deadly force by the police.
Indeed, I believe that our vernacular would not speak of the use of deadly force, but the use of minimum force.
Secondly, if it is that the police are trained to shoot to kill why do they seek frantically to save the life of someone who they would have shot, by rushing them to a hospital’s emergency department? Why try to save a life that you were trained to extinguish?
I don’t know that we use deadly force in Guyana. I know that we are required to use minimum force which may or may not have deadly or fatal consequences.
Finally, Mr. Williams needs to know that this discussion is not about yielding, winning or losing, but about the constitutional and moral obligations of those who took an oath to serve and protect the citizens of this nation.
I would submit that I was indeed trained at the TSU but not merely in the use of the baton. I received my baton training in Training School, but at the TSU, I was trained in the use of pyrotechnic devices, small arms and the then current assault weapons and advised to always endeavour to use minimum force.
Sir, permit me to reiterate that unless Mr. Williams can cite the Title, Chapter and Section of the Law or Police Regulations which says that ranks are trained to shoot to kill instead to disable, I would have no further contribution to make to this discourse. In the meantime woe be unto those who follow his teachings and may God have mercy on us all.
Yours faithfully,
Francis Carryl
