Sixteen-year-old Kelvin Fraser was killed on Monday when the shot from a policeman’s gun entered his body, perhaps damaging vital organs or severing a major artery. At the time this editorial was being written there was as yet no result from the post-mortem examination determining which it was.
There have been conflicting reports about whether he was shot in the back, as his family said, or in the chest during a scuffle as the police have claimed. If he was shot in the back as he was fleeing, it makes what the policeman did 1,000 times worse, though a chest wound would not make the issue any less damning. The fact is that no policeman should be chasing an unarmed 16-year-old with a gun in his hand.
There were alternatives to the police’s actions on Monday. Number one: he could have done nothing. Let Kelvin Fraser run away. His colleagues already had other young men in their custody. If indeed Kelvin was breaking the law in any way, then the police would have been able to find him through his friends or through the school. Number two: he could have chased Kelvin Fraser but left his weapon behind. Before the patrol went to respond to the report at the school, the police officers would have been aware that they were not entering a dangerous or hostile environment. Therefore there was no need for guns.
Though one would have to agree that there have been instances in the past where armed and dangerous youths have shot at the police and run rings around them, this was not such a case. Even though the reports about why the police were called to the Patentia Secondary School where it all began in the first place were contradictory, none suggested that any of the young men at the school were committing murder or robbery under arms. No one there could be considered armed and dangerous.
The police said in a press release that they had received a report that a group of young men were molesting female students at the school and they responded promptly. Commendable, but strange given how the police usually operate; there are rarely any prompt responses to robbery under arms, domestic violence and other such crimes.
Kelvin Fraser ran from the police, but according to them, so did three other youths. Kelvin must have been running the fastest as it would appear that he almost got away before he was shot. Maybe he ought not to have run from the police, but this is an issue the force needs to work on. The Guyana Police Force (GPF) does not inspire anyone with confidence, much less young men. Most are afraid that the police would brutalise them or lock them up or both, even if they have not committed any crime, or do much worse if they believe they have. The MO of the police is well known. The police are feared.
It had been suggested in the past that perhaps what Guyana needs is not a police force, but a police service, taking the emphasis of what policemen and women are supposed to be doing away from force and putting it on service. The motto of the force is ‘Protect and Serve,’ but this is the exception rather than the norm. Citizens are always surprised when they come upon police officers who actually protect and serve. They write letters to the editor commending the officer/s who is/are in fact simply doing their job/s – a clear indication that there are too many others who are not doing theirs.
Why was Kelvin Fraser shot? He was shot because the GPF persists in placing guns in the hands of policemen with itchy trigger fingers who have no clue about how or when to exercise judgement or who simply don’t care. Sadly, this is the image of the GPF. It’s one that needs changing. Perhaps the killing of Kelvin Fraser will prove to be the much needed catalyst.
