Dear Editor,

The widely circulated video of a retired police officer being pepper-sprayed by a member of the Jamaica Constabulary Force has generated widespread discussion.

We should, however, be guided by the tests that are used to determine whether or not force was properly and appropriately used.

The first test is whether or not the officer was in danger. Clearly, in this case, the officer who used the pepper spray was not in danger.

The second test is whether the officer was defending someone else and/or himself from imminent danger which would justify a pre-emptive strike or from active danger meaning he is under immediate threat or someone is under immediate threat to whose defence he came. Again, it does not seem to be the case that the officer was defending himself or anyone else.

The third test is to ask what choice the officer had apart from using the pepper spray. The officer could have asked the motorist for another type of identification in the absence of his driver’s licence. He could also ask for the documents for the vehicle and see if those could assist him in properly identifying the driver. He could give the driver time to present his driver’s licence at a police station.

The fourth, and perhaps the most important test, is to ask the officer what he intended to achieve by pepper-spraying the citizen sitting in his car. And since he, in fact, pepper-sprayed the citizen, ask the officer what has been achieved by doing so.

If the conduct of the officer has failed these four tests, then the officer cannot justify what he has done.

In discussing the video making the rounds on social media and the news media, let us assess the conduct of the officer guided by the tests suggested herein.

Linton P Gordon

Ocho Rios, St Ann

lpgordon@cwjamaica.com