The title of this article expresses my feelings about the tragedy of the death of Immaculate Conception High School student Vanessa Kirkland, and the convictions of the three police officers who were involved in the shoot-out that led to her death. The officers were granted bail last week whilst they await the result of their appeal.

I am still hurt about the conviction and imprisonment of the officers, but I am not sore, as I do not go to bed worrying about them being shanked in some cell and look forward to this nightmare ending soon.

This is not the first time this column has been dedicated to my opposition to the convictions of these officers. The last time I apparently offended at least two people involved with the case, which is unfortunate, because I hold both in high esteem. That being said, my views and freedom of the press are important to me, so I will express how I feel. I will, however, write without emotion and try to be as balanced as possible.

Let me examine what we know for sure. First, the car that featured in the shooting was definitely involved in an armed robbery that night shortly before it was engaged by the police. We know this because the phone stolen in the robbery was recovered from the car, as well as keys belonging to the robbery victim.

Second, a revolver was definitely put into evidence as having been recovered from the car.

Third, the gun was loaded with three live rounds and three spent shells.

Fourth, spent shells can only become ‘spent’ if they are fired.

On the prosecution’s side, Vanessa Kirkland is not a gunman and no evidence was offered to infer that she was present during the armed robbery. So we can agree that an innocent person lost her life in this incident.

A total of 30 rounds were said to have been fired by the police, compared to three from the recovered gun. The witness from the car denies firing. So the question of whether the man fired from the car is left to who the jury believes.

The witness also denies knowledge of the gun’s presence in the car. That, too, was a matter for the jury. Well, they rejected the police account.

They believed a man who claims he was present in a car that fits the description of one that had just been used in an armed robbery and that had the stolen property from said robbery in it. Hmmm. What am I missing here?

Okay. So, let us look at comparative and reasonable force. There is only evidence that three rounds were fired from the recovered gun. There is no actual proof that all the guns that may have been fired at the police were recovered.

However, looking at physical evidence present it may, to the untrained eye, seem excessive. But bear in mind there were three guns firing at the same time. So you will obviously have more rounds being expended. And it is automatic weapons being fired by the police. Even the Glock pistol that was used can expend 14 rounds in under three seconds. The volume of rounds fired supports the argument that it was a shoot-out.

There are issues that we can debate in this matter. Many, in fact. But here is what we cannot debate. The three police officers, who until recently were caged like animals, challenged that vehicle for one reason only — because it was said to have just been used in an armed robbery in Waterford, St Catherine.

The officers were not stealing drugs, or drunk, or on an escapade of their own. They are paid to protect and serve, and that is what they were doing. I think we all agree with that, no matter on which side of the trial we sit. This fact in mind, they are not criminals.

No one should feel good about caging these two men and one woman, and personally I do not think they do. These Jamaican citizens were law-abiding persons, peace officers serving in our police force, not an occupying army from an enemy state.

They did not cause this tragedy.

This incident occurred because young men in our country continue to use violence to steal what they did not work for. A group just like them killed a young, working man in New Kingston last Wednesday night.

Do you want the police to challenge gunmen?

Well, if gunmen are challenged there will, at some time, be combat. This often will result in collateral damage.

Do we then throw our officers under the truck when it goes wrong?

The child’s death warranted vengeance. The conviction supplied it. But that does not make it right.

What of the men who really caused this tragedy? Am I the only person who feels that the armed robbers have got away scot-free?

If there was no robbery that night, there would have been no engagement, and Vanessa would be alive today. Why are we not calling for the robbers’ incarceration?

The front-line police officers of this country are afraid of being caught up in this witch hunt for any who wears the scarlet letter for engaging gunmen.

This case helped fuel the fear.

This is a fact.

Anybody who tells you differently is simply lying. We are heading right back to the dark days of 2010 when we were so dominated by gangs that our prime minister challenged the United States in fear of one; to 2009 when we topped the world’s per capita rate for murder; to 1988 when a man was dragged by Tivoli Gardens gunmen from a police station and killed on its steps.

It is time to face the fact that as a nation we have blundered, and we need to make the hard decisions to fix it. This bail is a good first step. I commend the jurist who granted it. I also commend the Peter Champagnie-led defence team that pressed for it. Many would have just moved on.

Let the issues now be examined by the nation’s finest minds in the Court of Appeal. Perhaps soon this, like many horrible chapters in our country’s history, will cease to divide us and we can all be at peace. To include the spirit of Vanessa Kirkland.

Feedback: jasonamckay@gmail.com