There are crimes that are treated differently when committed against law enforcement. This occurs in several countries, to include Jamaica.

When you kill a police officer in Jamaica it’s considered capital murder. That means that the law can hang you. They don’t, but they can. However, if you kill your wife, your son or your neighbour it’s non-capital. Seems odd. I know.

The question often is asked, why are crimes against police officers treated differently, if by any reasonable assessment they are most qualified to protect themselves. Well, it’s really the Government’s way of discouraging acts of violence against the State. It’s sort of a control mechanism.

I think it’s time to widen this approach to include persons charged for shooting at, or shooting police officers. The specific area of difference should be that they are ineligible for bail once they are charged for a primary act of violence against a police officer.

I am so moved to suggest this as there is an epidemic of mortal violence against police officers over the last two years, and at least on one occasion the primary suspect in one of the shootings where a police officer has been shot is a man on bail for shooting at other police officers. That just doesn’t seem right.

Some ask why should police cases be treated any differently? Well, that’s because of the expectation of the public and the dynamic of the job. Let me break it down for you.

The average member of the public is not being ordered to go and accost gunmen, to go close to them often in the dead of night to search them for an illegal gun, to enter their homes, or to stop their cars, to not fire until they see danger which, by any logical calculation, will result in them finishing second in a gunfight.

Does this still seem unclear? Well, it would seem a lot clearer if you heard the screams of agony I just heard from a recently wounded young police officer, or another one I saw recently that cannot yet lift a finger.

You see, if we are going to ask these young men and women, ‘people pickney’, like anyone else to do these difficult jobs, then we have to be a bit less obtuse or at least more logical in our thought process.

We also do not want two things to occur:

Firstly, we do not want cops so intimidated that they fire prematurely. Secondly, we do not want them to start avoiding combat. I have seen the latter after The Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) was granted the power to arrest police officers and the effect was a murder rate that soared.

Gunmen need to know that firing at the police will result in serious consequences. No bail once charged for shooting or shooting at the police or soldiers is a start.

This would create a culture of running rather than engaging. This is contrary to the culture I am now seeing which is to fire, get arrested, get bail, and then do it again.

It would be my choice to have no bail for gun offences, but in the immediate future that is going to be difficult. However, I see where you could get away with blocking of bail for shooting at the police. It’s reasonable, maybe unconstitutional, maybe not, but it’s reasonable. It’s also necessary because I do not like where this is going.

I think it’s possible to get this law passed for another reason. It will likely be unopposed. The Opposition is not stupid. They will push back on laws that impact the general population, but if it’s to protect the lives of law enforcement they will not.

This election is going to be too close to give the appearance that they don’t care about police safety.

As a police officer I have been at the receiving end of gangsters’ guns on many occasions and most of the times I have been unharmed. I believe that this was mainly because running alone would not have guaranteed escape, so they used last resort tactics to achieve escape. This trend is different. This is men choosing to shoot because they can. After all, if they are captured, they can be bailed in less than a month, by far. Why not fire? It aids the escape.

Many countries that judge us harshly do not give bail once you harm or attempt to harm law enforcement. That is, even though they technically allow it in law.

Well, our defence bar is better than most other legal jurisdictions, trust me. If Peter Champagnie, Tom Tavares-Finson or Valerie Neita were in Rome, that Brutus thing could have worked out differently.

All lives matter. None are more important than others. We, however, want the job of fighting the gangs to continue. We have to create a playing field where this can occur. We need to extend the no-bail rule to apply for attacks on judges and prosecutors. They also need special measures in place for their protection.

We either want to fight this war or we don’t. In this case, I am not asking for a lot.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com