Many years ago there was the police and the public. The lines were defined.

The police were kings and did all the important stuff, to include guarding banks and tax offices.

Then things started to change. This was firstly stimulated by the overwhelming need for security that the police could not satisfy by themselves.

This led to security officers being armed, overseeing the security of banks, and eventually being the sole custodian of the movement and security of cash.

Then came the patrol teams and the militaristic outfits that shook the foundation that only the police could brandish guns in public.

This graduated to new levels when these teams moved up from revolvers to pistols and then for several years were carrying better weapons than the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) in the pre-Glock era.

Wow! How the arrogant of the 70s must be shaking.

Another development of merging powers has come more recently with the power of arrest.

Major Organised Crime and Anti-Corruption Agency (MOCA) is no longer a JCF entity for all intents and purposes. But it has the power of arrest.

Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM) fought for years to have the right to arrest police, before giving up only after five foreigners told them they can’t. Thanks, Privy Council.

Let me say, categorically, that I support any action that gets more people involved in law enforcement and I don’t consider MOCA to be a civilian body.

Any citizen who swears an oath to be a law enforcement officer is no longer a civilian and I welcome that assistance. We need thousands more.

My issue, however, is that of confidential information. I heard recently that INDECOM had an interest in interviewing the witness in the Klansman trial who had been a secret agent.

There was also some complaint that he wasn’t presented for the interview whilst he was actually undercover.

So let me understand this. The police are expected to hand over confidential informants to civilians to be interviewed? OK. This opens a Pandora’s box. Let’s empty it.

So, therefore, I imagine there would have to be an adjustment to the oath taken by INDECOM officers so that there is a section regarding secrecy, like the Secrecy Act.

There would also have to be an understanding that no sworn INDECOM officer could participate as a defence attorney within five years of leaving INDECOM.

How would it look if police officers were handing over embedded agents to be interviewed by INDECOM personnel and then a year later see that agent defending organised crime operatives?

The very suggestion that the police force should hand over undercover agents to any civilian is abhorrent.

Confidential operations should remain so forever.

I welcome more sworn law enforcement personnel.

But police work is for police officers and civilians are not to be involved in this process, especially in respect of regulation and regulators.

More people need to be involved, I agree, but after they have become sworn police officers, not before.

INDECOM needs to investigate shootings; therefore, they need to analyse statements, crime scenes, and determine if the shooting is justified.

They really have no place in deciding whether your strength was adequate or whether you got information from Tom, Dick, or Harry.

Focus on the shooting, not on the police investigation that led to the shooting.

Police policy and risk analysis are for police administrators, not civilian investigators.

It doesn’t stop with investigations, it extends to the creation of laws and policies.

I was reading an Act the other day and immediately realised that the author of the Act had not spent a day in police operations. It was written and determined by a politician guided by a lawyer. There was no crime fighter involved in that party.

I see it often. People create policies and laws that they know nothing about.

Experience is a peculiar asset. So is specialisation.

I know a thing or two about investments, but you don’t want me running the Financial Services Commission (FSC). And they wouldn’t give me the job.

Yet I doubt if any laws that have been passed in recent years have had the input of police officers, and if so, their specialty was not crime fighting.

I have problems with the wording of the INDECOM Act, the commitment to bypass preliminary enquiries and the anti-gang legislation, although the latter was recently improved.

We have a number of former and current crime fighters, such as Senior Superintendent of Police Terrence Bent, former Commissioner of Police Owen Ellington, and former Commissioner of Police Dr Carl Williams, whose input should be sought on any Act that impacts police officers.

This extends to the Firearm Licence Authority (FLA). They often make rules regarding security companies’ operations, specifically firearms, and I wonder if they ever included a security company director prior to the creation of these rules.

We are the experts, not them. I think our input could only assist.

This also extends to the Private Security Regulation Authority (PSRA) and the Ministry of Labour.

The problem with regulation is that it gets too tied up with who is the boss of whom, rather than creating the best system possible.

I respect INDECOM on the quality of their investigations and the selection of their human resources. As an employer, I plan to steal some of them, but as a cop I don’t consider them my superior officer.

I have observed the FLA as a regulator of registered firearms, and declare it to be the most efficient Government body in Jamaica and the best gun-control body on the planet, without exaggeration.

But they don’t supersede the police in relation to criminal investigation. I wish, though, that we could adapt their efficient culture.

We all have a part to play. But we have to know our lane and stay in it.

It’s not about who is the boss of whom. This mentality turned Jamaica against the JCF. It’s about performing our own function to the best of our ability and leaving our egos at home.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com