Jamaicans are not so naïve as to not appreciate that there is strong connection between the increase in police killing of alleged criminals and the ongoing, pleasingly sharp decline in murders.

And while his choice of words may have been unfortunate, there is no doubt that Prime Minister Andrew Holness spoke truth in asserting that those who choose to violently confront the police, rather than peacefully turn themselves in, should be prepared to “meet their maker”.

In our view, it’s nonsensical to expect that a police officer and/or soldier whose life is under threat by someone shooting at him/her should return fire with any other intention but to kill.

That said, a huge problem is the many reports from our inner-city communities, in particular, of people insisting that their relatives, loved ones, neighbours, and friends were killed in cold blood by members of the security forces.

In such circumstances, it’s not enough for the commissioner of police, the minister of national security, or anyone else to simply say or suggest that the security forces acted lawfully and, by extension, that self-proclaimed eyewitnesses are lying.

The Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom), which probes cases of alleged abuse by the security forces — or any other investigator for that matter — need hard evidence, not just someone’s ‘say so’, to properly come to a conclusion.

That’s why body-worn cameras are so important. In fact, such equipment should protect police and soldiers from false allegations — a point underlined by Police Commissioner Dr Kevin Blake last September: “We always tell our police officers, ‘When you’re out there working and you don’t have a camera, you may be the only one not videoing the incident from your perspective…’”

That’s precisely why Indecom keeps complaining that members of the security forces involved in shootings were not wearing cameras.

Hence our dismay in recent months at word from Government officials, including the prime minister, as well as Dr Blake, that backup infrastructure — including data storage capacity to support body-worn cameras — is not yet operational in Jamaica.

Last November, as Dr Holness pledged that his Government was “100 per cent committed to having body-worn cameras become a standard feature of the police officer’s kit”, he was also reported as saying cameras are just one part of a broader system. That, the prime minister reportedly said, includes data storage and management facilities, secure data transfer systems, and reliable broadband connectivity.

We expect that the broader support system referred to by Dr Holness will be in place sometime soon to not only protect law officers, but also help in convicting criminals.

As an aside, we have also heard from National Security Minister Dr Horace Chang that wearing body cameras in combat situations is impractical. He has cited reasons, such as security force personnel who may have to take evasive action, possibly irreparably damaging their cameras in the process.

However, we believe the more pertinent challenge is absence of that backup capacity to store evidentiary images and information for court trials in months, perhaps even years, down the road.

Yet, we are left to wonder if, in the interim, even without the capacity for sophisticated, long-term data storage, use of available body-worn cameras in “targeted” police operations would not be of immediate evidentiary value to Indecom investigators?

If not, why not?