There has been a great deal of public and necessary discussion regarding the use of force by the police and the number of people they have killed since the start of the year. As I write, the statistics of those killed stand at around 58. What is not often mentioned is the number of people who have been murdered within the same time frame, which is over 100.

Mickel Jackson, executive director of Jamaicans For Justice (JFJ), arguably the premier human rights organisation in Jamaica, has berated the force for what she has described as unacceptable use of force by the police. The fulcrum of her criticism is the lack of use of body cameras by the men and women of the constabulary when carrying out their duties.

The latter is a relevant criticism. It is now standard practice in any respectable policing jurisdiction in the world that these cameras be worn by the police. It speaks to the matter of accountability and functions to restrain them from indulging in extra-judicial activities which often harm citizens. There is no reason our police should not be fully equipped with these cameras. I did not find Delroy Chuck’s, minister of national security, explanation of why this is not so fully convincing. There needs to be a more robust approach in getting this done.

With regard to the number of people killed by the police, I believe there is a narrative that fails to appreciate the vicious level of gun crimes in the country and the constant dangers to which the police are exposed. Daily, they face an existential threat from any number of the marauding gunmen in our country who kill without compunction and without asking questions. Full engagement in a gun battle can leave a police officer severely maimed, if not killed.

Let us be brutally frank, practical, and sensible here. In the midst of an intense gun battle in which lives on either side are at stake, no one has the time to make the necessary calculations to hit the kneecap or the ankle of the enemy. So those who believe that such calculation is possible are living in a dream world. And I am talking only in the instances of an ongoing battle between the police and gunmen. I acknowledge that the same cannot be true when the police have the decided advantage and shoots the person down in cold blood. That cannot be permitted or tolerated in a civilised society.

But we should have no illusions that when anyone engages the police with gun violence that such engagement has to be met with the overwhelming force necessary for the police to win. To think otherwise is to be foolhardy. So those who are so disposed to take on the police in this way must know what they are going to be up against. They must be advised, as the prime minister has done, that the police are now more well equipped to carry out their work, both in intelligence gathering, interceptions, and defending themselves from assaults.

Finally, Commissioner of Police Dr Kevin Blake seems to have been peeved at the criticisms of JFJ. He averred that they were seeking relevance by such criticisms. I certainly do not agree with this characterisation. The wearing of body cameras is a legitimate concern to raise. But human rights organisations must seek balance in their criticisms. The police are well within their remit to take on violence producers who attack them with guns. The spike in police killings is directly proportional to the number of attacks that they have to ward off by these producers. There is no proportionality between the number of people who are killed by gunmen and those who the police have to disable. The Independent Commission of Investigations (Indecom) must relentlessly pursue cases for which there is even a scintilla of doubt that the security forces acted extra-judicially. This is their job and in this they must not relent.

George Wright revisited

I appreciate the commentaries surrounding my last piece on the George Wright saga. I reference particularly Deacon Peter Espeut’s blog commentary on the subject.

Some people believe that unless there is a public display of penance or repentance on the part of those who have done wrong there can be no forgiveness for them. No one knows the severity of what Wright might have undergone in private to atone for his alleged infractions. At least give him the benefit of the doubt that there was a humbling of the mind as he sought counselling for himself and the alleged victim’s hand in marriage.

I can hear the naysayers saying that, even if he did, he didn’t mean it and will abuse again. But, of course, no one knows this as no one truly knows what happens in the private chambers of a couple unless they seek to divulge it.

Finally, I was really taken aback by Deacon Espeut’s admonition that I should at least, as a counsellor, take off my green shirt, if not as a columnist. The implications of this statement are obvious and I consider them beneath the dignity of the reverend gentleman to utter. He, too, is a columnist in another newspaper and I have never considered his writings in any partisan political vein. He is, of course, entitled to his opinions, but his comment is belittling, uncharacteristic of the calling we both espouse, and riven with the kind of partisan sentiments which we should both eschew. This is unworthy of you, my brother.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator, and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; Your Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. He hosts a podcast — Mango Tree Dialogues — on his YouTube channel. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.