Isn't 'excessive force' a relative term? | Trinidad Express... http://www.trinidadexpress.com/letters/Isn_t__excessiv...

HOME NEWS SPORTS BUSINESS FEATURES OPINION LETTERS VIDEOS PHOTOS ADVERTISE

TOOLS
Isn't 'excessive
EMAIL THIS ARTICLE
SHARE PRINT THIS ARTICLE
force' a relative
term?
Story Created: Feb 18, 2011 at 12:39 AM ECT
(Story Updated: Feb 18, 2011 at 12:39 AM ECT )

Police Commissioner Dwayne Gibbs has come under heat recently for comments concerning the use
of excessive force in resisting criminal attacks.

Much of the criticism against him has stemmed from emotive reactions and from the hopelessness
and helplessness which has gripped the nation in the fight against crime.

However, Mr Gibbs has done no more than to state the legal position as it applies in Trinidad and
Tobago.

Any criticism against him on this basis therefore is not only unfounded but also unresearched.

What his comments have done, however, is to bring the debate concerning this matter back into the
public domain.

Recent events of retribution have the population cheering; perhaps it is time for the authorities to
revisit the issue and educate the public on the matter.

Surely if one's toe is stepped on in a Carnival fete, an appropriate response would not be to kill the
perpetrator and so it is from this perspective that reasonable force and reasonable response must be
viewed.

If one's life, security and family are under serious threat of personal violence, then that is another
matter that justifies reasonable response. As to the running down of a bandit and running him over with
a vehicle, this scenario is fraught with difficulties since the driver assumes the role of judge, jury and
executioner.

The need for justice must not give way to false judgment since no one can ask any questions of the Who among
favourite to
perpetrator after the deed is done.

If the bandit is guilty, then by all means I have no difficulty with the death penalty, but I fear that
vigilante justice may open up a veritable can of mayhem.

Has the time come for the authorities to review the legal position?

Surely!
View poll resu
Should one be allowed to kill or seriously wound a person who illegally and unlawfully enters one's
premises?

Should firearms be more readily available?

1 of 4 18/02/2011 07:18
Isn't 'excessive force' a relative term? | Trinidad Express... http://www.trinidadexpress.com/letters/Isn_t__excessiv...

All these issues and more have been brought to the fore and require full public consultation and candid
discussion.

Imran S Khan

via e-mail

Next article

Give masmen room to grow

MOST POPULAR

Comments (4) Granny and her Bible

'Safe' sex with condoms
Logged in as Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout untrue
JumbiesWatch Save us from noisy Soca
Chutney show
Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity
Sound of shooting
kijnuhbgvfcdxs 67p — 2 hours ago +1 The problem with housing
relief
WHO DONT HEAR HAVE TO FEEL,those two COCKROACHES got
exactly what they deserved and not one second too late

Reply Report
Weather Fo
phillnoir 86p — 2 hours ago +1

I agree with you writer Mr. Gibbs did state the legal side of this
story. The question is does a man have the right after the crime have
been committed, to run or drive down the bandit running him over
with his car? This cannot be, and Mr. Ali, though i sympathize with
him, yet i cannot condone his actions. The laws needs revision
otherwise what we will have is men and women going - seeking the
perpetrators of crimes and delivering their brand of justice, a la trini
style.

Reply Report

pplb4politics -1p — 1 hour ago +1

if u dont want to institute the death penalty in the courts, then it will
be instituted on the streets.

citizens hav a right to swift and accessible justice, and the current
system is not giving them that. all we are seeing is spillover justice.

Reply Report

JumbiesWatch 74p — less than 1 minute ago +1

2 of 4 18/02/2011 07:18
Isn't 'excessive force' a relative term? | Trinidad Express... http://www.trinidadexpress.com/letters/Isn_t__excessiv...

The reported facts were (followed by commentary on each):

1.The bandits had already left the scene of the crime and were some
distance away.

a. There was no suggestion that there was further threat to either the
attacked family, or to anyone else; no one being in the immediate
vicinity. In that context Shamshad Ali carried out a de novo
aggressive act that is itself a crime.
b. He rammed his car into the men (the actus reus). The intent (mens
rea) was unquestionable. It was probable and foreseeable that such
an act, in the context of rage, could predict likelihood of death to
anyone struck by the car.
c. But even if not intending to kill, the recklessness of the act could
also predict that death was a foreseeable consequence. Had he not
done what he did, the man would not now be dead.

2. The men were bandits.

a. In general the prevailing culture in T&T supports a widespread

belief that because the men were bandits their rights should be
suspended, and that anything done to them was justifiable. History,
and the law, tells us this is not so.

There must be a boundary between force used in self-defence and

force intended to produce a separate criminal act. The latter can
masquerade in the former. It is evident that the act of aggression
could have caused at least grievous bodily harm - now we know it
caused death!

To help clear up any doubt of what is self defence and reasonable

force, let us look at what the Court of Appeal in the UK said in the
case of Martin v R [2001] EWCA Crim 2245 (30 October 2001).

It cannot be left to a defendant to decide what force it is reasonable

to use because this would mean that even if a defendant used
disproportionate force but he believed he was acting reasonably he
would not be guilty of any offence. It is for this reason that it was for
the jury, as the representative of the public, to decide the amount of
force which it would be reasonable and the amount of force which it
would be unreasonable to use in the circumstances... It is only if the
jury are sure that the amount of force which was used was
unreasonable that they are entitled to find a defendant guilty if he
was acting in self-defence.

Clearly, in the heat of the moment the incensed person cannot clearly
distinguish whether his actions are right or wrong, whether within
lawful limits or exceeding them and according to the case cited
above, it is for a JURY to decide. Not John Public, not the DPP, and
certainly not lawyers.

I would argue that it IS in the public interest to prosecute. Not only

did this man clearly do wrong, but prosecuting will have the effect of
curbing other vigilantes and those bent on revenge.

With this decision to let him go, we may already be seeing a slippery
slide into contempt for the rule of law.

Reply Edit Delete Report

3 of 4 18/02/2011 07:18
Isn't 'excessive force' a relative term? | Trinidad Express... http://www.trinidadexpress.com/letters/Isn_t__excessiv...

Post a new comment

Enter text right here!

Posting as JumbiesWatch (Logout)

Subscribe to Submit comment

Comments do not necessarily represent the views of Trinidad Express,

trinidadexpress.com, Caribbean Communications Network or One
Caribbean Media. By clicking "Submit Comment" users confirm that they
have read and agree to the User Agreement and in doing so accept full
responsibility for their comments

Comments by

One Caribbean
Privacy Policy
Powered by Broadcast Interactive Media.

4 of 4 18/02/2011 07:18