Dear Editor, Brent Fuller in an article dealing with the Commissioner of Police (COP) decision to investigate my arrest on the morning of May 20th, 2012, stated incorrectly that the police were responding to “a loud music complaint at a George Town restaurant”. This was never said by any of the police officers. Nevertheless, trust me when I say that I am grateful that the COP has ordered this investigation. However, the outcome will be unjust if the investigation does not include Chief Inspector Owens who was the Area Commander at the time and who provide the COP with vastly misleading and damaging intelligence on the activities in McField Square around or about first of December 2012. The Professional Standards Unit must also inquire into the nature of the prejudicial statements made by the COP in his letter to me dated of December 11, 2012. Wherein it is stated: “We will continue to operate in this area in an effort to stem violence, prevent serious assaults and murder and curtail gun usage. I trust this information assists in your determining any action you consider appropriate.” The criminalization of our neighborhood, our businesses, our customers and our residents and guests by COP is evident from his letter dated after I had been unjustly charged with two criminal offences. I want to make it quite clear to my supporters and Chief Inspector Barrow that I never obstructed the police nor resisted their arrest. However, one of the more common ways our police and prosecutors have amplified otherwise insignificant events is by alleging and ultimately arresting a person for, resisting arrest and obstruction. This is not to say that these crimes are not legitimate offenses and prosecutions are not warranted, but that the conduct for which a person is accused may not be based on sound law. Neither the term “arrest” nor “obstruction” is defined in our Penal Code. In Rice v. Connolly (1966) Lord Parker CJ stated that the prosecution had to prove: A) That there was and obstruction of a police officer; B)That the defendant obstructing did so willfully; and C) That the police officer was at that time acting in the execution of his/her duty. Thank God there is still in our courts the reasonable doubt standard and in my specific case the police officer it is alleged I obstructed, did not mention in his sworn to statement that I obstructed him. When under cross examination by me; he stated that he was not aware of my obstructing him. The question therefore for the public to decide is whether a police officer’s job can be made impossible or more difficult if he is unaware that his job was being made more difficult. In resisting arrest the person is guilty of this crime only if he or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer from effecting and authorized arrest of him or another person. I was certainly not medically fit to prevent police officers from affecting my arrest. I was on crutches and unable to walk without support. The police admitted to the court that it appeared to them as if I was depended upon my crutches. They also admitted that they took my crutches from me and dragged me some fifty yards to a police vehicle. But with God’s able assistance I have proved beyond any reasonable doubt that police officers do not always act lawfully although they are required by law to do so, and that we are in urgent need of having the police; all the police including the COP, policed by some type of citizen oversight body.
Posted on: Sat, 22 Jun 2013 20:13:37 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015