Garth Rattray | What does protection of life and property mean?

A December 30, 2025, Gleaner headline read: “St Andrew businessman charged following shooting over alleged car confusion.” From police reports, on December 24, 2025, at 10:05 p.m., a businessman allegedly shot a man who was attempting to open his car because he believed that the car belonged to his cousin.

The businessman was eventually arrested and charged with “unlawful wounding, assault occasioning grievous bodily harm, and using a firearm to commit a felony”.

Many people mistakenly believe that carrying a legal firearm gives them the [ carte blanche] right to protect life and property. However, there is a subtle caveat to Jamaica’s ‘Firearms Act’ – The Firearms (Prohibition Restriction and Regulation) Act, 2022. Section 51(1) “A person shall not discharge a firearm in any place except— (a) in the lawful protection of his person or property or of the person or property of some other person.” The extremely important caveat is embodied in the word “lawful”.

There should be proportionate and reasonable force used when responding to a threat. If someone is stealing your property (even something as important, dear, and expensive as your car) and is of no physical threat to you or to someone else, deadly force is not justified. Property may be replaced, but a life is not replaceable.

The owner of a legal firearm told me that he would shoot anyone that he finds in the mango tree on his property. A friend once related that he went on the hunt for someone who was spotted lurking around within his gated community, obviously looking for an opportunity to invade someone’s home. He intended to shoot the menacing trespasser for the safety of everyone else. Such a shooting would have been unjustified.

The Supreme Court of Jamaica ruled that “a trespasser is entitled to protection from reckless acts and the use of excessive force”. Even if the trespasser is a potential risk, unless that trespasser poses a real and imminent threat to your life or to the life of someone else, deadly force is totally unjustified.

FATAL SHOOTING

A January 9, 2022, Gleaner article reported the accidental, fatal shooting of a 26-year-old son by his father 4:30 in the morning. The father, a licensed firearm holder, heard ‘strange sounds coming from the upper level of the home. He checked on the family but didn’t check in his son’s locked room as he went to investigate the source of the sounds. It turned out that his son woke up and went outside for a smoke and was coming back inside when his father saw the figure push the door towards him. Since home invaders often kill the occupants, the father panicked and opened fire and ended up killing his own son. That tragic situation highlighted the need to identify a direct and imminent deadly threat before discharging a firearm, even under confusing circumstances.

Obviously, we expect that legal firearm holders have a gun only for protection. However, it must be remembered that with the exceptions of bird shooting, the lawful shooting of trespassing animals, and competitive target shooting, the purpose of a firearm is only to kill another human being. Firearms are not for threatening, scaring, or wounding someone. People in possession of a firearm must be fully prepared to kill someone.

I vividly recall the psychological distress experienced by a patient who was a member of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF). He and his partner were called to an address in rural St Andrew because a middle-aged male family member had a psychotic episode. He was known to suffer from schizophrenia but was off his prescribed medications and was on a dangerous rampage, effectively confining other family and community members to the safety of their homes.

On arrival, he rushed the police officers, knocking my patient to the ground. Now on his back and struggling to rise to his feet, the psychotic gentleman advanced, wielding a deadly weapon. The policeman had no choice but to pull his firearm and discharge it while aiming for ‘centre mass’ (the chest area). It took one bullet to kill the unfortunate gentleman.

Less-than-lethal weapons like a rapid containment baton, or pepper spray, would not suffice, neither would engaging in unarmed combat with that charging gentleman. Perhaps a Thomas A. Swift’s Electric Rifle (TASER) would stop him, but, sadly, no such device is available to the JCF (to date).

The death of that gentleman sparked immediate outcry of ‘police brutality’ throughout the community. Family members were livid. They called for help for themselves and for the sick gentleman, and it resulted in his violent death. Everyone complained that the police should have disabled him by shooting him in the leg. That persistent fallacious belief still exists today.

If anyone finds it necessary to pull a firearm, their only intent is to shoot to kill to protect life (theirs or someone else’s), not to intimidate, scare, or injure. Shooters are trained to aim only for the ‘centre mass’, the largest and most stable part of the body… the chest and upper abdomen, where there are vital organs.

Aiming there provides a larger target area and faster acquisition, which increase the probability of a [lethal] hit. Aiming for the torso also reduces the possibility of stray shots. A firearm literally puts the lives of other people in your hand. Never forget that even under adverse circumstances, everyone has the right to life.

Garth Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice, and author of ‘The Long and Short of Thick and Thin’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garthrattray@gmail.com.