Mark Wignall | That questionable Farquharson killing

Most uptown people whose penthouses shield them from violent encounters with the police usually don’t care too much about another policeman’s bullet taking the life of an everyday citizen. Just as long as the story is sanitised and uptown people get to sleep in peace with the remains of their conscience still intact.

But, let me not dwell too long on the personal philosophies which burden us, catching up on REM sleep and class biases. Most of us are sickened and somewhat scared of the reports of violence, notwithstanding the significant decline in killings. We have come close to it many times but, at this minute we are not prepared to give in to cowardice and lock away ourselves after 6 pm.

Let’s break down the whole into smaller pieces. Some of us, in fact, many of us love the police. Not because intelligent society suggests that it is healthy to do so but, whether we know it or not, a good policeman is that sturdy brick wall standing between us and the most violent of gunmen.

That’s what a gunman who was in Natty Morgan’s gang told me many years ago.

Others hate the police and I would take a bet that the demographic which hates the police are those who get the chance to see their encounters more than once and close up too. The shooting death of Jamar Farquharson follows an MO that I have heard of quite often described to me by poor people living in violent and socially distressed inner city pockets.

The police team goes to a residence to ‘take out’ someone. Whether deemed sinner, saint or sinecure, the decision is made maybe less than an hour before the team strategically rings the small property, especially the potential exits. The police team rattles the front door of the little board house and shouts out someone by name. The person shows with hands held high, sometimes in a panic begging the police not to kill him. Somehow that person on the small verandah is not suitable for the bigger plan.

So, one heavily armed, burly policeman pushes the person inside where the shouts and the pleas increase in intensity. A bullet or bullets ring out. Then silence. Then repeated shouts of “murder” from the female population of late night onlookers. I am not saying that that is what took place and cost Farquarson his life but, an unease exists.

REQUIEM FOR A SNUFFING OUT

Initially the Police accounts stated that the police went to an address where Jamar was. He challenged them with a firearm, and he was shot and killed. Reasonable if true. I then viewed a video, because as you know there was CCTV footage released by the family of at least part of the incident. From viewing the video, questions jump out at me.

Jamar opened the front door; he raised his hands. There is no indication that he had a weapon in his hands. An officer pushes him aside and enters the house. Ah, we’re still inside the playbook, following the MO. Why was Jamar not handcuffed or put in a secure location and watched by the police? As in, actions expected by a professional police force.

Why was he left to roam the inside as the police entered the house and searched it. Was he a threat? The actions of the initial police team entering the little house did not seem to think so.

Did the police ever ask him his name or for identification? Did the police ever tell Jamar the purpose of the entry? Ha, he should be so lucky.

I am also made to understand that the warrant that authorised the operation did not contain Jamar’s name according to INDECOM. Scandalous! Whose name was on it?

Jamar who seemed to have been a productive citizen, was cooperating (he opened the door, raised his hands), showed no aggression to the police and then suddenly he reached for a gun and was shot dead? That makes sense in only one place. Alice in Wonderland.

Based on all available information Jamar was cooperating (he opened the door, raised his hands), showed no aggression to the 23 policemen and then suddenly he reached for a gun and was shot dead? Truly makes no sense. Again, why did the police not handcuff him or take him outside the house and keep him under guard? The officers initially entering the house did not even search him, a clear indication he was not perceived as a threat.

WHAT PERCENTAGE WELL TRAINED?

Only after the CCTV video was circulated in public did the police then issue a statement stating that all deaths in these types of operations are unfortunate and Jamar’s death was “most unfortunate”. Really? Why the absence of body-worn cameras?

For decades, the JCF has issued very questionable accounts and statements regarding operations that resulted in citizens being shot and killed by the JCF. The current commissioner has stated numerous times that the current JCF is well trained and disciplined. I know this is only one operation but the CCTV video contradicts the Commissioner in stark terms. It is amateurish or evil to have Jamar open the door, raise his hands, and not put handcuffs on him or detain him properly and then shoot him dead a few moments later.

A significant number of Jamaicans would be convinced just simply by the sequence of events that the JCF went to the Cherry Tree Lane address with the intent to take out someone. Jamar happened to be in the house, and he was taken out. Or, it could have been a more targeted operation that had Jamar’s name on a bullet. I have roamed many inner-city pockets in the wake of killings carried out by the police. Those operations were standard in many instances. Blood congealed at one spot, drag (blood) marks on flooring, high concentration of bullet damage in concrete or wood at one spot, about 18” from the floor. Shoot out? Try again.

We can no longer say that Jamaica has a runaway crime rate and rampant murders but something doesn’t quite seem right. Seems as if the JCF has been authorized to shoot to kill, the Jamaican constitution be damned. And of course most Jamaicans don’t quite care about inconvenient facts.

Mark Wignall is a political and public affairs analyst. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and mawigsr@gmail.com