If you are in the majority of those who hate the rule of law in Jamaica, events of the last couple of days for you, must be like the time a crack addict takes that very first hit.
Naturally, it should come as no surprise that the cockroaches opposed to the police are beside themselves with glee.
On either side of the microphone they are lining up to give and conduct interviews and to pontificate, all in an effort to say we told you so.

Even as the gunfire residue subsides somewhat, the truth surrounding exactly what occurred early Sunday morning in Chedwin Park St. Catherine remains opaque and murky.
The totality of what occurred seems to suggest murder, heroism, recklessness, stupidity, incompetence and a whole host of other Adjectives.
In all of the foregone, there is nothing which could remotely be construed to be helpful to the Police Department or the rule of law in our country.
Tragically, it is in this very sad state of affairs, that a vast plurality of certain sector of the society will find the greatest glee. Rest assured that as events unfold those who speak the loudest and are more visible front and center will not be patriots but self-serving anti-Jamaica demagogues looking to improve their own standing using the unfortunate incident as justification.

At the center of this event, is how could police officers who were pulled from front-line duties be in possession of a service vehicle?
I listened to a Radio interview given by Deputy Commissioner of Police with responsibility for Crime, Fitz Bailey, to a gleeful Cliff Hughes and was less than impressed with Bailey’s responses to the salivating Hughes’ questions.
Bailey could not give an accounting as to the conditions under which the supposedly (on suspension officers were in possession of a service vehicle).
That is understandable, even though there are rumblings that the officers weren’t really on suspension but were pulled from front-line duties.
None of which makes sense. If they were off front-line duties how could they be in possession of a department vehicle?
The peripheral questions about logbook and police lights in the vehicle are moot as those are requirements for unmarked police vehicles.

Fitz Bailey was unable to articulate these rather simple responses in a coherent and commanding manner.
As for the officers having retained possession of their service weapons even though they were supposed to be off front-line duties/ on suspension, is a non-sequitur.
Those questions have no relationship to the facts of this incident and do not belong in the series of events to be considered from a law -enforcement perspective.
Police officers charged with offenses while on duty are still entitled to the presumption of innocence. In Jamaica, literally one of the most violent murderous countries in the world it would be a conspiracy to have them murdered was their service weapons to be taken from them.
Fitz Bailey made none of those assertions in defense of the Department, because he was too pissed scared in the face of the questions from the salivating Hughes who seemed to be having a limp-dick ejaculation at the turn of events involving those officers.

Bailey was, however, emphatic that the so-called brave officer who took on the three cops who were clearly carrying out a hit, was not guarding any Man/Don. He argued the cop was there in an official capacity which went through the JCF’s chain of command in a program which would see the promoter pay the JCF and the officer would be paid for his off duty work.
We will be making an official request to the police high command to release that documentation, as there is information in the public space which does not support that line of reasoning.
The regular Vultures are out with their sharpened knives already carving up the deceased cop and those who survived.
Hamish Campbell and Terrence Williams and the other bottom-feeders a-la Cliff Hughes are having a field day gouging themselves on the publicity from this event.

(1)Since these police officers were supposed to be on suspension/ off front-line duties It would be interesting to learn, just how is it possible that they had possession of a police service vehicle?
(2) If they were indeed charged with murder as we are led to believe, then they would have been placed on suspension, as has been customary, if they weren’t, who made the decision not to, and why?
(3) As the pressure mounts, regardless of the truth behind this incident, these three officers will be tossed under the bus by the cowardly police high command as the Vultures circles ever so closer, ready to tear the flesh from the carcass of this incident.
(4) Critically, it appears that the three officers, did not return fire on their colleague. It seems to me that three against one would be odds in their favor during that encounter.
However, it appears that after allegedly shooting the “DON, “their sole intent was to make good their escape, not hurt a colleague.
Regardless of what one thinks about them killing that individual, it begs the question, why would they have gone to assassinate him and on whose orders?
The fact that they did not return fire on their colleague seemed to suggest that they had no intention of harming him.
How could they have gotten access to force assets, unless higher-ups in the department had a hand in this sordid affair?

If there is a counter-intelligence mission in which these men were involved in rooting out certain elements in the society using unorthodox means, it cannot be that after they have acted in service to their country they are left, hung out to dry, by an incompetent high-command.
Since no one is prepared to ask these pertinent questions I have decided to do so.
There are a lot of unanswered questions, more than there are answers and we know that hardly anything is ever done in a cohesive manner in our country.
I believe there is a back story to this story and if there is, the least the police high command could do is have a coherent and believable set of answers ready for when events like these occur as they are bound to.