Who is popular today?

THE EDITOR: Now concerning this proposed stand-your-ground legislation, be it in the form of a new act or amendment to existing acts such as the Offences Against the Persons Act and the Firearms Act, provisions should be made for members of the protective services.
Too often police officers and other members of the protective services find themselves in the most precarious position of having to make the decision whether to neutralise an imminent threat to their own lives, and the lives of others, or to take the risk of allowing the assailant to not be apprehended and to depart unhindered, during which time the officers, and others, would still be at risk of being fatally shot by the reckless discharge of the firearm as the assailant escapes on foot, or in a vehicle.
It is in light of this, and in keeping with the rationale justifying a householder using lethal force to stop an intruder, that I want to propose that similar legislative provisions be made to protect police officers who have to confront such armed assailants as part of their duty.
This proposal is that should such armed assailants not immediately disarm themselves by dropping their firearms when challenged by law enforcement officers, these officers should be authorised to treat these gangsters as having the criminal intent to do harm, thereby being imminent threats to society.
The requirement of having to prove the assailant "pointing" the firearm in a dangerous direction appears to be overemphasised because it implies that some extent of aiming must occur, for a firearm to be discharged with fatal consequences. The reality of the situation is that a firearm can be discharged while being swung in the hand of an assailant while running or driving away. So be it an intentional, reckless, or accidental (unlucky), fatal shot they all have the same undesired result of causing death to an innocent person.
Further to this and following up on the more liberal approach to the issuing of firearm licences is the suggestion to grant such licence to law enforcement officers as a first priority. These officers should include other members of the protective services, together with the police, such as soldiers, prison and customs officers who can provide an additional layer of protection in the communities in which they reside and may prove more effective in reducing the prevalence of criminal activities in these areas than granting firearms licences to an excessive number of untrained civilians.
However, I would also include the condition that these officers should have no less than three years' service, be polygraph tested and be working on the field as frontline officers who regularly are on patrols and are required to respond to reports of crime and to arrest offenders.
And while addressing the issue of amending the Firearms Act, I would like to suggest an amendment to the definition of a firearm to exclude guns below a certain calibre (say .2mm) that do not discharge "ammunition" as defined by that act, particularly those air pistols/rifles that are deemed to be firearms requiring FULs to own and use. These guns are the type used in international competitive shooting. The anomaly here is that they are considered firearms only because they contain spiral grooves on the inside their barrels, the purpose of which is solely to improve accuracy. The calibre, power or velocity of these guns are no different to those of what is commonly known as an air rifle (a long gun with a smooth barrel) which conversely do not require a licence to own or use. This measure is likely to have the additional benefit of rejuvenating the interest and participation in the sport of Olympic shooting for which the likes of Roger Daniel has made this country proud.
CLEMENT MARSHALL
Retired police officer
Maracas Valley, St Joseph
The post Stand your ground for the protective services appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.