9 Jul 2008

Judicial dotishness

Allyuh remember Joel Charles? The man who was shot when a duncey policeman named Liston Taylor fired into a crowd in Morvant.

Well, that trial is under way in front of no less a person than Shermie; I thought he was supposed to be retired in June by the way.

What get me in this trial, if the news report is right, is that the lawyer for the defence Israel Khan admitted that his client is guilty of firing into a crowd. I ent lie; look what the man say:

Both attorneys accepted the evidence of 15-year-old Shanice Samuel — who was struck on her forearm with a stray bullet that day as “very cogent, very compelling, very sincere.”

According to Samuel’s evidence, on April 5, 2007, the officers were taking away Calypsonian John “Sideways” Absalom when someone threw a bottle at the officers’ jeep. The officers came out and fired one shot in the air, while the other fired in the direction of the crowd.

“If Taylor’s intention was to shoot into the crowd with the intention to kill, or do grievous bodily harm when Charles was shot, then Persad should have pursued the charge of murder instead, Khan said.”

Now firing into a crowd is different from actually shooting someone with intention to kill. Khan just trying to baffle that jury with bullshit. Murder means you have the mindset to kill that person, a deliberate act so to speak. Which is different from bringing about death through recklessness which is what happened in this case.

Khan as a lawyer might be expected to know better, and the magistrate, Shermie, ought to direct the jury into the difference. But that is Trinidad Monkey Island version of the law so to speak.

I wonder what exactly was going through Taylor's head and now Khan's, when a shot is fired directly into a crowd, a bullet travelling many metres per second meeting softer flesh. Did they not expect some damage to be done? It might have been done in the heat of the moment, knowing how them dunceys bullish and can't hold their temper. But it is abject carelessness at the very least.

He should stand up to the consequences of his dotish actions, considering that he had better training. In fact, it might be a good idea to call James Philbert or Trevor Paul to the stand and have them confirm that the duncey was told in training he should not fire into a crowd (or towards bystanders/innocent people). Or explain why that training was not provided, which might then make Paul et al just as guilty.

But even Khan admits: "that at the very most, the relatives should be financially compensated in the sum of “hundreds of thousands” for Charles’ killing."

Wait a second... a defending attorney advising compensation in the tune of hundreds of millions? Why not? The money is not paid by the duncey, but by the state!

Watching these shenanigans make me feel like a diligent application of a bull pistle to the backsides of all concerned. But anything to do with a duncey and Shermie might be equivalent to flogging a dead horse; it ent going to get up and walk. All you do is disturb the flies a little.

Comments