‘Mi wi mash up yuh’

“Mi wi mash up yuh [expletive] eno” was a policeman’s video-recorded ‘threat’ to a citizen now alleging abuse by the agent of the State following an incident at the Black River Primary and Infant School in St Elizabeth last week.

Seconds later, the member of the Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF), who appeared upset that he was being taped, engaged 48-year-old businessman Boris Brown in a tussle for his phone.

Brown told The Sunday Gleaner on Friday that he had no idea that the matter would have turned out the way it did, since he was the one who asked the police to assist in diffusing a stand-off he was having with another motorist at the school’s gate.

The Independent Commission of Investigations (INDECOM), the State’s oversight body for the security forces, has confirmed that it has launched a probe into the allegations of assault.

INDECOM’s Deputy Commissioner Hamish Campbell told this newspaper that a report was made on Monday, the day of the incident, and investigators have started their work.

Brown said he has been invited by INDECOM to give additional statements.

Up to press time, there was no response to Sunday Gleaner questions submitted on Friday to the JCF. Their version of what transpired was among the questions asked.

STAND-OFF WITH OTHER MOTORIST

The stand-off reportedly occurred sometime after 4 p.m. on Monday, Brown said, as he was attempting to drive his Toyota Coaster bus out of the school gate with students on board when a black car pulled up and hindered his efforts to make a right turn from the school onto Central Road.

Brown said a security guard who was at the gate approached the other motorist.

“Instead of the driver moving after picking up his passengers, he actually proceeded further into the gate to block the bus,” said Brown, who is contracted by the Rural School Bus Service to transport students under the Programme of Advancement Through Health and Education (PATH).

The two drivers exited their vehicles and a discussion reportedly took place.

“I went to him and I said ‘Sir, I’m about to make a right turn. I cannot make this right turn because the vehicle is a long vehicle and, if I make the turn, your car is gonna get hit and I don’t want to cause an accident scene right now’,” recounted the former member of the United States Navy who retired in 2014.

The conversation did not go well and the driver reportedly eventually locked his car and walked away.

Shortly after, Brown said he stopped a police pick-up licensed K048 which he said was heading in the direction of Black River town square and explained the situation to the four cops he said were aboard.

He said the one who was driving told him that the bus could safely make the right turn, a position he rejected because “I’m not stupid. If I could make the turn I would make the turn and gone about my business long time ago.”

The cop insisted, to which he said he declared: “I am the driver for this vehicle and I will not move this vehicle until the path is clear and it is safe for me to move with this bus with these students aboard.”

Brown said he went back inside the bus. He was followed by another policeman who requested his driver’s licence. He said he took it from his cell phone case and handed it over.

At this point, Brown decided to video-record what was happening because “this may go another direction where, if I end up in court, I need some evidence”.

“I walked towards the front of the bus to record everything that was around the area. The police constable who [allegedly] assaulted me, I’m yet to get his name, was standing in front of the bus,” he said.

HE ‘ATTACKED ME’

Footage of about six seconds from Brown’s cell phone shows a policeman telling Brown not to record him.

“Mek sure yuh nuh [inaudible] … mi wi mash up yuh [expletive] eno,” said the armed cop as he advanced on Brown who was heard saying “a weh yuh a duh? threaten me?”

An apparent tussle ensued and the video ended.

Brown is alleging that the cop “attacked me, grab me by mi neck” and “threatened me”.

Brown said the driver of the police vehicle intervened and urged his colleague to return the phone but he reportedly refused and searched the device.

The cops later took photos of Brown’s driver’s licence.

By then, he said, the car that prevented his exit had left and he was ordered by the cops to accompany them to the police station where he was ticketed for obstructing traffic and for not having a current vehicle registration sticker affixed to the bus. The renewed registration document, which he collected earlier in the day but forgot to place on the front windscreen, was in the bus, he said.

His cell phone was also returned.

Brown reported the matter to INDECOM on the same evening.

He said he also attempted to file a report with the Inspectorate and Professional Standards Oversight Bureau (IPROB), the police internal oversight body.

“In the middle of the conversation, the police officer, one Corporal [name removed], told me he was going to call me back,” he said. The cop returned the call on Tuesday morning and opened with the question: “What you said the police officers did to you yesterday?”

Brown said he took offence to the line of questioning, after which the cop reportedly invited him to come to the office to make an official complaint.

He said he asked the IPROB official whether other arrangements could be made, given the nature of his job. He subsequently indicated he would first seek legal advice to continue the conversation.

Brown, who said he’s pursuing a master’s degree in law, said he is seeking legal advice on whether he will sue the State.

POLICE HAVE NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY WHILE ON DUTY

This latest incident joins a long list of controversial police-civilian encounters, several with far graver outcomes.

Some of these situations could be avoided if cops recognise that “a police officer has no expectation that he enjoys any privacy” when “carrying out his public function in the public”, argued attorney Chukwuemeka Cameron.

“Recording police officers carrying out their duties in the public space, even with a view to sharing that recording, could be deemed as a form of exercise of the right to freedom of expression, and this issue has been determined by the courts prior to now,” he said.

An exception, Cameron said, may be in instances where the police can demonstrate that the recording is “obstructing or interfering” with their duties.

In 2014, the JCF’s High Command said it is within the rights of every member of the public to record the activities of any member of the force carrying out duties in the public.

“It should also be noted that this type of activity is encouraged by the Police High Command, as it oftentimes helps in allegations of police misconduct,” said the constabulary after a St Ann resident complained that he was arrested by the police for taking their photographs.

POLICY CALLS FOR COPS TO WEAR BODY CAMERAS

The government’s policy is also for members of the security forces to wear body cameras but implementation has not been smooth.

In 2016, the United States financed the purchase of 120 bodycams as part of a pilot of their use. There was no public accounting of the performance of the project, although it has dribbled out that the constabulary was unhappy with how the system provided by the Americans worked.

The national security ministry said in January that the procurement of 600 body cameras over the next two months is expected to bolster the 12,000-strong police force’s evidence-gathering capacity and address disputed matters.

Some 400 body-worn cameras were reportedly in use in the police force.

In its quarterly report for the October-December 2022 period, INDECOM said it repeated its call for the implementation of body-worn cameras in the JCF, as it “is an essential requirement and requires urgent implementation across the force”.

“Such equipment can only enhance the evidence-gathering process, across the spectrum of policing operations, allay public concerns of alleged abuses, ensure security for police officers, support traffic enforcement breaches and change the policing landscape with regard to police-civilian encounters and reported police shooting encounters,” it said.

INDECOM said it received 366 new complaints of assault against members of the security forces for 2022, a near eight per cent decline over the 397 recorded in 2021. This is the highest reported category of allegation. Those cases included allegations of assault occasioning bodily harm and assault at common law.

jovan.johnson@gleanerjm.com

Assault cases against the security forces 2016-2022

2022 – 366

2021 – 397

2020 – 394

2019 – 279

2018 – 297

2017 – 259

2016 – 293

Source: INDECOM