No Need To Shoot

THE shooting and killing of two alleged car thieves as reported by The Namibian of Friday, May 18 2007, are a clear violation of the Namibian Constitution – whose emphasis is on the respect and protection of life.

Such killing by Windhoek City Police cannot be condoned, and those responsible must be stripped of their badges as unworthy in protecting the nation. Carrying a firearm by our enforcement officers should not be loosely interpreted as a licence to kill.It is evident that such alleged thieves did not pose an immediate threat to the Police, nor was anyone else’s life endangered.And for that matter, the two alleged thieves were unarmed.If anything, going by the order made by Namibia’s Inspector General for “swift action” as claimed, does not sanction or call for the “shoot to kill” policy.Nor does anyone have the right to order the killing of a citizen or another human being in the Republic of Namibia.Though anyone can kill – be it a civilian or law enforcement officer – justifiable grounds must be demonstrated before delivering the fatal shot.Otherwise, it is pure murder.And murders must be tried in a court of law – sending a clear message that no one must take the law into his/her own hands, or trying to play the enforcer and executioner at the same time.No one is above the rule of law.For Windhoek’s Deputy Chief of Police, it is better to outline the powers entrusted to the Police in carrying out such operations than to hide behind some loose talk made by another human being.Taking another man’s life should not be done by the ‘drop of a hat’.Indeed, fighting crime must be swift and smooth, but not sending the wrong message that some officers can become trigger-happy.Warning shot or no warning shot, it still does not justify the killing, looking at the alleged crime in question.And especially when the Police have zeroed on the suspects when it’s only a question of time before the arrest is made.Overall, the killings were wrong, and such acts deserve all our condemnation.Mulife Muchali, Vancouver, CanadaCarrying a firearm by our enforcement officers should not be loosely interpreted as a licence to kill.It is evident that such alleged thieves did not pose an immediate threat to the Police, nor was anyone else’s life endangered.And for that matter, the two alleged thieves were unarmed.If anything, going by the order made by Namibia’s Inspector General for “swift action” as claimed, does not sanction or call for the “shoot to kill” policy.Nor does anyone have the right to order the killing of a citizen or another human being in the Republic of Namibia.Though anyone can kill – be it a civilian or law enforcement officer – justifiable grounds must be demonstrated before delivering the fatal shot.Otherwise, it is pure murder.And murders must be tried in a court of law – sending a clear message that no one must take the law into his/her own hands, or trying to play the enforcer and executioner at the same time.No one is above the rule of law.For Windhoek’s Deputy Chief of Police, it is better to outline the powers entrusted to the Police in carrying out such operations than to hide behind some loose talk made by another human being.Taking another man’s life should not be done by the ‘drop of a hat’.Indeed, fighting crime must be swift and smooth, but not sending the wrong message that some officers can become trigger-happy.Warning shot or no warning shot, it still does not justify the killing, looking at the alleged crime in question.And especially when the Police have zeroed on the suspects when it’s only a question of time before the arrest is made.Overall, the killings were wrong, and such acts deserve all our condemnation.Mulife Muchali, Vancouver, Canada