So, there was no element of self defence: it was an unjustified and excessive use of lethal force by the BDF and police who were on joint patrol in that border village.
The DPP said there is a lot to be learnt:
Jules Vasquez
"Is this a sobering lesson for law enforcement, the totality of these three convictions?"
Cheryl Lynn Vidal, DPP
"Well, definitely, in relation to the conduct of the officer on that day, the judge spoke in her judgment about the need for training in relation to the use of force."
"And of course, in relation to the officers who gave the full statements. So it was a different lesson there to be learned."
Jules Vasquez
"Is this a teachable moment, so to speak?"
Cheryl Lynn Vidal, DPP
"An extremely teachable moment to use your words, Jules."
"One of the things that I found really remarkable in the sentencing hearing to the soldier and the police officer, was that they did not seem to regard what happened as having been anything serious. Some of their mitigation witnesses characterized it as a little mistake. One of the attorneys, even in his address, said it was a small error. It was not. This strikes at the heart of the administration of justice, giving a false statement, whether it is a false statement to assist someone or to implicate someone."
"It is a very serious matter. And I hope that even though they may not have been willing to admit that this was something serious that was done, that the persons were looking who are listening, understand that if it is a person who has been found to have been implicated in encouraging someone or coercing someone to give a false statement, and even the person who has given that false statement, are amenable to be investigated, charged, prosecuted and convicted and then properly sentenced."
