Rationale
The reported Mandeville (Jamaica) shooting of five–at least 3 women and a child– (Feb, 23, 2025) by a licensed firearm holder, over a matter revolving around a minor scrape from a moving vehicle, on his (licensed firearm holder) parked vehicle, brings justification to my claim…
Background of case
The reported unfortunate reality of the deadly shooting took place in the early hours of Sunday morning. It was a candlelight vigil. The licensed firearm holder’s vehicle was parked in an open lot beside the property where the candlelight vigil was taking place–(the licensed firearm holder apparently resides across the road from the candlelight vigil). Likewise, there were vehicles of the event attendees, parked within the same open lot.
Apparently, it is alleged that the vehicle of an event attendee, accidentally scraped the parked vehicle of the licensed firearm holder. The step by step outline of evens from this point is not clear (based on what is available within the public domain). However, based on the account of witnesses as highlighted within the Jamaican media, confrontation occurred between the licensed firearm holder and member(s) of the victims. The shooting then followed.
Questions
Is it justifiable to say, that though tragic, the licensed firearm holder in this case used reasonable force; and thus acted in self defense?
Or
Is this just a case of rash judgement on the part of the licensed firearm holder, specific to the variables (actualities & potentials), present to the licensed firearm holder at the time; thus warranting the attachment of murder?
My Views: Considerations of the Licensed Firearm Holder Judgement (angle of self defense practitioner).
As a third party looking in, my views is partially limited to my subjective bias. On this note, my view should not be consumed as an objective fool-proof stance applicable to this situation, and/or any other.
The usage of lethal force for self-defense, is considered justifiable:
- Towards the protection of one’s life; family; or similar; and/or property.
- If avoidance/de-escalation/deterrence/denial are not effective.
- As a last resort.
- His property being damaged (vehicle scrape).
- Upon confrontation, with the vehicle owner(s) and witnessing the growing crowd, felt threatened; and if his weapon was on his person, could have thought that should they engage him in unarmed combat, they could disarm him and use his weapon against him.
- The licensed firearm holder reportedly ‘confronted’ the other parties. in other words, the licensed firearm holder was incensed & potentially hostile (verbally at the least).
- No mention of de-escalation/restraint on the part of the licensed firearm holder was mentioned.
- No mention of any of the victims having a weapon, physically charging towards the licensed firearm holder, or throwing projectiles (rocks, glass) towards him.
- No mention of blockage to an exit point on the part of the licensed firearm holder was mentioned.
Why Licensed Firearm Holders in Jamaica Should Undergo Annual Mental & Physical Assessments to Carry
To whom much is given, much is expected. Though I can’t recall the source of this saying, it holds relevance to licensed firearm holders. Carrying a firearm adds the increased weight of you needing to have a higher mental, physical capacity, and fortitude, geared towards making ‘sound decisions’. This is much easier said than done, I’m aware- especially when stress (adrenaline..) response is applied, your capacity to think and function at optimum mental & physical capacity diminishes. This among others is why licensed firearm holders, in addition to maintaining marksmanship standards, should be assessed based on mental & physical standards annually (minimum). This current gap in my view, is a significant perennial threat to public safety, and Jamaica’s overall security.The excerpt below is from the Firearm Licensing Authority Training Manual. Use it as reinforcement for my points and position in respect to licensed firearm holders, shared herein.
“…If you were attacked by a person much larger than yourself, or
by someone using martial arts techniques, or several individuals at the same time, you may
reasonably conclude that he/they had the ability to seriously injure or kill you, even though they
may have been technically “unarmed.” Disparity in size, age, strength, sex, and the level of
aggressiveness of the involved parties are all important matters when considering the element of
“ability/means.””
Situations must also contain the element of “opportunity”…Everything hinges on whether you were within the effective range of his weapon(s)…
Your attacker must show “manifest intent” on causing harm. The victim is in “imminent
jeopardy” when the attacker unmistakably indicates, by words and/or actions, that it is his
intention (motive) to kill or cause serious injury, and further, that he intends to do so at once.
You are NOT permitted to use deadly force against nebulous or “empty” threats. The danger
must be mortal and immediate
…
Generally, the more
self-restraint you use, the more “reasonable” your actions will look. In fact, “self-restraint” is a
key word, particularly if you used a firearm.
Generally, you should expect the concept of “attempted retreat/warning” to be applied to all
situations, except when the victim is in his own home.
Remember, you will be judged only with regard to what you knew and reasonably believed to be
true at the time of the encounter. You will not be judged based upon facts and circumstances of
which you had no prior knowledge or cognizance…
Finally, the decision to use lethal force always hinges upon a balance of two opposing
imperatives: risk exposure and restraint.
FLA Training Manual, 2013; pp. 19-22 (Public Domain Access).
About the Author
Oshane Bryant: Licensed S.I, KUKIBO Martial Arts & Self Defense School; CSA Certified Executive Protection; ACE CPT since 2012; 20+ Years Martial Arts, Self Defense & Fitness exp. BSc Geology & Geography; JBDC Accelerator Graduate (2018 Cohort); Founder & Managing Director (O’Shane Bryant Fitness Limited).
