I am not sure I understand Police Commissioner Rear Admiral Hardley Lewin's explanation for the recent police shootings in Lodge, St Ann, that left a cop and four civilians, including a 10-month-old baby, injured.

According to a report in last Saturday's Gleaner, "The commissioner said a preliminary report from the Bureau of Special Investigations indicates that the shooting was clearly a case of mistaken identity."

You know the story. A grey Nissan station wagon was used to commit a robbery near Gayle, St Mary, and the police were alerted.

Later, a police party sees a grey Nissan station wagon and asked the driver to stop; the driver complies.

'Suspicious movements'

After the car stops, the police team said they observed "suspicious movements" in the car, and they opened fire, injuring the driver of the car and the other occupants: a policeman, a 10-month-old baby boy and his parents.

It turns out that the occupants of the car are innocent Jamaicans pursuing their private business, and that they were shot unnecessarily, without provocation. There are many grey Nissan station wagons in Jamaica.

I understand that, at first, the policemen came out with their usual story that they were only returning fire after first having been shot at - until it was discovered that one of the victims was a policeman. The policemen clearly opened fire first, without cause, as subsequent events have shown.

Acceptable or legal?

What is the mistaken identity here? Suppose the occupants of the car were the sought-after suspects? Would it have been acceptable and legal for the police to open fire at them, without provocation?

Why are the police commissioner and the Bureau of Special Investigations using 'mistaken identity' as a defence for the actions of their men? Are they saying that it is acceptable for policemen to open fire on suspects as long as their identity is confirmed? Or is it that if they had known one of the occupants was a policeman they would not have opened fire?

Was the problem 'mistaken identity', or was it a poor assessment of 'suspicious movements'?

By identifying the problem as 'mistaken identity', they seem to be saying that if the identity was not mistaken, then the shooting would have been OK.

This is what is called a 'pre-emptive strike'. You fire first in 'self-defence'.

This is illegal in international law between nations, and it is against the rules of engagement of our police force.

They are not allowed to fire first, even if they believe that the persons in the car are the suspects they seek.

Abusing rights

No more force than is necessary should be used to apprehend suspects; anything more than the minimum force necessary is an abuse of human rights and also criminal assault.

This is the point at which the morally challenged take issue with human rights activists. I know I am going to be accused of defending criminal rights against the rights of the police and the rights of the general public who are victims of crime.

"Shoot the criminals down," some cry. "Don't recite any beatitudes."

It is when the rights of anyone are denied that your rights and mine begin to be eroded. Persons who are suspects are not criminals, no matter how 'suspicious' the police may believe they are behaving.

Not judge or jury

If you are driving along in your car, and are directed to stop by policemen, and you comply, is it acceptable for policemen to open fire at you if they believe they observe 'suspicious movements'?

Persons only become criminals when they are proved to be so in a court of law. In a modern society, the police have no right to function as judge, jury and executioner, even if they catch someone red-handed.

This is not the first time the police are making this sort of mistake. I wonder whether anything will come of this one?

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon.