(Peeping Tom)It is mind-boggling that APNU would oppose the creation now of a SWAT Unit after what was experienced a few months ago when a miner went berserk in the city and killed four persons including two policemen who had gone to investigate the reports of a shooting on Middle Street.
The police walked straight into gunfire and there was a three-hour-long standoff before the gunman was shot and killed. That incident sparked debate about the need for a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) unit.
No country should wait until incidents like this one reoccur before it decides to have such a unit. It is very much like a country awaiting an accident before implementing road safety measures. Preemptive steps always have to be taken, because when terrible acts of violence take place, it is the very opposition parties who question why certain measures were not in place.
It is abhorrent to have read that APNU is opposed to the establishment of a SWAT unit. Why would anyone question the need for such a unit considering the nature of crime in Guyana?
APNU has railed against the levels of crime in Guyana. It has complained that enough is not being done and that the Ministry of Home Affairs has failed. Yet, it is opposed to something that all modern police forces have – SWAT units.
The basis of APNU’s arguments is very confusing. It argues that that while a SWAT team may have been necessary in the past it is not needed now, since none of the incidents requiring a SWAT response escalated into armed interventions. That is very confusing rationale, because if the incidents required a SWAT response, then by implication that justifies having a SWAT unit.
Whether or not armed intervention is required seems irrelevant to the need for a SWAT unit, unless implicit to the argument is that a SWAT unit is only required where an armed response is necessary.
In this context, how accurate is it for APNU to contend that none of the incidents requiring SWAT intervention involved armed interventions? The incident in Middle Street, involving the miner, clearly involved armed intervention, unless of course APNU is suggesting that this miner who went berserk and began shooting at persons could have been subdued without the need for armed intervention.
While APNU is contending that a SWAT unit is not necessary at this time, it goes on to contradict another argument made by APNU which is that a SWAT unit is better prepared in times of inactivity. Since by APNU’s own argument, a SWAT unit is not needed because of the lack of incidents requiring armed interventions, now would therefore seem to be the most propitious time for a SWAT unit. Why then the opposition to having a SWAT unit in place?
One reason given is that the Guyana Police Force should be concentrating on filling the shortage of manpower rather than having a SWAT unit. This is an argument akin to saying instead of having a forensic lab the Guyana Police Force would be better advised to fill all its vacancies. The filling of manpower shortages need not be done at the cost of creating a unit which is now seen as vital to any modern police force and especially given the sophistication of criminal activity including those that require specially trained units.
Perhaps the real fear of APNU is that the SWAT unit to be assembled will represent the rebirth of the much-maligned Black Clothes Unit which has been accused of excesses against citizens but which also did some very good work in neutralizing threats to public safety. If the real fear of APNU is that the Guyana Police Force is reviving another Black Clothes Squad, then this is an issue on which the Force need to provide assurance to all concerned that the unit will not attract the same adverse publicity as the Black Clothes Squad but will instead report to a chain of command, be held accountable for operations, and will follow certain prescribed rules of conduct and engagement.
