POLICE shootings leading to deaths of suspected robbers and criminals in the country have been going on for some time.

Recently, a few suspected gang members and suspects in robberies were shot dead in places like Butterworth and Batu Arang.

The police came out with their usual narrative: suspected robbers were given a chase, they shot at the police but the police returned fire resulting in the deaths of the suspected criminals.

As usual, there will be a press conference in which the police will justify why these so-called criminals were shot.

Most instances than not, the police will give the impression that suspects were shot in self-defence.

But unfortunately, proof of self-defence only comes from the police as dead victims have no tales to tell.

Police shootings resulting in deaths invariably cause extreme difficulties for their families.

The most they could do is to lodge police reports, plead the innocence of the deceased, and lodge reports with Suhakam or engage the services of private lawyers to sue the government and police for the killings.

The minute the police have castigated those killed in the shootings were suspected or wanted criminals, the matter most of the time dies there.

Some sections of the society somehow or rather tend to believe the police version of events leading to deaths.

Having believed in the police version, society will soon have little or no sympathy for those shot and killed and to their immediate family members.

For the wives, children and other dependents of the deceased, it will be a long nightmare of seeking justice, legal fees and their own survival.

Meanwhile, the police sharpshooters will become heroes for saving society from the “scourge” of those suspected criminals who were shot.

All these simplistic, naive and unkind assumptions will be made without the onus of proof or evidence on the part of the police.

Since dead men have no tales to tell, the police version will trump ultimately, unless of course, the guilt of those killed are overturned by court decisions later.

Malaysia is a country run by an elected government on the basis of laws.

No one is deemed a criminal unless, of course, proven in a court of law.

Police are there to ensure that citizens are law-abiding, if they break the law, it is up to the police through the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to prosecute them.

It is certainly not up to the police to take the law into their own hands and function as law enforcers, the judge and executioners, at the same time.

This is, unfortunately, precisely what is happening in the country under the new government of that promised police reforms through the introduction of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) and other measures.

How can the public have trust and faith in the police force if the latter takes an easy way out in resolving problems of law enforcement by shooting dead suspected criminals.

The police themselves cannot be sure 100% that those who have been killed were all criminals.

I am sure among those killed there were innocent people too.

The onus of proof is on the part of the police and not the other way around.

Because of one or two persons, is there a need for summary executions involving some probably innocent persons.

In some countries, the police in the guise of vigilante groups engage in the execution of suspected robbers and criminals.

Of course, this doesn’t happen here in Malaysia.

It shouldn’t happen.

Yes, those responsible for crime must be severely dealt with.

There can be no compromise with this.

But we have a plethora of laws passed by Parliament to contain crime.

The police are merely the guardians of law and are certainly not the law themselves.

Only under extreme circumstances of imminent danger that they, the police, can use firearms as a means of self-defence.

No other circumstances should allow them to shoot at suspected criminals.

The quite frequent shootings engaged by the police in the country raises pertinent questions about their sense of professionalism and commitment to justice and fair play.

The police force have come a long way.

The officers and men are better educated and more public-friendly compared to the earlier decades.

Many of the officers have graduate and postgraduate qualifications.

However, despite the rise of professionalism, it is not understandable why some sections of the police force are allowed to be trigger happy when it comes to dealing with suspected robbers or gang members.

I am sure that the standard operating procedures  (SOP) of the police do not place a premium on shooting of suspected criminals.

Perhaps there is a sense of impunity amongst certain sections of the police force based on past experiences.

Since in the majority of shooting cases the police personnel involved have not been implicated, there is feeling that they are above the law and can get away with shootings in the name of law.

The new IGP has promised to clean up the police force.

To date he has not said anything about police shootings of suspected criminals. The shootings leading to deaths of suspected robbers and criminals in the country have been going on for some time in the country.

Apart from supporting the introduction of the IPCMC, there is no word from him about police shootings and loss of lives.

Although he agreed that police personnel should be equipped with body cameras to prevent abuse and corruption, how will this prevent police shootings is not clear.

It is not for the police to say or justify that those who were shot dead were criminals. 

Let not the police hijack the roles of the prosecution and the courts. – September 20, 2019.

* Ramasamy Palanisamy reads The Malaysian Insight.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.