CoP: Legal guns not solution

| 28/07/2010

Cayman Islands News, Grand Cayman Islands Headline News(CNS): The country’s top police officer has said he does not believe “firearms in every household” are the answer to the problem of local crime. He said it was an oversimplified reaction as a result of fear in the community when the issue of crime was very complex. David Baines, the Commissioner of Police (CoP), said the more guns there were in any community the more people would get shot and killed and the scale of violence would be significantly higher. Speaking at a crime prevention seminar with representatives from the tourism industry this week, the commissioner said firearms in the home would lead to an increase of use by criminals as the presumption would be that everyone is armed, as is the case in the United States. (Photo Dennie Warren Jr)

The specialist seminar was held at the Ritz Carlton on Tuesday morning and Baines said the goal was to alleviate some the fears, give tourism stakeholders the tools to reduce their possible exposure to crime, and to present the reality of the situation rather than the perceptions fuelled by myths and media headlines.
Baines also spoke about the recent calls in the community for people to have firearms to protect themselves following the recent incident in George Town where a homeowner shot and killed a burglar with his licensed hand gun.
Baines reiterated his position that he preferred to see an unarmed community without the right to bear arms except for specific reasons, such as sport or hunting, and not as a matter of course. He also said that he did not believe in routinely arming regular police officers and cited a number of reasons why not.
He said that 56 officers were killed in the line of duty last year in the US, which was a significant figure, but even more alarming, Baines revealed that 460 offices took their own lives and that of someone close to them with their own service weapon.   “We would see a fuelling of homicides we have not seen before,” Baines added, if the country were to move towards an American model when it came to firearms. He said he preferred the UK model where neither the community nor the police were routinely armed.
Baines explained that the visual sight of a police officer was important and seeing them armed did not mean that people felt safe. He asked the audience if they really wanted to see officers carrying guns on the streets or if they preferred the RCIPS who looked “approachable, friendly visible and responsive to the needs of the community”, which was the tradition of the Cayman Islands.
The senior officer pointed out that where needed the RCIPS had a trained armed response unit that could be deployed when necessary, but he felt it was important to maintain the approachable, friendly, traditional image of the RCIPS officer on the street.
The commissioner also noted that there was a misunderstanding about the number of weapons that really are in circulation among criminals in the Cayman Islands.
“People could be mistaken for thinking that the streets are awash with firearms … if that was the case then we would not see the same firearm used repeatedly by different offenders,” he said. “We would not see flare guns adapted to be use as … firearms … or manufactured weapons.”
The reality was very different from the perceptions, Baines suggested. He blamed news headlines and the media in general for exaggerating the level of crime and twisting stories that fed into these distorted perceptions and fears about the real levels of crime.
However, statistics have revealed that levels of violent crime have increased in the Cayman islands and during the morning’s seminar it was clearly stated that burglaries and break-ins in the tourist area of Seven Mile Beach had increased.
Before introducing Dr Anthony White, a criminologist and a serving police officer, who gave a seminar to tourism stakeholders about how they could prevent their properties and guests from becoming victims of crime, Baines said the crime expert would put things into perspective about the realities of crime on the island. He added that the RCIPS had to deal with the realities and actual crime that was taking place on the one hand but acknowledged the need to deal with the emotional perceptions and fear of crime which was often greater that the reality warranted.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Category: Headline News

About the Author ()

Comments (142)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Anonymous says:

    The backwards nature of the debate on these pages never ceases to amaze me. We have a CoP with a degree?! God forbid we should have someone in charge who is educated and intelligent!

    With regards to guns in homes – I’m sorry, but there is simply no debate – the FACTS are that the more guns you have in a population, the higher the rate of gun deaths. Period. Every single study of the figures shows us this. Can one person provide a single source of evidence that having a higher rate of gun ownership leads to a lower rate of crime and murder? No. They can’t. Because such proof does not exist. What is fact is that in the UK where Gun Control laws are in place, there are 0.15 deaths per 100,000 people per year that are gun deaths. In the USA that figure is 3.92. An increase in gun ownership also sees an increase in suicides. Do we really want to turn Cayman into that kind of place?

    Arming the police and arming citizens means that a criminal HAS to have a gun when they commit a crime. And if you give people guns, they will use them.

    One other point – like it or not the same gun has been used repeatedly in different crimes on the island. FACT. This means we must assume that criminals do not find it easy or cheap to get hold of guns. If we legalise guns and let every household have one, then every criminal will also be able to buy one – a lot more criminals will have guns. How do we get around that? And so everyone has a gun at home, but what about the car? They’d better have one for in the car, and if they’ve one there, then what about at work? All of a sudden we end up with people stashing guns all over the place, and it’s only a matter of time before a kid gets hold of one. Look at the US – some maniac goes beserk and shoots up a school. Since 1968 there have been over 90 school shootings in the US – averaging almost two a year and the rate is increasing, with a couple of hundred dead children and teachers. -In 2010 alone there have been 5 school shootings in the USA and 7 dead people. Who wants that for Cayman?

    No; the CoP is correct and he certainly has my support. Look how RCIPS is being turned around – we still have crimes committed – but we now have people being caught and prosecuted. A few years of good performance from the police and criminals will learn that Cayman is not the place it once was, where you could get away with pretty much anything.

    • not a fan of Baines says:

      Not a fan of Baines, but I do believe he can do the job for which he is hired. I think it’s great that he educated and intelligent.

      Illegal guns are the problem…always been. Will continue to be, because they are effective tools…they work, and people will get them from anywhere that they can.

      In Jamaica and the US many people break the law just so they can have a gun for protection. I would wager that even here that is true….will become true.

      All the pitfalls of illegal guns will continue, even if legal avenues to ownership is eliminated.  But if we have to vote about it, my vote is that it remains possible to own a gun as a private citizen.

      It’s the criminal that is problem, not the gun…guns are no problem at all. You can pick one up any where…





    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      Criminals already have firearms and they have shot at police twice, WITHOUT provocation, wake up…!

      Re: “I’m sorry, but there is simply no debate – the FACTS are that the more guns you have in a population, the higher the rate of gun deaths.”

      My reply: "In 1946 there were 34,400 civilian firearms per 100,000 Americans and the murder rate was 6.9 per 100,000 population; 60 years later in 2004, gun ownership had almost tripled (85,000 guns per 100,000). See Appendix at 1a. Yet the murder rate had actually declined to 5.5 per 100,000. Id. This evidence discredits the simplistic notion that increasing the civilian gunstock produces concomitant (or any) increases in murder." (Supreme Court of the United States nO. 07-290, District of Columbia V. Heller, page 17, 5a)

      "A 2007 study compared gun ownership and murder in every European nation on which the data could be found. Don B. Kates & Gary Mauser, Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide: A Review of International Evidence, 30 Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 651-94 (2007). Again, nations with more guns did not exhibit higher murder rates. Indeed, the tendency is generally the opposite: murder rates for the seven nations having 16,000+ guns average out to 1.2 per 100,000 population while the murder rates for the nine nations having just 5,000 or fewer guns is well over three times higher, at 4.4 per 100,000. Id.; see also Appendix at 5a (table of European gun ownership and murder rates).  These national comparisons suggest that the determinants of murder are factors such as basic socioeconomic and cultural factors, and not the mere availability of guns.  Leading" (Heller, page 22)

      "These national comparisons suggest that the determinants of murder are factors such as basic socioeconomic and cultural factors, and not the mere availability of guns." (Heller, page 23)

      Re: “like it or not the same gun has been used repeatedly in different crimes on the island. FACT. This means we must assume that criminals do not find it easy or cheap to get hold of guns.”
      My reply: therefore, the Commissioner of Police should NOT be pushing to remove our right to a jury of our peers, especially because he says he knows who the criminals are.

      Re: “If we legalise guns”

      My reply: law-abiding resident CAN already legally own firearms in the Cayman Islands, that has been true for our entire history.  You just don’t get it; you sound a cade lamb, but not surprisingly you’re acting like a sheep dog.

      Re: “school shootings… Who wants that for Cayman?”
      My reply: criminals look for people who are easy to victimize, not skilled residents who WILL shoot back with legally owned firearms…

      Re: “the CoP is correct”
      My reply: CoP is NOT correct.

      Re: “Look how RCIPS is being turned around”
      My reply: it is the Royal Cayman Islands Police Force (“RCIPF”), not RCIPS as you have wrongly claimed.  See Section 3 of the Police Law (2006 Revision).

      Re: “A few years of good performance from the police and criminals will learn that Cayman is not the place it once was, where you could get away with pretty much anything.”

      My reply: “By comparing criminal victimization surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S., Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck determined that if the U.S. were to have similar rates of "hot" burglaries as these other nations, there would be more than 450,000 additional burglaries per year where the victim was threatened or assaulted. (Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S., and in the U.S. a victim is threatened or attacked 30% of the time during a "hot" burglary.)”


      If you would rather consent to being a victim, I’ll respect your choice, but if you don’t respect my right NOT to be a victim, in my view you’re no better than the criminals.

  2. Rorschach says:

    There seems to be some sort of a wide gap here with regards to the means available to a private citizen when it comes to protecting your life, your family and your property.  You can A) have someone to enter your home or other private area,illegally with no idea of the intent, and cower in fear and hope that the person does not intend to visit harm upon you and take the chance, if you see fit to use some sort of object to defend yourself and maybe cause the intruder enough apprehension that they leave quickly and without much fuss, or B) be in possession of a deadly weapon and use it.  There seems to be no room for middle ground..???

     I would certainly be open to the idea of changing the legislation to allow persons to own some other non lethal option of personal protection.

     As it stands now, the law does not legally allow the possession or ownership of non lethal devices such as Tasers, stun guns or even pepper spray, which, even if used in anger against an innocent person, rarely results in a fatality…I think it is time we asked our MLA’s to amend the law to allow us to have these items…and YES, license them if necessary, to allow for LEGAL possession…I am not naysaying those persons who think they need a gun to defend themselves, but I would rather a less than lethal alternative…it would really put my mind at ease if I ever found myself using it and God forbid, using it in mistake against someone who I mistook for a burglar or thief and just turned out to be my son or daughter stumbling around sleepwalking…

    • nauticalone says:

      Well said!

      I also am interested in hearing from our MLA’s on this matter. Are you (MLA’s) for allowing/denying law abiding people the ability to have the means to legally protect ourselves and our family?



  3. O'Really says:

    I guess we disagree on this as well then! 

  4. Karl the Canuck says:

    You might want to think about using the Canadian Mounties instead of the UK cops. The Mounties routinely offer their members to other countries to help out with policing, and they are very, very good at it.  Polite, pleasant, and extremely effective they are.  They also work well with the local police force members.

    Just a thought – it’s your country to police as you choose of course.  If what you have isn’t working that well, you might think about some change.

    Be safe and be happy, Cayman.

    • Anonymous says:

      For the ladies of Cayman…Plus, given their high standards of physical and intellectual development the RCMP are nice to have around….I’m just sayin….

  5. Anonymous says:

    There’s an old saying in the US: "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" Mr Baines is speaking from a new wordls order mentality. Europe and the UN are all about comtrol, control of your life and your destiny with the concept of cradle to the grave social programs. It is a proven statistic that the states without strict gun control laws have the lowest crime. The states with the harshest gun control laws ( Washington D.C., Chicago) have some of the highest. Your life is given to you by God, and you have a God given right to protect you and yours. Remember, "when seconds count, the police are minutes away".

  6. Katie says:

    I would be very interested to know, out of all the many people here advocating that every household should have a gun, how many of them have actually held a gun. 

    I, for one, am not against people being able to protect/defend themselves and would certainly not think twice about doing whatever it took to protect myself against any person that broke into my house in the middle of the night. 

    However, I have had the opportunity to use a shotgun for clay pigeon shooting, and hold a disarmed pistol, and can honestly say I was shocked how uncomfortable just holding them and even being around guns made me feel.

    It’s all very well saying people should be armed and be able to protect themselves, but it takes a certain kind of person with a certain amount of training/know how to a) have a gun in their house/possession and be comfortable and b) shoot another human being (no matter the circumstances) with it.

    I’m not saying we shouldn’t protect ourselves and if someone broke into my house in the middle of the night I would take any chance I had to protect myself…I’m just saying, I don’t think firearms are the way.  Unless you’ve been trained and shot a gun then you’re a liability to yourself and others.

    Just my two  (late at night) cents worth!

    • Anonymous says:


      Firearms is not THE way, but it is A way out of many ways that should not be deprived from the people.

      Katie, there should always be that option available in a free society

  7. Anonymous says:


    Being a Brit myself, I certainly agree that a ‘British Police Chief Commissioner’ could not possibly come to any intelligent / fair decision on the subject of Legal Gun Control in this country. – Lest we worry about that subject due to it isn’t a Police Chief Commissioner that makes the laws in this country.

    In the UK now, gun ownership is nigh-on impossible! – To my knowledge shot guns are still being permitted on a limited scale for hunting fowl in certain rural areas, but hand guns are out of the question.

    Now, as far as justifying gun ownership for personal / home defense goes in the UK… WOW!!!… IT’S A MUTE POINT!!! – A License for such a subject would never be granted! Furthermore, it wouldn’t even be heard during the application process!!!

    Unfortunately in the UK, there are far too many laws that make the victim or would be victim end up looking like the criminal. – Meaning that you end up feeling like a prisoner in YOUR OWN HOME! In the event you try to defend yourself, you end up going to prison for it!  – Heaven help you should violate the civil liberties of someone who is trying to break into your house or even use harsh language on them… You may face dire consequences:

    – I remember reading in around 2001-02, there was a case where a woman suffered an ugly home invasion: 1 of the ‘invaders’ was armed with a (non licensed of course) gun – the other a knife. This woman was robbed, beaten and almost raped. – She got free of her attackers, made it to the kitchen where she picked up a kitchen knife. The attacker with the gun pursued and jumped on her again. She ended up stabbing the attacker in the neck and killing him. – The other attacker fled, but was later caught… She was sentenced to 9 years for Manslaughter!!! The surviving attacker got only 4 years!!!

    Where is the justice!!!??? – Where is the right to defend yourself!!!??? This is just 1 example that comes to mind. Every year hundreds of individuals face prosecution backlash from trying to defend themselves in the home. 

    These are not the laws the good people of the Cayman Islands wish to be governed by is what I’m guessing? Believe me when I say, you don’t want to end up feeling oppressed, in a ‘Police / Nanny Run State’ where you’re told what you can / can’t eat, drive, see, read, say and so forth! After all, there is a reason why I chose to live in Cayman and not the UK! Unfortunately, that reason appears to be being corroded by an increase in violent crime here…

    Let us look at other countries home defense / gun control policies:-

    Texas, US, appeared 1st to adopt a decent law just before the 1900’s. It was called "Home is castle" law. – Funny enough, it was originally a British law in the 1700’s… Obviously, forgotten somewhat!

    Please understand though, in the 1800’s in Texas, law was simple. – You know, if 1 word would do, 1 word is used, and NOT 10 words like today!!! This law was created to combat the stealing of cattle after sundown by cattle thieves. – It stated that if someone came on to your property after sundown, uninvited, you could shoot them! – Simple really…

    Imagine that: A law designed that actually serves and protects the businesses, interests & properties of law abiding citizens!!!! – What a thought!!!! To my knowledge, this law still exists today. I’m sure however there have been a few ‘tweaks’ here and there added so people are not shooting the pizza delivery boy every night!

    Norway also underwent a slight ‘revision’ of gun control at the end of WW2. King Olav at the time declared that every household SHOULD be equipped with 1 rifle! – In fact I believe he may have made it law at the time.

    This was due to the fact that German forces entered Norway with no resistance from the Norwegians what so ever! – They couldn’t defend themselves because they had NO MEANS TO DO THIS!!!

    Now surely we can derive a parallel from this:- A) A country suffering an armed invading force from which it has no means to defend itself. And B) A home owner suffering an armed individual breaking into their house, but can’t defend themselves because home defense gun ownership is illegal…

    Now at present, I know gun ownership is legal in the Cayman islands in order to defend one’s home. This law does NOT need to be changed. I do however believe that firearms licenses should NOT be given out to just anyone. A severe vetting process should be in place that evaluates the applicant with scrutiny. Age, medical history, previous convictions etc etc should all be factors in the vetting period. They should also, before being allowed ownership of a firearm, have to pass a stringent, renowned firearms proficiency handling test. – Preferably, which must be renewed with a practical / written exam every 1 – 2 years. This to me, are just some of the factors which I believe to be sensible gun control.

    Arming the police here should be done(if it isn’t already) much the same way as it is in the UK. And that is after the officer has served a certain period of time, they will be given the option of taking their firearms course with their Commanding Officer’s approval.

    I don’t believe that arming every police officer is the key solution. This is a protocol carried out in many countries, yet they still have violent gun related crime. Statistically, I believe that arming the general public would be more effective. Viable? We shall see…

    The "intelligent" arming of police is a system carried out in the UK. – Various ‘hot spots’ will have heavily armed (officer carries trauma plate body armor, primary weapon, secondary weapon, taser, spray, cuffs, batton and other ancillaries) police present. These areas include Airports, large sporting events, troubled neighborhoods / areas, hospitals, court houses and so forth. Your average motorway patrol cop is ‘largely’ unarmed because there is no need for them to be.

    On a closing note, be wary of UK law makers in this country. Considering the rights and freedoms of the law abiding citizen is not usually in their interest! In the event I begin to see more and more UK restrictive laws rearing their ‘nasty little heads’ on this beautiful island, it will not be the 7 year immigration law that sees me depart. But rather my search for another paradise, safe, where the UK’s oppressive choke hold and bureaucracy is nowhere to be seen!


    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      Re: “Considering the rights and freedoms of the law abiding citizen is not usually in their interest [UK law makers in this country]!”

      Anyone who thinks they’re going to disregard our rights must be smoking something illegal.  Much more can be said, but that is for another time.

  8. Anonymous12 says:


    They say we should all be PREPARED for floods, storms and destructive hurricanes, but we better not be prepared to defend ourselves and our families.

    In terms of PREPARATION –


  9. supporter says:

    I hoestly find the comments on this page laughable, truly laughable. As a resident of Governor’s Harbour I can tell you that there have been several burglaries in the area over the past six weeks which may account for the recent sightings of police officers in the area. I have been living on this island for 2 years and have come to realise that the people here are never satisfied, earlier this year these blogs were full of comments sayng they wanted more police officers patrolling the streets, more neighbourhood officers and basically a larger police presence and since Baines has been here I have seen that practically everywhereI go. Obviously people need to complain about something so now there are TOO MANY. This island will never be satisfied and I have been astounded by the constant moaning. Some people really need to get a life! To suggest that he is using these patrols for his own personal protection is ludicrous! Secondly Commissioner Baines is entitled to holidays througout his time on the island and how he chooses tospend them ie going to the uk to visit family or something concerning a degree is no ones concern but his. A little positivity or support wouldnt go a miss!!  

  10. Watler says:

    "25 States allow anyone to buy a gun, strap it on, and walk down the street with no permit of any kind: some say it’s crazy. However, 4 out of 5 U.S. murders are committed in the other half of the country: SO WHO IS CRAZY?"

    Andrew Ford



  11. Pit Bull says:

    You can moan and clamour all you want.  You can wish that like America you can have guns to defend your homes (and then shoot family members more easily).  But the educated elite in London are anti-gun and thankfully it will always be their decision.  So tough.

    • A Caymanian says:

      Wow!  "the educated elite in London" are making the decisions.  That just says it all right there doesn’t it?  Us colonists don’t stand a chance!  What a dumb-ass!  With all due respect to "the educated elite in London" their track record for decision making speaks for itself!  Thankfully, it isn’t actually their decision…

    • Anonymous says:

      Shooting family members with your own firearm can happen, but the percentage of it is low.  Where as someone coming into your house and harming you is higher.   Don’t be so high and mighty about the UK laws.  You cannot send an unarmed police officer out on the streets to fight the crime we are having now in Cayman, anyone with a bit of common sense would know that. 

      As far as protecting yourself in your home, you have the right!!! I don’t think everyone is capable of having a firearm, but the ones that are should be given one.  Again, if it was the other way around that the burgular killed Mr. B all we would have heard from the Commissioner is how sorry the police department is on his death. 

      The RCIPS cannot  protect the Cayman Islands.  Crime has escalated here, they can have all their meetings on what the general public should do, but yet the crime gets higher and higher.  There is no police presense.  I can drive on the road during the day and if I am lucky I will see one police car, at night maybe. 

  12. O'Really says:

    "David Baines, the Commissioner of Police (CoP), said the more guns there were in any community the more people would get shot and killed and the scale of violence would be significantly higher"

    I won’t claim to be able to remember the details of all the various crimes against property committed over the last year or 2, but I am struggling to remember any where the victim had a firearm as a means of defense. If my memory is in any way accurate, then the first encounter between a criminal and an armed victim has led to death, a 100% record. I’d say this was supportive of Baines assertion.

    Law in the Cayman Islands does not provide the death sentence for burglary. It stands to reason that every burglary involves a victim, but we do not draft the law to say that the penalty for burglary is imprisonment, or death if the homeowner can manage it in some form. Flippant as this might sound, it seems to me that to justify lawful killing of an intruder, the nature of the crime being committed must change from one of burglary to one involving sufficient threat to the victim’s life or family to legitimise a violent reaction, up to and including killing the perpetrator. 

    It is this last distinction which all the " shoot first, ask questions later " posters on here seem to be missing and it is this attitude which is or should be a concern to us all.

    The case which has brought this issue front and centre involves a life long criminal who’s record makes it very difficult to be sympathetic. The victim is an elderly man asleep in his home, i.e. a very sympathetic victim. The gun supporters would have us believe every incident will be as apparently clear cut ( I say apparently because I know no real detail in this particular case), but this is not necessarily so.

    If we change the individuals in the recent incident so that the "criminal" is a 17 year old Caymanian girl seeking admission to a gang by completing an initiation ceremony ( ie breaking and entry and taking some minor item as object as evidence of success ) and a 40 year old, legally armed male twice her size, I wonder then how people would be reacting?

    I suspect that Baines recognises that there are an awful lot of licenced gun  owners out there who do not care what the law says and think that shooting an intruder under any circumstances is fine, whilst failing to recognise that this itself might constitute a serious crime. If the posts from the pro-gun lobby on here are anything to go by, it’s probable that Baines is on to something.


    • Anonymous says:

      Hey can someone print out what crimes took place after the shooting of Harrington Rivers?

      Then you can compare statistics!!!



    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      Re: “more guns there were in any community the more people would get shot and killed”

      Unless you’re alive, all other rights are useless; therefore, the right to life is the most important right.  The right to prevent someone from murdering yourself or family is your second most important right.  You clearly have a problem with someone actually having a real means of defend themselves against an attacker who is armed.

      “…because I know no real details in this particular case,” you can’t say it was a simple burglary.  In fact, the now dead intruder was conducting an ‘aggravated burglary,’ that is a ‘Category A’ offence which does carries a sentence of life imprisonment (Criminal Procedure Code (2006 Revision)), page 76.  The important point is however, that the homeowner must be judged based upon his perception of the threat at the time of the incident, NOT what we think now after the fact.

      Re: “It is this last distinction which all the " shoot first, ask questions later " posters on here seem to be missing and it is this attitude which is or should be a concern to us all.”

      Would you wait to first obtain evidence that you were murdered before acting?

      Re: “If we change the individuals in the recent incident so that the "criminal" is a 17 year old Caymanian girl seeking admission to a gang by completing an initiation ceremony ( ie breaking and entry and taking some minor item as object as evidence of success ) and a 40 year old, legally armed male twice her size, I wonder then how people would be reacting?”

      The problem with your example is that in your example we know the girls are not intending to murder the homeowner, but where a homeowner in reality does not know what an armed intruder is intending, it’s simply not possible self-defense is a fundamental right.

      Re: “I suspect that Baines recognises that there are an awful lotof licenced gun  owners out there who do not care what the law says and think that shooting an intruder under any circumstances is fine…”

      I don’t agree with you, but let’s imagine that your unfounded claim was true.  In my view, the answer would be to educate the public about the laws; the answer is not to disarm the law-abiding resident.  Disarmament is clearly what the CoP is seeking, because that would make the Commissioner of Police look good and man does he need it bad.  Doing so would give criminals more of an advantage then they currently have over the rest of us good folks.  It will never happen, I promise you!

      Finally, it is incorrect to say “Royal Cayman Islands Police Service,” because according to Section 3 of the Police Law (2006 Revision) reads: “The Police Force shall continue in being subject to this Law and shall be called the Royal Cayman Islands Police Force.”  Now, the where the CoP can’t even get the name of the agency current, I’m not surprised he cannot do a better job fighting crime.

      Simply put, Mr. Baines should step down now, as CoP.  Bring back Mr. Haines!

      • PaperCaymanian says:

        Can anyone tell me who Mr.Haines hacked off or scared so much that he could not even be short listed?

      • O'Really says:

        You ask "Would you wait to first obtain evidence that you were murdered before acting?" 

        As I said, " shoot first, ask questionslater."

        The point of my post was not to support disarmament of existing gun owners, although a thorough review of the background of each owner to determine that continued gun ownership is merited would not be unreasonable. Nor was my point to suggest that a homeowner should not have a right to lawfully defend himself or family.

        My concern is that the concept of lawful killing seems an irrelevance to you and your fellow gun supporters and none of you seem to recognise the concept of an unlawful killing. There is even a suggestion in one of the opposing posts above that somehow property crime can no longer exist because the motives of the intruder cannot be determined in advance, presumably turning every house into a free fire zone no matter what.

        My point is simple. It is possible to unlawfully kill someone in your own home under the existing law. If this happens, the homeowner should face prosecution. Caymanians with guns should understand this. You suggest education is the answer and I agree, but what good education when someone who knows the law, ie is educated like yourself, doesn’t care what the law says?

        • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

          Re: “David Baines, the Commissioner of Police (CoP), said the more guns there were in any community the more people would get shot and killed and the scale of violence would be significantly higher”

          What evidence does Mr. Baines or Dr. White have to support such a claim?  Is the CoP even aware that he is not able to say what will happen in the future?

          I agree that: “It is possible to unlawfully kill someone in your own home under the existing law. If this happens, the homeowner should face prosecution. Caymanians with guns should understand this.”  So, to say that I don’t care about the law is totally wrong and you are now being asked to withdraw that statement.  In fact, it is the CoP who has been breaching Section 43 of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision).

          When I was asking for the Penal Code to be amended to permit residents to possess less lethal devices for their defense, such as pepper spray…, the CoP was too busy fighting me instead of trying to understand my view.

          • O'Really says:

            In my original post I set out an alternative scenario to the unfortunate incident which started this discussion which involved the intruder being a 17 year old girl committing a burglary as an initiation ceremony with no intent to cause bodily harm. I set up the example so that it would be a fairly clearcut case of a shooting in the course of a robbery which would certainly require an in depth investigation to determine if the householder should face charges of unlawful killing.

            This your response: " The problem with your example is that in your example we know the girls are not intending to murder the homeowner, but where a homeowner in reality does not know what an armed intruder is intending, it’s simply not possible self-defense is a fundamental right. "

            Clearly your view is that because the homeowner cannot know the intentions of an intruder ( you added "armed" to my description and this is an interesting insight in itself ) he is justified in shooting her. This is not how the law works or quite simply there could be no practical concept of unlawful killing in this context, as  intent can rarely be known in advance.

            The only explanation for your blanket justification of the homeowners right to shoot an intruder under virtually any circumstances, given that you patently know the law, is that you don’t care about the law. 

            • baucus says:

              Dennie and O’Really


              Before you can say a homeowner is guilty of murder, you have to prove that that person had intentions on killing the intruder. What was going on the homeowner’s mind before he/she pulled the trigger and shot the intruder?

              We can forever debate and debate about "mens reus"


              SO… does that mean we ban the use of licensed firearms from locals because we don’t know their intentions or what their intentions would be if an intruder comes into their dwelling?

              Of course not!

              IT ALL HAS TO DO WITH EDUCATING, and it is the responsibility of those who issue the guns on the island to educate these people

              • O'Really says:

                Although you are addressing a different aspect of this issue to that dealt with on the thread so far, i.e. the intent of the homeowner versus the intent of the intruder, you are right in my view that education has a big part to play in making gun owners aware of what is lawful.  

                I don’t agree that it is the "… responsibility of those who issue guns… to educate these people" however. The responsibility to know the law, to be prepared to apply the law and to be able to do this under stress in real life through appropriate training should fall to the prospective gun owner. Ignorance of the law is no defence. The authorities should be responsible for thoroughly testing the prospective owner before issuing a licence and should require periodic re-certification for licences to be renewed ( I admit I have not researched this, so maybe this is already required ). Thecosts of all of this should be born by the prospective gun owner, not by the community at large.

                • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

                  O’Really, money is also a weapon used by the anti-gunners against private firearm ownership, therefore I totally reject your suggestion of re-certification, fees…  Shooting a gun is like riding a bike, once you learn…

                  • O'Really says:

                    You are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn’t make it reasonable. 

                    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

                      Do you, or have you owned firearms in the past?

                    • O'Really says:


                    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

                      That’s what I thought.

                    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

                      Well, you please explain why a person would need to keep relearning how to ride a bike?  Why is that necessary?  I repeat, money (cost of excessive requirements) is a weapon against private firearm ownership.

                    • O'Really says:

                      All I can say is that you must be an exceptional individual if, as you age, your reflexes, eyesight, hearing and mental acuity do not reflect the ravages of time.

                      The rest of us are not so blessed and I would suggest that deterioration of these characteristics can seriously impact any gun owners ability to operate a gun in an appropriate manner. Requiring gun owners to periodically demonstrate to the authorities that they are still competent to own a gun is in no way unreasonable and for you to be so against even the suggestion of it is a demonstration of your view that gun ownership is more important than gun safety. 

                      All the costs of gun ownership should be born by the individual who goes out of his way to own one. You want a gun, pay for all the associated costs yourself.


            • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

              I was contrasting your alternative scenario of an unarmed intruder with NO INTENT to murder, with that of an armed intruder, whose INTENT is UNKNOWN, that is why I used the word “BUT”.   Read the first sentence again, slowly.  This is the last time you will be asked to withdraw your false statement.

              However, you originally said, “If we change the individuals in the recent incident so that the "criminal" is a 17 year old Caymanian girl seeking admission to a gang by completing an initiation ceremony ( ie breaking and entry and taking some minor item as object as evidence of success ) and a 40 year old, legally armed male twice her size, I wonder then how people would be reacting?”

              The ONLY reason why I KNOW the 17 year old in the context of your alternative scenario has unlawfully broken into my home at 2:00am WITHOUT intent to murder me, is because you had the intelligence and decided to FORWARN me in the context of your alternative scenario.  Therefore, having the benefit of that perfect information, I would NOT shoot her.

              My phone number is 345-926-0716, whenever you know someone is planning on breaking into my home, would you please immediately call the police and me?  I would rather avoid a confrontation, but where I CANNOT, I will defend myself.

              Now in the real world, outside your alternative scenario, it is unlikely that anyone other than criminals would have the intelligence you shared with me in your alternative scenario.  So I would NOT know her INTENT, or if she is armed, or what she is required to do before obtaining gang acceptance.  Therefore, I would NOT shoot first and ask questions later, but anyone breaking into my house at 2:00am might find themselves looking down the barrel of my firearm until the police arrive, or until the intruder makes an even worse choice than breaking into my place to begin with.

              Like jumping off five story buildings in your birth suit, a criminal lifestyle has consequences.  When last did someone jump off a building to their death?

              • O'Really says:

                Nowhere in any of my posts have I suggested that a homeowner would know in advance the intentions of an intruder. You have mis-interpreted this from the first post. 

                Repeating myself for the last time, my point is that rarely, if ever, will a homeowner know an intruders intentions, so it ought to be obvious that this cannot represent the sole criteria by which a killing would be determined to be lawful, or, as I wrote before, on any practical level, the concept of unlawful killing disappears.

                This exchange is not the first time on CNS that your interpretation of the law has been challenged. Here is a comment from another poster on another thread to a post from yourself:


                S.18(1)(a) makes no difference to the substantive scope of the defence of self-defence in Cayman law.  It certainly does not widen the defence as you seem to repeatedly post.

                Respectfully you should listen to the various attorneys who have repeatedly pointed out that s.18(1)(a) is a very narrow saving provision that does not impact upon the substantive scope of the defence of self-defence in any way.  Not a single poster who has claimed any legal qualification has supported your clearly wrong interpretation."

                My view of your stance on this topic is formed not just by our exchange on this thread, but includes many of your exchanges on CNS over the last few months, like the one partly quoted above.

                In any event you now state that you would not shoot on sight. Fine. Readers of this and other threads can decide for themselves whether this is an expedient comment because you have been directly challenged on this or a genuine reflection of your understanding of and preparedness to comply with the law.


                • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

                  Legal beagle simply doesn’t like what Section 18(1)(a) of the Firearms Law (2008 Revision) says…

                  • Legal Beagle says:

                    No, I just happen to know what it says and what is does as a legislative provision.  As a saving provision it is adequate, especially given some of the legislative drafting evident over the years in Cayman.

                    Mr. Warren you would like to turn it into Cayman’s equivalent of the 2nd Amendment (i.e. a piece of drafting that was intended for one thing but championed by the gun brigade and warped into something else).

                    s.18(1)(a) preserves narrow existing rights of self-defence, it does not create any new wider right.  There really is no debate on this issue.

        • Anonymous says:

          If shooting someone in my home in order to protect my children, my wife, and myself is considered unlawful, then you are right, I don’t care what the law says, I would rather go to jail – temporarily- than have a family member go to the grave – permanently.

    • Anonymous says:

      Sorry, O’Really but minimizing the danger of an armed home invasion to serve your argument won’t cut it. Calling it a "property crime" ignores the fact that no one knows what the armed intruder would have done if the homeowner had no means of defence. As you will recall, although not much reported in CNS, the same day another homeowner was pistol whipped and sent to the hospital as a result of a "burglary." He could easily have been killed by the beating.

    • Anonymous says:

      Are you serious?  If someone breaks into your home, you should have every legal right to defend yourself.  Does someone deserve to die because they broke into your home?  Of course not.  However, when you set a course for committing these crimes, then you have to live with the consequences for your actions.  When someone is breaking into your home, in the middle of the night, you have no idea what their intentions are.  You don’t know whether or not they have a gun or not, or what their intentions are.  I am not going to take chances.  I will shoot now, and ask questions later.  I suspect you would have a different opinion should one of your family members or yourself ever have to face this situation.  But after reading the other comments on here, I see that you are definitely in the minority opinion.  Lets hold a national referendum to see what the people want.  I think it’s obvious.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Not everyone respects a badge and uniform, however everyone respects a gun! And it’s as simple as that.

  14. Captain Crunch says:

     If that is not the solution , What is the solution to this serious problem another  National Security Council filled with people who are totally "out of touch" with Cayman and its realities.A police service and government filled with the same cronies and certain elements who were by the way in-charge when this island started to slip into this criminals paradise. Who instead of being removed, have been promoted to the upper level of their incompetence. All because as one poster suggested loyalty to Crown. It is a real shame what has taken place here in the past 5-7 years and one has to really wonder about all these "strange occurrences" or what our governing powers are really doing and planning for the Caymanian people. The disarming of the residents at a time of rising crime just does make sense to me. The arming of Politicians and certain wealthy entities seem to me the only point in our LA that both the PPM & UDP could agree on and are suspiciously very very quiet about. The silence is deafening not a peeb from them. Strangely non of them are victims of this crime situation either. This definitely will or should not sit well with us poor souls out here in these badlands. To top this all off we are paying or funding huge amounts of resources and our money it appears for our demise. All we are getting is a constant drone of bad ideas and chat.

  15. Obvious says:

    But everyone owning a guns works, there is after allno crime in the US

    Can you imagine if Cayman allowed homeowners guns, it would be like "keeping up with Jones’", oh my friend got a Magnum, so I’ll go and get an automatic, after all that is what the criminal now are robbing with to stay one step ahead

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      Newsflash: we can currently own firearms.

      • Jesse says:

        You can’t obtain one without "red tape."

        Seeing what’s happening now, I believe the Commissioner will be cracking down on memberships to the Gun Club or on those who want to own a firearm. He is clever and probably reading the comments here on CNS.

        Baines and Mac will do all they can to hush the media; they will wage war against freedom of speech, press, and the right to bear arms. Whatever is a right and freedom they will ensure that such right and freedoms are reduce and power remains in their hands, the hands of the State instead of the people here.


        • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

          I hear ya, but you need to hear me.  My advice to the Commissioner of Police is that CNS is required reading.

    • anonymous says:

      duh, say what??  the person who shot the burglar had a registered gun – he was in lawful possession of that gun.  get it??  means you’re already allowed to own guns on island…  geez.

  16. Baine Watcher says:

    How can this Commissioner really understand what we as a Society here is going through?

    Let me give it to you people like this:

    1) He lives in Governor’s Harbour for starters.  Some of us have been living and working hard in Cayman for over 40 years plus and we could never afford to own or lease a home in Governor’s Harbour yet this Commissioner is rubbing elbows with residents in there and living in there and he is barely here a year now.

    2) Do not forget that where he lives, you can barely pass by without having a Police Car go past you, Officers on foot patrol and Helicopter flying over guarding him.  You are right if there was ever a model for a safe neighborhood you are living in it Mr. Commissioner.  A criminal would be a FOOL to go in there and do crime.

    3) The Commissioner is using his time here to take his Degree Courses as like the Inspector Dr. White he too would like to be known as Commissioner of Police:  Dr. David Baines.


    Give me Braggs or Haines anyday!!

    • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

      The Commissioner of Police should step down.  I believe Mr. Haines would do a better job.

      • KY says:

        You believe? unfortunately many Caymanians also believed that McKeeva was the best person to run the country, look where belief got you

    • Anonymous says:

      CNS, is it really a good idea to publish where the CoP lives? Regardless of whether or not the man should step down, he is in a public office, accountable to the public, but that does not extend to having everyone knows where he lives. I personally think that this is very disturbing – this poster is (or it would appear from his tag name) stalking the CoP and I think it shocking that you are publishing his statements. If the person were stalking a woman would you encourage the publication of so blatant a statement?

  17. Anonymous says:

    Crime is committed by people who are mentally deranged for one reason or another.  Most of it could have been addressed through early childhood training in social skills and acceptable norms and principles; in other words, to respect themselves and others and not to kill, steal and tell lies etc etc.  Unfortunately it was not done.  If it does not start now, another generation will be lost and will be more cruel and ruthless than this present one.

    Now to face reality and our current situation.  We have a growing number of mentally deranged criminals, who have acquired illegal firearms and are using them as a means of power to force others to comply to their demands.  They couldn’t care less whether they have to use them or not, as they have no feelings or compassion for anyone.  With the general population unarmed, they (the criminals) are in a position of strength, as most people cannot challenge them and they are able to commit their crimes undeterred. 

    Security Guards are merely watchmen, susceptible to self preservation, as they too are in a position of weakness, as they have no means of self defence equal to that of the criminals, or capable of incapacitating the criminals.

    Policemen are unarmed and the criminals robbing BT ESSO even had the audacity to fire their weapons at the police, who were unarmed.  Luckily they missed, but its obvious that if they would shoot at the police, they certainly wouldn’t think twice of shooting at an ordinary, unarmed citizen.  I wonder what the Commissioner would have done if his failure to recognise the gravity of the situation had cost the life of one of his officers? 

    Have you noticed that the criminals were running wild until Rivers got shot by a citizen in the protection of his life and property?  I ask the Commissioner to disclose how many burglaries and robberies occurred in the weeks prior Rivers being shot and how many have occurred since then?  On second thoughts, it may be better for CNS to enquire about that, because I’ll bet the Commissioner will never volunteer that information.

    The truth is, these deranged criminals who are robbing and burglarising our communities are not going to stop until death bids them part and it is only a matter of time before they kill some innocent, defenceless person during a robbery or burglary.  The only way to equalise the imbalance of power currently in favour of the criminals is to allow citizens to legally own a firearm for the protection of their lives, homes and property.

    It is not what you know that you have to fear, it is what you do not know.  Honest, decent, respectable citizens are going to remain as such.  They will always value life and respect other people’s life.  They are not going to go around shooting people, robbing people, or committing burglaries.  However, they will be in a positive position to defend and protect their lives, and the lives of their loved ones should some criminal ever threaten them.

    It is indeed sad that Rivers, a young man, had to lose his life, but he made the conscious, deliberate choice to break into someone house, no doubt to enrich himself and cause loss to the home owner and had in his possession a weapon (a source of power) in order to achieve his objectives.  He paid the ultimate price.  Just minutes apart from him, three other deranged criminals armed with a weapon, used theirs in the burglary of an unarmed home owner, injured him and stole his cash.  Had he been armed, the burglary may never have occurred, he may have never been injured and he may have not loss his money.  As to the three burglars, they may have never commited the crime, knowing that the chances of them being shot was a bigger risk than they were prepared to take.

    Comissioner Baines, we hear you, but your arguments aren’t standing up to the test.  You are unable to make a positive reduction in crime using your current strategies.  Simply put, if you always do what you have always done and expect different results, God help you cause you’re not helping yourself or anyone else.  The crime results of the last year support that statement, not yours!  Sorry.  And Big Mac, you were making a lot of noise blaming PPM for rising crime, well how come you so quiet now?  Have you gone hoarse?  Take a look at what is occurring on your watch and in your own district?  Do something, cause what we are experiencing now is more hell than the jagged rocks in West Bay.

  18. Richard Wadd says:

     The UK out-lawed handgun ownership for private citizens in 1997. In the first 4 years after the Ban, ALL Gun related crimes in the UK increased by around 75%.

    All Armed Robberies, Burglaries, Assaults, Shootings and Homicides.

    So, who gained from the Ban? The Criminals, or the Law-abiding citizens of the UK?

    Yes, gun crimes are high in the USA, but both Canada and Switzerland have higher gun ownership / capita, and FAR LESS crime.

    People must have the right to protect their families and property, however, there must also be strict Laws and Guidelines to ensure that they do not abuse those rights.

    In other words, just because ‘Bob’ threatens me, doesn’t give me the right to go to HIS house and shoot him. 

    HOWEVER, if ‘Bob’ were to forcefully enter into my home to do me harm, or dis-enfranchise me of my property, then I say we should have the right to ‘Introduce’ him to Messrs Colt, Browning, or Smith & Wesson.

    Boom, bye-bye !

    • IRON CLAD says:

      Damn WELL SAID Richard… Well said.

      Couldn’t say it any better, but only to add more ‘IRON CLAD’ element to what you have so well laid down here in that if I had my way, I would go completely RADICAL on the Criminal element in these our islands. 

      Kudos Richard.

      IRON CLAD, without question.

    • Anonymous says:

      When reading Richard’s Post I’m reminded of the quote: ‘He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts – for support rather than for illumination.’

      Let’s have a look at those statistics:

      The number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased from 13,874 in 1998/99 to 24,070 in 2002/03 before decreasing to 21,521 in 2005/06. Richard is quite correct – between 1998/1999 and 2002/2003 there was a 73% increase in crimes involving firearms. The increase between 1998/99 and 2005/06 was 55%.FACT

      However, of the 21,521 firearms-related crimes in 2005/2006, 3275 crimes actually involved imitation firearms and 10,437 involved air weapons – neither of which were banned in 1997. The important thing here is what those respective figures had been in 1998/1999 – 566 imitation firearms and 8665 air weapons used. So, to spell it out, gun related crimes increased by half between 1998/99 and 2005/06. In the same period the use of imitation firearms – pretend guns – increased 5 and a half times. FACT. take real guns away from thieves and they have to use pretend weapons. Now I’m not saying that it’s any less scary when someone is threatened by a pretend gun, but there’s no way the guy can kill you with it. Gun control works. FACT.


  19. Jonathan says:

    A few weeks ago there were no less than eight police officers in my neighborhood for an investigation at a neighbor’s house.  During this time I became aware of a person/persons in the bush at the fenceline of my property using the same route used by burglars to rob the liquor store in Eden Centre a week or so earlier.  I told this group of officers what was going on, where they were and where they were on their way to do.  The police did not go to the place until after the burglars tried to break into the business again and the owner called them after the alarm alerted him.  I have put myself at risk for the sake of my neighbor as I hope one would do for me and the police ignored it.  If the police will not/do not/cannot do their job then the responsibility for the results are laid at their feet when one has to do what one has to do.  The right to protect oneself does not belong to Americans alone, such malarky is perfectly ludicrous.  This situation is the result of incompetence and outright dereliction of duty so common in this country of ours.  It does not surprise me that Mr. Big Cop said these things in the favourite hang out of the premier criminal in this country.  The government of this country has failed it’s owner’s (us) completely and irrevocabley.  This kid was given status in jail?  At the end of the day we as Caymanians deserve this because we have allowed the worst of the worst to run this country.  Intestinal fortitude is needed here.  I have no confidence in the person with the PRIVILEGE of the office of premier of this country and until we clean house then much worse is on the horizon, unfortunately.  A solidarity of the people of this country is needed here.  Without it we be screwed bredda.  By the way all I have is a very strong stick of guava wood.  We have the government and consequences we deserve but that can and should be changed forthwith and without delay. 

    • Anonymous says:

      Thank you for your excellent post. I don’t think anyone could say it better.

    • IRON CLAD says:

      It BLOWS me into OBLIVION….

      My brain feels like it wants to ‘shut down’ just trying to comprehend just how incompetent, helpless, unorganized and HOPELESS our Police Force is and for that matter our entire Government(s)(and not just native Caymanian officials by the way) have been throughout our history and continues to be.  Why is it that they simply CANNOT do ANYTHING right or even CLOSE??

      When… just WHEN are we going to have a country where our Government(s) and all it’s Heads are going to put their heads(or should i say arrses in these cases) together and to come up with INTELLIGENT, well planned and PROACTIVE solutions and governance of our country?… plans that will WORK for the country in the preservation/longevity of it… plans that, if no more, they can look back and be proud of themselves.  Just WHEN is this going to happen??

      Why is it that our successive Governments have tried to ‘REINVENT the wheel’??  If they are that incompetent, then why cant they not simply look at and learn from the blue-prints(if you will) and history of other countries…. their successes and their problem areas…  to take their successful solutions to those problems and to tailor them to our requirements if needed??

      Why do we have to ENDURE the agony of these atrocities in waiting for sensible solutions while our country plunges deeper and deeper into irrecoverable ruination??? Why is it that the Cayman Islands cannot and will never know the common good that comes with SENSIBLE governance?? Why is it – that discovered in 1503 we are only approx 50 yrs into real development and ‘progressive peril'(paradoxically) before we now have to FALL over the proverbial cliff into the pits of HELL?? WHY???

      We need a MIRACLE!!!

      Sorry… I was just thinking out loud.

      Truly Flabbergasted, IRON CLAD

  20. Lorrie Furniss says:

    I would rather have a fire arm in my home than suffer through the torture of fearing for my life. I remember over the years fearing for my life here in Cayman. And I don’t feel secure now.

    The Estella Scott Roberts case is still in the forefront of my memory.  During the investigation, trial and for months after the trial, I was afraid to go into my own house after dark.  Those fears in all of us will never fade.  We will learn to deal with the fear.

    Years ago, week after week I remember reading in the newspaper about women and very young women being raped and the acused being aquitted. As far as my memory serves, all of those victims knew the rapists.

    I remember the rapist in the 80’s who broke into single women’s homes and was never caught. A couple of those women were left helplessly for dead.

    There is a history to Cayman that the Commissioner could not possibly know, and he is not qualified to legislate.  Until he has more women in our police force at senior levels creating an impartial balance, the Commissioner’s statements can not give us security.  Bringing civility form the Mother Country is just a small little piece of the answer of protection all of us.

    In these economic times when Government cannot timely complete the monumental task of finishing the schools to educate our children from right and wrong, they can not speak seriously against firearms.  Government does not have the resources to provide adequate protection, especially for women of all ages, Caymanians, ex-pats and tourists all alike.

    My vote is for firearms and the right to protect myself and my family.


    • KY says:

      You do know you are more likely to die in a car crash in Cayman than to be shot dead during a burglary here?

      do you suffer " the torture of fearing for my life" when you get in your car everyday?

  21. IRON CLAD says:

    ATTENTION Commissioner Baines,

    It is very apparent that you are such a STRONG advocate in the Anti-Safety concept and Laws of the UK in keeping our Police Force ‘UNARMED’ and equally to advocate against the LEGAL arming of the Law-abiding citizens of OUR country(Not YOURS) and in the bottom line of all things ‘Criminal vs Public, you are a STRONG ADVOCATE in telling the public we must simply "Lay down and OFFER ourselves and families to be VICTIMS of robbery and MURDER’ by these brazing criminals. It is EVIDENT that YOUR ‘Preferrence’ IS in SUPPORT of the CRIMINAL and NOT for the Law-abiding citizens you are being paid to Serve and Protect.

    It is also very apparent that you and the rest of the RCIP seems to be 90% dependent on the public to feed information in order for the RCIP to begin to do it’s job. Additionally the RCIP in running a ‘Campaign’ of educating the public on how and what to to do in order to avoid being a victim of the would-be robbers etc., however Mr Baines, in ALL that you have said and done to educate, I think you/the RCIPS have NOT addressed the most crucial part of this equation. That is – It is without question that these criminals are RELENTLESSLY breaking into peoples homes and businesses in the broad light of day… high noon, roobing not only our businesses, but looting our TOURISTS AS WELL and the people of these Islands are being dictated to by the ‘LAW’ and YOURSELF that we must must spend the money we do on Security Systems and Security Guards, we are being dictated to in the matter we are unable to defend our money, selves and families. That we must simply CONTINUE to SUPPORT these outlaws with our HARD-EARNED Money AND potentially our LIVES.

    Mr Baines, I would like to SOLEMNLY ask you 3 questions.

    (1)  Given the above, do YOU as Commissioner of the RCIPS, have ANY SENSIBLE and PROACTIVE plan of action in the curtailing of such a HIGH level of CRIME in our country, by which you are being PAID???

    (2)  Is there ANY chance that YOU/Government sees the REAL NECESSITY and URGENCY of bringing crime under REAL CONTROL by way of PREVENTATIVE POLICING(what Policing SHOULD be) ???

    (3)  If the previous questions can be answered with the LOGICAL answers, then WHEN or WHAT will it TAKE for YOU to take such ACTIONS…  actions that are a result of RATIONAL and IMPARTIAL thinking… Actions that will serve the protect the LAW ABIDING citizens of this country and NOT facilitating to the CRIMINALS ?????

    May I strongly emplore you to answere these questions in another public statement on the matter of CRIME here on our Islands, as there are thousands who are at the mercy of these brazing OUTLAWS and at the Mercy of the Creator, now and into the future.


    Solemnly IRON CLAD

    • Anonymous says:

      Police can’t go any further to arrest criminals if the public refuse to help. Someone on this islands, maybe few people do know who did break in other people houses and business. It all take a simple note of names and address who did it and pass post to the police station.

    • anonymous says:


      Iron Clad, what a brilliant letter to Mr. Baines.

      We need you to write the RCIP enforcement policy and hand book!

      I agree with Mrs.Lorrie Furniss 5000%

      Caymanians need to arm themselves because the law enforcement is not able to protect them. Jonathan confirms that the police never responded when 911 was called while the robbery was in progress, as a good neighbor he put his own self at risk, and the police did not even respond to their own call to duty. This is discouraging, as we  resort to make irrational decisions like Judge alone trials and  secret witnesses because of the pot holes , and breach of confidentiality in our law enforcement systems. At the end of the day as we weigh all matters concerning this issue the RCIP commissioner and his staff is weighed and found wanting.

      We are not satisfied at all with the performance and the nonsense that  is coming from Commissioner Baines mouth, he can not be serious. Is he the same man that is responsible for the protection of the Governor? Is the governor watching what is coming from this mans mouth for real?

      I must add that the public made one mistake and that is that during the time that we lobbied and campaigned by way of forum contributions in attempt to get the attention of the powers that be. Our goal was to have Mr. Baines replaced by  former Chief Inspector Derek Haines, the best Top Cop the Cayman Islands and the entire Caribbean ever had !.  I think we need to start those requests all over again, Mr. Baines you need training from Mr. Derek Haines. You don’t seem to know what time of day it is he does.Mr. Haianes was these Criminals "Waterloo" they were afraid of him and his task force. I slept with my window open, why do we now need Burglar Bars?

      Governor Trevor, please have Mr. Baines trained by Former Chief Inspector Derek Haines, the man is not ready!

      As the Jamaicans would say "Im Na Redy"  

  22. Anonymous says:

    NEWS FLASH Mr. Baines

    The criminals are already armed. The are not waiting for Law abiding citizens to be armed. Please spread your propaganda somewhere else. You can’t spin your way out of the facts. Stop blaming the media and making excuses.

    I would rather have a fighting chace being armed myself facing an armed criminal than unarmed facing an armed criminal.

    If you are not prepared to accept the fact that this is not the UK and that different methods are needed than in the UK, then please go back to the UK.

    • Obvious says:

      Was the dead burglar armed with a gun? Nope he had a knife, last time I checked every homeowner is armed with one of those already.

      If every home owner has a gun, burglers will still burgle, they will just kill the homeowners first to majke sure they are safe, just like in the US

      If guns were the be all and end all, the US would have no crime, instead you hear everyday of another shooting , hundreds of robberies and rapes.

      The proof is in the pudding mate

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        Re: "The proof is in the pudding mate"

        Your unwillingness to accept that the homeowner is safe because he had a firearm is amazing…

        • anonymous says:

          It aappears that it was a good thing the homeowner had a fire arm. Did not the reports state that there was a Knife at the scene?

          Did he go there to kill he man and his dear wife? He had some intention to break into a homeowners home and carry a knife there too!

          Baines you are here on vacation, not to clean up crime please stop living in a fersad.

          Baines don’t really care what happens to us, he has the security he needs and that’s why he’s popping off his mouth talking a lot of trash out of his head.

          The reality is we don’t buy his bunk!


      • A Caymanian says:

        Let me set the scene for you mate!  You discover a man in your home at night, what are you going to say?  Excuse me sir, do you have a knife?  Oh, well, just give me a minute to go to the kitchen…  Or; do you have a machete?  Wait right there, I’ll be right back, I have to go to the garage for mine…  Or what’s that you say, you’re unarmed?  Well…  in that case take anything you want, just don’t wake the kids.  What a considerate burglar!  Or how about;  What?  You lied?  You do have a gun?  Well in that case you better leave right now or I’m going to call 911.  And by the way, that wasn’t very nice… lying I mean!

        WTF?  Are you kidding me with this?  The UK has outlawed handguns and has just about legislated self defense out of existence, so there can’t possibly be any crime over there right now!  Right?

        Listen mate, we (Caymanians) can legally own licensed firearms.  Just get over it!  To be clear, I’m not saying that everyone should have one.  If you don’t want one, fine, that is the individuals prerogative, providing that they are law abiding citizens who meet the criteria as per the firearms law.  But, if you don’t have one, I hope for your family’s sake that your next door neighbor does, and that he likes you enough to come to help when he hears your wife scream!

      • Herman and crew says:

        Homeowners can’t help it if criminals bring knives to gunfights. 

        When the criminals start bringing guns to gunfights, it would be prudent for the homeowners to have the alarms on and the windows barred (yes, this is becoming necessary despite what the authorities would have you believe), so that the homeowner will have sufficient time to get up and grab his or her gun and stand ready to defend themselves.

        Or I guess we can just let the criminals break in, rob and rape us, and we just take it. 

        Hmmm…. what to do…..

        • KY says:

          You didn’t even respond to any of the points, you just keep spouting the same stuff no one is arguing with.

          Has the fact that nearly all home owners in the US having guns stopped burglary , or home invasions or just led to more shootings.

          No one yet has said you can’t defend yourself in your home, so why keep on harping on about that.

          Defending your family is a given , it’s everyone owning guns that is the point.

          Are you looking forward to a score of kids being shot dead at school or a neighbour shooting another when what may be a fist fight ends in a multiple shooting?

          • Herman and crew says:

            Look Jelly, I just ignored the arguments that are pointless.  We know that the criminals have guns.  The question is indeed whether us honest folks should have them as well.  I say yes, you say no.  Fine – don’t have a gun.  I will. OK?

            And yes, I know there are people who should not have guns because they don’t have the temperment or intellect for it.  That’s why there needs to be tests and qualifications.  We don’t need idiots with guns (the criminals show us why).  Don’t trust yourself with a gunu?  Don’t buy one.

      • Anonymous says:

        You are so against Caymanians owning firearms that you have thrown reality and logic out the window. You are stating that the victim of a crime who is under threat should be armed only with what the criminal is armed with. I guess we should always make sure the criminal has a fighting chance in a fair fight.

        What if there are multiple invaders armed with knives? Should I just pick up more knives? What if I am killed in that knife fight, who will protect my children?

        Sorry bo bo

        I have a family with young children to protect. I will engage any threat to my family with the force necessary to safe gaurd our lives and a firearm allows me do do that without hand to hand combat and even against multiple threats or if the invaders are bigger and stronger.

        You can defend yourself how ever you see fit, I will defend my family in the best possible way to increase our chances of survival.

  23. Man says:

    “The reality was very different from the perceptions, Baines suggested. He blamednews headlines and the media in general for exaggerating the level of crime and twisting stories that fed into these distorted perceptions and fears about the real levels of crime.”

    So the Premier is correct, the media needs to be regulated?

  24. nauticalone says:

    All law abiding citizens should have the right to own the means (including guns) to protect self and family…period!

    No one should be able to tell anyone else that he/she cannot legally do so. Just what would a middle aged or "elderly" person protect him/herself with?

    And if the Premier can make the issue of gambling important enough for a referendum, then surely he should call fo a referendum on making it easier for law abiding citizens to own firearms and other means of self defence.

    It’s just too easy (not to mention hypocritical) for those who are protected by armed police/security to say we (regular law abiding citizens) cannot or should not be allowed the means to protect ourselves.

    It would be interesting to hear more from our elected politicians on this!

  25. Anonymous says:

    Ever seen the movie "Bowling for Columbine"?

    Canada has 11 million guns….more than the USA, however we don’t shoot each other. It is all in the education of the system.

    Armed robberies to date this year in Cayman…20 plus….in my community which is the same size, haven’t had an armed robbery in forty plus years and we all own guns!!

    Great for the fella who stood up to protect his family and property….XXXX.

    No boo hoo’s for him either as it would appear that these home invaders have never been held accountable for their actions in Cayman’s catch and release program.


  26. Anonymous says:

    As long as the government is selling residency and giving criminals status (while they are in jail)  they should get into the business of selling firearms as well…sort of supply and demand

  27. Para-Ann Springfield says:

    Welcome back Commissioner Baines. Glad to see that you are able to take time from your degree studies to greet us. How is that going by the way?

    Also please let us know the results of the RCIPS internal questioner currently circulating the service, which asks whether officers feel that there is racism/ racial discrimination in the service. Thanks

    Now as for this gun "ting". I’m not advocating for or against guns, but as for your comments, let’s look at the hypocrisy that "lies" within… get it…”lies” ๐Ÿ™‚

    You say it would be an oversimplified (CNS hope he said this, or you going make me look fool fool) reaction as a result of fear in the community… really… well I guess you would know what such a reaction is. After all it is extremely similar to your championing swift enactment of legislation to remove the rights of those charged with firearms related offences to have their cases heard by a jury of their peers. An oversimplified reaction that would, respectfully, only serve to shore-up inadequate investigations and prosecutions; XXXXXX

    Sir do you know about social evolution generally? Do you know that by subjecting an alleged offender to trial by judge alone, the law is not allowed to develop with ever-changing social norms. Having said all of that, I do feel that you have an excellent (save a few nobs) service, they just need the support. I speak to good hardworking officers (local and imported) on occasion, who tell me that they love their job but the BS it too high. They feel demoralised. Some of them are put off by having to work with, or by being placed subordinate to some of the likes of the Tempura elites. Sir I know you are no fool, just do the right thing! I digress…

    In relation to the recent shooting incident, you have said on the first day that a "criminal" file will be put together and submitted to the AG for ruling. Sir do not the police act from a report (the discharge of firearm as in this case, which in itself is no offence if done in protection of any person or any property), investigate to find some evidence of a breach of an offence, then forward it to the AG? Your conviction to open a criminal file before any meaningful investigation could reasonably been conducted indicates your "stiffy" to rob citizens of the right to protect themselves by any means necessary… (can anyone hear that colonial whip) "By any means necessary"… self-defense would fall into that category. Self-defense by knife, broom, conch shell, big-rock, tamarind-switch or gun, as long as that item was legally in my possession, and in sometimes not even. That’s a whole "nother" bucket of shells ๐Ÿ™‚ Ya feel me. ๐Ÿ™‚ And imagine I’m from North Wales

  28. Bodden says:



    Would allow Police Officers to be armed in order for them to protect themselves…

    Yet they have trouble with the "People" being armed in order to protect themselves and families from crooks and yes… corrupt officers!


    Are not Police Officers, People too??? 

  29. Anonymous says:

    Burgler bars and razor wire. These appear to be potential growth industries in Cayman.

  30. Anonymous says:

     If every household had a gun, these hoodlums wouldn’t be so anxious to break into the homes!

    • durrrr says:

      the word on the marl road is that the house last week was targeted precisely because the owner had guns. if it’s true, we have a genuine contender for a Darwin award, but the bottom line is that no-one would be dead if there were no guns in that house.

      • Jack says:

        "…no-one would be dead if there were no guns in that house."

        Why do you say that?  What makes you presume that the criminal would not have killed the residents of the house?  Or are you saying that as long as the criminal doesn’t kill the occupants, the occupants should let the criminal rob them and rape them and do as he wishes to them?

        Is that what you are saying?  You want us to be willing victims to save the lives of the criminals?  Really???

        • Durrrr says:

          I said that if it’s true that the home owner was targeted because the deceased wanted to steal his guns, no-one would be dead (ie. if the home owner did not have guns for the deceased to try to steal, the deceased would not have broken into his house in the first place).

          • Toil the Garden says:

            So to follow your line of reasoning…if there were no guns there would be no crimes or murder. Yes I see it now.. makes sense ..lets just get rid of all the guns…start with the legal guns first…because you know where they are. Then you go after the illegal guns..very simple solution.

            Just have to remember when I am being robbed,raped or murdered to not resist. I know it might sound like I’m being difficult…but I just don’t want to lay down and take it….Can I please at least put up a fight ? Might make the crime scene a little messy, and I ‘m sure there will be more paper work….but I really ..really don’t want to leave my fate up to a desperate criminal and police officers who would prefer that I not use deadly force to protect my life and property…please…please ……

            OK.. wait perhaps i should  just cut out the middle man and plead directly to the criminals…Please ..Please don’t kill me, or rape me…I don’t own a gun….

  31. not a fan of Baines says:

    So Baines would feel better if I got shot by a criminal who has an illegal fire arm, than if I tried to shot the criminal firstwith my legal firearm.

    Maybe from a paper work perspective its better to write up just one crime, and we should just all lay down and be good non threatening victims.

    Make sense who need more paperwork. Might be best if we take turns at being robbed, raped and on special occassions murdered….a national lottery for who get’s murdered would be fair…or would the top cop prefer to say who has to die ?

    Definately an equitable solution to crime.

  32. Anonymous says:

    It’s easy for him to say this when he has 24 hour RCIP surveillance in his neighborhood. Don’t believe me? THake a drive through the Governors Harbor area anytime during the day or night. Police Helicopter flying overhead and police in cars and on foot patrol all day long.

    We need to protect ourselves because the police can’t protect us because they are too busy taking care of themselves and with an inept Commissioner who only cares about himself at the helm, God only help us!


    • Anonymous says:

      Like you have not said this before like a stuck record.  Get your facts right please!

  33. Anonymous says:


    Many of us would agree, legal guns are not the solution
    But neither are cops who operate under an illusion
    If Cayman is expecting a answers from Inspector Baines
    Then good people, you are in essence, waiting in vain


  34. Anonymous says:

    Is really doesn’t matter what you do. Guns or no guns, police or no police.

    Thanks to the ignorance of the caimanians themselves ,  this place is going down the drain.

    You were warned in the 80’s when gangs started to develop. You went to church instead of on the street to demonstrate.

    Now there is no stopping to it. Organized crime will reach politicians and soon they will be on their payroll.


  35. Anonymous says:

    I’d take any opinions the Commissioner has on the legal gun ownership with a grain of salt.  This is coming from the same person who said there were a small number of people causing the crimes with a couple of guns but he has been unable to stop it yet.

    • A Caymanian says:

       Except that in this case he has the name, address, phone number, etc… of the owners of every licensed firearm in the Cayman Islands, so it would be a proverbial "walk in the park" to collect them, as opposed to the unlicensed firearms, which are proving to be more of a challenge.

      To be fair, I do agree with him that arming everyone indiscriminately is obviously not a good idea, but just imagine, if he could really convince us that law abiding Caymanians should not be allowed to have licensed firearms at all and that existing licenses should be revoked, he would instantly get credit for ridding Cayman of far more guns than he has been able to so far, and provide himself with a little extra job security to boot.  Remember, an unarmed population is a more dependent population, and after all, are we not supposed to be a "dependency"?

      I sincerely hope that Mr. Baines will focus on the real problem and not get too distracted by his personal beliefs toward legal firearms, lest he lose sight of what he is really supposed to be doing here and instead leave us even more defenseless than he came here and found us.

  36. Doc Holiday says:

    "Baines revealed that 460 [USA] officers took their own lives and that of someone close to them with their own service weapon.  …

    Baines explained that the visual sight of a police officer was important and seeing them armed did not mean that people felt safe."

    If you don’t trust your police officers with guns, that fully explains why the public needs to be armed – self-defence is the only line of defence left.

    Baines has demonstrated time and time again that the RCIPS are incapable of effectively dealing with the crime wave, or of protecting us. 

    Baines wants us to be unarmed, which is to say he wants us to keep volunteering to be victims, but why would we agree to that when he has no viable alternative for our protection?

    I would prefer to be unarmed as well, but I have a much stronger preference to be able to defend myself, my wife and my children from the things Baines can’t even begin to control. 

    Talk is cheap Baines – when you have a functional means of protecting us, we can talk about why I should not have a gun.  Until then, your "preference" that I not be armed is subordinate to my need to protect my family. 

    I can imaging how well it would be received to have someone explain to my children that mommy and daddy are dead, but at least Commissioner  Baines didn’t have to worry about an attorney having a gun in his house.

    • Anonymous says:

      I’ll tell you what, I’m sure glad you DONT have a gun 

      • Anonymous says:

        "I’ll tell you what, I’m sure glad you DONT have a gun"

        Are you sure he doesn’t have a gun. Try asking him, and tell him to be truthful with his answer. 


        • Doc Holiday says:

          I have a few guns, actually.  I’ve never had to shoot anyone in self-defence, but I’m usually ready do so, at least at home. 

          For the record, I’ve had or been around gunsfor 40-odd years, and I’ve never used one unsafely, in anger, or unlawfully.  I have never committed a crime (the odd traffic infraction aside), and I have no intention to do so.  I live quietly, and respect and help my neighbours at every opportunity.  I work hard and contribute to society and various charities.  If you see me on the street I will almost always smile and nod good day to you.

          On the other hand, if someone kicks in my door and struts in with weapon in hand, I will not hesitate.  Not one second.

      • Jack says:

        Calling all criminals – here’s a victim waiting to happen.  Come early and come often, get ’em while he’s still fresh.

  37. John Evans says:

    This is ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) rhetoric.

    "The commissioner said firearms in the home would lead to an increase of use by criminals as the presumption would be that everyone is armed, as is the case in the United States." Which is exactly the ACPO policy on this subject, as are the rest of his comments.
    Kennesaw, Georgia enacted a law in 1982 requiring every householder, but exempting those with criminal records or religious objections, to own a firearm. Despite opposition claiming disastrous consequences (as has the CoP) the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw fell immediately by almost 90% and remained around 80% lower than before the law was passed.

    There has, as far as I can determine, been no criminal backlash or increase in the illegal use of legally owned firearms. In reality criminals avoid households where the owners are literally prepared to take no prisoners.

    Whether or not you want to go down this route is entirely another matter but the CoP needs to come up with something a damn sight more tangible than a lot of politically correct gibberish if he wants to convince people there are viable alternatives.

    I remember visiting friends in the suburbs of a major city in the USA. Many residents were armed, many were not, but they all knew the police officers who patrolled their district (even down to having their personal cell phone numbers!) and knew they could rely on them in an emergency – crime in that area was as near non-existent as you can get. Try that in Cayman Mr Baines, it might just solve all your problems.
    Finally, "He said he preferred the UK model where neither the community nor the police were routinely armed." Well, you have to consider part of that comment in the context of the draconian legislation (which will no doubt be applied to the Cayman Islands in due course) that effectively made competing in recreational target shooting competitions a criminal offence. As for the rest, in part it’s not true because their are armed police active on the streets atall times. We’ve on a long way from the old concept of ARV’s (armed response vehicles) that only respond to armed incidents and their current equivalents are on the roads 24/7. It’s only fair to observe that the only reason they don’t arm all the police in the UK is that most of them are not capable of using a firearm. XXXX
  38. Beachboi says:

    I was sitting at work the other day on break and two RCIP officers passed bye both wearing side arms, and I will tell you that it DID make me feel safe!!

  39. Bodden says:

    Baine states that firearms in the home would lead to an increase of use by criminals as the presumption would be that everyone is armed.

    That is faulty reasoning!

    Criminals are NOW assuming that certain homes have firearms. They are going as far as assaulting the homeowners in their very houses. This happening now! 

  40. Anonymous says:

    Just do what ever you have to do to protect yourself and your family.  If you don’t want to protect yourself, lay down and be killed!  Just get out of my way and my right to bare arms!

  41. GC Bhoy says:

    Well said!

    Let’s keep the Cayman chapter of the NRA in check.


  42. Dennie Warren Jr. says:

    Re: “Baines reiterated his position that he preferred to see an unarmed community without the right to bear arms except for specific reasons, such as sport or hunting, and not as a matter of course.”

    In other words, the Commissioner of Police is saying that when criminals who are armed with unlicensed firearms enter your private home and attempt to rob, rape or murder your family, that law-abiding residents should NOT be allowed to defend themselves with a lawfully owned firearm.

    I agree you, this Commissioner needs to go now and I second your motion!

    • Durrrr says:

      when was the last time someone was raped or murdered in their own home? you make it sound like it’s any every day occurence.

      • Frank says:

        A lot of rapes, maybe most, are not reported.  The posters here should know how many of the recent murders happened in or around their homes.  I recall at least a couple recent shootings that happened around the people’s homes.

    • Anonymous says:

      Or maybe he is saying that individuals should not be able to acquire weapons with the sole purpose of responding extra-judicially and potentially fatally to any perceived threat, however slight or mistaken. The reality is that unless people can be relied upon to infallibly store and use weapons responsibly and respond in an objectively correct way to a given situation, general gun ownership makes life a more dangerous place. How realistic is it, for example, to expect a householder woken in the middle of the night and seeing a shadowy figure outside the window to infallibly judge what that person is doing, whether they are armed and, most importantly, whether they truly pose a threat to personal safety? Opening fire on a "better safe than sorry" basis clearly carries with it an enormous risk of tragic mistake.

      What you are effectively saying is that when you see a man with a gun, you want to be able to shoot him to protect yourself. Leaving aside for a moment considerations as to whether you are a goodenough marksman to incapacitate him before he shoots back, just turn this on its head for a moment. As soon as he sees you with a gun, you become a threat to him against which he will want to protect himself, and there is immediately a far greater reason for him to actually use the gun that he is carrying. In all of the recent spate of armed robberies, nobody has been shot. I doubt that this would have remained the case if staff members had reacted by pulling a firearm of their own from under the counter. Sometimes it may have been the robber, sometimes the member of staff- it is crucial to realise that real life doesn’t work like the movies, and the good guy won’t always win.

      Whilst it is understandable that people may feel safer if they are armed, the reality is that the gun in fact makes you less safe, not more. A study by the Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 2009 suggested that people with a gun were 4.5 times more likely to be shot in an assault that those not possessing a gun ( I’ll take my chances on my own, thanks.



      • durrrr says:


      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        Re: “I’ll take my chances on my own.”

        I take no issue with you choosing to not be armed with a firearm – that is your right and I will always respect it, but don’t me that I cannot have firearms for my defense, etc., that is not going to work.

      • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

        Re: “What you are effectively saying is that when you see a man with a gun, you want to be able to shoot him to protect yourself.”

        Reply: No, I’m saying that I agree with Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130, when he said: "…. where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ….".

        Re:”As soon as he sees you with a gun, you become a threat to him against which he will want to protect himself, and there is immediately a far greater reason for him to actually use the gun that he is carrying.”

        Reply: Not all criminals think rationally, but most do, so most don’t want to die.  If he starts shooting first, he may not hit me, but if he does, it would be my intention to take him into the afterlife with me.

        Re: “How realistic is it, for example, to expect a householder woken in the middle of the night and seeing a shadowy figure outside the window to infallibly judge what that person is doing, whether they are armed and, most importantly, whether they truly pose a threat to personal safety?”

        DW: You clearly underestimate people.  While making that assessment however, I’d rather have a load firearm in my hand and not need it, than need a firearm but not have it.  You do use your seatbelt every time you drive your car right?  Same idea!

        • Anonymous says:

          You may want to familiarise yourself with the strict legal definition of "attempt", which involves an act that is "more than merely" preparatory to the complete offence, in this case an assault. Your right to use force pre-emptively is really rather limited,  and is certainly restricted to what is reasonable. It is highly debatable whether shooting someone would be reasonable in the vast majority of cases, even where an attack of some sort is anticipated.

          You may consider an encounter with a criminal where you both die to be a victory. Personally I’d rather focus on walking away- if you are thinking rationally and don’t want to die, the best way to maximise your chances of doing so is not to introduce a gun into the situation.

          You clearly over-estimate peoples’ ability to react to a situation that they will almost certainly never have faced before correctly- even the best of us don’t get things right the first time we try.

          As for the example of seatbelts, the empirical research suggests that wearing one reduces my chances of dying in a car accident. By the same token the empirical research suggests that carrying a gun increases my chances of being shot myself. Accordingly the best way to say safe in the two situations is to wear a seatbelt, and to not carry a gun.


          • Dennie Warren Jr. says:

            I don’t over-estimate peoples’ ability, but most people can be successfully trained.  Operating a firearm is not difficult at all and the safety rules are simple.  I’ve been shooting since 1986, and I shoot weekly.

            How do you walk away from a home invasion /rape/murder? Do you just say hey, ya know what, I’m going out for awalk instead?!  Are you using illegal drugs?  Lord Parker CJ in Chisam (1963) 47 Cr App Rep 130 said: "…. where a forcible and violent felony is attempted upon the person of another, the party assaulted, or his servant, or any other person present, is entitled to repel force by force, and, if necessary, to kill the aggressor ….".

            Re: “…empirical research suggests that carrying a gun increases my chances of being shot…”

            Anyone would know that driving a car means an increased risk of being involved in a car accident.  Anyone would also know that were there no cars, there could not ever be any car accidents.  However, only a fool would conclude that were there no cars, there would be no more accidents of any kind.  The reality is, criminals do have and will always have access to illegal firearms.  So why would you ONLY what criminals to have firearms?

            I respect your freedom to be a willing victim, but you’re wasting your breath when asking me to join you as a victim, because when it comes to defending my life, losing is not an option!

    • Anonymous says:

      No, I don’t think that is what he is saying…. maybe what you are hearing… 

  43. Anonymous says:

    Ok Commissioner, lets be in denial about the state of crime on the island for the sake of alleviating tourists fears about coming here.  What a perfect forum to do it in too!  The fact of the matter is that this is not the UK, this is Cayman.  And like it or not, Cayman has more American influences than that of the UK.  Now the numbers you are talking about in the US are alarming.  But keep in mind you’re talking about nearly 400 million people.  When you put that into context of the 50,000 or so that are here in Cayman, it’s easy to see that we are in real trouble.  Another fact is that if you take guns away from those that should have a right to legally have them, then the only ones left with guns will be the criminals, and a few cops that are usually so far away from the incident that the criminals are long gone before any police presence is noted.  The recent event of a home owner shooting an intruder is just evidence that it can and would work.  And again, this is not the UK where everyone is believed to be inherently good.  There are too many nationalities, and too many mixtures of cultures on such a tiny island to even begin to compare it to any larger country. You have to be proactive and keep the criminals afraid.  Afraid that they might get what’s coming to them if they break into someones house.  You Mr. Commissioner are in denial, and have been for quite some time.  Lets find a real COP to come in here and get the job done!  Please resign now sir!

    • Anon says:

      "And again, this is not the UK where everyone is believed to be inherently good.  There are too many nationalities, and too many mixtures of cultures on such a tiny island to even begin to compare it to any larger country."

      With all due respect you are misinformed and have no idea what you are talking about.  Crime levels and types in England are far more complex than here in Cayman.  We too have to deal with organzed crime and terrorist attacks, amongst many other types of crime you better hope don’t rear their ugly heads here in Cayman.

      Based on the latest population estimates Cayman had a mix of more than 100 nationalities and just over half of the population were of Caymanian descent.

      In comparison, there are approximately 7.3 million residents in London alone, 59.8 of which are of British descent.  There are over 200 different nationalities and over 300 different languages spoken.  Every culture, religion and faith in the world is represented in London.

      Having come from thisbackground Mr Baines knows darn well what he is talking of, whereas you, seemingly, don’t.

      • A Caymanian says:

        What?  I thought I just read here on CNS that the UK outlawed handguns from 1997?  You mean that didn’t work?  There’s still crime in the UK, imagine that!

      • Anonymous says:

        Britain does have crime that is typically associated with larger countries.  But that’s not what the writer was talking about in my humble opinion.  You can’t compare Britain to Cayman.  It’s much different.  The amount of crime per capita in Cayman is downright scary.  What works in Britain is obviously not working here.  Something needs to be done differently.  Whether that be arming all police, allowing law abiding citizens arm themselves, or something else is up for discussion.  I agree that the CoP is not in his right frame of mind about the truth.  The buck should stop with him, and he should resign.

    • Anonymous says:

       ahem… that would be 300,000 people

      • Anonymous says:

         My mistake for the typo, but the meaning and bulk of the message remain the same.

  44. A REALIST says:

    With all respect to this commissioner he needs to shut up.

    From his comments about 15 persons perpetrating particular types of crimes, his obvious fear that the "natives" can have legal handguns to the continued rise of crime, it has been shown that his methods are a failure.

    I do not expect him to stop crime. Much of the crime is caused by social issues cultivated before he even knew where Cayman was on the map. However, I do expect him have a competent crime fighting plan, to arrest the perpetrators and to put together a good enough case so that the incompetents at Legal can secure convictions. When they cannot even properly secure a crime scene and retrieve spent shells I highly doubt the public can have faith in the RCIPS.

    Strangely he seems to have all the rope in the world as his permanent predecessor was actually on the right path. I guess he has to finish his contract.

    • anonymous says:


      Former Chief Inspector Derek Haines,

      We need you desperately, please come back to us.

      e know you know how to get this crime under control regardless sof how bad the rascals are, you got their number!

  45. Anonymous says:

    so i see Mac has got to him too…..lets all blame the media. Even if the media reported nothing, people on the streets would notice that people are dying/being shot. Despite the fact that we have a large number of unsolved crimes….to just look at the court list alone would tell a tale…..even if the right people aren’t being charged etc, the offences are still taking place. Fabian Powell did die. Omar Samuels did die. Adrian Powell was shot. Damian Ming did die. Jeremiah did die. Estella was murdered as was Sabrina, these things did happen, someone killed/shot these people. The crime did happen………the media didn’t make it up.

    so what if they report it, people have a right to know, most of the time the media simply cut and pace what the police report says anyway! not too much investigative journalism goes on here compared to other countries. Everything is political, and when freedom of speech and freedom of the press becomes attacked the way it is…..there can only be times of trouble ahead.

  46. Anonymous says:

    There are no easy answers. There are only intelligent choices. (Caterpillar Company ad line 1970s).

    I totally agree with Mr. Baines that the answer is not to arm every homeowner with a handgun. I am terrifed of the prospect of the Cayman Islands becoming The Wild West (Indies).


    I don’t want to hear from the elected officials that it is the Governor’s job, and I don’t want to hear excuses from the Governor’s office that everything possible is being done. On an island of less than 100 sq. miles, with the technology we have, we should be able find each and every piece of ammunication here. The police under the direct supervision of respected elder statements of this country, should be empowered to stop and surpise check each and every vehicle in the country if that is what it takes. And if particular homes and areas are known as possible sites of illegal activities, search warrants, again with input and supervision from elder statements of this country, should be issued. This crime wave is a serious matter and requires immediate and serious action.

    People who are criminals should know that we are serious about eradicating guns and good citizens should feel that they don’t have to fear  being pistol whipped in their homes.

    If these measures are too Draconian or not the "answer", then Mr. Baines should offer the "choices" that will be the solutions.

    • Bodden says:

      You said


      If you are an intelligent or rational person, you would have by now figured out that illigal firearms are here to stay!


      THINK MAN and BE A MAN!

    • Anonymous says:

      I think a problem here is that there are no ‘elder statesmen’ that have the integrity to step up to the plate and make a strong moral stand for anything, be it against crime, or drugs, development violations, whatever.

      The person that makes a total commitment to such a thing is solid and unshakable and fear of losing job, status or friends is put aside.

      I just don’t think there is anyone here to do that.  It’s kind of like that mayor of Washington DC telling people to stop crime and drugs, and then he was arrested for smoking crack.  The whole world knows in their gut when someone os committed, and when they are just moving their lips. 

      I think the first step is to admit to ourselves that we don’t really know how to solve these problems, and stop putting faith (or blame) on the rather common men we pay to take care of our business.

  47. Anonymous says:

    I wonder what the commissioner would have said if the burgular stabbed and killed the family?  Who is the commissioner to say we can’t protect ourselves?  The POLICE CANNOT PROTECT US as you can see.  They didn’t even know Harrington Rivers had cut his bracelet off. 


    This commissioner needs to GO!!!!

    • Confused! says:

      He would have said the same thing – because what he says makes sense – even though you clearly dont like it.  I’m with Baines on this one and I dont think he needs to go.

    • Rev says:

      Who is the commissioner to say we can’t protect ourselves? 

      Where does he say that? you don’t need a gun to protect yourself!

      You sem to forget that in the US where everyone has a gun, burglaries still occur regularly, it just usually means the burglar is armed with a gun or an automatic weapon to protect themselves from any armed home owner

  48. Anonymous says:

    Thank you Mr Baines, thank goodness for that!

  49. Bodden says:

    Baines: "We would see a fuelling of homicides we have not seen before"


    Instilling fear in locals so that they are unable to defend themselves!  It is a colonial, "we must hold power over you" tactic, and remain dependent on the Police for life-death situation!

    I am not falling for it, Mr. Baines!

    Long ago Cayman had guns, more guns than we have now and there was LESS crime on the Island. You can take your psychology back to the UK! 

    The RIGHT to bear arms goes way back before colonial days. The U.S. has self-defense embedded in their Constitution as a RIGHT. I think the Commissioner is just repeating what the Governor tells him to repeat.

    • Rev says:

      You do know there was an a ‘ell of a lot less people too back then, hence less crime.

      The more poeple in a contstnat anmount  os fpasce will mean more crime. That is why cities have such high crime rates.

      US has plenty of guns, yet they still have far more crime than the UK.


      • Heavy Cake says:


         You repeatedly mention cities and crime rates in the US, which suggests that you are unaware that three major American cities including Chicago, New York and DC do not promote private firearm ownership – and perhaps that explains their crime rate!!

  50. A Guy says:

    Have to agree with Baines here, keep your right to bear arms, or even your right to arm bears outa here.

    • Watler says:

      Baines is scared of the native people having too much power!  According to him, power should only be in the hands of the state. This is disturbing!  We should be a democracy for the people and by the people. The people should have the right to bear arms for self-defense.

      I never seen a government that is so scared of its own people!