Eight years demanded against Simpson Bay shooting suspect

Eight years demanded against  Simpson Bay shooting suspect

Police officers escorting suspect L.C.B. (centre) out of the Courthouse on Wednesday afternoon, March 2.

SIMPSON BAY--The Prosecutor’s Office on Wednesday called for an eight-year prison sentence for a man suspected of involvement in a shooting that took place in Simpson Bay in the vicinity of Pollos Hermanos restaurant around 10:30am on May 1, 2021.

  Eight gunshots were fired in front of Pollos Hermanos in what appears to have been a rip deal that went wrong. However, the victim, who was shot in his leg and rushed to the hospital in Marigot for treatment, said there were no drugs involved. According to him, the incident concerned the sale of a golden necklace.

  A compilation of surveillance camera images of the shooting and the chase that followed were shown in the courtroom on Wednesday. According to the prosecutor, suspect L.C.B. (32) and his victim could be seen firing eight shots back and forth, after which B. ran away at great speed. He was followed by the other man in his car.

  At a certain moment, the victim’s vehicle seems to have been involved in a collision on Airport Road, after which he reversed his vehicle to continue his search. B. went into hiding in a yard in the area and fired one shot when his assailant approached him. The shot hit the man in his leg.

  B., who said he was “scared” and acted in self-defence, is charged with attempted manslaughter in the shooting incident and with possession of an illegal firearm and 32 grams of marijuana. He is also suspected of involvement in armed robbery during which a scooter and a shoulder bag with two phones, personal documents and US $750 were stolen, on November 1, 2020. “I don’t know anything about a stolen scooter,” the defendant said in response to this allegation.

  According to the prosecutor, this case involved a drug deal that went wrong. “It might have been marijuana, but it could also have been something stronger,” he said during the hearing.
  The prosecutor said he believed that B. had been afraid, but dismissed any claims of self-defence.

  “The victim’s actions were provoked by the perpetrator. He was armed and deliberately entered a drug deal to commit a rip deal. He was the aggressor,” the prosecutor said of the suspect. This definitely was not self-defence. Both men had been firing [gunshots – Ed.] at random in a public area in clear daylight. … Many young men think they are living in some kind of ‘Wild-West World’. They took a high risk of taking innocent victims.”

  The prosecutor considered all charges proven.

  In attorney Sjamira Roseburg’s opinion, only possession of an illegal firearm and 10 grams of marijuana could be proven. She requested that the judge not believe the victim. “This was never about the sale of a chain,” Roseburg said. She said that the victim and his girlfriend obviously want to “clean up their own house, but the images speak for themselves.”

  The victim had something to hide and did not want to speak with the police. He cut his long dreadlocks and tried to escape abroad, the lawyer said.

  “Mr. B. wanted to make a deal, a clean deal. That is why they agreed to meet at Pollos Hermanos. If he had the intention to rip, he would not have agreed to meet there, Your Honour. Simpson Bay is full of cameras.”

  Roseburg said the victim had chased her client, forcing him to shoot to get out of a threatening situation. “My client feared for his life.”

  She said this was a “typical” case of self-defence. “B. tried to run away, like every human being would do, to get away from a life-threatening situation. … He only fired when he simply couldn’t do anything else,” the lawyer said, claiming that B. had only fired one shot “to defuse” the situation. This shot hit his assailant in the leg.

  “My client hopes that your court realises that he was forced to defend himself. He was alone and being hunted by other persons. The physical indisposition this has caused is a punishment in itself.”

  Whether the court agrees with the lawyer or not will become known when the judge reads the verdict on March 23.

The Daily Herald

Copyright © 2020 All copyrights on articles and/or content of The Caribbean Herald N.V. dba The Daily Herald are reserved.


Without permission of The Daily Herald no copyrighted content may be used by anyone.

Comodo SSL
mastercard.png
visa.png

Hosted by

SiteGround
© 2024 The Daily Herald. All Rights Reserved.