REFUSED TO PROTEST — SET ON FIRE?!

Something deeply disturbing is alleged to have happened in Denham Town, Kingston—and Jamaica needs to talk about it.

According to police, a man was allegedly set on fire because he refused to participate in a protest following the fatal police shooting of 26-year-old Amani “Bling Dawg” Malcolm.

Think about that allegation carefully.

A citizen allegedly exercised his own choice and said, in effect: I am not joining this protest.

And according to the police account, violence followed.

The Jamaica Gleaner reported on October 1, 2026, that a 16-year-old boy has now been charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent in connection with the alleged attack. Another man, Omarley Dennie, had previously been charged with the same offence. These are charges and allegations; guilt must be determined by a court.

But the allegations raise a much bigger question:

What is a protest if people are allegedly afraid to refuse to participate?

Peaceful protest is an important part of a democratic society. Jamaicans have every right to question the police. They have every right to demand investigations when somebody is killed by law enforcement.

And police officers must also be accountable.

In fact, the fatal shooting that triggered these protests was reported to INDECOM for independent investigation. The police account is that Malcolm allegedly produced a firearm and pointed it at an officer before a struggle and shooting occurred. Police reported recovering a Glock 26 containing five rounds. Those circumstances remain subject to investigation.

So nobody should be asked to blindly accept the police version.

But equally, nobody should be forced to accept the protesters' version.

Evidence must decide.

You cannot demand accountability from police while abandoning accountability in your own community.

You cannot demand justice while allegedly threatening somebody who chooses not to march with you.

And you certainly cannot claim to be defending people's rights while allegedly taking away another citizen's right to say NO.

The JCF itself said something that every Jamaican—whether you support the police or criticize them—should be able to agree with: citizens have a right to peaceful and lawful protest, but nobody should face threats, intimidation, or violence because they choose not to participate.

That is the principle.

Protest if you want to protest.

Demand justice if you believe justice is required.

Demand that INDECOM investigate the police.

But another Jamaican must also have the freedom to say:

“No. I am not joining you.”

Because when participation allegedly comes through intimidation, we have moved away from peaceful protest.

We have entered something far more dangerous.

JOIN THE PROTEST — OR ELSE?

The Denham Town Case Raises a Question Jamaica Cannot Ignore

Some stories that make you angry.

Some stories that make you sad.

And then there are stories that should make an entire country stop and ask:

What exactly are we becoming?

The allegations emerging from Denham Town fall into that category.

According to the Jamaica Constabulary Force and subsequent reporting by The Gleaner, a man was allegedly set on fire after refusing to participate in a protest following the fatal police shooting of Amani “Bling Dawg” Malcolm.

Now a 16-year-old boy has been charged with causing grievous bodily harm with intent in connection with that alleged attack.

Another man, Omarley Dennie, was previously arrested and charged with the same offence.

Let us establish something immediately because this is important:

Charged does not mean convicted.

The teenager is entitled to the presumption of innocence and the protections afforded to an accused person. Dennie is likewise entitled to have the allegations against him tested in court.

The prosecution must prove its case.

That principle does not change because the allegations are disturbing.

According to The Gleaner, police allege that the teenager and another man set the victim on fire because he refused to participate in the protest. Police said the teenager had been listed as wanted, was apprehended on September 29, and was subsequently charged after a question-and-answer session and the recording of a caution statement.

If those allegations are eventually proved, Jamaica must confront a frightening question: Since when does another Jamaican need permission to say NO?

What Started the Protest?

We also need to understand what preceded the alleged attack.

On September 18, 2026, Amani Malcolm, otherwise called “Bling Dawg,” was fatally shot by police in Denham Town.

According to the JCF's preliminary account, officers on mobile patrol encountered Malcolm near North Street and Pink Lane at approximately 10:40 p.m.

Police allege that an armed confrontation developed and that Malcolm produced a firearm and pointed it at an officer.

The police say a physical struggle followed.

Shots were subsequently fired by police.

Malcolm was wounded, transported to Kingston Public Hospital, and pronounced dead.

Police reported recovering a Glock 26 pistol containing five 9mm rounds at the scene. A civilian was also wounded during the incident.

Those are the police allegations.

They are not the final word.

And that distinction matters enormously.

The matter was reported to the Independent Commission of Investigations—INDECOM—which exists precisely because police use of force must be independently scrutinized.

So let me make my position on the principle unmistakably clear:

Investigate the police.

Preserve the evidence.

Interview witnesses.

Examine firearms.

Examine video where available.

Determine the trajectory of bullets.

Examine forensic evidence.

And establish what happened.

That is how a country governed by law should operate.

It should not be:

Police say it, therefore it must be true.

But neither should it become:

A community member says the police murdered somebody, therefore that must automatically be true.

A word for what should stand between those two positions.

Evidence.

THE RIGHT TO QUESTION THE POLICE

Jamaicans should never surrender their right to question the State.

Police officers carry enormous authority.

They can arrest you.

They can detain you within the limits of the law.

And under legally justified circumstances, they can use force.

That enormous authority requires enormous accountability.

INDECOM has repeatedly emphasized the importance of independent evidence—including witness accounts, CCTV, and other video—in determining what happened during police shootings. In another 2026 case, INDECOM specifically noted that video can help investigators assess the conduct of both police and civilians and determine whether force was necessary and proportionate.

That is exactly the kind of evidence-based approach Jamaica needs.

And police officers are not above prosecution.

In 2026, INDECOM investigations have resulted in criminal charges against law-enforcement officers in other cases. For example, Constable Andrew Wilson was charged with murder following an INDECOM investigation into the fatal shooting of Latoya Bulgin. The charge itself does not establish his guilt, but it demonstrates why independent investigation matters.

Therefore, this discussion cannot become:

Police good. Community bad.

Nor should it become:

Community good. Police bad.

Reality is more complicated.

Accountability must travel in both directions.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE RIGHT NOT TO PROTEST?

Here is where this Denham Town allegation becomes particularly troubling.

We frequently discuss the right to protest.

But there is another side of that freedom that receives far less attention:

The right NOT to protest.

Freedom means you may join a demonstration.

Freedom also means you may stay home.

Freedom means you may carry a placard.

Freedom also means you may refuse to carry one.

Freedom means you may criticize the police.

Freedom means your neighbour may disagree with you.

You don't have freedom if somebody else determines which political demonstration, community protest or street action you must attend.

If participation is obtained through intimidation, the very principle being claimed—freedom—is being undermined.

The JCF addressed precisely this issue after the Denham Town disturbances.

While recognizing citizens' right to engage in peaceful and lawful protest, the police said nobody should be threatened, intimidated, or subjected to violence because that person chooses not to participate.

That principle deserves support regardless of one's opinion of the police.

THINK ABOUT THE ALLEGATION

Imagine being a resident of your community.

People are angry.

Roadblocks appear.

People are protesting.

Emotions are running high.

Someone tells you:

Come protest.

And you decide:

No.

Maybe you support the protest but don't want to participate.

Maybe you disagree with it.

Maybe you know nothing about the shooting.

Maybe you're afraid.

Maybe you're sick.

Maybe you have children inside.

Maybe you don't want to go.

It shouldn't matter.

“No” should be enough.

According to the allegations now before the criminal justice system, however, a man who refused to participate was attacked and set on fire.

Again, these allegations have not yet been proved in court.

But if evidence ultimately establishes that account, then this was not merely violence occurring near a protest.

It would represent violence allegedly being used to compel participation.

And that distinction should concern every Jamaican.

A PROTEST CANNOT DEMAND RIGHTS WHILE DENYING RIGHTS

Think about the contradiction.

Imagine protesters saying:

“Respect our rights!”

Then imagine somebody responding:

“I don't want to participate.”

If that person is threatened for refusing, whose rights are being respected?

You cannot demand justice while denying another person's freedom.

You cannot demand accountability from the State while refusing accountability within the community.

You cannot complain about intimidation by authorities and then tolerate intimidation by civilians.

Principles have to apply consistently.

Otherwise, they aren't principles.

They are conveniences.

AND THIS IS WHERE LANGUAGE MATTERS

We must also be responsible when discussing the man whose death sparked the protest.

The JCF described Malcolm as the leader of the One A Way Gang and said its records showed that he had previously faced several criminal charges.

But the JCF itself included an important qualification:

Those antecedents should not be interpreted as establishing guilt in matters that had not been determined by a court.

That is an important distinction.

A charge is not a conviction.

An accusation is not a conviction.

A police designation is not a conviction.

And even a person convicted of a crime does not lose every legal protection against unlawful State action.

If a police officer unlawfully kills a convicted criminal, that officer can still be investigated and potentially prosecuted.

The rule of law means the law applies even when the person involved is unpopular.

That is what separates justice from revenge.

THE SAME STANDARD MUST APPLY TO THE POLICE

Some viewers may hear this discussion and believe that defending the police means accepting every police account.

No.

That would contradict everything I have just said about evidence.

Jamaica has independent mechanisms precisely because allegations involving police cannot simply be accepted without investigation.

INDECOM has publicly reported investigating numerous fatal shootings involving security forces in 2026 and has emphasized independent, impartial investigation.

That oversight matters.

When officers act lawfully in defence of themselves or others, evidence should demonstrate that.

When officers act unlawfully, evidence should expose that too.

The uniform cannot be a shield from accountability.

But neither can anger at the uniform become justification for intimidating innocent residents.

One standard.

Evidence.

Accountability.

Due process.

ROADBLOCKS AND COMMUNITY PRESSURE

The JCF reported that residents began erecting roadblocks in sections of Denham Town the morning after Malcolm's death and that a vehicle was set ablaze on North Street during the protest activity. Police also reported receiving information about threats against officers and reports of armed men in sections of the community. Those reports and allegations must themselves be investigated rather than automatically treated as established facts.

But there is a broader lesson here.

A roadblock affects people who may have nothing whatsoever to do with the dispute.

The nurse trying to reach work.

The elderly person trying to reach a doctor.

The parent collecting a child.

The taxi operator trying to earn money.

The worker trying not to lose a day's pay.

The student trying to reach school.

Protest has power precisely because it draws attention.

But a society must continually ask where legitimate protest ends and unlawful coercion begins.

That is not an argument against protesting.

It is an argument for peaceful protest.

THE 16-YEAR-OLD DIMENSION

And then we arrive at perhaps one of the saddest aspects of this story.

One accused person is reportedly 16 years old.

Think about that.

Whatever ultimately happens in court, Jamaica should be asking another question:

How does a teenager end up accused of something this serious?

That question goes beyond one defendant.

What are children learning about conflict?

What are they learning about disagreement?

What are they learning about masculinity?

What are they learning about gangs?

What are they learning about community loyalty?

What are they learning about the police?

And what are they learning about violence?

If young people are growing up believing disagreement should be answered with violence, Jamaica has a problem that cannot be solved simply by arresting one teenager.

Crimes must be met with accountability where crimes are proved.

But there must also be prevention.

Families.

Schools.

Churches.

Community organizations.

Mentors.

Police.

Government.

Everybody has a role.

Because by the time a 16-year-old enters the criminal justice system on an allegation this serious, something has already gone terribly wrong somewhere.

COMMUNITY LOYALTY CANNOT OVERRIDE THE LAW

Jamaica needs to have another difficult conversation.

Community loyalty can be beautiful.

People protect elderly neighbours.

People feed children.

People support families after tragedy.

People look out for each other.

But community loyalty becomes dangerous when the rule becomes:

You must support whoever the community supports.

Or:

You must hate whoever the community hates.

Or:

You must protest because everybody else is protesting.

No.

A Jamaican citizen belongs to himself or herself before belonging to any street, gang, political faction, protest movement or organization.

Nobody owns your conscience.

Nobody owns your voice.

Nobody owns your feet.

Nobody should decide where you must march.

IF THE POLICE ARE WRONG, INVESTIGATE THEM

If evidence shows police officers acted unlawfully in Malcolm's death, the appropriate institutions should act.

That is what accountability means.

Jamaica has examples demonstrating that investigations can lead to charges against police officers.

So there is no need to choose between supporting lawful policing and demanding police accountability.

You can support both.

In fact, you should support both.

A professional police force should want dishonest or unlawful officers exposed because misconduct damages the credibility of every decent officer wearing the uniform.

Likewise, communities should want violent actors exposed because criminal intimidation damages the credibility of every law-abiding resident seeking legitimate justice.

BODY CAMERAS AND VIDEO EVIDENCE MATTER

This is another reason Jamaica's discussion about body-worn cameras and independent video evidence matters.

When controversial police shootings happen, competing accounts can emerge almost immediately.

Police say one thing.

Witnesses say another.

Social media says something else.

Within hours, people have chosen sides.

Video doesn't necessarily answer every question, but independent visual evidence can provide investigators with enormously valuable context.

INDECOM has explicitly said that video evidence can help establish timelines, verify accounts, and assist investigators in understanding the conduct of everyone involved.

More reliable evidence means fewer arguments based purely on loyalty.

And Jamaica desperately needs that.

DO NOT TURN EVERY POLICE SHOOTING INTO A TEAM SPORT

This may be one of the most important points.

When somebody dies during a police encounter, the immediate question should not be:

Whose side are you on?

The questions should be:

What happened?

What evidence exists?

Was there a weapon?

Was it recovered?

Was it discharged?

What do ballistics show?

What do witnesses say?

Is there CCTV?

Is there body-camera footage?

What does the post-mortem show?

Were police actions lawful and proportionate?

Those are investigative questions.

Truth doesn't wear political colours.

Truth doesn't care which community you come from.

Truth doesn't care whether somebody was popular.

And justice cannot depend upon popularity.

DON'T CALL EVERY DEAD PERSON INNOCENT — AND DON'T CALL EVERY DEAD PERSON GUILTY

This is where responsible commentary matters.

After police shootings, one side sometimes immediately describes the deceased as an innocent victim.

Another side may immediately describe the deceased as a criminal who deserved what happened.

Both approaches can outrun the evidence.

Even where police have intelligence identifying somebody as a gang member, we should distinguish intelligence assessments from criminal convictions.

And even where someone has prior convictions, those convictions do not answer whether a later police shooting was lawful.

The specific incident must be investigated on its own facts.

That standard protects civilians.

It also protects police officers from false accusations.

Evidence works both ways.

WHAT DOES JUSTICE LOOK LIKE HERE?

Justice in this case does not mean blindly believing anybody.

Justice means investigating Malcolm's fatal shooting independently.

Justice means investigating the alleged attack on the man who reportedly refused to protest.

Justice means protecting witnesses.

Justice means preserving evidence.

Justice means allowing prosecutors to present their case.

Justice means allowing defence attorneys to challenge that case.

Justice means allowing a court—not social media—to determine criminal guilt.

And justice means ensuring that ordinary residents can live without being intimidated by anybody.

Not gangs.

Not criminals.

Not political activists.

Not protesters.

And not police officers acting outside the law.

Nobody.

A MESSAGE TO JAMAICA'S YOUNG PEOPLE

Young Jamaicans, listen carefully.

You do not prove loyalty by destroying your future.

You do not prove courage by attacking somebody who disagrees with you.

You do not become a man by terrorizing another man.

And you don't help your community by acquiring a criminal record that may follow you for years.

Think.

Ask questions.

Demand evidence.

Walk away from people trying to recruit you into violence.

A person telling you to commit violence for “the community” may disappear when the police arrive.

But your name will be on the charge sheet.

Your family will be attending court.

Your future will be at stake.

Think before you act.

A MESSAGE TO THE POLICE

And police officers must hear a message too.

Every lawful operation matters.

Every accurate report matters.

Every properly preserved crime scene matters.

Every body-worn camera matters.

Every interaction with a community matters.

Because public trust is difficult to build and very easy to destroy.

When officers act professionally, evidence protects them.

When officers act unlawfully, evidence protects the public.

That is why transparency should never be feared by professional law enforcement.

A MESSAGE TO THE COMMUNITIES

To residents across Jamaica:

You have rights.

Use them.

Record events lawfully where permitted.

Provide evidence to investigators.

Question authority.

Demand accountability.

Protest peacefully.

But never allow anybody to convince you that violence against another resident is necessary to prove solidarity.

If your neighbour doesn't want to protest, leave your neighbour alone.

If your neighbour disagrees with you, leave your neighbour alone.

If your neighbour believes the police account and you don't, argue your position peacefully.

And if you believe you witnessed unlawful police conduct, take your evidence to the appropriate investigators.

That is citizenship.

THIS CASE SHOULD BE A WARNING

The Denham Town allegations should make Jamaica examine what can happen when anger, fear, community pressure, and violence collide.

A police shooting occurred.

A man died.

Residents protested.

A vehicle was reportedly burned.

Police reported threats against officers.

And amid that turmoil, another man was allegedly set on fire because he would not participate in the protest.

Now a 16-year-old and an adult face serious criminal charges.

Look at that chain of events.

How many lives can be damaged when violence becomes the answer to violence?

THE PRINCIPLE IS SIMPLE

Jamaica does not have to choose between supporting good police officers and holding police accountable.

We can do both.

Jamaica does not have to choose between protecting the right to protest and protecting the right not to protest.

We can do both.

Jamaica does not have to choose between community rights and individual rights.

A functioning democracy protects both.

And Jamaica certainly should not accept the proposition that somebody must participate in a protest because somebody else demands it.

Your conscience belongs to you.

Your voice belongs to you.

Your decision belongs to you.

And your right to say NO belongs to you.

If somebody believes a police shooting was unlawful, let INDECOM investigate.

If somebody possesses evidence, provide it.

If protesters want to march peacefully, they should be free to do so.

But if another citizen says:

“I'm not coming.”

That should be the end of the conversation.

No threats.

No intimidation.

No retaliation.

No violence.

Because the moment a citizen allegedly has to fear violence for refusing to participate, the issue is no longer simply the right to protest.

It becomes a question about the right to be free from coercion.

And Jamaica must defend both rights.

That is not being anti-community.

That is not being blindly pro-police.

That is being pro-evidence, pro-accountability, pro-law and pro-Jamaica.

Let the evidence determine what happened in the police shooting.

Let the courts determine whether the people charged in the alleged burning are guilty.

And let every Jamaican understand one principle that should never require negotiation:

Nobody should have to risk his life simply because he refuses to join somebody else's protest.

You watch, you listen, and you decide!