‘Shoot first’ is a risky road for T&T

Defence Minister Wayne Sturge’s advice to “shoot first and explain later” during home invasions has struck a national nerve. His words, delivered at a stand-your-ground law consultation in Sangre Grande, were blunt, visceral, and aimed squarely at the fears of a population under siege from violent crime.

Although Sturge later urged that his comments be viewed “in context,” the truth is his message was clear—and for many, it resonates. Home invasions, kidnappings, and brazen robberies have left families feeling like prisoners in their own homes. With police unable to be everywhere and courts often resembling revolving doors for repeat offenders, his message offers a grim form of empowerment: defend yourself by any means necessary.

Sturge’s “shoot first” remark has been supported by Homeland Security Minister Roger Alexander and Criminal Bar Association president Israel Khan, SC, but has also drawn some criticisms.

Empowerment comes with consequences and this advice opens a dangerous door.

Stand-your-ground laws on which the Government’s proposal is modelled, are deeply controversial. In several US states where they exist, research shows increases in firearm-related deaths, often involving people who misread threats or acted impulsively. A frightened homeowner might fire at a shadow that turns out to be a relative, a neighbour, or an innocent passerby. A legitimate act of self-defence could spiral into community retaliation or prolonged legal battles. Citizens who believe they are shielded by law could still face manslaughter charges if their split-second judgement is deemed unjustified.

Sturge’s “shoot first” rhetoric also risks reducing a life-or-death decision to a political slogan. True self-defence law has always required careful assessment of what constitutes an imminent threat—and it is the justice system, not public emotion, that ultimately determines whether a killing is justified.

The deeper issue raised by Sturge’s words is one of trust. If citizens are being told to arm themselves and act as executioners, what does that say about the state’s ability to protect them? Encouraging armed confrontation shifts the burden of public safety onto individuals. It risks creating a society where fear, rather than law, dictates behaviour. And it could overwhelm police and courts, as every shooting becomes a legal puzzle of intent, threat, and proportionality.

This is not to say citizens should remain helpless in the face of home invasions. The public’s frustration is real, and fear is justified. But “shoot first” is not a crime-fighting strategy; it is a sign of a broken security system.

If T&T truly wants safety, it must address the root causes of violent crime and the systemic failures that make “shoot first” sound appealing. That means investing in intelligence-driven policing to dismantle gangs and intercept weapons before they can be used; strengthening community policing and youth intervention programmes to steer young people away from crime; ensuring swift, certain justice to rebuild public confidence in the courts; and properly resourcing the police so citizens do not feel they must face armed attackers alone.

Words matter. When a government minister tells citizens to pull the trigger before asking questions, it sends the wrong signal—that violence is not only inevitable but acceptable. T&T cannot afford to walk further down that road.

Real safety will not come from fear and firearms. It will come from a society where law and order prevail, where justice works, and where violence is prevented rather than multiplied.