Prosecutor Shamrock Pierre has asked the Kingstown Magistrate’s Court to find popular DJ Too Cool Chris guilty of wounding for shooting a man in Kingstown on July 4, 2024.
Pierre argued that the DJ, whose real name is Christopher Jones, took advantage of the virtual complainant (VC), Kevin Patterson, when he shot him three times, claiming that he was defending himself.
Presenting his closing argument before Senior Magistrate Tammika McKenzie, Pierre noted that a person convicted of wounding can be jailed for 14 years, adding that this shows the seriousness of the offence.
“A part of the defence case is that the VC has a mental problem, so much so that they went and they submitted a report dated over two years prior to the incident,” Pierre said on Sept. 29.
“There was nothing recent from a psychiatrist, from the mental health institution in relation to the VC to say whether, at the time, July 4, 2024, he had a mental problem,” Pierre said.
“The prosecution is submitting that he may have had a mental issue but not at the time of the incident,” Pierre said, adding that there was no evidence to suggest mental illness.
Pierre pointed out that Jones’ evidence was that he only knew Patterson at the time of the incident.
“They are complicating themselves by saying he had a mental problem when he only knew him that night,” Pierre said.
‘This is Mexico?’
He noted that Julian Richards, who testified for the prosecution, said that he was driving along Bay Street on July 4, 2024, when, on reaching the cross-section near Home Centre, he saw a man walking along the pedestrian crossing with someone ahead of him.
“What drew his attention is that man was carrying in his left hand, which is to the side of the traffic, a firearm,” Pierre reminded the court.
“And in the words of Richards, he was like, ‘O f**k! This is Mexico?’”
The prosecutor said PC Jahshem Lynch, whom the defendant summoned to testify, corroborated this piece of evidence when he said that Jones had the firearm in his hand when Lynch saw Jones walking down the street.
Pierre, however, pointed out that Jones said that he only drew the firearm when Patterson walked past and bounced into him.
He said the evidence of Corporal of police Humphrey was that he was among the police officers who responded to the sound of explosions on Bay Street.
“… he (Humphrey) met the defendant who had the firearm in his hand, exposed at the moment,” Pierre said.
“This is a defendant who claimed that he was threatened. And upon responding, Corporal Humphrey’s evidence was that he had to ask twice of the defendant for the firearm before he handed it over.
“The defendant corroborated it and said to the court, in the heat of the moment, he did not hand over the firearm on the first request of the police.”
Pierre commented that the officers who responded were “nice”, adding that Jones’ response to the police showed that he was “aggressive”.
“Even if this VC had or has a mental issue, he is still human. He is still somebody’s son and brother and should be treated as such,” Pierre told the court.
Shooter, firearm used not in dispute
The prosecutor pointed out that the defence was not disputing that Jones’ firearm was used in the shooting and that it was discharged three times at Patterson.
He, however, noted that the defence was claiming self-defence.
The prosecutor noted that self-defence ought to be taken on two limbs, the subjective test and the objective test.
“The subjective is where we examine the defendant’s state of mind at the time, and if the defendant genuinely believes that the use of force was necessary to defend himself.”
Pierre noted that the defence had said that earlier that night, an incident had occurred at Heritage Square, in which Jones was in an area by himself playing when bottles were thrown at him.
“He did not know where the first bottle came from. He did not know who threw the second bottle,” Pierre said.
“But, according to him, he was threatened at that point; he did not draw his firearm at that point when there was imminent danger when bottles were thrown at him.
“The defendant said he was so afraid that he waited about 30 minutes before he decided he was going to the police station. Yet he walked an area that was not well-lit, from up by Penny Bank, coming down that area.”
Pierre noted that he had specifically asked Jones if he had taken out his firearm during that journey.
“He said no. His evidence was that the same person was walking behind him under Home Centre, uttering threats to kill, but he did not turn around to see who was uttering those words. But he is claiming that he was threatened,” the prosecutor told the court.
He said Lynch’s evidence was interesting in that he, as a police officer, said he stood about 10 feet between him and Jones when he saw Jones walking coming down with the gun already exposed.
Pierre noted that Lynch said that he did not see anything wrong with Jones walking with the firearm in his hand because he knew him to be the holder of a licensed firearm.
“So, you could just walk around with a gun in your hand because we are in Texas,” Pierre remarked.
“What is interesting is that he said the defendant stood up, turned around and fired the three shots at the unknown man,” the prosecutor said, adding that the subjective test comes into question.
“The objective test is whether or not the level of force used was reasonable or proportionate.
“Here we have the defendant saying, ‘I was threatened, the man uttered words, he was fiddling with the bag, and I fired a shot at him.’”
Pierre, however, pointed out that the firearm is not a revolver and noted that the ballistics experts, Station Sergeant Julian Cain, testified that the weapon has to be charged.
“In other words, one round has to be selected, and you have to squeeze it,” Pierre said.
“It tells us the defendant was already prepared with his licensed firearm, charged and ready to shoot. So, we are questioning whether his action was reasonable.”
The prosecutor noted that Jones fired three shots at Patterson, who he claimed was five feet from him.
“But the man was able to move from point A at the pedestrian crossing at Egmont and Bay Street to over 30 feet to the taxi stand (on the other side of the road). And what is interesting, the defendant ended up in that same area where the VC fell,” the prosecutor said.
“So, what was the threat? What was he defending himself from?” he said, noting that self-defence gives the defendant the right to retaliate if there is some level of fear.
“But we have the defendant in this court saying he was not fearful. In fact, PC Lynch said the defendant said, ‘You think I fraid yo?’ — something to that effect.
“Was the action of the defendant reasonable and proportionate? The resounding answer is no. That is where the unlawfulness of this offence comes in.”
‘a court of common sense’
The prosecutor said he sees evidence as a puzzle, the pieces of which are scattered about.
“But once you start fitting the pieces together …, that puzzle will show a true reflection or a true picture as to what it is forming,” Pierre said.
“Even if a piece of the puzzle is not in its correct place, anyone fitting up that puzzle could see the true picture.”
Pierre asked the court to consider also the medical form.
He said he fashioned his style after the late Arthur Williams, a former attorney general, who always said that the court is a court of common sense.
“The defendant said the VC approached fiddling with a bag. Three shots, but what is interesting is that one of the shots was on the backside. … Unless he turned around, that is the only way we can say why he received that shot in the butt. But common sense would tell you that the back of the complainant was turned to the defendant when he was shot,” Pierre said.
He told the court that Richards testified that Patterson was running around when the first shot rang out, and then he heard the second shot.
“The defendant said he was running away from the complainant while he was shooting but was able to aim at the complainant and shoot him. Not one of the bullets missed. Thank God Kevin is still alive, or the defendant would have been facing a more serious charge,” Pierre told the court.
He said that although self-defence is a defence to a wounding charge, “it must be reasonable and proportionate.
“The defendant’s action was excessive on that night, and based on all of the evidence, the court is able to look at all the evidence, put the pieces together. The prosecution has advanced enough evidence, cogent evidence, and the defendant ought to be found guilty,” Pierre said.
Also on Sept. 29, Jones’ lawyer, Grant Connell, presented arguments on why the court should find his client not guilty.
The court is slated to hand down its verdict on Dec. 10. McKenzie said she would inform the parties if she has a verdict before then.
Patterson was found not guilty on a related charge that he wounded Jones.
