Threats Against The Prime Minister’s Life Are Dangerous And Should Be Fully Run Down..

YouTube player

Any threat against the life of Jamaica’s Prime Minister must be imme­di­ate­ly and unequiv­o­cal­ly condemned. 
There can be no ambi­gu­i­ty on this point. Political rival­ry is not war­fare, and lead­er­ship dis­agree­ment is not a license for intimidation. 
Threatening vio­lence against a head of gov­ern­ment is an attack on the demo­c­ra­t­ic order itself — one that must be treat­ed with max­i­mum seri­ous­ness by law enforce­ment. Every such threat must be ful­ly inves­ti­gat­ed, run down to its source, and every per­pe­tra­tor brought to jus­tice — swift­ly, pub­licly, and decisively.

Andrew Holness

Jamaicans know all too well where polit­i­cal vio­lence leads. We have walked that road before. We buried the vic­tims, count­ed the com­mu­ni­ties torn apart, and watched our polit­i­cal cul­ture teeter on the brink. 
The scars remain. That dark chap­ter taught us hard lessons: that rhetoric can kill, that dis­in­for­ma­tion can mobi­lize mobs, and that reck­less polit­i­cal lead­er­ship has real, bloody con­se­quences.
Which is why today’s return to vio­lent rhetoric is so dangerous.
The cur­rent atmos­phere did not arise by acci­dent. It has been stoked — delib­er­ate­ly — by a style of pol­i­tics root­ed not in facts but in provo­ca­tion, dis­tor­tion, and emo­tion­al manip­u­la­tion. The leader of the People’s National Party has, through a cam­paign of exag­ger­a­tions, selec­tive truth, and open dis­in­for­ma­tion, helped cre­ate an envi­ron­ment where rage mas­quer­ades as patri­o­tism and hos­til­i­ty sub­sti­tutes for argu­ment. It is the text­book recipe for esca­la­tion: con­vince sup­port­ers they are under exis­ten­tial threat, por­tray oppo­nents as ene­mies rather than fel­low Jamaicans, and drown facts beneath noise.

That polit­i­cal play­book has consequences.
Violent rhetoric does not remain rhetor­i­cal for long. History shows this with bru­tal clar­i­ty — not just in Jamaica, but across the world. When polit­i­cal lead­ers nor­mal­ize extrem­ism or encour­age griev­ance with­out ground­ing it in truth, unsta­ble indi­vid­u­als inter­pret those sig­nals as per­mis­sion. Online vit­ri­ol becomes phys­i­cal men­ace. Chants become threats. And threats become action. Some defend­ers argue that lead­ers can­not be respon­si­ble for the behav­ior of extrem­ists. Legally, per­haps not. Morally and polit­i­cal­ly, absolute­ly. Leadership means own­ing the cli­mate you cre­ate. When your mes­sag­ing is laced with per­son­al attacks, half-truths, demo­niza­tion, and appeals to griev­ance rather than rea­son, you are not just oppo­si­tion — you are an accel­er­ant. You become gaso­line to the fire you create.
Mark Golding and his band of unpa­tri­ot­ic atten­tion seek­ers are recre­at­ing a Jamaica we eschewed as we look for a brighter future built on a foun­da­tion of hard work and per­son­al responsibility.
Maintaining a polit­i­cal move­ment based sole­ly on the igno­rance and a sense of enti­tle­ment of sup­port­ers is not just a dere­lic­tion of respon­si­bil­i­ty; it is, at the very least, treasonous.

Mark Golding..

Jamaica worked too hard to climb out of the pit of polit­i­cal­ly fueled vio­lence to return to it now.
We delib­er­ate­ly turned toward com­mu­ni­ty peace ini­tia­tives, elec­toral reforms, bipar­ti­san restraint, and pub­lic cam­paigns for polit­i­cal decen­cy. We taught a new gen­er­a­tion that bal­lots replace bul­lets — that dis­agree­ment belongs in debates, not in grave­yards. That progress must not be undone by the ambi­tions of any sin­gle politi­cian seek­ing rel­e­vance through outrage.
Threats against the Prime Minister — or any polit­i­cal fig­ure — must nev­er be dis­missed as “noise,” nor exploit­ed for par­ti­san advan­tage. This is not about par­ty loy­al­ty; it is about nation­al sur­vival. A demo­c­ra­t­ic state can­not allow its lead­ers to gov­ern under vio­lent intim­i­da­tion, nor tol­er­ate mes­sag­ing that encour­ages it. The rule of law demands firm action — thor­ough inves­ti­ga­tions, pros­e­cu­tions where war­rant­ed, and trans­par­ent account­abil­i­ty for those who man­u­fac­ture threats.

But enforce­ment alone is not enough. Our polit­i­cal cul­ture must also reassert its red lines:

  • No lies dressed as activism.
  • No griev­ance mas­querad­ing as patriotism.
  • No dehu­man­iza­tion in ser­vice of votes.
  • And no tol­er­ance for rhetoric that makes vio­lence think­able.

The Opposition has a con­sti­tu­tion­al duty to crit­i­cize the gov­ern­ment — fierce­ly, even — but it also car­ries a respon­si­bil­i­ty to pro­tect demo­c­ra­t­ic sta­bil­i­ty. Leadership is mea­sured not by how loud­ly one shouts, but by how respon­si­bly one speaks. Inflaming the pub­lic for polit­i­cal advan­tage is the behav­ior of a dem­a­gogue, not a states­man. This is the moment for Jamaica to choose its direc­tion again. We can allow polit­i­cal dis­course to descend back into the gut­ter of hos­til­i­ty that once made the island syn­ony­mous with elec­toral blood­shed — or we can defend the hard-fought matu­ri­ty of our democ­ra­cy by demand­ing high­er stan­dards from all who seek to gov­ern. The dis­gust­ing threats against the Prime Minister must be con­demned with­out qual­i­fi­ca­tion. They must be pur­sued with­out hes­i­ta­tion. And the cul­ture that nur­tures those threats — built on lies, provo­ca­tion, and reck­less rhetoric — must be dis­man­tled just as vig­or­ous­ly. Because the safe­ty of one leader is not mere­ly per­son­al. It is sym­bol­ic. When any polit­i­cal office hold­er is threat­ened, what stands under assault is the nation’s belief that pow­er is trans­ferred by law — — -not fear.
Jamaica’s democ­ra­cy is stronger than any dem­a­gogue. But it requires vig­i­lance to stay that way.
As a mea­sure of my seri­ous­ness on this, I am will­ing to vol­un­teer my time with a team of like-mind­ed patri­ots to hunt down and bring to jus­tice these igno­rant and vio­lent indi­vid­u­als who believe that free speech gives them the right to prop­a­gate death threats and acts of intimidation.
We either bring them to jus­tice or bring jus­tice to them.
(MB)

What Really Happened During The Manley Era..

YouTube player

Michael Manley served as the Prime Minister of Jamaica, imple­ment­ing poli­cies that had a pro­found impact on the coun­try’s econ­o­my, pol­i­tics, and soci­ety. In this video, we’ll exam­ine the key deci­sions and actions tak­en by Manley’s gov­ern­ment, includ­ing his social­ist ide­ol­o­gy, his rela­tion­ship with Cuba, and his efforts to reduce Jamaica’s depen­dence on for­eign cap­i­tal. We’ll also dis­cuss his chal­lenges, such as high unem­ploy­ment, infla­tion, and social unrest. Whether you’re a his­to­ry buff, a pol­i­tics enthu­si­ast, or sim­ply inter­est­ed in learn­ing more about Jamaica’s past, this video is for you. So sit back, relax, and let’s explore what hap­pened dur­ing the Michael Manley era.

Jamaica’s Future At Stake: The 2025 Election Showdown

YouTube player

Jamaica’s future hangs in the bal­ance as the 2025 elec­tion show­down approach­es, with the stakes high­er than ever. This video exam­ines the crit­i­cal issues shap­ing Jamaica’s polit­i­cal land­scape, focus­ing on the gov­er­nance of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) over two terms and the con­trast­ing posi­tions of the People’s National Party (PNP). From eco­nom­ic progress and infra­struc­ture devel­op­ment to the ongo­ing cri­sis of vio­lent crime and cor­rup­tion scan­dals, we explore the suc­cess­es and fail­ures that will influ­ence vot­ers’ decisions.

The dis­cus­sion delves into the JLP’s efforts in reduc­ing debt, fos­ter­ing eco­nom­ic growth, and devel­op­ing pub­lic ser­vice sys­tems, while address­ing per­sis­tent chal­lenges such as high crime rates and envi­ron­men­tal con­cerns. On the oth­er side, the PNP’s oppo­si­tion to stricter penal­ties for vio­lent crim­i­nals rais­es ques­tions about their approach to nation­al secu­ri­ty and their abil­i­ty to address Jamaica’s press­ing issues. With crime stand­ing as the nation’s great­est threat, can Jamaicans afford to pri­or­i­tize rights over safe­ty? For over a decade, I have addressed these issues, advo­cat­ing for invest­ing in stronger secu­ri­ty mea­sures, break­ing the cycle of crime, and hold­ing lead­ers account­able. As the nation pre­pares for this piv­otal elec­tion, we salute those work­ing tire­less­ly to cre­ate sys­temic solu­tions that ensure safe­ty and sta­bil­i­ty for all Jamaicans.

Extreme Leniency In Bail And Sentencing Of Jamaica’s Worst Murderers:

YouTube player

Jamaica, like many oth­er coun­tries, strug­gles with high rates of vio­lent crime, par­tic­u­lar­ly mur­der. Despite tough leg­is­la­tion such as the Firearms Act and var­i­ous anti-gang laws, con­cerns per­sist regard­ing the jus­tice system’s treat­ment of dan­ger­ous offend­ers. A trou­bling pat­tern has emerged where some of Jamaica’s most vio­lent crim­i­nals are grant­ed bail with rel­a­tive ease or receive what many per­ceive to be lenient sen­tences. This paper crit­i­cal­ly exam­ines cas­es where extreme lenien­cy has under­mined pub­lic con­fi­dence in the jus­tice sys­tem, endan­gered com­mu­ni­ties, and embold­ened crim­i­nal elements.

1. The Context of Bail and Sentencing in Jamaica

Under Jamaica’s legal frame­work, bail is not auto­mat­i­cal­ly denied for mur­der charges, although it is rare for accused mur­der­ers to be grant­ed bail. However, the dis­cre­tion lies with the judge, based on fac­tors like the strength of the evi­dence, risk of flight, and poten­tial threat to soci­ety. Sentencing, mean­while, is guid­ed by leg­is­la­tion, but judges exer­cise dis­cre­tion with­in statu­to­ry frame­works. Critics argue that, in prac­tice, this dis­cre­tion some­times results in deci­sions that seem out of step with the sever­i­ty of crimes and the demands of pub­lic safety.

2. Case Studies of Lenient Bail Decisions

a. Christopher ‘Dog Paw’ Linton

Linton, reput­ed leader of the Dog Paw Gang, was charged with mul­ti­ple counts of mur­der, shoot­ing with intent, and ille­gal pos­ses­sion of firearms. Despite fac­ing seri­ous alle­ga­tions tied to vio­lent crimes, Linton was grant­ed bail in 2010. After being released, he was impli­cat­ed in addi­tion­al vio­lent activ­i­ties, includ­ing orches­trat­ing shoot­ings. His case high­light­ed gaps in the bail sys­tem, where the grav­i­ty of offens­es and threats to pub­lic safe­ty were seem­ing­ly downplayed.

b. Tesha Miller

As the reput­ed leader of the Spanish Town-based Clansman Gang, Tesha Miller was impli­cat­ed in numer­ous vio­lent crimes, includ­ing the orches­trat­ed killing of Jamaica Urban Transit Company chair­man Douglas Chambers. Despite his crim­i­nal pro­file and being deport­ed twice from the U.S., Miller was grant­ed bail on mul­ti­ple occa­sions while fac­ing seri­ous charges. Critics argue that his bail releas­es facil­i­tat­ed his con­tin­ued influ­ence over gang oper­a­tions and vio­lence in Spanish Town.

c. Eldon Calvert

Calvert, for­mer head of the feared Montego Bay-based Stone Crusher Gang, was charged with sev­er­al counts of mur­der and oth­er vio­lent crimes. Despite over­whelm­ing alle­ga­tions of bru­tal­i­ty, he was grant­ed bail mul­ti­ple times between 2008 and 2014. He was even­tu­al­ly acquit­ted in sev­er­al cas­es due to lack of evi­dence, with many wit­ness­es refus­ing to tes­ti­fy out of fear. His tem­po­rary free­doms, how­ev­er, were wide­ly crit­i­cized as emblem­at­ic of a jus­tice sys­tem inca­pable of con­tain­ing known threats.

3. Lenient Sentences Imposed on Convicted Murderers

a. Patrick Green

Patrick Green was con­vict­ed in 2018 of killing his com­mon-law wife. Despite the grue­some nature of the crime, he was sen­tenced to just eight years in prison. With good behav­ior and time already served, he stood to be released in under five years. Many argued that the sen­tence failed to reflect the seri­ous­ness of the crime and the broad­er issue of domes­tic vio­lence-relat­ed mur­ders in Jamaica.

b. Rushane Barnett

In 2022, Barnett com­mit­ted one of the most hor­rif­ic crimes in recent mem­o­ry, mur­der­ing his cousin and her four chil­dren in Clarendon. He plead­ed guilty and was sen­tenced to life impris­on­ment with eli­gi­bil­i­ty for parole after 61 years. While the sen­tence was severe, some argued that this case war­rant­ed the death penal­ty, which is still on Jamaica’s law books, but has not been enforced for decades.

c. Adidja ‘Vybz Kartel’ Palmer

Convicted in 2014 for orches­trat­ing the mur­der of Clive ‘Lizard’ Williams, Vybz Kartel was sen­tenced to life in prison with eli­gi­bil­i­ty for parole after 35 years. However, fol­low­ing an appeal in 2020, his parole eli­gi­bil­i­ty was reduced to 32 years and six months. Despite being behind bars, alle­ga­tions per­sist that Kartel con­tin­ues to direct crim­i­nal activ­i­ties. His case rais­es con­cerns about sen­tenc­ing, prison man­age­ment, and the influ­ence of high-pro­file criminals.

4. Factors Contributing to Leniency

Several sys­temic issues con­tribute to these lenient outcomes:
• Judicial Discretion: Judges must inter­pret the law and bal­ance defen­dants’ rights with pub­lic safe­ty, often under chal­leng­ing circumstances.
• Witness Intimidation: Witnesses fre­quent­ly refuse to tes­ti­fy due to fear of reprisals, lead­ing to weak­ened cas­es and reduced sentences.
• Overburdened Courts: Backlogs and admin­is­tra­tive chal­lenges pres­sure judges to expe­dite cas­es, some­times result­ing in plea deals or low­er sentences.
• Legislative Gaps: Certain laws lack manda­to­ry min­i­mums or clear sen­tenc­ing guide­lines, leav­ing too much room for discretion.

5. Implications for Justice and Public Safety

Extreme lenien­cy in bail and sen­tenc­ing has sev­er­al dam­ag­ing effects:
• Erosion of Public Trust: Communities lose faith in the legal sys­tem, per­ceiv­ing it as inef­fec­tive or biased.
• Escalation of Violence: Freed crim­i­nals often resume vio­lent activ­i­ties, lead­ing to more mur­ders and com­mu­ni­ty instability.
• Deterrence Undermined: Light penal­ties fail to send a strong mes­sage that mur­der and vio­lent crimes will be met with harsh consequences.

6. Calls for Reform

There have been repeat­ed calls from cit­i­zens, advo­ca­cy groups, and polit­i­cal lead­ers for:
• Stricter Bail Laws: Especially for accused mur­der­ers and gang leaders.
• Mandatory Minimum Sentences: To remove exces­sive dis­cre­tion from the judiciary.
• Witness Protection Enhancements: To ensure wit­ness­es can safe­ly testify.
• Restoration of the Death Penalty: Some argue that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment should be active­ly enforced to deter the worst offenders.

Conclusion

Jamaica’s bat­tle against vio­lent crime is under­mined when its jus­tice sys­tem appears lenient toward the very indi­vid­u­als who wreak hav­oc on soci­ety. Cases of extreme lenien­cy in bail deci­sions and sen­tenc­ing send trou­bling sig­nals to both crim­i­nals and vic­tims alike. Comprehensive reforms are urgent­ly need­ed to restore con­fi­dence in the jus­tice sys­tem and ensure that jus­tice is not only done but seen to be done.

YouTube player

Bunting Has No Credibility To Speak On Crime…

YouTube player

https://​mike​beck​les​.com/​p​n​p​-​u​n​d​e​r​-​p​r​e​s​s​u​r​e​-​f​r​o​m​-​t​h​u​g​-​s​u​p​p​o​r​t​e​r​s​-​l​i​e​-​a​b​o​u​t​-​h​u​m​a​n​-​r​i​g​h​ts/

I wrote and pub­lished this arti­cle on February 27th 2023. I bring it back to cement my point.

On the mur­der Index, Jamaica stands atop the heap beat­ing out South Africa, Mexico, St Lucia, Belize, Colombia, and Brazil in homi­cides each year. Last year alone, the tiny nation of under three mil­lion peo­ple record­ed 1498 homi­cides, an increase over the pre­vi­ous year, which saw 1463 cas­es of homi­cide report­ed to authorities…

The Andrew Holness Government has tabled a new pro­pos­al that would repeal and replace the 1976 firearms Act.
The Bill, among oth­er things, would make it a manda­to­ry min­i­mum sen­tence of 15 years for indi­vid­u­als con­vict­ed of ille­gal­ly pos­sess­ing a firearm or stock­pil­ing three or more firearms or 50 or more rounds of ammunition.
As a decades-long advo­cate for much stiffer penal­ties for vio­lent offend­ers, I believe that 15 years is not a strong enough penal­ty for some­one caught with an ille­gal firearm.
Let me be clear; no one is forc­ing any­one to pick up an ille­gal firearm. Every per­son who does so makes that deci­sion on their own. A gun is seen as a sym­bol of pow­er, the pow­er to take the prop­er­ty and life of those with­out guns.
Because it is a free-will deci­sion and not some­thing forced on young men like explo­sive belts in war-torn mid­dle east­ern coun­tries, every indi­vid­ual decid­ing to pick up a weapon by default takes on all the atten­dant risks of being caught with that weapon.

The 1976 Firearm Act has long need­ed over­haul and repeal. Clearly, the penal­ties asso­ci­at­ed with pos­ses­sion are com­plete­ly out of wack with the sever­i­ty of hav­ing an ille­gal weapon. There is absolute­ly no good rea­son that any law-abid­ing cit­i­zen of Jamaica would be opposed to the most seri­ous penal­ties for gun pos­ses­sion, giv­en the nation’s high homi­cide rate and propen­si­ty for violence.
In the 47 years since the pas­sage of the exist­ing firearms act, tens of thou­sands of inno­cent Jamaicans have been seri­ous­ly injured and killed, includ­ing brave police offi­cers and our mil­i­tary members.
That alone is rea­son enough to pass a bill with even more teeth than the one pro­posed, mak­ing it a manda­to­ry 15 years for pos­sess­ing an ille­gal weapon.
Furthermore, despite the protes­ta­tions of many, the nation’s lib­er­al crim­i­nal cod­dling judges con­tin­ue to turn vio­lent offend­ers caught with ille­gal weapons back onto the streets imme­di­ate­ly after the police arrest them.
It is past time for manda­to­ry penal­ties for vio­lent offend­ers. More impor­tant­ly, it is past time that a bill is passed that sends a clear mes­sage to the almighty-appoint­ed judges that the peo­ple are the boss­es, not them.

The pro­posed bill does not go near­ly far enough in send­ing the strongest of mes­sages that, as a nation, law-abid­ing Jamaicans will not stand for the vio­lent law­less­ness that has been allowed to con­tin­ue for far too long.
Despite the short­com­ings of the new­ly pro­posed bill, the defeat­ed People’s National Party Member from Manchester, who now sits in the upper cham­ber, and who once held the title of Minister Of National Security, in exas­per­a­tion as the min­is­ter said Jamaica’s crime prob­lem needs divine inter­ven­tion is now flap­ping his gums in oppo­si­tion to the bill.
Last September, as the bill came up for debate in the upper cham­ber, Peter Bunting dared to open his mouth in oppo­si­tion to a bill he should have spon­sored and pushed as Minister of National Security years prior.
Said Bunting, “focus should instead be placed on ensur­ing crim­i­nals are caught, argu­ing that crim­i­nals know very lit­tle about the sanc­tions for these offens­es and there­fore would not be phased. “We must under­stand that this [Bill] is no sil­ver bullet…we’re not in all cas­es say­ing some of the penal­ties may not be more appro­pri­ate, but let us not fool our­selves into think­ing that just by increas­ing the sever­i­ty is going to have a mean­ing­ful impact on reduc­ing our vio­lent crime rate”.
What a fuck­ing Jackass!!!!
So let us dis­sect this nonsense.
(1) Focus should be placed on ensur­ing crim­i­nals are caught.
Police catch crim­i­nals and lock them up dai­ly; they are back on the streets imme­di­ate­ly through lax and archa­ic laws and crim­i­nal-lov­ing judges abus­ing the loopholes.
(2)Criminals know very lit­tle about the sanc­tions for these offenses.
This guy head­ed the secu­ri­ty appa­ra­tus with no bri­an. Imagine say­ing crim­i­nals do not know the penal­ties. That is shock­ing­ly reveal­ing to me. Every per­son who picks up a gun or com­mits a crime knows before­hand the penal­ties they are like­ly to face, and they’re all smarter than Peter Dumb-ting.

So even if they do not know when they face a judge and the manda­to­ry min­i­mum, they will get the mes­sage, and guess what? That is how they learn.
(3) They won’t be phased.
They will be phased; the prob­lem is that Peter Dumb-ting and the PNP will be mad.

(4) we must under­stand the bill is no sil­ver bullet.
No one said it was; the fact that the bill is not a panacea does not mean noth­ing should be done about vio­lent crime. The PNP hates to sup­port any leg­is­la­tion that deals with Jamaica’s crime pan­dem­ic. The par­ty con­tin­ues to blow smoke up the people’s ass­es that they care, just not about whether they live or die.

(5) Let us not fool our­selves into think­ing that increas­ing the sever­i­ty will sig­nif­i­cant­ly impact reduc­ing our vio­lent crime rate.
It will do exact­ly that, and that’s what the People’s National Party is afraid of.

The Idea That DEI Is Reverse Racism Is Perverse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJHZk4GNhIo[/embedyt

Diversity, equi­ty and inclu­sion pro­grams are anoth­er tar­get of right wing out­rage. The argu­ment goes against that DEI pro­grams dis­crim­i­nate against white peo­ple by pri­or­i­tiz­ing diver­si­ty in hir­ing and lead­er­ship. This is such a crock of shit.

Jamaican Behavior Differences In US Vs Jamaica

YouTube player

In this addi­tion­al deep dive. I want to talk about Jamaicans who trav­el to the United States, whether as American cit­i­zens, per­ma­nent res­i­dents or vis­i­tors. They often dis­play a remark­able lev­el of dis­ci­plin at Airports. For the most part they fol­low instruc­tions, care­ful­ly, avoid con­fronta­tion, and even when spo­ken to harsh­ly by cus­tom offi­cers, law enforce­ment offi­cers, or just reg­u­lar air­port staff. They main­tain com­po­sure and com­ply with­out resis­tance. This behav­ior is not coin­ci­den­tal, it stems from an aware­ness that the Us. Legal sys­tem is strict, unfor­giv­ing, and swift in its con­se­quences. The fear of depor­ta­tion, fines, impris­on­ment, or oth­er legal reper­cus­sions com­pels them to adopt an atti­tude of respect even in sit­u­a­tions where they may feel mistreated.

However, a stark con­trast emerg­ing when these same indi­vid­u­als returned to Jamaicin their home­land. Many of these same Jamaicans exhib­it a dras­ti­cal­ly dif­fer­ent demeanor. They show zero respect to their own law enforce­ment offi­cers in their home­land, and many active­ly con­tribute to the law­less­ness that plagues the coun­try from smug­gling firearms into the island to fund­ing and orga­niz­ing crim­i­nal net­works. Their actions fuel the very vio­lence that has crip­pled com­mu­ni­ties across the coun­try. Not all the indi­vid­u­als deport­ed are crim­i­nals, but many are. And so when these indi­vid­u­als who are often referred to as depor­tees or for­eign links break American laws and are deport­ed. A large major­i­ty of them sim­ply con­tin­ue with a life of vio­lent crime when they are returned to Jamaica.
The guns they send back sup­ply gangs, esca­late con­flicts and serves to expo­nen­tial­ly increase the mur­der rate on the Island.
This is why it is imper­a­tive that the American Government help Jamaica to track down those Jamaicans who trav­el to the United States to pur­chase guns then send the weapons home, then leave and go back to Jamaica to cash in on this illic­it trade.