Camera footage showing the moment KPSM officers attempted to surprise and disarm R. Benjamin before the subsequent shooting took place.
PHILIPSBURG-- Both the prosecution and defence have asked the Court of First Instance to acquit three police officers charged with manslaughter in connection with the fatal shooting of R.S. Benjamin, although their arguments differ on how the officers’ actions should be assessed.
The hearing opened with the judge expressing condolences to the family. Defence Attorney Cor Merx then raised a preliminary objection, questioning whether the prosecutor was authorised to conduct the proceedings on St. Maarten, as he had not initially presented written authorisation. The judge requested that the necessary documentation be provided before the hearing concluded.
The prosecutor subsequently submitted documentation signed by the Minister in Curaçao, confirming that a district attorney could handle cases outside Curaçao, including those on St. Maarten.
During the hearing on Friday, November 13, the prosecutor concluded that the officers were justified in opening fire after Benjamin appeared to point a weapon at them. However, he questioned the tactical decisions made before the shooting. Merx, who represents officers F.M., I.W. and O.R., argued that each officer’s actions must be assessed individually and that the available evidence does not establish the precise contribution of each to Benjamin’s death.
The case concerns an incident in St. Peters on February 13, 2026, when the officers, members of the Police Force of St. Maarten’s (KPSM) Flex Team, responded to reports of a man walking around with what appeared to be a firearm.
According to the officers’ accounts, they received information that the man was armed but did not hear the additional information that he might be intoxicated. The team was operating with only three officers that evening, rather than its usual complement of eight to 11.
The officers were travelling in an unmarked vehicle, with O.R. driving, I.W. in the front passenger seat and F.M. seated in the rear. They initially spotted a man matching the description and what appeared to be a firearm. After driving around the block, they returned to find him several metres from where he had first been seen.
The officers had planned to approach and disarm him by surprise. O.R. explained that the intention was to get close, physically overpower the man and take the weapon. He acknowledged that the decision had been made within seconds and that a different approach might have been possible had more officers been available.
The prosecutor questioned why the officers did not park at a greater distance, take cover, issue instructions or attempt to surround the man. He also asked why the approach was not reconsidered when they returned and Benjamin was no longer standing in the same location.
O.R. acknowledged that the officers were uncertain whether Benjamin had moved away or was waiting to ambush them. He described the situation as one in which they felt they needed to recover the firearm as quickly as possible.
I.W. testified that after the vehicle stopped beside Benjamin, he opened the passenger door and called out “Police”. According to his account, Benjamin then pulled what appeared to be a firearm from beneath his clothing and pointed it towards him. I.W. said he recoiled into the vehicle and opened fire.
F.M. and O.R. also described seeing a weapon movement and hearing a bang. Both said they feared that I.W. had been shot or was under immediate threat.
The defence argued that the original intention was to physically disarm and arrest Benjamin, rather than to carry out a planned shooting. It pointed to radio communication in which O.R. said the officers would try to “surprise” the man, explaining that this referred to physically tackling and disarming him.
The written submission further notes that O.R. requested assistance before the shooting, but that the available information does not establish that another unit could have reached the scene in time to intervene.
The court was shown footage of Benjamin at the corner, handling an object that appeared to be a firearm. The footage showed him concealing the object when the police vehicle arrived and later reaching towards his clothing before the shooting.
The written submission highlighted differences between the officers’ estimates of how many shots they fired, the number of visible muzzle flashes and the minimum numbers calculated during forensic examination. The officers reported firing five shots by I.W., four by F.M. and three by O.R. The forensic examination identified minimum figures of three, four and two shots respectively.
The written submission also addressed the medical evidence. An additional statement from the forensic pathologist, identified one wound track as fatal but did not establish the exact moment the fatal injury was inflicted. The pathologist also could not determine precisely when Benjamin became incapable of purposeful movement.
It further cautioned against assuming that Benjamin was already lying motionless when every subsequent shot was fired, saying the available medical findings did not establish that sequence.
The object was subsequently described in the forensic material as a CZ P-09 air pistol, which the defence said closely resembled a real firearm. The officers maintained that they did not know it was an air pistol when they encountered Benjamin.
The prosecutor questioned whether the officers had followed the procedures taught to them, including maintaining distance, using available cover, allowing themselves room to react and issuing warnings where circumstances permitted.
The defence responded by referring to testimony from police instructor Cathalina, who distinguished between officers’ individual training and the specialist training associated with a formal Arrest Team deployment. Although all three officers were currently firearms-qualified, the instructor’s additional answers indicated that two had AOT training while one had received only IBT training.
The submission also referred to the instructor’s explanation that an officer does not necessarily have to wait until an armed person fires before responding if a weapon is pointed at them. However, the defence stressed that the decision to fire and the moment the threat ends must still be assessed individually.
The prosecutor similarly acknowledged that officers are authorised to use their firearms when confronted with an immediate threat. He noted that it may take one, three or five shots to stop a person who is pointing a weapon at them, depending on the circumstances.
He also referred to the toxicology findings and the possibility that Benjamin’s intoxication could have affected his behaviour and movements. A blood alcohol level of 2.5 and cannabis was found in his blood. Such a level of intoxication, he said, could result in disorientation, blurred vision and unsteady movements and making a person's behaviour difficult to predict.
A woman who had spoken with Benjamin earlier stated in a police interview that he had appeared intoxicated and made a threatening remark suggesting somebody would die that night. She attempted to call 911 but was not able to get through to emergency services. The officers were not aware of that statement when they encountered him.
After considering the evidence, the prosecutor said he believed the officers were justified in shooting because Benjamin appeared to draw and point the weapon towards them. Nevertheless, he maintained that the officers’ chosen approach was not the best one for the circumstances, despite being a method covered in training. He ultimately requested their acquittal on the manslaughter charges.
The family’s representative, attorney Safira Ibrahim, told the court that the family was seeking material and immaterial damages. She requested the maximum Cg. 50,000 in immaterial damages, in addition to funeral expenses and any remaining immaterial damages payable to the family.
She stressed that no amount of money could place a value on the loss of a loved one, but asked the court to award the maximum amount available.
A representative of the family also addressed the court, acknowledging the difficult circumstances surrounding the case and the different perspectives involved. He said he understood the pain of losing a loved one, having also experienced the loss of a friend who was a police officer to crime, for which justice had been served.
He said he could now understand the other side of that experience, with an officer having taken the life of someone close to the family. While hoping justice would be served, he stressed that accountability and acceptance of the consequences of one's actions were also important.
"We are all human in life," he said, adding that he hoped the proceedings could continue in peace and reminding those present that no one could escape God's judgement.
F.M., I.W. and O.R. apologised to the family. O.R. said he had not left home that night intending to take anyone’s life and that, had he known what would happen, he would have called in sick and stayed home.
The judge also asked the officers about the effect the incident had on their lives. O.R. said his daily routine had become far from normal, explaining that he had received death threats and found it stressful to move around in the community. He said he had sought assistance from a psychologist and remained apprehensive about responding to future calls of duty.
F.M. said he had been struggling since the incident, describing himself as having been a wreck and experiencing difficulty sleeping. He had also sought professional assistance.
Merx, after requesting acquittal, addressed the bereaved family and members of the St. Peters community, including Maurice Lake. He offered condolences to Benjamin’s family on behalf of himself and his clients, stressing that the request for acquittal did not diminish the seriousness of their loss. He said a court decision could not undo what had happened but could clarify the legal responsibility being considered.
The judge is scheduled to resume the proceedings on November 27, when the hearing will be brought to a close and a verdict delivered.
