Jury told that shooting victim is 'no angel'
A shooting victim is “no angel,” but he is telling the truth about the man who shot him, a prosecutor told a jury yesterday.Nathan Darrell, 23, has named Quincy Brangman, 32, as the man who opened fire on him at close range as he sat in a car outside his home on Kitchener Close, Sandys, early on February 13.He told Mr Brangman’s trial last week that he got a good look at the face of the shooter, who seemed to want him to see him before he opened fire.Mr Darrell admitted he’s carried a gun in the past, and had been smoking cannabis on the day in question.He also told the jury he’s the kind of person who treads on toes, and may have been perceived to have disrespected Mr Brangman, with whom he’d had run-ins in the past.According to Police gang expert Alexander Rollin, Mr Brangman is a member of the west end gang Money Over B**ches (MOB).A Police photograph of the accused, shown to the jury, depicts a MOB tattoo on his right forearm.Another theory put forward by Mr Darrell as to why he was shot was a rumour on the streets that he shot at the home of Mr Brangman’s cousin and alleged fellow MOB member - Ashley Wellman on New Year’s Day.In her closing speech yesterday, prosecutor Kirsty-Ann Kiellor pointed to Mr Darrell’s voluntary admissions about his gun possession and drug smoking as evidence he tells the truth.“These are all attributes we may not find attractive. He is no angel, but even though we may disagree with his ways, that does not make his shooting any less unlawful,” she said.“He didn’t hesitate in his answers, that tells you a lot about this man. He speaks frankly and honestly.”She pointed out Mr Darrell told people he ran for help immediately after the shooting that “Jim” his nickname for Mr Brangman was the culprit.She also pointed to his evidence that he was seriously injured and thought he was about to die at the time.“Why would he lie at this point? Why would he?” Ms Kiellor asked the jury.She told them they could be confident Mr Darrell was telling the truth that Mr Brangman was the culprit.“I think it can be summed up in one way: retribution. Sorting someone out. You disrespect me, you disrespect my gang, I deal with you.”However, defence lawyer Charles Richardson pointed out that Mr Darrell admitted having bad blood with other people from Somerset.“The most he’s had from Quincy is a dirty look,” he said, in reference to their previous run-ins.And, he continued, even though the Crown called gang expert Sgt Rollin to give evidence about MOB, Mr Darrell never mentioned anything gang-related as a possible motive.“If this really was the case that this had some gang overtone, wouldn’t Nathan Darrell have said so?” he suggested.“However, the Crown well knows that the mention of the word gang in today’s climate is likely to have an overwhelming effect on you.”He urged the jury not to let this make them rush to judgment on Mr Brangman who, he insisted, is innocent.Mr Richardson told the jury this was a case of “mistaken” identity. He urged them to consider the evidence that the night was cold and windy, in the midst of a winter storm.He scotched the Crown’s insistence there was enough light for Mr Darrell to see the culprit, instead saying there was “weak if any light” at the scene, and Mr Darrell must have been high from the six joints he admitted he’d smoked that day.Mr Richardson described Mr Darrell’s statement to the Police that Mr Brangman was the culprit as an “erroneous masterpiece of inaccurate information”.Mr Brangman denies charges of attempted murder and using a firearm to commit an indictable offence.The jury is expected to consider a verdict today.