“Doggie” granted $270,000 bail on firearm and assault-related charges

Bradley Sampson, a 36-year-old Georgetown businessman popularly known as “Doggie,” was granted bail totalling $270,000 on Friday, after he was brought before Principal Magistrate Faith McGusty to face a string of charges linked to a chaotic confrontation at the Square of the Revolution earlier this week.

The incident allegedly stemmed from a dispute over payments to individuals mobilised to participate in a political march hosted by We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), a movement spearheaded by United States (US)-sanctioned businessman Azruddin Mohamed. Sampson of Lot 52 South Alley, Lodge, Georgetown, who is also a father of 14, turned himself in to the police on Thursday in the company of his attorney, Jevon Cox, after a wanted bulletin had been issued for him in relation to the confrontation. The alleged victim, identified as Genista Fordyce, claimed that she was assaulted by Sampson with a firearm during a heated argument over underpayment for mobilisation work. That incident was partially captured on video and circulated widely on social media, showing an aggressive exchange between Sampson and the woman in the vicinity of Cuffy Square.
In court, Sampson was slapped with six charges in total: possession of a firearm without a licence, for which bail was set at $150,000; unlawful carrying of a firearm in a public place, which attracted a bail sum of $50,000; unlawful wounding of Genista Fordyce, for which the Magistrate imposed bail in the amount of $30,000; threatening behaviour, for which bail was fixed at $20,000; disorderly behaviour, which the Magistrate set bail at $10,000; and obscene language, for which he was granted $10,000 bail. During the bail application, attorney Cox argued that his client had been treated unfairly by the police. He stated that when Sampson initially turned himself in, only three charges were put to him: unlawful wounding, disorderly behaviour, and unlawful carrying of a firearm.
According to Cox, it was only later, while Sampson was in transit with law enforcement, that the remaining three charges were relayed to him. He emphasised that no questions were asked of his client regarding these new allegations and the police’s approach appeared inconsistent and improper.
Cox further contended that no firearm was recovered at the scene of the incident or during subsequent police operations. He told the court that for any object to be legally classified as a firearm, ballistic testing must be conducted by a specialist.
In Sampson’s case, no such testing allegedly had been done, and no expert was presented to testify whether the object seen in a circulated video was indeed a firearm. According to the lawyer, law enforcement was relying entirely on social media videos and photographs, which, he argued, are insufficient to confirm the presence of a weapon under the law.
Sampson also confirmed that his home had been searched by police and that he was tested for gunshot residue, tests that yielded no evidence implicating him.
Cox further noted that the virtual complainant, Genista Fordyce, had not attended court, and that no medical certificate had been produced to support the unlawful wounding charge.
He stated that Fordyce had reportedly informed police that she no longer wished to proceed with the matter, yet the charges were still pursued. He urged the Magistrate to take that into consideration.
Referring to the video, Cox argued that it was Fordyce who had acted aggressively toward his client. He said she armed herself with a broken glass bottle and could be seen approaching Sampson in a threatening manner.
Cox also claimed that before the confrontation escalated, Fordyce had unlawfully entered Sampson’s vehicle and removed his car keys. He pointed out that in the video, Sampson could be heard demanding that his keys be returned.
The attorney maintained that whatever actions his client took afterward were in self-defence, and not driven by criminal intent.
Despite the defence’s arguments, the prosecution objected to bail, contending that Fordyce was afraid for her life and had initially hesitated to make a formal complaint because of alleged connections between Sampson and members of the police force.
The prosecutor also told the court that the woman had gone to a hospital and was examined by a doctor, but admitted that no medical document had been submitted to support the claim that she was wounded.
Magistrate McGusty, after listening to both sides, questioned the credibility of the firearm allegation. She noted that no weapon was ever recovered, no ballistics tests were conducted, and no specialist was present to confirm the nature of the item shown in the video.
She further highlighted the absence of medical proof in the unlawful wounding charge and questioned the reliance on videos and photographs alone, without proper verification.
After weighing the submissions of both the prosecution and the defence, the Magistrate granted bail totalling $270,000, and Sampson was ordered to return to court on August 15, when the matter will continue.
Only a month ago, Sampson was among four individuals charged over another widely viewed brawl at the Square of the Revolution. He was charged alongside Malika “Farren Dolly” Lewis, Rahyana “Fatta” Goring, and Shanella Holder. The charges allege that Sampson and Goring incited Holder and Lewis to fight over a social media feud, with online videos showing Sampson offering a $200,000 reward. He was later placed on bail.