"Hundreds" of Met Police armed response officers hand in the weapons after colleague charged with murder - Chris Kaba Shooting aftermath.

ianh

ianh

ianh

Soldato
Joined
12 Jul 2007
Posts
8,162
Location
Stoke/Norfolk
Hi All,

This is only just being reported over the last few hours so this story will likely change/evolve so please keep that in mind regarding this OP.

Recently the CPS decided to charge a Metropolitan Armed Police Officer with murder over their role in the death of Chris Kaba who was killed by a single shot whilst sat, unarmed, in a car (not his) after hitting a marked Police car during a targetted Police Stop operation on the car which had been involved in a firearms offence the day before. In response to the CPS action, and citing the lack of support from the leadership of the Met, the London Mayor and the police Commissioner, over the past 48hrs "hundreds" (actual number still unclear as of posting this - lots of misreporting) of armed Met Police officers have handed in their "blue cards" which allows them to carry weapons, effectively stripping the Met Police of a large amount of armed response (including anti-terror CTFSO) police.

The senior leadership of the Met met with at least 70 officers to discuss the case which has then led to the effective "walk out", where the officers have said that they will still work as "normal" officers but will no longer work as Armed Police. I don't know if this is a permanent removal from Armed duty or just temporary (like a strike).

The Met Police leadership have asked for help from several other forces to cover these loses which so far has been turned down by the Armed Police of those various forces as individual officers reportedly don't want to work in London (maybe showing solidarity?).

www.telegraph.co.uk

Counter-terrorism police among Met officers handing in weapons after colleague charged with murder

The crisis began on Thursday when a Met firearms officer was charged with murdering Chris Kaba in south London last September
www.telegraph.co.uk www.telegraph.co.uk

www.theguardian.com

Dozens of Met officers refuse armed patrols after colleague’s murder charge

At least 70 police firearms officers are reconsidering carrying a gun after marksman to go on trial over death of Chris Kaba
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

news.sky.com

Met Police firearms officers turning in their weapons following Chris Kaba murder charge

An officer was charged with murder after Chris Kaba was shot dead last year after he drove his Audi into a marked police car.
news.sky.com news.sky.com

www.dailymail.co.uk

Met firearms officers hand in weapons over Chris Kaba murder charge

Chris Kaba, 24, died after being shot in the head by a Met firearms officer in Streatham Hill shortly after 10pm on September 5, 2022.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

www.independent.co.uk

Met firearms officers ‘step back from armed duties’ after Chris Kaba murder charge

Met Police armed officers are ‘anxious’ after the officer was charged with the murder of Chris Kaba
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

metro.co.uk

Met firearms officers hand in guns after marksman charged with Chris Kaba murder

Scotland Yard has confirmed ‘a number of officers have taken the decision to step back from armed duties'.
metro.co.uk metro.co.uk

As always, any death caused directly the Police will be filled with antagonism from pro/anti sides but I think that its right that every death should be investigated and, should an officer be found to have gone beyond their duty they should be charged and punished. In this case I find that the charge of "murder" i.e. pre-meditated death looks to be the "main sticking point" amongst the rest of the Armed Officers but the Officers actions, unfortunate as they are, do match the CPS definition of murder (https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter) which is effectively -

the crime of murder is committed, where a person:
  • Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
  • unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
  • any reasonable creature (human being);
  • in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs
  • under the King's Peace (not in war-time);
  • with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case
Click to expand...

Now, unless the officer fired "by accident" then the obvious defence case, I would imagine, will be that this should be classed as "self defence" i.e. the Officer, not knowing what Kaba was doing, feared for their (or their colleagues) life and so felt forced to fire. It'll be interesting to see how this particular case pans out as the evidence is presented i.e. what were Kaba's actions (if any at all) and I wonder if the lack of Armed Police on the streets of London will have any additional effect (if any) on current violence/crime levels and if those Police who have handed in their "cards" will ever come back or will this action spread across other forces.
 
do any of the syndicated news pieces reveal what the nature of the incident was, that had previously flagged up the car ?
that was the missing piece of the jigsaw in all the reports I heard last week ... maybe officers who may have handed in their weapons do know.
 
ianh said:
(i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
Click to expand...

Given that you said he had hit a police car self defence may come into play, but note that that is an affirmative defence - the defendant, not the prosecution, must prove it.

jpaul said:
do any of the syndicated news pieces reveal what the nature of the incident was, that had previously flagged up the car ?
Click to expand...

Telegraph said:
Armed officers in an unmarked police car had been covertly following the vehicle after Automatic Number Plate Recognition technology flagged it as having been linked to a firearms incident the day before.
Click to expand...
 
jpaul said:
do any of the syndicated news pieces reveal what the nature of the incident was, that had previously flagged up the car ?
that was the missing piece of the jigsaw in all the reports I heard last week ... maybe officers who may have handed in their weapons do know.
Click to expand...

this is the info i read, i dont think there is further details available to the public.


Kaba was driving through south London when an automatic number plate recognition camera flagged the car he was in as recently being linked to a firearms incident. The IOPC has said that the car was not registered under Kaba’s name.

Police officers then pursued Kaba, eventually performing a “controlled stop” – two police vehicles collided with his car, cornering him in Streatham Hill. A specialist firearms officer then fired a single shot at the driver’s side through the windscreen, hitting Kaba in the back of the head.
 
The decision to prosecute won’t have been taken likely you have to assume the CPS know more than we do. The accused has the right to a trial by his peers and it will be up to the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt he committed the crime. Not much more to say really, the walk out by his colleagues is unfortunate but no unexpected and understandable.
 
Last edited:
Seems like there must be a lot more to the story than what's been reported in BBC etc, but given confirmed details are so thin on the ground (although lots of stories) I don't really have an opinion on this case tbh.

I presume the CPS must have a reason for charging the officer, but then they're hardly immune from making odd decisions.

Can understand why other police officers might be unhappy too given some of the rumours about what actually happened, and the feeling that they too could end up being prosecuted if they make a split second decision in an extremely stressful situation which turns out to have been the wrong call with hindsight (or at least a panel of people sat in an office think it was the wrong call). But then of course there will be natural bias there towards siding with the officer who they probably identify with, and who knows if the rumours that they have heard are actually accurate.

A lot of damage has been done already whatever happens now though. Further loss of trust between officers and leadership is bad for policing and keeping the peace, while the normal criticisms from campaigners whether legitimate or not in this case will have added to community tensions.

Can only hope that the trial is fair I guess, and ideally resolved sooner rather than later.
 
Last edited:
Good on them standing firm and supporting their fellow officer who is being railroaded to prevent the demographic in question from rioting, looting and burning down their own neighbourhoods.

Two ton of Audi is a deadly weapon, end of! The **** asked for, and deserved, what he got. But of course, he's a 'rapper' so gets a pass on any and all criminal behaviour by the usual suspects.
 
Last edited:
It's like a plot for a movie, the perfect storm in London - mass protest against the banning of Bully XL where thousands of owners take them along and the dogs go berserk. There's no armed police in London to shoot them so the carnage escalates quicker than a tory coverup. As no ambulances dare to enter London due to the ULEZ and resultant cost to the NHS, everyone dies, the Thames runs red.

Rotten Tomatoes - 8 out of 10 ;)
 
Mysterae_ said:
It's like a plot for a movie, the perfect storm in London - mass protest against the banning of Bully XL where thousands of owners take them along and the dogs go berserk. There's no armed police in London to shoot them so the carnage escalates quicker than a tory coverup. As no ambulances dare to enter London due to the ULEZ and resultant cost to the NHS, everyone dies, the Thames runs red.

Rotten Tomatoes - 8 out of 10 ;)
Click to expand...

As Hollywood's story writers' strike draws to an end, I'm already eyeing up a sequel, which takes place in Birmingham. It is now year 2028 and Labour won the 2024 general election. Birmingham's City Council remains bankrupt and the Labour government has made no sodding difference. The Bully XLs (and their gangs / drug cartels) are still rampant due to the XL ban having no effect, and yet police numbers remain at an all-time low. Meanwhile, the council's 50,000-strong 'diversity' team are happily participating in gender politics, pronouns, what is the definition of a woman etc, while enjoying afternoon tea at the London Ritz. Back in Birmingham, the bloodshed continues. WHO WILL SAVE BIRMINGHAM?

Rotton Tomatoes - 3 out of 10 (go woke, go broke)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom