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

[ianh]

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?).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

 

[ianh]

(if any at all)

Have a word with yourself and be a happier gent.

Am I missing something or did you have an issue with me talking about this national news event, which has been front page news in the UK over the past 3 days? I mean I'd really like to know before replying further just to make sure I'm 100% certain of the exact purpose of your post first.

 

[ianh]

If the Solicitor is correct and both of the victims hands were on the wheel posing 'no danger' how can the officer by justified in any way at using deadly force?

If the statement about the car being driven back and forth is true, and the the Officer felt that this action endangered their life (might be about to get run over etc), then they can make the decision to shoot to remove that perceived "threat" to their life. However, and its a BIG however, that decision - like it is being done currently - has to be open to investigation and cross examining to find out if the decision was actually justified or not.

So just because Kaba's hands weren't holding a firearm/knife etc, doesn't mean that they didn't pose a perceived threat to life by attempting to ram-raid their way out of a Police stop.

 

[ianh]

If the statement about the car being driven back and forth is true, and the the Officer felt that this action endangered their life (might be about to get run over etc), then they can make the decision to shoot to remove that perceived "threat" to their life. However, and its a BIG however, that decision - like it is being done currently - has to be open to investigation and cross examining to find out if the decision was actually justified or not.

So just because Kaba's hands weren't holding a firearm/knife etc, doesn't mean that they didn't pose a perceived threat to life by attempting to ram-raid their way out of a Police stop.

The Officer who opened fire gave his account of events in court today, and it comes as no surprise to me that its very similar to what I wrote yesterday, even down to some of the terminology used -

“At this point the driver drove his vehicle at great speed toward myself and E156 to escape. I had a genuine belief that either of us could be killed and moved right, out of the way. The driver then rammed our car, which was behind me as well as a parked car and stopped, wedged. Seeing the car was stopped I went round to the front and again challenged the driver saying something like ‘armed police, stop the vehicle’. At this point the driver reversed back at great speed as fast as he could, directly towards my colleagues who were out on foot approaching the vehicle.

The male had already shown a propensity to use violence and was happy to use any means to escape and I had a genuine held belief that one or many of my colleagues could be killed by the car, and that the driver would not stop his attempt to escape at any cost. I then made the decision to incapacitate the driver due to the imminent threat to my colleagues and took one shot at the driver."

 

[ianh]

I guess they could, but I doubt it's an approved technique. Imagine there'd be a high risk of a bullet ricocheting off the road and hitting someone nearby. Also flat tyres don't necessarily immediately stop a car so wouldn't have removed the risk.

As a demonstration, there's a "great" video I put in the spoiler below of an Audi RS6 evading a UK cop in Birmingham (IIRC) with at least 1 (possibly 2) flat tyres and still outrunning the police through a housing estate until they reverse into the cop car disabling it whilst the RS6 just drives away like nothing is wrong on its flat tyres.

Spoiler

https://www.tiktok.com/video/7418236610732363039

As for the rest, it's more of a Hollywood trope than something thats trained for. In military terms, during a hard stop its more common to hit the engine with a few large calibre armour piercing bullets (.50 Cal API or similar usually) to try to stop the car quickly that way, rather than hitting a tyre, which pretty much negates the police being able to do something like that.