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

[200sols]

Oh yea, the firearms flag on the car is why they would have been twitchy and why armed police were there in the first place, just pointing out the fallacy of the restropective justification some people seem to be putting forward due to his previous history, when it wouldn't have been known.

I mean, a car failing to stop and actively trying to get away isn't that uncommon (I've watched police interceptors ) and generally doesn't end up with with someone being shot!

Of course it doesn't because police officers are rarely armed without good reason in this country.

 

[fastwunz]

Oh yea, the firearms flag on the car is why they would have been twitchy and why armed police were there in the first place, just pointing out the fallacy of the restropective justification some people seem to be putting forward due to his previous history, when it wouldn't have been known.

I mean, a car failing to stop and actively trying to get away isn't that uncommon (I've watched police interceptors ) and generally doesn't end up with with someone being shot!

Absolutely agree - as with all of these things it’s about context context context.
oh and facts. But people don’t like those when it goes against their political agenda. And my goodness there is an absolute whopper of an agenda here.

It’s sad someone died but I for one am glad it wasn’t a police officer.

 

[Freakbro]

Of course it doesn't because police officers are rarely armed without good reason in this country.

Of course, it was just a light hearted comment because some people also seem to be trying to shoe horn in that because he didn't stop/tried to ram his way out as another vindication of him being shot, which on it's own it isn't.

I mean it's pretty dumb on his part to try and do that with armed police officers pointing guns at you, rather than the usual unarmed flavour, but it isn't a capital offence.

I haven't really followed this story or this thread to know what the arguments for each side are, but the fact he was shot in the back of the head through the front windscreen would indicate he had turned round? So the officer could have thought he was going for a weapon? But then I'd have thought there's obviously something about the event that doesn't stack up because the CPS have brought the case forward in the first place? <shrug>

 

[TheVoice]

So police officers, who spend months or even years investigating other people, are upset when months or even years are spent investigating them ?

When they know full well that the investigation could and should be completed far more quickly, yes.

it is relevant, 6 years from investigation to conviction for a high profile murder case.

An investigation of a completely different scale and scope for incidents spanning a far longer period of time.

OK better example Dalian Atkinson was murdered in 2016, the Police officer was charged in 2019 and convicted in 2021.

That is indeed a much better example, as it supports my point that it took the IOPC over three years to bring charges.

You might be ignorant of the time the justice system takes, but police officers certainly aren't it's just more crying from them about how, yes, they are special, and the normal rules and process shouldn't apply to them. because of their fragile mental health.

I'm certainly not either and it's well-known the CJS doesn't tend to be a fast-moving machine, but it is very clear that the IOPC and CPS often take far longer than necessary and the police are rather well-qualified to recognise that. Suggesting that the police are complaining about being held to account is nonsense and indicates a lack of actual understanding of what's going on here and the high levels of accountability the police already face.

I'll largely ignore your tactless mocking of their mental health for now, given the number of police officer suicides lately.

 

[Demon]

Based in media reports I don't think they'd identified him as such so not relevant to individual treatment of him at the time, but it's still relevant for the purposes of speculating how he might have acted during the police stop (e.g. whether or not it's believable that he tried to ram past the police car).

The police will have been prepared for violence in any case though due to the car's link to firearms offences.

E: His criminal history (if true) does make a bit of a mockery of all the good words about him from friends and family though, and the portrayal in some news articles as simply a father to be caught up in a police blunder...

From the scant evidence we have which is mainly eye witness reports that surfaced at the time (would be good to correlate those with the body cams) e.g.:

London Metro

"This is what a witness told the London Evening Standard happened next. 'Armed police jumped out and were shouting at the man, 'Get out of the car,' the witness said.

'It was at least a dozen times. The guy in the car had a lot of opportunities to stop but he refused. He then started driving forwards towards a police car and smashed into it then reversed, he just wouldn't stop the vehicle.'

This makes some sense, the Tesla has damage which shows he probably had one go to get through and the final position of the Q8 shows he reversed..

On top of that, the bullet hole being frontal right in front of the driver means it's fair to assume the firearms officer was somewhere in front of the Q8, so any continued attempt to ram through again would make that officer be in his path..

Have we had contradictory evidence that shows this wasn't the case?

 

[GreatAuk]

...

Have we had contradictory evidence that shows this wasn't the case?

Nope I don't think we have, but there was speculation by some posters here (& on twitter etc obviously) that he might not have rammed the cars at all but it might just have rolled into them after he was shot.

Also interesting, hadn't seen that witness account in other stories, adds to the evidence...

 

[Sythe79]

That is indeed a much better example, as it supports my point that it took the IOPC over three years to bring charges.



I'll largely ignore your tactless mocking of their mental health for now, given the number of police officer suicides lately.

Do you really think the time it takes is disadvantageous to the Police officers and not the victims ? that's a special take in itself

There's a reason the PCA and the IPCC were both found not fit for purpose within 15 years of each other, and it wasn't because they were being mean to the poor Police officers.

No, it's because they were found to be stacked in favour of the Police, underfunded and lacked the resources to deal with the often total lack of co-operation within the Police itself.

It's a bit rich to now start complaining about speedy inquires.

 

[TheVoice]

Do you really think the time it takes is disadvantageous to the Police officers and not the victims ? that's a special take in itself

No and I didn't suggest it was; the thread isn't about broader dissatisfaction with the CJS, it's about the police, how investigations into them are handled and how they have made their feelings known about particular concerns around that issue amongst various others that they felt impacted their ability to do their role.

It's a bit rich to now start complaining about speedy inquires.

Not at all, police officers have been complaining about it for years and it was highlighted in the HoC Select Committee report just last year that delays were still significant (affecting both complainants and police officers) and a recommendation published that the IOPC should make effort to minimise delays in investigations:

Recommendation 9 (paragraph 21, page 49)
The IOPC must use its powers effectively to minimise delays to investigations at an early
stage of the process. It should proactively call to account those responsible for delays
or who refuse to co-operate with investigations. Police forces, individual officers and
their representative organisations must also take more responsibility for rooting out
bad behaviour and lifting the cloud of complaint against officers who have done their
exceptionally difficult job properly.

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9006/documents/166181/default/

You'll also find similar complaints from police officers about their own force's PSDs. The systems need to be better resourced and more efficient for everyone's sake and the concerns listened to, as opposed to being branded as "crying" or an attempt to dodge accountability and consequences.

 

[Dalandius]

Not sure if you're familiar with the term "road block", but it usually involves "blocking" the "road"

Yes with a hard thing a vehicle of some kind, not soft thing like a human body?

 

[Illusion]

All you need to do is look at this persons criminal and extremely violent background to know that he probably wasn’t one for stopping for the police and was exceptionally likely to be armed and quite happy to use said armaments. It’s a story as old as time and sadly one that afflicts a specific area of our society in an entirely disproportionate manner.

I can completely understand why so many officers have handed in their fire arms. It’s not worth the hassle.

Pretty sure the officer shot him in the head without knowing his criminal record since they had no way of knowing who was driving the car, sorry

 

[Dalandius]

I’m loving the repeated use of the weight of the vehicle! Does the officer need to know the weight of the vehicle before deciding to shoot the driver dead or us it just more hating on SUV drivers!

Not hating on SUV's just a heaver car is more likely to be able to "break" the road block than a smaller lighter car would.

Getting run over by any car is going to have a good chance of leaving life changing injuries no matter the size and as such standing in front of any car when the driver is intent on driving away is an unnecessary risk.

 

[Sythe79]

No and I didn't suggest it was; the thread isn't about broader dissatisfaction with the CJS, it's about the police, how investigations into them are handled and how they have made their feelings known about particular concerns around that issue amongst various others that they felt impacted their ability to do their role.


Not at all, police officers have been complaining about it for years and it was highlighted in the HoC Select Committee report just last year that delays were still significant (affecting both complainants and police officers) and a recommendation published that the IOPC should make effort to minimise delays in investigations:

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/9006/documents/166181/default/

You'll also find similar complaints from police officers about their own force's PSDs. The systems need to be better resourced and more efficient for everyone's sake and the concerns listened to, as opposed to being branded as "crying" or an attempt to dodge accountability and consequences.

"But everyone within the Met also now needs to recognise that its failings go well beyond the
actions of ‘bad apple’ officers. My report makes clear that, on top of the unimaginable crimes of
individuals and the shocking series of events that have hit the service in recent years, the way in
which the Met has responded to them is also a symptom of a wider malaise in an organisation that
has fundamentally lost its way.
“The Met can now no longer presume that it has the permission of the people of London to police
them. The loss of this crucial principle of policing by consent would be catastrophic. We must make
sure it is not irreversible.
“It is fixable if the Met recognises the true scale of the challenge in front of it, with drastic and
effective action. The Met must be prepared to accept stronger outside challenge and scrutiny. It
needs strong leadership and all its officers and staff to be behind the changes required"

This is why this officer is getting treated "harshly" or as most people would think like any other person. So yes it comes across as crying when officers hand in their ticket in protest or complain about the time under investigation.

 

[Demon]

Nope I don't think we have, but there was speculation by some posters here (& on twitter etc obviously) that he might not have rammed the cars at all but it might just have rolled into them after he was shot.

Also interesting, hadn't seen that witness account in other stories, adds to the evidence...

I also agree with your edit..

It's amazing how peoples view of responsibilities in society differ so vastly..

My wife works in a school and there are many problem children from various diverse families who kick, stab and generally can get quite violent with Teachers/Assistants and when that's fed back to the parents, they quite often get the stereotypical tirade about how their little johnny is an angel and how he's being picked on for 'just being a boy'.. after all, we all know it's OK to stab a teacher with a pencil requiring a trip to A&E since 'boys will be boys'.. although these days, the girls are also trying to get in on the action..

Not hating on SUV's just a heaver car is more likely to be able to "break" the road block than a smaller lighter car would.

Getting run over by any car is going to have a good chance of leaving life changing injuries no matter the size and as such standing in front of any car when the driver is intent on driving away is an unnecessary risk.

I have no idea what normal tactical methods are, but in firearm cases, not knowing what the score is, I'd say it's prudent to have someone relatively directly in front with line of sight to the driver looking for them potentially going for a gun, so I'd expect eyes on and a gun trained on him , it's vital you have that angle covered, because officers approaching from the side need protecting since they don't share that same view.. the fact that this puts you in the potential path of the driver making a concerted effort to ram his way through is secondary, and you have a gun trained on the driver, so we know how that will play out.

 

[[Death]]

So to sum up, guy with a background of gangs, drugs, firearms etc etc , acts like a complete tool and gets shot.

Moral of the story…..don’t be a tool?

 

[Rroff]

I have no idea what normal tactical methods are, but in firearm cases, not knowing what the score is, I'd say it's prudent to have someone relatively directly in front with line of sight to the driver looking for them potentially going for a gun, so I'd expect eyes on and a gun trained on him , it's vital you have that angle covered, because officers approaching from the side need protecting since they don't share that same view.. the fact that this puts you in the potential path of the driver making a concerted effort to ram his way through is secondary, and you have a gun trained on the driver, so we know how that will play out.

There is a big issue with potential cross-fire scenarios, you won't find many situations where they'd tactically put someone in front of a vehicle unless it was a very serious threat to the general public.

 

[Kenai]

So to sum up, guy with a background of gangs, drugs, firearms etc etc , acts like a complete tool and gets shot.

Moral of the story…..don’t be a tool?

The discussion is more about the officer, so better rephrased as:

So to sum up, officer shoots guy with a background of gangs, drugs, firearms etc etc , acting like a complete tool and gets charged with murder

Moral of the story…..don’t be a firearms officer

 

[esmozz]

Pretty sure the officer shot him in the head without knowing his criminal record since they had no way of knowing who was driving the car, sorry

I believe it’s called serendipity.

 

[Demon]

There is a big issue with potential cross-fire scenarios, you won't find many situations where they'd tactically put someone in front of a vehicle unless it was a very serious threat to the general public.

Clearly, I'm no expert, other than having watched a couple of Cagney and Lacey episodes

However:

Pin front/rear, immediate all out, approach from the front, guns trained on the driver..

If this was a normal traffic police stop, sure, they'd not be advised to approach on foot from the front for this reason, but for an armed response, it makes sense IMO, noting that in this case they didn't immediately open fire, they appear from witnesses to have made a very prolonged and repeated effort to instruct him to exit the vehicle, but he decided to ram the armed response vehicle once, reverse and I guess with an armed officer now in front due to the necessary engagement tactic made the decision to open fire.

 

[Rroff]

However:

A very inadvisable approach unless the threat is severe.

 

[Demon]

A very inadvisable approach unless the threat is severe.

I don't get your point, you are saying that standard armed response unit procedures are inadvisable?

The IOPC report states that due to the Audi turning in to the road the other marked armed response unit was on, they decided to do an 'inline extraction'.. This is a car flagged for firearm issues, it's not a normal stop, the entire reason the armed response unit were dealing with it is because it's a severe threat.