Depends on the situation - if someone is a severe threat to the wider public for example that kind of procedure might be necessary, in other situations it should not be used - there are issues with potential for miscommunication and cross-fire compared to other approaches.
"Hundreds" of Met Police armed response officers hand in the weapons after colleague charged with murder - Chris Kaba Shooting aftermath.
- Thread starter ianh
- Start date
Depends on the situation - if someone is a severe threat to the wider public for example that kind of procedure might be necessary, in other situations it should not be used - there are issues with potential for miscommunication and cross-fire compared to other approaches.
Soldato
In this case, they had no choice, they didn't intend to do an inline extraction, it was chance that the Audi driver turned on to the street the other ARV unit was waiting on, they actually intended to let the Audi go by on the main road, then pull out with the other ARV and follow from behind.
Mind you at any point they decide to stop the vehicle, I'm going to guess (would be great to get an expert in on this) when firearms are involved they would do something similar, it would be dangerous to not immediately get out and have guns on the driver/occupants, any sign of weapons being brandished and they'd immediately shoot to ensure minimal casualties.
Mind you, if you have knowledge of this, please share, I don't know what you can do when firearms are involved that isn't very dangerous, and personally wouldn't want to give them any opportunity to shoot me first.
Last edited:
So what happened to innocent to proved guilty ? Are we just going to shoot anyonewho is a criminal ? The officer was amming at his head with the saftey off, he pulled the trigger for some reason. I dont think murder should be the charge but there has to be consequence.
Well it is and it does seem an odd charge rather than some degree of manslaughter.
It shouldn't be possible for an officer following procedure to get a murder charge, if you can then that's plenty of incentive for every single one to hand in their card and say sod this for a lark.
Soldato
I'd be happy with that yeah. I don't care if certain scummy types of people don't exist, why would I? They make normal people's lives a misery and make our communities unsafe, even if it's only 'petty' crime (I hate that categorisation - petty crime can be more impactful than far more serious crimes, on wider numbers of people).
Permabanned
i don't like armed police but there needed ... from my thoughts .. car known to have fire arms ..guy in it runs police have to stop him .. all it would take is for him to make a move to glove compartment or not show his hands and game over ..as is what happened probably..
just to many woke judges around .. now the officer will have to live with killing someone for the rest of his life thats going to be hard enough to do ..
just to many woke judges around .. now the officer will have to live with killing someone for the rest of his life thats going to be hard enough to do ..
Soldato
Nail. Head.
If he wasn't following procedure then fair enough, but if he was, then there's absolutely no way the individual officer should be made responsible for it.
Last edited:
The police being subject to criticism doesn't not exclude them from being able to be critical about how they themselves are treated. Are nurses and paramedics not allowed to strike because the NHS itself is under particular scrutiny?
Continuously branding it as "crying" suggests no attempt made to understand why firearms officers - and police officers in general - may be dissatisfied with the current status quo around the handling of police complaints and investigations, and the lack of protection they have currently in law for doing their job. That doesn't imply an expectation of a blanket right to shoot or kill, or to be immune to consequences or prosecution. It means that the roles and specialist training (whether it's firearms or driving/tactics) they receive are potentially at odds with the law which governs those activities.
If you honestly think the Police have had a lack of protection historically from prosecution, then you and those officers are too far gone up their own behinds for help. That sort of statement is why people think the police are arrogant and corrupt and think they are above the law in the first place.
The ink on the report proving and condemning their actions is barely dry, anyone with a hint of humanity and contrition would at the very least keep quiet, man up and realise there is a collective and personal responsibility for the met's past actions and wait for the trial, which they will probably win anyway.
Yeah s79 we get it - you hate the police, they're nasty bullies etc etc. Although I have no doubt you would be the first to call them should anybody say anything mean about you online....
It doesn't surprise me that you've completely missed point. That point being that historical and ongoing problems in the wider Met have absolutely nothing to do with this case. A case that stands on its own merit or otherwise regarding what actually happened on that day. You seem angry because the police firearms officers won't roll over and offer this particular officer's head on a pike to appease the rabid anti-police fanatics in certain sections of wider society and the media (Or indeed, the hand wringing virtue signalers). What ever this officer is guilty of (if anything), it's not any of the recent or historical high profile crimes or failures that other officers have been guilty of or overseen.
Special utter tosh of the thread award right here. I'm actually astonished you believe this nonsense. I doubt you would accept collective and personal responsibility for the actions of someone else in whatever organization you work/have worked for. But according to you, rank and file police officers, who the vast majority of, are ordinary decent people doing a difficult and thankless task should bear a guilt not of their own making. And in this particular case, that an officer should submit to a murder charge even you yourself don't believe has any merit.
You want to fix the Met? Start at the top. But I doubt you do - I suspect you just want a scalp to justify whatever narrow world view you hold. The fact that you and many others like you hold the view you do certainly gives a lot of credence to my mind, that the large numbers of officers who've refused firearms duty because they suspect there is a political dimension to this prosecution, have a point.
blah blah blah you're just angry, stupid, jealous, cowardly… frothy assumption, assumption........
The only angry little men seem to be the police and the blind Police supporters, I don't hate the Police, I also don't get down on my knees with my mouth open ready for service either.
I recognise society needs a police service but that it doesn't make them special little ********** and a good Police service is just made up of normal people who need to be held to extra account, for the extra powers we give them.
I don't or have asked for anything, I've not even really made comment of my opinion of the case, only the justifications of why it might be being brought.
Soldato
I think you are approaching this from a normal policing point of view, the issue in this case is the extremely significant 'firearms' element.
This immediately means they have to assume that the driver is armed, which requires an armed response to deal with, which means the swift decisive stop, the immediate guns trained on them with safeties off. This has to be the case, having guns on immediately ready to shoot is the best action, any delay from the officers end, and either they or a member of public could be harmed.. the moment a gun is seen, they will probably open fire.. they can't wait for them to shoot first, then release their safety, then respond, it's too late and they certainly don't want to softly approach, give them oodles of time to get a gun and start shooting, that's even more dangerous.
And we do have 'witness' reports (as per the Metro article I linked earlier) that paint a pretty solid picture of at least 12 verbal instructions to get out the car, followed by CK ramming the ARV and Tesla, then reversing and only then was he shot, so I'm assuming it was for his attempts to get away and the threat that posed.
This is also the angle I think is most likely (if I had to guess) where a Murder charge may be applied, because the moment it becomes a case of exactly how much imminent danger the officer may/may not have been in will be subjective, and also if there is an element of the officer was only in minor danger but did not want to let the guy ram and get through/disappear with a car that may have had firearms in it etc, then it's subjective as to if that was reasonable or not.. and the moment it's subjective then he's screwed, because public opinion which is stoked by media have already painted the picture they want.. zero mention of his recent conviction, why he was in that car, why was it flagged and only one article I've found had the witness account detailed that showed the actions the Police took prior.
Showing your true colours here. God forbid you ever have need of the police for anything serious, but if you do, you be sure to tell the police officer providing you first aid or pulling you out of your crashed car (or whatever) what an angry little man he is. Although, it's just as likely to be a women, so good luck with that. I won't comment on the second half of your sentence as I honestly couldn't care what you think of me.
Projecting much here? I wonder if the angry man would let you get down on your knees and provide service you'd be..............less angry?
Police officers are individuals. The vast majority are decent and join the police for the right reasons. You may have had negative experiences with the police in the past, I understand that, but you're just making a cross for your own back if you carry those experiences forward to the next time you deal with a police officer, who for the most part just wants to get to the end of his shift without too much grief.
Anyone who would take a common figurative turn of phrase and takes it literally comes across as a bit rapey. Maybe you do need to be under investigation ?
The rest of that nonsense again ignores the actual point and is just some angry rant, well done for proving the point. Rod for my own back might come across as a threat, maybe your car needs a marker too.
What ****** planet are you on where:
Is a:
Not me that needs to be under investigation.
Yes, and ignorance is no excuse. you're a very angry man, I would hope you're just some nobody and not an actual serving officer.
I think you've hit the nail on the head.
Years ago there was a case of a paratrooper (Lee Clegg) in NI charged and sentenced for murder for firing on a car running a road block. I've always thought that was a miscarriage of justice. Clegg fired four bullets, three while the car was traveling towards the road block. One after the the car had passed the road block. It was the fourth bullet that found Clegg guilty and imprisoned for murder. Think about that for a second. Four bullets fired in matter of seconds under extreme stress. The first three were okay, the last a murder conviction.
I suspect it might be the same here. The Audi tried to ram it's way through, got stuck and started to reverse. As it was reversing the fatal shot was fired. And on that basis, a murder charge is applied. Try and put yourself in that officers shoes.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 3,189
He said to the man in the mirror
Grow up. Do you actually have anything to contribute? There is a legal precedent I was trying to to highlight with Lee Clegg. What has Bloody Sunday got to do with it. Or were you trying to be edgy?