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

Sythe79 said:
It's not extreme, either your driving is deemed legally safe or it isn't. You either follow the laws or you don't in which case expect to face the consequences. That should be the case for a civilian or a Police officer.
Click to expand...

Half the arguments in these threads are caused by ignorance like this...

Police response and pursuit driving, by the standards set down in the relevant Road Traffic, act would *inherently* be classed as dangerous driving.

A non exhaustive list of examples why would include:

The treatment of red traffic lights as 'give way signs' not 'don't cross', travelling well in excess of the posted road speed and the use of 'tactical contact' (read deliberately causing the vehicle you are driving to make contact with another vehicle).

This is why I would support the police firmly 'working to rule' for a couple of weeks. Normal road speeds, no armed response (so no police attendance at firearms incidents) etc and let people like you be left to justify whether the changes this would cause to criminal behaviour and the ability to police in general would be justified or not.

Serious question, what extra protections do the Police need that they don't already enjoy ?
Click to expand...

Basically the state cant have it both ways.

For example, to return to the firearms theme, the state can't ask police officers to take on voluntary roles where they are expected to use firearms (lethal force) and then automatically treat them as a suspect any time they take that role to its logical conclusion and yet feign surprise when the officers concerned refuse to do things other than provide written replies to questions put to them.

What's the threshold then where police officers should be given the benefit of the doubt
Click to expand...

In these cases the officers are assessed to the same legal standard as everyone else and in most cases there evidential test isn't met.

The CPS had better have a very robust case in the case being discussed here, given what happened early on with the family being shown the video footage and the affect this had on them.


no questions asked
Click to expand...

Hyperbolic nonsense... there are plenty of questions asked following any incident where there is a firearm discharge. UK armed police attend thousands of incidents annually and firearms discharges are rare to the point that the overwhelming majority of the officers involved will never fire their guns outside of a training environment.

The UK has some of the lowest rates of police involved deaths internationally...

List of countries with annual rates and counts for killings by law enforcement officers - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

under 1/10 of France's in these figures
much less than half of Germany's
Half of Sweeden's

and only bested by either 1) much smaller countries (much less likely to suffer a single incident in one year)
or much more ethnically homogenous nations like Poland and Japan
 
Last edited:

Obviously raises the question as to in what circumstances, if any, defendants post charge but prior to a court verdict should be granted any form of anonymity.

One of the reasons put forward in some cases is that it may prompt either further witnesses or further complainants to come forward which isn't likely the case in these circumstances.

On a practical level can't see anything 'good' coming from this particular decision. Just seems to enable the officer to be targeted regardless of any judicial outcome and bait the firearms cops again to consider their positions.
 
Last edited:
Yeah am sure there are reasons but releasing his name doesn't seem fair to me. It's a high profile case with so much attention from activists etc that even if he's found not guilty the shadow of accusations will be with him for the rest of his life.

Not to mention that after he's named it will be a year (? Possibly longer?) until the trial is done, then possible appeals after that.

In his ruling, the judge said he had viewed "raw underlying intelligence material" before coming to the conclusion there was not a "real and immediate risk" to the life of the defendant or to their family.
Click to expand...
I struggle to see how they made that decision tbh...
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
Any bodycam footage or similar?
Click to expand...
Not publicly available... would be interesting if they release it after the trial has finished, although I don't think that always happens here. Seems like in America body cam footage is released much more freely based in things you can find on YouTube...

E: just to be clear I wouldn't want it released as a 'snuff' film (I hope they would cover up faces etc), more just so people can see the reality of something that's been described so often in the media and put to bed questions about whether the car had rammed the police car etc.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if crowdfunding will become a thing for officers charged with offences the public are not in agreement with? The complaints by the black athletes stopped by the Met having led to the dismissal of two officers have met with strong opposition from other officers and members of the general public, myself included, with crowdfunding flowing in for them. I think the generous donations for the 2 officers now stands at around £140,000 and rising :)

Given the current ongoing unrest and mass protests, (believed by some UK authorities to perhaps be a precursor for potential serious terrorist offences), perhaps now is not a good time to have police officers afraid of a lack of support when compelled to use deadly force and are so insecure over this as to be handing in their firearms and tickets.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
I wonder if crowdfunding will become a thing for officers charged with offences the public are not in agreement with? The complaints by the black athletes stopped by the Met having led to the dismissal of two officers have met with strong opposition from other officers and members of the general public, myself included, with crowdfunding flowing in for them. I think the generous donations for the 2 officers now stands at around £140,000 and rising :)

Given the current ongoing unrest and mass protests, (believed by some UK authorities to perhaps be a precursor for potential serious terrorist offences), perhaps now is not a good time to have police officers afraid of a lack of support when compelled to use deadly force and are so insecure over this as to be handing in their firearms and tickets.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure supporting officers who have been found guilty of lying is an entirely good idea tbh.
 
I think next time GoFundMe is used to benefit police sacked over what many donators consider specious "woke" issues there should be a charitable foundation set up, so donators like myself can deduct it from their tax and perhaps the recipients can get it all tax free :)
 
Chris Wilson said:
I think next time GoFundMe is used to benefit police sacked over what many donators consider specious "woke" issues there should be a charitable foundation set up, so donators like myself can deduct it from their tax and perhaps the recipients can get it all tax free :)
Click to expand...
I wonder if you would feel so generous if you were fitted up by lying cops...
A fool and his money...
 
Last edited:
MissChief said:
Sounds like a perfect person to give a life taking weapon to. Someone who gets 'angry, frustrated and annoyed' easily.
Click to expand...

Did you read the article?

"A Metropolitan police firearms officer accused of shooting a man dead through a car windscreen may have been “angry, frustrated and annoyed” when he did so, a jury has heard"

"Little said the crown would ask the jury to consider whether a standoff between Kaba in the Audi, who drove forwards and backwards trying to escape, and officers “caused the defendant to become angry, frustrated and annoyed”.

I'm not quite sure how you managed to jump to the conclusion that the officer was a a person who gets angry, frustrated and annoyed "easily".

I do hope the jury members have the ability to be more open minded and actually read/listen to the evidence before making their decision.
 
Last edited:
CRoWE said:
Did you read the article?

"A Metropolitan police firearms officer accused of shooting a man dead through a car windscreen may have been “angry, frustrated and annoyed” when he did so, a jury has heard"

"Little said the crown would ask the jury to consider whether a standoff between Kaba in the Audi, who drove forwards and backwards trying to escape, and officers “caused the defendant to become angry, frustrated and annoyed”.

I'm not quite sure how you managed to jump to the conclusion that the officer was a a person who gets angry, frustrated and annoyed "easily".

I do hope the jury members have the ability to be more open minded and actually read/listen to the evidence before making their decision.
Click to expand...
Yes I read the article. Persons who are 'angry, frustrated and/or annoyed' have no business being firearms officers IMO. 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? And certainly being angry, frustrated and annoyed is no justification. You'd hope that they could be trained to not let these feelings and emotions guide them in their decision making.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom