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

MissChief said:
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.
Click to expand...

You clearly didn't. It doesn't say he was. A prosecutor stated he "may" have been.

1/10 for readings.
 
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...

You do undertand how criminal courts work right?

And that this is something put forward by the prosecution....

I.e "I put to you officer that you weren't acting in the course of your duty with a genuine reason to disharge your firearm and that you acted out of frustration and anger"

In the particular case being reported her it appears to be a quote from the opening speech of the prosecution barrister.

The barrister for the defence would have addressed the jury as well and no doubt would have told them that once they heard the evidence they would be concluding that the defendant wasn't guilty because they acted lawfully!

That's how these things work.... both sides are trying to convince the jury that their account is the correct one.
 
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...

And here in lies the deliberate attempt to misread casual readers, and slow thinkers, into believing the headline as fact. The fact they quote the prosecution barrister in their headline and frame it as a fact is a sly attempt at misleading readers.

A prosecution barrister (and defence!) make all sorts of absolutely crazy assertions, as such is their job to discredit either the victim or the accused. But lots of people don't know this game so when a "respected" news outlet like the BBC or The Guardian frame it as a headline - it is often treated as fact by the reader. At least the BBC still had the shred of decency to put it in quotation marks. The Guardian obviously didn't bother.
 
Last edited:
MissChief said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But they also said that at the time he was shot the car was completely immobile as it was completely penned in.
 
MissChief said:
But they also said that at the time he was shot the car was completely immobile as it was completely penned in.
Click to expand...

Wrong again

"Mr Kaba drove forward into the side of one of the cars blocking his path and then back into a car behind.

At this moment Mr Blake fired the shot that hit Mr Kaba in the head."

You can drive forwards then backwards if you're completely immobile. I hope to God you're never on a jury!
 
MissChief said:
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.
Click to expand...

Where is the evidence that they were angry? It's just a suggestion put forth by the prosecution, they're actively trying to find him guilty so have a vested interest in making him look bad.

Of course, the BBC has reported it in a headline so people just run with it as if it were fact. Their reporting has been rather sus (possibly compromised by "woke" journalists) - for example, they seem to have edited this misleading one too:

 
So this guy was a member of a criminal gang and had a previous conviction for threatening someone with an imitation firearm. This police shooting all seems to be related to this case:

www.independent.co.uk

Men in court over alleged murder plot with late Chris Kaba

Six men are accused of conspiring together and with Mr Kaba to murder Brendon Malutshi in Hackney last year.
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
A group of men have appeared at the Old Bailey accused of plotting with Chris Kaba to murder another young man.

The offence relates to a shooting in Hackney Road in Tower Hamlets, east London, on August 30 last year in which the victim survived.
Click to expand...

So the police had the stolen car involved with that shooting flagged up for potential firearms, the alleged gunman from that incident is still wanted, the car is spotted the next day being driven by Chris Kaba and he appears to drive the car at them... leading to an officer shooting him.

If they're trying to arrest a possible gunman from a murder attempt the previous night and he drives a car at them then they've got a right to self-defence.
 
ah the woke BBC..not a formatting issue with whatever device, app and zoom level combination that was taken from. That text looks larger in comparison to the app than i'm seeing, by quite a large margin about 20% going by the number of characters per line (17 vs the 21 i'm seeing in the app and chrome).

My budget android phone shows more text than that about the story both in the app and in chrome. It looks like for whatever reason in that "headline" it's missed one word before showing the picture.
 
Last edited:
I expect that looks worse because it attributes that statement to the court, its missing the key next word as in court told, or court hears.

E.g The current headline on BBC site -

Policeman feared Chris Kaba would kill, court told​


Is it an formatting issue or has it been doctored?
 
Werewolf said:
ah the woke BBC..not a formatting issue with whatever device, app and zoom level combination that was taken from. That text looks larger in comparison to the app than i'm seeing, by quite a large margin about 20% going by the number of characters per line (17 vs the 21 i'm seeing in the app and chrome).

My budget android phone shows more text than that about the story both in the app and in chrome. It looks like for whatever reason in that "headline" it's missed one word before showing the picture.
Click to expand...

This is false, the tweet here contains the same text:


And the article has since been modified because it's obviously a bad headline.
 
The BBC coverage, again, is absolutely shameful. I remember when the BBC used to have some quality journalism, but now it seems to beset with deliberately loose language to feed a left leaning, and as a consequence, anti police agenda. And I don't say this someone who is right leaning, but it's got to ridiculous levels now where it could genuinely be described as "misleading" at best and "fake news" at worst.

Are there any news outlets out there anymore who are unafraid to report facts without fear or favour to either side of the political spectrum? It seems you have guff like GBNews and Daily Mail for the right, and guff like the BBC/Guardian for the left but nothing for just unbiased reporting for people who want facts
 
Last edited:
I dont know the details of this case, maybe the copper is a raving racist who totally over reacted... maybe not.

but if i had a history of criminality and there was even a risk of me being perceived as having a fire arm on me, and i was in a car which had tried to run over police officers.................

and i then had one of said officers pointing a gun at me shouting armed police......................... ignoring the police and putting the car in reverse i would consider to be asking for trouble.

I can say for 100% certainty if i was a police officer i would be handing over my gun licence and keeping away from fire arms.

The trial is not over, which ever way it goes it is clear the BBC and other media have a massive agenda and i would not want to put myself at risk of being in the targets of them.... OTOH how long before an armed police officer in a split second decision hesitates and either they, or someone else gets killed by a criminal, and where would the bbc et al stand then on an officer not responding and letting a violent criminal kill someone.
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
This is false, the tweet here contains the same text:


And the article has since been modified because it's obviously a bad headline.
Click to expand...
Ah so it's a tweet, which has taken the first few words of a headline.

So not some deliberate ploy by the lefty woke anti police BBC elite who have deliberately set out to mislead people, and by the sounds of it they manually intervened to change it when someone became aware of the issue (as I understand it the BBC twitter feed for news is basically automated to take the story and tweet it as they are posted to the main BBC news app/site).

Which would explain why it is formatted very differently to how I'm seeing it on my android phone, and tablet, and on the BBC website as I was using a web browser and the BBC news app, not twitter to try and see it.

I would argue not a bad headline, if it was actually seen on the the news feeds that can actually give more than half a dozen words, such as the BBC app, the Google News system, the BBC website, presumably Apple news etc.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
Ah so it's a tweet, which has taken the first few words of a headline.
Click to expand...

Nope, as explained already it was a headline that has since been modified, that's just a tweet with the same text.

Werewolf said:
Which would explain why it is formatted very differently to how I'm seeing it on my android phone, and tablet, and on the BBC website as I was using a web browser and the BBC news app, not twitter to try and see it.
Click to expand...

Again you're making up something here, that was literally the headline, there isn't a formatting issue there, it's literally the same text - you're just trying to rationalise it after the fact because you're reflexively defending the BBC.

There is no defending it though and they've clearly changed it as they know it's bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom