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

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...

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."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
to be honest I don't think cases should be reported on on a blow by blow.case like some real life judge Judy.

other than rubber necking I see no positive but the negatives are huge esp with the clickbait junk that our media feeds us.

the flip side however is regardless of what the final verdict will be, confidence in the police is further eroded, it creates yet another us Vs them division, it stirs more racial unrest and possibly worse of all if there is a miss trial for what ever reason........ good luck getting an impartial jury next time.
 
The first and most obvious question: did the person involved follow instructions from the police? If they did and were then shot, then thats clearly unacceptable. If they didnt then why is it any different to telling a kid the fires hot and they still touch it.

If you are innocent, do as you are asked and get on your way quickly. The amount of "Im resisting on principle / cause I can / police are bad / etc etc" that you see in the media is ridiculous. Yes it might be inconvenient, yes it might be annoying, yes it might delay you slightly, but in all my interactions with the police its never been a big issue. You give them 5 minutes of your time, answer their questions and you're on your way with no issues.
 
bigmike20vt said:
to be honest I don't think cases should be reported on on a blow by blow.case like some real life judge Judy.

other than rubber necking I see no positive but the negatives are huge esp with the clickbait junk that our media feeds us.
Click to expand...

I don't have an issue with the daily reporting it's more just that the headline was super misleading, people place trust in the BBC, so much so that people will immediately jump in and make up excuses on behalf of the BBC should they see it criticised.

Just in general it's absurd - even if it were to have included a qualifier (which it didn't) - assertions from the prosecution or defence shouldn't be headline news, they can be highly speculative guesses as to motive, intent etc. potentially quite far removed from reality and serve to challenge a witness/defendant, push a narrative etc. but that also makes them great for clickbait.

If there's some dramatic development, some damning evidence etc. then that would seem to be fine to include, but a dramatic accusation/assertion that has little basis in fact, is just an assertion during cross-examination being reported in the same way is iffy.

So in addition to the issues with firearms officers and their perception of how they're treated, it's also pushing a rather unhelpful if not harmful narrative to the general public re: the police.
 
Hagar said:
www.bbc.co.uk

Bianca Williams: PCs win appeal over stop and search sacking

Jonathan Clapham and Sam Franks were sacked over their search of Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos.
www.bbc.co.uk

Eventually the correct result here too.
Click to expand...

Are the details of this case in the public domain? Because on face value it looks like the police were heavy handed and the pair hadn't committed any offence, or even looked suspicious.

All we get is....

Their dismissal was overturned by the Police Appeals Tribunal, which found the panel's decision was "irrational" and "inconsistent".

Hugh Davies, representing Mr Clapham, said the officers had "every reason to suspect criminality" when they pulled Dos Santos over.
Click to expand...

If the police wish to maintain public trust, statements like these really need qualification.

What were their grounds for suspicion.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
Are the details of this case in the public domain? Because on face value it looks like the police were heavy handed and the pair hadn't committed any offence, or even looked suspicious.

All we get is....



If the police wish to maintain public trust, statements like these really need qualification.

What were their grounds for suspicion.
Click to expand...

They are and have been public for some time. They were driving on the wrong side of the road and made off when requested to stop.
 
Stretch said:
Smells like BS to me.

If the police can search anyone in London for drugs and weapons on that basis they basically have carte-blanche
Click to expand...
if a person is breaking the law in some even minor way, AND then follow that up with trying to evade the police.. (IE on wrong side of road then doing a runner) then imo that should enough right there for a more detailed look.

if it's "a police officer smelt weed in the outside air so decided to stop and search the 1st black bloke he saw....... then not so much
 
Apparently there were 4 officers there and they all said they could smell cannabis, but the IOPC found two were lying (the ones who were sacked) but two were telling the truth :confused: . So that obvious contradiction is partly why the decision was overturned.

I really had to laugh at this though:
Jules Carey of legal fim Bindmans LLP, which represents Ms Williams and Mr Dos Santos, said: "It is unsurprising that the decision of the Misconduct Panel was overturned.

"The panel got itself into a complete mess as soon as they settled on the bizarre view that the streets of London smell of cannabis.
Click to expand...
Last time I walked around London the smell of cannabis was extremely common, hardly a 'bizarre view'.

news.sky.com

Met Police officers sacked over athlete stop and search handed jobs back after winning appeal

Bianca Williams and Ricardo Dos Santos complained to the police watchdog that they were racially profiled during a "disturbing" stop and search in 2020.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
if a person is breaking the law in some even minor way, AND then follow that up with trying to evade the police.. (IE on wrong side of road then doing a runner) then imo that should enough right there for a more detailed look.

if it's "a police officer smelt weed in the outside air so decided to stop and search the 1st black bloke he saw....... then not so much
Click to expand...

Agreed. This was pretty much my point. Why bring the weed into it if there were already grounds to search.
 
Last edited:
Stretch said:
Whilst that's a good enough reason to be suspicious, why the need to dress it up as a search for drugs and weapons. I don't see the connection.
Click to expand...

Because there isn't one?

You're just making an assumption that they made it up, both things can be true - they had reason to stop the car and they also suspected drug use.

Of course the occupants were black and kicked off/played the race card so it turned into a big story.
 
dowie said:
Because there isn't one?

You're just making an assumption that they made it up, both things can be true - they had reason to stop the car and they also suspected drug use.

Of course the occupants were black and kicked off/played the race card so it turned into a big story.
Click to expand...

Actually, I asked if the details of the case were in the public domain so I could judge on the facts.
 
Stretch said:
Whilst that's a good enough reason to be suspicious, why the need to dress it up as a search for drugs and weapons. I don't see the connection.
Click to expand...

They didn't need to dress it up. As pointed out other officers also smelled weed. This was accepted by the court. Hence why the dismissal has been overturned as inconsistent and irrational.
 
Whatever the reasons Dos Santos was stopped so many times, seems clear from the below video that his driving on this occasion was poor (completely cut the corner on a junction, sped off when he thought he was being followed) and might have made police suspicious, and at least want to talk to him. Then once the police put blue lights on he deliberately drove off and didn't stop at the first opportunity. So based on him driving off I not surprised the police were a bit exercised when they caught up.

As for whether they did actually smell cannabis or not who knows, but doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility that someone had smoked some somewhere nearby. And for all the protests about athlete drug tests making it impossible either of them would ever smoke idk if cannabis is routinely tested for? Quite possible it was someone else though.


Interestingly Dos Santos seems to make a habit of driving off from police on blue lights. E.g. this article is his point of view about being racially profiled etc: https://bylinetimes.com/2023/03/13/...they-would-have-done-everything-and-anything/
This is his description of a separate incident:
The car turned its lights on and braked in front of me. My car manoeuvred around for safety reasons – it has a feature where it prevents an accident, a forward collision. It was now in my head – what the hell was going on? I missed a turning right because I was still confused as to what was happening. I wanted to stop where I knew the area properly and where it was safe to do so.

I took over the wheel. Every time I changed lanes, I indicated right to allow the police car to know that I wasn’t running away or anything. I was driving at the speed limit.

The car just followed the whole time – at that moment it was only one car, but they had already called in for back-up. I didn’t know that at the time – I just thought there was one vehicle but there were six.
Click to expand...
I don't understand this attitude where he seems to think police will be cool with him just driving round them (oh sorry, the Tesla drove round them, he apparently wasn't in control) and then carrying on until he finds his preferred spot. That's obviously going to result in a more antagonised experience.

Does make me question his general driving style.

This is his car going round the police car in that incident (cuts off very shortly afterwards):

So the police put their lights on here:
maps.app.goo.gl

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl
And he pulled up here:
maps.app.goo.gl

51°31'04.8"N 0°11'00.1"W

maps.app.goo.gl maps.app.goo.gl
Which is a 5 minute drive away.
 
Last edited:
GreatAuk said:
I don't understand this attitude where he seems to think police will be cool with him just driving round them (oh sorry, the Tesla drove round them, he apparently wasn't in control) and then carrying on until he finds his preferred spot. That's obviously going to result in a more antagonised experience.
Click to expand...

And of course that was lie:

But a whole load more time and taxpayer money gets wasted on it all because this guy can't accept any personal responsibility for his actions and instead uses this as a race-grift to get attention, sympathy etc.

The other one got a driving ban and 29 points on her license after failing to tell the police who was driving a tesla in another incident:

www.bbc.co.uk

Bianca Williams banned from driving and given 18 penalty points

The British sprinter said the six-month driving ban could dash her Olympic hopes.
www.bbc.co.uk
Williams was disqualified from driving for six months and ordered to pay a fine of £276, a surcharge of £110 and £85 costs. Another 18 points were added to her licence, bringing her total to 29.
Click to expand...

They. both sound like a complete nightmare but of course they'll still kick-off, it's someone else's fault never their own.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom