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

Sythe79 said:
It can't be very good screening if over a 100 of them throw a hissy fit, ironically because the law is there to hold people accountable for their actions. Or is it because the Police is filled with people that think they are above everyone else and deserve special treatment.

The officer will get his day in court and if he can justify his actions, he will go free, just like any member of the public. Considering the historical lack of convictions of Police for actions that would get anyone else locked up, he should be confident.
Click to expand...

They don’t lobotomise them after graduation to ensure absolute loyalty to the Met Commissioner. The process is there to screen out nutters that want to be London’s Wyatt Earp and those that can’t make life or death decisions under extreme stress.
 
the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

  • Of sound mind and discretion (i.e. sane);
  • unlawfully kills (i.e. not self-defence or other justified killing);
  • any reasonable creature (human being);
  • in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs
  • under the King's Peace (not in war-time);
  • with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH).
The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case
Click to expand...

I imagine pretty much every police shooting meets all of those requirements with the unlawfulness being the only differentiator. Pre-emptive action to prevent harm that hasn't but is likely to happen is always going to be a difficult call. I have sympathy for everyone involved one assume tha officers refusing to perform armed duties feel that the prosecution is politically driven rather than evidence led and given how stressful it must be to be tried for murder are understandably upset. I guess without better information we're left in the dark until the trial progresses.
 
potatolord said:
I know this is somewhat off topic, but how the hell do people use words like "irrespectve" (and it's even more moronic cousin "irregardless") with a straight face?
Click to expand...

yes - context is everything, if the gangland hitman who killed the poor girl chasing into their house, had been seen in such a car, then you'd expect some trepidation on a subsequent stop of that vehicle,,

[
... guess we are waiting on the trial of the french police officer, too, for the youth who started driving away,
and the filmed 'Athlete' + boyfriend stop too seems to have incurred a disciplinary hearing, under a racism auspice, when the police would probably have behaved the same for anyone being obstructive, with half of their attention on filming the incident.
]
 
Uther said:
Because they're not striking?
As someone with a licence I wouldn't be a firearms officer, far too stressful.
Click to expand...
Coordinated withdrawal of labour seems pretty strikey to me. You don't have to down tools altogether for it to be a strike, and there are laws about doing that without a ballot.

Hence my wildcat strike point
 
mburn_83 said:
IMO every police shooting should be investigated like this - the officer should be presumed innocent, but each case should be put in front of a jury
Click to expand...

Every police shooting is investigated. From memory, every firearms discharge is reviewed, too.

A blanket policy of a murder charge for every police shooting death is unworkable. It will lead to very few police officers volunteering for firearms duty.

In my opinion, any police officer who volunteered under such a policy would shown to be be a very poor decision maker.
 
Freddie1980 said:
I won't rush to judgement as theres clearly more to this case then what's being reported but given they've shot an unarmed man I wonder what defense you could put forward?
Click to expand...

Many. Considering he tried to ram them with a car for a start. There was a firearms marker on the car and it could well appear that he was reaching for something. He could have also had something that appeared to be a gun but wasn't.
 
Last edited:
I am fully with the police on this. You can train for every situation imaginable but call it wrong and it us a murder charge? Rubbish. At its most egregious it could be involuntary manslaughter.

We expect people to step up and volunteer to protect us from evil ********. They will not do so if we imprison them for life if they get it wrong. The case should be dropped.
 
mburn_83 said:
IMO every police shooting should be investigated like this - the officer should be presumed innocent, but each case should be put in front of a jury
Click to expand...

Before long you won’t have any armed police. It’s already an extremely challenging and difficult job. Doesn’t every shooting get referred to investigation after anyway? But the idea they should all be put infront of a jury seems a sure fire way to demoralise and decapitate armed police.
 
Hagar said:
I am fully with the police on this. You can train for every situation imaginable but call it wrong and it us a murder charge? Rubbish. At its most egregious it could be involuntary manslaughter.

We expect people to step up and volunteer to protect us from evil ********. They will not do so if we imprison them for life if they get it wrong. The case should be dropped.
Click to expand...
So no punishment if they did get it wrong. This would just encourage those corrupt cops to go for the firearms job knowing they can do what they want. Met police is bad as it is, that would just make it worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom