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

[Gaygle]

This is what concerns me. Are Armed Police effectively asking for immunity from prosecution?

Absolutely, 100%, certainly not. No one has ever asked for anything even resembling this.

The impunity to shoot who they want as long as they can say to their superiors 'I thought he was a threat to myself or others'? That's an awfully wide open statement to make.

You've just simplified a ~3-5 year IOPC investigation where they do things like hire companies to reconstruct scenes from BWV/camera into 3D like a video game, then after that an entire coroners court hearing going into detail of *everything* from hundreds of witnesses - into "all you have to do is say to your superiors I thought he was a threat".

What I think they're asking for is just some complete impartiality in the decision making, which just isn't there. The IOPC are petrified of looking like they're in cohorts with the police (lol) so they often go so far to other way to overcompensate for this. They are also terrified of being called racist or incompetent. The CPS are worried that they're going to start a riot if they don't charge the officers. They don't care if it ends up as it did in my post above. They just want to be able to wash their hands of it and pass the responsibility on to someone else.

Also, from what I've read, there are nearly 2,400 weapon permit carrying officers in the Met. Around 100 have handed their permit back.I don't think this counts as 'hundreds'.

The old phrase of - don't believe everything you read applies here. There are about 2500 firearms officers registered in London. Many of these are AFO's who stand at static points and protect downing street and stuff like that. There are much much less higher trained ARV officers who are the officers who go around in the vehicles and respond to shootings and stabbings. There are much much much less SFO and CTSFO's who will often conduct tactics on the most dangerous criminals/terrorists.

And "hundreds" of officers HAVE self suspended their tickets. The Met aren't going to tell you the truth that that their city is in effect paralysed if an armed incident comes in are they? The Met seem to barely be able to put a single ARV out at the moment and almost zero officers have responded to Mutual Aid requests. Last I heard, they were calling a force 250 miles from London to see if they would send anyone. They didn't.

Also, they get no extra pay for being a weapon carrier. Feels like some of them just wanted one because 'guns are cool' and 'I'll get to shoot someone', although I'm sure they are a minority.

This is so far away from the truth it's pretty irresponsible even saying it. Do you know many firearms officers or are you just wildly making assumptions and accusations based on....thin air?

 

[SPG]

I am fine with the Police getting off willy when the pop a cap in the ass with someone known and also had a record of offences.

 

[Deleted member 77746]

I am fine with the Police getting off willy when the pop a cap in the ass with someone known and also had a record of offences.

Save the jail costs then.

 

[Sythe79]

Maybe The Police need to take some personal responsibility instead of crying injustice, they have a proven track record of not being able to "police" themselves, and now we are where we are.

maybe the pendulum has swung too far the other way, but they only have themselves to blame.

 

[Ayahuasca]

I am fine with the Police getting off willy when the pop a cap in the ass with someone known and also had a record of offences.

That applies to tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people in this country.

Being known to the police and having a criminal record can't just be a free shot.

It's difficult to say what the answer is in the case of Chris Kaba, because the details of the incident are extremely sparse.

 

[spaggyboy]

Your mistake has been pointed out. You continuing to regurgitate the same nonsence doesn't change this.



This comment tells me:

1) you either haven't read the McPherson report or lack the abilty to understand it

2) you dont understand what that phrase a talky means

McPherson Report??? LOL, no. That's ancient history.

No, I was referring to the much more recent Casey Report dated March 2023 which specifically says:

“The Met has yet to free itself of institutional racism. Public consent is broken. The Met has become unanchored from the Peelian principle of policing by consent set out when it was established.”

Clearly you lacked the ability to be able to click on the link I provided.

And

3) you also probably don't have a clue how wide the remit for this very nebulous phrase is and how it applies to almost everything by the people who coined it.

See here:

This is why people are losing respect for the police...

Please Daddy government, protect me from the woman silently stood still in a public place :(:(:(

forums.overclockers.co.uk

It's a bit weird that you are clinging to the findings of a 24 year old report. Perhaps you should try reading something that was published this century.

Well at least your consistent with the quality of your posts.

No idea where the snark and the hostility comes from. This is a debating forum, people are going to disagree, that's literally the point. If you are unable to conduct yourself without snide insults then perhaps debating isn't for you.

translation: the law needs to reflect unique situations for example where people are asked to drive well outside of the normal parameters for road driving or be issued items whoose use will almost always amount to an intent, in law, to kill.

So yes, you feel the police should be above the law as it currently stands. Personally I don't I feel that sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[Sythe79]

I am fine with the Police getting off willy when the pop a cap in the ass with someone known and also had a record of offences.

get your punisher tattoo and thin blue line badge and join up then, because that seems a great society to aspire too.


Maybe all the wokey's will take over and start drive-bying you for "wrong think" because words are violence, I'm sure you'll be fine with that too.

 

[iamtheoneneo]

That applies to tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people in this country.

Being known to the police and having a criminal record can't just be a free shot.

It's difficult to say what the answer is in the case of Chris Kaba, because the details of the incident are extremely sparse.

yeh how dare they shoot the guy as he's trying to ram his SUV through a police roadblock and failing to listen to commands.

I do like the family playing the racism card though. Never mind the fact that their son was part of a gang that wouid happily murder you if you as so much as looked at them the wrong way.

 

[SPG]

That applies to tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people in this country.

Being known to the police and having a criminal record can't just be a free shot.

It's difficult to say what the answer is in the case of Chris Kaba, because the details of the incident are extremely sparse.

I have zero problem with that, you had plenty of chances to get back on the straight and narrow hanging around with known gangs at is generally a bad idea no matter what.

 

[spaggyboy]

Your message is written in a way to construe this person put their uniform on for the day intending to go out and blow someone's head off. Don't you think that's a tad strong?

That's for the Jury to decide in the upcoming murder trial.

Personally I wouldn't want to do a job where if I make a split second decision, that everyone else can then judge with hindsight, it could turn out to be wrong and result in the death of a person but then also sees me up for murder charges. If I knew that up front, no matter what my training, the understanding that I am a HUMAN that is prone to making a mistake would make me steer well clear of a role like that.

Personally I couldn't do a job that would require me to kill another human being. Mainly because I'm not a sociopath.

Would you be happy if this was done by AI and robotics? It would be able to back up all it's decision making with data, and on probability of thread to life, calculate the final action taken to eliminate a threat. No mistakes made.

I'm not suggesting we hire ED-209, I just want to the police to be accountable for their actions. Which means if you shoot an unarmed civilian, then you should face the consequences.

 

[Quartz]

You've just simplified a ~3-5 year IOPC investigation

Can I pick up on this? I wonder if the issue is as much having this hanging over you and your career stalled for such a long time? There's a saying that justice delayed is justice denied; that counts both ways.

 

[Caracus2k]

McPherson Report??? LOL, no. That's ancient history.

No, I was referring to the much more recent Casey Report dated March 2023 which specifically says:

The Mcpherson report was the report that brought the term into widespread use in the public sphere.

You can't use the phrase, in the UK, without it having relevance to the McPherson report.

Perhaps if you actually read the source documents rather than just relying on news headlines you would beclown yourself a little less....

Many of the issues raised by the Review are far from new. I make a finding of institutional racism, sexism and homophobia in the Met. Sir William Macpherson made the first of those findings in his inquiry into the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence as long ago as 1999

BARONESS CASEY REVIEW Final Report (met.police.uk)

It's a bit weird that you are clinging to the findings of a 24 year old report. Perhaps you should try reading something that was published this century.

Again if you actually bothered to read the report you would see it explicitly refers to that '24 year old report'. So it's using the term in the same, now known to be misleading, manner.

 

[Gaygle]

Personally I couldn't do a job that would require me to kill another human being. Mainly because I'm not a sociopath.

Then I guess we can be thankful that much better men and women than the likes of you have guaranteed your freedom to sit behind your computer on an internet forum and call them sociopaths

 

[spaggyboy]

The Mcpherson report was the report that brought the term into widespread use in the public sphere.

You can't use the phrase, in the UK, without it having relevance to the McPherson report.

So no-one can use the phrase 'institutionally racist' without referring to an ancient, dusty old report published in the previous century?

LOL

Apologies Mr Diction Police.

Perhaps if you actually read the source documents rather than just relying on news headlines you would beclown yourself a little less....

So unnecessary. This is your final warning. I'm happy to debate the matter with you in a calm and civilised manner. If you feel unable to conduct yourself in the manner of polite society, then our conversation is over and you'll end up on ignore.

BARONESS CASEY REVIEW Final Report (met.police.uk)



Again if you actually bothered to read the report you would see it explicitly refers to that '24 year old report'. So it's using the term in the same, now known to be misleading, manner.

So what?

What's that got to do with armed police behaving like children and throwing their toys out of their pram? Nothing.

Then I guess we can be thankful that much better men and women than the likes of you have guaranteed your freedom to sit behind your computer on an internet forum and call them sociopaths

So killing people makes you a better person? LOL

 

[Caracus2k]

Personally I couldn't do a job that would require me to kill another human being. Mainly because I'm not a sociopath.

Most armed police officers will go through their entire career without firing a shot in a live situation let alone killing anyone.

You seem quick to throw out ridiculous accusations without thinking through the logical consequences of that which you advocate for.

 

[VincentHanna]

I am fine with the Police getting off willy when the pop a cap in the ass with someone known and also had a record of offences.

I find this sort of attitude very worrying.

Some people literally want to live in a police state it seems.

 

[Caracus2k]

So no-one can use the phrase 'institutionally racist' without referring to an ancient, dusty old report published in the previous century?

When said use of the phrase explicitly states it is being used in the same manner as thar 'dusty old report'.....

Are you serious?

This is your final warning.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

I'm happy to debate the matter with you in a calm and civilised manner.

Yes of course coming from the person that just called all armed police officers 'sociopaths'!

If you feel unable to conduct yourself in the manner of polite society, then our conversation is over and you'll end up on ignore.

I often find this easier..I respond to your posts and others can make their own minds up without all the back and forth knocking back the same talking points

What's that got to do with armed police behaving like children and throwing their toys out of their pram? Nothing.

You were the one going on about the police being 'institutionally racict' the AFO'/SFO's aren't downing guns because of that particular allegation are they!

 

[Gaygle]

So no-one can use the phrase 'institutionally racist' without referring to an ancient, dusty old report published in the previous century?

LOL

Apologies Mr Diction Police.



So unnecessary. This is your final warning. I'm happy to debate the matter with you in a calm and civilised manner. If you feel unable to conduct yourself in the manner of polite society, then our conversation is over and you'll end up on ignore.



So what?

What's that got to do with armed police behaving like children and throwing their toys out of their pram? Nothing.



So killing people makes you a better person? LOL

*Sigh* I'm all over having an intelligent debate to discuss the pros and cons of things. Unfortunately you've left the "intelligent" part out. It's a shame, because you inadvertently almost asked an intelligent question in your post before.

You said "I just want the police to be accountable for their actions which means if you shoot an unarmed person you face consequences".

Now I don't *entirely* agree with the statement (not the bit about being accountable) mostly because I'd want to get into the definition of what makes a person unarmed. Or if potentially an unarmed person was running towards a weapon/explosive device etc would I still be able to shoot them? Does a car count as a weapon if they are driving at me full pelt and I can't get out of the way?

And people misuse the word "accountable" and what they often really mean is they want someone to hang and they aren't interested in fairness. Accountable means that if someone asks you questions about why you did what you did, you can reasonably answer them and justify them. What we need is a system that allows fair, impartial and above all, NO political interference and for decision makers to have the confidence to make FAIR decisions without being adversely influenced by outside factors.

Like I said, you inadvertently almost asked a decent question. Better luck next time

 

[SPG]

I find this sort of attitude very worrying.

Some people literally want to live in a police state it seems.

I have nothing to fear or worry about, the Police know the bad eggs 100%, I fear the opposite when the Police are powerless to do anything about known criminals and let the roam the streets as if they own it.... They dont.

 

[Gaygle]

I find this sort of attitude very worrying.

Some people literally want to live in a police state it seems.

Yeh no one really wants that at all. I like to think that 95% of people want something in between. A system which is fair , taking into account what we ask officers to confront, and transparent to make sure it isn't being biased too much one way or the other.