Police Officer cleared of murdering Chris Kaba:

[Lloyd90]

Good news for the Officer involved. 
 

2 years under suspension and under threat. 
 

They released the video of the shooting, clearly resists, rams several Police cars and puts several officers at risk. 
 

Jury decision, not guilty. 
 

Apparently though the IPCC are now going to look at whether the officer should face a disciplinary hearing … as if they haven’t been through enough! 
 

Several colleagues said they were seconds away from firing shots themselves due to the risk of them and their colleagues being run over … 

Edited October 21 by Lloyd90

[Sako7mm]

I wonder if the Police Federation or the innocent officer will take action for a malicious prosecution in this case?

[yates]

Great news for the officer concerned. I wonder if the victim was white if heather officer would have been charged in the first place. Little mention of the car he was driving was used in an armed robbery the day before too. What a shameful society we live in

[Mungler]

I wonder what planet I’m on.

I’ve been reminded of the footage on the news of the boxed in Audi driven by the aspiring rapper, trying to smash its way out of the stop, bouncing off cars and sending coppers flying.

And now there’s all the usual suspects out protesting about the injustice of it and the BBC fawning and pandering.

Don’t want to get shot? Try not smashing your car (tagged in a shooting that occurred the night before) into the armed police officers shouting at you to stop.

Absolutely astonished as the fuss. Feel so sorry for the copper - the stress of this nonsense hanging over him would have taken 10 years off him. 

 

 

[steve1066]

24 minutes ago, Sako7mm said:

I wonder if the Police Federation or the innocent officer will take action for a malicious prosecution in this case?

That’s what needs to happen, maybe it would make the IPCC think twice.

It’s a joke, so now the armed police also need to take into account, could I be liable and could I take the stress of having to wait two years or so to see if I have a job at the end or even maybe a prison sentence. And all that consideration needs to be done in just under a second.

I am not too sure if I would be man enough to take that risk, so thank god we have armed response that will!

Top respect to all our armed response men and women!

[Gordon R]

Got to agree with Mungler. The villain concerned was almost asking to be shot. He's boxed in and could have given up and been alive. Instead he tries to ram his way out and got shot. I saw his family expressing their biased view - not a surprise- but wonder where they were when he was getting into serious trouble.

Whilst I would not wish death on anyone involved, my bigger concern was with the copper who did the shooting. Bit like war veterans being pursued. The public seem happy for the Police and Armed Forces to face the danger, but get a bit sensitive about justification. The lad has been through enough and questions need to be asked how it ever came to this. Given that someone died, the possibility of criminal charges would never be dismissed, but he doesn't seem to have had whole hearted backing from the upper echelons of the Police Force concerned.

Expect to hear the usual "there must have been another way" etc.

[nobbyathome]

Not sorry to say he deserved to be shot if I was in a car and got boxed in by armed police and they shoved guns in my face and said armed police my hands would be up in the air surrendering like the Italians in ww2 .  unbelievable that that poor armed policeman had to go through all this grief for two years and now on Saturday there is going to be a march in central London causing traffic chaos etc in support of the black community’s support of chris kaba  sadiq khan you should be backing the officers and not letting the march carry on our armed police are trying to keep London safe and you may need them one day think about that 

Edited October 21 by nobbyathome

[Dave-G]

Clearly someone who was determined to smash his way out of being arrested - and that the car (not his apparently) was involved in a firearms incident the day before. It was reasonable to assume there could be a firearm in the vehicle - possibly within reach of the driver displaying extreme violent loutish behavior in ramming police cars.

No case to answer and it may not have got to court at all if other officers had also taken preemptive shots instead of holding back. The officers defence that he felt the car was likely to be driven at colleagues is reasonable.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

I am amazed any Officers agree to hold arms.

[old man]

8 hours ago, yates said:

Great news for the officer concerned. I wonder if the victim was white if heather officer would have been charged in the first place. Little mention of the car he was driving was used in an armed robbery the day before too. What a shameful society we live in

Certainly very unbalanced now and a possible indication of more imbalance to come?

Bonkers?

53 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I am amazed any Officers agree to hold arms.

The solution maybe would for said officers to all report in sick?

[TOPGUN749]

Suspect the jury was swayed,or scared of what might happen to them.,If police wanted him to stop there were ways besides shoot to kill,shoot tyres of car,many options but chose to kill,how can he shoot an unarmed member of the public in the head and say he didn’t mean to kill? Some police think they are above the law and not guilty decisions shows they can be. They got away with another killing on the train in 2005 of an unarmed man how wasn’t even their suspect I recall.

How many of you would say it’s not murder or even manslaughter if it was one of your unarmed family shot in the head?

Edited October 22 by TOPGUN749

[jall25]

29 minutes ago, TOPGUN749 said:

Suspect the jury was swayed,or scared of what might happen to them.,If police wanted him to stop there were ways besides shoot to kill,shoot tyres of car,many options but chose to kill,how can he shoot an unarmed member of the public in the head and say he didn’t mean to kill? Some police think they are above the law and not guilty decisions shows they can be. They got away with another killing on the train in 2005 of an unarmed man how wasn’t even their suspect I recall.

How many of you would say it’s not murder or even manslaughter if it was one of your unarmed family shot in the head?

Suggest you watch it again 

[Scully]

The thing is, once you place yourself in a situation where you’re acting outside the law, you open yourself up to all manner of consequences. 

[London Best]

The dead man was armed in my view. He was armed with a couple of tons of car and was using it as a weapon. 
No sympathy from me at all.

[Penelope]

3 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I am amazed any Officers agree to hold arms.

It's getting that way, I believe.

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, TOPGUN749 said:

Suspect the jury was swayed,or scared of what might happen to them.,If police wanted him to stop there were ways besides shoot to kill,shoot tyres of car,many options but chose to kill,how can he shoot an unarmed member of the public in the head and say he didn’t mean to kill? Some police think they are above the law and not guilty decisions shows they can be. They got away with another killing on the train in 2005 of an unarmed man how wasn’t even their suspect I recall.

How many of you would say it’s not murder or even manslaughter if it was one of your unarmed family shot in the head?

Did you see the photo of the car driven being rammed into the other cars and in proximity of the police officers?

So the driver of a vehicle linked to a gang gun crime should be allowed to just flee by smashing his car out of a traffic stop? What about running police officers over - where are you on that or should they all just get out of the way and let him flee.

And the alternative was what? Keep the vehicle stationary, submit to police instruction and live to see another day?

15 minutes ago, London Best said:

The dead man was armed in my view. He was armed with a couple of tons of car and was using it as a weapon. 
No sympathy from me at all.

This. And he was using it.

[HantsRob]

11 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Apparently though the IPCC are now going to look at whether the officer should face a disciplinary hearing … as if they haven’t been through enough! 

I am a strong advocate of officers being held to account. The IPCC do need to independently verify guilt or innocence, away from the police force. But, I think it is absolutely lunacy that they are going to investigate after being found not guilty by a court of this land.

 

1 hour ago, TOPGUN749 said:

If police wanted him to stop there were ways besides shoot to kill,shoot tyres of car,many options but chose to kill,how can he shoot an unarmed member of the public in the head and say he didn’t mean to kill? Some police think they are above the law and not guilty decisions shows they can be. They got away with another killing on the train in 2005 of an unarmed man how wasn’t even their suspect I recall.

How many of you would say it’s not murder or even manslaughter if it was one of your unarmed family shot in the head?

Gosh. Where to start.

Firstly, being able to analyse and think about it for minutes, hours, days, it's so easy. 
Shooting tires with a rifle isn't what you'd think it is. Also a car can still very much be driven with deflated tyres, and I believe this would not have stopped the driver. He is not going to stop due to 1-4 flat tyres, and shooting at a tyre without a hard stop behind endangers so many other people. 

They shoot to cease the threat. In this case it was to stop, and I really do not see how many other tactical options he had without potential loss of life to others. I very much doubt the officer thought they were above the law, and were working within the confines of the law and training. A court has validated that. What law do you think he went above? Self defence and protecting life is at the top of the pyramid. It may seem ironic to take a life to save your own, but it's enshrined in law. They didn't "get away" with killing. They were found to have defended their own life and others, by stopping a threat that was demonstrably willing to cause harm and probably death to others.

If a family member unarmed was ramming people with a car, I would be devastated at the loss, but their actions of attempting to kill others has a consequence. I would be sad, devastated, confused, and disappointed. But, I would see it as a use of force to stop others being harmed by their wreckless and murderous actions.

Comparing this officer to the case of 2005 is frankly outrageous and egregious also. 

[Mungler]

Call me old fashioned but when did anyone consider that driving a high performance Audi into an armed police road block / hard stop (and to keep trying to smash your way out) wouldn’t come with the highest probability of being shot in the head?

Cause and effect? Absolutely zero personal responsibility - had he stopped the vehicle and turned off the ignition he would be alive. When did any of this get contentious or complicated? Am amazed it’s even being discussed let alone a prosecution followed.

And as for the ‘what if it was an unarmed member of your family?’. Well, no one I know or In my family is gang affiliated, or would be driving an uninsured car that’s not theirs and which was linked to a shooting the very night before and above all I’d hope anyone I knew would have the sense to do as the armed police officer directed out of a very real concern of being shot in the head. 

As the great Bill Hicks said, we haven’t lost a cure for cancer here have we?

Edited October 22 by Mungler

[Mice!]

9 hours ago, nobbyathome said:

Not sorry to say he deserved to be shot if I was in a car and got boxed in by armed police and they shoved guns in my face and said armed police my hands would be up in the air surrendering like the Italians in ww2 .  unbelievable that that poor armed policeman had to go through all this grief for two years and now on Saturday there is going to be a march in central London causing traffic chaos etc in support of the black community’s support of chris kaba  sadiq khan you should be backing the officers and not letting the march carry on our armed police are trying to keep London safe and you may need them one day think about that 

Allowing a March to go ahead for the shot man is just ridiculous, you know before it starts that there's going to be trouble, and the police will need to deal with it.

50 minutes ago, London Best said:

The dead man was armed in my view. He was armed with a couple of tons of car and was using it as a weapon. 
No sympathy from me at all.

Absolutely. 

11 hours ago, Lloyd90 said:

Several colleagues said they were seconds away from firing shots themselves due to the risk of them and their colleagues being run over … 

Imagine being an armed response,  they'll all be thinking what if....

[claydodger]

2 hours ago, TOPGUN749 said:

Suspect the jury was swayed,or scared of what might happen to them.,If police wanted him to stop there were ways besides shoot to kill,shoot tyres of car,many options but chose to kill,how can he shoot an unarmed member of the public in the head and say he didn’t mean to kill? Some police think they are above the law and not guilty decisions shows they can be. They got away with another killing on the train in 2005 of an unarmed man how wasn’t even their suspect I recall.

How many of you would say it’s not murder or even manslaughter if it was one of your unarmed family shot in the head?

I don't think any of my family unarmed or not would be in a car previously used in an armed robbery and trying to ram their way out of being questioned

 

3 hours ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

I am amazed any Officers agree to hold arms.

Better still, disarm the police, take away their powers of arrest, just give them a nice shiny uniform and helmet in the hope they deter people from breaking the law.

[HantsRob]

7 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Allowing a March to go ahead for the shot man is just ridiculous, you know before it starts that there's going to be trouble, and the police will need to deal with it.

You also cannot stop someone from a lawful and peaceful protest/march. 

I don't disagree with sentiments that it may cause issues, but it is their legal right. Sadly I would defend their right, as much as I'd support a march on countryside shooting. We cannot pick and choose what goes with our own personal moral decisions.

[Vince Green]

Whatever the circumstances, he made a mistake and somebody died as a result

You can't just say "Ooops sorry"

Anyway, the charge was wrongly placed. To be found guilty of murder they have to prove it was pre meditated. Which, of course, they knew could not be done. Greatly increasing the likelihood that he would be found not guilty.

Had he be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter he probably would have been found guilty. They knew that. The police /CPS didn't want him convicted, it's the last thing they wanted. But they had to be seen to go through the motions

So an unprovable charge, coupled with a lacklustre prosecution results in a not guilty verdict. The officer walks and the problem goes away.

 

[clangerman]

11 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

Whatever the circumstances, he made a mistake and somebody died as a result

You can't just say "Ooops sorry"

Anyway, the charge was wrongly placed. To be found guilty of murder they have to prove it was pre meditated. Which, of course, they knew could not be done. Greatly increasing the likelihood that he would be found not guilty.

Had he be charged with negligent homicide or manslaughter he probably would have been found guilty. They knew that. The police /CPS didn't want him convicted, it's the last thing they wanted. But they had to be seen to go through the motions

So an unprovable charge, coupled with a lacklustre prosecution results in a not guilty verdict. The officer walks and the problem goes away.

 

bang on the money despite claims from the blind that car was not going anywhere he over reacted leaving police needing a way out 

[HantsRob]

18 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

To be found guilty of murder they have to prove it was pre meditated.

 

Pre-meditation could be a split second. It is not formed as part of law per-se.

 

From CPS:

 

Murder

Subject to three exceptions (which constitute partial defences to murder, and result in a conviction for manslaughter) the crime of murder is committed, where a person:

• of sound mind and discretion (sane)
• unlawfully kills (not self-defence or other justified killing)
• any reasonable creature (a human being)
• in being (born alive and breathing through its own lungs)
• under the King's Peace (not in wartime)
• with intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (in contrast to the offence of attempted murder, where only intent to kill will suffice)

Intent is an ordinary English word. It should not normally be elaborated on or paraphrased. It is different from motive and the prosecution does not have to prove motive, or that grievous bodily harm or death were the outcome wished for. For further consideration where intent might be an issue, see the Judicial College's Crown Court Compendium, Part 1, at 8-1.

The suspect's act must be a substantial cause of the death, not necessarily the sole or principal cause.

Self-defence is as much a defence to murder and manslaughter as to any other offence. Assessing whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction includes an objective assessment of the evidence including the likelihood of this defence being raised and of the prosecution disproving it to the criminal standard. Duress is not available as a defence to murder or attempted murder.

A count of murder on an indictment should refer to the date of death, not the date of the act that caused the death.

 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious#a03

Edited October 22 by HantsRob

[Penelope]

38 minutes ago, HantsRob said:

You also cannot stop someone from a lawful and peaceful protest/march. 

I don't disagree with sentiments that it may cause issues, but it is their legal right. Sadly I would defend their right, as much as I'd support a march on countryside shooting. We cannot pick and choose what goes with our own personal moral decisions.

Let's all have sweep on naming the first shop to get looted. It'll be like Duggan MkII.