old man Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 2 minutes ago, Scully said: Yes, there was a lawful process, but the ‘victims party’ would still cry foul if Kaba had been arrested rather than killed, and sent to prison after a trial. You can’t console those who live outside the law when things go wrong for them, and you certainly cant tolerate their idea of justice in a civilised society. Like I said, there was no alternative other than a trial, if for no other reason than to show fairness to all. A verdict was reached by 12 members of the unbiased general public, who could quite easily have returned a guilty verdict. 🤷♂️ We can go round in circles all day, but there was no alternative than a trial. Correct, IMHO. It's all we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 21 minutes ago, Scully said: Indeed there are, and as true and irrelevant as that may be, still doesnt provide an alternative. Probably another round of rioting and looting, just like when Duggan was shot. It appears that is only way the particular community he was from, acts, when things don't go their way. But then, surely 2TK could have shown the country he's not and locked them all up. There will not be an alternative; naive to think that his community will take anything less than the officer being found guilty (or making good on the 'hit' threat). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rem260 Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 21 minutes ago, Scully said: Yes, there was a lawful process, but the ‘victims party’ would still cry foul if Kaba had been arrested rather than killed, and sent to prison after a trial. You can’t console those who live outside the law when things go wrong for them, and you certainly cant tolerate their idea of justice in a civilised society. Like I said, there was no alternative other than a trial, if for no other reason than to show fairness to all. A verdict was reached by 12 members of the unbiased general public, who could quite easily have returned a guilty verdict. 🤷♂️ We can go round in circles all day, but there was no alternative than a trial. Indeed there are, and as true and irrelevant as that may be, still doesnt provide an alternative. Why then do we not charge everyone who has a complaint made against them. If you say its about showing fairness to all. Officers having carried out their investigation have to go to the CPS for them to decide whether there is enough evidence for a successful prosecution. This case was clearly pandering to woke politics from a community that thinks they are perpetual victims and societies laws do not apply to them because of it. The CPS who work within the law looks at the evidence and then decides whether to charge based on the evidence. I am sure there are hundreds of complaints every day that are not prosecuted due to a non realistic possibility of conviction. Or should we just clog up the courts in order to show fairness. By prosecuting this case it has delayed justice for another who has had to wait for the court space. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penelope Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ordnance Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 3 hours ago, shaun4860 said: Now you’re just being silly. The CPS had all the evidence before they chose to charge but still chose to do so. You also have to remember, the jury didn’t have Kaba’s previous history, they just had what was presented to them in the case. The jury didn’t know about the nightclub shooting or his gang affiliation but still in 3 hours found the officer not guilty. Did you think he was guilty? If you worked for the CPS bearing in mind you had ALL the evidence, would you have prosecuted? As stated above, now the officer has a bounty on his head, so 2 years of not knowing if he is going to be jailed or now killed, I stand by my statement of he should receive compensation. The whole affair has been grossly mishandled. That sounds like special treatment for the police, but not others that have been taken to court and found not guilty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rewulf Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 49 minutes ago, Scully said: We can go round in circles all day, but there was no alternative than a trial. Not disputing that, like I said, you were both right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 15 minutes ago, ordnance said: That sounds like special treatment for the police, but not others that have been taken to court and found not guilty. No. I would expect the same treatment for anyone with the same amount of overwhelming evidence that proved that it should never have gone to trial Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 4 hours ago, Scully said: The ‘tweet’ is over a year old. It wasn’t about justice, it was about jumping to conclusions. Cheers 👍 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Rem260 said: Why then do we not charge everyone who has a complaint made against them. If you say its about showing fairness to all. Officers having carried out their investigation have to go to the CPS for them to decide whether there is enough evidence for a successful prosecution. This case was clearly pandering to woke politics from a community that thinks they are perpetual victims and societies laws do not apply to them because of it. The CPS who work within the law looks at the evidence and then decides whether to charge based on the evidence. I am sure there are hundreds of complaints every day that are not prosecuted due to a non realistic possibility of conviction. Or should we just clog up the courts in order to show fairness. By prosecuting this case it has delayed justice for another who has had to wait for the court space. I didn’t say it was exclusively about showing fairness to all, I said ‘if’. I’m pretty sure there were many reasons it went to trial, one of them being what was thought to be good enough reason to charge and prosecute the copper, and I’m also pretty sure it could have been mooted somewhere among political interests ( rightly or wrongly ) that no one could argue with a jury verdict ( which could easily have gone the other way ) which can only be deemed to be fair. I doubt there is a risk of civil unrest or claims of an establishment cover up regarding ‘everyone who has a complaint made against them’. Unless the judge directed otherwise, I’m assuming a not guilty verdict was reached on the evidence available. 🤷♂️ Edited October 23 by Scully Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amateur Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 If the gangs have put out a bounty on the officer, should the jurors be concerned that they may suffer retribution for the not guilty verdict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rem260 Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Scully said: I didn’t say it was exclusively about showing fairness to all, I said ‘if’. I’m pretty sure there were many reasons it went to trial, one of them being what was thought to be good enough reason to charge and prosecute the copper, and I’m also pretty sure it could have been mooted somewhere among political interests ( rightly or wrongly ) that no one could argue with a jury verdict ( which could easily have gone the other way ) which can only be deemed to be fair. I doubt there is a risk of civil unrest or claims of an establishment cover up regarding ‘everyone who has a complaint made against them’. Unless the judge directed otherwise, I’m assuming a not guilty verdict was reached on the evidence available. 🤷♂️ The fact it took less than 3hrs deliberation, which allegedly included lunch. Plus the gravity of the offence to which the jury would not take lightly. Would suggest the evidence possibly warranted no charge to begin with. Edited October 23 by Rem260 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 13 minutes ago, Rem260 said: The fact it took less than 3hrs deliberation, which allegedly included lunch. Plus the gravity of the offence to which the jury would not take lightly. Would suggest the evidence possibly warranted no charge to begin with. Possibly. I wouldn’t know. Someone obviously thought there was a case to answer because it went to court. 🤷♂️ 21 minutes ago, amateur said: If the gangs have put out a bounty on the officer, should the jurors be concerned that they may suffer retribution for the not guilty verdict? Were the jurors identifiable during the trial? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amateur Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 6 minutes ago, Scully said: Were the jurors identifiable during the trial? Aren't jurors always identifiable during a trial? I remember, after one spell of jury duty, having my hand shook by the defendant's brother on the court steps for our finding him "not guilty". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 23 Report Share Posted October 23 16 minutes ago, amateur said: Aren't jurors always identifiable during a trial? I remember, after one spell of jury duty, having my hand shook by the defendant's brother on the court steps for our finding him "not guilty". I genuinely wouldn’t know if it’s common practice or not. My OH had a similar experience in Carlisle when the defendant asked her if she had change for the parking meter! 🙂 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.