Police Officer cleared of murdering Chris Kaba:

[B686]

6 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Not sure why there are some lamenting the death of this scumbag ?
Or why some refer to it as murder or manslaughter ?
Its a clear case of self defence when deadly harm was possible and intended, end of.

Mr Kaba lived by the sword and died by the sword, and theres no point crying about it, the world is a better place without him.

👍

[Raja Clavata]

7 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Not sure why there are some lamenting the death of this scumbag ?
Or why some refer to it as murder or manslaughter ?
Its a clear case of self defence when deadly harm was possible and intended, end of.

Mr Kaba lived by the sword and died by the sword, and theres no point crying about it, the world is a better place without him.

Saved me the typing 👍

[Dougy]

Short of prison cells but not short of holes in the ground. 

Best result on the day. 

End of,  move on,  next story. 

 

 

[12gauge82]

I find some of the 'logic' concerning on this thread. Especially when looking at it from the standpoint if I ever found myself unlucky enough to be stood in front of a jury made up of individuals with equally strange views. 

I'm glad the main part of the trauma this police officer faced is now over. An iopc misconduct investigation will be a piece of cake for him after the relief he must feel being cleared at his trial for murder. 

[JohnfromUK]

9 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

I find some of the 'logic' concerning on this thread.

Which is why you have 12 and the Judge can usually allow a majority if a verdict can't be reached.  There will always be a (smallish) number who in effect will always 'judge' on their preconceived ideas and not on the evidence presented.

• Must be guilty, eyes set too close together
• Can't be guilty, it's just in his/her upbringing

etc.  Chosen carefully to minimise the risk of offence (unless your eyes happen to be set close together!).

[Vince Green]

5 hours ago, Mungler said:

 

The car was not boxed in and his attempts to escape in a high performance Audi were significant and continuing i.e. he was going to keep going until out of the police box - you tube is full of videos of cars smashing their way out of being boxed in.

Unarmed but in control of a car being used in a potentially lethal fashion, lest we forget he could have put the hand brake on and his hands up and lived.

We now know that the aspiring young rapper was the prime suspect in a shooting 6 days before (for which he was on video and would have been charged if not dead), was 100% gang affiliated and had a record as long as your arm and which concerned firearms. All of this was known to the police at the time who would have acted accordingly.

I am happy for the police to shoot anyone who tries to run them over and ram their way out of being arrested.

Are we saying that the police should not risk intervening where someone is ramming their vehicle out of being stopped in the same way the police were once told not to follow robbers on mopeds in case they got knocked off and not to pursue speeding motorists in case of injury to pedestrians.

What a strange world we live in.

EDIT

There's loads of clips about vehicles escaping police boxes; here's a good one because the vehicle was even severely damaged and had damaged wheels / tyres:

https://fb.watch/vnz1epRSmz/

There's loads and loads of examples.

And here's the Kaba clip itself:

https://www.theguardian.com/global/video/2024/oct/21/police-footage-shows-moment-chris-kaba-was-shot-by-officer-now-acquitted-of-video

The police should have gone with poetry, performative art and herbal tea.

 

 

 

 

 

You, of all people, should know that there is no such word as 'might' in the legal lexicon. He either did or he didn't. In this case he didn't  so all this other talk is idle chatter. The law protects everyone, even drug dealer scumbags to the same high standard.  They can't shoot people for trying to escape or for something that happened two days prior. He was unarmed and he DIDNT ram his way out. So despite all the police trying to muddy the water. He was executed by a met police man while he not doing anything to justify shooting him.

End of story

[holloway]

11 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

You, of all people, should know that there is no such word as 'might' in the legal lexicon. He either did or he didn't. In this case he didn't  so all this other talk is idle chatter. The law protects everyone, even drug dealer scumbags to the same high standard.  They can't shoot people for trying to escape or for something that happened two days prior. He was unarmed and he DIDNT ram his way out. So despite all the police trying to muddy the water. He was executed by a met police man while he not doing anything to justify shooting him.

End of story

He did try to ram his way out clearly on the video footage no ifs or buts FACT ,so was clearly endangering all of the lives around him as he tried to avoid capture not sure how you missed that on the video ,have another look .👍

[Lloyd90]

16 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?

Sad point of view. 

Further reports now coming out as media restrictions lifted, Cabba linked as the gunman in multiple shootings days before. 

CCTV of him gunning down a man in a crowded night club then chasing him outside shooting him again. 
 

No doubt he was a wrong’un. 
 

The idea that the officer could make a pin point accurate shot at a moving target, trying to ram him out the way at speed, whilst also shooting not to stop him? 
 

Shoot the tyres? That doesn’t stop a car … doesn’t stop them running you or your colleagues over with a flat tyre … 

 

[shaun4860]

5 hours ago, ordnance said:

Would you apply that to all people that were charged by the police and CPS and were found not guilty by a jury 

No.

In this case the evidence was clear.

The criminal has been identified as someone who previously shot somebody in a nightclub.

The car had been identified as a vehicle used in an armed incident the night before.

The criminal phoned his mate to say he was been followed by the police.

Once they put a stop on him, rather than put his hands up and say “it’s a fair cop guv” he tries to ram his way out forcing another police officer to jump onto the bonnet of a parked car to avoid being run over.

All this evidence was available before the CPS (not the police as you assume) decided to press charges.

He should never have been charged, but to appease the “minorities” and show they were doing the right thing they charged him.

I rest the case m’lud 👨‍⚖️

[Dave-G]

1 hour ago, Vince Green said:

You, of all people, should know that there is no such word as 'might' in the legal lexicon. He either did or he didn't. In this case he didn't  so all this other talk is idle chatter. The law protects everyone, even drug dealer scumbags to the same high standard.  They can't shoot people for trying to escape or for something that happened two days prior. He was unarmed and he DIDNT ram his way out. So despite all the police trying to muddy the water. He was executed by a met police man while he not doing anything to justify shooting him.

End of story

"he DIDNT ram his way out" because he was shot - in the only part of his body visible to the cop who very likely saved other peoples lives..

We now know the police had intel of his gangland activities - including shooting someone in a crowded club the night before. Its much better that he got shot than allow a known gunman to ram his way out and make good an escape to carry on shooting rival gang members.

No doubt more information will surface about other information the police have about him and why the many officers felt he had to be stopped by any means. They'd be failing their duty if he managed to escape.

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, Vince Green said:

You, of all people, should know that there is no such word as 'might' in the legal lexicon. He either did or he didn't. In this case he didn't  so all this other talk is idle chatter. The law protects everyone, even drug dealer scumbags to the same high standard.  They can't shoot people for trying to escape or for something that happened two days prior. He was unarmed and he DIDNT ram his way out. So despite all the police trying to muddy the water. He was executed by a met police man while he not doing anything to justify shooting him.

End of story

Nonsense. He was shot for posing an imminent threat to life towards the shooting officer and his colleagues. He did not shoot him to prevent his escape. 

[clangerman]

faith in a jury when they were drawn from the SAME electoral roll who just delivered a labour gov! lol 

[Mungler]

5 hours ago, Vince Green said:

You, of all people, should know that there is no such word as 'might' in the legal lexicon. He either did or he didn't. In this case he didn't  so all this other talk is idle chatter. The law protects everyone, even drug dealer scumbags to the same high standard.  They can't shoot people for trying to escape or for something that happened two days prior. He was unarmed and he DIDNT ram his way out. So despite all the police trying to muddy the water. He was executed by a met police man while he not doing anything to justify shooting him.

End of story

Seriously, have you watched the video footage?

For all the car cam crash and police videos that I have idly watched and scrolled through on line, I’d say that chummy would have been free of the hard stop inside of another 30 seconds with a bit more ramming and with that any police officers in his way were at immediate risk of being squished.

The ramming I watched in chummy’s video was uncontrolled, violent and desperate - he wanted to get out of there and wasn’t that fussed about the people and vehicles in his way. 

After the event, I’d guess that chummy thought the police were about to detain him for either the nightclub shooting the week before for which there is now another video released or the shooting linked to the vehicle from the night before.

The police had the option to just let him go and all stand back and let him ram his way out of the stop, let a firearms linked vehicle flee (and in so doing put their lives and the lives of the members of the public at immediate risk).

The video released ends the discussion and the jury who would have seen more footage and more angles were particularly convinced and I understand went further in their desire to highlight to the trial judge how BS the prosecution of the police officer was.

2 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Nonsense. He was shot for posing an imminent threat to life towards the shooting officer and his colleagues. He did not shoot him to prevent his escape. 

Better and more concise answer here ^^

Edited October 23 by Mungler

[old man]

10 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

I doubt that is the case.  The police (and therefore I presume those involved) knew the car had been used in an armed crime the previous day.  The car was on a watch database for ANPR.  It would have meant there was a 'high risk of firearms' being present.

Agreed up to a point John but the action point for the Police hopefully starts at zero on every occasion? The fact that previous Firearm use was known would obviously have played a part in their response?

In any event the information released now colours the whole situation differently?

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, old man said:

In any event the information released now colours the whole situation differently

It does.

My assumption is that the police would have known quite a lot, and doing an evaluation of risk, there would have been big red flags waving vigorously, examples being;

• They apparently had the vehicle identified as having been used (as a getaway) in an armed crime the previous day
• They would have known from that crime who might have been in the vehicle
• They would have known those possible occupants had access to and record of using firearms

Those are big red flag risks that were presumably known to the police team.  I have read that the did not positively know with accuracy who was actually in the vehicle at the time they stopped it, but would have known it had 'connections' with armed criminals.

Previous lists of convictions, offences, records and 'other pending matters' were witheld until after the verdict to ensure a 'fair trial'.  Whether that is right is a different issue (the idea of having "Character Witnesses" might play both ways)?

What the release of the information says to me is that 'backs up' the verdict as being the correct one.  I am confident that the police actions were fully justified at the time - and that has only been reinforced and confirmed by subsequent further data released.

[HantsRob]

Ironically, this debate is often how a jury room sounds, with one or two people giving a stark decision against all others. As someone above mentioned, a judge can go for a majority vote for this reason, that even despite information being given that's clear, some people cannot or will not see it, or their beliefs are just too strong one way.

Everyone is entitled to that belief, and I won't be so rude to say people have been wrong. Unwaivering faith in an idea is powerful, sometimes dangerous, sometimes useful. 

I find it a bizarre concept of people saying the police get an easy ride in court. In my personal experience I have found that police get a far harder time in court and through scrutiny than any member of the public, and are held to a higher account. The thought the officer had an easy ride because they went for murder? I find that ridiculous at best, and the legal system would charge and prosecute for what would be the legal viable option if the evidence presented was found to be true. I find it even more crazy that those persons haven't actually highlighted the fact that CPS only prosecute when they have a high probability of winning, and don't pander to the masses. So the fact that despite the evidence, it was still seen as not guilty, this man deserves a bit of respite and privacy.

[Penelope]

14 hours ago, nobbyathome said:

I think he deserves a medal he has saved more lives by his actions glad kabas family are quiet today after the revelations coming out about him maybe instead of causing  rasist trouble they should admit to what he was and try to build a better bridge between the police and the black community  

Oh, you can bet they knew and benefitted. Gang life is an acceptable career path in certain communities.

8 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

No.

In this case the evidence was clear.

The criminal has been identified as someone who previously shot somebody in a nightclub.

The car had been identified as a vehicle used in an armed incident the night before.

The criminal phoned his mate to say he was been followed by the police.

Once they put a stop on him, rather than put his hands up and say “it’s a fair cop guv” he tries to ram his way out forcing another police officer to jump onto the bonnet of a parked car to avoid being run over.

All this evidence was available before the CPS (not the police as you assume) decided to press charges.

He should never have been charged, but to appease the “minorities” and show they were doing the right thing they charged him.

I rest the case m’lud 👨‍⚖️

Yes, a case of disgusting virtue signalling.

[Penelope]

17 hours ago, Mice! said:

Normally I would agree, but marches have been stopped before,  this won't be a peaceful protest,  it will be rent a mob banging the BLM drum, you can guarantee there will be trouble, looting, cars burned,  and probably nobody arrested for it.

Could be 'fun' if they run into the memorial gathering being held in London on Saturday, for Peter Lynch, 2TK's victim.

[Westley]

It is now rumoured that the Officer has a gangland bounty of £10,000 on his head. I hope the idiot that decided the Officers name and address should be broadcast to the world is proud of his actions. 

[ordnance]

8 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

No.

In this case the evidence was clear.

The criminal has been identified as someone who previously shot somebody in a nightclub.

The car had been identified as a vehicle used in an armed incident the night before.

The criminal phoned his mate to say he was been followed by the police.

Once they put a stop on him, rather than put his hands up and say “it’s a fair cop guv” he tries to ram his way out forcing another police officer to jump onto the bonnet of a parked car to avoid being run over.

All this evidence was available before the CPS (not the police as you assume) decided to press charges.

He should never have been charged, but to appease the “minorities” and show they were doing the right thing they charged him.

I rest the case m’lud 👨‍⚖️

OK all cases were people were found not guilty, and you thought that they should never have been charged 

[Flashman]

For those who are criticising the police’s handling of the incident, here’s your fellow bandwagon joiner:

 

 

[Scully]

7 hours ago, clangerman said:

faith in a jury when they were drawn from the SAME electoral roll who just delivered a labour gov! lol 

🤔As has been posted elsewhere, people really do need to think things through before posting; how do you know all the jurors voted labour? 

[Mice!]

55 minutes ago, Flashman said:

For those who are criticising the police’s handling of the incident, here’s your fellow bandwagon joiner:

 

 

Wow! That's mind boggling 😳

[London Best]

2 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Wow! That's mind boggling 😳

Not really, the man’s a lunatic.

[Scully]

56 minutes ago, Flashman said:

For those who are criticising the police’s handling of the incident, here’s your fellow bandwagon joiner:

 

 

If that is a genuine ‘tweet’, it just goes to show there are those more than willing to jump to conclusions because of bias in pursuit of an agenda. 
It would be interesting to know if he regards justice to have been done now, in light of the verdict and further revelations.