General News

[Guest TamworthFoxes]

19 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I know it won't happen but I'd rather sensitive matters like the Kaba death were handled with respect for all parties as far as possible. 

 

The fact it went to court would mean the CPS believed there was a realistic prospect of a conviction for murder. 

 

I think I'd be interested to hear from people with expert knowledge. 

I do have expert knowledge.

 

Or take the word of the 2 other firearms officers that stated in court  they were also split seconds away from shooting him.  So 3 experts in the field all stated they would do the same thing but the CPS thought it was in the public interest to run trial.

The reason the CPS went to court is exactly the same reason as why the Rotherham grooming gangs went on for so long.

Fear of certain demographics getting upset and fractious.

 

Exactly the same reason why we are still waiting for the charging decisions on the completely innocent Manchester lads who broke the female PC’s nose at the airport.

 

Edited 22 October 2024 by TamworthFoxes
Typo

[leicsmac]

Just now, TamworthFoxes said:

I do have expert knowledge.

 

Or take the word of the 2 other firearms officers that stated in court  they were also split seconds away from shooting him.  So 3 experts in the field all stated they would do the same thing but the CPS thought it was in the public reason to run trial.

The reason the CPS went to court is exactly the same reason as why the Rotherham grooming gangs went on for so long.

Fear of certain demographics getting upset and fractious.

 

Exactly the same reason why we are still waiting for the charging decisions on the completely innocent Manchester lads who broke the female PC’s nose at the airport.

 

... so now various sections of the police/CPS have an institutional racist bias for people of colour?

 

That's an interesting theory, I guess.

[SecretPro]

14 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

I know it won't happen but I'd rather sensitive matters like the Kaba death were handled with respect for all parties as far as possible. 

 

The fact it went to court would mean the CPS believed there was a realistic prospect of a conviction for murder. 

 

I think I'd be interested to hear from people with expert knowledge. 

 

Agreed

 

It is far too easy to follow the "this guy was shooting people up a couple of days before, so he got what he deserved" routine.

 

Sure, he was gang member and had convictions for violent crime, but this wasn't and isn't a case about whether he deserved to die or not, which is basically what people are saying when they suggest 'ah, he's a gang member, tough luck'

 

The case will have been based around protocol and compliance - did the officer correctly assess the Situation? The levels of threat to fellow officers? Did he go off-piste and ignore orders? Was it clear whether the victim was unarmed or not? Were the correct warnings given to the victim? What were the levels of certainty in the decision making around discharging the weapon etc.

 

The CPS obviously thought something hadn't been done correctly, hence the case. The facts and evidence have been put before and tested by the Court and the Court has made it's decision. Should be end of story really.

 

 

 

[bmt]

9 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

This would be impossible. Because for murder there has to be proof of a pre planned intent. For which there was not. In my opinion, it was basically a scenario of passing the book. Neither the IOPC nor the CPS wanted to make a decision due to the potential public backlash, so they’ve let it go to court for a jury to decide. 

Is this true? I've never known that before

[Pliskin]

1 minute ago, bmt said:

Is this true? I've never known that before

I’m not an expert, but I always thought murder had to be proven that the suspect intended to kill the subject? Otherwise it’s manslaughter? 

[bmt]

2 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

I’m not an expert, but I always thought murder had to be proven that the suspect intended to kill the subject? Otherwise it’s manslaughter? 

I agree with that bit but I meant the pre-planned aspect. I think a heat of the moment decision with intent to kill qualifies. 

[bovril]

Just now, bmt said:

I agree with that bit but I meant the pre-planned aspect. I think a heat of the moment decision with intent to kill qualifies. 

You're right, doesn't need to be premeditated.

[CosbehFox]

23 minutes ago, TamworthFoxes said:

I do have expert knowledge.

 

Or take the word of the 2 other firearms officers that stated in court  they were also split seconds away from shooting him.  So 3 experts in the field all stated they would do the same thing but the CPS thought it was in the public interest to run trial.

The reason the CPS went to court is exactly the same reason as why the Rotherham grooming gangs went on for so long.

Fear of certain demographics getting upset and fractious.

 

Exactly the same reason why we are still waiting for the charging decisions on the completely innocent Manchester lads who broke the female PC’s nose at the airport.

 

I understand your point but cases of grooming etc take far longer than average trial regardless of demographic. That’s personal experience on that one. 
 

CPS aim to do as much of it confidentially as possible as well because the way the gangs operate. If one gets caught and it gets publically audible, you’ll lose the trail on the other ghouls 

[CosbehFox]

16 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Yeah, I agree. The sentences dished out are deterrent and about maintaining public order. 

 

Just not convinced that's right or fair. 

 

Put it like this,.if I was directly responsible for sending to prison a silly old man who got carried away whilst waving placard about NASA and thr deep state, I'd feel a bit sheepish tonight

There’s been strong evidence to suggest he’s a repeat offender on such matters. Member of some ugly organisations which might have had a say in the longer than expected sentence 

[Super_horns]

Obviously not good that he got killed but certainly seems like he was no by stander nor angel .

[Otis]

2 hours ago, TamworthFoxes said:

The family allegedly tried to extend the injunction so this information couldn’t be shared after the trial either.

Doesnt fit in with the innocent family man shot on a routine stop narrative.

The biggest disgrace in this is the fact the CPS charged him and ran trial. 
I hope he sues the Met and CPS for as much as possible and never has to work again.

If only his family put as much effort into steering him away from his criminal lifestyle.

[LiberalFox]

2 hours ago, TamworthFoxes said:

I do have expert knowledge.

 

Or take the word of the 2 other firearms officers that stated in court  they were also split seconds away from shooting him.  So 3 experts in the field all stated they would do the same thing but the CPS thought it was in the public interest to run trial.

The reason the CPS went to court is exactly the same reason as why the Rotherham grooming gangs went on for so long.

Fear of certain demographics getting upset and fractious.

 

Exactly the same reason why we are still waiting for the charging decisions on the completely innocent Manchester lads who broke the female PC’s nose at the airport.

 

When it comes to the verdict the only experts are the jury. They said not guilty. I'm not questioning the verdict. 

 

I'm talking about people who understand the workings of the CPS and the procedures involved when I say experts. Not experts on firearms. 

 

Something doesn't add up. Either it was more controversial than some seem to think or it shouldn't have gone to trial. The CPS aren't supposed to charge unless there's a reasonable prospect of a conviction. 

 

So I hope that side of things is properly investigated. Obviously if a police officer was put on trial for murder to appease a mob then that is abhorrent. 

 

As far as I know the police have to follow the same legal framework as the rest of us when it comes to use of lethal force. That they must have a reasonable belief that there is a threat to their life or another person. 

 

So when it comes to a potential murder charge where it's not in dispute that lethal force was used and that it was a deliberate act it comes down to whether the threshold was met. 

 

(I wouldn't call myself an expert though) 

 

There are actually good reasons for both 'sides' to want reform around this. Serving police officers would like protection from being put on trial for murder for performing their duty. 

 

Members of the public, in particular those with traumatic history with policing would like some transparency and something better than a police officer's subjective opinion. 

 

I reckon most people aren't comfortable with this being a murder charge because it doesn't conform to how we imagine 'murder'. 

 

This man was being persued by armed police because he was the suspect of violent crime involving firearms. So his likely criminal offending was the prime reason for being in a situation where police were pointing guns at him while blocking his car in. 

 

But for people with past trauma involving the police they are likely thinking 'what if he was innocent?' because it has happened in the past that innocent black men have been treated as suspects. So they see this as a situation that could happen to them. It doesn't matter to them whether he was actually a criminal or not. 

 

Then most people are thinking that trying to ram your way out of a stop while guns are pointed at you is asking to be shot. But those who fear the police might see it as panic rather than mindless aggression. 

 

So there's this slight irony that both a significant quantity of serving police and the public believe there is systemic prejudice against police. While some minorities and their advocates believe they are the victims of systemic prejudice. 

 

I certainly wouldn't want the commissioner's job! 

 

Edit: There's also a fair bit of washover from the US and how black people are policed over there that logically shouldn't affect people's judgment but almost certainly does. Police shootings are actually incredibly rare in the UK even compared to most European nations. 

 

 

Edited 22 October 2024 by LiberalFox

[nnfox]

21 minutes ago, LiberalFox said:

When it comes to the verdict the only experts are the jury. They said not guilty. I'm not questioning the verdict. 

 

I'm talking about people who understand the workings of the CPS and the procedures involved when I say experts. Not experts on firearms. 

 

Something doesn't add up. Either it was more controversial than some seem to think or it shouldn't have gone to trial. The CPS aren't supposed to charge unless there's a reasonable prospect of a conviction. 

 

So I hope that side of things is properly investigated. Obviously if a police officer was put on trial for murder to appease a mob then that is abhorrent. 

 

As far as I know the police have to follow the same legal framework as the rest of us when it comes to use of lethal force. That they must have a reasonable belief that there is a threat to their life or another person. 

 

So when it comes to a potential murder charge where it's not in dispute that lethal force was used and that it was a deliberate act it comes down to whether the threshold was met. 

 

(I wouldn't call myself an expert though) 

 

There are actually good reasons for both 'sides' to want reform around this. Serving police officers would like protection from being put on trial for murder for performing their duty. 

 

Members of the public, in particular those with traumatic history with policing would like some transparency and something better than a police officer's subjective opinion. 

 

I reckon most people aren't comfortable with this being a murder charge because it doesn't conform to how we imagine 'murder'. 

 

This man was being persued by armed police because he was the suspect of violent crime involving firearms. So his likely criminal offending was the prime reason for being in a situation where police were pointing guns at him while blocking his car in. 

 

But for people with past trauma involving the police they are likely thinking 'what if he was innocent?' because it has happened in the past that innocent black men have been treated as suspects. So they see this as a situation that could happen to them. It doesn't matter to them whether he was actually a criminal or not. 

 

Then most people are thinking that trying to ram your way out of a stop while guns are pointed at you is asking to be shot. But those who fear the police might see it as panic rather than mindless aggression. 

 

So there's this slight irony that both a significant quantity of serving police and the public believe there is systemic prejudice against police. While some minorities and their advocates believe they are the victims of systemic prejudice. 

 

I certainly wouldn't want the commissioner's job! 

 

 

 

 

I don't know the inner workings of the CPS but then again, I'm not sure anyone does.  

 

What I do know is that years ago, it was the police that made the decision whether to charge a suspect or not.  There were a lot of cases back then that fell into the "Hmm, I dunno, let's let the court decide" category.  The case would then be passed to the CPS for them to handle at court. This led to many cases clogging up the court system that shouldn't really have been sent to court in the first place, and a load of cases that went to court that weren't evidentially "court-ready", leading to offenders being found not guilty when really they should have been.

 

So, early - mid 2000s, the responsibility of charging decisions were transferred from the police to the CPS.  The theory being that the CPS can robustly and independently test the evidence to ensure there is a "realistic prospect of conviction".  Now,  let's say the aim of this was to increase conviction rates from 50% to 80%... The CPS have a mandate for demanding very thorough evidence to be in place before a case gets to trial, but that does allow for some wriggle room for high profile or highly sensitive cases to keep falling into the "Let's let the court decide" category.

 

The decision whether to charge Martyn Blake or not would ultimately have come down to one person, probably with lots of other people chipping in with opinions.  There were undoubtedly questions that needed answering and not charging Blake, effectively dismissing the case before it starts, would scream to many "cover up", which brings a whole host of problems with it, that would likely never, ever be cleared up

 

The CPS were stuck between a rock and a hard place, for sure.  Damned if they do, damned if they don't.  

 

I think justice has been served here, and importantly, seen to have been served.  I just feel sorry for the officer and his family who are the ones who have been put through hell to get to this point.

[DennisNedry]

5 hours ago, SecretPro said:

 

Agreed

 

It is far too easy to follow the "this guy was shooting people up a couple of days before, so he got what he deserved" routine.

 

Sure, he was gang member and had convictions for violent crime, but this wasn't and isn't a case about whether he deserved to die or not, which is basically what people are saying when they suggest 'ah, he's a gang member, tough luck'

 

The case will have been based around protocol and compliance - did the officer correctly assess the Situation? The levels of threat to fellow officers? Did he go off-piste and ignore orders? Was it clear whether the victim was unarmed or not? Were the correct warnings given to the victim? What were the levels of certainty in the decision making around discharging the weapon etc.

 

The CPS obviously thought something hadn't been done correctly, hence the case. The facts and evidence have been put before and tested by the Court and the Court has made it's decision. Should be end of story really.

 

 

 

This is all completely correct.

 

It is however a valid point to note how disingenuous the family of Kaba have been. If he was my son, brother etc I'd keep my head down. I'd be embarrassed to be associated with him.

 

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I guess. 

[Parafox]

5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

... so now various sections of the police/CPS have an institutional racist bias for people of colour?

 

That's an interesting theory, I guess.

 

The police in general have been accused of "institutionalised racism". As a result they seem to be trying hard to prove that is not the case by suitably  charging police officers like the one in this case. Which they hope (IMO) shows a level of impartiality, even a "bias" in order to appease those of colour. We've seen riots and very heated protests in the past following trials where the outcome wasn't what certain groups wanted, even though those verdicts were correct in law following a trial by jury.

 

I believe this Kaba case will rumble on with appeals and protests against a perceived injustice because, if I may use football fans as an analogy, even if a decision is correctly given against you, you and the crowd of followers will vehemently protest because that is not what you want. 

 

There's bound to cries of "injustice because he is a person of colour". These people ignore the right of a just decision based in law because it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

Given the fact that Kaba has had previous prison sentences for violence and gang related crimes, his family and supporters need to accept the consequences. But they won't. Because it da police innit?

[Lionator]

27 minutes ago, Parafox said:

 

The police in general have been accused of "institutionalised racism". As a result they seem to be trying hard to prove that is not the case by suitably  charging police officers like the one in this case. Which they hope (IMO) shows a level of impartiality, even a "bias" in order to appease those of colour. We've seen riots and very heated protests in the past following trials where the outcome wasn't what certain groups wanted, even though those verdicts were correct in law following a trial by jury.

 

I believe this Kaba case will rumble on with appeals and protests against a perceived injustice because, if I may use football fans as an analogy, even if a decision is correctly given against you, you and the crowd of followers will vehemently protest because that is not what you want. 

 

There's bound to cries of "injustice because he is a person of colour". These people ignore the right of a just decision based in law because it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

Given the fact that Kaba has had previous prison sentences for violence and gang related crimes, his family and supporters need to accept the consequences. But they won't. Because it da police innit?

Yeah nicely summed up. Ultimately two truths can exist at the same time.

 

Black people are disproportionately stopped/criminalised/profiled by the police due to institutionalised racism and unconscious biases that are left unaddressed.

 

Kaba was engaging in deeply dangerous and immoral behaviour and as Patrick O’Shea once said “play with feathers, you get your arse tickled”. 

 

[StanSP]

4 hours ago, Otis said:

If only his family put as much effort into steering him away from his criminal lifestyle.

How do you know they didn't? Seems a bit presumptuous...?

[Otis]

8 minutes ago, StanSP said:

How do you know they didn't? Seems a bit presumptuous...?

Err, because of the situation he's now in.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

 

The police in general have been accused of "institutionalised racism". As a result they seem to be trying hard to prove that is not the case by suitably  charging police officers like the one in this case. Which they hope (IMO) shows a level of impartiality, even a "bias" in order to appease those of colour. We've seen riots and very heated protests in the past following trials where the outcome wasn't what certain groups wanted, even though those verdicts were correct in law following a trial by jury.

 

I believe this Kaba case will rumble on with appeals and protests against a perceived injustice because, if I may use football fans as an analogy, even if a decision is correctly given against you, you and the crowd of followers will vehemently protest because that is not what you want. 

 

There's bound to cries of "injustice because he is a person of colour". These people ignore the right of a just decision based in law because it doesn't fit their narrative.

 

Given the fact that Kaba has had previous prison sentences for violence and gang related crimes, his family and supporters need to accept the consequences. But they won't. Because it da police innit?

@Lionator has it right just above.

 

Unfortunately, the post I was responding to appears to have omitted that particular bit of historical nuance.

[Parafox]

48 minutes ago, StanSP said:

How do you know they didn't? Seems a bit presumptuous...?

It does. But the background to this incident and Kaba's involvement with violent gangs suggests they had little or no influence on his life although they must've known, but could do nothing. It's a tragedy for them, regardless.

 

However, the defence of their son, whilst understandable, is misguided, is blinkered by their own prejudice and is wrong. He's a violent criminal, involved in violent gang crimes. 

 

 

Edited 22 October 2024 by Parafox

[Spiritwalker]

40 minutes ago, StanSP said:

How do you know they didn't? Seems a bit presumptuous...?

Maybe they did, plenty of criminals have had good upbringings, you can’t always blame

the parents, however if that was my son I wouldn’t be on TV making out he was a good 

family man and saying he was killed solely because of his colour.

 

[StanSP]

4 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

Maybe they did, plenty of criminals have had good upbringings, you can’t always blame

the parents, however if that was my son I wouldn’t be on TV making out he was a good 

family man and saying he was killed solely because of his colour.

 

I don't discount the gangs/violent behaviour thing considering what has come out about his actions about a week before. Don't condone it, and I have less sympathy given his gang involvement and behaviour. 

 

BUT, at the time he was arrested at his killing, wasn't he unarmed? Did he have a weapon on him? What threat did he pose at the time of his arrest? 

 

 

[Parafox]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

I don't discount the gangs/violent behaviour thing considering what has come out about his actions about a week before. Don't condone it, and I have less sympathy given his gang involvement and behaviour. 

 

BUT, at the time he was arrested at his killing, wasn't he unarmed? Did he have a weapon on him? What threat did he pose at the time of his arrest? 

 

 

 

Given the info that the police MUST HAVE HAD, they had to presume a threat and that he was armed. He's already shot a man twice and had history of armed violence. This wasn't a random shooting of a criminal but an intelligence led operation. 

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, Parafox said:

 

Given the info that the police MUST HAVE HAD, they had to presume a threat and that he was armed. He's already shot a man twice and had history of armed violence. This wasn't a random shooting of a criminal but an intelligence led operation. 

Yep, I don't disagree in that respect, and can appreciate his criminal history has preceded him. 

 

But can you shoot someone on a presumption? I don't know the laws or ins and outs of how a Police Officer should act when it comes to this high level of incident? Was he searched?

 

If Police are acting on presumption all the time, I'd have thought there'd be many more shootings every week/month/year given the amount of organised crime gangs operating across the country. Which in itself is alarming...

[Spiritwalker]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

I don't discount the gangs/violent behaviour thing considering what has come out about his actions about a week before. Don't condone it, and I have less sympathy given his gang involvement and behaviour. 

 

BUT, at the time he was arrested at his killing, wasn't he unarmed? Did he have a weapon on him? What threat did he pose at the time of his arrest? 

 

 

Well he could have killed somebody with his car and they obviously thought it 

was likely that he was armed. 
The car he was driving was linked to a gang related shooting in a crowded nightclub,

he knew they were armed police, he could have put his hands up and gave himself up.

I not sure what people think the police should do in these circumstances just let him go?