General News

[leicsmac]

Just now, Spiritwalker said:

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?

No doubt this was a situation where the fuzz legitimately argued that the man posed a direct and imminent capital threat to them (even though the reality was that he likely didn't, perception clearly counts), but I would think it is obvious that that is the only circumstance where police can justify using lethal force.

[Tommy G]

7 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.

 

Feel sorry for the officer who has had his life ruined waiting for this verdict, wondering if he’s going to prison - would have a target on his back in prison for being a firearms officer on top of a life sentence. 
 

We’ve got to stop treating armed officers like they are civilians walking down the street with a gun. 

[Pliskin]

14 minutes 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? 

 

 

Your final paragraph, are you referring to Kaba? If so he wasn’t arrested was he? The incident never got as far as this.

 

With regards to a weapon he turned his car into a 2 1/2 tonne weapon. This is something that a lot of people are overlooking. 
 

Try and put yourselves in the officers shoes for a moment, this individual is attempting to ram his way out of the police cars, directly towards an officer, after clear instructions to show his hands and stop the car, he don’t, instead he chose to drive directly towards an armed officer….. 

[StanSP]

5 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

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?

Didn't know that about the car being linked to the shooting. 

 

Like I said, don't know much about the ins and outs of this specific case. Did he know they were armed? Agree he could have mitigated the threat and prevent further action.

 

To me, it's to check (somehow) that he is actually armed before shooting. Like, was he pointing a gun at the officers before he was shot? Obviously the answer isn't just to let him go and I think you know that's not what I'm saying!

[StanSP]

Just now, Pliskin said:

Your final paragraph, are you referring to Kaba? If so he wasn’t arrested was he? The incident never got as far as this.

 

With regards to a weapon he turned his car into a 2 1/2 tonne weapon. This is something that a lot of people are overlooking. 
 

Try and put yourselves in the officers shoes for a moment, this individual is attempting to ram his way out of the police cars, directly towards an officer, after clear instructions to show his hands and stop the car, he don’t, instead he chose to drive directly towards an armed officer….. 

As above, didn't know much about the car. 

 

I thought he was arrested. 

 

Driving towards an officer though is pretty shitty behaviour, agreed.

[Spiritwalker]

6 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Didn't know that about the car being linked to the shooting. 

 

Like I said, don't know much about the ins and outs of this specific case. Did he know they were armed? Agree he could have mitigated the threat and prevent further action.

 

To me, it's to check (somehow) that he is actually armed before shooting. Like, was he pointing a gun at the officers before he was shot? Obviously the answer isn't just to let him go and I think you know that's not what I'm saying!

Probably best to watch the footage, they shout armed police several times.

[Tommy G]

23 minutes ago, StanSP said:

As above, didn't know much about the car. 

 

I thought he was arrested. 

 

Driving towards an officer though is pretty shitty behaviour, agreed.

What would you do if surrounded by half a dozen armed police shouting “armed police!” every 3 seconds? I don’t think you’d drive towards them and try and run them over. 
 

Read the details of the case - and I think you’ll come to the same conclusion of the jury. 

[BKLFox]

26 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Feel sorry for the officer who has had his life ruined waiting for this verdict, wondering if he’s going to prison - would have a target on his back in prison for being a firearms officer on top of a life sentence. 
 

We’ve got to stop treating armed officers like they are civilians walking down the street with a gun. 

With the judge naming him he also has a target on his back whilst walking around Tesco with the gang lado was part of putting a bounty on him.

 

I imagine he will walk away from armed response & policing altogether after this.

 

I will await the next keyboard trial when a member of the public is fatally injured asking why the on site officers never took the shot as they ALL now will subconsciously delay pulling the trigger.

Echo your last paragraph & this trial has certainly made it less safe on the streets.

[Pliskin]

Just now, StanSP said:

As above, didn't know much about the car. 

 

I thought he was arrested. 

 

Driving towards an officer though is pretty shitty behaviour, agreed.

Watching the video they released of the body camera would suggest he wasn’t actually under arrest. 
 

It is, it’s showing a mindset, most people would stop and comply… the news released since just shows that Kaba was outstanding for serious offence so he was likely to be desperate to get away, and he was placing multiple lives at risk in doing so. 
 

If a police officer can’t protect themselves in the line of duty, how can they be expect to protect us? 
 

Those trying to prove the cause against the officer had the luxury of turning 17 seconds into 17 minutes by slowing down the officers footage, that’s a dangerous luxury sometimes and can really change the perspective of a situation.

[nnfox]

43 minutes ago, StanSP said:

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...

The information relating to him being a suspect for an attempted murder 5 days previous doesn't matter because the judge didn't allow that to be disclosed to the jury.  The police were responding to the vehicle being noted as involved.  When it didn't stop, they have to think of the reasons why it's not stopping, and in the circumstances it was probably reasonable to suspect there might be a firearm in the vehicle. I don't think anyone has said that Kaba was known to be driving, only that the car was involved in a shooting previously.  It means that this vehicle is more likely than the average car to have a firearm inside but it's certainly not a given.

 

As it turns out, there wasn't a firearm and it's probably more to do with Kaba simply trying to get away as he thought he was about to be arrested and likely about to go to prison for a long time.

 

At the time of the shooting, the officer has said it was because he believed the vehicle was being used as a potentially deadly weapon.  They certainly don't have to wait for someone to pull out a firearm and aim at them before they can shoot them.  

[Lionator]

Remember the case was not “was the police officer right or wrong to shoot him”, it was whether it was murder or not. 
 

The first one is massively nuanced and the officer shouldn’t escape the professional consequences of his actions. However the second one appears a lot more clear cut. 

[Pliskin]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Remember the case was not “was the police officer right or wrong to shoot him”, it was whether it was murder or not. 
 

The first one is massively nuanced and the officer shouldn’t escape the professional consequences of his actions. However the second one appears a lot more clear cut. 

But the question is, what’s the point in having a firearms division of police if there’s just going to have to face consequences for doing their job? 
 

The police and criminal evidence act per Google says, a police officer can use reasonable force to prevent criminal activity, make arrests and avert imminent danger….

 

So, what should the officer have done? Let Mr. Kaba run him over? The only reason Mr. Kaba was shot, was because of his actions in that moment, one humans decision V another. One was recklessly trying to escape in an 2 1/2 tonne car, endangering lives in the process, one was trying to defend himself and his colleagues. 
 

In my opinion, he’s done nothing wrong…. It’s not like they’ve stopped him and simply shot him.

[Muzzy_no7]

24 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Remember the case was not “was the police officer right or wrong to shoot him”, it was whether it was murder or not. 
 

The first one is massively nuanced and the officer shouldn’t escape the professional consequences of his actions. However the second one appears a lot more clear cut. 

Section 3 Criminal Law Act 1967 (officers may use reasonable force in the circumstances to prevent crime) Common Law (an officer may use force to protect themselves or another) Human Rights Act 1998 (force must always be proportionate, legal, officers are accountable and it must have been necessary)

[StanSP]

55 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

What would you do if surrounded by half a dozen armed police shouting “armed police!” every 3 seconds? I don’t think you’d drive towards them and try and run them over. 
 

Read the details of the case - and I think you’ll come to the same conclusion of the jury. 

I probably would. As I hadn't (yet) I didn't know there were so many other police involved and the other compelling and key parts of the case. 

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, StanSP said:

I probably would. As I hadn't (yet) I didn't know there were so many other police involved and the other compelling and key parts of the case. 

I had to read that twice, I thought initially you meant you “probably would” in relation to driving at police officers! 

[Muzzy_no7]

29 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I had to read that twice, I thought initially you meant you “probably would” in relation to driving at police officers! 

And me! 

[Jon the Hat]

12 hours 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. 

An ex CPS guy on the Newsagents yesterday was saying if at the moment he pulled the trigger, knowing as a fully trained armed police officer that the bullet he was about to fire would kill the suspect, he was not genuinely in fear of his life or the life of others, then it is murder.  Pretty high bar to prove.  The Jury appear to have decided that a guy trying to ram his way out of a police stop with a 2.5 tonne Audi is not really unarmed and posed a genuine risk to the lives of the officers.  Makes sense to me. The Jury were also aware of what the officers knew at the time - that the car was connected to two recent shootings and the weapon was still at large.  They did not know he was a known gun man for this dangerous gang as the officers didn't know that when they carried out the stop.  I'm sure the jury feel more confident of their decision after the fact, as do the officers.

[leicsmac]

The Trump campaign complaining that Labour reps are doing work for the Dems.Clearly Farage et al were only there on holiday, then.

 

If hypocrisy could be used to generate power, the worlds energy needs would be solved by Trump, his lackeys and supporters alone. But then that was always apparent.

 

Edit: If (heaven forbid) Trump wins, then I hope Starmer has the courage to drop the diplomatic front from time to time when the two meet and be absolutely candid about what a great many people in the developed world think of him.

Edited 23 October 2024 by leicsmac

[Pliskin]

5 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

An ex CPS guy on the Newsagents yesterday was saying if at the moment he pulled the trigger, knowing as a fully trained armed police officer that the bullet he was about to fire would kill the suspect, he was not genuinely in fear of his life or the life of others, then it is murder.  Pretty high bar to prove.  The Jury appear to have decided that a guy trying to ram his way out of a police stop with a 2.5 tonne Audi is not really unarmed and posed a genuine risk to the lives of the officers.  Makes sense to me. The Jury were also aware of what the officers knew at the time - that the car was connected to two recent shootings and the weapon was still at large.  They did not know he was a known gun man for this dangerous gang as the officers didn't know that when they carried out the stop.  I'm sure the jury feel more confident of their decision after the fact, as do the officers.

Agree.

 

Having read a bit more about the case in the last 24 hours. I think the judge was reckless in releasing the identity of the officer. It appears to have cause problem for the officer now, who allegedly will require 24 hour protection for him and his family as the gang Kaba was part of has placed a £10.000 bounty on his head. 
 

The judge was careful to restrict the history of Kaba, which I do understand and agree with as it removes any potential bias, but to name the officer before any decision is made was really poor in my opinion. He should have only considered this if he was found guilty, because it’s now potentially placed him and his families lives at risk, especially now we know Kaba was a very violent and very dangerous man, who was part of a very dangerous gang. I feel he should be receiving some form of repercussions for this.

[Jon the Hat]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Edit: If (heaven forbid) Trump wins, then I hope Starmer has the courage to drop the diplomatic front from time to time when the two meet and be absolutely candid about what a great many people in the developed world think of him.

Not a chance in hell, and it would be massively unprofessional.  We show respect to the office, even if the office holder is a massive ****.  

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not a chance in hell, and it would be massively unprofessional.  We show respect to the office, even if the office holder is a massive ****.  

Realistically, that's about it, yeah.

 

But it would be nice if someone might make the differentiation that while the office deserves respect, the occupant of it deserves none and their policy decisions pose a clear and obvious threat to a lot of people right now and the entire species and biosphere later.

[Nalis]

Would have been a hoot of Corbyn was PM when Trump was POTS. Though they might have actually got on as a bit of an odd couple.

[bovril]

Special relationship going well I see

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Jon the Hat said:

Not a chance in hell, and it would be massively unprofessional.  We show respect to the office, even if the office holder is a massive ****.  

So continue bootlicking 

[Zear0]

Can't bitch about the value of democracy when they vote in someone you don't like. Sometimes you just need to hold your nose.