General News

[Trav Le Bleu]

2 hours ago, Dr The Singh said:

Nearly as good as my first 100 days of marriage.

A lot of people getting screwed?

[Dr The Singh]

1 hour ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

A lot of people getting screwed?

Yea, alot.........the only person that wasn't was me!

[Muzzy_no7]

https://news.sky.com/story/firearms-officer-cleared-of-murdering-chris-kaba-to-face-gross-misconduct-hearing-after-watchdog-review-13358495 
 

This officer has gone through absolute hell for years and now this. 

[PAULCFC]

8 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/firearms-officer-cleared-of-murdering-chris-kaba-to-face-gross-misconduct-hearing-after-watchdog-review-13358495 
 

This officer has gone through absolute hell for years and now this. 

Who in their right mind would become a fire arms officer....damned if you do,damned you don't. 

Edited Wednesday at 09:57 by PAULCFC

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/firearms-officer-cleared-of-murdering-chris-kaba-to-face-gross-misconduct-hearing-after-watchdog-review-13358495 
 

This officer has gone through absolute hell for years and now this. 

 

2 minutes ago, PAULCFC said:

Who in their right mind would become a fire arms officer....damned if you do,damned you don't. 

Think that applies to the whole situation tbh. The officer had to make a split second decision that the guy presented an immediate capital threat to him or someone else and he made that call, as such officers have to.

 

In this case, however, it turned out to not be the right decision in that the guy didn't pose an immediate capital threat, and he died because of that incorrect decision. I'm not sure that can just be written off as "fog of war" and someone should always answer for the taking of a life that isn't in direct and proven (after the fact) self defence, but at the same time, who would it be whilst remaining fair?

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[Tommy G]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Think that applies to the whole situation tbh. The officer had to make a split second decision that the guy presented an immediate capital threat to him or someone else and he made that call, as such officers have to.

 

In this case, however, it turned out to not be the right decision in that the guy didn't pose an immediate capital threat, and he died because of that incorrect decision. I'm not sure that can just be written off as "fog of war" and someone should always answer for the taking of a life that isn't in direct and proven (after the fact) self defence, but at the same time, who would it be whilst remaining fair?

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

If Kaba had put his hands up and got out the vehicle when an armed officer was pointing a gun at him - after being chased through the streets by police and a helicopter then a decision wouldn't have to be made. 

 

Feel sorry for the officer big time.  

[PAULCFC]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Think that applies to the whole situation tbh. The officer had to make a split second decision that the guy presented an immediate capital threat to him or someone else and he made that call, as such officers have to.

 

In this case, however, it turned out to not be the right decision in that the guy didn't pose an immediate capital threat, and he died because of that incorrect decision. I'm not sure that can just be written off as "fog of war" and someone should always answer for the taking of a life that isn't in direct and proven (after the fact) self defence, but at the same time, who would it be whilst remaining fair?

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Exactly! Not a decision I'd like to make and by the nature of the timing there are bound to be grey areas/mistakes.However in this case I understand people need to be held accountable,but surely the bloke has gone through enough.

.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

If Kaba had put his hands up and got out the vehicle when an armed officer was pointing a gun at him - after being chased through the streets by police and a helicopter then a decision wouldn't have to be made. 

 

Feel sorry for the officer big time.  

Totally agree.

 

But being an idiot and resisting arrest were, the last time I checked, not summary capital offences and when a guy dies at the hands of officers without having posed a direct capital threat to them, it's tricky to then say that no one is at fault but the perp.

 

2 minutes ago, PAULCFC said:

Exactly! Not a decision I'd like to make and by the nature of the timing there are bound to be grey areas/mistakes.However in this case I understand people need to be held accountable,but surely the bloke has gone through enough.

.

It's an incredibly difficult situation. I wouldn't want to be making any kind of call on it.

 

[Muzzy_no7]

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

 

Think that applies to the whole situation tbh. The officer had to make a split second decision that the guy presented an immediate capital threat to him or someone else and he made that call, as such officers have to.

 

In this case, however, it turned out to not be the right decision in that the guy didn't pose an immediate capital threat, and he died because of that incorrect decision. I'm not sure that can just be written off as "fog of war" and someone should always answer for the taking of a life that isn't in direct and proven (after the fact) self defence, but at the same time, who would it be whilst remaining fair?

 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 

What? Unless I’ve misread you are you saying the officer did the wrong thing? 
 

The officer used lethal force as per his training and Article 2 to prevent other losses of life. Several of his colleagues at scene supported his actions and stated they were also about to do the same. 
 

He feared for his and his colleagues lives when the vehicle (linked to firearms offences the day before)  still trying to escape and potentially be used as a weapon against the officers at scene. 
 

If this isn’t rejected or thrown out I can see thousands of Armed Officers handing tickets in. 

[leicsmac]

18 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

 

What? Unless I’ve misread you are you saying the officer did the wrong thing? 
 

The officer used lethal force as per his training and Article 2 to prevent other losses of life. Several of his colleagues at scene supported his actions and stated they were also about to do the same. 
 

He feared for his and his colleagues lives when the vehicle (linked to firearms offences the day before)  still trying to escape and potentially be used as a weapon against the officers at scene. 
 

If this isn’t rejected or thrown out I can see thousands of Armed Officers handing tickets in. 

Allow me to clarify: the officer made a split second decision that the man represented a immediate (italicised for emphasis) capital threat to him and his colleagues, thus justifying the use of lethal force, and evidently his colleagues thought similarly.

 

Subsequent investigation has shown that the conclusion he drew was wrong, and a human being that didn't present an immediate capital threat was killed.

 

As per above, usually in situations where a human life has been taken without that justification being proven, there has to be some accountability rather than writing off a human life - criminal as it was - as "collateral damage" or somesuch.

 

So, to answer, no, I don't think he did the wrong thing given the information at the time and I don't think he should be punished, but at the same time I'm not entirely at home with the idea of the unaccountable death of a person who had not committed a capital crime or had been proven to present an immediate capital threat to law enforcement. That's not a nice road to go down.

[Muzzy_no7]

32 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Allow me to clarify: the officer made a split second decision that the man represented a immediate (italicised for emphasis) capital threat to him and his colleagues, thus justifying the use of lethal force, and evidently his colleagues thought similarly.

 

Subsequent investigation has shown that the conclusion he drew was wrong, and a human being that didn't present an immediate capital threat was killed.

 

As per above, usually in situations where a human life has been taken without that justification being proven, there has to be some accountability rather than writing off a human life - criminal as it was - as "collateral damage" or somesuch.

 

So, to answer, no, I don't think he did the wrong thing given the information at the time and I don't think he should be punished, but at the same time I'm not entirely at home with the idea of the unaccountable death of a person who had not committed a capital crime or had been proven to present an immediate capital threat to law enforcement. That's not a nice road to go down.

All this needs to be for the Armed officer is an honest held belief there is an immediate threat to life of himself or others and he, and others at scene thought the threshold was met. 
 

It’s not nice at all, but based on what I’ve read and been told I believe the officer made the correct call with what he had in front of him AND what he already knew. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

All this needs to be for the Armed officer is an honest held belief there is an immediate threat to life of himself or others and he, and others at scene thought the threshold was met. 
 

It’s not nice at all, but based on what I’ve read and been told I believe the officer made the correct call with what he had in front of him AND what he already knew. 

Fair enough.

 

The only thing I'll add is that WRT the bolded, I'm glad that there is a robust system to look at such incidents in the UK, because otherwise it would be (and a lot of historical precedent shows) very easy to shoot first and make up something about threat to life later.

 

IMO no one person should have that power of life or death over another human being without someone watching and judging, because that kind of absolute power very, very easily corrupts.

[st albans fox]

If the officer has made a genuine understandable error and someone has been injured/killed as a consequence then surely the action is for that officer to not carry a gun in future. 
no need for anything else 

 

other procedural aspects need to be delved into more deeply. 

Edited Wednesday at 14:36 by st albans fox

[PAULCFC]

Just now, st albans fox said:

If the officer has made a genuine understandable error and someone has been injured/killed as a consequence then surely the action is for that officer to not carry a gun in future. 
no need for anything else 

I doubt very much he would have the stomach to carry on in his role......must be very traumatic.The next time something like this happened it'd be going round in your head wether to shoot or not and that few seconds could make all the difference.

[Md9]

Not in office stock market doing well- it’s his stock market

in office stock market not doing so well- Bidens stock market. 
Anyone that still listens and agrees with anything he says needs their heads examining 

[Jattdogg]

Lol if you send that to maga they will say someone AI'd  it and call it a deep-state fake.

[Md9]

7 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

Lol if you send that to maga they will say someone AI'd  it and call it a deep-state fake.

It’s just pure chaos every day I don’t even know how he keeps up with his own nonsense 😂

[nnfox]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Fair enough.

 

The only thing I'll add is that WRT the bolded, I'm glad that there is a robust system to look at such incidents in the UK, because otherwise it would be (and a lot of historical precedent shows) very easy to shoot first and make up something about threat to life later.

 

IMO no one person should have that power of life or death over another human being without someone watching and judging, because that kind of absolute power very, very easily corrupts.

Here's the thing, the officer was shown to have used a level of force that was justified, reasonable and proportionate, beyond reasonable doubt, according to a court of law in front of a jury.  For me, that's the end of the matter and he shouldn't now have to face the prospect of still losing his job.

 

With regards to your assertion that a greater burden of evidence outlining the actual threat needs to be garnered is dangerous in itself.  We can't have a system where officers are expected to wait for a live firearm to be produced, pointed at them and then hope they have the reaction speed to pull their trigger before the criminal.  It just doesn't work like that.

 

We put our trust and faith that they make considered, objective decisions in situations that most people would likely crap themselves.  And it sounds like what he did was just that.

 

The IOPC are playing with fire in my opinion.

[Bellend Sebastian]

45 minutes ago, Md9 said:

Not in office stock market doing well- it’s his stock market

in office stock market not doing so well- Bidens stock market. 
Anyone that still listens and agrees with anything he says needs their heads examining 

It was probably in the first term when he was taking credit for stock market gains and I remember thinking that I'd never, ever heard a president or PM say that before. I wondered why that was for about 5 seconds before realising that it makes it a bit awkward if the market goes down on your watch but I doubt old Don thought about it even that much

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, nnfox said:

Here's the thing, the officer was shown to have used a level of force that was justified, reasonable and proportionate, beyond reasonable doubt, according to a court of law in front of a jury.  For me, that's the end of the matter and he shouldn't now have to face the prospect of still losing his job.

 

There's a reason that there is separate spheres of criminal and civil liability. Being found to not be criminally liable doesn't always guarantee no civil liability.

 

23 minutes ago, nnfox said:

 

With regards to your assertion that a greater burden of evidence outlining the actual threat needs to be garnered is dangerous in itself.  We can't have a system where officers are expected to wait for a live firearm to be produced, pointed at them and then hope they have the reaction speed to pull their trigger before the criminal.  It just doesn't work like that.

It's a difficult circle to square, to be sure. Either you accept the increased risk to law enforcement in the time it takes them to be absolutely sure someone poses an immediate capital threat to them, or you accept that judgement calls will be wrong, and people who do not pose the above threat and have been through no due process will be killed.

 

Whichever of those is more acceptable is clearly up to the beholder.

 

23 minutes ago, nnfox said:

 

We put our trust and faith that they make considered, objective decisions in situations that most people would likely crap themselves.  And it sounds like what he did was just that.

 

The IOPC are playing with fire in my opinion.

And given everything we know about our species and about the power of life and death when held by a member of it over others, trust and faith without the kind of exacting oversight necessary when dealing with matters of life and death is asking for abuse of that power.

 

Trust, but verify, I think.

Edited Wednesday at 16:35 by leicsmac

[Parafox]

7 hours ago, Muzzy_no7 said:

https://news.sky.com/story/firearms-officer-cleared-of-murdering-chris-kaba-to-face-gross-misconduct-hearing-after-watchdog-review-13358495 
 

This officer has gone through absolute hell for years and now this. 

 

I only found out recently that US police are trained to empty an entire clip, which I think is 7 rounds, into a person if they feel under threat.

 

I think the difference with our firearms officers is that are less likely to be shot at from close quarters whereas in America, most criminals carry and will shoot at police at close range thereby posing a greater threat to life. 

[Parafox]

1 hour ago, Md9 said:

It’s just pure chaos every day I don’t even know how he keeps up with his own nonsense 😂

 

I think he forgets most of it. 

 

Can you recall every tweet you put out? 

 

And I imagine you're not in the early stages of Alzheimer's

[Md9]

1 hour ago, Parafox said:

 

I think he forgets most of it. 

 

Can you recall every tweet you put out? 

 

And I imagine you're not in the early stages of Alzheimer's

I think if I was trying to lie to the entire world about some serious issues I would double check what I had said previously before making my self look silly 😂

[Bellend Sebastian]

Every so often I like to throw in a George Monbiot Guardian opinion piece safe in the knowledge that all FT users will rush to read it in full and reflect with an open mind on its content at length. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/01/consistently-appeasing-platforming-right-bbc-undermines-own-survival

 

In all seriousness though I do find what's happened to the BBC over the last few years more than a little tragic. Part of a general pattern of us not really appreciating the value of what we have and letting actors of dubious intent encourage us to allow it to be undermined and even destroyed

[st albans fox]

Looks like the minerals deal has finally been signed 

wonder if this actually changes anything - if the Ukrainians won’t agree to the Russian ceasefire demands then presumably the Americans will continue to supply arms to Ukraine, knowing that they will now be weighed in for that assistance.   Or will the Russians now soften their demands.  I mean the bar is already so far in their direction that a few concessions will still be a sell out on Ukraine territorial integrity.