Current Affairs Met Police

[Harryflashman]

That doesn’t give access to criminal records

Gang affiliation maybe and other related stuff, if they’re stupid enough to put it on there.

I was able to find the stuff about Kaba being the unindicted co-conspirator in the shooting he was wanted for when he was killed so pretty much anyone could , including the jury . However any jury at any time can search like that on anyone involved , so I don’t think it’s any different or out of the norm .

 

[Groucho]

Right, common sense time methinks.

He/his car was involved in a shooting the day before, and he was ramming into the cars of armed police.

Is that not running the risk of being shot? I feel it is. I mean, this isn’t a case of a random unarmed and innocent person (be they black or otherwise) being killed with no provocation.

Also this is very different from George Floyd, of which I’ve seen a few comparisons. The officer in question with Kaba had a split second to make a decision whereas with GF they could’ve easily taken him into custody over a nine minute period but decided to kill him.

Anyway, for me, if you’re a known criminal with armed police on high alert for you, and you attack them, I reckon you’re getting shot and don’t have much claim for innocence but hey, I could be wrong.

 

[Rita_Poon]

There is a difference between meeting the requirement to fire and intending to kill; one may be the consequence of the other, but they’re not mutually exclusive.

If that is the only clear line of sight and you believe the shot has to be taken due to potential risk to life, what other shot could the officer have taken?

For your second point, they'd be expected to use specific rounds that are deployed at close to point-blank range, otherwise there's a serious risk of ricochets.

They're more commonly used on a stationary vehicle preventing it to move, rather than a moving vehicle to make it stop. So, practically, that's not an option.


Again, a jury have suggested otherwise. I am being genuinely sincere when I say it's tragic that a person has lost their life; I wish it wouldn't have happened.

But I do find it odd that people are questioning starting points, when the fact a jury has heard this case and acquitted someone, yet they're apparently still wrong?

They've had a lengthy trial, heard all the evidence available, and they've come to the conclusion it was a justified response in that split second all things considered.

Away from that, the relying on a better positioning colleague response brings about some other questions. Firstly, were there better positioned colleagues?

What was their line of sight? If so, what have they said about the action they would have taken? How did they assess the situation at the time in terms of risk?

Could the officer at that point reliably know there was another officer in a suitable position to shoot? Unless the officer can answer all of these....

We're talking about an intense situation in an incredibly short period of time (a few seconds); they are not trained to rely on someone else if they feel it's justified.

To do otherwise, you're putting in an increased likelihood of nobody reacting, with the risks that brings.

The car was pinned, kaba was revving the engine so much trying to drag the vehicle out from the two it was hemmed in by. How frightened was he by the way? And in the video, how fast would you say his vehicle was moving?

I mean, if you were really really concerned about being hit by a car starting from an almost stationary position, would you stand in front of it to offer only an 'accidental' forehead shot to accidentally aim for?

And the killer has been very lucky, to be afforded a lengthy trial, "heard all the evidence available", kaba wont be getting that opportunity will he.

"I had to shoot him dead because I'm not a mind reader of my colleagues minds, in that I am perfectly justified in shooting this person dead!" ?

The scum were tracking the car. So track the car then. The decision for a hard stop was taken not by the shooter or would be shooters. Still no explanation of why this escalated. 'But but but, we'd had a report the car was potentially involved in a gun related crime a day or so before', so, there'd been 24 or so hours to capture the car and driver before this mess? (a driver anyway*)

"We thought he was armed" - wasn't an excuse when the filth executed Menezes either!

 

[Rita_Poon]

With the kit they had I’m Not sure you can shoot tires out like in the movies , the plod with a pistol does a 9mm round even deflate the tires ? The 5.56mm the fella charged had might but even if it did it’d pretty certainly take more than one and surely a driver determined to escape seems unlikely to stop the second his tire starts to go down , I’ve seen cars driven a lot more than a few feet on rims .

As regards aiming them if he’s aimed at his head in an moving vehicle and hit through a window which will likely defract the laser sight and then move the round as it enters the glass it’s some shot. Ultimately once the shot was discharged lethal force feels inevitable and I think ‘shot in the head ‘ is a distraction , it doesn’t really matter where he was shot . if he’s hit in the chest then he’s doing well to survive that as well .

When I saw the copper had been charged with murder assumed there would be some pretty heavy evidence against them . Looking at the video it feels a huge stretch to have charged him with murder , in my opinion .

shot in the head a distraction? it does matter where he was shot, and it also matters that he was shot at all.

like in the movies? how's he got screen penetration with a 5.56mm bullet? more than one bullet to knock out a tyre? do they not use stingers anymore? driving on rims? the movies? laser sights?

Good one this one yeah. Fair play.

 

[Rita_Poon]

I can’t get my head around the fact, that despite being boxed in and surrounded by armed police, he still chose to try and ram himself out, in a car that had been used in a drive by shooting the previous day, which was the whole reason for him being boxed in.

Surely you’d just stop, rather than try and ram your way out ???

Was he frightened for his life?

 

[Rita_Poon]

See I get this and everyone reacts differently to different situations . Ultimately I’d react differently to you because I’ve got ptsd and might be completely off the scale so I can go an extent empathise with that , unfortunately thinking rationally at this minute I know it’s got me in trouble and may again. Fortunately not to the extent of Chris kaba.

Also the lad is also an unnamed co-conspirator in an incident where his coaccused have been convicted off conspiracy to commit murder and gbh so having done a 5 he didn’t fancy any sentence .

And?

 

[COYBL25]

Was he frightened for his life?

Or trying to escape at any cost and avoid life imprisonment for shooting and trying to murder someone the week before ?

We shall never know.

 

[Harryflashman]

shot in the head a distraction? it does matter where he was shot, and it also matters that he was shot at all.

like in the movies? how's he got screen penetration with a 5.56mm bullet? more than one bullet to knock out a tyre? do they not use stingers anymore? driving on rims? the movies? laser sights?

Good one this one yeah. Fair play.

I didn’t say distract Rita I wrongly spelt , not unusual for me, diffract . Meaning a laser sight aimed through glass at a moving vehicle is less than perfect .

If they’d put a stinger out it would have took the tires out I’m sure but they hadn’t , is that something we could criticise them for I don’t know others in this thread would . I’d suspect if it’s a hard stop probably not as it’s suppose to shock them isn’t it ? What I meant is I don’t think a round through a tire causes it to blow up and the the car to stop immediately so if the bizzies argument is that he wanted to save lives by stopping the car immediately I don’t know how that would be an option .

 

[Rita_Poon]

A shooting that, based on the balance of probability, was likely committed by Chris Kaba himself.

My faith is in that, in all probability, a jury of twelve peers who've heard all the information will likely make a more informed decision that someone who hasn't.

Are juries infallible? No, of course not. But unless people are willing to offer a more reliable system for prosecutions, that remain objective, we have to trust them.

I'm asking, do you think in such a short period of time and intense situation where he's focused on the driver, it is reasonable for him to take a detailed inspection?

Due to the position of the Audi and other cars, could he see another officer? What about the darkness, the strength of the lights and the noise? All in a few seconds.

That's the body cam footage and relevant positions at the time of the shooting, from the perspective of the officer. Can you truly see another officer in position?

I have no issue with questioning it at all - that's fine. My issue is that people are still presuming guilt regardless of the evidence, so I do question objectivity.

View attachment 278503

Not one victim of this system ever agrees with the state of the system. Andrew Malkinson, Barry George, Stefan Kiszko...

Well, seeing as he absolutely had no choice but to open fire, aren't we all very lucky he didn't shoot an officer, or blow some old ladies brains all over the pavement.

 

[Rita_Poon]

It isn’t body cam footage, it’s a selective snap shot from one body cam footage.
And you question objectivity?
You claim that you don’t object to people questioning the verdict despite the evidence, but you haven’t heard the evidence either and I note that you make a subjective judgement that Chris Kabba “likely committed “ a previous shooting as if somehow that is a justification for what happened.
I take the point that the jury cannot and should not convict someone for murder where there is any doubt but that does leave grave doubts about the use of armed policemen on the streets in circumstances where unarmed citizens can be under such circumstances. It’s not the first time this has happened.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Again, the jury have seen all the other camera footage from the officers, vehicles and apparently NPAS.

In terms of being selective, yes it is but I've posted that for a reason, because originally you stated...

If you watch the video, which provides the closest perspective compared to the officer's, is it reasonable to presume beyond reasonable doubt he could:

a) recognise a colleague and their position,
b) reliably make a conclusion, they have a line of sight to fire,

Yet he still fired? This all when focusing on the suspect in the vehicle.

Remember, in criminal law here in the UK, to find a person guilty it must be beyond reasonable doubt.

Hmmm. I suppose if you have faith then fair play to you. Some others do not.

 

[Rita_Poon]

How is it then, without being able to see clearly, that he felt that his colleagues lives were in danger? That was his defence. That is what the jury relied on, yet, as you so helpfully illustrate with the evidence, he cannot have been sure.

Got this far. Back in a bit.

 

[Harryflashman]

And?

and ?

The poster stated he couldn’t understand why he’d simply not stop when confronted. I offered empathy that everyone reacts differently to every situation depending on their circumstances and then pointed out that he might also want to have avoid being arrested . I mean it is possible he didn’t comply as he didn’t want to be arrested isn’t it ?

Im not saying three cheers for Chris kaba getting shot , I am saying a likely explanation for him attempting to drive off from the hard stop is he knew he would be arrested and charged with conspiracy to murder and therefore possibly jailed a set of circumstances he wished to avoid . I’ll be honest I didn’t think that was controversial

 

[Rita_Poon]

I didn’t say distract Rita I wrongly spelt , not unusual for me, diffract . Meaning a laser sight aimed through glass at a moving vehicle is less than perfect .

cool.

If they’d put a stinger out it would have took the tires out I’m sure but they hadn’t , is that something we could criticise them for I don’t know others in this thread would . I’d suspect if it’s a hard stop probably not as it’s suppose to shock them isn’t it ? What I meant is I don’t think a round through a tire causes it to blow up and the the car to stop immediately so if the bizzies argument is that he wanted to save lives by stopping the car immediately I don’t know how that would be an option .

I reckon kaba was shocked alright, so it's ten out of ten for plod there.

read that part back and think about what happened.

 

[Harryflashman]

cool.

I reckon kaba was shocked alright, so it's ten out of ten for plod there.

read that part back and think about what happened.

Rita again I’m not suggesting that that’s definitely right I’m suggesting that’s what what the copper said .