Current Affairs Met Police

[Rita_Poon]

A court of law has found him not guilty, so he has not broken the law. You hitched your cart to the wrong horse this time.

Thankfully it seems the couple are going to pursue the matter in civil court. So hopefully they can rip the back out of all 5 pigs pensions. I'd bring a charge against the force and thereby the chief of the met for institutionalised racism as well. Nothing like bad headlines to keep the nazi scum on the backfoot, especially when chris kaba's murderer walks away scott free.

.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Well there we go.

If you don't feel it was reasonable to suspect that he may have had a weapon on him, based on all the intelligence, the subjectivity can't be removed.

That's not the point being discussed: Rita said it was unreasonable for the police to suspect at the time that the driver may have had a weapon on his person.

That goes against all the evidence provided. The police stopped the car, like they did, because it was linked to two previous shootings in recent days.

Kaba was known to drive the car, known to have access to firearms, believed to have used one recently, had prior form of firearms offences and much more.

Was it unreasonable, at the time, for armed police to stop the car rather than non-armed officers? Ignore everything afterwards, with hindsight...

... was the decision at the time justifiable? That's how the law works.

That is not what you asked nor how you asked it.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Well there we go.

If you don't feel it was reasonable to suspect that he may have had a weapon on him, based on all the intelligence, the subjectivity can't be removed.

That's not the point being discussed: Rita said it was unreasonable for the police to suspect at the time that the driver may have had a weapon on his person.

That goes against all the evidence provided. The police stopped the car, like they did, because it was linked to two previous shootings in recent days.

Kaba was known to drive the car, known to have access to firearms, believed to have used one recently, had prior form of firearms offences and much more.

Was it unreasonable, at the time, for armed police to stop the car rather than non-armed officers? Ignore everything afterwards, with hindsight...

... was the decision at the time justifiable? That's how the law works.

ok great. justifiable decision. made by whom? Who swung for executing Menezes? someone gave the nod for that death.

Which way do you want it, not allowed both.

 

[Alan Whittle]

Well there we go.

If you don't feel it was reasonable to suspect that he may have had a weapon on him, based on all the intelligence, the subjectivity can't be removed.

That's not the point being discussed: Rita said it was unreasonable for the police to suspect at the time that the driver may have had a weapon on his person.

That goes against all the evidence provided. The police stopped the car, like they did, because it was linked to two previous shootings in recent days.

Kaba was known to drive the car, known to have access to firearms, believed to have used one recently, had prior form of firearms offences and much more.

Was it unreasonable, at the time, for armed police to stop the car rather than non-armed officers? Ignore everything afterwards, with hindsight...

... was the decision at the time justifiable? That's how the law works.

To stop the car with armed officers? No issue.
To shoot the driver? Unnecessary, in my opinion.

 

[Rita_Poon]

We aren't talking about Tomlinson or Menezes. So I'll ask again, would it have been reasonable to suspect he (Kaba) may have been armed at that point?

They suspected the car was involved in gun crime previous. That was the story since relied upon. There was no initial profiling of the driver, some of that was later that hindsight you mentioned earlier.

They've turned up mob handed and ready to dole out death. And have done so then cried off about being held to account for it. Gangs of armed pigs on the streets aint the justice system. The car was hardly moving, and his hands were seen with no weapon in them. Then he was somehow accidentally shot in the head because the shooter feared for the lives of his fellow officer. What a crock of spit*.

I understand this fully. 'wrong un gets his comeuppance. Good riddance.'

Anger in Paris after police kill teen in traffic stop

Unrest follows the fatal shooting of a 17-year-old who apparently failed to obey traffic police.

www.bbc.co.uk

Careful what you wish for.

 

[PhilM]

That is not what you asked nor how you asked it.

It is. I asked if it was reasonable to suspect he was armed. The verb clearly implied he may have been equipped with, or in possession of, a firearm.

We aren't talking about Tomlinson or Menezes. So I'll ask again, would it have been reasonable to suspect he (Kaba) may have been armed at that point?

You said no.

They suspected the car was involved in gun crime previous. That was the story since relied upon. There was no initial profiling of the driver, some of that was later that hindsight you mentioned earlier.

There was an evidence marker on the car for firearms, which triggered the stop. That's the fact. The intelligence was based on the prior shootings.

It had been reportedly involved in a shooting at another car, with three men in wearing balaclavas. The registration plate was that of the Q8 they stopped.

They were uncertain who was the driver (that means they couldn't confirm it), but again the intelligences linked it to the gang Kaba was known to be part of.

All of this is the reasoning for why they stopped it, and how. Based on all the above, what should the police have done in terms of stopping the car?

 

[Rita_Poon]

It is. I asked if it was reasonable to suspect he was armed. The verb clearly implied he may have been equipped with, or in possession of, a firearm.

You said no.

There was an evidence marker on the car for firearms, which triggered the stop. That's the fact. The intelligence was based on the prior shootings.

It had been reportedly involved in a shooting at another car, with three men in wearing balaclavas. The registration plate was that of the Q8 they stopped.

They were uncertain who was the driver (that means they couldn't confirm it), but again the intelligences linked it to the gang Kaba was known to be part of.

All of this is the reasoning for why they stopped it, and how. Based on all the above, what should the police have done in terms of stopping the car?

exactly, it was on the car, not the man. if they cannot be sure who's driving, going in mob handed waving guns around is beyond excessive, it's downright crazy.

Follow the car, wait for it to stop, they have radios and helicopters, he wasn't in a time traveling delorean, and weren't sure he was armed. This was an escalation on behalf of the pigs and once again another young black man is dead at their hands.

 

[PhilM]

exactly, it was on the car, not the man. if they cannot be sure who's driving, going in mob handed waving guns around is beyond excessive, it's downright crazy.

Follow the car, wait for it to stop, they have radios and helicopters, he wasn't in a time traveling delorean, and weren't sure he was armed. This was an escalation on behalf of the pigs and once again another young black man is dead at their hands.

Firstly, possession of a firearm as an offence does not mean it has to be on the person. If the car is suspected to have been used in a firearm offence...

... it is fair, under law, to have reasonable suspicion a firearm may be in the vehicle. For the latter point, what if they followed it, waited and it used a weapon?

What if someone was shot, injured and potentially killed due to inaction? The car was known to have already been involved in a shooting. Sorry mate, it's fanciful.

 

[Hinchcliffe's Corner]

Was he frightened for his life?

Frightened? He's a gangstar mate. Do me a favour.

 

[Hinchcliffe's Corner]

Reets, I dread to think what your experience with the police has been. You really have a deep seated hatred of them.

Doing 40 in a 30 has really set poor Reets off for life.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Firstly, possession of a firearm as an offence does not mean it has to be on the person. If the car is suspected to have been used in a firearm offence...

... it is fair, under law, to have reasonable suspicion a firearm may be in the vehicle. For the latter point, what if they followed it, waited and it used a weapon?

What if someone was shot, injured and potentially killed due to inaction? The car was known to have already been involved in a shooting. Sorry mate, it's fanciful.

someone was shot and killed. an unarmed person. murders based on what ifs is not for me. condemn the police, I can.

 

[Alan Whittle]

What if someone was shot, injured and potentially killed due to inaction? The car was known to have already been involved in a shooting. Sorry mate, it's fanciful.

Fantastic tautology to be concerned about somebody being “shot, injured or potentially killed” with the solution to that being to shoot and kill somebody.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Frightened? He's a gangstar mate. Do me a favour.

yet the officer was overwhelmed with terror, whilst he and his buddies surrounded the victim each armed to the teeth.

of course, fear only exists when it's a casual excuse for the uniforms. silly me, how quickly I forget the courts function.

 

[Hinchcliffe's Corner]

yet the officer was overwhelmed with terror, whilst he and his buddies surrounded the victim each armed to the teeth.

of course, fear only exists when it's a casual excuse for the uniforms. silly me, how quickly I forget the courts function.

Of course the officer was afraid. He didn't put himself in that situation though, he was required to be. I'm a huge supporter of rehabilitation, working to help people break out of crime and gangs etc, but in this scenario there was a clear and present danger, and there were multiple opportunities for the criminal to make this all stop. It's a terribly sad ending for all involved, but justice, though cruelly, was served. I'm of the same opinion as you that police should be under extreme scrutiny in their line of work, and I feel this passed the test.

 

[TommyDavo]

Of course the officer was afraid. He didn't put himself in that situation though, he was required to be. I'm a huge supporter of rehabilitation, working to help people break out of crime and gangs etc, but in this scenario there was a clear and present danger, and there were multiple opportunities for the criminal to make this all stop. It's a terribly sad ending for all involved, but justice, though cruelly, was served. I'm of the same opinion as you that police should be under extreme scrutiny in their line of work, and I feel this passed the test.

Can’t believe the pressure these lads are under going out the door every morning