Current Affairs Met Police

[Alan Whittle]

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 ???

Well, you would hope so, but then he’s got five shouting police waving guns at him, so who knows what he might be thinking.

 

[Harryflashman]

Your faith in a juries infallibility is quaint. You find it odd that people question these things in a democracy? You want to rely on the accused to establish whether there was another officer in a suitable position to shoot?

No mate I think everyone can question anything of course .

Sorry I don’t understand that last sentence

 

[Harryflashman]

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 ???

Well, you would hope so, but then he’s got five shouting police waving guns at him, so who knows what he might be thinking.

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 .

 

[PhilM]

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 ???

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

Your faith in a juries infallibility is quaint. You find it odd that people question these things in a democracy? You want to rely on the accused to establish whether there was another officer in a suitable position to shoot?

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.

 

[neil999]

Can see why he was cleared, seems very difficult to prove beyond doubt he murdered him

 

[Alan Whittle]

No mate I think everyone can question anything of course .

Sorry I don’t understand that last sentence

The last sentence refers to a point made by @PhilM

 

[Alan Whittle]

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

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.

 

[PhilM]

It isn’t body cam footage, it’s a selective snap shot from one body cam footage.
And you question objectivity?

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...

Really? I would start by not shooting and relying on a better positioned colleague to shoot at the body if absolutely necessary.

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.

 

[Alan Whittle]

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.

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.

 

[PhilM]

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'm not doing that at all. My point is, as a person with experience of criminal law, does that add weighting to the intelligence provided to the officers beforehand?

Chris Kaba is an innocent man in law - fact. The point is, prior to the incident, there was enough evidence for a senior officer to authorise the tactical stop.

Would it be fair and reasonable, based on the evidence provided, for the officer to believe Kaba may be dangerous and potentially in the possession of a firearm?

This plays an integral part in the dynamic risk assessment the officer would have undertaken. That's why it's been mentioned.

There is a full trial regarding other perpetrators and the Tower Hamlets shooting, which you are free to refer to regarding why Kaba's involvement is presumed likely.

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.

A fair questions, and one I suspect will have been cross-examined in court. Purely based on conjecture, I'd question...

... the difference between an awareness of an officer's position, and said officer's line of sight for use of a firearm. Again, they are not one and the same.

I'll give an example for context: a woman is attacked, and she sees the assailants' height, but can't distinguish their ethnicity when original questioned.

Because they're aware of one aspect but not another, would we say their evidence is questionable, unreliable or invalid?

It's fair to question, but one doesn't negate the other.

 

[Alan Whittle]

I'm not doing that at all. My point is, as a person with experience of criminal law, does that add weighting to the intelligence provided to the officers beforehand?

Chris Kaba is an innocent man in law - fact. The point is, prior to the incident, there was enough evidence for a senior officer to authorise the tactical stop.

Would it be fair and reasonable, based on the evidence provided, for the officer to believe Kaba may be dangerous and potentially in the possession of a firearm?

This plays an integral part in the dynamic risk assessment the officer would have undertaken. That's why it's been mentioned.


A fair questions, and one I suspect will have been cross-examined in court. Purely based on conjecture, I'd question...

... the difference between an awareness of an officer's position, and said officer's line of sight for use of a firearm. Again, they are not one and the same.

That would make a lot of difference to Chris Kabba.
Again, you are quite content to rely on the juries verdict whilst admitting that you don’t know what was said in court.
The policeman in question should not, in my opinion, be found guilty of murder, clearly there is reasonable doubt. Neither however, should gangs of armed police go waving guns about when, to your point, they cannot see clearly, pointing them and shooting at, again to your point, an innocent man.

 

[PhilM]

That would make a lot of difference to Chris Kabba.
Again, you are quite content to rely on the juries verdict whilst admitting that you don’t know what was said in court.
The policeman in question should not, in my opinion, be found guilty of murder, clearly there is reasonable doubt. Neither however, should gangs of armed police go waving guns about when, to your point, they cannot see clearly, pointing them and shooting at, again to your point, an innocent man.

Honestly, what else is there to do? I haven't sat through the trial, nor have you. I've read the reports, as you may have. So yes, we have to rely on the court.

As I said earlier, if you're willing to offer an objective alternative to this, go ahead. But I don't see one... so unless you're presuming the jury were wrong or biased?

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, yet that doesn't remove the ability to detain people due to reasonable suspicion they have committed an offence.

Again, at the time were there reasonable grounds to arrest him? Yes. Did the risk assessment warrant a hard stop based on said grounds and previous convictions?

Yes. This has all been reported. If someone is believed to have been involved in a shooting*, how do you expect the police to stop them?

"Please Sir, stop your car nicely?" It's fanciful, at best.

*a separate trial has added weight to the validity of this assessment at the time, which was my point.

 

[Alan Whittle]

Honestly, what else is there to do? I haven't sat through the trial, nor have you. I've read the reports, as you may have. So yes, we have to rely on the court.

As I said earlier, if you're willing to offer an objective alternative to this, go ahead. But I don't see one... so unless you're presuming the jury were wrong or biased?

Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty, yet that doesn't remove the ability to detain people due to reasonable suspicion they have committed an offence.

Again, at the time were there reasonable grounds to arrest him? Yes. Did the risk assessment warrant a hard stop based on said grounds and previous convictions?

Yes. This has all been reported. If someone is believed to have been involved in a shooting*, how do you expect the police to stop them?

"Please Sir, stop your car nicely?" It's fanciful, at best.

*a separate trial has added weight to the validity of this assessment at the time, which was my point.

Stop them by all means, detain them? no problem. Shoot them when they have stopped? Nah, not for me, happens too often. You’re fine with it, I get that, we disagree, I’m leaving it there.

 

[PhilM]

Stop them by all means, detain them? no problem. Shoot them when they have stopped? Nah, not for me, happens too often. You’re fine with it, I get that, we disagree, I’m leaving it there.

I'm not fine with it, at all. I'd much rather a person hadn't died, including for the most basic of reason - preservation of life. But life is neither simple nor clear.

The point I've tried to make all along is that in that instance, with all the circumstances considered, it was legally justifiable. Would I have preferred another outcome?

Certainly, and I suspect the officer involved will to, just like Kaba's family and so many others involved. The issue isn't the 2-dimensional world people suggest it is.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Cwoaaar, a tad heated in here.