I think one of the main points of this that has upset so many is that the chap was unarmed
Which I think is why whether Kaba attempted to use his car as a weapon is crucial. Assuming there is bodycam footage (do armed police always have bodycams?) I'd have thought it would be fairly clear if this was the case, which is why the CPS charging the officer with murder raises eye-brows. Presumably they've reviewed the available footage and determined either the car was never used in that way or the threat was clearly over by the time the officer fired. I assume (but may well be wrong) that if the footage wasn't clear over the threat posed from the use of a car they wouldn't have charged him with murder as the CPS tend to play it safe and under-charge if anything so without clear evidence either way I'd be surprised they'd charge him with murder. We also don't know what eye witnesses there were and especially what other the officers attending have stated, perhaps that was damning.
Didn't the intelligence suggest the car had been involved in a gun related incident previously?
It's a shame the driver didn't get the full story about the cars history prior to going for a drive in it.
absolute political will to sort out the Met & bring back public confidence
Is there? I thought this was just another plan to privatise a public service and make sure the general public feel afraid. Basically break up the met and tell Londoners they need to pay for private security firms to patrol their streets and estates. Huge opportunity for millionaire businessmen (aka politicians) to make more money.
I think one of the main points of this that has upset so many is that the chap was unarmed.
But the driver had previous for carrying a gun and the car he was in had been used in gun crime the day before.
The driver is ramming people putting their lives at risk and has a high change of carrying a gun. All bets are off.
A prime example of play stupid games win stupid prizes imo.
Apparently Kaba’s family have seen the bodycam footage and stopped being as vocal about his death afterwards. Understandably vocal imo as we all would be if one of our relatives or friends was shot by the Police.
The adage “lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas” springs to mind especially considering his previous form;
- four-year term in a young offender institution for possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.
- Kaba was driving someone else's car which had been involved in a shooting/ firearms offence the previous day/s - who knows if he was involved but he was a convicted guns and gangs criminal who was previously jailed for firearms offences. He would have been aware of the way Police will respond to armed crime.
- he's made off from the Police - the blue lights and sirens are arguably an irrelevance - there were marked cars present and he's reacted in a negative fashion- it's a car chase blues or not
- he's been boxed in and a load of uniformed police officers have jumped out of marked police cars in a lit up area and have pointed guns at him whilst shouting armed Police etc. He has then attempted to ram his way out which has ended up with him being shot once.
- witnesses have provided accounts and asked "why didn't he just give up/stop?”
It’ll be interesting to see how the trial pans out. Legally justified shooting is my guess.
But the driver had previous for carrying a gun
Yes and by all accounts he was a bit of a crim. But who is in the driving seat, and his criminal background would maybe not be obvious till after an arrest has taken place. We cant use what we know now and after the fact as justification for the events that took place.
But the driver had previous for carrying a gun and the car he was in had been used in gun crime the day before.
The IOPC says the officer had only been briefed about the vehicle and had no briefing on the driver so previous offences aren't something that would have been in his head at the time.
The driver is ramming people putting their lives at risk and has a high change of carrying a gun. All bets are off.
The stories conflict the IOPC report says contact between his vehicles and the police vehicles but doesn't say ramming and doesn't say who caused the contact. Some media reports support the version you describe.
A prime example of play stupid games win stupid prizes imo.
It may well be, and that will be a matter for the trial (if it ever gets that far).
– witnesses have provided accounts and asked “why didn’t he just give up/stop?”
Probably something that JayZ would know about and applicable to MPS.
"Cause I'm young and I'm black and my hat's real low"
Do I look like a mind reader, sir? I don't know
The adage “lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas” springs
Not sure any Met officer wants to adopt motto too enthusiastically considering the Met's chaos and pattern of spreading black PR about the people it has killed. It works both ways.
especially considering his previous form;
Sure - it might well be that the deceased was a violent and dangerous person who acted in a way that justified the killing. It's a fair question to ask and answer transparently in court if the evidence justifies a prosecution and if it's in the public interest. What is remarkable is a (apparently small) set of police officers objecting to the question even being asked in the normal way, and a set of their acolytes demanding "special dispensation" for police officers that kill people at work.
Making an example is a truly horrendous concept when it involves charging someone with murder to prove some point
Yes it is, yet I have been present in briefings with the IOPC where they have used that exact phrase (albeit in relation to a Police pursuit driver).
Edit: and it’s not really to just “prove some point” is it? Apparently public trust in the Met has eroded to the point where they’re talking about ripping down & starting again; that’s a fairly big deal.
What is remarkable is a (apparently small) set of police officers objecting to the question even being askedin the normal way, and a set of their acolytes demanding “special dispensation” for police officers that kill people at work.
Which according to the MPS Chief Constable wasn’t actually the case:
”Officers are extremely anxious … A lot of this is driven by families. Many of them are under pressure from their partners, wives, husbands, parents, children … The core of this issue is not protest, the core of this issue is real personal anxiety.”
Yes it is, yet I have been present in briefings with the IOPC where they have used that exact phrase (albeit in relation to a Police pursuit driver).
The thing about trying to create precedent is you need to be really sure you will succeed as doing it and failing, actually reinforces the exact opposite objective from you intended. Bare in mind that even if 9 people on a jury think he's guilty of Murder that won't be enough for a conviction and it would either need to be embarrassingly dropped by the Crown or need to go to a retrial, where they might still fail to get the numbers. I'd suggest that if you decided to try and make a point with a less than cast iron case and failed twice that might be career-limiting. I'd say its a big roll of the dice that you don't have a couple of "obviously deserved it, driving a dodgy motor and not 100% compliant when they stopped him, looked dodgy, lots of guns in London carried by "his sort"" types on the jury.
Making an example is a truly horrendous concept when it involves charging someone with murder to prove some point
But presumably the individual has been charged with murder because the Crown Prosecution Service believes there is sufficient evidence for a jury to consider a guilty verdict?
If this represents a change in attitude by the CPS it could simply mean that previously servicing officers were not necessarily forced to face the consequences of illegal practices even though evidence might have existed.
I remember many years ago a police officer in a unit tasked with pursuing bent coppers expressing his deep frustration on the telly that juries were so reluctant to find servicing officers guilty, even after all the overwhelming evidence had been put to them. I suspect that thanks to the Met attitudes have changed somewhat in recent years.
And what about the 2 Met officers a week currently being sacked for gross misconduct? This represents a big sudden increase, does that mean that innocent coppers are now being sacked to prove a point?
Or that coppers who previously should have been sacked but weren't are now being sacked in an attempt to regain public trust?
When police are required to use force to achieve a lawful objective (eg making a lawful arrest, acting in self-defence or protecting others) all force used must be reasonable in the circumstances.
If the force used is not reasonable and proportionate, the officer is open to criminal or misconduct proceedings. It may also constitute a violation of the human rights of the person against whom the force was used.
It only seems right to me that there should be a very thorough investigation anytime a police officer shoots someone dead with a gun, regardless of the circumstances.
For the CPS to go with murder though rather than some sort of manslaughter other lesser charge, suggests that something very wrong and proovable happened, given the burden of proof required to secure a conviction.
Unless the CPS made a massive cockup suggesting murder, it's entirely possible.
From what we know, it may appear on the surface that the shooting was justified, but we don't know exactly what the orders were, the precise nature and progression of the stop, what was said over radio, whats on body cam, whether the officer disobayed protocol or orders and went a bit Rambo etc.
It's one of those things that will just have to come out in the wash, or in court in this case - that's literally what courts are for.
It is also interesting that in cases of say a stabbing that results in death, as in a spontaneous fight, the police start with a murder charge that always seems to get downgraded to manslaughter.
So maybe thats the option here. Starts off as a murder charge but circumstances etc etc means the eventual charge is manslaughter or lesser. Or even for that matter full acquittal.
the core of this issue is real personal anxiety
Anxiety about what? About being part of the same criminal justice system that they impose on everyone else every day?
Unless the CPS made a massive cockup suggesting murder, it’s entirely possible.
...and of course the good news is that we have a mechanism for checking if the CPS has made a massive cockup: a trial!
Well, this thread aged well. Seems that the STW massive went through the whole process of evaluating the outcome and implications in a reasonably fair and balanced way nearly a year in advance of both the general public on the socials and the media.
The thread makes quite a good read really.
You’ve still got to wonder how this ever got to court though. It’s almost like the CPS have different criteria altogether when it comes to politically charged cases…
I’m reassured by cops with guns in parts of the UK and as STW-typical demographic have zero expectation I’ll ever be shot by a British cop which can’t be said for other countries (unlikely to very-low expectation).
I'm came very close a few years ago.
Driving along a single carriageway A road, not too late but dark, 10pm ish in winter. Turned into a single lane country road. A hundred yards or so later a bloke steps out in front of me poiinting a rather large gun at me, signalling me to stop. My first thought was 'it's a carjacking, run him over!' Would have been very, very easy to just floor it and knock him down but I just caught sight of a police van parked behind a hedge out of the corner of my eye and I stopped. A couple of others appeared out of nowhere and asked to search my van.
They were looking for deer poachers, hence being armed as presumably the poachers would have had guns, but there was nothing obvious about their attire suggesting that they were police, plain black everything, if I hadn't caught sight of the van and had run him down no doubt one of the others would have shot me. Split second decision as to what I did, could have been very nasty.
This was not inner city gangland stuff, this was rural Lincolnshire. In the 43 years I've known that area we've had three crimes - one fraud, one stolen horsebox and one drink-driving (oh, and two cases of local council corruption/bribery but they were never prosectuted)
I’m not sure that’s a great justification for using armed police. Poachers don’t tend to engage in gunfights.
Police operations are subject to Risk Assessments the same as any other civilian workplace.
Deer poachers will be carrying firearms. You can't justify sending someone to arrest them unarmed.
If they did get shot, then it will be negligence.
Pub I used to drink at regularly would often have armed police officers wandering around, which would cause a degree of consternation among customers sitting on the patio across the road, ‘cos they’d often come across the top car park and down the steps onto the patio; at dusk, a bloke wearing a flack jacket, semiautomatic pistol in a holster, and an H&K semiautomatic carbine over his shoulder would see some seriously raised eyebrows and open mouths! I’d get a nod and they’d carry on past the pub.
Hugely entertaining!
By way of context, Tom King MP lived just along the road.
I kind of wonder why in the Chris Kaba case the charge and subsequent trial was one of murder ?
I'd have thought given it was a police shooting that the charge he was being tried for would be that of manslaughter, as in unlawful killing.
Could it be that if the charge of unlawful killing was put to a jury, with evidence of the driver being unarmed, and the car moving in reverse at the time of the shooting, ergo away from the armed officers so I think the statement from that officer that he thought his colleague sitting behind in the volvo, was at risk of serious harm, despite if BEING A F***** VOLVO and Mr Kabas car moving at about 7 or 8mph might have swayed the jury to find him guilty of that charge
But not guilty of murder as the implication of that would be that the officer/met decided to on a kill on sight policy.
From my past experience of military rifle training, albeit from a civilian perspective and only allowed to shoot non-auto weapons. Training is an extremely tightly run affair, nothing like the macho American style you see in films or TV, it's a very strict and sterile experience.
UK military personnel are trained to a very high standard. Police training is based off that and being even more onerous (out in public with kids around and all that) I expect we are talking the highest standards going.
Police operations are subject to Risk Assessments the same as any other civilian workplace.
Deer poachers will be carrying firearms. You can’t justify sending someone to arrest them unarmed.
If they did get shot, then it will be negligence.
although if Andrewh’s account is entirely accurate nobody seems to have risk assessed standing in the carriageway in dark clothes at night. I don’t know exactly what the rules are but I am surprised that a weapon was raised and pointed at the driver of a vehicle who had made no threat.
I’d have thought given it was a police shooting that the charge he was being tried for would be that of manslaughter, as in unlawful killing.
unlawful act manslaughter requires there to be no intent to kill or cause gbh. It’s not credible that a police officer aims a loaded weapon and pulls the trigger and had no intent to harm the target. If the officer acted without a genuine believe that he or others were under immediate threat then murder was the correct charge. It is probably right that it was left to a jury to decide.
I have no idea, maybe they had been told that a vehicle they were interested in was heading that way, a white Transot is fairly common. It was slightly alarming. It's the only time I've ever had a gun pointed in my general direction. It would have been better had they been identifyable as police without relying on me spotting the van or speaking to them once I'd stopped.
Their van was tucked into this gateway https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @52.9200864,-0.4755723,3a,75y,260.77h,89.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1ssi1BzBTt4OEEM875idWtiQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D0.9153548737870949%26panoid%3Dsi1BzBTt4OEEM875idWtiQ%26yaw%3D260.77472095004924!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MTAyOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D I don't recall seeing it until the last minute so maybe the gate was open or something and it was parked further in, it was a marked van so obvious once I'd seen it although no lights on.
.
Anyway, we're drifting a little off topic, I mentioned it as someone had said that the typlical STW demographic probably won't ever be shot by a British policeman, this is entirely correct, but sometimes weird things happend when you really don't expect them.
although if Andrewh’s account is entirely accurate nobody seems to have risk assessed standing in the carriageway in dark clothes at night. I don’t know exactly what the rules are but I am surprised that a weapon was raised and pointed at the driver of a vehicle who had made no threat.
I agree. It seems a ridiculous way of operating.
Although they can't exactly go around with their blue lights on and in high vis, you are not going to catch many poachers like that.
Besides, I didn't even think deer poaching was a thing? I thought we had large over populations and they needed regular culling?
...although if Andrewh’s account is entirely accurate nobody seems to have risk assessed standing in the carriageway in dark clothes at night
Depends. If the stop was immediately after the turn when vehicle speeds are naturally low then it might be deemed acceptable. In a gunfight I'd guess that you really don't want to be wearing hi-viz 🙂
Although they can’t exactly go around with their blue lights on and in high vis, you are not going to catch many poachers like that
That's probably the safest tactic. Weapons and their haul in the back of a 4WD where the weapons are less accessible and long weapons are less easy to manoeuvre
Dogs with blood on their muzzles (deer DNA), all in one small space
Seems pretty logical to me
Deer poaching is a 50,000 deer per year thing... https://bds.org.uk/information-advice/issues-with-deer/poaching-and-wildlife-crime/
Are deer poachers not doing the public a favour though in helping to reduce the over population of deer in this country at no cost to the public or landowner>
https://www.countryfile.com/wildlife/mammals/deer-culling-in-britain
Could it be that if the charge of unlawful killing was put to a jury, with evidence of the driver being unarmed, and the car moving in reverse at the time of the shooting
Ok, so he reverses to make some space and then where do you think he is going next? Bearing in mind the cop who shot him was on standing in front?
Looking at V8ninety's post I think my comments aged fairly well. The jury decided he was using the car as a weapon and unfortunately for him he wasnt able to explain himself later by claiming the sun blinded him or something since one of the less well protected people he was pointing the vehicle towards decided to respond and had a rifle rather than rude words.
Overall whilst the evidence seems to have been seriously in the cops favour given how fast the jury came back I cant blame the CPS for deciding to prosecute to try to avoid (although seemingly failing for you) the impression of the "establishment" covering up. Not sure the answer though.
I cant blame the CPS for deciding to prosecute to try to avoid (although seemingly failing for you) the impression of the “establishment” covering up
The evidence comes before the public interest...
* "Crown Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is enough evidence to provide a "realistic prospect of conviction" against each defendant on each charge." The fact that the jury came to a verdict so quickly tells a story
* "If the case does pass the evidential stage, Crown Prosecutors must then decide whether a prosecution is needed in the public interest."
Ask Martyn Blake and his family how they feel about that, rather than the "establishment"
* https://www.cps.gov.uk/principles-we-follow
It isn't necessary for a cop to be prosecuted to ensure the public interest. In Scotland a police shooting will result in a Fatal Accident Enquiry. An example I remember locally -
In this case the deceased escaped from prison after his girlfriend ended their relationship and turned up at her door with a shotgun.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12743672.man-shot-by-police-after-siege-was-drinking-heavily/
ircFree Member
Are deer poachers not doing the public a favour though in helping to reduce the over population of deer in this country at no cost to the public or landowner>
Legitimate stalkers, contract cullers and those employed by Forestry bodies etc are licensed by the police to possess and use firearms specifically suitable in terms of calibre to kill deer effectively and humanely. Most estates, landowners and forestry bodies will also insist that the stalker, contractor etc will have deer management certification which requires training in deer identification, lawful seasons, safe use of firearms and appropriate ammunition, and game meat and larder hygiene elements. They will also all without exception have public liability insurance
Poaching is lucrative and very often indiscriminate. It isn’t just done by firearms either, with many instances particularly in rural counties such as Lincs, N Yorks of 4x4s tearing up crops and pasture land chasing deer (and hare) with dogs. The sort of people that do this are also strongly associated with the theft of farm machinery, plant and diesel.
Those folk aside, the armed poachers take on a different hue. They will use smaller calibre firearms, leading to badly wounded but still running deer, and apart from anything else are on people’s land, armed and intent on committing crime. Their very presence and possession of a firearm (licensed or not) in these circumstances is an imprisonable offence.
As a former police officer, firearms licensing officer and with close ties to countryside managers I can assure you there is absolutely no way they could be described as doing anyone a favour.
Ok, so he reverses to make some space and then where do you think he is going next? Bearing in mind the cop who shot him was on standing in front?
It was, then, a precautionary shooting to stop him changing gear?
As a former police officer, firearms licensing officer and with close ties to countryside managers I can assure you there is absolutely no way they could be described as doing anyone a favour.
Lets not let expert knowledge and experience get in the way of a mistaken opinion
I'm all for police to be armed as long as there are proper and frequent background checks and training.
Also fully support police shooting civilians who are armed/attacking/in the process of killing others.
I have said this before and will say it again. We need a "no fault" investigation for police shootings. If officers are afraid of individual prosecutions then they will naturally slant the evidence and given they only need to have a reasonable belief that lives are at risk prosecutions are almost impossible. I have seen this happen with medical mishaps
It appears from where I sit ( never having fired a gun!) that on occasion cops particularly in the met are over-hyped up and make poor decisions. A proper no fault investigation with the true evidence given will help establish why this happens. Also are there multiple failures? Selection? briefing? etc etc
Do we want to see less cops shooting folk or do we want to punish individual cops for what may well be systemic issues? We cannot have both IMO
A separate legal stream for the prosecution or investigation of police officers invites a perception of bias. There doesn't appear to be a shortage of officers prepared to take on these sorts of duties so this suggests to me that the officers involved are ok with that and given the number of operations conducted by armed officers Vs the number of actual shootings I see no reason to put armed officers under different scrutiny. They appear to be doing their jobs very effectively.
.There doesn’t appear to be a shortage of officers prepared to take on these sorts of duties
You should let the National Police Chiefs Council and the director general of the NCA that the shortage of firearms officers they perceive doesn’t actually exist. They are doing their jobs effectively but there is a shortage (as with most specialist roles in LE).
A separate legal stream for the prosecution or investigation of police officers invites a perception of bias.
I don't think TJ is suggesting that, probably a more refined version of the IOPC. I wouldn't ask any of those in blue here their take on them, but my good buddy in blues' take was 'they couldn't find their arse in their own underpants' so it's fair to say they may not be as effective as others would argue.
TJ's point is valid, the problem is policing is for some reason very political, and that will always interfere and impact the integrity of any investigation.
Purely anecdotal but as I've said way earlier in this thread, having some some work with police firearms of a few different types, they're switched on bods and not the bloodthirsty murderers many try to paint them as.
Someone made reference to armed forces shooting standards earlier in the thread as a comparison, don't want to burst yer bubble but they ain't that high.
The police standards are way higher and far more dynamic for good reason.
A battle-shot is very different to the sort of close quarter work AFO's are expected to manage along with all the other nuances of policing.
We need a “no fault” investigation for police shootings.
I understand where you are coming from, but I think this is unrealistic for the police. Medical staff are trying to avoid fatal incidents. However some police could face real temptation to take the law into their own hands when the opportunity arose, if there was not the prospect of a challenging investigation with the potential of criminal sanctions.
I should say I am generally supportive of how the UK police have used firearms, but we need to recognise they are in a different situation to medical staff.
The point is not to threaten individual officers with criminal sanction unless its deliberate action. Given that the officer only needs a belief that lives were in danger its incredibly hard to get prosecutions. Far better to actually find out what went wrong to allow adjustments to recruitment / tactics etc etc to prevent further shootings.
I am no suggesting a blanket immunity - just that there should be a presumption of no prosecution thus officers will be more likely to give truthful evidence with prosecution only if there is a totally egregious breach of the rules.
Normally in these sorts of incidents there is not one single failure point. there are many. Recruitment of the wrong sort of officers? Failure of briefings? failure of tactics, confusion at the site etc etc. Why should the individual officer be the only one in the dock?
Other professions use this sort of investigation IIRC - airlines, shipping?
