Armed police

It’s interesting to read some people saying “well the cps have decided xyz” as if the CPS are infallible. They are just people making decisions too and also sometimes getting it wrong. I wonder how much behind the scenes pressure to make an example of someone or try a test case etc goes on.

It’s interesting to read some people saying “well the cps have decided xyz” as if the CPS are infallible.

The same CPS that where coping serious criticism in the Russell Brand thread? 😂

Some people in here should get a medal for their mental gymnastics and jumping to conclusions.

Interesting to read some people’s feelings on armed officers.

I’m all for armed officers, they’re highly trained and vetted. They put themselves in the way of people wishing to do others harm.

My job and role within it  has put me in close contact with armed officers they have all been exclusively professional and I have never seen the responsibility to carry taken lightly.

A few points to keep in mind

We still have a valid terror threat in the uk

We still have lots of people who are not getting the support they should with regards their mental health.

There are still bad people who do not give two f’s about collateral damage

The charge of murder to the best of my knowledge requires the pre-meditated intention  (mens rea?)

This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty.

The fact that people are uncomfortable about seeing armed officers shows how disconnected they maybe are with what goes on in the background.

as if the CPS are infallible.

Are sure anyone is saying that the CPS are infallible?

Apparently the CPS believe there is sufficient evidence to justify a murder charge. If there isn’t sufficient evidence to justify a murder charge then there won’t be a conviction.

Saying the courts should decide, which is what happens under the rule of law, is not the same as saying that the CPS are infallible.

Since a few people have brought up the background to armed policing, and the intense pressure armed police officers have to face, which no doubt is an extremely valid point, it should perhaps be remembered that this is also occuring against a background in which the Metropolitan Police Force is facing its greatest crisis in its 200 year history.

There are very serious discussions currently taking place concerning whether public confidence in the Met has collapsed to the point that the only option left is for its abolition and replacement with a completely new organisation.

I personally believe that much (but definitely not all) of the criticism directly at the Met is overblown by media hysteria. Yes it has some very serious problems but I personally doubt that the Met is as racist, misogynist, and homophobic, as it was 20 or 40 years ago, although it obviously still has a long way to go. And I certainly don’t believe that a woman should feel unsafe about approaching a police officer, as many seem to believe.

Anyway it is against this background of public crisis of confidence in the Met which the murder charge decision was made. Would it have been different if there was currently much greater public confidence in the Met? I don’t know, but if we are going to talk about pressures, confidence, fears, etc, then the Met’s need to have public confidence restored should also be considered.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/mar/21/metropolitan-police-institutionally-racist-misogynistic-homophobic-louise-casey-report

Author of landmark report says Met can ‘no longer presume that it has the permission of the people of London to police them’

The Metropolitan police is broken and rotten, suffering collapsing public trust and is guilty of institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia, an official report has said.

^^ That report was commissioned by the Met itself.

<span style=”color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, ‘Helvetica Neue’, Arial, ‘Noto Sans’, sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, ‘Segoe UI’, ‘Apple Color Emoji’, ‘Segoe UI Emoji’, ‘Segoe UI Symbol’, ‘Noto Color Emoji’; background-color: #eeeeee;”>”This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty”</span>

There’s  some leaps of faith there  as big as the gap jump from by Kade.

*COULD* have decided he (or she) was going to shoot whilst on the way there.

*COULD* have decided half an hour earlier best to only shoot once as half a dozen would demonstrate excessive use

*COULD* have been an unlucky KILL when trying to just maim  (yeah I know the ‘winging’ someone is BS from TV)

Etc.

It’s my personal belief that Ernie pretty much nails it with:

it should perhaps be remembered that this is also occuring against a background in which the Metropolitan Police Force is facing its greatest crisis in its 200 year history.

There is an absolute political will to sort out the Met & bring back public confidence. I don’t know any details but given the negativity already present, now would appear to be a good time to “make an example”.

Here is some detail concerning what they are doing in attempting to regain public confidence in the Met (this is from a week ago) :

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66842521

More than 1,000 Metropolitan Police officers are currently suspended or on restricted duties, the force has said, as it tries to root out rogue officers.

In the past year 100 officers have been sacked for gross misconduct – up by 66% on the normal rate.

So on average two Met officers a week currently being sacked for gross misconduct. There is clearly a determined will to regain public confidence.

And it should be remembered that it is against this background (from the report commissioned by the Met) :

“Londoners who do not have confidence in the Met outnumber those who do, and these measures have been lower amongst black Londoners for years.

How can a police force function effectively, and to the highest standards, when only a minority of the community has confidence in them?

lol @ believing anything in the Evening Standard that’s police-favourable and based on “anonymous bystander” reports. Put that together with the “Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket and jumped the turnstile” and “Ian Tomlinson had a heart attack and brave officers were pelted with bottles as they tried to save him” bullshit the Met spread.

it suggests malice aforethought… premeditation. I am struggling to see that this officer drew weapons that day & thought “you know what, I’m gonna kill someone today”. 

This is an odd statement for someone claiming to be a police officer to make. Murder in E&W does not require “premeditation” in the sense of planning or forward thought. The intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm can be entirely spontaneous.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

Yet Wayne Couzens was selected. Yes, that was awful – but any selection process is unlikely to be perfect. Harold Shipman, Beverly Allitt and more recently Lucy Letby, demonstrate that some of these people are simply looking to control, injure and ultimately kill other people.

It’s a total mispresentation of Couzens and the to shrug and say “ahh, well, some sneaky people always slip through the screening net, what are you gonna do?” The Met had numerous opportunities to investigate Couzens and prevent further crimes and murder – and messed them all up through ineptitude and blokeism.

joined the Met from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary in September 2018,[9][10] and in February 2020[11] was assigned to the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection (PaDP) branch,[12] the division responsible for uniformed protection of government and diplomatic premises.[13] Couzens had not undergone enhanced vetting as part of his recruitment nor had he gone through the mandatory two-year probation period with the Met before joining the PaDP.[9][14] Couzens’s crimes led to a non-statutory inquiry headed by Dame Elish Angiolini into how Couzens could work as a police officer for three separate forces despite his behaviour causing concern.[15]…

not only did Kent Police not take any action after an alleged incident of indecent exposure in 2015,[63] but Couzens had faced at least two other accusations of indecent exposure that had not been properly investigated and he had been involved in an incident in 2002 that was missed in his vetting.[84] In early October 2021, it was reported that Couzens’s colleagues had once been forced to call him back to the station from patrol after a prostitute had visited the station demanding money from him.[85] In mid-October, it was reported that police were investigating claims that Couzens had sexually assaulted a drag queen at a pub in Deal in 2018.[86] Radio presenter Emma B also came forward to say that she had attempted to report Couzens in 2008, after he flashed her in an alley in Greenwich, but that the police had laughed at her.[87]…

a former Metropolitan Police officer who was assigned to investigate two counts of indecent exposure committed by Couzens in the days prior to Sarah Everard’s murder, was found guilty of gross misconduct for failing to properly investigate the incidents following a disciplinary hearing.[117]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard

This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty.

Thanks for clearing that up. No need to waste court time on a trial now.

I suppose the idea that the police can shoot us when they feel like it is just an extension of the rule that they can beat us on the head with batons when they feel like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/sep/15/met-police-agree-six-figure-payout-to-alfie-meadows-hit-by-baton-at-protest?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

I don’t know any details but given the negativity already present, now would appear to be a good time to “make an example”.

Making an example is a truly horrendous concept when it involves charging someone with murder to prove some point

Thanks for clearing that up. No need to waste court time on a trial now.

Which is clearly not what the poster has said.

I suppose the idea that the police can shoot us when they feel like it is just an extension of the rule that they can beat us on the head with batons when they feel like it.

You’re on a roll

I think one of the main points of this that has upset so many is that the chap was unarmed.

I understand (from ES reporting) that the victim was just released after a 4 year stretch for firearms offenses and driving a car that was also linked to a recent firearms offense. So while he may have been unarmed, I can also see why the cops would be treating it as if he may be.

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)

They were looking for deer poachers, hence being armed as presumably the poachers would have had guns,

I’m not sure that’s a great justification for using armed police. Poachers don’t tend to engage in gunfights.

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.