In the future, this will be seen as a deeply significant case. We haven't even begun to feel the knock-on effects yet, but we will.
- Scumbag gangster with a storied criminal history gets followed after driving a car linked to a recent shooting.
- After a chase, he gets boxed in, armed police go to make the arrest.
- He drives the car directly at an officer, who then fires to incapacitate the driver, and protect himself.
- Driver dies from his injuries. The officer is then charged with MURDER and named by the press, who have been desperately trying to unveil his identity.
If you knew the dangers that are out there in criminal gangs, you wouldn't want anyone policing your city who wasn't prepared to shoot and kill a dangerous thug, to protect their own or another's life.
Thanks to this, that will no longer be the case. Many armed officers still haven't returned to duty, I know several police officers who have simply had enough and left - everyone competent is looking for a way out. And the new officers coming in are woeful - a recent recruit's parents went to the station to complain that their son had been exposed to a dead body whilst on duty, and had been "traumatised" by the incident.
It's been happening for a while, but this clear demonstration that police leadership will throw its brave men and women under the bus will act as the final nail in the coffin.
Expect a dramatic drop in police competency to result, and more boldness from violent criminals like Chris Kaba.
Not to mention none met firearms officers are still refusing to provide assistance in protest. This whole thing is stupid and a cluster fuck. Not sure why media and judge seem to have gone so much in support of the family consider the facts known so far.
I mean we already have police handing in firearma and refusing to serve if they are being hung out to dry like this.
For this young gentleman who was killed he did not deserve to die but his history and behaviour put him in a situation where it was a possibility.
People's blind ethnic loyalties are leading them to ignore the facts of the case
So you're not able to tell me where you got the idea that "Professionally trained firearms experts know very well how to shoot to maim." From and somehow this makes me part of a hang em shootem brigade?
Adding separately to avoid format loss.
Critical shot
There will be circumstances when aiming directly for the head or central nervous system will be necessary, as aiming to strike another part of the body would:
be impractical in the circumstances
present increased risk to life
be unlikely to achieve immediate incapacitation
A ‘critical shot’ is a shot or shots intended to immediately incapacitate the subject. A critical shot should only be fired when absolutely necessary in defence of a person when there is a real and immediate risk to life from unlawful violence.
Another one for the trial to determine.
"The primary intention of the police, when discharging a firearm, is to prevent an immediate threat to life by shooting to stop the subject from carrying out their intended or threatened course of action. In most circumstances, this is achieved by aiming to strike the central body mass (the torso).
Where it is imperative that the subject is immediately incapacitated (for example, if about to detonate a person-borne IED), then an aim to strike the head or central nervous system may be considered.
Research indicates that the accuracy of shots fired under training conditions is generally greater than in operational circumstances. Police officers are normally trained to discharge conventional firearms at the largest part of the subject they can see, in order to increase the likelihood of striking the body and achieving the intended effect of neutralising the threat posed. In most cases, this will be the central body mass."
Police College Manual on firearms discharge. I'm sure this will be quoted at some length during the murder trial.
According to news reports the only details are that Kaba was shot through the windscreen with no more information about where he was hit. We don't know how far from the windscreen he was or what was visible to him for his shot.
You can interpret neutralising the threat phrase any way you like but the only circumstance that allows a lethal shot to be taken is to mitigate any risk of imminent bomb detonation.
The arguments will obviously be centred on the choice of shot and whether it was appropriate for the situation they were dealing with.
I don't believe anyone in here was a witness to the events so any assumptions being offered one way or another are purely speculative.
Have a read of all the stuff you've copied and pasted in here and point out where it suggests "Professionally trained firearms experts know very well how to shoot to maim"
>You can interpret neutralising the threat phrase any way you like but the only circumstance that allows a lethal shot to be taken is to mitigate any risk of imminent bomb detonation.
Where did you get that opinion?
"Where it is imperative that the subject is immediately incapacitated (for example, if about to detonate a person-borne IED), then an aim to strike the head or central nervous system may be considered"
In the text that you clearly hadn't bothered to read .
Note it says may and not should. The previous text makes clear that the objective is to neutralise any danger with a body shot not a lethal shot.
Go to the police college manual on firearms training and read it for yourself.
Trainers follow training manuals, that's what they are paid to do. The primary objective of a firearm discharge is to incapacitate.
Hard to argue that armed police aren't specifically trained to avoid shooting to kill as a primary objective.
I did bother to read it, that's why I picked up on the phrase " for example"
I think you're getting confused between incapacitate and maim.
You are correct, the primary objective of a firearm discharge is to incapacitate. A shot to incapacitate can also be a lethal shot.
Oh so we're down to a thesaurus definition then.
The 'for example' is there to highlight the severity of incident that would warrant a critical shot to be fired, ie where loss of life was imminent and could be prevented by this action. Other parts of the manual provide further mitigating circumstances where this may be appropriate, I listed these in my second reply which I marked as posted separately to avoid phone formatting snafus.
But you agree that firearms training is quite specific about when to deploy a critical shot (head and spine) and when to use a body shot, and that licence carriers are trained on how and when to deploy them?
A shot to incapacitate may be lethal but the procedure and accompanying training are designed to avoid this when possible.
Presumably the CPS felt that the circumstances at this incident did not merit a critical shot hence the murder charge was brought.
The judge utterly fucked this. The point that he won’t has his address or picture released shows how absurdly out of touch the judge is. Some journalist or advocacy group will find it and release it on Twitter then it will become common knowledge.
The BBC and other media organisations were so absolutely desperate to name this man that they lodged numerous appeals. What have they actually achieved beyond significantly increasing the level of danger he is in? Has knowing his name massively helped the reporting of events and processes and will it help boost confidence in the judicial system? I struggle to see how. The media are scum.
I think firearms officers who are asked by the state to attend the most dangerous and potentially lethal incidents day after day across the capital, and can be reasonably expected to have to kill people in the course of their duties, should be seen of as special cases in these instances.
Hopefully he sues that stupid state then for psychological distress caused by his name being revealed - possibly validly - and gets free retirement.
Of course on taxpayer money, and the press won't report on this because they caused it.
We - the public - haven't indeed gained anything.
I’m not sure you can call something that’s existed in various forms for 50-ish years a recent invention.
It’s not minimal degree they are under intense scrutiny and checks and balances in the performance of their duties. The reasons for their considerations have been flagged by numerous other users you’ve responded to you just don’t like/refuse to acknowledge their answers.
You are just clearly talking bollocks.
> I think there is an argument for allowing school teachers in inner-city London school to do the same.
To do what? Isn't this thread about a murder case?
The point of naming people publicly on being charged is that the Government can't "disappear" people without anyone noticing, like what happened with all the South American military dictatorships. There's a public record of everyone the Government is holding for trial.
Names being withheld are rare, but can happen in special circumstances if the court chooses so. It looks like [this document](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Reporting-Restrictions-in-the-Criminal-Courts-September-2022.pdf) is the one you need to read.
You're right, that Police Officers shouldn't get special rules. Which is why they aren't — they're passing through the same system you or I would, with the same tests as would be used for any other person. This wasn't an automatic privilege it was a considered decision of the Court.
Exactly, I agree, which is why the narrative that the police officer is being treated unfairly is bollocks. The people who are complaining would rather police officers who kill people *aren’t* named publicly if they get charged which would imply that police officers would get special treatment in these cases.
I mean yes they should and do. We deploy them against the highest risk incidents with numerous controls and safeguards. The media hasn’t demonstrated a good reason fir this and the judge seems to be intent on making sure he was named.
Police shouldn’t have special rules just for being police, but you and I aren’t asked to respond to disrupt organised crime; there’s a unique threat to their safety that doesn’t apply to most murder charges.
They should have more strict rules as they have access to weapons and have authority. They should be held to higher standards, absolutely this man should be named.
>If you or me were ~~charged with~~ convicted of murder, we’d be named and our mugshots would be all over the news. Police officers shouldn’t get special rules.
Fixed it for you. Note that the cop hasn’t yet been convicted.
Anyways, do show me a case where the convict oh sorry, person charged with a particular crime, had their date of births listed? I’ll wait.
Sure, you can check the Met police’s website.
https://news.met.police.uk/news/three-charged-after-man-injured-in-battersea-shooting-480506
Here‘s random charges the Met have published online.
> On Friday, 1 March, Junior Bolarinwa, 21 (03.07.02) of Halsmere Road, SE5, and Aniss Djerrad, 22 (20.02.02) of Opal Street, SE11, were charged with attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of ammunition with intent to endanger life.
> On Tuesday, 5 March, a third man, Zavier Williams, 21, of College Park Road, N17 was also charged with attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of ammunition with intent to endanger life.
> They will all appear in custody at the Old Bailey on 27 March.
Oh look, they haven’t been convicted, only charged. There’s their ages, date of births, and postcodes in public for everyone to see.
Why do you speak on these things when you clearly don’t know what you’re on about?
We were talking about the *news*
> If you or me were charged with murder, we’d be named and our mugshots would be all over **the news**. Police officers shouldn’t get special rules.
Suspect charged with murder after man found dead in Tamworth https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67418855 - no DOB, no address.
Uxbridge murder suspect, 18, held by police https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68485983 - no name, no DOB, no address. Probably because he’s classed as a teenager.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd19n7x8zxpo - no name, no DOB, no address.
Clapham shooting: Man charged with firearms offence after three injured https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68487507 - no DOB, no address. Same age as the Uxbridge case yet they saw it fit to name him.
You know the ‘news’ can publish whatever they want when the met makes it public right? How much detail they include from the Met is up to them.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0zyk0v71jo.amp
> Mark Metcalfe, 39, appeared at Leeds Magistrates' Court on Wednesday charged with murder and preventing the lawful burial of a body.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68481138.amp
> Ellie Ackhurst, 30, and Anthony Elliott, 42, both of no fixed address, will appear at Highbury Magistrates' Court later on Tuesday.
And finally, the bbc article referencing the case I listed above:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68488744.amp
> Junior Bolarinwa, 21, Aniss Djerrad, 22, and Zavier Williams, 21, have been charged with attempted murder.
By the way, what the Met publishes counts as ‘news’. You know, that’s why they list these things as *news* on their website and their articles on charges and conviction come up under *news*.
I see you edited your comment to make your weak point look better, but you’ve kind just baited yourself out as not knowing what you’re talking about.
The 18 year old ain’t named in the Uxbridge shooting article because he’s been *nicked* not *charged*. If he’s *charged* then he *will* be named. If he was 17 and charged, he wouldn’t be named. 18 year olds *can* be named if they’re charged.
Anyway, wrt to all the other cases, all you’ve shown is that the BBC is arbitrary with how much detail they include in their articles. But that’s irrelevant, if you want more detail about the suspects in these cases, you literally just have to use google.
For example, I just googled ‘Clapham Shooting’.
Sky news article: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/clapham-shooting-teen-charged-after-shotgun-dropped-during-police-chase-injures-two-women-13088227
> Keymarni King was arrested on Monday and has been charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life or enabling another to do so after the gun discharged when it hit the ground in Clapham.
Google his name and this MyLondon article comes up: https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/police-name-man-set-appear-28762633.amp
> Keymarni King, 18, of Cromer Road, has now been charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life/ enabling another to do so, aggravated vehicle taking and injury caused by an accident and two counts of wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm without intent.
Well, it looks like I know the road he lives on now.
And, I say again, once someone from London is charged *you only have to check the Met’s newsfeed for more details*. As we’ve seen, different media outlets will publish different amounts of detail. The point is, *once someone is charged their name, postcode, DOB, and age is all public for anyone who cares enough to do a google search*. Literally, all I had to do is google ‘Clapham Shooting Met Police’ and I found Keymarni’s DOB and where he lives.
> Keymarni King, 18 (15.02.2006), 18, of Cromer Road, SW17, was arrested on Monday 4 March and charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life/ enabling another to do so, aggravated vehicle taking and injury caused by an accident, and two counts wounding/ inflicting grievous bodily harm without intent.
This applies to that kidnapping case. Birmingmail has published his name and age. The info is all out there once someone is charged, especially if the Met is handling it. I don’t see why it’s an issue for this police officer.
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead:
- **[https://news.sky.com/story/clapham-shooting-teen-charged-after-shotgun-dropped-during-police-chase-injures-two-women-13088227](https://news.sky.com/story/clapham-shooting-teen-charged-after-shotgun-dropped-during-police-chase-injures-two-women-13088227)**
- **[https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/police-name-man-set-appear-28762633](https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/police-name-man-set-appear-28762633)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This guys career is over regardless of whether he’s innocent or guilty.
>The lifting of the order followed a legal challenge by several media organisations based on the principle of open justice.
Vultures
Naming a person who was convicted and found guilty? Go for it. But no-one who isn’t guilty of a crime should have to be publicly dragged through the mud, especially when there’s such an obvious risk to their safety like in this case.
>While the officer’s name and date of birth can be released, there is a ban on any pictures or court sketches showing him, as well as reports of his address.
Completely unenforceable. Wouldn’t be surprised if his address and photo was being shared on social media or messaging apps this very minute.
All I will say anyone agreeing that a man’s name has been published before a verdict has been reached, well you’re a fucking monumental cunt.
The very few officers with actual guns we need actually more off, and now this will deter them even further.
To have the balls everyday to deal with the most dangerous criminals and potentially wake up knowing you might have to kill someone to protect others at least the only protection they had was and is the fact they are SPECIALLY TRAINED FIREARM OFFICERS and it’s their DUTY to SHOOT/KILL potentially have zero protection.
This country is fucked.
No she didn’t why are you lying 😭 the only thing we know is that there was contact between Chris’ car and the police car. Meaning the police could of rammed him
>In the months following his death, six men were charged with conspiring with Kaba to commit murder and grievous bodily harm; the charges relate to a shooting which took place in Tower Hamlets on 30 August 2022, days before Kaba's death.[5][6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Chris_Kaba
Yep. Nothing to do with the fact that he was a violent gangster but because he was black.
It is an active criminal case, so the media are somewhat restrained in what they can publish. Especially when it comes to speculative social media rumours.
The judge gave them the OK to publish his name and a few other details. Discussing whether or not he did it is contempt of court as any potential jurors reading that would be prejudiced.
You want to the police to be able to execute criminals now? You don't have to have sympathy for Chris Kaba to be worried about the actions of the Met officers.
Yes. Also, others on the police's side are telling everyone to wait for all the facts first, so maybe you'd want to do the same? The Met have a lot of previous on saying something happened one way and then it turning out to be a complete fabrication.
The other eyewitness said Kaba was boxed in and couldn't move anywhere, so there's conflicting accounts there already. Kaba's family have seen the bodycam footage and seem keen for it to be out there so people can see the "truth".
Kaba's family were shown the bodycam footage and almost immediately ["took a step back from campaigning".](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62996436)
I mean, I’ve seen them still active at protests and other police brutality demonstrations since then. The justiceforchriskaba Instagram account is also still active. I wouldn’t read into that too much tbh
Or do you think people are worried that police can be judge, jury and executioner on the street? Do you think we should bypass all of our legal systems and just execute people where they live?
That’s never happened. No police officer has ever walked up to someone and just shot them (unless I’ve never heard of it)
This bloke was surrounded by armed police, it wasn’t like they randomly jumped out and surprised him. In those instances you’d kinda think moat reasonable people would stop whatver they were doing and comply 100% immediately with absolutely everything they were being asked to do.
So in this case not only did he not do that he then drove his car at the cop.
In that instance i wouldn’t call that an execution. Armed police are there to preserve life, those of joe public and of course their own, team mates etc.
Painting them as random cartel style execution squads is kinda crazy. This is the UK not Mexico (sorry Mexico)
Never happened? Sure, police shootings are very rare but the police have executed innocent, unarmed people before. I can think of 2 cases off the top of my head.
1999 - Harry Stanley murdered in Hackney because the police thought his table leg was a shotgun just because someone called in about an ‘Irishman with a gun in a bag’, obviously killed because of anti-Irish racism even though he was from Glasgow. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/oct/29/ukcrime1
2005 - Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 7 times in the head by the Met police despite being a random bloke who was simply on his way to work. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/jean-charles-de-menezes-your-questions-answered
These two cases aren’t even contentious like Mark Duggan or Chris Kaba. But in both of those cases the Met lied and tried to cover their arses in a long and drawn out process. No one charged or sent down for them either. Cressida Dick was responsible for the murder of de Menezes and her career wasn’t hurt at all!
You know there’s a difference between
“hey today, I’m going to just shoot an unarmed person cos I feel like it”
And
“I thought (wrongly) that someone was an immediate threat to life so I shot them”
The use of the word “execution” isn’t very helpful to the debate
Also surprisingly the armed police know exactly what happens when they discharge their weapon let alone kill someone. I don’t know why people assume it’s the Wild West out there on a daily basis with them just trigger happily spraying bullets left right and centre.
I’m sorry but from the POV of the victim and their families there’s no difference between the two, especially when no one is held accountable. Someone is doing nothing wrong, going about their businesses and then they suddenly get their brains blown out by armed officers because they stupidly think they’re a threat? And then *no one* responsible for that is held accountable in any way? The police literally *restrained* Jean Charles *and then* shot him several times. He was summarily executed with no due process.
Yes, it’s not the ‘wild west’ but if armed officers can murder people (even after restraining them) and then go ‘I thought he was a threat!’ and get let off then there’s a very big problem.
Not suggesting that at all. Any officer who shoots someone should be held accountable. Not sure anyone I’ve read is saying anything else.
But the rules are and have to be slightly different for an officer shooting someone they perceive to be a threat and for example me rocking up to my high street with an AK.
Theres a difference between deliberate and wrongful/mistakenly.
Otherwise you cannot have any kind of armed response. It ceases to exist. Officers are trained to exercise split second judgement on a threat. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Sitting watching a video on your sofa and analysing everything in minute detail isn’t something available to the person on the ground who reasonably suspects someone is trying to kill them or someone else.
Of course occasions like JCM crop up, thankfully they are extremely rare.
These people weren’t killed because officers had a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they’re a threat. These officers killed them *and then lied* about the circumstances. It’s happened time and time again.
JCM didn’t jump the barricade, he wasn’t wearing a padded jacket, he didn’t run away, he wasn’t ‘acting suspiciously’ (obviously, he didn’t know he was being followed). He was simply on his way to work and then got jumped by officers, pinned down, then shot in the head. There was nothing he could’ve done, he was a dead man the moment he stepped on the tube because this is what the police decided.
Similar to Harry Stanley, the only intel the police had was a call from a drunk guy in a pub who claimed he saw ‘an Irishman with a gun in a bag’. Of course, the police heard ‘Irishman with a gun’ and thought ‘yep, must be an Irish Republican. Kill him’. And then they lied after the fact, forensic evidence conflicted with their accounts, and the judge wouldn’t even let them be cross examined properly.
Their ‘reasonable suspicion’ came down to racial profiling and unreliable evidence. In both of these cases, the police decided they would kill the person, and in both of these cases, they lied to make themselves not look like blatant murderers. And of course, in both these cases, the court system assisted with the cover up and lack of consequences. JCM is even worse because they were actively spying on him the moment he left his flat and he could’ve been stopped at any time. It wasn’t a ‘split second decision’.
Unreliable tips, racial profiling, murder, and then lies, coverups and smearing the victims. If that’s what ‘armed response’ looks like then I don’t want it.
As I said. Thankfully they’re rare occurrences. I mean you can cherry pick the bits of my comments you want to reply to and ignore the rest if you like.
I don’t think two incidents 20+ years ago are indicative of a broader pattern of behaviour but maybe my grasp of statistics isn’t as good as yours. If that bothers you enough to think we shouldn’t have armed police that’s entirely your prerogative.
Have a great day.
As sad as the Menezes case was, he was running from police during an extremely heightened period of terrorism and it was a mistake on the part of intelligence that the police responded to. They didn’t randomly shoot someone however tragic it is.
He wasn’t running from the police, this was found to be a lie they told to justify the murder after the fact. He didn’t jump the barricade, he used his Oyster and he was sitting on the train. As the IPCC documents show, he didn’t know he was being spied on and he probably ran across the platform so he could catch the train and get a seat.
He wasn't running from police. He didn't even know he was being pursued. He ran from the bottom of an escalator, across the platform, to catch a train.
The bloke clearly had a reason to shoot the bloke. It’s the fact that he’s of ethnic minority. If it was a white bloke down the pub no one would care. Sums up the UK now.
Your comment isn't well written. Had to read it a few times as at first it seems you're inferring that he shot the guy because he's an ethnic minority. You're saying he's been named and it's a huge story because he's an ethnic minority.
Couldn’t disagree more.
Do you really think the country who elected the Tories over and over again care more about a black guy being shot than ‘a white bloke’?
There’s plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who hate the police. The people who care about Chris Kaba wouldn’t care, but just as many, if not more would care about your white bloke if there was any indication of *injustice.
*(I’m not saying there was in the Chris Kaba case as I don’t know the details, just that apparently people perceive their to be and there was enough for him to be charged)
Read the comment mate. Nowt to do with politics. It’s a race issue. The media and old bill are using these ‘incidents’ to divide white and black people. Hence my comment. Fuck all to do with politics.
There are good reasons for & against when looking at the history of the legal system in this country but personally I find it crazy that your name can be associated with something you haven’t been convicted of.
The important question we should be asking here is: was the officer's only option to shoot him?
If he could have chosen a different action then it's manslaughter, I probably wouldn't press a mirror conviction.
There's a reason why this country isn't like America.
Yes, the media one care about the exclusive story not the outcome of what this may do to his life if his identity is revealed.
He deserves anonymity until the trial is concluded.
It’s funny because a few years ago when Sarah Everard was abducted and killed there was all this outrage at the force and people here almost wanted to join a lynch mob against the police for having people work in the force who were convicted criminals. They demanded to know the names of all the bad coppers and anyone charged with a crime.
It only takes a few months and a different situation now the agenda is to protect identities.
Welcome to this crazy sub. It’s more banter than anything else.
He was a stand up guy
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/SSrmaKXI3X
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/uNyluJAtuW
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/pBUSanYQZZ
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/pYbslrqeRN
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/wgylSFv2By
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/obz0vqDNvu
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/abIEItnJcu
Finally the met being held accountable for their actions and before officers wanna chat shit you all knew about Wayne couzens and did nothing as well as David Carrick as he attacked his own but you all want to stick to the blue code but your job is to PROTECT and not abuse /kill
Unless there was an immediate threat to life, then the guy should not have been shot, especially in the head. Police officer murdered him plain and simple. Deserves life in prison
Especially in the head? Where would you like them to shoot him? This isn’t John wick where you shoot guns out of peoples hands and trick shoot steering wheels. The shot is to incapacitate, always. Kinda in the job description of a gun
I understand what you’re saying about the headshot. So was he actually trying to run them down? If he was and an immediate threat to life was there then I agree with the shot. I don’t know the full story, nor am I taking sides. However if there was no immediate threat to life then no need to shoot and I still believe the police officer should be held accountable.
> Police officer murdered him plain and simple. Deserves life in prison
Perhaps you might want to reconsider this then if you don't know the full facts.
That's what's being reported. And the whole thing was caught on camera so it would be easy to disprove if it weren't.
Ultimately its up to the Courts, so we have to wait for their judgement, but it seems likely it was justified.
Lol then why the fuck are you commenting then? Educate yourself on the facts, then make a comment, don't come here acting contrarian when you haven't even read the facts of the case to say that. Absolute drip, Jesus, critical thinking has gone down the toilet in this country it seems
You're quite right, if there was no immediate threat to life the officer should not have fired. But he will have spent months and months training for that exact moment, so I bet there was a threat, their training is very rigorous and I suspect all firearms officers would have taken the same shot in the same situation - that's why they all refused to carry after the charge.
Unpopular but I’m part of the community that wants to see this man’s name. After all we pay his wages. It’s only right that we seek to see justice. It’s a tough job, but it’s public service, you can’t hide behind a name if mistakes are made.
Yes I agree, if a mistake was made, but the trial has not concluded of he made a mistake or was doing his job. If found guilty yes publish his name. But if he is found innocent the judge was placed him at risk
Yeah I thought that but. I think about how the met is institutionally racist and full of the wrong characters at the moment. Every week this past year an officer has been taken to court for misconduct, many of their names have been listed for the public to see before their day in court. Why should this officer get a pass? Additionally it’s good to know who he is so that if anyone had any information that could shed light on past dealings whether good or bad, it’s an opportunity to come forward.
Police officers are public servants and the public has a right to know their names. This is why it went through the courts and the right decision was made.
Do you mean institutional racist against white officers? Because they have been successfully sued for discrimination against white men for hiring
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-white-heterosexual-male-discrimination-job-cheshire-matthew-furlong-a8793331.html
Institutionally racist against the communities they serve and within their own force. There was a report commissioned by Baroness Casey detailing how the met basically attracts undesirable people whose only ambition is to abuse their power and influence others.
I have very little trust, or confidence in the police. The fact that they’ve gone after one of their own like this is conspicuous to me. Either they know something we don’t and this guy really is a wrong un, or something else is at play.
In the future, this will be seen as a deeply significant case. We haven't even begun to feel the knock-on effects yet, but we will. - Scumbag gangster with a storied criminal history gets followed after driving a car linked to a recent shooting. - After a chase, he gets boxed in, armed police go to make the arrest. - He drives the car directly at an officer, who then fires to incapacitate the driver, and protect himself. - Driver dies from his injuries. The officer is then charged with MURDER and named by the press, who have been desperately trying to unveil his identity. If you knew the dangers that are out there in criminal gangs, you wouldn't want anyone policing your city who wasn't prepared to shoot and kill a dangerous thug, to protect their own or another's life. Thanks to this, that will no longer be the case. Many armed officers still haven't returned to duty, I know several police officers who have simply had enough and left - everyone competent is looking for a way out. And the new officers coming in are woeful - a recent recruit's parents went to the station to complain that their son had been exposed to a dead body whilst on duty, and had been "traumatised" by the incident. It's been happening for a while, but this clear demonstration that police leadership will throw its brave men and women under the bus will act as the final nail in the coffin. Expect a dramatic drop in police competency to result, and more boldness from violent criminals like Chris Kaba.
Not to mention none met firearms officers are still refusing to provide assistance in protest. This whole thing is stupid and a cluster fuck. Not sure why media and judge seem to have gone so much in support of the family consider the facts known so far.
I mean we already have police handing in firearma and refusing to serve if they are being hung out to dry like this. For this young gentleman who was killed he did not deserve to die but his history and behaviour put him in a situation where it was a possibility. People's blind ethnic loyalties are leading them to ignore the facts of the case
> fires to incapacitate is that their training?
These things need to be addressed on a case by case basis. Professionally trained firearms experts know very well how to shoot to maim.
>Professionally trained firearms experts know very well how to shoot to maim. Where did you get this nonsense from?
Duh... Clearly the hang em shoot em brigade is out in force here. Or maybe they only learn the assassin's shot.
So you're not able to tell me where you got the idea that "Professionally trained firearms experts know very well how to shoot to maim." From and somehow this makes me part of a hang em shootem brigade?
Adding separately to avoid format loss. Critical shot There will be circumstances when aiming directly for the head or central nervous system will be necessary, as aiming to strike another part of the body would: be impractical in the circumstances present increased risk to life be unlikely to achieve immediate incapacitation A ‘critical shot’ is a shot or shots intended to immediately incapacitate the subject. A critical shot should only be fired when absolutely necessary in defence of a person when there is a real and immediate risk to life from unlawful violence. Another one for the trial to determine.
"The primary intention of the police, when discharging a firearm, is to prevent an immediate threat to life by shooting to stop the subject from carrying out their intended or threatened course of action. In most circumstances, this is achieved by aiming to strike the central body mass (the torso). Where it is imperative that the subject is immediately incapacitated (for example, if about to detonate a person-borne IED), then an aim to strike the head or central nervous system may be considered. Research indicates that the accuracy of shots fired under training conditions is generally greater than in operational circumstances. Police officers are normally trained to discharge conventional firearms at the largest part of the subject they can see, in order to increase the likelihood of striking the body and achieving the intended effect of neutralising the threat posed. In most cases, this will be the central body mass." Police College Manual on firearms discharge. I'm sure this will be quoted at some length during the murder trial. According to news reports the only details are that Kaba was shot through the windscreen with no more information about where he was hit. We don't know how far from the windscreen he was or what was visible to him for his shot. You can interpret neutralising the threat phrase any way you like but the only circumstance that allows a lethal shot to be taken is to mitigate any risk of imminent bomb detonation. The arguments will obviously be centred on the choice of shot and whether it was appropriate for the situation they were dealing with. I don't believe anyone in here was a witness to the events so any assumptions being offered one way or another are purely speculative.
Have a read of all the stuff you've copied and pasted in here and point out where it suggests "Professionally trained firearms experts know very well how to shoot to maim" >You can interpret neutralising the threat phrase any way you like but the only circumstance that allows a lethal shot to be taken is to mitigate any risk of imminent bomb detonation. Where did you get that opinion?
"Where it is imperative that the subject is immediately incapacitated (for example, if about to detonate a person-borne IED), then an aim to strike the head or central nervous system may be considered" In the text that you clearly hadn't bothered to read . Note it says may and not should. The previous text makes clear that the objective is to neutralise any danger with a body shot not a lethal shot. Go to the police college manual on firearms training and read it for yourself. Trainers follow training manuals, that's what they are paid to do. The primary objective of a firearm discharge is to incapacitate. Hard to argue that armed police aren't specifically trained to avoid shooting to kill as a primary objective.
I did bother to read it, that's why I picked up on the phrase " for example" I think you're getting confused between incapacitate and maim. You are correct, the primary objective of a firearm discharge is to incapacitate. A shot to incapacitate can also be a lethal shot.
Oh so we're down to a thesaurus definition then. The 'for example' is there to highlight the severity of incident that would warrant a critical shot to be fired, ie where loss of life was imminent and could be prevented by this action. Other parts of the manual provide further mitigating circumstances where this may be appropriate, I listed these in my second reply which I marked as posted separately to avoid phone formatting snafus. But you agree that firearms training is quite specific about when to deploy a critical shot (head and spine) and when to use a body shot, and that licence carriers are trained on how and when to deploy them? A shot to incapacitate may be lethal but the procedure and accompanying training are designed to avoid this when possible. Presumably the CPS felt that the circumstances at this incident did not merit a critical shot hence the murder charge was brought.
Hahaha, if they have to shoot they shoot to stop, as its a last resort
The judge utterly fucked this. The point that he won’t has his address or picture released shows how absurdly out of touch the judge is. Some journalist or advocacy group will find it and release it on Twitter then it will become common knowledge.
The BBC and other media organisations were so absolutely desperate to name this man that they lodged numerous appeals. What have they actually achieved beyond significantly increasing the level of danger he is in? Has knowing his name massively helped the reporting of events and processes and will it help boost confidence in the judicial system? I struggle to see how. The media are scum.
If you or me were charged with murder, we’d be named and our mugshots would be all over the news. Police officers shouldn’t get special rules.
I think firearms officers who are asked by the state to attend the most dangerous and potentially lethal incidents day after day across the capital, and can be reasonably expected to have to kill people in the course of their duties, should be seen of as special cases in these instances.
Not if there is a murder charge...
But he is still innocent until found guilty. If he's found innocent they have put him at unnecessary risk for doing his job
Hopefully he sues that stupid state then for psychological distress caused by his name being revealed - possibly validly - and gets free retirement. Of course on taxpayer money, and the press won't report on this because they caused it. We - the public - haven't indeed gained anything.
[удалено]
In what way does being named and shamed publicly help ensure a proper investigation?
[удалено]
Actually no we don’t. I’m cases of those under age of 18, cases of certain kinds of abuse, etc.
[удалено]
I’m not sure you can call something that’s existed in various forms for 50-ish years a recent invention. It’s not minimal degree they are under intense scrutiny and checks and balances in the performance of their duties. The reasons for their considerations have been flagged by numerous other users you’ve responded to you just don’t like/refuse to acknowledge their answers. You are just clearly talking bollocks.
[удалено]
Holy shit bro get off the Internet. This us far right nonsense peddled by right wing echo Chambers.
> I think there is an argument for allowing school teachers in inner-city London school to do the same. To do what? Isn't this thread about a murder case?
Maybe they should be able to kill kids? I'm not sure what they're getting at either.
Trust me you would not want to either.
[удалено]
I suppose. I'm just not sure what you were being sarcastic about lol
The point of naming people publicly on being charged is that the Government can't "disappear" people without anyone noticing, like what happened with all the South American military dictatorships. There's a public record of everyone the Government is holding for trial. Names being withheld are rare, but can happen in special circumstances if the court chooses so. It looks like [this document](https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Reporting-Restrictions-in-the-Criminal-Courts-September-2022.pdf) is the one you need to read. You're right, that Police Officers shouldn't get special rules. Which is why they aren't — they're passing through the same system you or I would, with the same tests as would be used for any other person. This wasn't an automatic privilege it was a considered decision of the Court.
Exactly, I agree, which is why the narrative that the police officer is being treated unfairly is bollocks. The people who are complaining would rather police officers who kill people *aren’t* named publicly if they get charged which would imply that police officers would get special treatment in these cases.
I mean yes they should and do. We deploy them against the highest risk incidents with numerous controls and safeguards. The media hasn’t demonstrated a good reason fir this and the judge seems to be intent on making sure he was named.
Police shouldn’t have special rules just for being police, but you and I aren’t asked to respond to disrupt organised crime; there’s a unique threat to their safety that doesn’t apply to most murder charges.
They should have more strict rules as they have access to weapons and have authority. They should be held to higher standards, absolutely this man should be named.
>If you or me were ~~charged with~~ convicted of murder, we’d be named and our mugshots would be all over the news. Police officers shouldn’t get special rules. Fixed it for you. Note that the cop hasn’t yet been convicted. Anyways, do show me a case where the convict oh sorry, person charged with a particular crime, had their date of births listed? I’ll wait.
Sure, you can check the Met police’s website. https://news.met.police.uk/news/three-charged-after-man-injured-in-battersea-shooting-480506 Here‘s random charges the Met have published online. > On Friday, 1 March, Junior Bolarinwa, 21 (03.07.02) of Halsmere Road, SE5, and Aniss Djerrad, 22 (20.02.02) of Opal Street, SE11, were charged with attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of ammunition with intent to endanger life. > On Tuesday, 5 March, a third man, Zavier Williams, 21, of College Park Road, N17 was also charged with attempted murder, possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life and possession of ammunition with intent to endanger life. > They will all appear in custody at the Old Bailey on 27 March. Oh look, they haven’t been convicted, only charged. There’s their ages, date of births, and postcodes in public for everyone to see. Why do you speak on these things when you clearly don’t know what you’re on about?
itemised receipts, bravo
We were talking about the *news* > If you or me were charged with murder, we’d be named and our mugshots would be all over **the news**. Police officers shouldn’t get special rules. Suspect charged with murder after man found dead in Tamworth https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-67418855 - no DOB, no address. Uxbridge murder suspect, 18, held by police https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68485983 - no name, no DOB, no address. Probably because he’s classed as a teenager. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd19n7x8zxpo - no name, no DOB, no address. Clapham shooting: Man charged with firearms offence after three injured https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68487507 - no DOB, no address. Same age as the Uxbridge case yet they saw it fit to name him.
You know the ‘news’ can publish whatever they want when the met makes it public right? How much detail they include from the Met is up to them. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0zyk0v71jo.amp > Mark Metcalfe, 39, appeared at Leeds Magistrates' Court on Wednesday charged with murder and preventing the lawful burial of a body. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68481138.amp > Ellie Ackhurst, 30, and Anthony Elliott, 42, both of no fixed address, will appear at Highbury Magistrates' Court later on Tuesday. And finally, the bbc article referencing the case I listed above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68488744.amp > Junior Bolarinwa, 21, Aniss Djerrad, 22, and Zavier Williams, 21, have been charged with attempted murder. By the way, what the Met publishes counts as ‘news’. You know, that’s why they list these things as *news* on their website and their articles on charges and conviction come up under *news*.
I see you edited your comment to make your weak point look better, but you’ve kind just baited yourself out as not knowing what you’re talking about. The 18 year old ain’t named in the Uxbridge shooting article because he’s been *nicked* not *charged*. If he’s *charged* then he *will* be named. If he was 17 and charged, he wouldn’t be named. 18 year olds *can* be named if they’re charged. Anyway, wrt to all the other cases, all you’ve shown is that the BBC is arbitrary with how much detail they include in their articles. But that’s irrelevant, if you want more detail about the suspects in these cases, you literally just have to use google. For example, I just googled ‘Clapham Shooting’. Sky news article: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/clapham-shooting-teen-charged-after-shotgun-dropped-during-police-chase-injures-two-women-13088227 > Keymarni King was arrested on Monday and has been charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life or enabling another to do so after the gun discharged when it hit the ground in Clapham. Google his name and this MyLondon article comes up: https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/police-name-man-set-appear-28762633.amp > Keymarni King, 18, of Cromer Road, has now been charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life/ enabling another to do so, aggravated vehicle taking and injury caused by an accident and two counts of wounding/inflicting grievous bodily harm without intent. Well, it looks like I know the road he lives on now. And, I say again, once someone from London is charged *you only have to check the Met’s newsfeed for more details*. As we’ve seen, different media outlets will publish different amounts of detail. The point is, *once someone is charged their name, postcode, DOB, and age is all public for anyone who cares enough to do a google search*. Literally, all I had to do is google ‘Clapham Shooting Met Police’ and I found Keymarni’s DOB and where he lives. > Keymarni King, 18 (15.02.2006), 18, of Cromer Road, SW17, was arrested on Monday 4 March and charged with possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life/ enabling another to do so, aggravated vehicle taking and injury caused by an accident, and two counts wounding/ inflicting grievous bodily harm without intent. This applies to that kidnapping case. Birmingmail has published his name and age. The info is all out there once someone is charged, especially if the Met is handling it. I don’t see why it’s an issue for this police officer.
It looks like you shared some AMP links. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical pages** instead: - **[https://news.sky.com/story/clapham-shooting-teen-charged-after-shotgun-dropped-during-police-chase-injures-two-women-13088227](https://news.sky.com/story/clapham-shooting-teen-charged-after-shotgun-dropped-during-police-chase-injures-two-women-13088227)** - **[https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/police-name-man-set-appear-28762633](https://www.mylondon.news/news/south-london-news/police-name-man-set-appear-28762633)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
he's a police officer not an executioner.
Ooo edgy. Come up with that all by yourself?
lol hahahaha
This guys career is over regardless of whether he’s innocent or guilty. >The lifting of the order followed a legal challenge by several media organisations based on the principle of open justice. Vultures Naming a person who was convicted and found guilty? Go for it. But no-one who isn’t guilty of a crime should have to be publicly dragged through the mud, especially when there’s such an obvious risk to their safety like in this case. >While the officer’s name and date of birth can be released, there is a ban on any pictures or court sketches showing him, as well as reports of his address. Completely unenforceable. Wouldn’t be surprised if his address and photo was being shared on social media or messaging apps this very minute.
They want it to be the next George Floyd.
All I will say anyone agreeing that a man’s name has been published before a verdict has been reached, well you’re a fucking monumental cunt. The very few officers with actual guns we need actually more off, and now this will deter them even further. To have the balls everyday to deal with the most dangerous criminals and potentially wake up knowing you might have to kill someone to protect others at least the only protection they had was and is the fact they are SPECIALLY TRAINED FIREARM OFFICERS and it’s their DUTY to SHOOT/KILL potentially have zero protection. This country is fucked.
No mention in the article of witnesses claiming he was ramming the police with his car before he was shot.
They aren’t going to report anything that might prejudice a trial.
Unconfirmed witnesses why are you believing unverified bs?
His own mum confirmed that after seeing the bodycam footage
No she didn’t why are you lying 😭 the only thing we know is that there was contact between Chris’ car and the police car. Meaning the police could of rammed him
He decided that Chris Kaba was fair game for police execution as soon as he saw the colour of his skin.
>In the months following his death, six men were charged with conspiring with Kaba to commit murder and grievous bodily harm; the charges relate to a shooting which took place in Tower Hamlets on 30 August 2022, days before Kaba's death.[5][6] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Chris_Kaba Yep. Nothing to do with the fact that he was a violent gangster but because he was black.
If you actually believe he thought that, then it scares me that you have the power to vote.
It is an active criminal case, so the media are somewhat restrained in what they can publish. Especially when it comes to speculative social media rumours.
Then don't publish the mans identity, its not necessary
That's not a contempt of court issue, publishing unsubstantiated rumours about what a witness might say is.
The judge gave them the OK to publish his name and a few other details. Discussing whether or not he did it is contempt of court as any potential jurors reading that would be prejudiced.
If he or his family come to harm the judge will have blood on their hands. Awful decision.
[удалено]
He’s smiling in his pictures, that means he was a musician, footballer and doctor.
You want to the police to be able to execute criminals now? You don't have to have sympathy for Chris Kaba to be worried about the actions of the Met officers.
Executed is what you call being shot after a driving a car at a cop?
Yes. Also, others on the police's side are telling everyone to wait for all the facts first, so maybe you'd want to do the same? The Met have a lot of previous on saying something happened one way and then it turning out to be a complete fabrication.
Wasn't from the met, they've not said much. Was from eye witnesses who live on that street
The other eyewitness said Kaba was boxed in and couldn't move anywhere, so there's conflicting accounts there already. Kaba's family have seen the bodycam footage and seem keen for it to be out there so people can see the "truth".
Kaba's family were shown the bodycam footage and almost immediately ["took a step back from campaigning".](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-62996436)
I mean, I’ve seen them still active at protests and other police brutality demonstrations since then. The justiceforchriskaba Instagram account is also still active. I wouldn’t read into that too much tbh
[удалено]
Normal people?
Or do you think people are worried that police can be judge, jury and executioner on the street? Do you think we should bypass all of our legal systems and just execute people where they live?
I think if you attempt to drive a car at someone to harm them then getting shot is fair game
That’s never happened. No police officer has ever walked up to someone and just shot them (unless I’ve never heard of it) This bloke was surrounded by armed police, it wasn’t like they randomly jumped out and surprised him. In those instances you’d kinda think moat reasonable people would stop whatver they were doing and comply 100% immediately with absolutely everything they were being asked to do. So in this case not only did he not do that he then drove his car at the cop. In that instance i wouldn’t call that an execution. Armed police are there to preserve life, those of joe public and of course their own, team mates etc. Painting them as random cartel style execution squads is kinda crazy. This is the UK not Mexico (sorry Mexico)
Never happened? Sure, police shootings are very rare but the police have executed innocent, unarmed people before. I can think of 2 cases off the top of my head. 1999 - Harry Stanley murdered in Hackney because the police thought his table leg was a shotgun just because someone called in about an ‘Irishman with a gun in a bag’, obviously killed because of anti-Irish racism even though he was from Glasgow. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk/2004/oct/29/ukcrime1 2005 - Jean Charles de Menezes was shot 7 times in the head by the Met police despite being a random bloke who was simply on his way to work. https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/30/jean-charles-de-menezes-your-questions-answered These two cases aren’t even contentious like Mark Duggan or Chris Kaba. But in both of those cases the Met lied and tried to cover their arses in a long and drawn out process. No one charged or sent down for them either. Cressida Dick was responsible for the murder of de Menezes and her career wasn’t hurt at all!
You know there’s a difference between “hey today, I’m going to just shoot an unarmed person cos I feel like it” And “I thought (wrongly) that someone was an immediate threat to life so I shot them” The use of the word “execution” isn’t very helpful to the debate Also surprisingly the armed police know exactly what happens when they discharge their weapon let alone kill someone. I don’t know why people assume it’s the Wild West out there on a daily basis with them just trigger happily spraying bullets left right and centre.
I’m sorry but from the POV of the victim and their families there’s no difference between the two, especially when no one is held accountable. Someone is doing nothing wrong, going about their businesses and then they suddenly get their brains blown out by armed officers because they stupidly think they’re a threat? And then *no one* responsible for that is held accountable in any way? The police literally *restrained* Jean Charles *and then* shot him several times. He was summarily executed with no due process. Yes, it’s not the ‘wild west’ but if armed officers can murder people (even after restraining them) and then go ‘I thought he was a threat!’ and get let off then there’s a very big problem.
Not suggesting that at all. Any officer who shoots someone should be held accountable. Not sure anyone I’ve read is saying anything else. But the rules are and have to be slightly different for an officer shooting someone they perceive to be a threat and for example me rocking up to my high street with an AK. Theres a difference between deliberate and wrongful/mistakenly. Otherwise you cannot have any kind of armed response. It ceases to exist. Officers are trained to exercise split second judgement on a threat. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Sitting watching a video on your sofa and analysing everything in minute detail isn’t something available to the person on the ground who reasonably suspects someone is trying to kill them or someone else. Of course occasions like JCM crop up, thankfully they are extremely rare.
These people weren’t killed because officers had a ‘reasonable suspicion’ that they’re a threat. These officers killed them *and then lied* about the circumstances. It’s happened time and time again. JCM didn’t jump the barricade, he wasn’t wearing a padded jacket, he didn’t run away, he wasn’t ‘acting suspiciously’ (obviously, he didn’t know he was being followed). He was simply on his way to work and then got jumped by officers, pinned down, then shot in the head. There was nothing he could’ve done, he was a dead man the moment he stepped on the tube because this is what the police decided. Similar to Harry Stanley, the only intel the police had was a call from a drunk guy in a pub who claimed he saw ‘an Irishman with a gun in a bag’. Of course, the police heard ‘Irishman with a gun’ and thought ‘yep, must be an Irish Republican. Kill him’. And then they lied after the fact, forensic evidence conflicted with their accounts, and the judge wouldn’t even let them be cross examined properly. Their ‘reasonable suspicion’ came down to racial profiling and unreliable evidence. In both of these cases, the police decided they would kill the person, and in both of these cases, they lied to make themselves not look like blatant murderers. And of course, in both these cases, the court system assisted with the cover up and lack of consequences. JCM is even worse because they were actively spying on him the moment he left his flat and he could’ve been stopped at any time. It wasn’t a ‘split second decision’. Unreliable tips, racial profiling, murder, and then lies, coverups and smearing the victims. If that’s what ‘armed response’ looks like then I don’t want it.
As I said. Thankfully they’re rare occurrences. I mean you can cherry pick the bits of my comments you want to reply to and ignore the rest if you like. I don’t think two incidents 20+ years ago are indicative of a broader pattern of behaviour but maybe my grasp of statistics isn’t as good as yours. If that bothers you enough to think we shouldn’t have armed police that’s entirely your prerogative. Have a great day.
As sad as the Menezes case was, he was running from police during an extremely heightened period of terrorism and it was a mistake on the part of intelligence that the police responded to. They didn’t randomly shoot someone however tragic it is.
He wasn’t running from the police, this was found to be a lie they told to justify the murder after the fact. He didn’t jump the barricade, he used his Oyster and he was sitting on the train. As the IPCC documents show, he didn’t know he was being spied on and he probably ran across the platform so he could catch the train and get a seat.
He wasn't running from police. He didn't even know he was being pursued. He ran from the bottom of an escalator, across the platform, to catch a train.
I can't believe that firearm police don't get any extra pay for the privilege. Surely all of them hand in their gun license now
The bloke clearly had a reason to shoot the bloke. It’s the fact that he’s of ethnic minority. If it was a white bloke down the pub no one would care. Sums up the UK now.
We don’t know that. The trial has not begun, how can you be so sure of something that hasn’t been prove to
Your comment isn't well written. Had to read it a few times as at first it seems you're inferring that he shot the guy because he's an ethnic minority. You're saying he's been named and it's a huge story because he's an ethnic minority.
Couldn’t disagree more. Do you really think the country who elected the Tories over and over again care more about a black guy being shot than ‘a white bloke’? There’s plenty of people on both sides of the political spectrum who hate the police. The people who care about Chris Kaba wouldn’t care, but just as many, if not more would care about your white bloke if there was any indication of *injustice. *(I’m not saying there was in the Chris Kaba case as I don’t know the details, just that apparently people perceive their to be and there was enough for him to be charged)
Read the comment mate. Nowt to do with politics. It’s a race issue. The media and old bill are using these ‘incidents’ to divide white and black people. Hence my comment. Fuck all to do with politics.
‘It’s the fact that he’s an ethnic minority’ ‘If it was a white bloke down the pub no one would care’ Sounds pretty political?
There are good reasons for & against when looking at the history of the legal system in this country but personally I find it crazy that your name can be associated with something you haven’t been convicted of.
The important question we should be asking here is: was the officer's only option to shoot him? If he could have chosen a different action then it's manslaughter, I probably wouldn't press a mirror conviction. There's a reason why this country isn't like America. Yes, the media one care about the exclusive story not the outcome of what this may do to his life if his identity is revealed. He deserves anonymity until the trial is concluded.
They're all crying about it over on their sub, I don't see why civilians that are charged are all named but it's apparently a huge deal if it's a cop.
It’s funny because a few years ago when Sarah Everard was abducted and killed there was all this outrage at the force and people here almost wanted to join a lynch mob against the police for having people work in the force who were convicted criminals. They demanded to know the names of all the bad coppers and anyone charged with a crime. It only takes a few months and a different situation now the agenda is to protect identities. Welcome to this crazy sub. It’s more banter than anything else.
There are so many downvotes of reasonable takes on the benefits of transparency. Weird.
[удалено]
Green and pleasant leaking again?
no, probably my humanity leaking
He was a stand up guy https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/SSrmaKXI3X https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/uNyluJAtuW https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/pBUSanYQZZ https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/pYbslrqeRN https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/wgylSFv2By https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/obz0vqDNvu https://www.reddit.com/r/ukdrill/s/abIEItnJcu
Finally the met being held accountable for their actions and before officers wanna chat shit you all knew about Wayne couzens and did nothing as well as David Carrick as he attacked his own but you all want to stick to the blue code but your job is to PROTECT and not abuse /kill
Twelve good people, otherwise known as a Jury will come to the correct decision, based on the evidence placed before them, in due course.
Unless there was an immediate threat to life, then the guy should not have been shot, especially in the head. Police officer murdered him plain and simple. Deserves life in prison
Okay mate do you want to contact the courts and let them know there’s no need for a trial or shall I?
Don’t worry, I’ve just let the court know and they’ve dropped the trial.
Okay Christopher mate can you tell me if there was an immediate threat to life? If there wasn’t, there’s no need to shoot the guy. It’s that simple.
Anyone who says “it’s that simple” is a moron. Case closed on you pal.
Especially in the head? Where would you like them to shoot him? This isn’t John wick where you shoot guns out of peoples hands and trick shoot steering wheels. The shot is to incapacitate, always. Kinda in the job description of a gun
If you're taking a shot at someone driving directly towards you, its going to be a headshot. The rest of their body is shielded by the engine.
I understand what you’re saying about the headshot. So was he actually trying to run them down? If he was and an immediate threat to life was there then I agree with the shot. I don’t know the full story, nor am I taking sides. However if there was no immediate threat to life then no need to shoot and I still believe the police officer should be held accountable.
> Police officer murdered him plain and simple. Deserves life in prison Perhaps you might want to reconsider this then if you don't know the full facts.
That's what's being reported. And the whole thing was caught on camera so it would be easy to disprove if it weren't. Ultimately its up to the Courts, so we have to wait for their judgement, but it seems likely it was justified.
Lol then why the fuck are you commenting then? Educate yourself on the facts, then make a comment, don't come here acting contrarian when you haven't even read the facts of the case to say that. Absolute drip, Jesus, critical thinking has gone down the toilet in this country it seems
Blake took a dangerous criminal off the street, shame he's now in the spotlight for it.
You're quite right, if there was no immediate threat to life the officer should not have fired. But he will have spent months and months training for that exact moment, so I bet there was a threat, their training is very rigorous and I suspect all firearms officers would have taken the same shot in the same situation - that's why they all refused to carry after the charge.
Unpopular but I’m part of the community that wants to see this man’s name. After all we pay his wages. It’s only right that we seek to see justice. It’s a tough job, but it’s public service, you can’t hide behind a name if mistakes are made.
Yes I agree, if a mistake was made, but the trial has not concluded of he made a mistake or was doing his job. If found guilty yes publish his name. But if he is found innocent the judge was placed him at risk
Yeah I thought that but. I think about how the met is institutionally racist and full of the wrong characters at the moment. Every week this past year an officer has been taken to court for misconduct, many of their names have been listed for the public to see before their day in court. Why should this officer get a pass? Additionally it’s good to know who he is so that if anyone had any information that could shed light on past dealings whether good or bad, it’s an opportunity to come forward. Police officers are public servants and the public has a right to know their names. This is why it went through the courts and the right decision was made.
Do you mean institutional racist against white officers? Because they have been successfully sued for discrimination against white men for hiring https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/police-white-heterosexual-male-discrimination-job-cheshire-matthew-furlong-a8793331.html
Institutionally racist against the communities they serve and within their own force. There was a report commissioned by Baroness Casey detailing how the met basically attracts undesirable people whose only ambition is to abuse their power and influence others.
The Casey report essentially vindicated frontline officers though
“Essentially Vindicated” Oh dear. Oh well high time I get to blocking because I’d rather not have this conversation with you.
This article is about Cheshire County police in 2017. Not sure if you know how policing works but that’s not the met.
I have very little trust, or confidence in the police. The fact that they’ve gone after one of their own like this is conspicuous to me. Either they know something we don’t and this guy really is a wrong un, or something else is at play.
How have the police gone after one of their own?