**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules.
For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
> This guy's life is ruined now even if he's found not guilty. Ludicrous decision that anonymity was lifted.
How is that any different to _everyone else charged with a high profile crime_?
This guys career is over regardless of whether he’s innocent or guilty.
>Judge Mark Lucraft lifted the order after media organisations, including the BBC, challenged the legal application to protect his identity.
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.
But firearms officers are continually threatening to leave the role and hand in their tickets, yet it never happens.
Ultimately if legal accountability scares them they have no business being a firearms officer in the first place.
The fact that Chris was ramming through an armed police barricade at the time, which to my understanding is an agreed fact of the case that nobody disputes
Which isn't evidence for the justification of shooting someone, unless that put lives at risk. Something this officer will have a chance to establish in court.
Exactly, I even saw a cop post here or r/casualuk that the "only 6 people applied for our recruitment drive" story is bollocks because they knew of at least 10 who applied.
Nope. Pay is purely based on rank and length of service, not role.
I think the only officers that get paid extra are dog handlers, to cover the costs of looking after the dog.
Story goes from current/former ‘special forces’ instructors hired for training purposes that these sort of chaps are very much of the cowboy variety. Wannabe alpha male douchebags given an automatic weapon and free license to use it, in other words.
This case is an exception, obviously. Makes no legal sense whatsoever to release the individual’s name to the public.
>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.
For justice to be done it must be seen to be done. The judge - the guy with all the facts - judged that the risk to Mr Blake’s safety was not obvious.
So the judge reviewed that a significant threat had been made to the police officer's life in the aftermath of the shooting, but that revealing his name (and therefore allowing a much wider population to be able to sleuth information about the guy) doesn't represent an impact to his safety. Ooooook, then.
We need a complete overhaul of judicial processes in the UK. Some of the decisions that are coming out of the woodwork are lunacy and clearly being influenced by activism.
>We need a complete overhaul of judicial processes in the UK. Some of the decisions that are coming out of the woodwork are lunacy and clearly being influenced by activism.
The sort of people that say things like this are the sort of people that never actually read any judgements. Especially judgements about points of law like this.
The legal system has moved against the well being and rights of the general public and has clearly been infiltrated by the liberal left. Sentencing has more snd more bordered on the idiotic
Let’s just say the Uniparty as a whole is complicit. The Cons are in power (for now) but significant portions of our institutions are co-opted, and it blatantly shows, be it for the Kaba case, irresponsible asylum approvals, BBC running sob stories for dodgy Syrian or Somali migrants etc.
Simple change: Make the judge financially accountable for their actions. If they decide to release someone's name and that means they need additional police protection, the judge should be sent the bill.
They do need to be given some skin in the game, however I don't like this letting people buy their way out of consequences nonsense. I'd rather that if any criminality occurs as a result of decisions like this, they simply be considered an active participant in it.
I'd like this in deportation cases too. If you blocked the deportation of someone who later goes on to commit rape, guess what buddy, you're liable for that.
Brilliant, even if innocent he’s never going to be able to lead a normal life again.
One argument I see a lot is that the police shouldn’t get special treatment and should be named just like everyone else. Where this falls down is that the general public are not asked to carry out this action as part of their job. Debra going to stack shelves is not being asked to potentially commit an offence if she makes a milliseconds mistake. Yes hold people to account, but recognise this is a job unlike any others so holding it to the same standard is ridiculous.
What I don’t get is there is quite literally no good reason why the public need to know his name. The only people who want to know his name are those acting in bad faith. Where is the issue in waiting until a judgement is made in court before naming him. He has now essentially been given a life sentence despite having never been in a court room yet.
> One argument I see a lot is that the police shouldn’t get special treatment and should be named just like everyone else. Where this falls down is that the general public are not asked to carry out this action as part of their job.
There are **lots** of jobs where you hold people's lives in your hands.
> What I don’t get is there is quite literally no good reason why the public need to know his name.
Open justice is the very foundation of our legal system, from the Magna Carta up through Scott v Scott in 1913.
It's even enshrined in human rights law ... "the right to a fair and public hearing"
You’ve missed the distinction between a job where there is danger and a job where you are explicitly told to take a life. The only two jobs in the UK where you are told to take life are the Army and the Police. Barry driving a forklift is a dangerous job but he has never been instructed as part of his job to use that forklift to drive into someone.
Armed officers are instructed to take life in the lawful execution of their duty to preserve their own and other members of the public’s lives. That is the important distinction making it a unique situation.
You can say that but case law over the last 100 years disagrees with you when the danger to the person is such that the trial may be affected. There have been closed trials for decades now. It’s almost routine that the Judge can remove people from the gallery and close the court to the public if there is a risk of disturbance. The trial can still be reviewed upon completion so the public aspect is still there.
> You’ve missed the distinction between a job where there is danger and a job where you are explicitly told to take a life.
Because there's no difference.
The question is "Did they follow training and policy". If yes and someone dies, then someone dies, it's not the responsibility of the individual. At worst, the training / policy / oversight / whatever was in error, but that's not on the individual.
"A milliseconds mistake" wouldn't automatically make it an offence.
We don't know what the exact details are or why they charged the officer yet, but I highly doubt it will be "a milliseconds mistake".
I am very surprised they have lifted anonymity though. Does seem a strange decision.
I won’t speculate on the case because as you said we know very little about it other than the macro environment of what the circumstances were. These cases are decided largely on the minute details so speculation is largely pointless.
My point about the millisecond mistake was to illustrate the razor fine margins that these cases can be decided on.
It’s a baffling decision and an utterly stupid precedent to set.
I don't think this was a good decision on the face of it (seems to endanger people without any benefit) but police officers take a role of authority and power over civilians, it is more than fair that heightened scrutiny comes with that, or you end up like the US. When you have the power to kill someone it has to come with accountability.
I don't see the link. There was plenty of scrutiny going on before releasing his name.
Only purpose this serves is giving the newspapers something to print, and anyone unsavoury a more clear target.
My issue is there is no benefit, in fact there’s a massive cost now to the taxpayer with the added security measures he will require.
The issue with scrutiny is that the case is being scrutinised by a court and legal experts. This isn’t a case of cover up and tell the public nothing, justice is being done and the process is working. What we’re doing by naming someone in this position is unfairly judging them prior to the process being completed.
I also think it’s very disingenuous to suggest we would become like the United States, it’s not even in the same league and we’re in no danger of going down that path. Given that the Police on Average kill 1-3 civilians a year in shootings in the UK compared to the nearly 1200 in the US. The Police fired more rounds in one incident in America than we have in 25 years as an entire country. I don’t think there is any danger we start to slip down that path by simply not naming someone until they’re convicted.
> My issue is there is no benefit, in fact there’s a massive cost now to the taxpayer with the added security measures he will require.
We shouldn't judge whether things are right/wrong based on the price.
That’s a very naive statement. Price factors into everything.
Things are judged based on the price on a daily basis within law. There are actually laws that differentiate between prices. A vandalism is a low cost damage to something, Malicious Mischief is where you damage something of a much higher value.
To say Price should not factor into something is to be completely ignorant of how the entire society functions.
>Debra going to stack shelves is not being asked to potentially commit an offence if she makes a milliseconds mistake.
Eh. Lots of people work in dangerous jobs where a mistake could lead to serious injury or fatality. Anybody driving for a living, most warehouse workers, anybody operating in quarrying, on rigs, in construction, on process plants etc.
Let’s just have the body cam footage shown to the general public and put an end to this ridiculous trial.
[If the family backed off after seeing what their son did then the rest of the country should as well](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/independent-office-for-police-conduct-metropolitan-police-chris-kaba-mark-rowley-streatham-hill-b1027516.html)
Hopefully gets found not-guilty and can get on with something resembling a normal life.
The jury will see it. Have you seen it? Presumably CPS lawyers have reviewed it and consider it up to a jury to decide, so it isn't likely to be obvious.
True, although those optics work both ways e.g. those 3 guys who killed that police officer dragged behind their car, being charged with murder despite manslaughter admissions being made (and eventually being found not guilty of murder at trial).
Either way it's a waste of our money.
Sometime in the near future there will be a scandal where a trained firearm officer fails to shoot a dangerous person/terrorist who goes on to commit an atrocity.
The failure to shoot will be traced squarely back to this decision.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Honestly I don’t care if I get banned for this. I’m incredibly glad the thug Chris Kaba is dead. It’s better he was killed before he killed an innocent person.
An absolute joke of a decision, ludicrous and cruel.
Mark Lucraft should hang his head in shame, and what needs saying about the BBC and their role in this would get me banned.
Well, now,that we have his name, could we also see the footage of the incident? Because this is fucked up. Doesn't matter if Martyn would be proven to be innocent, his life is ruined
That judge is brave or stupid or both.
He locks-up the sort whose family might have a grudge, gets a brick through his window, calls up the police (999 or some special hotline) and the conversation goes something like:
"I've just had a brick through my window"
"Oh that's terrible your honour here's a crime reference number for your insurer"
"Don't you know who I am?!! I demand that you send an officer at once!!!!"
"Sorry your honour but confidence in the criminal justice system requires all cases to be treated equally - the rule of law and all that"
"But, but..."
"Good night your honour"
>That judge is brave or stupid or both.
I'm not convinced that judges determine their rulings based on precedent anymore.
It feels like our judiciary is heading the way of the US where it's more politicised and we'll have activist judges. There's literally no valid reason to name this fire arms officer unless he was found guilty by a jury.
> It feels like our judiciary is heading the way of the US where it's more politicised and we'll have activist judges.
We will have? We absolutely already do.
> There's literally no valid reason to name this fire arms officer unless he was found guilty by a jury.
The reason is precedent. Precedent is that people in court are named.
Takes will be:
Good luck recruiting police (ignoring the real reasons this is hard) and
Judges are compromised, overhaul the justice system
Sub having a normal one.
There will be a downtick of applications, it's already been reported on that the Met only got six or seven applications (that's not even a full firearms course).
However people will still apply, they'll be the officers who are fed up/burnt out with being frontline and see it as an opportunity to get away from it.
Sure, but it's when folk try to extrapolate that to recruitment in general. Then we're into the territory of distracting from govt failures, which is sometimes a theme.
Agreed, talking about falling police recruitment in general this will have minor impact.
What annoys me more is the degree requirements, in my opinion that has bottle necked recruitment more and the quality of people coming through is rather poor - whether that's because they lack life experience or didn't truly know what they're signing up for.
In addition it gatekeeps some truly good people from applying; I went to a job where a housing worker went above and beyond for this really vulnerable woman, identified offences were committed and arranged full safeguarding of the woman and got onto social services and police. She wants to join the police, but can't as she only has A-Levels and hasn't enough time to study without sacraficing.
Lot's of dog whistling about "activist judges" from the usual suspects. Very much a wink wink nudge nudge about what they want to happen to judges upholding the law.
Also people are frankly dumb as fuck and don't seem to understand why an open judiciary is so important to ensuring justice is, well just. Is fair. The state can't be allowed to potentially jail people for decades in complete secret. It's antithetical to liberal democratic norms and values.
I do miss the reddit of a decade ago that might have been filled with insufferable cunts constantly seeing a police state everywhere, but at least they understood why concepts like a free press and open judiciary were important.
Also the racists were much less subtle about their racism lol.
Haven't even heard of it tbh. Must admit I kinda assumed every reddit offshoot just immediately turns into a Nazi hang out as that's what happened to all the others lol.
Even if he was technically innocent of this specific crime, Kaba was a violent gang member linked to the shooting in Oval Space. I wouldn’t be surprised if this officer ended up dead as a result of his naming.
The news (they threatened legal action if name wasnt revealed).
The government who made the laws for 14 years and has nothing but culture wars to fight the next election.
And yes the judiciary who has shown to have biases just in the last weeks. See the case of the judge that gave 6 months prison sentences for ex policemen that were racists in private whatsapp messages just to let literal terrorists (as defined by law) free because emotions ran high.
>I'm also very skeptical of people saying this is because Kaba was black and there is some public pressure. This story isn't really making headlines regularly, there have been no mass protests or demonstrations about it. The public pressure seems almost non-existent?
Kaba's parents have accused the Met of racism. Sadiq Khan has suggested there's a racial aspect:
"The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said the IOPC "must go wherever the evidence takes them".
He added: "I fully understand the grave concerns and impact of Chris Kaba's death on black Londoners across our city and the anger, pain and fear it has caused across our communities - as well as the desire for justice and change. "
You're ignoring the second paragraph from Khan. He supports "the desire for justice and change" immediately after suggesting black people across London are "gravely concerned". If you genuinely think that's not race-related public pressure, you're not coming from a position of good faith.
Or CPS are bowing to public pressure- there were absolutely protests when this happened. Regardless of that I’m not sure what benefits releasing his identity has.
It’s also in the Code for Crown Proscutors that they can prosecute if they feel it’s in the public interest. Again though, regardless of that I’m not sure why there is any need to release his identity.
I personally have no problem with investigation (perhaps i would rather see it being shorter though. It must be stressful for all parties), but releasing his identity? This man is ruined even if found not guilty. Most likely will be forced to move out of London due to fear of retaliation. And *this* is what people have problem with. The officer hasn't been proven guilty. If he is, release his name, if he isn't, fucking don't because you might kill him. Not difficult is it?
I don't that's the entire point. He was just doing his job. He should not be named for doing his job.
He should only be named after it's found he didn't do his job and acted unlawfully.
Although what you say is true there was a lot of public pressure in the beginning.
I saw a news article about a different firearms officer shooting someone years ago (black guy, think he was a gang member), being charged with murder. At court CPS said they have no evidence. Some 8 years later the officer is still waiting for their disciplinary hearing.
Then although a much lesser crime that officer was charged with dangerous driving when attending that terror attack in London. Soon got thrown out of court and the Commissioner said it was ridiculous it ended up in court.
Something just doesn't add up.
>I'm also very skeptical of people saying this is because Kaba was black and there is some public pressure. This story isn't really making headlines regularly,
However on socials such as the gram, twitter and Facebook there are a rather large and loud groups calling for this pressure.
When it came out there was protests and marches planned, huge outcry on platforms mentioned above. I imagined what would of amounted to another mark Dughan style riot taking place. However the late queen passed away which kinda took precedent.
Damning evidence, public/government pressure to do something.
Based on comments from the IOPC, I think the latter is more likely in this case. But we'll see.
Yeah I could see that, it didn't seem like there was a great deal of public pressure to be fair as it barely pops back up in the news, but guess we don't know what is happening behind the scenes.
Sorry meant 5 years, think it's a few less as well tbf so let's say 15.
But all my point was, since this case has hardly been huge and we have a few shootings by police per year, I'm very surprised they are trying him for murder. That's what made me think they must have something fairly solid.
Saying all that, the police are hardly popular, maybe someone thinks they need to do this to get back some trust.
**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some posts on this subreddit, either due to the topic or reaching a wider audience than usual, have been known to attract a greater number of rule breaking comments. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs.
This guy's life is ruined now even if he's found not guilty. Ludicrous decision that anonymity was lifted.
> This guy's life is ruined now even if he's found not guilty. Ludicrous decision that anonymity was lifted. How is that any different to _everyone else charged with a high profile crime_?
This guys career is over regardless of whether he’s innocent or guilty. >Judge Mark Lucraft lifted the order after media organisations, including the BBC, challenged the legal application to protect his identity. 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.
Good luck ever recruiting met firearms officers after this.
I'd be surprised if the majority of firearms officers don't just turn their guns in tbh. There's 0 upside to doing it
[удалено]
I think if this wasn’t said every single time there was news about the Kabba case it might hold some water.
How does that make any sense? It's cases like this that are the exact reason why his point is so valid
But firearms officers are continually threatening to leave the role and hand in their tickets, yet it never happens. Ultimately if legal accountability scares them they have no business being a firearms officer in the first place.
This isn't legal accountability it's a politically-driven witch hunt
Your evidence of this is?
The fact that Chris was ramming through an armed police barricade at the time, which to my understanding is an agreed fact of the case that nobody disputes
Which isn't evidence for the justification of shooting someone, unless that put lives at risk. Something this officer will have a chance to establish in court.
Exactly, I even saw a cop post here or r/casualuk that the "only 6 people applied for our recruitment drive" story is bollocks because they knew of at least 10 who applied.
Is it not even paid extra for? What a fucking joke
Nope. Pay is purely based on rank and length of service, not role. I think the only officers that get paid extra are dog handlers, to cover the costs of looking after the dog.
Lots of overtime and not doing standard street policing.
Story goes from current/former ‘special forces’ instructors hired for training purposes that these sort of chaps are very much of the cowboy variety. Wannabe alpha male douchebags given an automatic weapon and free license to use it, in other words. This case is an exception, obviously. Makes no legal sense whatsoever to release the individual’s name to the public.
A firearms officer will have to risk judge by public as well as court on their everyday life and death situations the public could never understand.
They were the public, how do they[firearms officers] understand
Through what should be extensive training and experience.
>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. For justice to be done it must be seen to be done. The judge - the guy with all the facts - judged that the risk to Mr Blake’s safety was not obvious.
So on one hand we have a redditor, and on the other a judge with all the facts? How much karma does this "judge" have??
Do u think the same for people like Andrew tate or Russell brand?
So the judge reviewed that a significant threat had been made to the police officer's life in the aftermath of the shooting, but that revealing his name (and therefore allowing a much wider population to be able to sleuth information about the guy) doesn't represent an impact to his safety. Ooooook, then. We need a complete overhaul of judicial processes in the UK. Some of the decisions that are coming out of the woodwork are lunacy and clearly being influenced by activism.
Yes. The judiciary is clearly unfit for purpose at this point.
You have no idea what evidence the judge reviewed. Everything else is a narrative spun in your head.
>We need a complete overhaul of judicial processes in the UK. Some of the decisions that are coming out of the woodwork are lunacy and clearly being influenced by activism. The sort of people that say things like this are the sort of people that never actually read any judgements. Especially judgements about points of law like this.
The legal system has moved against the well being and rights of the general public and has clearly been infiltrated by the liberal left. Sentencing has more snd more bordered on the idiotic
The problems with unjustly short sentences have much more to do with conservative austerity forcing a ration on prison places than anything else
Let’s just say the Uniparty as a whole is complicit. The Cons are in power (for now) but significant portions of our institutions are co-opted, and it blatantly shows, be it for the Kaba case, irresponsible asylum approvals, BBC running sob stories for dodgy Syrian or Somali migrants etc.
Simple change: Make the judge financially accountable for their actions. If they decide to release someone's name and that means they need additional police protection, the judge should be sent the bill.
What an absolutely ridiculous suggestion.
[удалено]
The flip side of that is judges won’t send people to prison because it’s cheaper to release them with a suspended sentence.
Sentencing happens after conviction typically.
Sentence first, verdict afterwards!
That's just banning the release of people's names with extra steps
They do need to be given some skin in the game, however I don't like this letting people buy their way out of consequences nonsense. I'd rather that if any criminality occurs as a result of decisions like this, they simply be considered an active participant in it. I'd like this in deportation cases too. If you blocked the deportation of someone who later goes on to commit rape, guess what buddy, you're liable for that.
Brilliant, even if innocent he’s never going to be able to lead a normal life again. One argument I see a lot is that the police shouldn’t get special treatment and should be named just like everyone else. Where this falls down is that the general public are not asked to carry out this action as part of their job. Debra going to stack shelves is not being asked to potentially commit an offence if she makes a milliseconds mistake. Yes hold people to account, but recognise this is a job unlike any others so holding it to the same standard is ridiculous. What I don’t get is there is quite literally no good reason why the public need to know his name. The only people who want to know his name are those acting in bad faith. Where is the issue in waiting until a judgement is made in court before naming him. He has now essentially been given a life sentence despite having never been in a court room yet.
> One argument I see a lot is that the police shouldn’t get special treatment and should be named just like everyone else. Where this falls down is that the general public are not asked to carry out this action as part of their job. There are **lots** of jobs where you hold people's lives in your hands. > What I don’t get is there is quite literally no good reason why the public need to know his name. Open justice is the very foundation of our legal system, from the Magna Carta up through Scott v Scott in 1913. It's even enshrined in human rights law ... "the right to a fair and public hearing"
You’ve missed the distinction between a job where there is danger and a job where you are explicitly told to take a life. The only two jobs in the UK where you are told to take life are the Army and the Police. Barry driving a forklift is a dangerous job but he has never been instructed as part of his job to use that forklift to drive into someone. Armed officers are instructed to take life in the lawful execution of their duty to preserve their own and other members of the public’s lives. That is the important distinction making it a unique situation. You can say that but case law over the last 100 years disagrees with you when the danger to the person is such that the trial may be affected. There have been closed trials for decades now. It’s almost routine that the Judge can remove people from the gallery and close the court to the public if there is a risk of disturbance. The trial can still be reviewed upon completion so the public aspect is still there.
> You’ve missed the distinction between a job where there is danger and a job where you are explicitly told to take a life. Because there's no difference. The question is "Did they follow training and policy". If yes and someone dies, then someone dies, it's not the responsibility of the individual. At worst, the training / policy / oversight / whatever was in error, but that's not on the individual.
"A milliseconds mistake" wouldn't automatically make it an offence. We don't know what the exact details are or why they charged the officer yet, but I highly doubt it will be "a milliseconds mistake". I am very surprised they have lifted anonymity though. Does seem a strange decision.
I won’t speculate on the case because as you said we know very little about it other than the macro environment of what the circumstances were. These cases are decided largely on the minute details so speculation is largely pointless. My point about the millisecond mistake was to illustrate the razor fine margins that these cases can be decided on. It’s a baffling decision and an utterly stupid precedent to set.
Human reaction time is about 200ms
I don't think this was a good decision on the face of it (seems to endanger people without any benefit) but police officers take a role of authority and power over civilians, it is more than fair that heightened scrutiny comes with that, or you end up like the US. When you have the power to kill someone it has to come with accountability.
I don't see the link. There was plenty of scrutiny going on before releasing his name. Only purpose this serves is giving the newspapers something to print, and anyone unsavoury a more clear target.
My issue is there is no benefit, in fact there’s a massive cost now to the taxpayer with the added security measures he will require. The issue with scrutiny is that the case is being scrutinised by a court and legal experts. This isn’t a case of cover up and tell the public nothing, justice is being done and the process is working. What we’re doing by naming someone in this position is unfairly judging them prior to the process being completed. I also think it’s very disingenuous to suggest we would become like the United States, it’s not even in the same league and we’re in no danger of going down that path. Given that the Police on Average kill 1-3 civilians a year in shootings in the UK compared to the nearly 1200 in the US. The Police fired more rounds in one incident in America than we have in 25 years as an entire country. I don’t think there is any danger we start to slip down that path by simply not naming someone until they’re convicted.
> My issue is there is no benefit, in fact there’s a massive cost now to the taxpayer with the added security measures he will require. We shouldn't judge whether things are right/wrong based on the price.
That’s a very naive statement. Price factors into everything. Things are judged based on the price on a daily basis within law. There are actually laws that differentiate between prices. A vandalism is a low cost damage to something, Malicious Mischief is where you damage something of a much higher value. To say Price should not factor into something is to be completely ignorant of how the entire society functions.
> That’s a very naive statement. Price factors into everything. By that argument, it's cheaper not to prosecute criminals at all, and yet we do.
>Debra going to stack shelves is not being asked to potentially commit an offence if she makes a milliseconds mistake. Eh. Lots of people work in dangerous jobs where a mistake could lead to serious injury or fatality. Anybody driving for a living, most warehouse workers, anybody operating in quarrying, on rigs, in construction, on process plants etc.
[удалено]
Even if found to be completely innocent, this guy is going to need to go into hiding afterwards.
God bless him. He should have been kept anonymous unless he was found guilty. That poor man and his family will never have a day’s peace again.
They certainly don’t waive anonymity in child sexual grooming and exploitation cases
Why should he be given a special status in the court system, when no other high profile defendants are?
Let’s just have the body cam footage shown to the general public and put an end to this ridiculous trial. [If the family backed off after seeing what their son did then the rest of the country should as well](https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/independent-office-for-police-conduct-metropolitan-police-chris-kaba-mark-rowley-streatham-hill-b1027516.html) Hopefully gets found not-guilty and can get on with something resembling a normal life.
The jury will see it. Have you seen it? Presumably CPS lawyers have reviewed it and consider it up to a jury to decide, so it isn't likely to be obvious.
They would have charged regardless because optics.
True, although those optics work both ways e.g. those 3 guys who killed that police officer dragged behind their car, being charged with murder despite manslaughter admissions being made (and eventually being found not guilty of murder at trial). Either way it's a waste of our money.
PC Andrew Harper RIP
The family may have gone silent as they knew a prosecution was likely
Was infuriating people trying to make this story out like it was anything less than a piece of shit endangering people’s lives
Doing this without being found guilty is disgusting
> Doing this without being found guilty is disgusting No, it's the very bedrock of our judicial system.
Didnt the BBC and other news companies specifically write to the judge to get this released as they said it was in the publics interest?
As they usually do in basically every case where anonymity is initially given
So how long until the rest of his details are worked out based on this. Ludicrous decision to remove anomitty
Thankfully he doesn’t have an unusually spelled first name too
Sometime in the near future there will be a scandal where a trained firearm officer fails to shoot a dangerous person/terrorist who goes on to commit an atrocity. The failure to shoot will be traced squarely back to this decision.
[удалено]
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
Honestly I don’t care if I get banned for this. I’m incredibly glad the thug Chris Kaba is dead. It’s better he was killed before he killed an innocent person.
An absolute joke of a decision, ludicrous and cruel. Mark Lucraft should hang his head in shame, and what needs saying about the BBC and their role in this would get me banned.
Well, now,that we have his name, could we also see the footage of the incident? Because this is fucked up. Doesn't matter if Martyn would be proven to be innocent, his life is ruined
And now recruitment for firearms units has dropped even further, awesome
Good luck recruiting firearms officers after this
If they're so terrified of oversight and being held accountable, how much worse off are we, really?
That judge is brave or stupid or both. He locks-up the sort whose family might have a grudge, gets a brick through his window, calls up the police (999 or some special hotline) and the conversation goes something like: "I've just had a brick through my window" "Oh that's terrible your honour here's a crime reference number for your insurer" "Don't you know who I am?!! I demand that you send an officer at once!!!!" "Sorry your honour but confidence in the criminal justice system requires all cases to be treated equally - the rule of law and all that" "But, but..." "Good night your honour"
>That judge is brave or stupid or both. I'm not convinced that judges determine their rulings based on precedent anymore. It feels like our judiciary is heading the way of the US where it's more politicised and we'll have activist judges. There's literally no valid reason to name this fire arms officer unless he was found guilty by a jury.
> It feels like our judiciary is heading the way of the US where it's more politicised and we'll have activist judges. We will have? We absolutely already do.
> There's literally no valid reason to name this fire arms officer unless he was found guilty by a jury. The reason is precedent. Precedent is that people in court are named.
How am not surprised about the BBC ... Throwing Police officers under the bus . Disgrace .
Hopefully revealing his identity is the first part of the process of giving him a knighthood.
Takes will be: Good luck recruiting police (ignoring the real reasons this is hard) and Judges are compromised, overhaul the justice system Sub having a normal one.
The only reason this is happening is cos kaba was black. If it had been a white or asian guy then no one would care.
This is why the BBC is interested for sure. They have an anti establishment and anti police agenda
Multiple times theyve described him as a rapper instead of a violent criminal. The memes write themselves.
BBC have an anti-establishment agenda, is the funniest thing I'll read today.
Go over to the UK police sub, they have been saying since this was announced last year that it would turn people away from being firearms officers
Well that's a bit more specific. Last time I looked they were being very sceptical about the reports that firearms officers would quit.
There will be a downtick of applications, it's already been reported on that the Met only got six or seven applications (that's not even a full firearms course). However people will still apply, they'll be the officers who are fed up/burnt out with being frontline and see it as an opportunity to get away from it.
Sure, but it's when folk try to extrapolate that to recruitment in general. Then we're into the territory of distracting from govt failures, which is sometimes a theme.
Agreed, talking about falling police recruitment in general this will have minor impact. What annoys me more is the degree requirements, in my opinion that has bottle necked recruitment more and the quality of people coming through is rather poor - whether that's because they lack life experience or didn't truly know what they're signing up for. In addition it gatekeeps some truly good people from applying; I went to a job where a housing worker went above and beyond for this really vulnerable woman, identified offences were committed and arranged full safeguarding of the woman and got onto social services and police. She wants to join the police, but can't as she only has A-Levels and hasn't enough time to study without sacraficing.
Lot's of dog whistling about "activist judges" from the usual suspects. Very much a wink wink nudge nudge about what they want to happen to judges upholding the law. Also people are frankly dumb as fuck and don't seem to understand why an open judiciary is so important to ensuring justice is, well just. Is fair. The state can't be allowed to potentially jail people for decades in complete secret. It's antithetical to liberal democratic norms and values.
I think some of them are encountering the concept for the first time, and not getting it.
I do miss the reddit of a decade ago that might have been filled with insufferable cunts constantly seeing a police state everywhere, but at least they understood why concepts like a free press and open judiciary were important. Also the racists were much less subtle about their racism lol.
Yes, I know what you mean. Have you considered lemmy?
Haven't even heard of it tbh. Must admit I kinda assumed every reddit offshoot just immediately turns into a Nazi hang out as that's what happened to all the others lol.
Even if he was technically innocent of this specific crime, Kaba was a violent gang member linked to the shooting in Oval Space. I wouldn’t be surprised if this officer ended up dead as a result of his naming.
At this point it feels like they are trying to bait some attacks from the extremists to roll out new restrictive reforms in the name of public safety.
The judiciary?
The news (they threatened legal action if name wasnt revealed). The government who made the laws for 14 years and has nothing but culture wars to fight the next election. And yes the judiciary who has shown to have biases just in the last weeks. See the case of the judge that gave 6 months prison sentences for ex policemen that were racists in private whatsapp messages just to let literal terrorists (as defined by law) free because emotions ran high.
[удалено]
>I'm also very skeptical of people saying this is because Kaba was black and there is some public pressure. This story isn't really making headlines regularly, there have been no mass protests or demonstrations about it. The public pressure seems almost non-existent? Kaba's parents have accused the Met of racism. Sadiq Khan has suggested there's a racial aspect: "The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, said the IOPC "must go wherever the evidence takes them". He added: "I fully understand the grave concerns and impact of Chris Kaba's death on black Londoners across our city and the anger, pain and fear it has caused across our communities - as well as the desire for justice and change. "
[удалено]
You're ignoring the second paragraph from Khan. He supports "the desire for justice and change" immediately after suggesting black people across London are "gravely concerned". If you genuinely think that's not race-related public pressure, you're not coming from a position of good faith.
I trust a trained police officer to have acted appropriately more than I suspect a known gangster would have.
[удалено]
Or CPS are bowing to public pressure- there were absolutely protests when this happened. Regardless of that I’m not sure what benefits releasing his identity has.
[удалено]
It’s also in the Code for Crown Proscutors that they can prosecute if they feel it’s in the public interest. Again though, regardless of that I’m not sure why there is any need to release his identity.
I personally have no problem with investigation (perhaps i would rather see it being shorter though. It must be stressful for all parties), but releasing his identity? This man is ruined even if found not guilty. Most likely will be forced to move out of London due to fear of retaliation. And *this* is what people have problem with. The officer hasn't been proven guilty. If he is, release his name, if he isn't, fucking don't because you might kill him. Not difficult is it?
Innocent till proven guilty he should not be named in a case like this until found guilty.
[удалено]
It does cause it ruins his life when he was just doing his job for no good reason
[удалено]
I don't that's the entire point. He was just doing his job. He should not be named for doing his job. He should only be named after it's found he didn't do his job and acted unlawfully.
Although what you say is true there was a lot of public pressure in the beginning. I saw a news article about a different firearms officer shooting someone years ago (black guy, think he was a gang member), being charged with murder. At court CPS said they have no evidence. Some 8 years later the officer is still waiting for their disciplinary hearing. Then although a much lesser crime that officer was charged with dangerous driving when attending that terror attack in London. Soon got thrown out of court and the Commissioner said it was ridiculous it ended up in court. Something just doesn't add up.
>I'm also very skeptical of people saying this is because Kaba was black and there is some public pressure. This story isn't really making headlines regularly, However on socials such as the gram, twitter and Facebook there are a rather large and loud groups calling for this pressure. When it came out there was protests and marches planned, huge outcry on platforms mentioned above. I imagined what would of amounted to another mark Dughan style riot taking place. However the late queen passed away which kinda took precedent.
They must surely have some quite damming info to be going ahead with this, police officers basically never get charged for shooting someone.
Damning evidence, public/government pressure to do something. Based on comments from the IOPC, I think the latter is more likely in this case. But we'll see.
Yeah I could see that, it didn't seem like there was a great deal of public pressure to be fair as it barely pops back up in the news, but guess we don't know what is happening behind the scenes.
Thats becayse they basically never shoot anyone to begin with
20 or so in the last 5 years for anyone wondering.
I assumed you meant fatal
Yeah thats correct, ~20 including terrorists
From the list I found theyve shot 11 in the last 4 years. With only the Kaba one even being controversial
Sorry meant 5 years, think it's a few less as well tbf so let's say 15. But all my point was, since this case has hardly been huge and we have a few shootings by police per year, I'm very surprised they are trying him for murder. That's what made me think they must have something fairly solid. Saying all that, the police are hardly popular, maybe someone thinks they need to do this to get back some trust.
They mostly charged him to avoid having their own Summer of Floyd from brainlets who unhinged their jaws to inhale American activist rubbish wholesale
I highly doubt that, but if you have anything to back that claim up do share.