Chris Kaba Shooting
Discussion
Patio said:
The Gauge said:
I think lots of things are broken, police, court system, NHS, politics etc. It's become the normal.
Im not sure on thatI think the fact we now have wall to wall media constantly flooding us with bad news doesn't help
I've binned the Sky News & BBC app off my phone and to me the world feels like a slightly better place for it. I've also stopped using Twitter as it's just a complete bin fire.
SP&L is taking its place now so that might be next....
Greendubber said:
Patio said:
The Gauge said:
I think lots of things are broken, police, court system, NHS, politics etc. It's become the normal.
Im not sure on thatI think the fact we now have wall to wall media constantly flooding us with bad news doesn't help
I've binned the Sky News & BBC app off my phone and to me the world feels like a slightly better place for it. I've also stopped using Twitter as it's just a complete bin fire.
SP&L is taking its place now so that might be next....
Random_Person said:
pork911 said:
They absolutely do. That you wish to pretend otherwise is bizarre.
I articulated myself and offered you to do the same. I spent time typing, against my better judgement. I explained things. I showed empathy.Your argument is "but they do".
Is that it? Your username is now noted with me.
Edited by Random_Person on Saturday 4th November 23:06
I am surprised so many criminals end up in court when all they needed to realise was that the police cannot use force.
The Gauge said:
OutInTheShed said:
Tom1312 said:
You don't need to be committing a crime at the exact moment you're stopped or arrested by the police? Otherwise how do you think people are arrested years after an offence is committed?
That car was linked to an incident the day before, it's not an unreasonable assumption to think the person or people in it may therefore be involved in that offence.
Doesn't make it OK to shoot the bugger.That car was linked to an incident the day before, it's not an unreasonable assumption to think the person or people in it may therefore be involved in that offence.
Edited by Tom1312 on Friday 3rd November 22:14
Play silly games get silly prizes …etc
FiF said:
Greendubber said:
Patio said:
The Gauge said:
I think lots of things are broken, police, court system, NHS, politics etc. It's become the normal.
Im not sure on thatI think the fact we now have wall to wall media constantly flooding us with bad news doesn't help
I've binned the Sky News & BBC app off my phone and to me the world feels like a slightly better place for it. I've also stopped using Twitter as it's just a complete bin fire.
SP&L is taking its place now so that might be next....
and31 said:
I’ve had good and bad interactions with the police, but it’s not difficult to understand when an armed response officer is pointing a gun at you,you absolutely do as you are told ,or you will be shot.
Play silly games get silly prizes …etc
What if you receive conflicting instructions from different officers ("Don't move" vs "hands up")?Play silly games get silly prizes …etc
What if you're visitor and don't understand English?
What if you can't hear instructions because of hearing loss?
This is not a game.
Hill92 said:
What if you receive conflicting instructions from different officers ("Don't move" vs "hands up")?
What if you're visitor and don't understand English?
What if you can't hear instructions because of hearing loss?
This is not a game.
I would think that it’s universally accepted that the automatic and natural response to an armed cop pointing a gun at you is to freeze followed by showing your open hands I think that may have even been installed into us by God himself. What if you're visitor and don't understand English?
What if you can't hear instructions because of hearing loss?
This is not a game.
Hill92 said:
and31 said:
I’ve had good and bad interactions with the police, but it’s not difficult to understand when an armed response officer is pointing a gun at you,you absolutely do as you are told ,or you will be shot.
Play silly games get silly prizes …etc
What if you receive conflicting instructions from different officers ("Don't move" vs "hands up")?Play silly games get silly prizes …etc
What if you're visitor and don't understand English?
What if you can't hear instructions because of hearing loss?
This is not a game.
Perhaps if he followed instructions from the copper pointing a gun at him he’d still be alive eh?
and31 said:
Chris Kaba wasn’t “ a visitor” and understood English perfectly well, and I don’t think he was deaf.
Perhaps if he followed instructions from the copper pointing a gun at him he’d still be alive eh?
We don't know what instructions were issued nor what his response was. Your position appears to be that " he was shot therefore he must have deserved it". Perhaps we should wait and see what happens at trial?Perhaps if he followed instructions from the copper pointing a gun at him he’d still be alive eh?
Hill92 said:
We don't know what instructions were issued nor what his response was. Your position appears to be that " he was shot therefore he must have deserved it". Perhaps we should wait and see what happens at trial?
I am sure you find that stopping a threat by use of armed force is something drilled into the police. Identify yourself, verbal and visual warnings followed by use of lethal force if the threat persists OR there is danger to yourself or others.Hill92, you clearly operate in another role in society so do not fully undertand training, drills and implementation of lethal force. This is NOT 'Call of Duty' this is real life. Dealing with scumbags who may kill you or others first if you are not on top of your game.
Watch the footage of the other scumbag who was shot outside parliment having already been partially neutralised by a member of the public. Was he another foreigner who did not understand English, maybe but he knew how to kill others and wore a vest believed at the time to be a suicide vest and knew this would allow him to go to heaven rather than rot in jail.
I would be extremely surprised if "his response" was anything other than to remain a threat to the officer that shot him or others. This will have been the split second decision made by the officer and the public should support his judgement not name him and take him to court.
The Manchester bomber was one missed by the security services but there will be many who like you would have complained if he had been shot without a bomb on him. However what about the parents and familes of those lost ??? IF he had been shot would it not be a fair exchange. Could you sell him staying alive to kill over the families losses? I talk here not of an execution but an attempt at arrest that resulted in him being shot much like Kaba (who also tried to kill someone and may have tried to kill somone else had he continued on his merry way).
Pip
Edited by Pip1968 on Sunday 5th November 19:46
Pip1968 said:
I am sure you find that stopping a threat by use of armed force is something drilled into the police. Identify yourself, verbal and visual warnings followed by use of lethal force if the threat persists OR there is danger to yourself or others.
Hill92, you clearly operate in another role in society so do not fully undertand training, drills and implementation of lethal force. This is NOT 'Call of Duty' this is real life. Dealing with scumbags who may kill you or others first if you are not on top of your game.
Watch the footage of the other scumbag who was shot outside parliment having already been partially neutralised by a member of the public. Was he another foreigner who did not understand English, maybe but he knew how to kill others and wore a vest believed at the time to be a suicide vest and knew this would allow him to go to heaven rather than rot in jail.
I would be extremely surprised if "his response" was anything other than to remain a threat to the officer that shot him or others. This will have been the split second decision made by the officer and the public should support his judgement not name him and take him to court.
The Manchester bomber was one missed by the security services but there will be many who like you would have complained if he had been shot without a bomb on him. However what about the parents and familes of those lost ??? IF he had been shot would it not be a fair exchange. Could you sell him staying alive to kill over the families losses? I talk here not of an execution but an attempt at arrest that resulted in him being shot much like Kaba (who also tried to kill someone and may have tried to kill somone else had he continued on his merry way).
Pip
The problem is they are not just dealing with "scumbags - they may well be ordinary members of the public who pose no threat and who are not even aware they're perceived to pose a threat to anyone.Hill92, you clearly operate in another role in society so do not fully undertand training, drills and implementation of lethal force. This is NOT 'Call of Duty' this is real life. Dealing with scumbags who may kill you or others first if you are not on top of your game.
Watch the footage of the other scumbag who was shot outside parliment having already been partially neutralised by a member of the public. Was he another foreigner who did not understand English, maybe but he knew how to kill others and wore a vest believed at the time to be a suicide vest and knew this would allow him to go to heaven rather than rot in jail.
I would be extremely surprised if "his response" was anything other than to remain a threat to the officer that shot him or others. This will have been the split second decision made by the officer and the public should support his judgement not name him and take him to court.
The Manchester bomber was one missed by the security services but there will be many who like you would have complained if he had been shot without a bomb on him. However what about the parents and familes of those lost ??? IF he had been shot would it not be a fair exchange. Could you sell him staying alive to kill over the families losses? I talk here not of an execution but an attempt at arrest that resulted in him being shot much like Kaba (who also tried to kill someone and may have tried to kill somone else had he continued on his merry way).
Pip
Edited by Pip1968 on Sunday 5th November 19:46
It's unclear as to which terror attack you're referring to given your description is only partial accurate to any event:
If you mean the 2017 Westminster Bridge attack that resulted in the murder of PC Keith Palmer and 4 civilians: there was no suicide vest (real or fake) but the two Met Police armed Close Protection Officers reacting to a spontaneous incident, arriving to find their unarmed colleagues injured and batons drawn against an advancing attacker holding two knives. Given the immediate threat to life, they would have been entirely justified shooting without warning. In the event they did give warnings possibly as they arrived from distance or because they could not immediately engage the threat safely with their personal weapons (be it for distance or their colleagues being too close to the line of fire). Separate inquests were held into the deaths of PC Palmer and the 4 civilians (unlawful killing) and the attacker (lawful killing).
If you mean the 2017 London Bridge attack where the three attackers did have fake suicide vests: Met Police and City of London ARVs responded to a spontaneous incident following multiple reports of injuries. On arrival they saw injured victims lying in the street and were confronted by the three attackers running at them with knives. Again, given the threat to life the officers would have been entirely justified in shooting without warning. They gave warnings anyway. The immediately proceeded to fire critical shots to ensure the the attackers could not detonate what appeared to be improvised explosive devices. Again, separate inquests for held for the victims (unlawful killing) and the attackers (lawful killing)
Or you perhaps you meant the 2019 London Bridge attack: on this occasion a City of London ARV responded to a spontaneous incident involving knifeman threatening to blow up Fishmongers Hall. They arrived to find members of the public attempting to restrain the attacker on London Bridge. They pulled the member of public away, warned the attacker to stay still and tasered him. One officer hearing the attacker mention "bomb" fired two shots before retreating to ballistic cover. Further armed police units arrived from the Met and City. The attacker was seen to move and sit upon in what was believed to be an attempt to detonate his apparent IED. The armed officers therefore fired critical shots to kill the attacker. Again, separate inquests were held for the victims (unlawfully killed) and the attacker (lawfully killed).
Incidentally all 6 inquests were held by the Chief Coroner of England and Wales, Mark Lucraft KC. He granted anonymity to all of the armed police officers involved and praised their actions. He is also the same judge who, in his current role of Recorder of London, is now presiding over the criminal trial of NX121. Something certain posters in this thread might wish to reflect upon given their virulent reaction here to his decision not to grant anonymity to NX121.
As for your posed scenario of the Manchester bombing attacker. You fail to note that different procedures exist for dealing with actual or suspected suicide bombers given the extreme threat they pose to the public vs any other situation that may require firearms involvement such as to render it a useless comparison to run of the mill criminal policing.
But we don't need to imagine someone being shot as suicide bomber on the basis of intelligence in the circumstances you pose because we have the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. Nobody in their right mind would suggest his death was acceptable, not least because no lives were saved. The significant failings of the Police operation (supported by the security services and military) could not be attributed to any one individual and therefore the CPS only brought corporate criminal charges against the Met Police under Health and Safety at Work Act, which were found proven by a jury. The inquest jury returned an open verdict (it was that or lawful killing; an unlawful killing verdict was not available to them).
Meanwhile Police and security services have successfully identified and stopped multiple planned terror attacks at early stages. I would expect arrest operations in such circumstances to almost always include armed support. No individuals have been killed in such operations in the past 20 years.
You also fail to consider that there is significant a difference between reacting to a spontaneous ongoing threat and the police initiating a pro active intelligence-led operation to stop or detain a target who may not currently pose a threat. The latter imposes additional responsibilities upon Police to protect members of the public, including the target, as well as themselves. That includes not putting someone who poses no threat into a position where there is nothing they can do to avoid being shot (the finding of the inquiry into the shooting of Jermaine Baker - the W80 case).
I do not accept that armed Police Officers are simply trained to assume the worst case as some defensive posters here would imply. Instead they are trained objectively judge a situation as they find it and they must do so as any reasonable person would. And yes, they must make those decisions in split seconds, as indeed their unarmed colleagues do in any use of force. Yes, that involves risks, both physical and legal. But that has been and always will be the role of a police officer in upholding the law fairly and reasonably. Their excellent record on the whole over the past 20 years supports this.
But there is a danger that a culture of "us vs the scumbags" can undermine that training. There is as much danger to an armed police officer (and the service as a whole) who closes their mind to possibilities that they are dealing with an innocent member of the public as there is to one who fails to have regard to possibility that they are about to face a hardened lethal threat. That is why "us vs the scumbags" can never be used to wave away accountability and independent oversight.
To bring it back to NX121 - we still have no real idea of the case against him and likely won't until the trial sometime next year. We would all be best served by awaiting that process rather leaping to conclusions either way without any evidence.
freedman said:
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Jesus. Is this thread still running?!
Why wouldn't it be?And we have two big events coming up that will fuel it
The trial for attempted murder by Kaba's associates (Where he would have been too, had he not been shot)
The trial of of the officer next year
SeekerOfTruthAndPies said:
Because for the last 30 pages there has been little fresh insight, just a further entrenchment of (usually the same few) people's views.
Fortunately the trial starts next week, so there will be things to discuss thenhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12037111/...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff