Chris Kaba Shooting

[freedman]

ZedLeg said:

The officer shot an unarmed man, what do you think should happen, a pat on the back and a raise?

He was in a car, attempting to break through whatever was in front of him, including the officer

All he had to do was comply with the instruction to stop and exit the car, then this thread wouldn’t even exist

[Bigends]

freedman said:

ZedLeg said:

The officer shot an unarmed man, what do you think should happen, a pat on the back and a raise?

He was in a car, attempting to break through whatever was in front of him, including the officer

All he had to do was comply with the instruction to stop and exit the car, then this thread wouldn’t even exist

How do you know that, theres been no official announcement thats what happened?
This from the inquest
Officers continued to follow the Audi until 10.07pm. The officers did not activate their lights or sirens while following the vehicle. The intention was to use an ‘enforced stop extraction’ on the Audi.

At around 10.07pm, Mr Kaba made a left turn from New Park Road onto Kirkstall Gardens. Already present on Kirkstall Gardens was a marked police armed response vehicle. The marked ARV had parked on Kirkstall Gardens with the intention of joining the other police vehicles behind the Audi once it had passed the junction. One of the officers inside the marked ARV was NX121.

Once Mr Kaba made the left turn the decision was taken to perform an ‘inline extraction’. Armed officers exited their vehicles and approached the Audi. The evidence suggests that contact was made between the Audi driven by Mr Kaba and the police vehicles.

The evidence further suggests that officer NX121 was standing to the front of Mr Kaba’s vehicle. A single shot was fired by officer NX121 piercing the front windscreen of the vehicle Mr Kaba was driving and struck him.

Nothing there to say he was trying to batter his way out

[ZedLeg]

freedman said:

ZedLeg said:

The officer shot an unarmed man, what do you think should happen, a pat on the back and a raise?

He was in a car, attempting to break through whatever was in front of him, including the officer

All he had to do was comply with the instruction to stop and exit the car, then this thread wouldn’t even exist

That wasn’t my question, what should happen when firearms officers shoot someone they shouldn’t have?

I’m not saying it’s premeditated murder but it’s not a justified shot either. It should be investigated.

[freedman]

ZedLeg said:

That wasn’t my question, what should happen when firearms officers shoot someone they shouldn’t have?

I’m not saying it’s premeditated murder but it’s not a justified shot either. It should be investigated.

How do you know it wasn’t a justified shot?

[ZedLeg]

Because the man was unarmed and there was no immediate threat to the officer’s life.

[freedman]

ZedLeg said:

Because the man was unarmed and there was no immediate threat to the officer’s life.

Unless you were present you have zero idea whether the second half of that statement is true or not

• not forgetting the car had a firearms marker on it, having been used in a serious crime only days before

And that Mr Kabba was a convicted criminal with an unpleasant past

[ZedLeg]

Completely irrelevant and it’s blatantly transparent.

[Rushjob]

ZedLeg said:

Because the man was unarmed and there was no immediate threat to the officer’s life.

You do not understand UK criminal law.

[Trevatanus]

ZedLeg said:

Because the man was unarmed and there was no immediate threat to the officer’s life.

He was armed with an Audi, which was, according some reports, being driven at, or threatening to be driven at the officer.

[bitchstewie]

I don't know the range of options available but assuming the CPS thing Kaba shouldn't have been shot it seems quite a leap from "mistake" to "murder".

[pork911]

freedman said:

He was in a car, attempting to break through whatever was in front of him, including the officer

All he had to do was comply with the instruction to stop and exit the car, then this thread wouldn’t even exist

Comply or die

[pork911]

Trevatanus said:

ZedLeg said:

Because the man was unarmed and there was no immediate threat to the officer’s life.

He was armed with an Audi, which was, according some reports, being driven at, or threatening to be driven at the officer.

Presumably someone was threatening to shoot him?

[pork911]

freedman said:

ZedLeg said:

Because the man was unarmed and there was no immediate threat to the officer’s life.

Unless you were present you have zero idea whether the second half of that statement is true or not

• not forgetting the car had a firearms marker on it, having been used in a serious crime only days before

And that Mr Kabba was a convicted criminal with an unpleasant past

Killed for an past of unpleasantness?

[pork911]

happy fish said:

If I was an officer in the firearms unit I would hand back my firearms card and call it a day .
If you have no backing from your bosses or the public why do it.
London now is dangerous and lawless and it’s getting worse , lived here all my life , from witnessing shoplifting, fighting ,road rage . My son was robbed on the tube a few years ago and friends having being burgled.
The modern day police have an impossible job , who or why would join up.

Define 'backing'.

[freedman]

pork911 said:

Killed for an past of unpleasantness?

I was commenting on his past, not why he was shot

[Old Fart]

I remember this Police shooting in London which the Police got away with, and not for the first time an innocent person was killed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm

[Hugo Stiglitz]

ZedLeg said:

Because the man was unarmed and there was no immediate threat to the officer’s life.

Have you read anything at all?

[P0PC0RN]

This could potentially become a watershed moment in UK Policing, especially armed Policing.

I wouldn't carry a gun for all of the tea in China - a split second decision has been examined and investigated for over a year to get to this point...

I do wonder if this was always going to be the outcome due to the public interest and the potential for disorder that would follow a no case to answer verdict. The IOPC + CPS have to be seen as impartial and, unfortunately for the officer involved, this is the best course of action to afirm that impartiality.

A charge of murder effectively pushes the burden to a Judge and Jury. A finding of not guilty at court opens up various avenues for appeal which will ultimately take years to get through the various different courts watering down the potential for disorder until the whole matter is resigned to a paragraph midway through the Evening Post.

The charge of murder itself is interesting - the CPS website has a decent page on this - and I would have thought that due to the actions of Kaba (if as reported) it would be enough to break the "chain of causation". That said I'm far from a detective....

This will all end up hanging on whether the Officers belief that they were acting in self defence is deemed reasonable

[freedman]

P0PC0RN said:

This could potentially become a watershed moment in UK Policing, especially armed Policing.

I wouldn't carry a gun for all of the tea in China - a split second decision has been examined and investigated for over a year to get to this point...

I do wonder if this was always going to be the outcome due to the public interest and the potential for disorder that would follow a no case to answer verdict. The IOPC + CPS have to be seen as impartial and, unfortunately for the officer involved, this is the best course of action to afirm that impartiality.

A charge of murder effectively pushes the burden to a Judge and Jury. A finding of not guilty at court opens up various avenues for appeal which will ultimately take years to get through the various different courts watering down the potential for disorder until the whole matter is resigned to a paragraph midway through the Evening Post.

The charge of murder itself is interesting - the CPS website has a decent page on this - and I would have thought that due to the actions of Kaba (if as reported) it would be enough to break the "chain of causation". That said I'm far from a detective....

This will all end up hanging on whether the Officers belief that they were acting in self defence is deemed reasonable

There are no avenues to appeal, if found not guilty, as far as I’m aware?

Though I agree it won’t go away even if that is the case

[vonhosen]

Old Fart said:

I remember this Police shooting in London which the Police got away with, and not for the first time an innocent person was killed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm

Innocent people can get shot unfortunately.
Their innocence doesn't make the shooting unlawful though.
If the shooting is judged to be lawful that doesn't mean they've got away with it, it means the actions were lawful. So in the circumstances they were entitled to act as they did despite the unfortunate outcome.