Chris Kaba Shooting
Discussion
I would not want to be in his shoes.... I really don't see why it was necessary to name him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68502...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68502...
Trevatanus said:
I would not want to be in his shoes.... I really don't see why it was necessary to name him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68502...
Because the media are the dregs of society and wallow in their self-righteousness. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68502...
Lets hope for a speedy outcome with all the facts laid bare to, hopefully, prove his innocence. I guess it will all rest on his threat assessment, which in the heat of the moment is never black or white but years later with hindsight might appear to be wrong, although that shouldn't be an issue.
Trevatanus said:
I would not want to be in his shoes.... I really don't see why it was necessary to name him
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68502...
Especially since he has to wait another 7 months before the trial to start. If there was credible intelligence in relation to his safety you wonder why the desire of the media for his details overrides this. Lets hope there is nothing happens before Octoberhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68502...
Greendubber said:
eldar said:
Greendubber said:
The press will have been scouring the internet for any image of him or his family no doubt.
Publishing pictures or addresses is still subject to the restriction for now. No doubt they're getting prepared.It's a bit naive of the judge to read, "that significant information had emerged about a threat to his safety in the aftermath of the shooting", but think that only providing his name and DOB (as opposed to picture and address, too) is a sufficient safeguard.
I hope the police are spending a small fortune on 24/7 protection / relocating him etc. Doing so gives the Met an opportunity to send a strong message of support to their officers.
I hope the police are spending a small fortune on 24/7 protection / relocating him etc. Doing so gives the Met an opportunity to send a strong message of support to their officers.
The outcome of this could have wide reaching effects on the thought processes of armed police officers in the UK. A guilty verdict could, and quite rightly see armed officers leaving their roles in droves. I wonder if already this has dissuaded officers from applying for the role? I imagine possibly not, as it's a route out of a God forsaken role of being on a response team.
Whilst ever they don't have to squeeze the trigger I can imagine it's a great role to have, but as soon as that trigger has to be squeezed it potentially opens the gates of hell for them. It's a role where if you perform it to the full, you risk being subject of a murder trial. Even if found not guilty just imagine the pain and stress that will cause you. Never in a million years would I ever want that job.
Whilst ever they don't have to squeeze the trigger I can imagine it's a great role to have, but as soon as that trigger has to be squeezed it potentially opens the gates of hell for them. It's a role where if you perform it to the full, you risk being subject of a murder trial. Even if found not guilty just imagine the pain and stress that will cause you. Never in a million years would I ever want that job.
The Gauge said:
The outcome of this could have wide reaching effects on the thought processes of armed police officers in the UK. A guilty verdict could, and quite rightly see armed officers leaving their roles in droves. I wonder if already this has dissuaded officers from applying for the role? I imagine possibly not, as it's a route out of a God forsaken role of being on a response team.
Whilst ever they don't have to squeeze the trigger I can imagine it's a great role to have, but as soon as that trigger has to be squeezed it potentially opens the gates of hell for them. It's a role where if you perform it to the full, you risk being subject of a murder trial. Even if found not guilty just imagine the pain and stress that will cause you. Never in a million years would I ever want that job.
Already has https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/met-in-firear...Whilst ever they don't have to squeeze the trigger I can imagine it's a great role to have, but as soon as that trigger has to be squeezed it potentially opens the gates of hell for them. It's a role where if you perform it to the full, you risk being subject of a murder trial. Even if found not guilty just imagine the pain and stress that will cause you. Never in a million years would I ever want that job.
freedman said:
So its fine to name the officer involved, but not ok to name the person he shot in the other case
God forbid the public find out what a piece of work he was, rather than how hes been portrayed up to now
The problem is the make up of the jury and how good the prosecution barrister is.God forbid the public find out what a piece of work he was, rather than how hes been portrayed up to now
Even if the jury knows that Kaba would have been charged and found most probably guilty of murder a good barrister will say so what!
A reasonable jury would say based on the intelligence the office had reasonable belief his life was in danger, but as I said that depends on the make up and place of the jury. Hold it in the home counties against London and beliefs will be differrent.
I just hope he is getting the very best legal team money can buy and they are allowed to defend fully. I would hope he will be acquitted but who knows.
Named and so he should. You can't have one law for one and another law for another. You know what you're getting yourself into joining the FA unit. He's been charged and now off to trial, just because he's a police officer shouldn't give him special privileges. They already have enough.
pocketspring said:
Named and so he should. You can't have one law for one and another law for another. You know what you're getting yourself into joining the FA unit. He's been charged and now off to trial, just because he's a police officer shouldn't give him special privileges. They already have enough.
Agreed, though this has taken far too long to reach this point, and does have the whiff of looking for a scapegoat. If he is harmed while awaiting trial, s
tstorm all round.The reality will be the evidence presented.
Wouldn't make me want to be a copper, much less firearms equipped.
pocketspring said:
Named and so he should. You can't have one law for one and another law for another. You know what you're getting yourself into joining the FA unit. He's been charged and now off to trial, just because he's a police officer shouldn't give him special privileges. They already have enough.
How would you feel if it was you?Which special privileges do they already have?
Trevatanus said:
The Gauge said:
The outcome of this could have wide reaching effects on the thought processes of armed police officers in the UK. A guilty verdict could, and quite rightly see armed officers leaving their roles in droves. I wonder if already this has dissuaded officers from applying for the role? I imagine possibly not, as it's a route out of a God forsaken role of being on a response team.
Whilst ever they don't have to squeeze the trigger I can imagine it's a great role to have, but as soon as that trigger has to be squeezed it potentially opens the gates of hell for them. It's a role where if you perform it to the full, you risk being subject of a murder trial. Even if found not guilty just imagine the pain and stress that will cause you. Never in a million years would I ever want that job.
Already has https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/met-in-firear...Whilst ever they don't have to squeeze the trigger I can imagine it's a great role to have, but as soon as that trigger has to be squeezed it potentially opens the gates of hell for them. It's a role where if you perform it to the full, you risk being subject of a murder trial. Even if found not guilty just imagine the pain and stress that will cause you. Never in a million years would I ever want that job.
Four convictions after trials that didn't disclose all of the information has police officers quitting.
It's great having bodyworn video footage but not much use if it doesn't make it to the trial.
pocketspring said:
Named and so he should. You can't have one law for one and another law for another. You know what you're getting yourself into joining the FA unit. He's been charged and now off to trial, just because he's a police officer shouldn't give him special privileges. They already have enough.
Ironically this information emerges one the day that 3 youths ( who cannot be named because... legal reasons) were convicted of stabbing a boy to death at a party in Bath. They are convicted murderers why should they not be named. To protect them?So protecting convicted murderers is more important than protecting an innocent police officer and his family.
No wonder officers are handing in their tickets.
What special privileges are you referring to?
pocketspring said:
Named and so he should. You can't have one law for one and another law for another. You know what you're getting yourself into joining the FA unit. He's been charged and now off to trial, just because he's a police officer shouldn't give him special privileges. They already have enough.
Special privileges? Did you hit the pub early?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff