Chris Kaba Shooting
Discussion
GMT13 said:
Kaba's family confronted the officer as he left court shouting at him 'why did you kill my son?'
That will be because your son murdered somebody and was attempting to flea justice....
Because they're sThat will be because your son murdered somebody and was attempting to flea justice....
t family members that knew exactly what kind of things he was into but didn't do anything to stop him, maybe? GMT13 said:
Kaba's family confronted the officer as he left court shouting at him 'why did you kill my son?'
That will be because your son murdered somebody and was attempting to flea justice....
In that case he is guilty of murder. I suspect his defence will more robust than 'he deserved it'. That will be because your son murdered somebody and was attempting to flea justice....
FMOB said:
I think the judge has made a mistake in allowing the officer to be named as it just increases the risk to his safety but also his family who are not the subject any proceedings.
There was an ex FAO on the news earlier who had lawfully shot and killed someone. He still has protection and frequently has the police out. He retired in 2008.
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.
Yes exactly what special privileges do the Police have .I think the judge is wrong allowing him to be named and I seriously hope nothing happens to him or his family due to this .
I also think that if a scrote (which is what Kaba was /is )points a firearm or drives a car at fa officers then they deserve what comes to them if killed then so be it, I believe he had a gun in his car and was moving to find it.
The army when being investigated are allowed to not give names out so the FA police should be the same
119 said:
And that’s the problem.
Nobody wants to admit to that part because….
The whole narrative is of an innocent, man, soon to be a father and studying hard, who was murdered by an armed officerNobody wants to admit to that part because….
Every time it’s discussed on TV you’d have thought he was a saint
Instead in reality, he was a known gang member who had convictions for firearms offences and was the alleged shooter in an attempted murder the day before his death. His two accomplices were found guilty, as he surely would have been had he stood trial
carinaman said:
Grim viewing but worth watching The Fall of Minneapolis on YouTube.
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.
Body worn cameras have really done it in for coppers now.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.
If they had had them in the 70's and 80's 75% of the entire policeforce would have been sacked.
How things change.
The points in this thread that "If something happens to the Officer or their family, it will prove naming him was a mistake"
It has already happened.
"It" is the feeling of fear and of being unsafe - The Officer will forever have that niggling doubt, and so will his family - The decision to name him immediately has that effect.
This incident has already had wider impact - there are moves afoot to change the law and better protect Officers who put themselves in harms way in the future, though that won't help the Officer here.
It has already happened.
"It" is the feeling of fear and of being unsafe - The Officer will forever have that niggling doubt, and so will his family - The decision to name him immediately has that effect.
This incident has already had wider impact - there are moves afoot to change the law and better protect Officers who put themselves in harms way in the future, though that won't help the Officer here.
Hugely similar to the Tottenham incident, the media gather round the families and victimise the police, when the person involved is usually a rogue anyway.
the family are playing the race card when this guy had form, had been in a young offender prison for 4 years for possession of a fake gun and was known to be trying to go after someone over a shooting at Tower Hamlets.
He refused to get out of the car, (a Q8 lol, not at all gangy that is it)., drove at a police car and men to ram it, and was shot.
No loss whatsoever in my eyes sorry. In fact we have rid the country of a rogue. Yes it is sad, but imagine what this poor sod has had to deal with aswell, his life can hardly be worth living now, especially now he has been bloody named.
the big issue obviously is that no weapon was found in the car or on the victim, (the vehicle was linked to firearms however) hence the charge as he was shot in the head, I would imagine vol manslaughter as he did not set out that day or whatever to kill this man, but he should not have fired his weapon, and that will nail him.
the family are playing the race card when this guy had form, had been in a young offender prison for 4 years for possession of a fake gun and was known to be trying to go after someone over a shooting at Tower Hamlets.
He refused to get out of the car, (a Q8 lol, not at all gangy that is it)., drove at a police car and men to ram it, and was shot.
No loss whatsoever in my eyes sorry. In fact we have rid the country of a rogue. Yes it is sad, but imagine what this poor sod has had to deal with aswell, his life can hardly be worth living now, especially now he has been bloody named.
the big issue obviously is that no weapon was found in the car or on the victim, (the vehicle was linked to firearms however) hence the charge as he was shot in the head, I would imagine vol manslaughter as he did not set out that day or whatever to kill this man, but he should not have fired his weapon, and that will nail him.
Edited by flatlandsman on Saturday 9th March 09:55
Hugo Stiglitz said:
From the court comment for the rationale for naming him - There's no 'inmediate' danger to the defendant.
How long will it be before the press find his address. Speak to his neighbours.
I can't even begin to imagine the anxiety levels of his family.
I'd wager the local criminal fraternity knew the identity long ago.How long will it be before the press find his address. Speak to his neighbours.
I can't even begin to imagine the anxiety levels of his family.
I presume the argument from the BBC and the rest of the media was that it is better for the public to know the name of the officer.
Show of hands. Has anyone's life improved by having the name released?
I can't say that mine has. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has benefited from this knowledge ( criminals and reporters aside).
Show of hands. Has anyone's life improved by having the name released?
I can't say that mine has. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has benefited from this knowledge ( criminals and reporters aside).
XCP said:
I presume the argument from the BBC and the rest of the media was that it is better for the public to know the name of the officer.
Show of hands. Has anyone's life improved by having the name released?
I can't say that mine has. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has benefited from this knowledge ( criminals and reporters aside).
I'd imagine a few people are relieved it's no one they know.Show of hands. Has anyone's life improved by having the name released?
I can't say that mine has. I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has benefited from this knowledge ( criminals and reporters aside).
I'd guess other met officers might prefer people not to be wondering if it was them, or rumours to be going around.
OutInTheShed said:
I'd imagine a few people are relieved it's no one they know.
I'd guess other met officers might prefer people not to be wondering if it was them, or rumours to be going around.
All those other suspended firearms officers saying ' see, I told you it wasn't me' I suppose.I'd guess other met officers might prefer people not to be wondering if it was them, or rumours to be going around.
flatlandsman said:
the big issue obviously is that no weapon was found in the car or on the victim, (the vehicle was linked to firearms however) hence the charge as he was shot in the head, I would imagine vol manslaughter as he did not set out that day or whatever to kill this man, but he should not have fired his weapon, and that will nail him.
There may not have been a gun present but the car is also weapon that CK was apparently trying use, no different to an AQ inspired terrorist running people down.Edited by flatlandsman on Saturday 9th March 09:55
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff