Chris Kaba Shooting
Discussion
SteveKTMer said:
Why would you get out of a car and stand in front of somebody who was ramming your car ?
In order to give verbal instructions to the subject inside the vehicle, effect their detention for a search, and/or to arrest them, you know, the things we generally want and expect police officers to do as part of their job? I can't believe you're asking the question above tbh.
Surely you understand the dynamic nature of the situation, one second the vehicle is boxed in and had come to a halt, and the officers judge it safe to exit the vehicle and approach the driver on foot, then a second later the subject accelerates and starts trying to run people over or ram his way out of the box.
Things change bloody fast in the real world, its why police officers will often refer to making a *dynamic* risk assessment.
98elise said:
SteveKTMer said:
Geffg said:
SteveKTMer said:
Absolutely, killing a driver isn't warranted despite all the usual pleas from the PH wannabe plod armed guard. If he pointed a gun at them or had at least a knife and was lunging towards one, then perhaps it's justified. But if just ramming a car was seen as sufficient reason to kill an unarmed man then it's obvious there was a serious fault with the operation at that time.
He wasn’t just going to ram a car though was he, the copper was in front of the car, so he’d of potentially killed the copper. Who would you rather die, the innocent copper doing his job or some horrible scrote who amounts to nothing and probably never would’ve. Id rather all the scrotes go round and kill each other as long as no innocent people get harmed. The police report is very suspicious, the plod are not usually that daft. Their failure to manage the incident is not sufficient reason to kill the driver.
You would think the family would be looking for more publicity if the police were in the wrong.
Feel for the officer involved.
Guy was a wrong un
WolvesWill said:
SteveKTMer said:
Why would you get out of a car and stand in front of somebody who was ramming your car ?
In order to give verbal instructions to the subject inside the vehicle, effect their detention for a search, and/or to arrest them, you know, the things we generally want and expect police officers to do as part of their job? I can't believe you're asking the question above tbh.
Surely you understand the dynamic nature of the situation, one second the vehicle is boxed in and had come to a halt, and the officers judge it safe to exit the vehicle and approach the driver on foot, then a second later the subject accelerates and starts trying to run people over or ram his way out of the box.
Things change bloody fast in the real world, its why police officers will often refer to making a *dynamic* risk assessment.
Even if Kaba drove off, so what? Kaba wasn’t ramming people before. Could the police not have gone to his or the registered vehicle owners address later?
There’s people on here who don’t understand the concept of de-escalating a situation rather than making it worse.
Edited by Mr Miata on Saturday 1st April 17:01
Mr Miata said:
WolvesWill said:
SteveKTMer said:
Why would you get out of a car and stand in front of somebody who was ramming your car ?
In order to give verbal instructions to the subject inside the vehicle, effect their detention for a search, and/or to arrest them, you know, the things we generally want and expect police officers to do as part of their job? I can't believe you're asking the question above tbh.
Surely you understand the dynamic nature of the situation, one second the vehicle is boxed in and had come to a halt, and the officers judge it safe to exit the vehicle and approach the driver on foot, then a second later the subject accelerates and starts trying to run people over or ram his way out of the box.
Things change bloody fast in the real world, its why police officers will often refer to making a *dynamic* risk assessment.
Even if Kaba drove off, so what? Kaba wasn’t ramming people before. Could the police not have gone to his or the registered vehicle owners address later?
That anyone with a weapon would in effect have a free pass and be allowed to go on their way (with evidence lost etc)?
Doesn't that just encourage people to carry weapons or use a car as a weapon?
Firearms officers are given firearms so that they don't have to do that. They are given firearms so that they have the tools to confront & detain those with weapons who are danger.
s3 Criminal Law Act 1967 said:
(1) A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime, or in effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or of persons unlawfully at large.
I want Police officers to confront criminality not walk away from it.vonhosen said:
So you think that the Police should step away from any threat then?
That anyone with a weapon would in effect have a free pass and be allowed to go on their way (with evidence lost etc)?
Doesn't that just encourage people to carry weapons or use a car as a weapon?
Firearms officers are given firearms so that they don't have to do that. They are given firearms so that they have the tools to confront & detain those with weapons who are danger.
Kaba wasn’t a threat before. They pulled him over because of the cars registration, heck it wasn’t even Kaba’s car! The police made him a threat when they decided to stand in front of the car. That anyone with a weapon would in effect have a free pass and be allowed to go on their way (with evidence lost etc)?
Doesn't that just encourage people to carry weapons or use a car as a weapon?
Firearms officers are given firearms so that they don't have to do that. They are given firearms so that they have the tools to confront & detain those with weapons who are danger.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 1st April 17:01
Was Kaba’s intention to kill that police officer or was Kaba only trying to drive off?
It’s like standing at the side of the road waiting for the next number 56 bus to come along. Then as the bus is level with you, deliberately jumping front of it, screaming the bus driver is trying to use a weapon.
Mr Miata said:
If that police officer wasn’t stood in front of the car, but had stepped out of danger. It would have instantly de-escalated the situation. That’s why in my opinion lethal force want justified, because there was an alternative course of action.
Even if Kaba drove off, so what? Kaba wasn’t ramming people before. Could the police not have gone to his or the registered vehicle owners address later?
Have you considered that it's not always possible to step out of the way of a car being driven towards you?Even if Kaba drove off, so what? Kaba wasn’t ramming people before. Could the police not have gone to his or the registered vehicle owners address later?
Your second question demonstrates a real lack of practical policing knowledge or experience.
You ask why they did not go to Kabas address or where the vehicle was registered to.
In asking the first question, about going to his address, you are assuming that the police knew the identity of the person inside the vehicle that they wanted to stop, before they chose to use tactics and try and stop it.
Often, police will know details for a vehicle involved in a particular crime, but will not know (or have fully confirmed) the identity of the person driving it at the time of the offence.
Think about how CCTV from an incident may enable police to find out a vehicle registration, make, model and colour of the suspect vehicle, but that same footage is much less likely to give a clear view of the suspects if they remain inside the vehicle (and let's not forget, a face alone is not the same as a proven identity...and many offenders will have face coverings too).
This aspect, where police will know about a vehicle used in an offence but not know who the occupants are, is particulary true for firearms offences where a huge proportion are 'drive by' shootings, given a vehicle provides a level of physical protection for the gunman, easy concealment opportunities for the weapon, allows for potential retention of shell casings inside the vehicle (reducing forensic evidence left at the scene), and a speedy getaway afterwards.
Criminals will routinely use cars on false plates, or hire/lease vehicles which they change quickly.
With appropriate techniques (which I will not detail on this forum), police can sometimes still identify vehicles being driven about on false plates, in polixe parlance, these are the 'cloned' vehicles
A registered keepers check will almost certainly be done as a matter of course in the aftermath of any offence involcing suspects in a vehicle, but this is not the be all and end all, the keepers address may not even exist, it may be a lease company at the other end of the country, it may be a dodgy car hire place with links to criminality (who will deliberately frustrate any police investigation to establish who the hirer was), it may very quickly be apparent (in near real time) that the subject vehicle is being driven on cloned plates....
Which, if you want to apprehend criminals, leave you few other options than to use tactics to try and stop the vehicle when it is sighted in the hours or days after the original incident.
For a firearms marker to be placed on any vehicle requires a dedicated process by an officer of senior rank, in accordance with nationally agreed guidelines.
An enforced stop with armed extraction as appears to have been used in this incident, is not a tactic deployed routinely or lightly.
Do some reading on the National Decision Model, S117 PACE 1984, S3 Criminal Law Act 1967, S76 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, along with common law, and you will have a better understanding of what legal powers (with regards to use of force) are given to police officers. They are more wide ranging than many people believe.
Mr Miata said:
vonhosen said:
So you think that the Police should step away from any threat then?
That anyone with a weapon would in effect have a free pass and be allowed to go on their way (with evidence lost etc)?
Doesn't that just encourage people to carry weapons or use a car as a weapon?
Firearms officers are given firearms so that they don't have to do that. They are given firearms so that they have the tools to confront & detain those with weapons who are danger.
Kaba wasn’t a threat before. They pulled him over because of the cars registration, heck it wasn’t even Kaba’s car! The police made him a threat when they decided to stand in front of the car. That anyone with a weapon would in effect have a free pass and be allowed to go on their way (with evidence lost etc)?
Doesn't that just encourage people to carry weapons or use a car as a weapon?
Firearms officers are given firearms so that they don't have to do that. They are given firearms so that they have the tools to confront & detain those with weapons who are danger.
Edited by vonhosen on Saturday 1st April 17:01
If they've shot him at that point then the officer has big problems.
Stopping someone & standing in their path doesn't mean they are a threat that you can use lethal force against.
Mr Miata said:
Was Kaba’s intention to kill that police officer or was Kaba only trying to drive off?
I don't know what Kaba's intention was.But if he drove at the officer or anyone else then the Police would be entitled to use force.
Mr Miata said:
It’s like standing at the side of the road waiting for the next number 56 bus to come along. Then as the bus is level with you, deliberately jumping front of it, screaming the bus driver is trying to use a weapon.
No it's not, if the vehicle was stopped.It's like standing in front of a stationary number 56 bus. At this stage the bus is not a threat that requires a use of lethal force.
If however the bus driver decides to then drive at you, then you are entitled to use proportional force to defend yourself.
Some of the comments regarding how the police could’ve done better etc etc, all well and good afterwards and not in that moment. Also I would love to live in their perfect world where criminals just stop when asked and everything is all rosy. It’s like they haven’t a clue about the real world. People who’ve never experienced a normal persons living area not a rich persons perfect no crime area. Do gooders who think everyone should have all these rights and respect when these sh#t bags have no respect for anyone or anything. Imo criminals should be dealt with a lot harder than they are. Treat them with the same respect they give others which is none so why they be dealt with lightly.
Smash a few heads in and make them give you respect instead of pussy footing around them like the olden days. if the police treated them like they treat the police I’m sure the tide would turn.
Smash a few heads in and make them give you respect instead of pussy footing around them like the olden days. if the police treated them like they treat the police I’m sure the tide would turn.
Geffg said:
Some of the comments regarding how the police could’ve done better etc etc, all well and good afterwards and not in that moment. Also I would love to live in their perfect world where criminals just stop when asked and everything is all rosy. It’s like they haven’t a clue about the real world. People who’ve never experienced a normal persons living area not a rich persons perfect no crime area. Do gooders who think everyone should have all these rights and respect when these sh#t bags have no respect for anyone or anything. Imo criminals should be dealt with a lot harder than they are. Treat them with the same respect they give others which is none so why they be dealt with lightly.
Smash a few heads in and make them give you respect instead of pussy footing around them like the olden days. if the police treated them like they treat the police I’m sure the tide would turn.
What crimes did he commit to be executed?Smash a few heads in and make them give you respect instead of pussy footing around them like the olden days. if the police treated them like they treat the police I’m sure the tide would turn.
Edited by Raccaccoonie on Saturday 1st April 23:14
Geffg said:
Some of the comments regarding how the police could’ve done better etc etc, all well and good afterwards and not in that moment. Also I would love to live in their perfect world where criminals just stop when asked and everything is all rosy. It’s like they haven’t a clue about the real world. People who’ve never experienced a normal persons living area not a rich persons perfect no crime area. Do gooders who think everyone should have all these rights and respect when these sh#t bags have no respect for anyone or anything. Imo criminals should be dealt with a lot harder than they are. Treat them with the same respect they give others which is none so why they be dealt with lightly.
Smash a few heads in and make them give you respect instead of pussy footing around them like the olden days. if the police treated them like they treat the police I’m sure the tide would turn.
You’ll have a sore head tomorrow I guessSmash a few heads in and make them give you respect instead of pussy footing around them like the olden days. if the police treated them like they treat the police I’m sure the tide would turn.
Bigends said:
But the officers didnt know who the driver was at the time - could have been anyone.
The stop was based on the PNC marker - not who was driving the car
And the shooting was based upon the stupidity and the actions of the driver.The stop was based on the PNC marker - not who was driving the car
I’ve had a hard stop by armed police before with weapons drawn, with enough product in the car to receive a 12 year stint.
And surprisingly, I didn’t get shot by the Police even once. It wasn’t the colour of my skin that prevented that happening. It was me not trying to run over several coppers with my car that meant that the Police didn’t kill me to death.
Even though I’m absolutely no fan of the Police, based upon the evidence that I have seen, I hope that the officers involved face zero charges and zero detriment to their careers over this.
IMO, those Police involved did 100% the right thing.
The guy got s
t because of his actions. The narrative wants to push the race card but in this case had he stopped and put his hands up after being boxed he would not have been shot.
Any normal person would not have tried to ram their way out of that situation. The guy had history of criminality that’s why he behaved as he did. He wasn’t squeaky clean and he knew that. The fact he was driving a car associated to a firearms incident just points to the type of associates he was mingling with.
Sad story but his actions dictated the outcome, he was not murdered imo.
The police officer involved has already been convicted by the wider public and media because the victim is black. Until a full investigation is completed we can only speculate but with what we know and from the armchair I don’t think there is a case to answer on this occasion.
t because of his actions. The narrative wants to push the race card but in this case had he stopped and put his hands up after being boxed he would not have been shot.Any normal person would not have tried to ram their way out of that situation. The guy had history of criminality that’s why he behaved as he did. He wasn’t squeaky clean and he knew that. The fact he was driving a car associated to a firearms incident just points to the type of associates he was mingling with.
Sad story but his actions dictated the outcome, he was not murdered imo.
The police officer involved has already been convicted by the wider public and media because the victim is black. Until a full investigation is completed we can only speculate but with what we know and from the armchair I don’t think there is a case to answer on this occasion.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/man-dies-sho...
An article posted soon after the incident.
The independent witness accounts weren't repeated widely in the media.
No case to answer is the logical result but the CPS will bottle it.
Also, it's funny how short the public memory is in relation to how dangerous vehicles can be when used as a weapon/driven at people/police officers.
Just Google PCs Andrew Harper, Gareth Browning, Alison Armitage, Bryan Moore, Andrew Munn....
Or...
PCs Jon Odell, Philippa Reynolds and Ged Walker for some fairly recent examples of how cars are deadly with the intention of causing harm. Not to mention the number of cases of people using them as weapons after spats in clubs or bars as seems to be a common MO these days.
I feel massively for the officers involved and Kabas relatives, but Kaba made his own decisions.
I can also assure you, no ARV officer actively goes to work wanting to shoot anybody. The whole reason we do things the way we do is to try and prevent ever having to use force or shoot people.
An article posted soon after the incident.
The independent witness accounts weren't repeated widely in the media.
No case to answer is the logical result but the CPS will bottle it.
Also, it's funny how short the public memory is in relation to how dangerous vehicles can be when used as a weapon/driven at people/police officers.
Just Google PCs Andrew Harper, Gareth Browning, Alison Armitage, Bryan Moore, Andrew Munn....
Or...
PCs Jon Odell, Philippa Reynolds and Ged Walker for some fairly recent examples of how cars are deadly with the intention of causing harm. Not to mention the number of cases of people using them as weapons after spats in clubs or bars as seems to be a common MO these days.
I feel massively for the officers involved and Kabas relatives, but Kaba made his own decisions.
I can also assure you, no ARV officer actively goes to work wanting to shoot anybody. The whole reason we do things the way we do is to try and prevent ever having to use force or shoot people.
Edited by Tom1312 on Sunday 2nd April 06:51
Raccaccoonie said:
Geffg said:
Some of the comments regarding how the police could’ve done better etc etc, all well and good afterwards and not in that moment. Also I would love to live in their perfect world where criminals just stop when asked and everything is all rosy. It’s like they haven’t a clue about the real world. People who’ve never experienced a normal persons living area not a rich persons perfect no crime area. Do gooders who think everyone should have all these rights and respect when these sh#t bags have no respect for anyone or anything. Imo criminals should be dealt with a lot harder than they are. Treat them with the same respect they give others which is none so why they be dealt with lightly.
Smash a few heads in and make them give you respect instead of pussy footing around them like the olden days. if the police treated them like they treat the police I’m sure the tide would turn.
What crimes did he commit to be executed?Smash a few heads in and make them give you respect instead of pussy footing around them like the olden days. if the police treated them like they treat the police I’m sure the tide would turn.
Edited by Raccaccoonie on Saturday 1st April 23:14
vonhosen said:
SteveKTMer said:
Geffg said:
SteveKTMer said:
Absolutely, killing a driver isn't warranted despite all the usual pleas from the PH wannabe plod armed guard. If he pointed a gun at them or had at least a knife and was lunging towards one, then perhaps it's justified. But if just ramming a car was seen as sufficient reason to kill an unarmed man then it's obvious there was a serious fault with the operation at that time.
He wasn’t just going to ram a car though was he, the copper was in front of the car, so he’d of potentially killed the copper. Who would you rather die, the innocent copper doing his job or some horrible scrote who amounts to nothing and probably never would’ve. Id rather all the scrotes go round and kill each other as long as no innocent people get harmed. The police report is very suspicious, the plod are not usually that daft. Their failure to manage the incident is not sufficient reason to kill the driver.
We expect them to apprehend those with guns, knives, bombs or any other weapons. You can't do that without there being some risk to yourself.
Firearms officers are given guns so that they can protect themselves when doing that.
WolvesWill said:
SteveKTMer said:
Why would you get out of a car and stand in front of somebody who was ramming your car ?
In order to give verbal instructions to the subject inside the vehicle, effect their detention for a search, and/or to arrest them, you know, the things we generally want and expect police officers to do as part of their job? I can't believe you're asking the question above tbh.
Surely you understand the dynamic nature of the situation, one second the vehicle is boxed in and had come to a halt, and the officers judge it safe to exit the vehicle and approach the driver on foot, then a second later the subject accelerates and starts trying to run people over or ram his way out of the box.
Things change bloody fast in the real world, its why police officers will often refer to making a *dynamic* risk assessment.
SteveKTMer said:
vonhosen said:
SteveKTMer said:
Geffg said:
SteveKTMer said:
Absolutely, killing a driver isn't warranted despite all the usual pleas from the PH wannabe plod armed guard. If he pointed a gun at them or had at least a knife and was lunging towards one, then perhaps it's justified. But if just ramming a car was seen as sufficient reason to kill an unarmed man then it's obvious there was a serious fault with the operation at that time.
He wasn’t just going to ram a car though was he, the copper was in front of the car, so he’d of potentially killed the copper. Who would you rather die, the innocent copper doing his job or some horrible scrote who amounts to nothing and probably never would’ve. Id rather all the scrotes go round and kill each other as long as no innocent people get harmed. The police report is very suspicious, the plod are not usually that daft. Their failure to manage the incident is not sufficient reason to kill the driver.
We expect them to apprehend those with guns, knives, bombs or any other weapons. You can't do that without there being some risk to yourself.
Firearms officers are given guns so that they can protect themselves when doing that.
We don't expect them to let people go because they threaten violence, we expect them to deal with those people.
That's precisely why they've been authorised to carry firearms, so that they have the tools to & can deal with the most violent people.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff