You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
You know who else needs to make quick life or death decisions? Doctors. Nurses. Surgeons. Pilots. Ships’ captains. Bouncers. Firefighters… There’s no reason to invent special criminal procedures for police officers
How are those roles comparable? Point me at the one in which they are trained to kill someone through their action, rather than it always being an unintended consequence?
I have a (minor) issue with the policy of "only officers who want to carry, apply and get trained to do so", or however it works.
IMO, anyone who wants to carry is a space cadet, and probably the last person you would want to carry
its a slippy slope towards becoming the 51st state. I cant fathom why the tories want to turn us into "little america"
It is probably rare that the situations that they are in when making those decisions has the potential to threaten their own life?
Pilots and captains do tend to go down with their craft...
But in any case the argument that police officers are somehow unique in making split second life or death decisions, and therefore deserve special treatment, is specious.
IMO, anyone who wants to carry is a space cadet, and probably the last person you would want to carry
Oh do grow up. Who is going to act as armed police then? People who don't want to do it? That'll work. We have one of the least heavily armed police services in the world.
The request to the army has now been rescinded according to the news on tv just now. Sufficient officers have decided to continue was the brief bit I caught.
The situations police officers face on a daily basis are obviously completely unlike those in any other job, there simply isn't another job like it. Possibly the only other jobs might be paramedics, ambulance, fire & RNLI. I.e. emergency services making split second decisions in potentially life or death situations as part of its job description. No other job has that.
Yes other jobs have dire consequences for making bad choices but it's not the same. Not even close.
The request to the army has now been rescinded according to the news on tv just now. Sufficient officers have decided to continue was the brief bit I caught.
Good to hear.
The CPS have seen all the evidence and have decided there is a case to answer, or at least investigate. The fact that the Mets armed police have had a hissy fit because they're not allowed to do exactly as they want is pretty extraordinary, and seems to support the genernal reputation for selfentitlement
Lots of employees in lots of jobs occasionally down tools in support of a colleague when they don't know all the facts.
I wouldn’t want to confront someone with a gun with a Taser.
What about unarmed people sitting in their car being belligerent and refusing to get out ?
The Yasser Yaqub case is very different, for one thing Yaqub was armed and moved to point his weapon at an armed officer
I find it shocking that someone on a cycling forum can't comprehend that a car can be used as a weapon. If the eye witness accounts of him ramming police cars are true then he clearly was potentially using it as a weapon.
"I find it shocking that someone on a cycling forum can’t comprehend that a car can be used as a weapon. If the eye witness accounts of him ramming police cars are true then he clearly was potentially using it as a weapon."
+1 this. This is an excellent occasion for the justice system to make it known that cars are incredibly dangerous, and undertaking intimidating/potentially damaging action with them will result in justice (whatever that justice ends up being)
Having been an armed police officer, I have to disagree with your “struggle to see what a machine gun brings to a situation that a Taser doesn’t”
Having been part of an armed robbery (CIT driver, not the criminal!), been involved in potential ones that didn't escalate and having taken part in training exercises with the police I have the utmost respect for the Armed Police Officers and they are absolutely needed as a level above officers with a Taser. The issue is that 99% of the general public will never see anything other than the odd armed patrol for specific events so they don't value what they do. Having seen what they can do and have to do there is no way I would support a reduction in their numbers. Higher levels of training and higher standards to hold a warrant to carry a firearm I have no problem with but there must always be armed officers available for when they are needed most. The current investigation is part of upholding those standards, this needs to be done. As for the officers handing in their firearms warrants I have no idea whether that is justified or not, pretty much none of us do. I'm hoping it's just a case of:
Lots of employees in lots of jobs occasionally down tools in support of a colleague when they don’t know all the facts.
but without being privy to all the information I cannot make an informed comment in that side. What must not happen is it becoming a political football, hopefully the army being stood down is a sign of that not happening.
IMO, anyone who wants to carry is a space cadet, and probably the last person you would want to carry
I think that says more about your perception then. I've met a few armed officers when i was living and working round Gatwick, none of them signed up in the hope of killing someone.
Anyway, I'm not sure the shortage of armed officers is due to this case after all. Theres a lot of them in Cambridge today using some of the uni buildings for a close protection exercise according to MCJnr
Yet Wayne Couzens was selected.
Yes, that was awful - but any selection process is unlikely to be perfect. Harold Shipman, Beverly Allitt and more recently Lucy Letby, demonstrate that some of these people are simply looking to control, injure and ultimately kill other people.
It is impossible to design processes that are 100%$ proof against sociopathy. Whether, you look at the worlds of politics, the military, medicine, policing or teaching.
As a result, I think the current protections against misuse of armed police powers are appropriate.
I remain convinced that a "no fault" investigations is the way to go. We need to find out why these incidents happen. If officers fear criminal prosecution for mistakes then evidence we be slanted and we will never find out so the same mistakes get repeated
this will not be a single issue causing this. Poor briefing, poor recruitment, poor training, wrong temperament etc etc all could play a part. Its seems to me Met police are far too "gung ho" and "us and them" but we just donot know
corporate manslaughter against the MET perhaps - but not criminal action against officers except in very extreme cases where they have acted outside their training and breifing
I have met more than a few armed police officers and regular police officers. Personally and I know it is objective, I have experienced more issues with normal police officers than their armed colleagues.
BTW - never been stopped and acted pleasantly.
I find it shocking that someone on a cycling forum can’t comprehend that a car can be used as a weapon. If the eye witness accounts of him ramming police cars are true then he clearly was potentially using it as a weapon.
Totally misconstrued my earlier point, but don't let get in the way of a good bit of keyboard outrage
IMO, anyone who wants to carry is a space cadet, and probably the last person you would want to carry
I'm guessing you've never met an armed officer? Anyway, how would you select them?
I remain convinced that a “no fault” investigations is the way to go. We need to find out why these incidents happen. If officers fear criminal prosecution for mistakes then evidence we be slanted and we will never find out so the same mistakes get repeated.
What if the mistake is that a coked up psycho with a badge wants to dole out street justice to those he perceives as "wrong uns", does your no fault investigation just move onto lessons learned?
Extreme example of course, but there has to be a point where officers with guns can be held responsible for their actions, we can't just say if it is their job to be armed then any shooting they carry out is justified.
Anyway, how would you select them?
I think the ones in cowboy hats would be more suitable than those in space helmets.
I remain convinced that a “no fault” investigations is the way to go. We need to find out why these incidents happen. If officers fear criminal prosecution for mistakes ... <span style="font-size: 0.8rem;">... but not criminal action against officers except in very extreme cases where they have acted outside their training and breifing</span>
Mistakes yes, but the problem with "no fault investigations" for mistakes is when they find criminal behaviour either they are no longer no-fault or they become inadmissible in court. The charge is Murder. The bar is pretty high to prove murder. If the officer had acted in accordance with their training, or briefing it would be surprising to see that officer charged with murder. Multiple people who have seen the evidence clearly believe a jury should consider if it is Murder.
What if the mistake is that a coked up psycho with a badge wants to dole out street justice to those he perceives as “wrong uns”, does your no fault investigation just move onto lessons learned?
If the officer has acted outside their training deliberatly then yes criminal prosecution. for a mistake? No
A little reminder that this is a live case so we need to be careful with speculations of the incident.
What if the mistake is that a coked up psycho with a badge wants to dole out street justice to those he perceives as “wrong uns”, does your no fault investigation just move onto lessons learned?
Maybe you should have read down to TJs last paragraph where he mentioned that.
What if the mistake is that a coked up psycho with a badge wants to dole out street justice to those he perceives as “wrong uns”, does your no fault investigation just move onto lessons learned?
What an utterly ridiculous comment.
If the officer has acted outside their training deliberatly then yes criminal prosecution. for a mistake? No
And how do you suggest finding that out if the investigation cannot apportion fault where it exists.
Appreciate some of you are fairly ignorant on classifications of weapons, and there's a lot of inaccuracy along with mild hysteria so for the uninitiated:
Pistols - Small, semi-automatic, chambered for low energy ammunition, limited magazine size.
Submachine guns - Small, semi-automatic/burst/automatic, chambered for low energy ammunition, often handgun ammunition, larger magazine capacity.
Rifles - Larger than submachine guns, semi-automatic/burst/automatic, chambered for high energy ammunition, larger magazine capacity. Can be bolt action with larger calibre for specialist tasks (sniper).
Machine guns - Larger than rifles - Use similar calibers to rifles, fully automatic, belt-fed weapons used to suppress, close, kill and destroy the Kings enemies. NOT a weapon of UK Police Forces.
N.B. If I remember correctly, no police weapons have an automatic function. Sub-machine guns and rifles are restricted to burst (usually 3 rounds) and semi-automatic only. @kato, correct me if i'm off base with that, but I'm sure that's what I recall from a while ago.
Details - I guess similar to an NHS investigatory hearing that can change if it uncovers serious wrongdoing. Needs to be worked out for sure and that is a good question. I remain wedded to the principle
And how do you suggest finding that out if the investigation cannot apportion fault where it exists.
Seriously?
IMO, anyone who wants to carry is a space cadet, and probably the last person you would want to carry
Yeah, should totally have voluntold some bods to effect an high-risk entry on a property that may have still had occupants who just blew up a load of kids. Just watch SWAT a couple of times and you're good to go.
Correct UK police don’t use automatic mode.
Well, admittedly from the Evening Standard:
Just before 10pm, residents in Kirkstall Gardens heard a single shot. An anonymous witness later told the Standard: “Armed police jumped out and were shouting at the man, ‘Get out of the car’. It was at least a dozen times. The guy in the car had a lot of opportunities to stop but he refused. He then started driving towards a police car and smashed into it, then reversed, he just wouldn’t stop the vehicle.”
The resident claimed that Mr Kaba “could have killed one of the officers with his car”
Well, admittedly from the Evening Standard:
And completely irrelevant. The Crown Prosecution Service has decided that there is sufficient evidence for a murder charge and that it should be decided by the courts.
Drac
Full Member
A little reminder that this is a live case so we need to be careful with speculations of the incident.
Appreciate some of you are fairly ignorant on classifications of weapons, and there’s a lot of inaccuracy along with mild hysteria so for the uninitiated:
Were you a subscriber to ‘Guns and Ammo’…?😉
you have to assume that the person who shot Chris was in potential danger.
because … ?
TBH, I don’t know what their marksmanship is like, I don’t know what their training is like or when they last had any, I don’t know if they’ve ever had to use a weapon ‘in anger’ before…All of which has a bearing on any incident that they may be involved in.
An ARV AFO has their “marksmanship” tested at least twice per year in that they will have to pass a multi discipline & reactive qualification shoot on moving targets. This is the most basic of standards they have to reach, but don’t be fooled by my wording - it is NOT a basic standard, and is supplemented throughout the year by development shoots. From memory, for the qualification they have no warm up shoot, and have to pass 80% overall with no less than 60% on any one element of the shoot. If they fail, depending on the type of fail, they can either re-take the element (for when they’ve scored over 80% but dropped below 60% on any particular individual element), or register an overall fail and then get a period of remedial training. During this period they are not allowed to carry a firearm operationally.
Each AFO, whether they’re a basic AFO, ARV AFO, SFO, or CT SFO has to complete a minimum hours of contact time of training. This incorporates both development shoots, tactics & enhanced/advanced 1st aid. If you have a specialism such as Close Protection, Rifle Officer etc. you will do a similar amount of training again, over and above your AFO training for this specialism.
I was an ARV AFO (with a few specialisms over the years) for almost 20 years. I would do at least 2 x 12 hr training shifts every 5 weeks. I would do a similar amount for my specialisms.
Every single minute of every day you are scrutinised; from the moment you drew your weapons you were under CCTV. Every drill, whether drawing the weapon from the armoury, function testing or download procedures was done using a Buddy Buddy system where your colleague would watch you like a hawk to ensure you didn’t **** up.
All tactical training contained an element of “judgemental” training, where your decision making was constantly monitored. You had to be able to cite the powers under which you were acting at any time, as training could be stopped mid flow for you to explain your actions. If your decision making wasn’t rock solid then you could have your “ticket” pulled pending a panel, which usually consisted of the head of firearms training, head of department & you. You would have to go through your decision making in great detail under interrogation adhering the National Decision Making (NDM) model. All of this could ultimately lose your authority to carry a firearm, and even disciplinary action.
As statistics show above, it’s highly unlikely that an AFO would’ve used their firearm “in anger”. That said, an AFO is fairly unlikely to use one “in anger” because of training, it the training is generally designed to put AFOs under so much pressure that they cope well operationally.
Contrary to popular stereotypes your ARV AFO is not a knuckle dragger; prior to becoming an AFO they’re usually some of the higher performing PCs at their respective stations. On my shift of 16, 12 of us had decent degrees. Now that was unusual - not that they had degrees, but more the proportion of us; it’s usually about 50%.
Now the Met are somewhat different. They have different threats and a much higher volume of threat to deal with than the rest of us. I cannot comment on how they do things, but most I’ve met have been very professional.
A charge of Murder is a very big deal indeed for a Police officer to be charged with; it suggests malice aforethought… premeditation. I am struggling to see that this officer drew weapons that day & thought “you know what, I’m gonna kill someone today”. My personal thoughts when I heard this were what is the CPS doing? What is their interpretation of this crime and how are they applying/testing this against this incident? And very importantly - How strongly are the IOPC pushing this (I can guarantee very strongly indeed as the political lackeys they are).
Being an AFO is totally voluntary. At the drawing of weapons I was required to make a declaration that I was physically & mentally fit, and not under the influence of any substance. I believe that due to the uncertainty this incident has created, it is not beyond the realms of probability that a few folk are upset & therefore not able to honestly answer that they are emotionally/mentally fit to carry. Some may simply be very militant. I don’t know, but I can hardly blame them.
It I s absolutely right & proper that this incident should be investigated fully. No Police officer is above the law and I do not believe the Police are seriously asking for that. They do however need assurances that the unique pressure & circumstances are held into account & that volunteering to carry a firearm to protect people from armed criminals & terrorists is NOT the same as saying I want to kill someone. It is not part of the premeditation of murder. If I was still in that job I would also decline to carry.
Thanks for that detail @mildred, always good to get an informed perspective rather than the usual hysteria.
Contrary to popular stereotypes your ARV AFO is not a knuckle dragger; prior to becoming an AFO they’re usually some of the higher performing PCs at their respective stations. On my shift of 16, 12 of us had decent degrees. Now that was unusual – not that they had degrees, but more the proportion of us; it’s usually about 50%.
The ones I've met in the course of my duties always seemed like switched on bods. Which is exactly how it bloody well should be.
It’s interesting to read some people saying “well the cps have decided xyz” as if the CPS are infallible. They are just people making decisions too and also sometimes getting it wrong. I wonder how much behind the scenes pressure to make an example of someone or try a test case etc goes on.
It’s interesting to read some people saying “well the cps have decided xyz” as if the CPS are infallible.
The same CPS that where coping serious criticism in the Russell Brand thread? 😂
Some people in here should get a medal for their mental gymnastics and jumping to conclusions.
Interesting to read some people’s feelings on armed officers.
I’m all for armed officers, they’re highly trained and vetted. They put themselves in the way of people wishing to do others harm.
My job and role within it has put me in close contact with armed officers they have all been exclusively professional and I have never seen the responsibility to carry taken lightly.
A few points to keep in mind
We still have a valid terror threat in the uk
We still have lots of people who are not getting the support they should with regards their mental health.
There are still bad people who do not give two f’s about collateral damage
The charge of murder to the best of my knowledge requires the pre-meditated intention (mens rea?)
This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty.
The fact that people are uncomfortable about seeing armed officers shows how disconnected they maybe are with what goes on in the background.
as if the CPS are infallible.
Are sure anyone is saying that the CPS are infallible?
Apparently the CPS believe there is sufficient evidence to justify a murder charge. If there isn't sufficient evidence to justify a murder charge then there won't be a conviction.
Saying the courts should decide, which is what happens under the rule of law, is not the same as saying that the CPS are infallible.
Since a few people have brought up the background to armed policing, and the intense pressure armed police officers have to face, which no doubt is an extremely valid point, it should perhaps be remembered that this is also occuring against a background in which the Metropolitan Police Force is facing its greatest crisis in its 200 year history.
There are very serious discussions currently taking place concerning whether public confidence in the Met has collapsed to the point that the only option left is for its abolition and replacement with a completely new organisation.
I personally believe that much (but definitely not all) of the criticism directly at the Met is overblown by media hysteria. Yes it has some very serious problems but I personally doubt that the Met is as racist, misogynist, and homophobic, as it was 20 or 40 years ago, although it obviously still has a long way to go. And I certainly don't believe that a woman should feel unsafe about approaching a police officer, as many seem to believe.
Anyway it is against this background of public crisis of confidence in the Met which the murder charge decision was made. Would it have been different if there was currently much greater public confidence in the Met? I don't know, but if we are going to talk about pressures, confidence, fears, etc, then the Met's need to have public confidence restored should also be considered.
Author of landmark report says Met can ‘no longer presume that it has the permission of the people of London to police them’
The Metropolitan police is broken and rotten, suffering collapsing public trust and is guilty of institutional racism, misogyny and homophobia, an official report has said.
^^ That report was commissioned by the Met itself.
<span style="color: #000000; font-family: Roboto, 'Helvetica Neue', Arial, 'Noto Sans', sans-serif, -apple-system, BlinkMacSystemFont, 'Segoe UI', 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol', 'Noto Color Emoji'; background-color: #eeeeee;">"This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty"</span>
There's some leaps of faith there as big as the gap jump from by Kade.
*COULD* have decided he (or she) was going to shoot whilst on the way there.
*COULD* have decided half an hour earlier best to only shoot once as half a dozen would demonstrate excessive use
*COULD* have been an unlucky KILL when trying to just maim (yeah I know the 'winging' someone is BS from TV)
Etc.
It’s my personal belief that Ernie pretty much nails it with:
it should perhaps be remembered that this is also occuring against a background in which the Metropolitan Police Force is facing its greatest crisis in its 200 year history.
There is an absolute political will to sort out the Met & bring back public confidence. I don’t know any details but given the negativity already present, now would appear to be a good time to “make an example”.
Here is some detail concerning what they are doing in attempting to regain public confidence in the Met (this is from a week ago) :
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66842521
More than 1,000 Metropolitan Police officers are currently suspended or on restricted duties, the force has said, as it tries to root out rogue officers.
In the past year 100 officers have been sacked for gross misconduct - up by 66% on the normal rate.
So on average two Met officers a week currently being sacked for gross misconduct. There is clearly a determined will to regain public confidence.
And it should be remembered that it is against this background (from the report commissioned by the Met) :
“Londoners who do not have confidence in the Met outnumber those who do, and these measures have been lower amongst black Londoners for years.
How can a police force function effectively, and to the highest standards, when only a minority of the community has confidence in them?
lol @ believing anything in the Evening Standard that's police-favourable and based on "anonymous bystander" reports. Put that together with the "Jean Charles de Menezes was wearing a bulky jacket and jumped the turnstile" and "Ian Tomlinson had a heart attack and brave officers were pelted with bottles as they tried to save him" bullshit the Met spread.
it suggests malice aforethought… premeditation. I am struggling to see that this officer drew weapons that day & thought “you know what, I’m gonna kill someone today”.
This is an odd statement for someone claiming to be a police officer to make. Murder in E&W does not require "premeditation" in the sense of planning or forward thought. The intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm can be entirely spontaneous.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter
Yet Wayne Couzens was selected. Yes, that was awful – but any selection process is unlikely to be perfect. Harold Shipman, Beverly Allitt and more recently Lucy Letby, demonstrate that some of these people are simply looking to control, injure and ultimately kill other people.
It's a total mispresentation of Couzens and the to shrug and say "ahh, well, some sneaky people always slip through the screening net, what are you gonna do?" The Met had numerous opportunities to investigate Couzens and prevent further crimes and murder - and messed them all up through ineptitude and blokeism.
joined the Met from the Civil Nuclear Constabulary in September 2018,[9][10] and in February 2020[11] was assigned to the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection (PaDP) branch,[12] the division responsible for uniformed protection of government and diplomatic premises.[13] Couzens had not undergone enhanced vetting as part of his recruitment nor had he gone through the mandatory two-year probation period with the Met before joining the PaDP.[9][14] Couzens's crimes led to a non-statutory inquiry headed by Dame Elish Angiolini into how Couzens could work as a police officer for three separate forces despite his behaviour causing concern.[15]...
not only did Kent Police not take any action after an alleged incident of indecent exposure in 2015,[63] but Couzens had faced at least two other accusations of indecent exposure that had not been properly investigated and he had been involved in an incident in 2002 that was missed in his vetting.[84] In early October 2021, it was reported that Couzens's colleagues had once been forced to call him back to the station from patrol after a prostitute had visited the station demanding money from him.[85] In mid-October, it was reported that police were investigating claims that Couzens had sexually assaulted a drag queen at a pub in Deal in 2018.[86] Radio presenter Emma B also came forward to say that she had attempted to report Couzens in 2008, after he flashed her in an alley in Greenwich, but that the police had laughed at her.[87]...
a former Metropolitan Police officer who was assigned to investigate two counts of indecent exposure committed by Couzens in the days prior to Sarah Everard's murder, was found guilty of gross misconduct for failing to properly investigate the incidents following a disciplinary hearing.[117]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Sarah_Everard
This officer had a split second to make a shoot/no shoot based on the intel they’d been given. They showed restraint in that only a single shot was discharged. The fact this was a lethal shot shows the officer was calm, and able to perform their duty.
Thanks for clearing that up. No need to waste court time on a trial now.
I suppose the idea that the police can shoot us when they feel like it is just an extension of the rule that they can beat us on the head with batons when they feel like it.
I don’t know any details but given the negativity already present, now would appear to be a good time to “make an example”.
Making an example is a truly horrendous concept when it involves charging someone with murder to prove some point
Thanks for clearing that up. No need to waste court time on a trial now.
Which is clearly not what the poster has said.
I suppose the idea that the police can shoot us when they feel like it is just an extension of the rule that they can beat us on the head with batons when they feel like it.
You're on a roll
I think one of the main points of this that has upset so many is that the chap was unarmed.
I understand (from ES reporting) that the victim was just released after a 4 year stretch for firearms offenses and driving a car that was also linked to a recent firearms offense. So while he may have been unarmed, I can also see why the cops would be treating it as if he may be.
I think one of the main points of this that has upset so many is that the chap was unarmed
Which I think is why whether Kaba attempted to use his car as a weapon is crucial. Assuming there is bodycam footage (do armed police always have bodycams?) I'd have thought it would be fairly clear if this was the case, which is why the CPS charging the officer with murder raises eye-brows. Presumably they've reviewed the available footage and determined either the car was never used in that way or the threat was clearly over by the time the officer fired. I assume (but may well be wrong) that if the footage wasn't clear over the threat posed from the use of a car they wouldn't have charged him with murder as the CPS tend to play it safe and under-charge if anything so without clear evidence either way I'd be surprised they'd charge him with murder. We also don't know what eye witnesses there were and especially what other the officers attending have stated, perhaps that was damning.
Didn't the intelligence suggest the car had been involved in a gun related incident previously?
It's a shame the driver didn't get the full story about the cars history prior to going for a drive in it.
absolute political will to sort out the Met & bring back public confidence
Is there? I thought this was just another plan to privatise a public service and make sure the general public feel afraid. Basically break up the met and tell Londoners they need to pay for private security firms to patrol their streets and estates. Huge opportunity for millionaire businessmen (aka politicians) to make more money.
I think one of the main points of this that has upset so many is that the chap was unarmed.
But the driver had previous for carrying a gun and the car he was in had been used in gun crime the day before.
The driver is ramming people putting their lives at risk and has a high change of carrying a gun. All bets are off.
A prime example of play stupid games win stupid prizes imo.
Apparently Kaba’s family have seen the bodycam footage and stopped being as vocal about his death afterwards. Understandably vocal imo as we all would be if one of our relatives or friends was shot by the Police.
The adage “lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas” springs to mind especially considering his previous form;
- four-year term in a young offender institution for possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.
- Kaba was driving someone else's car which had been involved in a shooting/ firearms offence the previous day/s - who knows if he was involved but he was a convicted guns and gangs criminal who was previously jailed for firearms offences. He would have been aware of the way Police will respond to armed crime.
- he's made off from the Police - the blue lights and sirens are arguably an irrelevance - there were marked cars present and he's reacted in a negative fashion- it's a car chase blues or not
- he's been boxed in and a load of uniformed police officers have jumped out of marked police cars in a lit up area and have pointed guns at him whilst shouting armed Police etc. He has then attempted to ram his way out which has ended up with him being shot once.
- witnesses have provided accounts and asked "why didn't he just give up/stop?”
It’ll be interesting to see how the trial pans out. Legally justified shooting is my guess.
But the driver had previous for carrying a gun
Yes and by all accounts he was a bit of a crim. But who is in the driving seat, and his criminal background would maybe not be obvious till after an arrest has taken place. We cant use what we know now and after the fact as justification for the events that took place.
But the driver had previous for carrying a gun and the car he was in had been used in gun crime the day before.
The IOPC says the officer had only been briefed about the vehicle and had no briefing on the driver so previous offences aren't something that would have been in his head at the time.
The driver is ramming people putting their lives at risk and has a high change of carrying a gun. All bets are off.
The stories conflict the IOPC report says contact between his vehicles and the police vehicles but doesn't say ramming and doesn't say who caused the contact. Some media reports support the version you describe.
A prime example of play stupid games win stupid prizes imo.
It may well be, and that will be a matter for the trial (if it ever gets that far).
– witnesses have provided accounts and asked “why didn’t he just give up/stop?”
Probably something that JayZ would know about and applicable to MPS.
"Cause I'm young and I'm black and my hat's real low"
Do I look like a mind reader, sir? I don't know
The adage “lie down with dogs, you’re going to get fleas” springs
Not sure any Met officer wants to adopt motto too enthusiastically considering the Met's chaos and pattern of spreading black PR about the people it has killed. It works both ways.
especially considering his previous form;
Sure - it might well be that the deceased was a violent and dangerous person who acted in a way that justified the killing. It's a fair question to ask and answer transparently in court if the evidence justifies a prosecution and if it's in the public interest. What is remarkable is a (apparently small) set of police officers objecting to the question even being asked in the normal way, and a set of their acolytes demanding "special dispensation" for police officers that kill people at work.
Making an example is a truly horrendous concept when it involves charging someone with murder to prove some point
Yes it is, yet I have been present in briefings with the IOPC where they have used that exact phrase (albeit in relation to a Police pursuit driver).
Edit: and it’s not really to just “prove some point” is it? Apparently public trust in the Met has eroded to the point where they’re talking about ripping down & starting again; that’s a fairly big deal.
What is remarkable is a (apparently small) set of police officers objecting to the question even being askedin the normal way, and a set of their acolytes demanding “special dispensation” for police officers that kill people at work.
Which according to the MPS Chief Constable wasn’t actually the case:
”Officers are extremely anxious … A lot of this is driven by families. Many of them are under pressure from their partners, wives, husbands, parents, children … The core of this issue is not protest, the core of this issue is real personal anxiety.”
Yes it is, yet I have been present in briefings with the IOPC where they have used that exact phrase (albeit in relation to a Police pursuit driver).
The thing about trying to create precedent is you need to be really sure you will succeed as doing it and failing, actually reinforces the exact opposite objective from you intended. Bare in mind that even if 9 people on a jury think he's guilty of Murder that won't be enough for a conviction and it would either need to be embarrassingly dropped by the Crown or need to go to a retrial, where they might still fail to get the numbers. I'd suggest that if you decided to try and make a point with a less than cast iron case and failed twice that might be career-limiting. I'd say its a big roll of the dice that you don't have a couple of "obviously deserved it, driving a dodgy motor and not 100% compliant when they stopped him, looked dodgy, lots of guns in London carried by "his sort"" types on the jury.
Making an example is a truly horrendous concept when it involves charging someone with murder to prove some point
But presumably the individual has been charged with murder because the Crown Prosecution Service believes there is sufficient evidence for a jury to consider a guilty verdict?
If this represents a change in attitude by the CPS it could simply mean that previously servicing officers were not necessarily forced to face the consequences of illegal practices even though evidence might have existed.
I remember many years ago a police officer in a unit tasked with pursuing bent coppers expressing his deep frustration on the telly that juries were so reluctant to find servicing officers guilty, even after all the overwhelming evidence had been put to them. I suspect that thanks to the Met attitudes have changed somewhat in recent years.
And what about the 2 Met officers a week currently being sacked for gross misconduct? This represents a big sudden increase, does that mean that innocent coppers are now being sacked to prove a point?
Or that coppers who previously should have been sacked but weren't are now being sacked in an attempt to regain public trust?
When police are required to use force to achieve a lawful objective (eg making a lawful arrest, acting in self-defence or protecting others) all force used must be reasonable in the circumstances.
If the force used is not reasonable and proportionate, the officer is open to criminal or misconduct proceedings. It may also constitute a violation of the human rights of the person against whom the force was used.
It only seems right to me that there should be a very thorough investigation anytime a police officer shoots someone dead with a gun, regardless of the circumstances.
For the CPS to go with murder though rather than some sort of manslaughter other lesser charge, suggests that something very wrong and proovable happened, given the burden of proof required to secure a conviction.
Unless the CPS made a massive cockup suggesting murder, it's entirely possible.
From what we know, it may appear on the surface that the shooting was justified, but we don't know exactly what the orders were, the precise nature and progression of the stop, what was said over radio, whats on body cam, whether the officer disobayed protocol or orders and went a bit Rambo etc.
It's one of those things that will just have to come out in the wash, or in court in this case - that's literally what courts are for.
It is also interesting that in cases of say a stabbing that results in death, as in a spontaneous fight, the police start with a murder charge that always seems to get downgraded to manslaughter.
So maybe thats the option here. Starts off as a murder charge but circumstances etc etc means the eventual charge is manslaughter or lesser. Or even for that matter full acquittal.
the core of this issue is real personal anxiety
Anxiety about what? About being part of the same criminal justice system that they impose on everyone else every day?
Unless the CPS made a massive cockup suggesting murder, it’s entirely possible.
...and of course the good news is that we have a mechanism for checking if the CPS has made a massive cockup: a trial!
Well, this thread aged well. Seems that the STW massive went through the whole process of evaluating the outcome and implications in a reasonably fair and balanced way nearly a year in advance of both the general public on the socials and the media.
The thread makes quite a good read really.
You’ve still got to wonder how this ever got to court though. It’s almost like the CPS have different criteria altogether when it comes to politically charged cases…
I’m reassured by cops with guns in parts of the UK and as STW-typical demographic have zero expectation I’ll ever be shot by a British cop which can’t be said for other countries (unlikely to very-low expectation).
I'm came very close a few years ago.
Driving along a single carriageway A road, not too late but dark, 10pm ish in winter. Turned into a single lane country road. A hundred yards or so later a bloke steps out in front of me poiinting a rather large gun at me, signalling me to stop. My first thought was 'it's a carjacking, run him over!' Would have been very, very easy to just floor it and knock him down but I just caught sight of a police van parked behind a hedge out of the corner of my eye and I stopped. A couple of others appeared out of nowhere and asked to search my van.
They were looking for deer poachers, hence being armed as presumably the poachers would have had guns, but there was nothing obvious about their attire suggesting that they were police, plain black everything, if I hadn't caught sight of the van and had run him down no doubt one of the others would have shot me. Split second decision as to what I did, could have been very nasty.
This was not inner city gangland stuff, this was rural Lincolnshire. In the 43 years I've known that area we've had three crimes - one fraud, one stolen horsebox and one drink-driving (oh, and two cases of local council corruption/bribery but they were never prosectuted)
I’m not sure that’s a great justification for using armed police. Poachers don’t tend to engage in gunfights.
Police operations are subject to Risk Assessments the same as any other civilian workplace.
Deer poachers will be carrying firearms. You can't justify sending someone to arrest them unarmed.
If they did get shot, then it will be negligence.
Pub I used to drink at regularly would often have armed police officers wandering around, which would cause a degree of consternation among customers sitting on the patio across the road, ‘cos they’d often come across the top car park and down the steps onto the patio; at dusk, a bloke wearing a flack jacket, semiautomatic pistol in a holster, and an H&K semiautomatic carbine over his shoulder would see some seriously raised eyebrows and open mouths! I’d get a nod and they’d carry on past the pub.
Hugely entertaining!
By way of context, Tom King MP lived just along the road.
I kind of wonder why in the Chris Kaba case the charge and subsequent trial was one of murder ?
I'd have thought given it was a police shooting that the charge he was being tried for would be that of manslaughter, as in unlawful killing.
Could it be that if the charge of unlawful killing was put to a jury, with evidence of the driver being unarmed, and the car moving in reverse at the time of the shooting, ergo away from the armed officers so I think the statement from that officer that he thought his colleague sitting behind in the volvo, was at risk of serious harm, despite if BEING A F***** VOLVO and Mr Kabas car moving at about 7 or 8mph might have swayed the jury to find him guilty of that charge
But not guilty of murder as the implication of that would be that the officer/met decided to on a kill on sight policy.
From my past experience of military rifle training, albeit from a civilian perspective and only allowed to shoot non-auto weapons. Training is an extremely tightly run affair, nothing like the macho American style you see in films or TV, it's a very strict and sterile experience.
UK military personnel are trained to a very high standard. Police training is based off that and being even more onerous (out in public with kids around and all that) I expect we are talking the highest standards going.
Police operations are subject to Risk Assessments the same as any other civilian workplace.
Deer poachers will be carrying firearms. You can’t justify sending someone to arrest them unarmed.
If they did get shot, then it will be negligence.
although if Andrewh’s account is entirely accurate nobody seems to have risk assessed standing in the carriageway in dark clothes at night. I don’t know exactly what the rules are but I am surprised that a weapon was raised and pointed at the driver of a vehicle who had made no threat.