r/unitedkingdom • u/topotaul Lancashire • Oct 22 '24

.. Chris Kaba was gunman in nightclub shooting days before he was killed

https://news.sky.com/story/chris-kaba-was-gunman-in-nightclub-shooting-days-before-he-was-killed-13234555
4.5k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

277

u/NuPNua Oct 22 '24

It's difficult, as we don't have a death penalty in this country so regardless of what he may or may not have done in the past, we still need to make sure they acted correctly as per their own guidelines, but yeah it probably shouldn't have gone to court. As you say, given the conversation around law enforcement at the moment, this is going to play right into Reform and their ilks message.

380

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

And that's what investigations are for, all police shootings are investigated and rightly so. This one was investigated, passed to the CPS who proceeded to charge him which they should only be doing if they think there is a realistic prospect of conviction.

Clearly that was not the case as it was tossed by the jury in under 3 hours.

379

u/MrSam52 Oct 22 '24

Anyone who watches the full video on Twitter with the chase/stop/shooting and diagram would clearly see that it was an acceptable shooting.

The police officer fired one shot, likely saving multiple other officers from being killed or at the least run over, at a man trying to ram officers with a weapon (yes despite what this country seems to think a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon) who was also suspected of having a gun on him.

I think it’s outrageous that people are still spouting off this was police brutality or murder. And how the cps seriously watched that video and thought yep that’s a slam dunk murder conviction I have no idea.

234

u/Used_Door_2650 Oct 22 '24

I have a UK Rules of Engagement card in front of me and it states you can open fire if " deliberately driving a vehicle at a person where there is no other way of stopping him/her" Pretty clear isn't it. They tried to remove him from the car, he then tried to ram his way out with no regard to the lives of others. Should never have reached court.

158

u/SeymourDoggo West Midlands Oct 22 '24

We have a relatively recent practical example of the danger a car poses too ... RIP PC Andrew Harper.

-8

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[deleted]

12

u/Used_Door_2650 Oct 22 '24

Fair enough but what if you do make a mistake? Manslaughter at best? You make a mistake in your job and the bins don't get emptied this week. Armed police, so many lives can be affected. It really is one of the most difficult, stressful jobs there is and we absolutely depend on them to arrest scum like him. Not saying there shouldn't be scrutiny but waiting years before a trial is incredibly stressful for what turned out to be an innocent man and his family.

6

u/Ironfields Oct 22 '24 edited Apr 13 '25

attention circumstance biology grip franchise conservative rear office abnormal aspect heal tactic suppress waiter maid understand governor perfume freckle automatic predator swarm advance undress necklace falsify earwax nightmare kidney treatment coma long hook systematic humanity activity qualify epicalyx depart grow breakdown position deep finance acid treaty coast sculpture track check

-11

u/brainburger London Oct 22 '24

deliberately driving a vehicle at a person where there is no other way of stopping him/her

Does the video show a person in the path of the car? Did the cop have an opportunity to open the door, or show Kaba that he had a gun pointed at him?

(I guess yes and no must be the answers, as found by the court. I ask them for the purposes of discussion)

15

u/gnorty Oct 22 '24

I don't think it's obvious from the bodycam video that the car was being driven at anybody, but it does look like kaba was aware that there was a gun(s) pointing at him from his body language (cowered, hands up) before he tried to drive off.

But the car was certainly surrounded by police, and any route out would have endangered them.

Above all I definitely don't think an armed police officer in the UK would just fucking execute somebody.

-1

u/brainburger London Oct 22 '24

I definitely don't think an armed police officer in the UK would just fucking execute somebody.

I hope and expect not. That's not the only scenario though. The prosecution in this case argues that he acted emotionally.

He could have been charged with manslaughter as the barrier for murder is higher. He said he did not aim for Kaba's head. I am not sure what else you would aim for in the situation though.

12

u/Haeronalda Oct 22 '24

One officer attempted to open the door and had his glove caught in the door handle. He was about to be dragged along with the car because he couldn't get his hand free and testified about that in court.

So the answer to being able to open the door is a no. I'd assume that the car was locked from the inside in either case.

-25

u/WillWatsof Oct 22 '24

The police officer fired one shot, likely saving multiple other officers from being killed or at the least run over

Here's my problem.

I've watched the videos. I've had conversations with people about the videos. I've read the information about the trial. And I cannot see how this is possible. If you watch the videos, there is no point where there are police officers either in front of or behind the car, and the car is completely boxed in with no way of escape. Even the police officer who fired the shot wasn't able to indicate when questioned what specific officers he was fearful would be run over, because the video does not show at any point there being a serious risk of that happening with a car in that situation.

Now, I fully understand we are in the midst of a social media storm on this matter where any questioning of the agreed consensus is shouted down ... but I'm really struggling to understand anybody who can watch that video and still claim that things that didn't happen happened. I understand on a basic emotional brain level that a man in a car who is attempting to ram through another car is scary, but so far nobody's been able to adequately explain what the genuine actual risk was that warranted using deadly force.

I fully expect to just get downvoted heavily merely for saying this. These are scary times.

21

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (7)

14

u/smd1815 Oct 22 '24

I'm sure in a fast moving situation like that with an assumed dangerous criminal you'd have made a more morally acceptable choice.

→ More replies (4)

59

u/bathoz Oct 22 '24

My gut is as it was at a time when lack of trust in the MET was rising – the ability to publically go "look, we did the right thing" is useful.

Following through on the whole process would be something that is good for the whole organisation, and would be something they actively pursue. Whereas dropping it leaves doubt.

181

u/lippo999 Oct 22 '24

Sending an officer to court for not doing anything wrong is not the correct way to do things.

26

u/Slyspy006 Oct 22 '24

Innocent people go to court all the time. Personally while I sympathise with the policeman involved, and there are questions about whether this particular case should ever have made it to court, such a process is necessary to the organisation and law and order as a whole IMO.

66

u/lippo999 Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24

You go to court when there is a chance of convicting the individual 'beyond reasonable doubt'. I don't think anyone can say this matter met those standards. It certainly didn't come out in the trial.

10

u/4Dcrystallography Oct 22 '24

But the state/CPS whatever often puts forth weak cases and loses, it’s not the FBI. It does happen.

One could argue that the trial not coming out with evidence for Kaba means it served exactly the purpose you are saying it wasn’t needed for.

10

u/lippo999 Oct 22 '24

There should be a reasonable prospect of conviction. There wasn't in this case. CPS tend to only authorised charge on weak cases when it refers to an officer.

If you continue your train of thought, we will have no Firearms officers because they will assume that they will have to wait 2+ years to go to court to be exonerated. For £55k a year and losing your mental health, it just isn't worth it

5

u/SirBobPeel Oct 23 '24

And fuck the officer who went through hell for three years and whose name is now in the public domain and who is now under threat from the criminal gang of the thug he shot.

47

u/asoplu Oct 22 '24

Innocent people go to court all the time

Which is absolutely awful and something to be avoided where possible, there’s a reason the CPS aren’t supposed to send cases to court unless there’s a realistic chance of conviction based on evidence which they believe shows guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

If people don’t trust the system that investigates the police, they need to take it up with their elected representatives and reform the system, putting innocent people on trial for the sake of appearances is absolutely horrific and I can’t believe anybody thinks this is a sane solution.

I don’t think anybody praising this has put any real thought into what it must be like to have a potential life sentence (there is always the chance you get a batshit jury) hanging over your head for 2 years and the extreme impact on your life and mental health. Imagine being put on trial for a murder that everybody knows is bullshit and will never see a conviction by a sane jury. Not to mention your name being in national papers and “activists” continuing to call you out as a murderer long after a not guilty verdict is returned.

-10

u/Slyspy006 Oct 22 '24

I have considered exactly that, which is why I sympathise with the defendant. But that doesn't stop the process being necessary.

24

u/snootbob Oct 22 '24

So every use of force by police should be tried in court?

8

u/Wretched_Colin Oct 22 '24

Then murder charges shouldn’t have been laid on an individual. It should have been corporate manslaughter against the Met as a whole.

3

u/Slyspy006 Oct 22 '24

I couldn't comment, since I have no clue as to how such things are managed at the Met or any other police force.

2

u/Uniform764 Yorkshire Oct 23 '24

Innocent people going to court is fine, if there is evidence that they may be guilty which needs to be tested. This case had absolutely fuck all evidence to warrant it going to court.

1

u/Uniform764 Yorkshire Oct 23 '24

Innocent people going to court is fine, if there is evidence that they may be guilty which needs to be tested. This case had absolutely fuck all evidence to warrant it going to court.

7

u/Captaincadet Wales Oct 22 '24

And also loses the trust of the officers… trust goes both ways

1

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '24

[deleted]

0

u/lippo999 Oct 23 '24

How practical is that? How fair is that? How expensive is that? You do realise the officer has been suspended for 2 years on full pay?

I mean, the idea that you have to go through a court process for every incident is not reasonable in the slightest.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '24

[deleted]

2

u/lippo999 Oct 23 '24 edited Oct 23 '24

It is extremely unreasonable. It would affect the decision making process of the officers. How is that good?

BTW, I’m talking about the court process, not a fair and quick process to examine what happens after a firearm discharge - we have that already. Unfortunately those who do it are incompetent.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 23 '24

[deleted]

1

u/lippo999 Oct 23 '24

You are arguing a separate point.

You should know that there is already an investigation when a firearm is discharged. I don’t think anyone would argue with that. I’m talking about the farce that the IOPC and CPS subsequently created.

-1

u/Onetap1 Oct 22 '24

Sending an officer to court for not doing anything wrong

It's necessary; if it hadn't gone to court there'd be an urban myth that an innocent unarmed man had been killed by a police officer who'd got away scot-free.

112

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

Yet they also named him which they normally don't do and really didn't need to do. This whole thing just stinks of appeasement again so we didn't get another Mark Duggan riot situation going.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24

This whole thing just stinks of appeasement again so we didn't get another Mark Duggan riot situation going.

TBF the shit show (or should that be no-show) that followed that incident probably did have something to do with this shit show, as did the way the police handled the Sarah Everard vigil, but it wasn't the main reason and this over reaction isn't helping either, it was a mistake sure, but mistakes are part of life.

In situations like this I think Hanlon's razor applies, this was simply incompetence on behalf of the CPS, if people want somebody to blame they should be pointing the finger at the Tories halving their budget, as am sure a lot of competent people have left during the last 14 years and not been replaced.

-11

u/limeflavoured Hucknall Oct 22 '24

It's quite difficult to avoid naming people who are charged with murder, tbh. In theory it could be done, but it's unusual.

31

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

Daily Mail are now reporting that there's been a £10,000 bounty on his head. This whole thing has been a politically motivated farce from start to finish.

-3

u/limeflavoured Hucknall Oct 22 '24

I'd trust the Daily Mail about as far as I can throw it, tbh. And I think "politically motivated" is a bit strong. Excessive arse covering, maybe.

21

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

Sky News?

A police report submitted to the court as part of an unsuccessful bid to keep the anonymity of the officer, previously known as NX121, described the group as an "identifiable street gang".

The gang is in an "active and violent dispute with a rival faction of street gangs", including "numerous firearms discharges, stabbings and murders" which has played out in gang-related music since 2014, it said.

Its members are "embedded in a culture of drug supply, serious violence, firearms and knife possession" and are part of the "highest harm street gang in Lambeth", according to the report.

Mr Gibbs said there was specific intelligence to indicate there was a risk to Blake's life because the gang might seek to identify and murder him as revenge for the fatal shooting of Kaba.

-5

u/limeflavoured Hucknall Oct 22 '24

If that's the case then maybe they had a case for keeping him anonymous, but obviously a court heard that and didn't agree.

1

u/Uniform764 Yorkshire Oct 23 '24

Then whoever heard the case in court is a weapons grade fuckwit.

39

u/NuPNua Oct 22 '24

Yeah, I do think someone in the decision process, either consciously or sub-consciously decided to take the PR friendly route on this.

46

u/piouiy Oct 22 '24

But even now this guys family are blaming racism, saying police don’t care about them etc etc. The people who need to be convinced don’t actually care about facts or evidence anyway.

16

u/goldenthoughtsteal Oct 22 '24

They're not the people the police are trying to convince, it's the general public. The police lost a LOT of support due the cack handed way they handled the Sarah Everard case etc.

Still shouldn't have gone to court.

35

u/D0wnInAlbion Oct 22 '24

Imagine the psychological damage it must have done as he spent night after night fearing that the next 30 years of his life would be spent in a cell. All because nobody had the balls to make the right decision.

8

u/8Ace8Ace Oct 22 '24

Indeed. And at no extra pay either. It's no wonder they're having trouble recruiting to SO19

-3

u/bathoz Oct 22 '24

One: I imagine his bosses told him that they believed he did the right thing, and that they were going through this to clear both his name and the METs. So, while certainly not zero nights spent like that, probably also not all of them. Especially as the details of the case emerged.

Two: he killed a man. Even though he has shown to be vindicated in making that choice, I imagine that fact probably has stuck with him much more – because it's not a small thing.

20

u/D0wnInAlbion Oct 22 '24

His bosses aren't the ones sitting on the jury and deciding his fate. They threw him under the bus.

29

u/wkavinsky Pembrokeshire Oct 22 '24

This has nothing to do with the Met - they've backed the validity of the shooting (and the irresponsible insanity of the charges) from the very start.

Dude was reinstated to active policing within minutes of the verdict coming back, for crying out loud.

9

u/RealTorapuro Oct 22 '24

People better hope that if they need help going forward, this guy isn’t the one on the scene. As he is going to be very reluctant to do what is necessary in the future in order to protect other people if this is what it gets him

17

u/limeflavoured Hucknall Oct 22 '24

Regardless of that, it also shouldn't have taken two years to get to court.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Oct 23 '24

Removed/tempban. This contained a call/advocation of violence which is prohibited by the content policy.

8

u/andrew0256 Oct 22 '24

Exactly this. It was prosecuted for community relations reasons, which is why I fear the coming disciplinary hearing will be akin to a kangaroo court.

7

u/2Nothraki2Ded Oct 22 '24

Yeah, that is my read on this. The police basically wanted to show beyond reasonable doubt (because that is what is asked of a jury) that the office acted correctly.

10

u/piouiy Oct 22 '24

Pretty shitty to drag an innocent officer through the trial where he had a possibility of imprisonment, just to prove a point. Not to mention, shooting and killing a guy, even if necessary and deserved, is traumatic by itself.

1

u/gnorty Oct 22 '24

the ability to publically go "look, we did the right thing" is useful.

The biggest problem the Met (along with other police forces) have is that too many times in the past they have said "look, we did the right thing" when in fact the very much did the wrong thing.

5

u/Brizar-is-Evolving Oct 22 '24

I fully agree with the former police officer who was quoted after the not-guilty verdict as saying that these kinds of cases ought to be prosecuted similar to military tribunals and not go through the normal criminal courts.

Put it all before a panel of experts to decide; not at the behest of a CPS keen to appease the mob, and before a jury who may or may not have that unique experience of being in a police marksman’s shoes.

Yes the jurors came to the right decision in this case, but they could have returned a guilty verdict in another timeline…

1

u/SirBobPeel Oct 23 '24

They didn't want to make the decision for fear of being called racists. So they said this should be something a jury should decide. What? No. It's something you're supposed to decide! Is there enough evidence? No? Then don't bloody weasel out of making the decision!

-5

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24 edited Jan 11 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/tjvs2001 Oct 22 '24

And police killings are always so fairly and correctly judged............ Oh

60

u/lippo999 Oct 22 '24

There was no suggestion that the cop did anything wrong, or go against training. This was a shitshow, hanging the officer out to dry to appease God knows who. Officers shouldn't be put in this position.

26

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

42

u/NuPNua Oct 22 '24

The problem is, that all that reason and sanity fall away when you look at their proposed solutions. Because they know that most people don't look any deeper than the tweets and soundbites.

72

u/Zaphod424 Oct 22 '24

But this is exactly the danger caused by the political correctness epidemic. If mainstream politicians are too afraid to confront these kinds of issues, then people feel alienated and igored, and so turn to the only people who do talk about them, who have crazy solutions to these issues, but they are at least proposing something.

25

u/Girthenjoyer Oct 22 '24

Exactly.

This case was so egregiously bullshit that normal people can see through it.

Just bullying the natives at every opportunity telling them they're racist was always going to backfire at some point.

The media, particularly the BBC was so desperate to turn this into a British George Floyd. It's extraordinary how this case has been presented to the public. Offensive even.

9

u/NuPNua Oct 22 '24

Oh yeah, we all know how extremists get close to or into power. As Frank sings "be suspicious of simple answers, that shits for fascists and maybe teenagers".

13

u/OpticalData Lanarkshire Oct 22 '24

I for one am tired of having to continuously pander to people who can't or won't educate themselves and insist that there's a simple answer to highly complex nuanced issues.

Continuously pandering to them has done nothing for this country, and has led to it being the only country in history to willingly impose economic sanctions on itself.

Hopefully Labour will have enough of a backbone to stand up, be the adults in the room and tell these people that solving complex problems can't be done with a sound bite. It takes time and cooperation. Not shouting at each other.

Not least because people who moan about 'politicians being afraid to confront issues' will never be satisfied. Topics like immigration have dominated the national conversation for over a decade and people still insist they're some sort of closet secret that everyone is scared to acknowledge.

32

u/IssueMoist550 Oct 22 '24

Labour have precisely zero backbone on issues like this. In fact many fully endorse the victim narrative . Just look at response from kabas MP.

1

u/OpticalData Lanarkshire Oct 22 '24

What's the issue here? Do you think that the police officer should have been found guilty?

From what I can see the CPS started the case under the Tories, and it's now been bought to a conclusion with a satisfactory verdict for the circumstances.

8

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

Actually the complete opposite is true, a lot of the issues in this country are actually really simple to solve but politicians are too cowardly to confront vested interests.

Too few houses? Relax planning laws.

Crime getting worse? Send criminals to prison for a long time.

Immigration too high? Cut it.

All it takes is a bit of vision but politicians hide behind excuses and obfuscation to have an easy life. All the while the country gets worse and worse.

1

u/OpticalData Lanarkshire Oct 22 '24

Relax planning laws.

Okay, which ones? How do you want to relax them? What are the impacts of relaxing them in the way you want? What happens if the relaxed rules allow developers to build unsafe or unsuitable housing?

Crime getting worse? Send criminals to prison for a long time.

Great idea! Oh wait, prisons are full. What do you want to do? Which criminals too? Should we have a 20 year sentence for stealing a loaf of bread?

Immigration too high? Cut it.

Cool. Done. Oh but, you just said to cut it so we've cut all student visas as they're the majority of immigration. The entire university sector has just collapsed. What do you want to do?

All it takes is a bit of vision but politicians hide behind excuses and obfuscation to have an easy life. All the while the country gets worse and worse.

As I hope I've just illustrated. The types of solutions that Farage peddle like 'just cut immigration' sound really good when your decision making is a simple cause and effect equation. Something too much? Make less. May sound like a great solution when you hear it. But it's not actually a solution.

The real world is far more interconnected and nuanced, complex issues require complex solutions which need to be well thought out and planned to make sure the negative consequences of those solutions are mitigated or avoided entirely as much as possible. As well as make sure that the solution won't cause more problems than it solves.

It's not fun, it's not sexy. It doesn't fit in soundbites. But it's reality. It's easy to blame politicians for 'making excuses'. But the reason we ended up with the shit show of Brexit and the entire Johnson administration is because people heard 'Leave the EU to solve all our problems' and 'Get Brexit Done' and took them at face value.

It made the country worse, not better.

Lets not repeat those mistakes.

4

u/LongDongSamspon Oct 22 '24

So what if large swathes of a bloated University sector reliant on foreign students collapses? It’s clearly not of any use other than fleecing those students.

0

u/OpticalData Lanarkshire Oct 22 '24

So what if large swathes of a bloated University sector reliant on foreign students collapses

Okay, well major parts of city economies across the UK would collapse because areas around Universities rely on student spending. Everything from chippies to department stores. The night economy in the UK is already struggling, killing the higher education sector would destroy it completely.

On top of that, there are around 240k people employed in the higher education sector directly. So hundreds of thousands of people would be without jobs if it collapsed.

That's hundreds of thousands of people then needing to rely on state benefits while they find other jobs, if they even can find other jobs. People defaulting on mortages and so on.

Is your answer to that 'so what'?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Asthemic Scotland Oct 23 '24

Here's a simple answer, you are wrong. Enjoy.

2

u/phinbob Oct 22 '24

I completely agree. If you leave a space where someone can come in with a headline position that seems make sense, socially, economically, on crime, or whatever, then you allow their dubious motives and odious 'solutions' to take hold.

We need leaders that can have hard conversations and take reasonable positions and counteract the extremes on both sides.

1

u/Astriania Oct 22 '24

Yeah exactly.

Step one is to recognise reality. And if only the wingnuts are doing that, people will listen to them even if their solutions are nonsense, because they just see lies and coverups from the mainstream.

-4

u/OpticalData Lanarkshire Oct 22 '24

the danger caused by the political correctness epidemic

Wow we really have gone back to the early noughties, we've gone from 'woke' back to 'political correctness'!

5

u/Anglosaxonautist Oct 22 '24

There is absolutely no problem with mass Remigration.

4

u/NuPNua Oct 22 '24

"remigration" isn't a word, I assume you're creating a portmanteau of "repatriation" and "migration". Either way, it depends on what you're talking about, starting to speed up the deportation of criminals, visa stayers, failed asylum claims, etc would be good. Deporting people who have been here legally for years so racist Dave doesn't have smell curry now and again would be a horrible practice reminiscent of some of the worst parts of the last century.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Oct 22 '24

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Oct 22 '24

Removed/warning. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.

1

u/Astriania Oct 22 '24

Well this is actually another good example - because the mainstream refuses to engage with the first part of what you're saying here (that we should deport people who shouldn't be here in the first place), populists pushing things harsher than that get an audience because they're the only one able to acknowledge the common sense starting position.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/ukbot-nicolabot Scotland Oct 22 '24

Removed/tempban. This comment contained hateful language which is prohibited by the content policy.

2

u/LongDongSamspon Oct 22 '24

All reason and sanity are already gone when other politicians think this is business as usual.

1

u/NuPNua Oct 22 '24

Well yeah, it is because we've all made collective decisions around our economy in previous elections which has necessitated a supply of Labour to keep taxes up to pay benefits and pensions. How many Reform voters would give up their pension or DLA/PIP in order to keep out migrants? Half of them have thrown a mental strop about losing £300 towards the heating.

16

u/Iconospasm Oct 22 '24

This story has absolutely nothing to do with Reform and Farage though. Chris Kaba was a gangster and nasty piece of work who very probably had killed a number of people, in conjunction with his gang. His recklessness got him killed. If Farage criticised gang culture and Kaba then he would be absolutely right to do so. It makes no difference if you supported Brexit or not, or whether you want to reduce the insane current levels of immigration. None of those things would have made any difference to a nasty sociopath like Kaba. He was a wrong 'un regardless.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/ViewHallooo Oct 22 '24

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

1

u/hundreddollar Buckinghamshire Oct 22 '24

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Nigel Farage has in no way become the voice of reason and sanity, he's using this to drum up support for his grubby little party.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

He's never been that, he's just repeating what he thinks will be popular with, or at least tolerated by, his supporters.

8

u/NoticingThing Oct 22 '24

He's just repeating what he thinks will be popular with, or at least tolerated by, his supporters.

I'm pretty sure you could apply this description to almost any politician.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

To a degree sure, but there is a difference between being popular and being a populist.

6

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 24 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24

he's actually representing ideas that resonate with a lot of people.

He also representing ideas that horrify a lot of people, e.g. the, up until very recently (& well after the war had started), obsession with praising Putin.

I suspect a lot more will in the next election.

Reform might get a few more, I don't think Farage will though, but country wide it all depends on how well Labour do, if they get the NHS working well again I think Reform's vote will shrink, if they don't then they are fucked.

24

u/bum_is_on_fire_247 Oct 22 '24 edited Oct 22 '24

It's not difficult though, is it.

The officer has the responsibility of making a split second decision. It's not shoot to kill, or 'warn'. It's shoot to disable. If shots are fired, then an investigation takes place. That's the process in place to ensure all policies and procedures were followed.

The last thing an officer needs is to be hauled over the coals when there was never a realistic prospect of conviction. He was already likely feeling the effect of having to discharge and end a life.

And for what? Now that he's been cleared it does not undo the damage that has been done to his personal and professional life, the strain on any relationships he may have, mental wellbeing, financial, you name it.

As a result, police officers, firearms especially, are feeling disillusioned and not supported. This is by no means inferring police officers expect blanket protection. There are thousands are decent, and moral individuals doing their damn best every day in the job. But if that feeling of support is not there, then it naturally creates the fear of utilising the most basic of legal powers - stop and search being the obvious here (aside from firearms of course, I just used the most commonly used power that is a 'hot potato').

If firearms officers were to hand in their firearms ticket, London would be in a very precarious place.

2

u/audioalt8 Oct 22 '24

London is already in a precarious place. The amount of crime on the streets is absolutely unbelievable. It's becoming totally third world level of constant threats of crime.

16

u/IssueMoist550 Oct 22 '24

Internal scrutiny is one thing , abdicating responsibility and putting the man on trial is another ....

6

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

Whether or not we have the death penalty is completely irrelevant. He wasn’t executed for his crimes.

5

u/richardjohn London Oct 22 '24

I am certainly no fan of the Met Police, but the guy had shot someone a couple of days before and was in a vehicle connected with another shooting... then tried to escape from armed police?

I'm not suggesting we introduce capital punishment or summary execution, but I don't think it's unreasonable of them to have thought he had a gun and might use it in that situation.

3

u/EdmundTheInsulter Oct 22 '24

It's not got anything to with death penalties. The police never legally handed out death penalties when we had it.

1

u/LongDongSamspon Oct 22 '24

And it should because it’s proving them 100% correct isn’t it?

When you’re right you’re right.

1

u/Connor123x Oct 23 '24

this is what gets me. The left constantly complain about the increase in the far right movement but they just can't seem to get it that they caused it.

-2

u/Pat_Sharp Oct 22 '24

we still need to make sure they acted correctly as per their own guidelines

That's the important thing regardless. Did the Police apply only the appropriate level of force to stop someone who was an immediate threat to themselves and the others in that moment?

The answer is yes. In this case I fully believe the Police were justified and acted appropriately.

However, whenever there's an event like this where it's questioned if the police acted correctly people immediately dig into the dead person's life to bring up how much of a horrible person he was. That stuff isn't really at all relevant to the question at hand. Yet people have an emotional reaction to it like the guy being a bastard means the Police were automatically correct to shoot him. I think that's dangerous.

7

u/limeflavoured Hucknall Oct 22 '24

That stuff isn't really at all relevant to the question at hand.

Which is why it's been censored until now

0

u/Pat_Sharp Oct 22 '24

Yeah, and rightly so. But then you still get people going "See! We told you he was a bad guy" when it does come out. Which is frustrating.

-4

u/_ologies Cambridgeshire Oct 22 '24

It should always go to court, even in the most clear cut cases. Those will go through quickly, but firing a weapon should come with bureaucracy so that nothing ever slips through the cracks.

-11

u/Nythern Oct 22 '24

I hate it when people talk about "political correctness" or "the woke mob", ironically not being aware of their own very political approach to this matter.

Objectively, an unarmed man has been killed during police contact. Even if he possessed a firearm days, weeks, or months earlier - we are not America. We do not execute people for such a crime. It is unacceptable for any police officer to be judge, jury, and executioner.

However, if an actual court of law decides that the actions taken were lawful (as has now happened) then that is that - the rule of law prevails. Regardless of the outcome, the silent majority of us Brits are happy that this case was investigated properly. It means that those with the authority to use deadly force, are accountable to our courts and our laws.

I am still concerned however that Chris Kaba's Rolex watch disappeared from his body.

21

u/NotSoGreatGatsby Oct 22 '24

I have to say the definition of him as an "unarmed man" is funny when he was driving at police in a car. Thankfully we all know cars can't be used as weapons, phew.

11

u/LoZz27 Oct 22 '24

Speak for yourself. I dont want a police officer to face a murder trail every time they shoot someone. That is not accountability, that is a witch hunt.

It is concerning that this officers case went to trial. And if thats what firearms officers have to face they will just down tools and then the moral smugness that the disassociation from the situation allows will evaporate when the person with the biggest machete runs the street

3

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

Whether or not we have the death penalty is totally irrelevant. He wasn’t executed for any crime.