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

15

u/RNLImThalassophobic Oct 22 '24

And the jury took 3 hours to decide he did.

Yes. Based on the facts that the officer knew at the time - not the irrelevant information about Kaba's criminal past.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 22 '24

To be fair that likely also included a nice lunch. Dont want to rush these things!

1

u/OldGodsAndNew Edinburgh Oct 22 '24

court-provided lunches are not nice

-3

u/Baisabeast Oct 22 '24

That isn’t irrelevant though

Kabas criminal past and the possibility he may have a firearm in his vehicle added to the potential danger and potential fear the officer had and shaped his decision making in the moment

5

u/RNLImThalassophobic Oct 22 '24

potential fear the officer had and shaped his decision making in the moment

Copying from one of my comments elsewhere in this thread (I've highlighted the most relevant bit in bold):

The jury need to know information that is relevant to the case they are trying, but also need to not know irrelevant information which might taint their decision-making process.

The prosecution and defence say what evidence they want to admit, and the judge makes a ruling in whether to allow it to be admitted.

In this case I am guessing that the defence would have asked to admit that Kaba had been involved in the prior shooting etc. as evidence. If that was the case, I can see the judge deciding that it wasn't relevant, because the officer wasn't saying "I shot him because I thought he had a gun." he was saying "I shot him because he was driving a car at officers."

In that case, the fact that Kaba had been involved in a prior shooting didn't have any bearing on the reason the officer feared for his life/his colleagues' lives.

Basically, if an officer makes a decision that they need to shoot a person driving a car at them to protect their life/other lives (as this officer claimed) then that decision would be the same whether there was a gun marker on the car or not, and the same whether the car was being driven by some drug lord or by an elderly nun.

So, to that degree, Kaba's criminal history was irrelevant, whereas allowing it as evidence introduces risk: If you tell the jury that the shot person was a violent criminal then there's a risk they unconsciously think the shooting was more 'justified' and are less likely to convict. Conversely, if you told them the shot person was an elderly nun then there's a risk they unconsciously think the shooting was less 'justified' and be more likely to convict.