Police officer cleared

He was driving a car that was linked to TWO firearms offences; I think it was understandable of the police to assume that he may have been in possession of a firearm. If he’d stopped when asked and got out of the car and showed them he wasn’t then maybe everything would have been okay for him, but it wasn’t…because he decided use his car as a weapon and ram his way out.

I’ll ask again - what else should the police have done? And please don’t say shoot him in the leg, shoot the tyres, taser him through the windows, or ask him nicely, because we’ve covered that already

No they expand on impact of anything, to do more damage.

Even if it was just flesh that they expanded in, it would only be marginally safer if they don’t miss - which the police officer admitted he did.

So either stray bullets are a concern or they’re not.

The police have stated that they didn’t know who he was when they shot him.

At that moment, it didn’t matter about his criminal history because they had no idea who he was.

He could have been related to the owner of the vehicle or an innocent person who had just bought it.

His criminal history is irrelevant.

Yes he was a scrote if he killed someone but that’s not the issue.
The issue is that the police shot and killed an unarmed person, they had no idea who he was and whether he was a criminal.

No one would now say the police officer deserves to be killed because of his actions.
We know the police officer shot and killed someone but we don’t justify someone now killing him.

People who kill peados still get sentenced to murder, even if the person they killed was a monster.

We live in a society of laws and an eye for an eye doesn’t work.

You think being trapped between two cars with one of them being rammed backwards and forwards, provides no threat to life or serious injury! If he hadn’t done anything wrong, why didn’t he just stop at the road block?

The rounds the police fire are designed to expand in flesh to reduce the chance of them passing through.

@Astrabees I’m wondering too

You can’t care where the billets would go when he shot him (and missed his target).

Shooting at tyres (the floor) of a boxed in vehicle vs shooting at someone’s head sat down (child’s head height or adults chest height) is completely different.

If you genuinely cared about stray bullets you would say they should have either shot the tyres or not pulled out their gun at all.

It’s contradicting to worry about stray bullets but then think that the police did the right thing by shooting bullets.

So who will you call if your daughter goes missing? Or your son is attacked? Or if you are mugged? In any large professional body there will always be a proverbial bad apple, but most police are just people trying their best to do a good job to protectthe public. I wouldn't have swapped my job with theirs for all the money in the world. Would you?

If the point of prison is rehabilitation (and punishment as someone rightly pointed out to me), why continuously list their previous convictions if they’ve served time for it?

Because there are contexts where it's important to be aware what kind of person the subject is - for example when starting a new relationship, or when it's suggested a decent guy is only dead because of police brutality, or (an obvious one) when someone with a criminal record applies for a job

Though the sentence may have been served the criminality still remains part and parcel of who the person is or was, and there are circumstances where that's worth knowing

One thing that perplexes me about this whole story:
The person Kaba killed in the nightclub was black. Of all the other people him and his gang intimidated, blackmailed, hassled, etc., I would venture a high percentage was black as well.
Undoubtedly, Kaba was a much bigger threat to the black community than Blake. This is now known to all, but was most likely know to the immediate community since the day it happened
Everybody that has the wellbeing of the black community at heart, should think and talk about that!

He’s being blindly defended because he
was black. He’s being defended by wannabe social justice warriors incapable of looking at the actual facts of what happened and seeing at them through an objective lens.

He was, whatever the colour of his skin, a lawless scrote who played with fire and got burned. It’s a sad state of affairs that we have to have armed police but we 100% do because of people like Kuba who think they are above the law and behave in a way that puts the whole community at risk. People like him are bad for us all, black people and white people, young people and old. Whole communities shattered by violence, drugs and egos.

He was not a good person. His family are not good people.

So you think driving at a fast speed and then blowing out the tyres of a fast moving vehicle is safer for bystanders, than a car moving at a slow speed with flare tyres?

I have no idea, and that's not what's being discussed. I'm saying that even with four tyres down, that car could have been driven on the rims and crushed someone.
Why should the police risk death to save the life of some criminal? I'm glad it was him and not one of them.

Indeed, where are the condolences to the victim who had been shot in the leg twice the precious evening.
And the statement from the family about turning his life about and becoming an architect. Lol. Give me strength. Let me guess “he was a good boy”. 🤯
Glad I wasn’t on the jury, I’d have acquitted the police officer without hearing a word of evidence.

Just think how much good they could do & how many young black boys could be saved from a life of armed gang culture if they spoke out about that instead of portraying him as a hero.

But you said it would immobilise the vehicle?

Where might the bullets go after they have shot out the tyres?

The 101st chairborne are out in force tonight, experts who haven't a clue.

So you think driving at a fast speed and then blowing out the tyres of a fast moving vehicle is safer for bystanders, than a car moving at a slow speed with flare tyres?

Please🤣 I literally wasn’t talking to you so I can’t even take you seriously. Purposely putting words in my mouth when I didn’t even quote you. Bye

All the people saying it was wrong and he was no threat…have you watched the video of Kaba trying to ram his car between two police cars then reversing quickly to make another move? The video of him shooting a man in a nightclub? Honestly it feels like he’s been defended for the sake of it when clearly he deserved everything he got….

They wouldn’t bother using them if they weren’t often successful.
Theres no reason that couldn’t have been done in this situation.

They work if someone is driving along a road, already moving. In this situation he could have just driven on the rims.
That aside, you expect someone to risk their life walking around a car to shoot all four tyres while it's frantically revving and crashing back and forward?

Of course he could have killed one or more police officers if he'd pinned them, they'd have been crushed.

It's clear that some people see the world through such a specific lens and agenda that they actually can't see reality any more, and will tie themselves in knots to defend the indefensible.

And not without risk of harming others, civilians and LE. Just stand there and shoot bullets, close range at tyres/wheels …see what ricochets and hits other people!

People talking about the speed of the vehicle - i used to work for a personal injury solicitor. We had a claim to pursue once where someone let off their handbrake on an SUV and the vehicle rolled down a metre or so down a slight incline at low speed. It pinned someone between the vehicle and a garage door. The person lost a leg and had internal injuries. Their life was irrevocably changed. A vehicle doesn't need to be travelling quickly to cause significant injuries.

None of that was known at the time

The reason the police were armed was precisely because of the reasonable suspicion that the car was in control of an armed suspect.

Shooting out tyres! Very naive. This isn't films where tyres are shot and immediately deflate. Today's tyres are reinforced with steel so you can drive with significant damage. This was a 80k car, the tyres would be top of the range. The policeman was infront of the car, very bravely, I imagine he initially thought the driver WOULD stop. He had no opportunity to shoot tyres but he would also know it was pointless.

It must have been terrifying for the officers. Anyone who doesn't understand this must be lacking empathy.

Presumably, you do realise that cars still move with flat tyres? And he wasn’t unarmed, he was using his car as a weapon.

That’s really interesting and I saw someone say something similar up thread. I had no clue armed officers are trained to kill if they have to fire a shot. Quite scary really.

I also did not mean that Kaba was a rehabilitated man, he obviously wasn’t. My point was, listing someone’s prior convictions when they’ve already served time in prison is baffling to me. If the point of prison is rehabilitation (and punishment as someone rightly pointed out to me), why continuously list their previous convictions if they’ve served time for it? The OP was listing his convictions as if to say, ‘he’s worth being dead because of xyz conviction.’ I didn’t agree with that at all

No but it deflates them which is why the police regularly use tyre spikes and traps.

They wouldn’t bother using them if they weren’t often successful.

Theres no reason that couldn’t have been done in this situation.