Police officer cleared

I see the BBC refers to the fact he was shortly to become a father, but fails to mention a previous pregnancy that ended because he kicked his girlfriend of the time down the stairs. Both these details were irrelevant to the trial, of course.

I see the BBC refers to the fact he was shortly to become a father, but fails to mention a previous pregnancy that ended because he kicked his girlfriend of the time down the stairs. Both these details were irrelevant to the trial, of course.

Why did he shoot him in the head? Couldn't he have fired at the car to stop it moving?

He didn't drive towards nor hit any police officers. He didn't verbally threaten any police officers.

You are missing the bit where if the police tell you to stop, you need to stop.

Why would the police wait until he had hit someone?!

Christ do people realise real life is very different to the movies.

Argue that with the police then.
Because that's exactly what armed police are trained to do.

You're the one who isn't aware of the facts. Like I said, don't engage.

You need to get a handle on other people having different views to you. We don't all agree here. If you think I'm 'messed up' don't engage.

Take your own advice here. There are so many factors to consider here that don't all rely on the police not knowing about his past, which are the very reasons he ended up shot.

The Met doesn't have a shoot to kill policy. I know that because I've read their policy. They've never had a shoot to kill policy. The poster was arguing that the police are trained to shoot people in the head. That's a shoot to kill policy because shooting people in the head tends to kill them.

She (or somebody else), has already clearly explained that although we may not have a shoot to kill policy, we have armed police officers for a reason.

You repeating yourself won't change that.

You need to get a handle on other people having different views to you. We don't all agree here. If you think I'm 'messed up' don't engage.

Take your own advice here. There are so many factors to consider here that don't all rely on the police not knowing about his past, which are the very reasons he ended up shot.

The police didn't know who he was when they stopped the car. They wouldn't have known about his past.

I've already seen the footage. I described what he did several times, he backed into a police car, went forward and hit another police car and stopped.

He didn't drive towards nor hit any police officers. He didn't verbally threaten any police officers.

You need to get a handle on other people having different views to you. We don't all agree here. If you think I'm 'messed up' don't engage.

Correct decision and I hope the police officer involved can get on with the rest of his life now.

I think we have to question why the CPS in retrospect felt they had a realistic chance of conviction given the evidence in court? Did the CPS feel 'something has to be seen to be done' given racial politics in the capital? We're there those in the CPS worried about accusations of a racist cover up if they hadn't proceeded?

I think there has been a reluctance for the left wing press to highlight the gang land links of this individual and there was a narrative sown of this being another proof of an institutionally racist met. If the jury had somehow found the other way then we would be having a public enquiry and perhaps another BLM moment.

I got my wires crossed along the lines as I thought that he had murdered someone turns out he just shot a man twice in the legs so I guess that is irrelevant and child’s play and then driving a car that was linked to a shooting the night before. You know the kind of shooting that kills people. I still can’t imagine why the officer would think that this upstanding citizen of the law would pose a threat to life. 🤷🏻‍♀️

I can hold my hands up and admit I was wrong but you’ve been linked to a video by another poster that clearly shows he was revving his car and driving into police cars but you still won’t admit that it’s dangerous and aggressive. That’s on you, and that’s embarrassing. You keep painfully plugging this idea that as he wasn’t driving at speed that he wasn’t driving dangerously or threatening the lives of the police officers but the facts are he was and you can’t change that. The fact that you keep defending this is not only weird but really messed up.

I’m not going to be replying to you again but one last thing you really should think about is how it wasn’t the Met as a body that cleared this officer of murder it was a jury of laymen that represent the society that we live in. Let that sink in before you keep spouting how it was the corruption of the Met that allowed this officer to walk free.