Police officer cleared

He wasn't threatening, he just tried to drive away.

He was surrounded by police and police cars so "driving away" in that case becomes life-threatening.

He wasn't threatening, he just tried to drive away.

Err not stopping & trying to drive away from the police is threatening behaviour as it forces escalation.

There were 12 people on the jury and they had to come to a unanimous verdict. They sat through all the evidence and found Blake not guilty. It's not the Met, or CPS who made the judgement, it was ordinary people who listened to the facts and watch the bodycam evidence. Why @username35890 are you determined to believe 12 people "let off" a guilty man rather than making their best judgement?

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.

Yes the Met had serious issues within its culture, that doesn’t discredit every action they take.

Yep

Cool. Can you link to the Met shoot to kill policy please?

While the Met don't have a specific shoot to kill policy, they do obviously allow the use of firearms under specific circumstances. And what do you realistically think the outcome of being shot is going to be?

If they are trained to shoot people in the head or the centre of the torso, and you don’t understand that it’s going to kill them, then there’s probably no point in linking to any policies, is there?

It’s like arguing with an egg mayo sandwich.

Asking someone to back up what they're saying is 'obtuse'.

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.

I would be utterly ashamed and desperately sorry for his victims and the police, not making statements to the press about the "injustice" and how they've been "robbed" of their son.

They are grieving & understandably so.

Don't be silly. There was no "execution"

A violent criminal FAFO and the police officer was quite rightly cleared of any wrongdoing.

We don’t have the death penalty in this country, so shocked people are trying to justify his execution as he had previous convictions and was being awkward to the police.

We don't have the death penalty, we do however have some armed police officers who can use deadly force if the situation warrants it. Today's ruling concludes that it was warranted.
Or do you somehow believe that no death penalty means police can never use deadly force?

This is like Jackanory and people are just making stuff up

Isn't that a little ironic, @username35890, considering you said that "all unarmed men killed by the police since 2005 have been black (in non terrorist operations)"?

Sean Fitzgerald: shot in 2019 after his mobile phone was mistaken for a weapon
Anthony Grainger: shot in 2012 by police who believed he was planning to raid a supermarket but were using "out of date information"
Steven Colwell: shot in 2006 while trying to drivee away from police

Also all white and all unarmed

You're being really obtuse.

That's not Met policy, they don't shoot to kill.

Cool. Can you link to the Met shoot to kill policy please?

What on earth do you think 'incapacitate' means? 😅

(It means remove all capacity to continue doing the thing you're shooting them for)

Read this really slowly...one in the head, or multiple in the center mass. That's how armed police are trained to shoot people. That's the only way they're trained to shoot people where there is a threat to life.

Unless you're using a peashooter, you're only surviving that by accident.

Stop googling things and arguing about stuff you know nothing about, with someone who does.

It is not possible to disable armed people by shooting them in non-lethal parts of their bodies. Firstly, such accuracy is almost impossible, and secondly an injured opponent may still be able to kill you if they have a firearm.
The decision to use a firearm may have been wrong, but once it had been made it had to be lethal.

I hope this works, if not I listen via Amazon Music.

Check out The Trials of Officer Blake & Daniel Khalife on Amazon Music.
https://music.amazon.co.uk/podcasts/95dcd16d-7038-49fc-8422-197a54f2ccb5/the-trials-of-officer-blake-daniel-khalife?ref=dm_sh_yJNJF5iC57imEChjTvxOz04VG

"Execution"

🙄

I totally agree.

I would be utterly ashamed and desperately sorry for his victims and the police, not making statements to the press about the "injustice" and how they've been "robbed" of their son.

@Hyperbowl

His car was linked to a fatal shooting which would have fit the criteria for armed police to be deployed.

The car wasn't linked to a fatal shooting. It was believed to be linked to a firearms incident.

They knew enough about him to know he was linked to a murder

He wasn't linked to a murder. The car was linked to a firearms incident.

That’s all they needed to know about it at that point. He wasn’t stationary by choice. He knew he was faced with armed police who would have potentially needed to erase any threat he posed to them and the public by not cooperating and behaving dangerously by driving backwards and forwards in his car.

No one was in danger and it doesn't matter if he was stationary by choice, he didn't pose an imminent threat to life and was not driving at speed

He gave them no other option by his own design. The chances were too great to risk him being able to run people over by him being able to free himself which he had already attempted in order evade justice for a murder that he did commit.

He wasn't being chased for a murder.

He was a murderer, who killed people and who would have willingly killed again.

You're just making stuff up, it's weird.

I really don't get all the hand wringing.

He wasnt "being awkward". He was posing a significant threat to the safety of everyone around him. The jury found the officer did nothing wrong. He wasnt executed.

If he hadn't done what he did, he would still be alive. In prison for murder by now probably, but alive.

Edited

@AdviceNeeded2024 I was coming on here to point out what happened to PC Harper. If only his colleague had been armed.