Police officer cleared

Absolutely right result. Just sad that this police officer had to go through this.

Quite.

Not to mention, people should face prosecution and punishment for any wrongdoing. Not death.

I am genuinely of the opinion you’re just on a wind up because no one is this obtuse in real life. His car was linked to a fatal shooting which would have fit the criteria for armed police to be deployed. The suspicion was that he was part of that shooting, they were correct and just because he didn’t have a gun in the car at that point it doesn’t mean he couldn’t have had one and wouldn’t have killed people with the car if he wasn’t blocked in at that time. If he hadn’t been put down when he was god knows what damage he would have caused with his car if he had succeeded in freeing himself. I know it was days previous, I said this. Why do you keep repeating what’s already been said? Do you think that the matter of days erases the enormous significance of the fact this car was part of a murder and that he was driving it? I honestly don’t understand your point in saying that otherwise? That’s why he was pulled in the first place by armed police not because he was a random black man!

They knew enough about him to know he was linked to a murder. 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. 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 was a murderer, who killed people and who would have willingly killed again. It’s really not that difficult is it and exactly the reason why this officer acquitted because he took a violent murderer off the streets for good and protected himself and his colleagues in the process as well as any other civilians who would have otherwise fallen victim to his violence.

The end.

No one attacked the police, he didn't drive at any police officers or hit any police officers. He wasn't aggressive and didn't say anything.

He drove at police. He then revved his engine with an officer in front of his car.

Just like you or I don't have to wait for someone to punch us first if we feel threatened, an officer doesn't have to wait for someone to but hit/crushed/run over before opening fire.

Who he is is important when people are saying that he had previous convictions. The police didn't know who he was ergo they wouldn't have known of any previous convictions.

'Who he is' is not relevant to the situation, and the action that was taken. What do you think the officer who shot him would have done if Kaba had a gun in each hand and NWAs 'Fuck the Police' blaring out of the radio, shot him more?

People are bringing up his previous because it means they have no sympathy for a little gangsta going out like a gangsta. And nor should they.

They are not meant to stand by while a gangster runs over other officers, no.

Of course they don't. Absolutely not. But you can stop/disarm an individual without using lethal force. In fact, de-escalation instead of lethal force is what our country prides itself on (in comparison to countries like the USA, for example). Murder/manslaughter is murder/manslaughter.

You need to inform the Met because they don't agree:

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) does not have and never has had a `shoot to kill' policy.

Totally agree Millet.
Nobody wins.

@username35890 ok, so the alleged incident with the fire arm was “a few days earlier”. Are the police just supposed to assume the fire arm has……vanished? Or do they take every necessary precaution to protect the public? Wouldn’t you react differently to someone who possibly had a gun? I know I would. But then I would also have stopped because I’ve nothing to hide.

This.

Because the police officer who shot him said he was driving at speed. Therefore danger to life was imminent. He wasn't threatening, he just tried to drive away.

I'm black, before you go down that route.

Standing in front of someone and shooting them in the head is how armed police are trained to engage when they have to open fire. Center mass or head within a certain range. There's no 'shooting to disarm' or shooting the tires/engine, it's not a movie. The officer shot him to kill him.

Calling it an 'execution' because you think that sounds harsher is a bit daft.

This is like Jackanory and people are just making stuff up.

No one attacked the police, he didn't drive at any police officers or hit any police officers. He wasn't aggressive and didn't say anything.

Who he is is important when people are saying that he had previous convictions. The police didn't know who he was ergo they wouldn't have known of any previous convictions.

The alleged incident was a few days earlier re the firearms.

We don't have the same faith in the police given the footage.

Dangerously complex thinking there!

Well that’s happened, hasn’t it?

What more serious scrutiny can there be than a murder trial?

He was in a car linked to a recent shooting. This means that it was reasonable for the police to stop the car, reasonable for them to call in armed response, and reasonable for them to believe that there might well still be firearms in the car. They did not know who the driver was. But he refused to comply with police instructions, and based on the videos was ramming his car backwards and forward, in blatant disregard of the safety of the police officers at best, trying to harm them at worst. And there was reasonable reason to believe he had access to a firearm. I believe the police of most countries of the world would have shot at that point.

I didn’t say once he was driving at speed. Why do you insist on repeating this like it’s relevant? He was a criminal who displayed threatening behaviour whilst being in a car linked to a murder. End of story.

You need to watch the footage. It's important if you want to talk about it.

Of course he should have stopped. He didn't threaten any lives and was stationary when he was shot.

The point being, the police knew nothing about his background when they killed him and there were no weapons in the car. The incident re the car was a few days previously.

The day we accept this is alright from our armed police without them facing serious scrutiny is a shit day.

But he has faced serious scrutiny, and was cleared by a jury who voted unanimously not guilty.

You have very little understanding of how this works. Who he is, is not relevant.

A car linked to a shooting needs to be stopped. There is a reasonable risk that the car may contain a firearm, or that a firearm might be about the person of the occupant, so armed police are deployed.

The occupant disobeys clear instructions and puts the officer in fear of loss of life. That's it, end of story.

You attack a regular police officer, you get the batton or the gas. You attack armed police with a car, you get slotted center mass.

It's possible to believe (which I do) that the Met is institutionally racist with a hell of a lot of work to do, while also understanding that everything was done by the book here.

So you think he shouldn’t have been stopped because the car that had been linked to a murder days previous wasn’t registered to him? This may come as a shock to you but most perpetrators of serious crimes don’t commit crimes in cars that are registered to them. The likelihood is however, if they’re driving the car they will either have connections or knowledge about the gangs that commit said crimes and chances are they are directly involved themselves often. Which it looks as though from the news report that followed is exactly what happened. The police usually work using detective skills and intelligence not just funny little hunches. That means that they will be aware of how crime gangs operate which gave them plausible reason to pull him. He chose to behave in a way that threatened multiple people’s lives when he was as confronted and warned by armed police. If he had cooperated he would still be alive.

Wayne Cousins doesn’t mean Martin Blake is guilty. Just like Colin Blakelock doesn’t mean the Met officers who strip searched Hackney schoolgirls are ok.

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

Ooh chip on your shoulder, straight from the racist's handbook. Bit of a cliche though.

Standing in front of someone and shooting them in the head is an execution.

The police didn't know who he was when they shot him.

Fully granted his behavior was suspicious and dangerous, but 1) there were other options and 2) if he was a white man, high probability he would not have been shot dead quite so rapidly. The day we accept this is alright from our armed police without them facing serious scrutiny is a shit day.