Police officer cleared

Exactly what I was thinking.

if @Choochoo21 genuinely "works with gangs" then we're fucked.

Anyone 'working with' them who can't see the utterly appalling lifestyle for what it is, and the evil in these people, is part of the problem not the solution.

We know that the Jury requested to say something when giving the verdict. What we don't know is what exactly was written in the note passed to the judge requesting this (that there were notes is not unusual, the way to ask the judge a question is write it down and pass it to an usher).

How do you know about such a letter?

The officer reasonably believed that lives were in immediate danger. It doesn't matter if the threat was real or perceived, just reasonably believing that you or another is threatened is enough to use force. Take a look at some case law:

Whether the plea is self-defence or defence of another, if the defendant may have been labouring under a mistake as to facts, he must be judged according to his mistaken belief of the facts: that is so whether the mistake was, on an objective view, a reasonable mistake or not.
R v Williams

Reporting restrictions are a well established feature of how the courts work in all UK jurisdictions.

Because that doesn't affect how the law is applied.

But can make an enormous difference to those going through the courts.

We do not name the victims of rape and other serious sexual offences, or give names of children or names of those associated with children or victims of sexual offences if doing so would identify the child or victim, and depending on the circumstances that can last even after conviction.

Because the guiding principle is what is fair and what is just; not what is identical.

*women

‘Lessons should be learnt’

Yes don’t be a violent gangster preying on children, children and vulnerable people.

It's a tricky balance between ensuring a suspect's right to be considered "innocent until proven guilty" versus the need to detect crime.

There must be some way of doing it - perhaps making suspects anonymous by default unless the police or the press convince a magistrate that there is a public interest case for lifting restrictions for a given case.

Re-Reading about your “job” laughing as 100% you don’t “work with gangs” … your pants are on FIRE.

It’s not an anomaly, it’s an exception. And the names of those suspects aren’t released, as an exception, to protect the identity of the victims, not the suspects. It’s a completely different legal principle.

When a Jury takes only 3 hours to make a decision, it's usually clear that they think this is a "vexatious" trial brought without good reason. Indeed, the Jury sent a letter to the Judge stating this but the Judge refused to release it to the public.

Are you for real? Have you seen the news, the footage? Seriously???? I pity you.

Why clearly?

I really hope those defending Kaba and saying he shouldn’t have been shot don’t end up in a situation where they needs a firearms unit. There may not be one available. If that happens - remember, you’re part of the problem.

I'm really upset about the way the family have responded to this. If course they'll be devastated at the loss of their son, but can they really not concede that the police officers were correct to think he was a risk to them and others?

They talk about lives not being valued, what about the life of the person he shot and the countless lives destroyed by the gang activity he was part of?

What’s wrong with you? Stockholm syndrome?

There is a video clearly showing CK revving the car with the officers’ lives in danger.

A jury found this to be the case, after sitting through a three week long trial.

Apparently the letter sent to the Judge by the Jury questioned why this was ever brought to trial by the CPS. Let us not forget that a police officer and his family are currently in hiding in fear of their lives because of gang violence. Not to mention a certain Batley teacher who is still in hiding because of threatened religious violence against him. What on earth is going on in this country? Are we now completely lawless?

My opinion is influenced by fact.

Tell me, why do YOU think he has gunpowder residue and a balaclava? Can’t have been cold, it was summer.

The officer admitted he had no idea who was in the car and didn’t know about the gunpowder etc until after he was killed.

So? I’ve answered what they DID know. You’ve ignored that.

This could have been an innocent person and lessons should be learned.

😂😂 you don’t learn lessons from what could have been! No one would ever get anything done FFS.

You should only shoot to kill if your life (or someone else’s life) is in immediate danger.
Choosing to stand in front of a moving car, is not being in immediate danger.

I don’t know why you keep saying his life wasn’t in danger when anyone with half a brain can see it was.

I’ll tell you what why don’t you go and stand in front of a moving car and see what happens if it’s not dangerous

There will of been a marker on the car that it was involved in a shooting, and doubtless a lot more intelligence connected to it, therefore on the balance of probabilities the car was being driven by someone involved with firearms.

Then the way the car was ramming police cars would further give some confirmation to that, all of which is considered in the spontaneous decision making by armed officers.

The fact is you, I or indeed anyone on here will never know what intelligence and information was held on that vehicle but I bet it was a hell of a lot.

The fact is also you were not there or inside of any of the officers heads so you cannot state with confidence they did not feel their lives were in danger. They face this situation more than most of us on this thread.

FFS.

P.S - No response to me required from yourself as I have seen your constant posts stating the same thing over and over so I am aware of your opinion.

Your opinion means nothing, although I welcome your use of your right to free speech in this case.

Having been at the wrong end of potentially life ending criminal activity I can safely say that the ONLY opinion that matters is that of NX121.

His honestly held belief and actions, developed after years of training, deployments and tac advising/ leading on ops.
The jury took 2 hrs 59 mins to find him unanimously NG.

Please check out 'the man in the arena' poem. It's rarely been more accurate and relevant.

I see you're off again with the "should only shoot to kill when..." bollocks as well, @Choochoo21

It's been pointed out to you multiple times that there is no 'shoot to kill' or 'not to kill'.

I disagree

Another anomaly is when people go on trial for example child sexual abuse - their identities are often protected because it protects their child. Otherwise everyone would know who the victim was and they’ve already been through enough.

@Choochoo21

But the facts remain that this was an unknown, unarmed victim and the officers lives weren’t in danger.

You're not only posting bull but outright lies as well, as proven in court.

The officers live very much were in danger. That's why the lowlife was shot dead.

And Kaba was no "victim" FFS.