Police officer cleared

@username35890 All the unarmed men shot by the police have been black. Well, that's not true, is it? It's difficult to take someone seriously who is posting in apparent total certainty about things that are they are so wrong about, yet would be so easy to check in less than 5 minutes. Where are you getting your "facts" from?

Agree with this. We should all be proudly anti violent criminal gangsters. I don’t want them living next door to me, going to school or college with my family members or dragging decent, law abiding people into their nonsense. This is obviously very sad for his family but if Kaba had followed instructions, he would still be alive. In prison presumably. But alive.

Of course defendents should be named, especially as it helps other victims come forward, particularly in sexual assault cases. It's an important principle that justice be carried out in public. All shootings of unarmed civilians should go to trial too

Are you familiar with Bloody Sunday? Anyone carrying a weapon on the streets as part of their job should be held to a higher standard than joe public, not a lower one.

The correct verdict was reached here, and it can be argued as to whether it should have gone to trial at all, but it is correct that armed officers can be charged, tried and convicted. And no, they shouldn't have anonymity that other defendants don't have.

I do think everyone should be named when charged, so in that respect I agree, he should be, and was, treated like any other suspect.. This bit though I'm uncomfortable with:
There was no chance any jury was ever going to convict him on that evidence but I am glad it was tested in court. If it hadn’t been, public confidence in the Met would have been further dented and the victim’s family would have called for justice for the next two decades.
I'm sure there are people who know the details, but I believe the CPS have guidelines for when to charge someone, and I don't think they would normally have grounds to do that if there was "no chance of a jury convicting on the evidence". And it sounds like people support him being charged, despite the evidence, because he was a police officer. Which is not treating him the same as other potential criminals. Surely, that would be a prosecution on political grounds- is that ok? I can see it would cause big problems for him not to have been charged, but does that outweigh the officer's right to fair and equal treatment under the law?

I'm just pondering really.

The facts aren't a weak argument, I didn't say he sped off, did you actually read my post?

So shoot his tyres out? Don’t shoot the guy in the head

It's obvious from the footage that shooting at tyres was not an option. It was a small London street and deflated tyres wouldn't have caused him to halt. He is likely to have driven away and then crashed potentially into innocent people. I can imagine the outcry and questions relating to the officers judgement had that happened.

I really wish those berating the officer would at least accept he should have stopped and shouldn't have tried to escape. The outcome would have been different. He may have ended up in prison but he would have been alive.

How about just stop when police say stop… not exactly rocket science. And if police have guns, even more reason to stop trying to ram your car away and stop.

right outcome but the police officer should not have been named. I dread to think of the hell he and his family have been put through, and will probably be subject to hereon.

I can't believe how pro gun toting, criminal gangsters some people are. These people are not doing anything positive for society. Why so keen to defend them?

He should have stopped. He should not have been a criminal. He should not have driven a vehicle linked to a shooting. But mainly - he should have stopped. If he had then he would be alive but criminals tend to have the mindset of escape or die trying. He chose the wrong option.

So very glad the officer was acquitted. I wouldn't want his job for any amount of money.

Those with weak arguments often resort to personal attacks.

He didn't 'speed off' , his car wasn't travelling at speed. He was told to get out of the car, he reversed and hit the car behind him, he moved forward and hit a car to the side and then stopped.

If he was speeding, how come the officer was standing in front of the car?

‘Shoot out his tires’
ffs - its not the movies. You cant shoot at close range to metal rims with serious risk of ricochet. And hand guns are not accurate to within cm. Watch the damn Olympics - in perfect conditions with scopes and weights etc. All that rubbish that you see on television with actors hitting people in the leg is bollocks.

Sadiq Khan is an utter incompetent disgrace and how he is still in office completely baffles me.

https://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/23472357.four-charged-plotting-east-london-murder-chris-kaba/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/04/chris-kaba-involved-in-gun-attack-prior-police-shooting/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11392487/amp/Chris-Kaba-suspected-five-men-nightclub-gun-attack-days-earlier.html

name not in use by the time of the trial;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68441013.amp

@GiveMeVodkaPlease

Just out of interest before labelling it as a racist shooting, do you actually know what ethnic background the police officer who shot him was?

’Unarmed civilian’ is one way to describe him, ‘convicted gang member with history of violence’ is another. A vehicle can be used as a weapon. The very fact that armed police were sent after him means there was enough intelligence to deem him a serious threat.

Every cloud and all that.

'Justice' is not only served when you get the result that you want, and demand

We could have done with that posted in bold at the top of the thread, @NDerbys32. It's as true now as it's always been, but sadly some simply can't deal with the word "no"

You can still drive a car into someone with shot out tyres.

This is the issue with body cam footage, it makes it harder for people like you to try and push your own agenda with fantasy. You can hear the car revving, you can see him clearly be told to raise his hands and looking out at the police and then proceeding to speed off, he only didn't manage it because he got wedged between a police car and another car. The accounts from the police match the footage and let's be real this doesn't sound like someone with a high regard for the lives of other people does it.

The end result of many years of poor decision making by the deceased. He had choices, at every turn. His actions and his consequences.

People would be staggered at the level of Police firearms training. Fast time decision making under pressure, tested time and again, and is responsible for the incredibly low number of discharges in the UK.

'Justice' is not only served when you get the result that you want, and demand.

The real issue does not lie in policing.

You stand in front of a slowly moving car and see what happens. It wasn’t slow enough that jumping out of the way would save you.

All the unarmed men shot by the police have been black

Not sure why you'd post this when it's so obviously not true, @username35890 ... Sean Fitzgerald, Anthony Grainger, Steven Colwell and David Howell were all white

And far from "they can't do anything wrong", being human the police can and do get things wrong, but at least they're held to account for their actions via enquiries and even trials where appropriate
Sometimes of course the result won't be what some want, but that can't be helped since we're entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts

Because of reporting restrictions at the time. Because this case was sub judice. But CK is the alleged gun man reported as being deceased.

So shoot his tyres out? Don’t shoot the guy in the head.