Chris Kaba - why was there a prosecution?

[whenemmafallsinlove]

I have only seen the recent coverage but it seems undisputed that this man was in a car involved in a violent crime, he had a history of involvement in violent crime and in being stopped he used the car as a weapon to try and get away which endangered everybody around him including the police.
So was the potential crime the amount of force used? Because otherwise it seems hard to understand and I can completely appreciate why so many officers laid down arms as a result.
Please explain!

His parents should be ashamed of themselves, he started getting into trouble age 13. And here they are portraying him as the innocent victim, bet they were doing that when he was 13 too.

Zero sympathy for CK and a lot for the police officer who was named and put through a hellish ordeal. Apparently CK’s mum wanted to stop the information about what her son was really like being published - gang life, shootings, intimidation.

It feels like that often gets pushed as a narrative in these situations. The poor wronged victim…. who turns out often times to be a violent gang member.

The parents bear responsibility for not steering him away from a life of crime.

Me too

It was literally his job to be armed and ready to shoot (and kill) someone if necessary, murder generally requires evidence of specific plannning and preparation and premeditated intent.

If they were questioning his judgement or ability to carry out his role, i.e. Incompetence, surely gross negligence manslaughter would have been a more appropriate charge?

One less cunt for this country to worry about.

and 3 cheers to the ARO who got rid

Don't forget the fact that Kaba was responsible for a shooting in a night club,some 6 days before,was in a vehicle connected to firearms. Following his death they found GSR on his clothing linked to a shooting the day before . The jury weren't aware of any of this, so based their decision on the evidence put before them. It seems the right decision by all accounts.

Those female family members should hang their heads in shame giving those statements yesterday. Apparently the officer has a bounty on his head by the gang.

The officer should NEVER have been named. It was his job.

@MissyB1 couldn't agree more!!

His hands were on the wheel but his foot was on the accelerator of a huge weapon.

This ^^

Really 🥺

And we wonder why the country is like it is right now.

No doubt you believe it's ok for our kids to not compete in races and to identify as cats?

His parents and family who wanted his crimes hidden are just as guilty.
If they had properly parented him he might have steered away from crime.

HNRTT but suspect the murder charge might have done the police office a massive favour.

The police as a whole perhaps, but not the officer who has been named, or his family 😕

It never helps to keep crimes hidden like this, apparently much fighting was over county lines.

If you don't know what that is or much about it Google it.
County lines are frightening and a scourge in the UK they are terrifying and no child is safe.The fact he's linked to a gang land murder is bad enough but county lines captures and traps through extreme violence youngsters into crime.

I think PP means that had Blake been charged with manslaughter, it is more likely he would have been convicted. A conviction for murder was always far fetched.

It was literally his job to protect life above all else.

Murder absolutely does not require planning.

However, I'm not sure about you but I think years of training, strapping on a firearm, chasing a car, stopping that car, surrounding that car with multiple armed officers, drawing a weapon, aiming it at the suspect, firing the weapon, shows a great deal of planning and intent.

Nothing that happened was negligent or accidental.

@Ames74 I meant the individual officer might have been done a favour. By charging with murder leading to a not guilty verdict, it precluded a charge of manslaughter or misfeasance or misconduct or any of the other 'lesser' possible charges that might have been thought more likely to have led to a guilty verdict, (provided the driving back and forth could not have been managed in another way to prevent the endangerment of the police attending the scene without the shot to the head).

I agree the group of serving officers might benefit as well - it's triggered a debate that I suspect will lead to the 'line' being moved to the general benefit of the wider serving police officers in the future too.

He was a threat. Him behind the wheel of a vehicle was a threat. The officer reacted correctly

@WateryBottle indeed and you put it much more succinctly than my later post

I don’t get why he was named either

The streets are safer without that menace.