Risk your life, live with taking a life but we will charge you with murder

[sleepyscientist]

Anyone else things police officers should have indemnity from prosecution whilst on duty. This poor officer followed a suspect that was believed to be armed, stepped out of his vehicle and into the line of fire to protect us.

Now because it turns out he was unarmed he's not only up on a disciplinary but facing a murder charge. Rightly other officers are stepping back so now our armed capacity is falling......terror attack risk right there! Hopefully any jury finds him not guilty!

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12552965/Met-police-protest-Chris-Kaba-murder-charge.html

An unarmed man was followed by an unmarked police car, was not a suspect, and was shot without being approached or the risk assessed? Yes the police officer should be charged.

Giving police immunity for everything would be much more dangerous. From the facts we know from this case the officer in question shot an unarmed man who posed no threat. That’s not acceptable in the line of duty.

mo I don’t think they should have immunity, I think they already get away with far too much.

No, there's far too much corruption in the police force to give them some kind of James Bond get out of jail free pass.

No this would be an incredibly bad idea.
Policing only works when police have consent from the people to do their job.
I can't imagine we would be delighted if they were essentially given the right to shoot at us willy nilly.
It's best if they are trained that they have to use force only when absolutely necessary, as a last resort, as they are now.

Of course he should be charged. Might make the next officer think twice.

Of course police officers have to follow the law, and are accountable for their actions. The court will establish whether the officer acted reasonably when they consider all the facts.

I know what you mean OP, I can understand why the officers are walking away in droves! No doubt that’ll have repercussions.

He didn’t stand in the line of fire though- the victim/suspect was not armed. I don’t think he should be charged with murder from the outset, there should be an investigation and then possibly a murder charge or disciplinary. What happens in the U.S?

I don’t know how many officers carry guns, what training they have, how often they deploy etc The policeman /story sounds like he was possibly scared? Shot without thinking? I don’t think we know what the operation was, what the intel was… but it does appear he made his own decision to discharge a fire arm without assessing any risk or threat whatsoever, at least that’s how I’ve read it. You can’t have nervous officers waving weapons about, firing at will.

He didn’t step in the line of fire though. The police officer was the only one doing the firing.

considering that armed police are highly trained, have personal body protection and carry lethal weapons, I don’t think it’s too much to expect for them to be certain there is a risk before they shoot.

This explanation gives a slightly different perspective. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/chris-kaba-inside-story-shooting-london-streatham-hill-police-met-b1027691.html

According to the link I posted the weapon he had was his car which he was driving at officers. Cars can also be a lethal weapon.

No, I don't think that at all. I think if a cashier can be personally fined for unknowingly serving alcohol to a minor then a police officer should also be held accountable for shooting somebody dead apparently without cause or threat. I think we do not and should not be allowed to leave our personal responsibility at the door when we start work.

Separate issue... they said it wasn't his car. Was it simply a friend's or was it stolen? Doesn't justify the bullet, but they're not clear when reporting it..

If he wasn't capable of following set protocol and training in the presence of a potentially armed suspect, he shouldn't have been allowed to carry a gun.

Obviously shooting someone who is not actually shooting at you is unacceptable.

@sleepyscientist is there a reason why you think shooting an unarmed person through a windscreen without making your reason clear a good idea? I'd like to hear your thoughts. Also, by extension, it seems you think Sarah Everard's murderer should be free as well.

I believe he was trying to ram his car into the roadblock so not exactly posing no threat but the 'marksman' could have shot the tyres out. Instead he murdered him.

It's absolutely right he is being charged and the rest of the shower of shits should be up on disciplinaries for refusing to carry out their roles.

I don’t think police should have indemnity from prosecution while on duty no. Can you imagine the grotesque ways that could be used? There are a lot of good cops but there is a lot of corruption too.

So the policemen who have been found guilty of rape, wouldn't have even been able to be prosecuted because most committed offences whilst on duty? There's enough sexual offending from serving officers.
As said, this man was followed without reason by an unmarked car, then he was shot dead for no reason. There was a case of officers attending a DV incident in my city. The male officer decided that the semi naked victim wasn't being compliant enough (she'd been stripped, assaulted and attempted to be raped by her ex) so gripped her by her throat, put her in a head lock and threw her up against walls. This was his third violent wrongful incident. Quite rightly he was sacked. You want these men to be given a free pass running around with guns?

They say we get the police we deserve. Well no armed officers will leave us all very vulnerable to the criminal element. Don't complain when you get what you asked for.

Anyone else things police officers should have indemnity from prosecution whilst on duty.

This is one of the stupidest things I've ever read on here!

Why not have a big think about it and see if you think YABU? Read up on the case of George Floyd before you come to a decision.

Not only was he unarmed but the police were in an unmarked car which had no sirens or lights, would I stop for a random car chasing me and trying to force me off the road - no, would I try to get away if cornered in these circumstances - yes.

I don't think Chris had even got out of the car so he wasn't threat to them

I know the car had a marker on it from the previous day but Chris wasn't involved in that.

Whilst I appreciate that some police have a difficult job to do they still need to be held accountable, an apology doesn't bring someone back to life.

If the police aren't held accountable then we'll end up like the USA where people are killed for minor crimes or haven't committed any crime but trigger happy cops have killed them anyway.

From what I read the car was linked/involved in gun related crime
it was a logical and reasonable assumption to think it was armed
everyone knows about unmarked cars especially the criminal fraternity

given the history of the car the lack of cooperation you can see why it escalated

they had no way of knowing he was unarmed till after the event

but like everyone else these plate assumptions based on limited info

theses people were making split second decisions in what info they had at the time

It was a car leant to him.
The Police have changed their statement twice. They completely misreported the who situation in their original statement. Which is why other officers have been suspended and they've all handed in their weapons. They wrote false statements. I don't know how anyone could have the thought the OP did given what we know about the MET.

The unarmed victim was shot in the head and that is completely unacceptable.

@rwalker , what are your thoughts about the false statements, if it naturally escalated? Or there being enough evidence that the CPS went with a murder charge?