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

Read the Casey Review about culture and behaviour in the Met. She found the armed units already think they are a law unto themselves. Extra judicial killings are incredibly disturbing.

The police is already full of rapists, murderers and corrupt people so can you imagine how bad it would be if they were immune from prosecution while on duty? Yikes.

Regarding armed officers I do think there needs to be a change in the way they deal with people. They’re pretty much told shoot to kill but there are other ways to incapacitate a suspect without killing them, even armed ones (plenty of areas to shoot on a body). See the murderers of Lee Rigby for example. Shot but not killed.

The "victim" was driving a car linked to gun crime at police, he wasn't driving down the street like a normal person. He had authority to arm as the police believed the car was a threat to the public and them. Just because he wasn't armed this time doesn't mean the car wasn't known for carrying weapons.

He could have stopped when the marked car pulled in front of him, got out and dealt with the issue of the car like a normal person being stopped by police. Instead he drove at them in a high risk car and the police officer involved felt threatened enough he made a split second decision to end the situation to protect himself and other including the public.

I have nothing to hide and have no issue being stopped by police anyone who refuses to stop must have something to hide.

Premeditated rape and murder is completely different to making a decision to continue a car chase, discharge a taser or indeed discharge a fire arm.

Is that what the family of the victim said?

No police shouldn't be given immunity. It's full of corruption as it is.

@Iwasafool , the MET is part of the criminal element.

So it looks like he was driving a stolen car directly at officers with the intention of running them over? But hey, that doesn't matter, he wasn't armed..

I think people who think the police should be defunded and all that crap shouldn't be allowed to call the police in the event they or theirs are the victim of crime.

This poor officer shot a man in the head.

But your AIBU isn't about this specific case.

You think all police officers on duty should be immune from prosecution, which obviously includes the officers who commit premeditated murder and rape and any other crime.

They shouldn’t have indemnity, no. That would encourage some less scrupulous officers to shoot first and ask questions later.

It has to be clear that carrying a gun comes with a great responsibility to use it wisely.

That said, I can see why some officers now now longer wish to be fire arms officers.

There needs to be very good evidence before charging someone who was acting in the course of their duty with murder, of course. I’m afraid I don’t know all about what happened or what the evidence is in this case to speak about that.

Sorry, but with the information released, yes they should be charged. I accept not knowing all the facts, but a man, not currently 'guilty' of anything, was shot without it appears any chance to surrender. The police have to be held to account

No!

Police should be held to the same accountability as the public they serve. There should also be the same criteria applied when charging rather than pressure applied from external sources to influence decisions

When I was in the Armed Forces, when the IRA was still a threat, we had to be on a rota of being an armed guard, carrying an SA80 fully loaded with 20 live rounds. We were taught to shoot to kill, the same as the police are. We were also taught that as soon as we had taken the baddy down we would be arrested for murder.

It’s a horrific position to put people in, and the justification for taking the shot is entrenched in law, rules of engagement are clear. They would have warned him, hands above your head or get on the floor. Surely, regardless of what you have or haven’t done, if someone is yelling at you to get on the floor or I shoot and is pointing a gun at you, you get on the floor?!

We weren’t there and the police won’t be able to give the full details, unmarked police car possibly signifies surveillance and therefore part of a bigger job which they don’t want to blow.

I hope more hand their tickets in.

There are some bad cops. There are more bad people. Most cops just want to go to work, do their job, be allowed the resources to put baddies away and sometimes have rest days where they’re not called into work to cover something that is under-resourced. The same officer would be vilified if he hadn’t taken the shot and the bloke had gone on to kill a member of the public (doesn’t matter if it’s another cop, boo, how sad, it’s their job).

This. Or we ll end up like America.

I don't think anyone should be guaranteed immunity from prosecution, least of all the people who are supposed to be enforcing the law.

Yes OP, let’s give them indemnity.

Allow them to hide behind the uniform while they rape, assault, murder and otherwise.

Actually, let’s scrap police training too, because with indemnity they won’t need training and protocols for arresting and detaining suspect.

And let’s not forget innocent until proven guilty. That should be done away with too, because officers will be shooting or beating all suspects, so 🤷🏽‍♀️.

Precisely this.

You must be joking. After the things they do under the guise of upholding the law? Absolutely not.

I have a lot of respect for the officers that I have had dealings with over the years - but a good deal of them are power crazed and corrupt.

Plus (according to The Independent) the “victim” was a career criminal with convictions for everything from gun crime to domestic violence, so likely well known to the police. He was driving the stolen car at them when he was shot.

Having said that, of course there needs to be a full investigation to establish whether the officer who fired the shot was reasonable in his actions. He could have shot the car tyres instead but that obviously wouldn’t have helped if Chris Kaba had been armed (as he had been in previous incidents) and you probably can’t be too specific about where you shoot someone if shooting through a windscreen. If not reasonable, there need to be consequences for the officer.

No way in Hell should the police have carte blanche to shoot people or railroad over people’s human rights just because of their job. If anything, power hungry bullies are more likely to be drawn to this type of career.

He shot an unarmed man in the head. He should absolutely be charged

That he was unarmed and the car was unmarked? No thats been reported on in the press.

Police officers are civilians in uniform (much as some of them may hate to admit it). If the armed forces, whose job is to kill, are not indemnified against charges of murder why should the police be? You need to think this through a bit further OP.

I have nothing to hide and have no issue being stopped by police anyone who refuses to stop must have something to hide.

That’s a pretty naive take on things given what we know about institutional racism and the level of criminality perpetrated by serving officers in the police.

Lots of boot lickers in this thread.
Murder is murder, Police should have the highest standards of anyone in the land.