Agreed. With so much tension around this case you'd think they'd me more responsible in their reporting, and I suspect the BBC are far from the worst.
Taking one excerpt from the article:
On Croydon High Street, Maureen Patterson, 68, said she was "shocked at the verdict".
"I hear what the policeman had to say, that he felt that he and his colleagues were in danger, but the thing is he shot him in the head," she said.
She added Mr Kaba's history did not make her feel differently, because "at the time the police didn't know - they were just going after the car".
"He could have shot the tyres, he could have shot anything else, but he shot to kill."
What relevance is the opinion of some random pensioner on the high street? Especially when it is littered with factually inaccurate nonsense that the wider article makes no attempt to fact check?
"at the time the police didn't know - they were just going after the car". Yes, but they were going after the car specifically because it had been identified as being used in a criminal shooting the day before. No, they did not know for sure and certain that the occupant was armed but on the balance of probabilities it was very much a possibility that they had to consider - that's why multiple armed police were tasked and not just a couple of unarmed PCs. Even then, the officer didn't just shoot because the car had been flagged, he shot in response to the actions of the driver, namely that he tried to evade arrest by using his vehicle as a weapon, thus presenting an immediate threat to the lives of the officers present.
"He shot him in the head". Big effing deal. Firearms Officers are trained first and foremost to take a "conventional shot", that is to aim at the central body mass (upper torso) where the majority of critical organs are located. A successful conventional shot is very likely to prove fatal and that is the intention. Where a conventional shot is not possible/practical (i.e. in this case where the target's torso is at least partially protected by the structure of the vehicle, steering wheel etc) then a head shot (if possible) is the recommended alternative. The officer did what he was trained to do and that training is based on hard science and decades of operational experience, not the ramblings of some Croydon shopper.
"He could have shot the tyres". No, he shouldn't have. He had made the decision that the individual in the car represented an immediate threat to the lives of his colleagues and the wider public. He has to defend that decision but having made it, shooting the tyres would have been a ridiculous option to consider. First and foremost, except in very specific circumstances, our police are are armed with (in layman's terms) fairly soft rounds. As they are operating in urban environments, they do not want rounds passing right through their target, or walls etc, and injuring/killing someone else. Car tyres are very tough. The most likely outcome of shooting at the tire would have been a still intact tyre and a flattened round ricocheting off, still with enough energy to maim or kill someone in the near vicinity (such as one of the many officers surrounding the vehicle). Even if he had managed to shoot out tyres, that would not have mitigated the threat he was concerned with.
"...but he shot to kill". There is no shoot-to-kill versus shoot-to-wound debate to be had. When a firearms officer discharges their weapon at an individual they have made a conscious decision to use lethal force. The death of the target is the presumed outcome. The only discussion that really needs to be had is whether lethal force was justified in the circumstances or not.