Police officer cleared

[Toomanywars]

Martin Blake police officer today cleared by a jury of unlawful killing of Chris Kaba

Should police officers get more support. Perhaps not release name until after trial or inquiry.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

@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?

This so much. It's like the baddies get romanticised. No they were bad person, end of.
It seems to be norm too.

You're right, the police should just execute people they don't like. He didn't have a gun.

Regardless of the outcome of this trial - and anyone's opinion on it - you listing his "previous offence[s]" feel like you are saying that justifies him being shot?! Like people tried to justify George Floyd's death because he had a criminal record.

If he didn't have a gun, why didn't he just stop the car? ( I know no weapons were found). What was so difficult about it?

At the end of the day you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes and his idiocy and arrogance ended up with him dying because he thought he was untouchable because he was a violent thug who had zero respect for the law or other people’s lives. Plenty of times you see on the news how people have used their cars to murder innocent people. If he wasn’t planning on threatening life then why was he revving his car and driving it backwards and forwards with officers surrounding the car? Do their lives not matter just because they were serving officers, what if they were civilians instead?

His intentions were to at least threaten the lives of those around him. The police have a duty to respond to threat to life and preserve as many lives as possible. They gave him the opportunity to peacefully surrender himself and he chose aggression. He was guilty of being in possession of a vehicle that was involved in a shooting, that is enough evidence in a split second to believe that he may have been armed. His aggression proved that he was a threat. The police officer’s actions potentially saved multiple lives that day. Lesser of two evils. He died because he was a dangerous criminal and justice was served correctly today. You can honestly try and wrap it up whichever way you want the facts speak for themselves and you can argue til you’re blue in the face it won’t make your version of events or agenda any less of a falsehood.

My bad. All unarmed men killed by the police since 2005 have been black (in non terrorist operations). Kaba, Baker, Duggan and Rodney. Rodney's killing also involved murder trial in 2015.

“He didn’t have a gun”…. er, with him at the time. He only had convictions for carrying one previously and was just driving a car suspected of being involved in a shooting hours before. Those officers eh, what a reach to think to think he may be involved in gun crime! TABU.

I've answered all these questions in my previous posts.

All the unarmed men who have been shot have been criminals involved in criminal activity at the time. Why are you so keen to defend criminals?

Because NO-ONE deserves to be killed at the hands of the police. Criminal or not.

Top and bottom of this is if you comply with the Police when required you will be fine. If you are a criminal and try to run and harm officers doing their job you could get hurt.

Yep, same as that other shitbag Mark Duggan who was shot as well sparking the riots.

No sympathy for Kaba and pleased with the verdict.

Sean Fitzgerald was an unarmed man shot by police in 2019. A white man. And not driving around in a car that had been linked to a shooting the previous day, and not a member of a gang that has since been found guilty of a shooting (NB- the only reason that Chris Kaba didn't end up in court for that shooting is because he was dead.)

I think I’d disagree, respectfully, as that being a blanket statement when you look at Fishmongers Hall and the London Bridge attacks…