Chris Kaba

[RaceWithChyna]

The police officer who shot Chris Kaba has finally been charged with murder. It took a while after investigations had to be held but I’m glad the CPS decided to charge the anonymous police officer.

Before people start, yes he’d been in jail. Yes, he’d apparently drove towards officers at an attempt to get away. None of this means he deserved to be killed with an immediate head shot. To make matters worse, he wasn’t even the person they were after. They only realised it was someone else after the fact that he was dead.

I hope the family get the justice that they deserve.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-66865099.amp

The police DIDN'T KNOW WHO HE WAS

You're making an argument that doesn't make sense

They knew the car, they didn't know the driver

All this post hoc justification you're doing - oh he was violent, he had a history with weapons, he had come out of prison

At the time they shot him the police knew none of that. He could have been a totally innocent person. Borrowed a car off a cousin to run an errand or whatever and panicked at being stopped by police.

Is this politically motivated? With accusations of racism in the police and a firearms officer killing a black man in the course of his duty I don't think it takes a lot to think a decision to prosecute was a poor attempt at placating people.

I don't think a brave firearms officer who at face value operated perfectly lawfully should be thrown under the bus for this.

It's fine, neither Russel Brand nor this police officer need a trial. Their guilt, or lack thereof, is obvious.

All this post hoc justification you're doing - oh he was violent, he had a history with weapons, he had come out of prison

If the car was used In a shooting before, the police would know that. Chris kaba is irrelevant all they know is people with guns are associated with the car

The police are hardly going to take a chance on some random driving a stolen car, associate with firearms, who is ramming them and refusing to follow instructions

None of us can say whether he's guilty or jot, but the idea that the armed police should have politely asked the non-complaint occupant to do x y z... it's not realistic

Any lawyers out there explain how this could be murder? There appears to be no premeditation

This is what I've been wondering.
We had a guy last the other week who dug a grave in advance, gathered weapons, planned his attack on his his expartner, who wasnt even convicted of murder.
How on earth can this be murder?
And I'm definitely no fan of the police right now, but being prosecuted in this situation seems unreasonably harsh to me

@mids2019 I'm not a lawyer, but the definition of murder is very clear. This is what the CPS say-

"The intent for murder is an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm (GBH). Foresight is no more than evidence from which the jury may draw the inference of intent, c.f. R v Woollin [1999] 1 Cr App R 8 (HOL). The necessary intention exists if the defendant feels sure that death, or serious bodily harm, is a virtual certainty as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant appreciated that this was the case - R v Matthews (Darren John) [2003] EWCA Crim 192."

So, when it comes to intent, to be guilty of murder in the UK a person must realise that it is certain that the victim will either be killed or suffer grievous bodily harm as a result of his actions.

If you deliberately fire a weapon at somebody, then you can be pretty certain that they are going to either die or suffer GBH.

This won't end well...

https://news.sky.com/story/chris-kaba-ministry-of-defence-offers-support-to-met-police-as-armed-police-officers-hand-in-their-weapons-12969202

I fully support them @Gingernaut . They have been thrown under the bus and the risk is not worth it. Nobody wants to end up in prison for life or be subjected to a media based trial.
Anyone who celebrates this needs their heads reading. The people of London are royally screwed if something kicks off and we need help, can tell you that now. It's got to the point where the police cannot police anymore. Very dangerous and worrying timed ahead.

There is chat on the Scottish police closed Facebook pages that Police Scotland have been asked to supply AFO’s. Hopefully none agree to go.

This place is so interesting sometimes. There have been countless threads on how dangerous/misogynistic/ perverted etc, the met Police are. There was even suggestions that if you are a woman who is stopped by police, you shouldn’t stop until YOU feel safe to do so. Russel Brand is by a large cancelled on here, despite there being no criminal evidence of his abuse, countless men are labelled cunts, cock lodgers, cries of ltb etc, based off one persons post. And in this case, when the CPS have actually charged an officer of the same met police with MURDER, there are pages and pages of people falling over themselves to make excuses.

As a black person in the UK it is tiresome that most of the time, no one gives a shit about you. Black people have been screaming about their experiences of the Police for years and no one cares. An officer has been charged with murder and still, no one cares. The police often have a difficult job to do but WE know, and given the recent past, we should all now know that sometimes, they are wrong! Why is that so hard to fathom in this particular case? Why do we need to justify this officers actions because Christopher Kaba was not a perfect citizen? PP have said, this will give young black men who are criminals free rein to do what they want. Do you know how offensive that statement is. Young black men, whether criminals or not, have never had free rein to do anything, even when they are doing nothing! No one has ever suggested that if young black boys/girls feel unsafe, they should not stop until they do, or they should do anything to feel safer. Do you actually know what if feels like to have your young nephew come home, terrified and hysterical because they’ve been stopped by police for walking with their hands in their pocket. Black people, black men in particular, as a group, have never felt safe when being stopped by police, whether you have a history or not.

So, let’s actually wait and see what comes out of this instead of running to defend an institution we know, is not always right

Falling over themselves to make excuses? Seriously?
No, we are just seeing it as it is without race being called into it. Because not everything is or should be about race. The investigation will go ahead regardless. I trust the outcome will be the right one but as a poster said upthread, if the officer is found not guilty, there will be uproar from certain groups.
All my family who used to serve are now very glad they do not. Of course there are bad eggs in the police, there are in every organisation. But to cast them all as racists and corrupt is deeply unfair. The lack of support and backing is now making itself known by officers handing their firearms as they feel they cannot police freely anymore. Extremely depressing state of affairs and will end up with something very bad happening. But what do we expect when we treat the police who do one of the most important jobs in the world with such disdain?

https://www.policeconduct.gov.uk/news/statement-read-out-opening-inquest-death-chris-kaba
and this is what the police say actually happened, seems to be a lot of speculation going on here!

Nothing we didn't already know? It clearly says the car was linked to previous crime which was why it was being followed.
Wasn't like the police just came along, saw a black man in a car and decided to box him in and throw a shot his way. I know that's how some would like to perceive it but clearly didn't happen that way.

It has to be remembered that a charge of murder doesn't mean the CPS believes the officer committed murder.

It means there is a case to answer to the charge. A judge led jury will decide at the end of the trial presentation of evidence.

In 2000, Officer Kilo of SO19 was ruled NOT to have murdered a man during a raid that didn't go according to plan in 1996. The man was found unarmed in his hotel room afterwards in his boxers. He was also a known PIRA terrorist who'd been planning a huge bomb, but was caught on audio saying police will be killed if they raided. His name was Diarmuid O'Neill born in London, PIRA member and died in London. Ruling was NOT murder.

But a person's KNOWN history is relevant to ALL firearms officers. In the case of Chris Kaba, its the history of the car he was driving that was relevant:

"The Audi Mr Kaba was driving was believed to be linked to a firearms incident which took place the previous day and an automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) marker had been placed upon it."

This will obviously be taken into account by firearms officers.

So, the facts of the case against the current officer remains to be heard, but a charge and trial doesn't necessarily mean there's guilt there. Policing operations involving firearms are NOT trouble free nor is it automatically murder.

Obviously, we don't have access to all the information yet.

Get back to work you lazy fucks!

He turned onto a road where a police car was parked, why does everyone believe he “uses his car as a weapon”. Also, has Chris Kaba shot a police before? Do we know if the car was stolen/borrowed from a friend etc. There are a lot of assumptions being made and like my original post alludes to, I am pretty sure why.

Public response to inappropriate police force used against black or brown people is usually, 99% racist. We do not fall over our selves to excuse or understand in most other circumstances, in fact we do the complete oppposite. I wish it wasn’t always about colour but what is the other common denominator? Like I said, it’s tiring and offensive.

Let’s wait and see what all the evidence is but like I said, there is absolutely no reason to have sympathy for the officer over Chris and his family, given what we know about the Police to date!

Who are you talking about?

You make it sound like he was leisurely driving along and then all these corrupt policeman surround him and one officer decides to shoot for the fun of it. Very disingenuous.
I have no time for people who like to stir up division when it comes to the police. There are corrupt policemen but there are corrupt people in every job. This is not unique to the force. Too many people in my opinion sit at home saying how awful the police are and how racist they are without seeing all the good they do. I honestly don't know why people go into this career anymore. It must feel thankless.
We are about to find out what it looks like when we have no fire armed police on duty and that's what happens inevitably when the police cannot police through fear of being called racist or killing unlawfully.
Again, this car was registered as suspect which is why it was being followed. It wasn't just that he was a black man being followed by the police, there was a perfectly valid reason.

The trouble is the public only get a screen shot of the incident. We don't know what led up to it or why the officer fired. Having said that if he is now being charged with murder they must feel they have a good case.
To be fair the deceased wasn't entirely blameless was he? Driving a car associated with a gun crime and then flooring it. Easy to judge both men but again we only know what the gutter press tell us.

@Another2Cats

Interesting. The problem is that an A FO has the possibility of having to kill as part of his lawful job (as has occurred with terrorism events) and therefore I would think a murder charge could only be put forward if there was absolutely no way the policeman was acting in self defence or to protect other officers or the public. I cannot at least initially see how this is the case. There was the possibility of the driver running over the police officer and if there had been instructions given to the driver that were ignored this also could be construed negatively. The intent to kill under certain circumstances in these very specialised professions is part of their job and does the law reflect this?

There must have been reason for armed fire officers to be on the scene and for the officer in question to draw a weapon. The officers would have had professional training on the use of firearms and would have known the law surrounding their use. It seems fellow officers did not immediately arrest their colleague for murder as it was probably in their eyes a lawful judgment of the use of deadly force at the time.

In a more general setting it is really in the public interest that AFOs can be confident that they can discharge their duty often under extreme pressure and in personal danger without subconscious fear that a wrong decision could result in their life being ruined by prosecution. Policing is a hard job, firearm police more.so; let's not make it harder.

Also given that in the UK armed fire officers are only called if a decision has been made that a perpetrator is likely to themselves have a fun or other offensive weapon isn't there already evidence that the situation was one in which presumably the perpetrator was likely to cause harm?

This thread should be deleted

It is the SAS who are on standby to assist Met Police with firearms operations, including counter-terrorism.

SAS have a very good record in urban areas. For example, SAS actions in Gibraltar 1988 the ECtHR judgement stated "it was only natural.....the authorities...would resort to the skill and experience of the SAS in order to deal with the threat in the safest and most informed manner possible". In short, the court rejected claims of premeditated murder from the three Provos' families.

ECtHR also cautioned against placing an undue burden on law enforcement across Europe in dealing with firearms operations. Its looking like this caution has been done away with in the last 25 years or so since the judgement.

Leading to 100 Met Police firearms officers downing weapons and the current Police Commissioner indicating current legislation in respect of firearms officers is not fit for purpose.

The SAS being on standby is not really a cause for concern and, as the ECtHR stated, use of the SAS does NOT indicate premeditated murder by any means. People forget the SAS are also used to arrest, but the nature of their operations means this isn't always possible as with the Gibraltar 3.

See also the case of Met Police SO19 in the shooting of another Provo in London.

The IOPC statement asserted "The evidence suggests that contact was made between the Audi driven by Mr Kaba and the police vehicles."

The marked ARV vehicle waiting in that road expected the Audi to drive straight past it and it was to follow the other unmarked vehicles on the main road.

They had to change tactics to an inline extraction in which armed officers approached the vehicle.

It's not disputed there was contact between the Audi and police vehicles.

You ask what the other common denominator besides skin colour, that would be known previous history. In this case, the Audi was used in a firearms incident the day before which the officers knew. Other examples in London has been previous known violent history as with PIRAs Diarmuid O'Neill shot by SO19 Officer Kilo in 1996 - 6 bullets and unarmed afterwards. Lawful killing.

So, it's not axiomatic that the colour of Chris Kaba's skin was the crucial difference here.

We will see how it turns out with the trial.