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

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?

@mids2019

Lol - so the police decision to have armed officers on scene is itself evidence that the perp is dangerous and armed?

What have I just read?! Honestly, people on this website are unbelievable sometimes. Desperate to excuse racism.

This thread should be deleted.

@SausageAndEggSandwich

There must have been reason for an armed police unit to be called to the scene i.e. a strong suspicion of an armed offender. This is not the US where all police are armed they are only called for specific incidents.

I think it's right the prime minister is calling for clarity on rules of engagement. We also need a situation where the army is not replacing our armed police force.

Why is it racist to defend the actions of a police officer who was fulfilling his duty presumably to the best of his ability in a pressured situation?

The reason why the AROs were deployed was precisely because the vehicle they were after was involved in a firearms incident the previous day.

It's not exactly unreasonable to believe the occupants in it are armed. Hence, the deployment of the AROs and ARV isn't being questioned as it's entirely legal as well as above board.

So, that isn't the issue here.

The issue is did Officer NX121 have reasonable, legal grounds for opening fire with a single shot? Was Officer NX121's use of force proportionate in the circumstances?

Remember, it IS reasonable for law enforcement to be armed in the belief the target is. Even if they're later found to be unarmed. That's why I mentioned the SAS killing of the Gibraltar 3 1988 and Met Police SO19 Officer Kilo killing Diarmuid O'Neill in 1996. All lawful killings with SAS and Officer Kilo exonerated.

It is not axiomatic that Chris Kaba was killed due to racism. The history of the Audi he was driving is relevant here which is the reason for the deployment of AROs.

This thread should be deleted not for the reasons above but because it clearly discussion of a live case and that is potential perjury . The judge has already commented and warned against people discussing it on Social Media . I complained to Mumsnet Towers about this thread last night and I am horrified that it and the one in Chat is still up.

@sunglassesonthetable it's way too early to know if this was racially motivated or not. The only thing that plays into thy idea is the fact that the officer was a different ethnicity to Chris Kaba.

He may have done everything by the book. He may not have. We have no idea. Definitely too early to call this a racist killing.

This

The point of my posts is not to blame anyone. I find it interesting in these types of cases, we are always very quick to make excuses despite the litany of history that could suggest that the police acted inappropriately. It’s not just my oppinion, the CPS also believe that there is a case to be heard. I don’t believe that Chris Kaba was shot just because he was black, but I do believe that the almost unanimous public siding with the police officer in this situation, is because the victim was black and an offender. We don’t do that in other crimes in 99% of cases. In fact, we often do the exact opposite!

All we know is very few details and a litany of history ON BOTH SIDES, of people behaving in ways that they shouldn’t.
We don’t know all the facts but what we do know so far is enough to say it may not be as clear cut as it seems.

Police officers downing tools because one of their own is being held accountable for their actions, should be very worrying to us all. I find it unbelievable that in these times, with a report only last week criticising this same unit, we are so quick to dismiss and make sweeping statements about a force that has been found to be questionable on numerous occasions. Race is important here because I can assure you, it is relevant to black and brown people being dealt with by Police and the public response to injustices which often occur. I have never seen anyone suggest that INNOCENT young black boys and girls should find a safe place to stop before they stop for police. There is never any understanding or tolerance of our very real lived experiences.

When/if there is a full trial, then we can comment on the fairness of the CPS decision. The speculation and victim blaming on this thread is unfair and questionable at best.

This bit of information explains the CPS charge of murder:

"The offence concerns the evening of September 5 2022 and the shooting of Chris Kaba - just at the point that his vehicle had become stationary. The investigation is well advanced in comparison to other homicide cases." - Prosecutor Tom Little KC

Plea proceedings is on 1st December 2023 and trial is 22nd September 2024, IIRC.

We will hear the cases for the prosecution and defence next year.

I joined especially to comment
My name explains why
My "child" is on duty today, not in London, 5th week still under a tutor, learning.
Their attestation ceremony was as the Casey report was published. His CC did his welcome speak and tried reassuring us parents that policing wasn't full of racists/sexist homophobes. They where one offs.

Well I truly worry for him, because I grew up in one of Britain's poorest postcodes, back in the 70's about 1 in 10 of our neighbours hated the police, now I say it's closer to 7 in 10.
He is patrolling this bit today.

To the defenders and serving officers on this thread, you need to wake up. Policing is losing it communties
Why?

I am 54, 1976 Stefan Kiszko went to jail, because the police lied, this year there is Andrew Malkinson, police lied again.
1999 MacPherson report & 2023 Casey report both said same thing, Police are racist/sexist & homophobic. Thats 24 years and nothing has changed
Add Hillsborough, Harry Stanley, Chris Alder, Guildford 4 & Birmingham 6 and it seems English policing has had the same problems for 4 decades and every new CC says it 1 bad apple, no it is system wide.

Read what Louise Casey says about firearms units, especially MO19, it is truly shocking in a truly shocking report.

I really worry my "child" has joined a sexist, racist & homophobic club, on the promise they could help to change it, when seeing current officers on SM and here defend the current corrupt system and it's worst officers, I think they have more chance of being of need of his panic button, then ever seeing a fair force

2 of his intake have left, as they couldn't deal with the way experienced officers treated them with contempt, one was female one lgbt. It is disgusting

A sad parent
Serving officers, stop defending and get these systems and bad apples out
I wont be back
Or lose good recruits and the backing of the communties you serve

They aren't downing tools, they have decided they don't want to volunteer for a challenging role that is entirely voluntary.

Perjury does not mean what you think it means.

Why on earth would they not hand in their firearms?
No support, called racist at every turn. Could go down for life if they fire a shot. Hardly worth it is it. They cannot police safely anymore. That's what it has come to.

The list on Wikipedia posted earlier is just those where we know the police were responsible for someone's death. Since 1990, 1,871 people have died either in police custody or as a result of contact with the police. Not one policeman has been convicted of murder or manslaughter for any of these deaths. It is not surprising that some police officers think they are above the law. Indeed, some on this thread seem to believe that the police are above the law and should never be held accountable for their actions.

The police are not above the law. Of course, we must recognise that they often have to make exceptionally difficult decisions. We must avoid judging them unfairly in hindsight. But, if an officer has crossed the line into criminality, they should be dealt with appropriately.

In this case, the investigating officers and the CPS clearly believe that there is enough evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that the officer concerned crossed the line and his or her actions amounted to murder. It is now for a jury to decide, which is as it should be.

Correction to my previous post - one police officer was convicted of manslaughter in relation to the killing of Dalian Atkinson who died after being tasered.

To add, I wouldn't necessarily trust the witness accounts that have come into the public domain at this stage. They are often inaccurate. For example, when Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead on a tube train, we were told he had vaulted over the ticket barriers and ran down the stairs into the station. CCTV showed that both statements were incorrect.

For example, when Jean Charles de Menezes was shot dead on a tube train, we were told he had vaulted over the ticket barriers and ran down the stairs into the station. CCTV showed that both statements were incorrect.

And if you ask 80% of the public that's what they will still "remember". Personally I've always felt that was a black ops propaganda piece. To the best of my knowledge they have never identified the "eyewitness" who reported that to the radio within minutes of it happening.

Just to be clear, I give police officers an enormous amount of leeway. In theory they have an obligation that the average citizen doesn't. And in that I am happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. Shit happens.

However the flipside of that licence (for me) is that the police themselves have to be the first - not the last - to admit when they have made mistakes. If for no other reason than it's a learning opportunity and a chance to improve processes and procedures. They do themselves no favours by going all secret squirrel and covering up or protecting failures.

Difficult to understand why this thread is still standing considering the Guardian stopped commenting on the case yesterday afternoon because the case is now sub judice

Perhaps MNHQ have better lawyers than the Guardian? Who knows?

The eyewitness had confused Jean Charles de Menezes vaulting over ticket barrier for the pursuing police officer who DID vault over the ticket barrier. There's lots of scientific research about the unreliability of eyewitness accounts.

Jean Charles de Menezes was mistaken for Hussain Osman, a suicide bomber on the run at the time.

Like with the SAS killing of the PIRA 3 in Gibraltar, the ECtHR ruled that "there must be an honest belief that the use of force was absolutely necessary." They ruled the SO19 officers had an honest belief that Jean Charles de Menezes was Hussain Osman with a bomb belt. Same ruling as in the aforementioned case of the PIRA 3 - in this they had an honest belief they were armed.

I thought that too. MNHQ don't usually allow threads about upcoming trials

Is there actually anything much here that would compromise a trial? I don't know how these things work but?

I don't think so as most of what's spoken of here comes from the IOPC statement from 2022 as well as what the lead Prosecutor Tom Little KC has publicly stated.

Other known incidents involving armed police and SAS certainly doesn't prejudice the trial either.

@DownNative but didn't they believe that that Jean Charles de Menezes was the terrorist because the officer that was supposed to keep an eye on who was coming out of the block of flats didn't pay attention? Yes the firearms officer was using the information they had, but shooting someone because they fuck ip happened earlier in the process is still wrong.

Back to Chris Kaba.

I don't personally know any police officers but for those who do - I'm wondering if their 'downing guns' had anything to do with the length of time, one year, it took to bring a charge of murder?

I know the authorities have to take statements, and then there's forensics, ballistics, etc. but one year is a long time, particularly as they knew from day one which officer fired the shot?

Things go wrong in policing operations, including counter-terrorism ones. The context of what happened to Jean Charles de Menezes was the then bombing of London which was different to all other past ones involving PIRA.

But Jean Charles de Menezes was incorrectly identified as Hussain Osman. The question for the law and human rights is did the officers hold an honest belief? Was it legal or illegal?

ECtHR ruled they held an honest belief and it wasn't murder. Same as with the killing of the PIRA in Gibraltar.

PIRAs Diarmuid O'Neill was shot with 6 bullets. Again, lawful killing.

So, the test is essentially revolving around honest belief. I think we'll see the case against Officer NX121 in regards to Chris Kaba's death may well hinge on honestly held belief. But that may well be difficult for the officer to show as Tom Little KC has publicly said the officer shot Chris Kaba as the Audi became stationary. Very significant statement.

That remains to be seen until 2024.

If the officers that removed JCdMs head had an honest belief that overrode the evidence of their own senses then the people and procedures that put that belief there (which was a dishonest belief at some point) should have been held accountable.

And when I say accountable, I mean accountable in only the way people whose fuck ups lead to someones head being reduced to strawberry jam must be held accountable.

JCdM was doomed the moment he left his house - there was fuck all he could ever have done to keep his head on his shoulders. And for my own personal reasons that fact has haunted me ever since.

And this matters. It matters because for all we know the excuse for putting a bullet into an unarmed unresisting person may well turn out to be "I was told he was a wrong'un and it's best not to take any chances". Which was the TL;DR from all the fuss over JCdM.

Op

The deadly weapon in this case was the car kaba was driving at police officers. If a car hits you , you can die

It can be used as a deadly weapon. If you decide to drive at a police officer with a gun asking you to stop - I can well imagine that police officer would think shooting in self defence is justified.

Or should he have just been run over first and then it would have been ok for someone to shoot ?

I am not surprised that forearms officers are handing their ticket in . Why would you honestly put yourself in that position for no more money . Whereby if you do pull the trigger even if someone is driving at you , you can be charged with murder . How do you think police fair in jail ? That officer must feel absolutely sold down the river . He should
Have just got run over . He'd be better off .