comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 44 seconds ago
The fact it went to trial meant all the facts were put in the public domain, no trial and we would probably be having vigils and protests for weeks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

V good point.

I think the threshold for justice in the country is a good thing personally. Others wanted it meted out by Dave from the Met apparently, no questions asked.

Hmmm

Bloke in car is hard stopped and decides to try and ram his way out in front of armed officers to escape.

Split moment decision which not one of us hopefully will ever have to make, but I can appreciate that his initial thoughts are he’s going to do whatever it takes to get away and cause harm.

The fact that this gangster is identified as being a highly dangerous criminal should never have resulted in a public trial for murder, let alone take two years.

Sorry but he deserves all he got. One less lunatic who couldn’t give a fwck about what damage he causes anyone being off the streets for good is fine by me. Armed police are there to protect the public and sadly they are a necessity in todays world.

And now his cronies have a reward on the officers head ffs.

They didn’t know who he was when he was shot.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 44 seconds ago
The fact it went to trial meant all the facts were put in the public domain, no trial and we would probably be having vigils and protests for weeks
----------------------------------------------------------------------

V good point.

I think the threshold for justice in the country is a good thing personally. Others wanted it meted out by Dave from the Met apparently, no questions asked.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you ever listen to the News Agents podcast? Decent listen generally speaking imo but today's edition is about whether the case should have gone to trial.

They go into what the police did and didn't know at the time of the stop, the action of Kaba and whether the bar was met, in terms of premeditation and likelihood of conviction, to bring a prosecution.

One of the dads in my son's class is an armed response officer in the met. He has, as you'd expect, very strong views on the level of support expected for the risks he takes. Besides the obvious risks, the addition of being put up on a murder charge for acting exactly as their training told them they should act is a step too far for many - lots have resigned or requested to leave firearms.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 44 seconds ago
They didn’t know who he was when he was shot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They did know that the car had been linked with two shootings, the gun hadn't been recovered and that it was owned by the gang though. That knowledge combined with the fact he was trying to ram his way through the officers and cars, it's enough to know that the situation was extremely volatile and dangerous.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
They didn’t know who he was when he was shot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

His actions in front of armed police identified him as someone who was happy to take that risk. I don’t think this was some kind of new situation to him.

Yeah I don’t agree with a murder charge either tbh, but there’s a case for manslaughter, and as said, from what I know I don’t think he should have been found guilty of either.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
They didn’t know who he was when he was shot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

His actions in front of armed police identified him as someone who was happy to take that risk. I don’t think this was some kind of new situation to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is fine, but that’s not what people are saying. They’re saying because they found out later that he had a criminal past, it’s no problem that an unarmed man got executed by the state on our streets.

Sorry, but I feel the threshold for death needs to be higher than trying to escape being boxed in.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 2 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
They didn’t know who he was when he was shot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

His actions in front of armed police identified him as someone who was happy to take that risk. I don’t think this was some kind of new situation to him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is fine, but that’s not what people are saying. They’re saying because they found out later that he had a criminal past, it’s no problem that an unarmed man got executed by the state on our streets.

Sorry, but I feel the threshold for death needs to be higher than trying to escape being boxed in.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I doubt it was just a simple case of being boxed in. Only the officer could verify that which he must have satisfied a judge on

Yes, I agree he shouldn’t have been prosecuted. No problem with that, but I’m going to suggest that shooting unarmed men on our streets should be thoroughly invested by trial.

It’s a hard job, for sure, but we’re going down a very dangerous route if we just execute people on reputation.

By prosecuted, I mean found guilty.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 4 minutes ago
Yes, I agree he shouldn’t have been prosecuted. No problem with that, but I’m going to suggest that shooting unarmed men on our streets should be thoroughly invested by trial.

It’s a hard job, for sure, but we’re going down a very dangerous route if we just execute people on reputation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Investigated, absolutely. It's why we have the IOCP, an independent body that looks at police conduct. That's not the courts job.

Now from one perspective, IOCP are independent and recommended to CPP that there was enough evidence to bring a prosecution; CPP agreed. That should be enough to suggest the process followed was absolutely correct.

I think the concerns of some are based on how easily dismissed the case was and whether the IOCP and CPP were actually prepared to take a tough decision. Or whether they abdicated responsibility to the courts and jury because of intense media pressure and the knowledge that the police are seen as institutionally racist.

Basically, was the officer hung out to dry as a PR stunt to show they were prepared to prosecute?

* CPS (not CPP)

Basically, was the officer hung out to dry as a PR stunt to show they were prepared to prosecute?
————-

Must admit I didn’t think about this, and it’s likely a very good point tbh.

I could understand a manslaughter case, from the little I’ve read on it, but I’m surprised murder was what he was charged with.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
Basically, was the officer hung out to dry as a PR stunt to show they were prepared to prosecute?
————-

Must admit I didn’t think about this, and it’s likely a very good point tbh.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If it was some stunt of bravado, I hope they understand the risk that the “right kind” of officer who could be a firearms specialist decides not to contemplate it as a career option.

Instead we could get the kind of trigger happy type we clearly don’t want.

I don’t think it’s a stunt, probably more about the Met’s quite awful reputation (a reputation well deserved btw) so they’re looking at a higher threshold I guess.

Threat of riots, etc, but that’s not on the officer.

Fact remains that they shot an unarmed man in the head though, let’s not lose sight of that.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
I don’t think it’s a stunt, probably more about the Met’s quite awful reputation (a reputation well deserved btw) so they’re looking at a higher threshold I guess.

Threat of riots, etc, but that’s not on the officer.

Fact remains that they shot an unarmed man in the head though, let’s not lose sight of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unarmed for once in his career existence.

Fwcked if I’d take the chance he was.

Wonder how many unarmed or defenceless people he meted out his own form of justice upon? Other than his family, he won’t be missed

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don’t think it’s a stunt, probably more about the Met’s quite awful reputation (a reputation well deserved btw) so they’re looking at a higher threshold I guess.

Threat of riots, etc, but that’s not on the officer.

Fact remains that they shot an unarmed man in the head though, let’s not lose sight of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There have been loads of examples over the years of cars bring driven at people. There was one yesterday actually. Would you say those people are unarmed? Or are they using their car as a weapon?

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
I don’t think it’s a stunt, probably more about the Met’s quite awful reputation (a reputation well deserved btw) so they’re looking at a higher threshold I guess.

Threat of riots, etc, but that’s not on the officer.

Fact remains that they shot an unarmed man in the head though, let’s not lose sight of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unarmed for once in his career existence.

Fwcked if I’d take the chance he was.

Wonder how many unarmed or defenceless people he meted out his own form of justice upon? Other than his family, he won’t be missed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Half of that is a guess, the rest irrelevant.

comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 11 minutes ago
I don’t think it’s a stunt, probably more about the Met’s quite awful reputation (a reputation well deserved btw) so they’re looking at a higher threshold I guess.

Threat of riots, etc, but that’s not on the officer.

Fact remains that they shot an unarmed man in the head though, let’s not lose sight of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There have been loads of examples over the years of cars bring driven at people. There was one yesterday actually. Would you say those people are unarmed? Or are they using their car as a weapon?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not when you’re boxed in, that’s why they do it.

comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
I don’t think it’s a stunt, probably more about the Met’s quite awful reputation (a reputation well deserved btw) so they’re looking at a higher threshold I guess.

Threat of riots, etc, but that’s not on the officer.

Fact remains that they shot an unarmed man in the head though, let’s not lose sight of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unarmed for once in his career existence.

Fwcked if I’d take the chance he was.

Wonder how many unarmed or defenceless people he meted out his own form of justice upon? Other than his family, he won’t be missed
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The police knew he’d used a firearm at least twice in the previous few days, it was reasonable to assume he was armed on the night he died.

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted 1 minute ago
I don’t think it’s a stunt, probably more about the Met’s quite awful reputation (a reputation well deserved btw) so they’re looking at a higher threshold I guess.

Threat of riots, etc, but that’s not on the officer.

Fact remains that they shot an unarmed man in the head though, let’s not lose sight of that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Unarmed for once in his career existence.

Fwcked if I’d take the chance he was.

Wonder how many unarmed or defenceless people he meted out his own form of justice upon? Other than his family, he won’t be missed
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Half of that is a guess, the rest irrelevant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hardly irrelevant if you’re the officer demanding he stops.

They didn’t know who he was. Can we please not just make stuff up, it’s kind of annoying (and pointless).

comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted less than a minute ago
They didn’t know who he was. Can we please not just make stuff up, it’s kind of annoying (and pointless).
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They knew he wasn’t prepared to stop his vehicle on demand whilst being faced with armed police.

Maybe less of the defending this individuals rights might help.

Who in their right mind tries to ram through an armed stop?