comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 34 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wondering what he had meted out is in fact entirely irrelevant. You have no idea and it also has nothing to do with this.
This is about the law, not vigilante justice.
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 34 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wondering what he had meted out is in fact entirely irrelevant. You have no idea and it also has nothing to do with this.
This is about the law, not vigilante justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think this is vigilante justice?
As for the law, the law came down on the officers side. Seems he acted within the confines of the law. Let’s not let that fact escape us.
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I assume you think that a car is only considered a weapon if it's free to travel above a certain speed?
Ultimately the police knew the car had been linked to two shootings, knew the gun from those shooting hadn't been recovered, the car was owned by the gang and it was being used to ram out of a legitimate stop with little (or no) regard for the safety of the officers.
Personally I think the unarmed element is debatable. He was clearly using the car as a tool to get out of the stop, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he was using it as a tool against the officers.
comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I assume you think that a car is only considered a weapon if it's free to travel above a certain speed?
Ultimately the police knew the car had been linked to two shootings, knew the gun from those shooting hadn't been recovered, the car was owned by the gang and it was being used to ram out of a legitimate stop with little (or no) regard for the safety of the officers.
Personally I think the unarmed element is debatable. He was clearly using the car as a tool to get out of the stop, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he was using it as a tool against the officers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that’s a pretty tenuous case tbh. He’s quite clearly boxed in, there’s no officers even in front or behind the car (until the offucer ran to the front and shot him in the face).
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
Here is a list his previous adult convictions;
Possession of a lock knife - 2022
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I assume you think that a car is only considered a weapon if it's free to travel above a certain speed?
Ultimately the police knew the car had been linked to two shootings, knew the gun from those shooting hadn't been recovered, the car was owned by the gang and it was being used to ram out of a legitimate stop with little (or no) regard for the safety of the officers.
Personally I think the unarmed element is debatable. He was clearly using the car as a tool to get out of the stop, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he was using it as a tool against the officers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that’s a pretty tenuous case tbh. He’s quite clearly boxed in, there’s no officers even in front or behind the car (until the offucer ran to the front and shot him in the face).
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
Here is a list his previous adult convictions;
Possession of a lock knife - 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
death penalty? Eh?
The country is a better place without people like him. As for his convictions; he’s been lucky
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I assume you think that a car is only considered a weapon if it's free to travel above a certain speed?
Ultimately the police knew the car had been linked to two shootings, knew the gun from those shooting hadn't been recovered, the car was owned by the gang and it was being used to ram out of a legitimate stop with little (or no) regard for the safety of the officers.
Personally I think the unarmed element is debatable. He was clearly using the car as a tool to get out of the stop, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he was using it as a tool against the officers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that’s a pretty tenuous case tbh. He’s quite clearly boxed in, there’s no officers even in front or behind the car (until the offucer ran to the front and shot him in the face).
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
Here is a list his previous adult convictions;
Possession of a lock knife - 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That’s incorrect, see below.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/chris-kaba-was-core-member-of-gang-and-gunman-in-nightclub-shooting-days-before-he-was-killed-by-police-13234555
That’s not a conviction Pranks.
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
That’s not a conviction Pranks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was convicted of carrying an imitation firearm and got 4 years. It’s in the article.
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
That’s not a conviction Pranks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was convicted of carrying an imitation firearm and got 4 years. It’s in the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye you’re right, two adult convictions then.
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
That’s not a conviction Pranks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was convicted of carrying an imitation firearm and got 4 years. It’s in the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye you’re right, two adult convictions then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 29 minutes ago
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blimey Robbing, talk about an assumption. You have no clue on my views of the death penalty.
The only thing that's "clear" is that I think a car can be used as a weapon and that there is a case to be made that he was doing so here. That's it.
Tbh, I'm not even 100% on the car thing. I just don't think the more sensationalist angle of 'unarmed man murdered' really do full justice to the situation.
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 39 minutes ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the police does not justify a bullet to the head.
A powerful SUV was probably a more dangerous weapon than a handgun under the circumstances
comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 29 minutes ago
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blimey Robbing, talk about an assumption. You have no clue on my views of the death penalty.
The only thing that's "clear" is that I think a car can be used as a weapon and that there is a case to be made that he was doing so here. That's it.
Tbh, I'm not even 100% on the car thing. I just don't think the more sensationalist angle of 'unarmed man murdered' really do full justice to the situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unarmed man is the be all and end all.
IF there was a case that he was seen with a gun, game changer, there wasn't, the police have tactics and protocols in how to deal with the situation they found themselves in, the police ARU are highly trained they shouldn't be discharging their weapons just because he was inching forward then reversing, inching forward then reversing
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 39 minutes ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the police does not justify a bullet to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on, there’s way more to it than that and you know this.
Then why did the jury find him not guilty.
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 39 minutes ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the police does not justify a bullet to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on, there’s way more to it than that and you know this.
Then why did the jury find him not guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the threat to life by a boxed in car surrounded by multiple armed cops, shoot the tyres.
Has his occupation been mentioned in the media?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0j8r8558yo
I hope this nut job gets sued for every penny he has.
Peks probably believes him though
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 39 minutes ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the police does not justify a bullet to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on, there’s way more to it than that and you know this.
Then why did the jury find him not guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the threat to life by a boxed in car surrounded by multiple armed cops, shoot the tyres.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Didn’t the other officers say he was boxed in and it was the officer that shot him wasn’t aware?
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0j8r8558yo
I hope this nut job gets sued for every penny he has.
Peks probably believes him though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defo a Reform voter
comment by Jake Moon (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0j8r8558yo
I hope this nut job gets sued for every penny he has.
Peks probably believes him though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defo a Reform voter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone here even heard of this guy?
What a piece of shiiiiiit.
No I had no idea we had an Alex Jones in this country
comment by Joshua The King Of Kings Zirkzee (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Didn’t the other officers say he was boxed in and it was the officer that shot him wasn’t aware?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless
He ignored armed officers despite their warnings and still decided to try and ram his way through.
Bottom line on top of that is that despite the immediate demand the officer be charged with murder; the judge in the face of all the evidence (not the bits that some pick and choose), found him innocent and to have carried out his duties in accordance with procedure.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 4719 of 4737
4720 | 4721 | 4722 | 4723 | 4724
posted 1 week ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 34 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wondering what he had meted out is in fact entirely irrelevant. You have no idea and it also has nothing to do with this.
This is about the law, not vigilante justice.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Gingernuts (U2992)
posted 34 seconds ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You wondering what he had meted out is in fact entirely irrelevant. You have no idea and it also has nothing to do with this.
This is about the law, not vigilante justice.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You think this is vigilante justice?
As for the law, the law came down on the officers side. Seems he acted within the confines of the law. Let’s not let that fact escape us.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I assume you think that a car is only considered a weapon if it's free to travel above a certain speed?
Ultimately the police knew the car had been linked to two shootings, knew the gun from those shooting hadn't been recovered, the car was owned by the gang and it was being used to ram out of a legitimate stop with little (or no) regard for the safety of the officers.
Personally I think the unarmed element is debatable. He was clearly using the car as a tool to get out of the stop, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he was using it as a tool against the officers.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I assume you think that a car is only considered a weapon if it's free to travel above a certain speed?
Ultimately the police knew the car had been linked to two shootings, knew the gun from those shooting hadn't been recovered, the car was owned by the gang and it was being used to ram out of a legitimate stop with little (or no) regard for the safety of the officers.
Personally I think the unarmed element is debatable. He was clearly using the car as a tool to get out of the stop, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he was using it as a tool against the officers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that’s a pretty tenuous case tbh. He’s quite clearly boxed in, there’s no officers even in front or behind the car (until the offucer ran to the front and shot him in the face).
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
Here is a list his previous adult convictions;
Possession of a lock knife - 2022
posted 1 week ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t ... (U6374)
posted about a minute ago
comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I assume you think that a car is only considered a weapon if it's free to travel above a certain speed?
Ultimately the police knew the car had been linked to two shootings, knew the gun from those shooting hadn't been recovered, the car was owned by the gang and it was being used to ram out of a legitimate stop with little (or no) regard for the safety of the officers.
Personally I think the unarmed element is debatable. He was clearly using the car as a tool to get out of the stop, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he was using it as a tool against the officers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that’s a pretty tenuous case tbh. He’s quite clearly boxed in, there’s no officers even in front or behind the car (until the offucer ran to the front and shot him in the face).
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
Here is a list his previous adult convictions;
Possession of a lock knife - 2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------
death penalty? Eh?
The country is a better place without people like him. As for his convictions; he’s been lucky
posted 1 week ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 10 minutes ago
comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 2 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, so I assume you think that a car is only considered a weapon if it's free to travel above a certain speed?
Ultimately the police knew the car had been linked to two shootings, knew the gun from those shooting hadn't been recovered, the car was owned by the gang and it was being used to ram out of a legitimate stop with little (or no) regard for the safety of the officers.
Personally I think the unarmed element is debatable. He was clearly using the car as a tool to get out of the stop, I think there's a reasonable case to be made that he was using it as a tool against the officers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that’s a pretty tenuous case tbh. He’s quite clearly boxed in, there’s no officers even in front or behind the car (until the offucer ran to the front and shot him in the face).
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
Here is a list his previous adult convictions;
Possession of a lock knife - 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------
That’s incorrect, see below.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/chris-kaba-was-core-member-of-gang-and-gunman-in-nightclub-shooting-days-before-he-was-killed-by-police-13234555
posted 1 week ago
That’s not a conviction Pranks.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
That’s not a conviction Pranks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was convicted of carrying an imitation firearm and got 4 years. It’s in the article.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
That’s not a conviction Pranks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was convicted of carrying an imitation firearm and got 4 years. It’s in the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye you’re right, two adult convictions then.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted 53 seconds ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 6 minutes ago
That’s not a conviction Pranks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He was convicted of carrying an imitation firearm and got 4 years. It’s in the article.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aye you’re right, two adult convictions then.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted 1 week ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 29 minutes ago
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blimey Robbing, talk about an assumption. You have no clue on my views of the death penalty.
The only thing that's "clear" is that I think a car can be used as a weapon and that there is a case to be made that he was doing so here. That's it.
Tbh, I'm not even 100% on the car thing. I just don't think the more sensationalist angle of 'unarmed man murdered' really do full justice to the situation.
posted 1 week ago
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 39 minutes ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the police does not justify a bullet to the head.
posted 1 week ago
A powerful SUV was probably a more dangerous weapon than a handgun under the circumstances
posted 1 week ago
comment by Szoboss (U6997)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Robbing Hoody - keepy up arbiter. Don’t talk to me unless you can do ten (U6374)
posted 29 minutes ago
What’s clear here is that I seem to have a higher threshold for the death penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Blimey Robbing, talk about an assumption. You have no clue on my views of the death penalty.
The only thing that's "clear" is that I think a car can be used as a weapon and that there is a case to be made that he was doing so here. That's it.
Tbh, I'm not even 100% on the car thing. I just don't think the more sensationalist angle of 'unarmed man murdered' really do full justice to the situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Unarmed man is the be all and end all.
IF there was a case that he was seen with a gun, game changer, there wasn't, the police have tactics and protocols in how to deal with the situation they found themselves in, the police ARU are highly trained they shouldn't be discharging their weapons just because he was inching forward then reversing, inching forward then reversing
posted 1 week ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 39 minutes ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the police does not justify a bullet to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on, there’s way more to it than that and you know this.
Then why did the jury find him not guilty.
posted 1 week ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 39 minutes ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the police does not justify a bullet to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on, there’s way more to it than that and you know this.
Then why did the jury find him not guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the threat to life by a boxed in car surrounded by multiple armed cops, shoot the tyres.
posted 1 week ago
Has his occupation been mentioned in the media?
posted 1 week ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0j8r8558yo
I hope this nut job gets sued for every penny he has.
Peks probably believes him though
posted 1 week ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Pranky 23/24 LFC Draft Champ (U22336)
posted less than a minute ago
comment by Hector (U3606)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by groovyduringthewar (U1054)
posted 39 minutes ago
Its been all about ifs and buts,an Audi q8 could be more than possible to ram its way out of that situation,then the police and public would have been in danger of somebody who was not going to stop and could be armed,the means justified ends.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Escaping the police does not justify a bullet to the head.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh come on, there’s way more to it than that and you know this.
Then why did the jury find him not guilty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the threat to life by a boxed in car surrounded by multiple armed cops, shoot the tyres.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted 1 week ago
Didn’t the other officers say he was boxed in and it was the officer that shot him wasn’t aware?
posted 1 week ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0j8r8558yo
I hope this nut job gets sued for every penny he has.
Peks probably believes him though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defo a Reform voter
posted 1 week ago
comment by Jake Moon (U11781)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 5 minutes ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj0j8r8558yo
I hope this nut job gets sued for every penny he has.
Peks probably believes him though
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Defo a Reform voter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone here even heard of this guy?
What a piece of shiiiiiit.
posted 1 week ago
No I had no idea we had an Alex Jones in this country
posted 1 week ago
comment by Joshua The King Of Kings Zirkzee (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
Didn’t the other officers say he was boxed in and it was the officer that shot him wasn’t aware?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regardless
He ignored armed officers despite their warnings and still decided to try and ram his way through.
Bottom line on top of that is that despite the immediate demand the officer be charged with murder; the judge in the face of all the evidence (not the bits that some pick and choose), found him innocent and to have carried out his duties in accordance with procedure.
Page 4719 of 4737
4720 | 4721 | 4722 | 4723 | 4724