Chris Kaba. The decision to prosecute the officer was a disgrace

There are specific defences, such as the ones of necessity or self-defence I mentioned above. More widely, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (right to life) provides that death resulting from defending oneself or others, arresting a suspect or fugitive, or suppressing riots or insurrections, will not contravene the Article when the use of force involved is "no more than absolutely necessary".

 

How else do you incapacitate a driver?

 

By not killing him maybe?

Given he managed to the hit the extremely small target of his forehead in what was obviously a pressured situation... You'd think he could have hit the much bigger target of either shoulder first... If he'd tried.

 

I can think of two incidents off the top of my head where unarmed white men have been shot and killed by the police in the last 20 years and no one was charged with murder, I'm sure there are more. You could flip this and say, if the guy had been white, then the CPS probably wouldn't have tried to prosecute the officer?

 

How is shooting him in the shoulder going to stop him driving a car forwards?

 

Given that white people are by far the majority of this nations populace, you'd expect it to be much much more than 2 over such a long period of time wouldn't you?

 

This argument ALWAYS comes up when someone is killed by armed police - why didn't they shoot him in the leg, etc? Have you seen any videos of people getting shot? People don't suddenly lie down and stop being dangerous like in the movies, one, two, three bullets, sometimes they keep coming, a gunshot to the leg isn't stopping a crazy drugged up, hyped up individual. And lets remember the police didn't know he didn't have a gun and he was using his car as a weapon, so they had every right to believe he was armed. They are trained to shoot to kill - thats it, you discharge your weapon, you'd better be stopping whoever it is.

 

I said unarmed. Plenty of other white armed people have been shot, and lets remember about 2-3 people are year are shot and killed by the police, its hardly a daily occurrence.

 

A) it creates pain, and the human condition generally tries to do quite a lot to prevent pain.
B) less ability to control the wheel and gears, yes he still has his legs to control speed, but you're limiting what movement the vehicle can go and bringing more control over the situation.
C) the suspect is aware the officers are willing to shoot and understands their own risk of being fatally wounded

This list isn't exhaustive.

 

I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with you.

 

That’s fine, you are also disagreeing with every trained armed police force in the world.

 

I was surprised it was reported yesterday (I've never heard this before) that our armed police volunteer and receive no recompense for carrying a weapon. That doesn't strike me as the ideal situation to me.

And again I disagree with your assertion. But anyway, I'm more than happy to being in the minority on this one if that's the case.

 

Taser for one example

 

Through a windscreen?

 

"There are things that don't ring true though. Why a kill shot to the head from pretty close distance when the accused states he was trying to incapacitate the driver?"
"Yet despite multiple police officers, armed, no attempt was made to shoot the tyres out or hinder the vehicle further"

That kind of stuff only happens in films...and perhaps America. Rounds can fly for well over a mile and could hit someone innocent, unlucky enough to be in their path. so shooting tyres, arms, legs etc is just a Hollywood fantasy.

 

A) Pain would be mitigated by the metric fuckton of adrenaline in his system, and the instinctive response to being shot in the shoulder is likely to floor it at the bloke shooting so he can't shoot any more.
B) He didn't need hands to run the bloke over, he was directly in front of him. I don't see how escalating an already out of control situation with gunfire which doesn't prevent the bloke driving is bringing control.
C) I think you're delusional to suggest a bloke who is high on adrenaline and has just been shot is likely to carefully think about things and reach this conclusion rather than thinking "****, I've been shot, I need to get out of here ASAP" and drive at the copper.

 

There was plenty of time to have taken an action which wasn't to shoot him in the head. He couldn't drive over the copper as there were two vehicles in the way, though if given enough time, they may have been moved sufficiently for escape, which I suspect was his aim rather than injury.

This should have been a series of escalation. The first shot was lethal. Fine if you disagree and you would have killed him as your first action.

I fundamentally disagree and I see nothing that will alter that view. It may well have escalated to having to take a lethal shot. But I'll forever disagree that the action taken at the time it was taken was the one that should have been taken.

Anyway, I've said my piece and have nothing more to add to the dialogue.

 

Break the wind screen

 

While believing the guy in the car to be armed? Tell thi what, thee go first!

 

I've just read about Kabba's previous he was low life scum discharged a firearm on a crowded night club dance floor two days before he got killed wasn't the first time he'd been involved in very violent disorder and woundings including firearms and knife crime as the saying goes you live by the sword you die by the sword. His family tried to keep his past a secret no doubt so they could continue the "he was an innocent victim" crap they keep spouting they and the rest of the Muppets protesting about him being put down by the coppers should crawl back under their rocks and shut up.