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

A sad outcome for his family and to be born child, however had he not tried to ram the police and got out of the car he’d have not been shot……..sad for the family and also the trained firearms officer

 

It’s a pointless argument if people think the only way to incapacitate somebody is to shoot them in the head

 

I can see why people might have a problem with the first shot being one to the head. But unfortunately Kaba put himself in this situation and i don't believe his skin colour had anything to do with it.

1. Stabbed someone when he was 13
2. Found in possession of a gun when he was 17
3. Discharged his weapon in a nightclub and outside days before the fatal incident happened.
4. When blockaded by the police, instead of surrendering he tried to use his car as a weapon and smash his way out and escape.

He put himself in the situation where armed police were in a rapidly escalating situation with an armed, dangerous individual and they took what they felt was appropriate action at the time.

This narrative of him being a cheeky dad to be who was murdered by the armed police is quickly vanishing and it shouldn't come as any surprise that his mother tried to extend reporting restrictions beyond the end of the trial.

 

I think the point is that it's the only way to effectively incapacitate someone in this very specific context.

 

How would a gunshot to the shoulder fully incapacitate him though? There’s certainly no guarantee.

He was known to be involved in a shooting the night before. He was after death proven to have been the shooter - or at least to have shot the gun that was used as he had residue on his sleeve. Also had a balaclava in his pocket.

He didn’t have a gun in the car with him - but he was known to have had a past firearms conviction and was suspected of being armed and dangerous. He could have opened fire at any point. He was aggressively and wrecklessly driving a two ton Audi at the police and bound to cause serious injury or worse if allowed to continue.

 

When he’s driving a two ton car at you?

 

Id say its equally pointless if you believe you can smash the windscreen of the car and fire a tazer accurately at the driver while he's still in control of the car and using it as a weapon and they also believed (for good reason) that he had a gun.

 

So speaks, I suspect, a man who has never been shot. Neither have I, but I reckon it would chafe somewhat and I doubt I'd be on top driving form after taking the bullet.

 

In this particular situation it probably was though - hindsight shows he didn’t have a gun but it was not unreasonable intelligence given what was known to the police at the time and we know now publicly, for them to have assumed him to be armed and dangerous; he was not going to peacefully surrender, he was showing quite clearly that anyone trying to approach the vehicle was in danger - I’m not trying to advocate a blanket shoot to kill policy but in this case what else could have been done to guarantee the safety of the armed officer, all of his police colleagues, and all of the public in the vicinity?

The fact his mum tried to extend the veto on reporting what he’d done and why he was being pursued says plenty. 150 person vigil for him outside the old Bailey - a good number of them would have known exactly what he’d done and how dangerous he was and yet still blame the police rather than his choices.

I’d suggest a fair number of the 150 didn’t know his record as well - and just had an axe to grind with the police in general. Plenty of ‘defund the police’ placards.

Police can’t shoot people indiscriminately clearly - but they do and should have the authority to protect themselves and the public from clear threats.

Instead of blaming police and insinuating barbarity, maybe the incident should be used to try and discourage gangland culture and dissuade kids from going round stabbing and shooting eachother.

 

They didn’t know that he wasn’t holding a gun though. The vehicle wasn’t the only potential weapon in this situation. He could easily have fire a gun any second.

 

Depends what you mean by "driving form". I wouldn't fancy him in Le Mans 24h but he could definitely slam on the accelerator.

 

BBC News - Chris Kaba shot man in nightclub days before his death
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clyly5122yeo

 

If you are known to be a violent criminal who as been and continues to be involved in and profit from extremely violent armed gang related gun and knife crime. You and your family shouldn't be at all surprised if the police put a bullet in you first and ask questions if possible later. If you can't stand the heat don't go in the kitchen.

 

From what I’ve read:

A suspect was involved in a car chase
The car being chased was suspected of being involved in shooting in London
The driver was a known criminal with history of violence and using a weapon.
The driver repeatedly drove back and forth to try to resist arrest after being boxed in.
He was shot
On investigating the Police Officer claimed he thought fellow police/public were at risk
2 other Police said the same and they would have fired if the first had not.

Based on the above it seems to me the Police tried a few times to stop him but the end result was a fatal shooting, wether that was the only option no one will really know but either multiple members of the Police are lying or they believed that was the correct option at that moment.

If multiple Police are saying it’s correct then either it was or their training is incorrect.

 

The opening statement on this thread is stating that it was a disgrace to charge the officer (maybe/maybe not). It then goes on to say the car was being used as a weapon against the police, as do further comments in following posts.
Evidence from court proceedings show that the vehicle was both stationary and boxed in at the time the lethal shot was taken. This may have been a major factor why the case was brought in the first place given that the driver was unarmed.
The racial argument will always come to the fore in cases like this rightly or wrongly. Since 2005 the Met have used lethal force in non terrorist related cases 4 times against unarmed men, all of them were black.
I would not have liked to have been in the officers position to make the judgement, nor would I like to be a relative of the deceased.

 

Was the vehicle stationary? I thought the evidence suggested he was using it as a battering ram against the cars blocking him in to try escape.

 

Stationary at the time the shot was fired.

 

I'm sure of which was temporary and how it illustrates the split second judgement call needed by the officer.

How else could he have been apprehended considering the aggravating factors? He had been warned several times to stop and surrender yet Kaba kept going and tried to break out of the trap they'd got him in, plus the car he was in had been linked to a firearms incident the day before so they had to take every precaution and assume firearms could be in the car again.

 

Are you misunderstanding my post? I am suggesting it may have been one of the reasons why the prosecution was brought against the officer in reply to the opening thread.

 

It was the right decision to prosecute the Officer , just by looking at the brief video of the incident there were enough questions about the shooting to warrant a trial however the jury having listen to all the evidence found him not guilty and believed his defence of being frightened for his life and his fellow officers , and not I knew he was a wrong un so I took the opportunity to take him out