Kaba

Grantanow No. 10 say the CPS decision to prosecute must be respected: in my opinion they don't want to examine it for political reasons.

Wouldn't it be refreshing though if Starmer were to speak out against the CPS' decision to charge this officer, he won't though, too much money involved for the lawyers.

BlueBelle

Why didn’t they shoot the tyres out, the car wouldn’t move then The man may be a terrible criminal but he wasn’t armed on this occasion and was shot point blank in the head !!!We don’t even have the death penalty in this country so just shoot dreadful criminals instead

I could have understood if he had been armed they knew he wasn’t and you could see his arms and hands were free of any weapons

Shooting all four tyres ? He still would be able to move the car. Why not just comply with the police instead of trying to ram them with two ton of steel good chance then nobody would have been hurt.

rosie1959

BlueBelle

Why didn’t they shoot the tyres out, the car wouldn’t move then The man may be a terrible criminal but he wasn’t armed on this occasion and was shot point blank in the head !!!We don’t even have the death penalty in this country so just shoot dreadful criminals instead

I could have understood if he had been armed they knew he wasn’t and you could see his arms and hands were free of any weapons

Shooting all four tyres ? He still would be able to move the car. Why not just comply with the police instead of trying to ram them with two ton of steel good chance then nobody would have been hurt.

They didn't know he wasn't armed as he had been involved in a shooting the month before and was suspected of being involved in an armed robbery the day before.
He had been in prison for violent offences.

Of course the CPS had an option! The family's view is not relevant to a decision based on the evidence. What about the officer's family's view? If Kaba's family view were to rule that would be unfair to them. In my opinion the officer should be compensated for two years of unnecessary distress and the CPS need to acquire some backbone.

BlueBelle

Why didn’t they shoot the tyres out, the car wouldn’t move then The man may be a terrible criminal but he wasn’t armed on this occasion and was shot point blank in the head !!!We don’t even have the death penalty in this country so just shoot dreadful criminals instead

I could have understood if he had been armed they knew he wasn’t and you could see his arms and hands were free of any weapons

Armchair copper.

Grantanow

Of course the CPS had an option! The family's view is not relevant to a decision based on the evidence. What about the officer's family's view? If Kaba's family view were to rule that would be unfair to them. In my opinion the officer should be compensated for two years of unnecessary distress and the CPS need to acquire some backbone.

Absolutely, see the Marxist BLM are out in force, on the side of the criminal of course.
Sickening.

We don’t even have the death penalty in this country so just shoot dreadful criminals instead

Hardly. Have you read the article? Statistically 2.1 people a year are shot dead by our armed police. 2.1. Despite their being called out to 18,000 incidents a year.

This police officer, acting in fear of his life and those of his colleagues, was named and shamed and has had to live with a murder charge and threats from the gangland community against him and his family, for 2 years while we repeatedly read that Kaba was just a young innocent dad-to-be with his whole life ahead of him. If it had been down to Kaba’s family and supporters the truth would have stayed under wraps and we’d still be thinking that was the case. Where was the duty of care towards the officer and his family?

We need armed officers on our streets and if they keep having to go through this I doubt many will want to do the job.
What an ordeal for that officer and his family. A violent criminal was shot while trying to escape. While I feel sorry for his family at least he can't kill or hurt anyone else now.

Grantanow

Of course the CPS had an option! The family's view is not relevant to a decision based on the evidence. What about the officer's family's view? If Kaba's family view were to rule that would be unfair to them. In my opinion the officer should be compensated for two years of unnecessary distress and the CPS need to acquire some backbone.

Hear hear well said

BlueBelle

Why didn’t they shoot the tyres out, the car wouldn’t move then The man may be a terrible criminal but he wasn’t armed on this occasion and was shot point blank in the head !!!We don’t even have the death penalty in this country so just shoot dreadful criminals instead

I could have understood if he had been armed they knew he wasn’t and you could see his arms and hands were free of any weapons

They didn’t know he wasn’t armed, how could they? A gun could have been in the side pocket of the car or tucked down next to him.
In fast moving events an armed policeman has to make a split second decision.
The judge made the right decision based on the evidence.

AGAA4

We need armed officers on our streets and if they keep having to go through this I doubt many will want to do the job.
What an ordeal for that officer and his family. A violent criminal was shot while trying to escape. While I feel sorry for his family at least he can't kill or hurt anyone else now.

Exactly.

I think it was awful that the armed policemen was named.

I’m astonished this poor man was brought up on a murder charge at all.

His name is now out in the criminal fraternity. I’ve read (somewhere today) that there’s a bounty on his head. Now that is frightening isn’t it?

I seem to be in a minority here to think that the CPS were quite right to prosecute the Officer concerned. Clearly Kaba was a known violent criminal and the Police were at risk. However (and it's a big however) surely we can't having the Police shooting criminals without repercussions? However awful someone's crimes are, that is the beginning of a slippery slope leading to punishment (in this case actual capital punishment) without a trial or even questions being asked.

Obviously, without seeing clear footage or being on the Jury, it's impossible to judge whether the Officer murdered him, but I believe it's justifiable to charge him. I do wonder why the charge wasn't manslaughter though.

Sorry pressed enter too soon - meant to add 'given that the intention was to stop him, not necessarily to kill him.'

Some BLM cases are quite shocking, but I can’t see how it helps, portraying someone who has already proved himself to be capable of violence as only being attacked because of his ethnicity.

GrannyGravy13

Bluebelle he was on CCTV a few days before shooting an opposing gang member on a crowded dance floor.

His car was boxed in by police cars (marked and unmarked) after a chase, yet he continued to ram them. This is not the action of a rational citizen.

The police officer had no idea if he was armed or not. The officer had a split second to decide, well done that officer.

I will not waste any emotions on a known criminal with a record as long as my arm.

Nor will I.

It appears he was a despicable criminal who had no respect for the lives of others.

I saw his family proclaiming his innocence last night on BBC news.
I don’t know how they have the brass neck to stand there and claim he was a victim.
Unbelievable!

In Australia a Policewoman drew her gun and shot a man who had a knife.
She was a hero.

And yet here in the UK …

In an intelligence assessment handed to the court, one Met officer said: “In nearly 30 years of service I have never been more concerned about the welfare of an officer or the risk to them and their family to come to harm as I am about the officer in this case in the event his name and home address is compromised in judicial proceedings.

“There is specific intelligence which indicates the risk to the officer’s life and that members of the 67 gang actively seek or locate him as a result of the death of Mr Kaba.”

But despite these warnings The Recorder of London, Judge Mark Lucraft, ruled that the officer could be named.

BlueBelle

Why didn’t they shoot the tyres out, the car wouldn’t move then The man may be a terrible criminal but he wasn’t armed on this occasion and was shot point blank in the head !!!We don’t even have the death penalty in this country so just shoot dreadful criminals instead

I could have understood if he had been armed they knew he wasn’t and you could see his arms and hands were free of any weapons

What a load of absolute twaddle! The officer had a split second to make a decision. Shooting out tyres would not have stopped the car. The officers surrounding the car at the time couldn't possibly have known whether or not Kaba was armed! What they did know was that he was a known violent criminal and their lives were probably being put in danger by trying to stop him.
The officer absolutely did the right thing. Good riddance to bad rubbish. I'd like to shake the officer's hand. We are now running the risk of losing good officers because they fear prosecution, and criminals will have a field day because they know officers will be even less likely to take the action needed to stop them.
Kaba lived violently and died violently, justice was served, I won't lose any sleep and I hope the officer concerned knows that the vast majority of the country is right behind him. I hope he and his family are safe, sending all best wishes to them.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

The police officer found not guilty of murdering Chris Kaba, the violent gangster, could still face the sack for gross misconduct.

Jurors at the Old Bailey took just three hours to clear Sgt Martyn Blake on Monday following a three-week trial over the shooting of Kaba.

But despite being immediately reinstated by Scotland Yard, the highly experienced firearms specialist could still be charged with gross misconduct by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) and lose his job.

Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, faces calls to intervene and stop any further investigations of Sgt Blake.

So cleared by a jury but could be found guilty by the IOPC?
Is the IOPC above the law?

They didn't know he wasn't armed as he had been involved in a shooting the month before and was suspected of being involved in an armed robbery the day before.He had been in prison for violent offences.

They didnt know who the driver was jbtil after he was shot so that was not part of the decision making to shoot or not re being armed or not

What they did know was that he was a known violent criminal and their lives were probably being put in danger by trying to stop him.

No they didnt know he was until after he was shot.

I am not suggesting with my comments that the police action was necessarily wrong or disproportionate but I do think that the information about what informed their decision making needs to be accurate