Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Chris Kaba, 24, shot dead by police in Streatham, Mon 5th Sept 2022

So you made a guess. You guessed that he was trying to run over a policeman.

The only facts we had at the time was that a Black man had been shot dead by a policeman.

And even after it became pretty obvious that the police were at the least dissembling about some of the details you continued to guess that the dead man had been trying to escape.

Further, you state that this is something you wouldn’t do.

And rather than extending your assumption and anticipation about your own behaviour to Chris Kaba, you guessed he would do something different, something that you would never do.

Why is that? What is that based in? What clues or prompts led you to make this guess?

And before you say “Well he had these associations to the gang and a prior conviction“ that’s still not enough to give you any certainty that he was intending or attempting to run over the copper.

Chris Kaba did his time, and by all public accounts had turned his life around.

Can you really truly not see how prejudiced you sound?

Prejudiced as in pre-judging based on assumption.

I‘m not going to speculate about what’s underlying your judgement. But you know, don’t you,
I'm sorry but that's just a load of equally prejudiced guesswork based on "ACAB" and your desire to frame the copper. Turned his life around? Come on, you're as biased as you claim I am.

And please don't call me racist.
 
You be better off staying off this thread as you earlier said you would.

You tried this man and don't have a problem with him being shot by the police.

So lets cut the crap here please.

Instead of popping up here to comment.

You've made your views clear to posters.
Right, so you can't refute the evidence that he was a gang member and criminal.
 
There's an eyewitness who literally said exactly what I'm now saying it appears happened. The whataboutery isnt coming from my side.
 

I find the police terminology Orwellian.

Its as though the police are rational dispassionate social actors.

"enforced stop extraction"

"inline extraction"

Makes it sound like a technical exercise.

I've been reading Elkins book Legacy of Violence

Its history of later British Empire. Keep getting reminded of it as the ways Empire kept its colonial subjects in line is similar to way policing operates in now. British Empire was very good at dressing up its subjection of colonial people as rational and they were the ones who brought the full force of Imperial policing on themselves.
 
Right, so you can't refute the evidence that he was a gang member and criminal.

Your whole posting here has been to argue that he deserved to be shot by the police.

Like that this is ok.

That is your point of view. Fine.

It is not mine.

Myself I'm not keen that the Police should be supported for being Judge , Jury and Executioner.

Nor has it happens do the authorities in theory.

But your saying it how it is etc.

Unlike a snowflake like me.
 
There's an eyewitness who literally said exactly what I'm now saying it appears happened. The whataboutery isnt coming from my side.
Fuck me - you’re believing the “eyewitness” just as people believed there was a chase.

I don’t even think we could probably solely blame the police officer here - it seems like it’s terrible police tactics and seems they learnt nothing from the Duggan case.
 
Last edited:
There's an eyewitness who literally said exactly what I'm now saying it appears happened. The whataboutery isnt coming from my side.
The witness was quoted in this Standard article. Some of it might be true. We don't know yet. But the witness does sound a bit naive. He's unable to put himself in the shoes of a black guy in London who has guns pointed at him by the police. Rapper dies after being shot by police in Streatham
 
The eyewitness is almost certainly a police officer. The IOPC statement makes that even clearer - if Chris Duggan didn’t know he was being followed then presumably nothing would have drawn attention to anyone nearby until the last minute. Few houses overlook the spot and hardly anyone would be walking down there at night.
 
There's an eyewitness who literally said exactly what I'm now saying it appears happened. The whataboutery isnt coming from my side.
Eyewitness quotes in the media are notoriously reliable, eh? Like those ones that witnessed the shooting of Charles Jean De Mendez...

"Mark Whitby, a witness to the shooting, told Reuters that he observed Menezes wearing a large winter coat, which "looked out of place"....Vivien Figueiredo, a cousin of Menezes, was later told by police that Menezes was wearing a denim jacket on the day of the shooting....Anthony Larkin, another eyewitness, told the BBC that Menezes appeared to be wearing a "bomb belt with wires coming out [....]
No device resembling a bomb belt was reported as found. Menezes was also not carrying a tool bag, since he had left it with his colleague the previous evening. According to the report on leaked IPCC documents, Menezes was wearing a pair of jeans and a light denim jacket. This was confirmed by a photo of his body on the floor of the carriage after the shooting"
[...]
"Witnesses stated that up to twenty police officers in plain clothes pursued Menezes into Stockwell station, that he jumped over the ticket barrier, ran down an escalator and tried to jump onto a train...The Menezes family was briefed by the police that their son did not jump over the ticket barrier and used a Travelcard to pass through; this was subsequently confirmed by CCTV recordings shown at the Metropolitan Police trial."
 
Right, so you can't refute the evidence that he was a gang member and criminal.
It wasn’t his car.

Who or whatever Chris Kaba was did not matter because the police hadn’t identified him when they shot him.

It could have been a car thief, a mechanic on a test drive, or someone who simply borrowed it. There are any number of reasons to be in someone else’s car.
 
This was an interesting watch. Live event streamed from Manchester University. A panel discussion, chaired by award-winning writer, historian and broadcaster, Prof David Olusoga on the effects of conspiracy and joint enterprise laws in racialising and criminalising particular communities and cultures.

The 4th speaker specifically dealt with the use of drill music in joint enterprise trials. A dog whistle.
The first speaker was Nazir Afzal, recently appointed Chancellor of Manchester University and former DPP. He was taken aback by the cases cited of joint enterprise and rap lyric evidence. Including the blind youth who got a joint enterprise life sentence for murder when he couldn't even see what was going on.
 
Four men appeared in court at the end of October charged with conspiracy to murder in connection with a 23-year old victim who was shot dead in a club on 30 August. There would have been five men appearing if Kaba was still alive, as he is alleged to have been a key participant in the murder.
 
Four men appeared in court at the end of October charged with conspiracy to murder in connection with a 23-year old victim who was shot dead in a club on 30 August. There would have been five men appearing if Kaba was still alive, as he is alleged to have been a key participant in the murder.
Unfortunately your media source is behind the Telegraph paywall - though the Daily Mail relays the information here
 
Four men appeared in court at the end of October charged with conspiracy to murder in connection with a 23-year old victim who was shot dead in a club on 30 August. There would have been five men appearing if Kaba was still alive, as he is alleged to have been a key participant in the murder.
a 23 year old victim who as it turns out was not shot dead. so ck could not have been a key participant in a murder that never was. i'm not surprised to see you posting such bollocks, you've a clear agenda on this thread to suggest chris kaba had it coming, following an obvious police agenda.
 
The club in question was Oval Space which consequently lost it license due to these arseholes who think its ok human behaviour to go around shooting people they don't like.
 
The club in question was Oval Space which consequently lost it license due to these arseholes who think its ok human behaviour to go around shooting people they don't like.
It's a bit more complicated than that because the council adduced poor management of the venue, and failings like not searching bags properly have been reported. But all this is a smokescreen from the way Chris kaba has been brought into this, to suggest that he was the sort of person it's OK for the cops to shoot.
 
Reading these recent posts and previous posts. Some posters believe that Chris Kaba had it coming to him.

So Met were justified in killing him as he's one less "arsehole" on the streets.

Or did I get the wrong end of the stick?

As it appears this is the kind of law and order policy some posters here want?

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Playing the half-way Devil’s Advocate stance here, but regardless of whether he had it coming to him, the case has to rest on whether the police were justified in killing him in that particular instance.

The argument shouldn’t be diverted into being about whether we have surplus cunts, it should be about whether we have death squads.
 
Playing the half-way Devil’s Advocate stance here, but regardless of whether he had it coming to him, the case has to rest on whether the police were justified in killing him in that particular instance.

The argument shouldn’t be diverted into being about whether we have surplus cunts, it should be about whether we have death squads.
We do have death squads
 
Around 2006 I met a probationery police officer who was a former Army sniper and was being fast-tracked into a police firearms job in the Met. There was a shortage of firearms officers and he was one of a number of soldiers who had been recruited to fill the gap. There seemed to be almost no ordinary policing in his working week. I'd love to know how well soldiers have adapted to the Met's rules of engagement. Could be an interesting FOI question for someone?
 
Around 2006 I met a probationery police officer who was a former Army sniper and was being fast-tracked into a police firearms job in the Met. There was a shortage of firearms officers and he was one of a number of soldiers who had been recruited to fill the gap. There seemed to be almost no ordinary policing in his working week. I'd love to know how well soldiers have adapted to the Met's rules of engagement. Could be an interesting FOI question for someone?
I met a couple of SPG officers on Clapham Common back around 1983 - in military fatigues. Naively thought they were ordinary punters dressed up for kicks. Unfortunately a police car appeared with headlights full on, the two dudes arrested me and bundled me into the back seat between them "We'll see if he's not talking when he's been in the station a few days!"

Like that you mean?
 
Around 2006 I met a probationery police officer who was a former Army sniper and was being fast-tracked into a police firearms job in the Met. There was a shortage of firearms officers and he was one of a number of soldiers who had been recruited to fill the gap. There seemed to be almost no ordinary policing in his working week. I'd love to know how well soldiers have adapted to the Met's rules of engagement. Could be an interesting FOI question for someone?
go on then
 
If there was no chase it could probably be proven with video evidence from all sorts of cameras, plus the GPS trackers fitted to many police cars, and the GPS in all the officers' phones. (There'd probably be 9 officers, because armed reponse vehicles usually work in threes. )

Edit: and the police control room cooperates with chases. Senior officers have to be notified of some chases. I would think that three armed reponse vehicles chasing a vehicle with a firearms ANPR tag is something that the senior officer in the control room would be informed of immediately. Plus the senior officer is supposed to give permission for ramming, if circumstances permit. So you'd have to get a very large number of officers, including at least one inspector, to tell the same lie, if you want to concoct a chase.

Another edit: the police cars have dashcams! Of course they do. The IOPC is "reviewing a large amount of footage including from body worn video, police car dashcams, police helicopter and CCTV"

Safe to say that this notion of a faked chase is yet more epic bullshit. Statement from IOPC Director General Michael Lockwood regarding fatal police shooting in Lambeth | Independent Office for Police Conduct
If you've ever been involved in a court case where your lawyer asks for discovery of police video records, you'll know just how often such evidence conveniently "goes missing" if it'll show the Met's Finest in a bad light, or that the camera was "damaged", or that the hard drive the CCTV was stored on "was faulty", etc etc fucking etc.
 
Back
Top Bottom