Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

Tangent on this one but I feel the answer is you deal with your 5. You suspect one thing but you know another. What if the fire is downstairs and the person below is overwhelmed?

Even if you manage a hand off you then get into the murky area of going towards danger.

1 seems a bit harder in execution but simpler in morality.
I think I mentioned my detour because I've been trained to save lives.

A police officer who carries firearms would also say the same thing, I suppose, but they are also trained to take lives too, and this is where it all gets a bit murky.

At the moment, the law (and juries) seems to protect them already, so not sure why the Police Federation are pushing for even less scrutiny and accountability

p.s. And you're right about heading towards danger - it's a no-no, but in the moment when your protection instinct kicks in, who knows?
 
p.s. And you're right about heading towards danger - it's a no-no, but in the moment when your protection instinct kicks in, who knows?
As always it's a ballance of risk.

I can imagine in reality you would get to the stair case then see what is going on. If you have a bunch of calm people you can hand off to another professional you might want to give run up a flight of stair to get a better picture but I van see why that's mostly a no no. You deal with the problem you have not the problem you imagine.
The people currently in your care are not safe until you are out of the danger zone and if you are out you shouldn't be going back in


I get it though. When the fire alarm goes off I do not leave until my class is clear.

More difficult when you at a staircase wondering if you can get the person lift working.
 
What? You ain't even from this country. You've got notning apart from ,'the cops. It doesn't help a mouse's dick.

Kaba was executed on the streets. It doesn't matter what he was in life, he didn't deserve to be killed. Too many black lives are dealt with by the cops as if they are disposable, unimportant.

Also wtf has where I'm from got to do with anything? Get a grip, FFS.
 
Last edited:
I don't know, but here are some options:

Pull the vehicle over and not shoot him fatally, deal with the situation in a less final way.
Not pull the vehicle over, go round his pad the next morning and pick him up then instead of confronting him in a highly charged way that night.

There are other options besides shooting and killing someone.
 
There's also the how about having a better sort of society where people don't get involved in gangs and violent crime in the first place, but I feel that concept will go way way over the head of anyone in the "but there was no choice except to kill him" crowd.
 
I don't know, but here are some options:

Pull the vehicle over and not shoot him fatally, deal with the situation in a less final way.
Not pull the vehicle over, go round his pad the next morning and pick him up then instead of confronting him in a highly charged way that night.

There are other options besides shooting and killing someone.
The cop didn't know who the driver was - he just knew that the car had been used in a shooting the previous day.

The policeman took a split second decision when the driver attempted to smash his way out of the block.

I'm no fan of the police, but I support them in this case.
 
The cop didn't know who the driver was - he just knew that the car had been used in a shooting the previous day.

The policeman took a split second decision when the driver attempted to smash his way out of the block.

I'm no fan of the police, but I support them in this case.
Absolutely disagree.
The alleged crime (we'll never know, because it didn't get to go to court) took place the day before, the police could have let the car go or followed it discreetly and picked up the driver in a less heated circumstance later.

There's very little excuse for chasing someone and then taking their life because you felt threatened once you'd cornered them. IMO.

We have a process of law, I'd be the first to argue that it isn't perfect, but it doesn't involve getting shot dead by a cop without even making it to court.
 
Last edited:
The cop didn't know who the driver was - he just knew that the car had been used in a shooting the previous day.

The policeman took a split second decision when the driver attempted to smash his way out of the block.

I'm no fan of the police, but I support them in this case.

Absolutely. The car was marked for stopping by ANPR as a result of it being used in a shooting the day before. It would be perfectly reasonable for the coppers to assume the occupant was armed. In fact it would be fucking stupid for them to assume otherwise. That’s probably why they were armed.

All this nonsense about discreetly following him, or shooting out the tyres like they do on the A Team, is for the birds.

If a bunch of coppers are pointing guns at you and telling you to get out of the car, it's game over. There’s only one sensible thing to do. If you decide to continue to use your car as a weapon, you’ll quite likely be shot.
 
Last edited:
There's also the how about having a better sort of society where people don't get involved in gangs and violent crime in the first place, but I feel that concept will go way way over the head of anyone in the "but there was no choice except to kill him" crowd.

The bloodlust is strong with some people.

As is the othering of people of colours or those considered different.

There's reasons why the police are feared, not trusted and even hated. It doesn't just come from nowhere.
 
As I understand there was no murder conviction because it was self defense, correct? When moving cars come in contact with people they tend to cause some very serious injuries and even death...

I'm not sure if it's been formally established that he was acquitted on self defence grounds, but it would seem reasonable.

As you say, the vehicle can indeed be used as a weapon and seems to have been in this case. The police officers were faced with a massively aggressive, possibly armed person, attempting to break through a roadblock in a high powered, 2 ton vehicle. The potential public danger for carnage on the streets, had he managed to break out, was enormous; in addition to the high risk of death or serious injury to the arresting coppers.
 
I'm not sure if it's been formally established that he was acquitted on self defence grounds, but it would seem reasonable.

As you say, the vehicle can indeed be used as a weapon and seems to have been in this case. The police officers were faced with a massively aggressive, possibly armed person, attempting to break through a roadblock in a high powered, 2 ton vehicle. The potential public danger for carnage on the streets, had he managed to break out, was enormous; in addition to the high risk of death or serious injury to the arresting coppers.
That does seem to be what convinced the jury. I think a good deal of the concern about the killing revolves around how the split-second decision to discharge the firearm pushed the envelope of the Met's own firearms training. AFAIK AFO/SFOs 'rules of engagement' revolve around immediate threat to life and, only then, focus on incapacitating the armed suspect. Headshots (multiple) are mentioned only in circumstances where they are confronted by an active shooter or someone suspected of carrying/about to detonate an explosive device.

I still don't see how stopping a driver required a headshot.
 
if you’re driving round in a vehicle that’s been linked to at least one shooting, you’re probably gonna have a fair bit more contact with Aunt police than the average citizen. Especially if you try to force your way from being arrested. The idea the police should’ve not tried to stop said vehicle and gone round later the next day, is just ridiculous. they didn’t know who the occupant was, had a reasonable belief that the occupant may have been armed, no idea where the vehicle was going and to do what.
 
if you’re driving round in a vehicle that’s been linked to at least one shooting, you’re probably gonna have a fair bit more contact with Aunt police than the average citizen. Especially if you try to force your way from being arrested. The idea the police should’ve not tried to stop said vehicle and gone round later the next day, is just ridiculous. they didn’t know who the occupant was, had a reasonable belief that the occupant may have been armed, no idea where the vehicle was going and to do what.
Yes, it's clear that, based on intelligence, the operational decision to effect a hard stop had been made. What is very unclear is why Blake effected that with a shot through the forehead.
 
Yes, it's clear that, based on intelligence, the operational decision to effect a hard stop had been made. What is very unclear is why Blake effected that with a shot through the forehead.

Is it the placement of the shot that you're questioning?

You'd be less enraged had he been shot in the chest?
 
I think most normal folk would regard a non-fatal means of incapacting suspects as preferable, don't you?

How would you have had them do that?

They're faced with a suspect they think is highly likely to be armed.

They've told him to stop multiple times and been ignored.

They've tried to smash their way into the car.

They've pointed guns at him.

They've attempted to block him with other cars which he just keeps ramming with a very large and heavy vehicle of his own.

They've got seconds to decide what to do.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if it's been formally established that he was acquitted on self defence grounds, but it would seem reasonable.

As you say, the vehicle can indeed be used as a weapon and seems to have been in this case. The police officers were faced with a massively aggressive, possibly armed person, attempting to break through a roadblock in a high powered, 2 ton vehicle. The potential public danger for carnage on the streets, had he managed to break out, was enormous; in addition to the high risk of death or serious injury to the arresting coppers.
Imagine the outcry if the bloke had managed to break through the roadblock, then fatally injured a member of the public while getting away.
 
I think most normal folk would regard a non-fatal means of incapacting suspects as preferable, don't you?

Kaba was apparently crouched quite low behind the steering wheel. so there wasn’t much of him to aim at, genuinely not meant in a flippant way. Whether they could’ve shattered the windscreen with a shotgun or something to cause him shock to stop and get out I don’t know. But that would have still presumably risk killing him if not severely facially injuring him. and if he was armed he now had an open window to shoot out of.
 
Imagine the outcry if the bloke had managed to break through the roadblock, then fatally injured a member of the public while getting away.

Exactly.

The same people who are decrying the shooting here would then be blaming the police for the chase that killed someone.

The reality is that Kaba is dead because of the choices he made. From his choice to get involved with gangs and guns, to his choice not to stop the car and get out when told to by armed police officers.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom