Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Which are?
Chris Kaba, 24, shot dead by police in Streatham, Mon 5th Sept 2022
- Thread starter GarveyLives
- Start date
Which are?
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
The cop stated that he was aiming for the body-mass, which is what they are trained to do. Shooting through the thick glass of the windscreen, at a moving vehicle would make it very hard to place the shot in an exact position.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
The last refuge of a scoundrel, the utter abandonment of any sort of thought. Strange no one brought that up here when eg Lee rigby was killed, it's always when the cops kill someone
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Of course, despite what some of the loons here will suggest regarding his occupation; Rigby wasn't a criminal gangster, actively engaged in criminal activity against police officers, and presenting an outrageously serious potential threat to the public, at the time of his partial beheading.
ElizabethofYork
Old Crone
I don't think I'm a scoundrel, but you're entitled to your opinion. And it's not ALWAYS when the cops kill someone, but it's true when a shooty gangster gets shot.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
I didn't say it's said every time the cops kill someone, it's a way of saying some lives can legitimately be taken by the police even tho in at least this case Blake did not know who he was shooting.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Have to admit that I'd not heard that part of his defence. I assume the jury also bought that part of his account. Can't say that I find that at all convincing; at the point of discharging the firearm, the body-worn video footage has Blake standing close to what was, by then a wedged stationary vehicle.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
...include...don't take out suspects with headshots, unless they are perceived as an active shooter or about to detonate an explosive device.
dessiato
🇪🇸 españa te quiero
I've read this thread and some news reports but not the court reports. So this is my opinion based on the preceding. I'm not a fan of the police either.
In the position that the shooter found himself, I think I'd have done the same.
He had reason to believe he was likely to be dealing with a known criminal, possibly armed, who had shot someone twice, who was aggressively trying to evade arrest. He was also driving at the shooter.
I believe that, in these circumstances, it isn't unreasonable to assume my, or my colleagues' lives were, or were likely to be, threatened. In this instance I'd have opened fire.
If the victim had just stopped and got out I think there's a good chance he'd be alive today.
Ultimately, as much as I think shooting people in the street is wrong, in this case I believe it's a justifiable outcome.
As more information comes out, perhaps we all will be able to make a better assessment of guilt or otherwise.
In the position that the shooter found himself, I think I'd have done the same.
He had reason to believe he was likely to be dealing with a known criminal, possibly armed, who had shot someone twice, who was aggressively trying to evade arrest. He was also driving at the shooter.
I believe that, in these circumstances, it isn't unreasonable to assume my, or my colleagues' lives were, or were likely to be, threatened. In this instance I'd have opened fire.
If the victim had just stopped and got out I think there's a good chance he'd be alive today.
Ultimately, as much as I think shooting people in the street is wrong, in this case I believe it's a justifiable outcome.
As more information comes out, perhaps we all will be able to make a better assessment of guilt or otherwise.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
No, as I stated up-thread, from the bodycam footage, to my eyes it didn't justify the shot, imagine the CPS felt that way too for it to get to court and the other cops seemed to be surprised to hear a shot ring out. But the jury bought it and from the cop's perspective, that's all that matters, there'll certainly be no double-jeopardy in a case such as this.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Where did you come across this part of police training?
Can you provide a link to it?
Sounds like you've made it up
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Not to sound like I'm defending the police, but if they did not act quick and whoever was in the car had gone on and murderd someone then they would have been held responsible for that.
We may disagree with how the police assessed the risks and the choice they made, but there was no risk free option.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
As reported in media.Where did you come across this part of police training?
Can you provide a link to it?
Sounds like you've made it up
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
He didn't he shot center of mass as they are trained to do but hit the head instead, as I understand it that is why you shoot for the center of mass, tou are more likely to hit something.
I'm sorry but real reality is not like a film there is no shooting to incapacitate in an arm or a leg, especially not in the dark when shooting someone sat in a moving car.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
In that case it sounds like the media making it up. There's a surprise.
'No headshots unless he's about to shoot, or explode a device' sounds like complete bollocks to me.
The police aren't normally trained to shoot at heads anyway. And what about people armed with knives, spears, maces, crossbows, bows and arrows, corrosive substances, biological weapons, rayguns .... etc?
Can you link to where you've seen this?
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
It's a tragic incident and we really need to get our facts right in discussing it.
The car was stopped as it was connected to a firearms incident the day before involving three masked men. The car was not linked to the deceased. The police had no idea who the driver was but because of the involvement of the vehicle in the incident the day before had declared a firearms incident hence the presence of a trained and armed officer. The officer who shot Kabba was not aware of the identity of the driver of the vehicle.
The idea that the firearms officer had reason to believe he was likely to be dealing with a known criminal, possibly armed, who had shot someone twice is clearly not the case.*
* this should read ‘The firearms officers were there due to the involvement of the vehicle in a previous firearms incident . However the idea that the firearms officer had reason to believe he was dealing with a criminal who had shot someone twice ie Kabba is clearly not the case . ‘
The idea that the driver was shot because he might go on and murder someone ( unless this is connected with the threat to the officers surrounding or near the car is wrong.
The idea that the driver was shot because he might runover a child if he escaped is wrong.
Last edited:
some more back story. the guy was a complete scumbag. shootings, knives, drugs, a protection racket targeting women, domestic protection order from the mother of his child etc etc.
Bahnhof Strasse
Met up with Hannah Courtoy a week next Tuesday
planetgeli
There's no future in England's dreaming
The BIB. The only part of your sentence that is true there is "was aggressively trying to evade arrest". Everything else is "likely" "had reason to believe" or plain wrong (the car was hemmed in and no longer going anywhere).
I've seen posters elsewhere on here describe it as a "2-ton TRUCK". I mean, why exaggerate even more than the police did in court if you are so sure of your case? Why not use the police's actual words in court which were;
"He was armed with a 2.5 ton Audi"
Yes, they actually said that.
Why don't some of you just admit you want all bad boys off your street, you don't care how it's done, and you're fine with summary execution?
Then fuck off to, I dunno, Russia or somewhere where your views would fit in nicely.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I'm not sure understand your reasoning here. The car was involved in a shooting, therefore the police had resaon to believe that the driver had engaged in criminal behaviour and was potentially armed, that fact that they didn't know his name is irrelevant.
Epona
Radar 2006-2020, Sonic 2006-2022, Jakey 2007-2024
Well it looks like the CPS did the right thing in their book by releasing this information, cos now we're all bickering amongst ourselves instead of being concerned that someone was shot by the police.
Whatever someone has done, we do not live in a society where being shot instead of having a trial should be seen as OK.
Whatever someone has done, we do not live in a society where being shot instead of having a trial should be seen as OK.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Not quite. Whilst they wouldn't have known who was in the car and therefore that he had shot someone previously, is neither here nor there. They knew the vehicle was used in a shooting the day before, so would absolutely correctly have approached the situation assuming that the occupant could be armed.
I don't think anyone's suggested that, but the decision to enforce the hard stop would most certainly take into account the wider threat to the public of not doing so.
If Kaba wasn't a violent gangster who shoots people, he wouldn't have been shot.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Maybe, but it is not relevant to the shooting.
trashpony
Hag
Those are not the facts.
The car was owned by Bell, Kaba’s associate who is now serving time for the shooting that Kaba carried out in a crowded Hackney nightclub. The firearms officer had every reason to believe it was being driven by a known criminal. They were following it and stopping it because they thought there was going to be further gang beef. Read the Times article pbsmooth linked to.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Happy to. Although I wouldn't support "summary execution" which is just silly, emotive nonsense, and not what this was at all.
The police did a pretty good job here. It would have been preferable if Kaba had not been shot, but not at the expense of someone else getting killed or seriously injured.
Any sympathy I may have had for him evaporated when I found out what kind of person he was.
Last edited:
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Having read the article I see that most of it is in fact about the shooting.
well, it is and it isn't. if he hadn't been a gang member he wouldn't have been in that car, which had been used in a shooting, which is why the police were making it stop, and presumably why he was less inclined to just get out of his car like any normal person. but I know the point you're trying to make.
I think the back story is more relevant to the ongoing talk of police racism, the community being damaged by what's happened and the family's response. at some point there should probably be a little more acceptance, and responsibility taken, of the life he led and where it led him.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Yes I didn't phrase that the way I should have done. To be clear the police would have called the firearms incident because of the potential for the driver and any occupants to be armed which is understandable and complies with procedure.
The driver was shot because the firearms officer thought there was threat of serious harm to the police officer present not because of the driver's antecedent history.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
I agree that the backstory matters for wider context, but it does not really factor into discussion of the shooting as the police did not know who was in the car. If they had I think there is a chance he would still be alive as they would probably have preferred to go to his address.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
The operational guidelines that armed police operate under are readily available online and the headshot operation (Kratos) is also widely discussed online following the De Menezes tragedy.
Similar threads
