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

[Spymaster]

Kaba wasn't sentenced to death and executed at the end of a judicial process. Ergo, it was an extra judicial killing.

Well he wasn't executed at all.

Do you consider the shooting of Sudesh Amman, who stabbed 2 people in Streatham before being killed by the police, an extra judicial killing?

There's no death penalty here so are all killings extra judicial?

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Well he wasn't executed at all.

Do you consider the shooting of Sudesh Amman, who stabbed 2 people in Streatham before being killed by the police, an extra judicial killing?

There's no death penalty here so are all killings extra judicial?

No, he wasn't executed as in a death penalty execution, that's my point.

He was killed by an officer of the law, but it wasn't at the end of a legal process, he wasn't sentenced by a judge, therefore it was an extrajudicial killing.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

Bullshit!

The jury decided it was a lawful killing, why do you think you know better?

Swearing at me, again?

Now you're going on ignore.

 

[edcraw]

Bullshit!

The jury decided it was a lawful killing, why do you think you know better?

Not sure that's quite true. They decided it wasn't murder.

 

[Spymaster]

No, he wasn't executed as in a death penalty execution, that's my point.

He was killed by an officer of the law, but it wasn't at the end of a legal process, he wasn't sentenced by a judge, therefore it was an extrajudicial killing.

I'm trying to get at your definition extra judicial killing.

Do you believe all killings in the UK to be extra judicial?

What about Sudesh Amman?

 

[likesfish]

IRA Volunteer ,part of an organisation famous for not shooting unarmed people complaining they get treated like enemy combatants

 

[Pickman's model]

Well he wasn't executed at all.

Do you consider the shooting of Sudesh Amman, who stabbed 2 people in Streatham before being killed by the police, an extra judicial killing?

There's no death penalty here so are all killings extra judicial?

Pisspoor whataboutery

 

[krtek a houby]

IRA Volunteer ,part of an organisation famous for not shooting unarmed people complaining they get treated like enemy combatants

More honourable than the British crown forces and their cosplayer fans that support the British state's campaign of murder in Ireland.

 

[Spymaster]

Pisspoor whataboutery

Well if your definition of thoroughly relevant questions is “pisspoor whataboutery”, I suppose it is!

 

[dessiato]

The absolute bottom line is that the jury, who sat through all the evidence presented, decided the shooter was not guilty of murder.

I wasn't there to hear all this evidence, I've not read the transcripts of the case. I doubt there's many here, if there's any at all, who have.

What's the argument? The people who heard the arguments say he's not guilty of murder.

 

[emanymton]

The absolute bottom line is that the jury, who sat through all the evidence presented, decided the shooter was not guilty of murder.

I wasn't there to hear all this evidence, I've not read the transcripts of the case. I doubt there's many here, if there's any at all, who have.

What's the argument? The people who heard the arguments say he's not guilty of murder.

Strictly speaking no, the jury verdict means it wasn't proven, it's quite possible people on the jury think he is probably guilty but that it wasn't proven. The burden of proof is rightly high in a criminal case, we don't know what the jury verdict would have been had it been civil, but given how fast the jury verdict was it seems likely it would have been the same.

 

[xenon]

Strictly speaking no, the jury verdict means it wasn't proven, it's quite possible people on the jury think he is probably guilty but that it wasn't proven. The burden of proof is rightly high in a criminal case, we don't know what the jury verdict would have been had it been civil, but given how fast the jury verdict was it seems likely it would have been the same.

Strictly speaking it is not guilty. We do not have not proven as an option in the English legal system.

 

[dessiato]

Strictly speaking no, the jury verdict means it wasn't proven, it's quite possible people on the jury think he is probably guilty but that it wasn't proven. The burden of proof is rightly high in a criminal case, we don't know what the jury verdict would have been had it been civil, but given how fast the jury verdict was it seems likely it would have been the same.

The choices in England are guilty or not guilty. He was found, under English law, to be not guilty.

 

[Pickman's model]

The choices in England are guilty or not guilty. He was found, under English law, to be not guilty.

And in Wales, English and Welsh law, if you're going to dander down the path of pedantry

 

[dessiato]

And in Wales, English and Welsh law, if you're going to dander down the path of pedantry

He was tried under English law in England.

 

[Pickman's model]

He was tried under English law in England.

I'm now curious to learn the subtle differences you suggest exist in the law of murder between London and Llandudno

 

[cupid_stunt]

Swearing at me, again?

Now you're going on ignore.

I didn't swear at you, I called out what you had posted as bullshit.

An 'extra judicial killing' is a intentional/deliberate killing without the legal authority of a judicial process, and don't include killings by legal police action, or in legal warfare.

No intent was proved, and the jury accepted the defence that it was a legal killing, which the evidence seems to reasonably support.

 

[Spymaster]

Strictly speaking no, the jury verdict means it wasn't proven, it's quite possible people on the jury think he is probably guilty but that it wasn't proven. The burden of proof is rightly high in a criminal case, we don't know what the jury verdict would have been had it been civil, but given how fast the jury verdict was it seems likely it would have been the same.

That’s an extraordinarily dangerous route to go down and casts aspersions on every not guilty verdict that’s ever been returned.

In legal and moral terms the verdict is one of absolute exoneration.

One might also look at the brevity with which the decision was reached, as an indication of the jury’s certainty, and consider that they made their decision to acquit in less time than it takes to watch The Godfather.

 

[emanymton]

The choices in England are guilty or not guilty. He was found, under English law, to be not guilty.

True, but I thought you were referring to the beliefs, held by individual memebers of the jury, not the court. Sorry if I was wrong on that.

Regardless, we all know that being found not guilty does not mean you are innocent and individuals can believe that someone is guilty even after they are found not guilty if they feel that is what the evidence shows.

For example when I was on a jury the verdict was not-guilty but I was 1 of 2 who stuck with guilty (there was 3 of us originally) and I still belive that.

 

[dessiato]

I'm now curious to learn the subtle differences you suggest exist in the law of murder between London and Llandudno

I didn't say, and didn't intend to suggest, that I was considering anything other than the basic fact the he was tried in England under English law. Anything beyond that is down to others' reading into my post what I didn't say/write.

 

[likesfish]

More honourable than the British crown forces and their cosplayer fans that support the British state's campaign of murder in Ireland.

because killing children with bombs placed in litter bins is honorable

 

[krtek a houby]

because killing children with bombs placed in litter bins is honorable

Because killing civil rights marchers is honourable

 

[Pickman's model]

Because killing civil rights marchers is honourable

not to mention bombing dublin and monaghan. and i doubt the attempt on the widow scallan's happened without state support

 

[Pickman's model]

oh and the murder of eddie fullerton's not forgotten either - nor bernard o'hagan's Loyalist gunman who killed Sinn Féin councillor Eddie Fullerton is 'ex-army double agent'

 

[Spymaster]

Regardless, we all know that being found not guilty does not mean you are innocent and individuals can believe that someone is guilty even after they are found not guilty if they feel that is what the evidence shows.

For example when I was on a jury the verdict was not-guilty but I was 1 of 2 who stuck with guilty (there was 3 of us originally) and I still belive that.

Maybe, but Blake was acquitted unanimously, after less than 3 hours deliberation.

As you'll know from serving as a juror, the first thing that happens when the judge sends you away is that everyone goes for a piss and the smokers go for a fag. Maybe about half an hour later everyone gets into the room and helps themselves to tea and biscuits.

The point is, the case doesn't start to get discussed until about an hour after they leave the courtroom, so in reality they probably needed less than (the minimum required) 2hrs consideration to reach a unanimous decision.

That's quite a compelling not guilty.

 

[emanymton]

Maybe, but Blake was acquitted unanimously, after less than 3 hours deliberation.

As you'll know from serving as a juror, the first thing that happens when the judge sends you away is that everyone goes for a piss and the smokers go for a fag. Maybe about half an hour later everyone gets into the room and helps themselves to tea and biscuits.

The point is, the case doesn't even start to get discussed until about an hour after they leave the courtroom, so in reality they needed less than 2hrs consideration to reach a unanimous decision.

That's quite a compelling not guilty.

Yes I agree given how fast a unanimous verdict was given it seems unlikely there was much doubt.

I did kind of already say that.

 

[PTK]

I didn't swear at you, I called out what you had posted as bullshit.

An 'extra judicial killing' is a intentional/deliberate killing without the legal authority of a judicial process, and don't include killings by legal police action, or in legal warfare.

No intent was proved, and the jury accepted the defence that it was a legal killing, which the evidence seems to reasonably support.

"No intent was proved". No intent to kill? The police officer did not intend to kill?

 

[freshapple]

"No intent was proved". No intent to kill? The police officer did not intend to kill?

I think the relevant part is

without the legal authority of a judicial process,

 

[gosub]

If Rockstar games had got GTA6 out quicker maybe Chris Kaba could have carried on the way he did in the safety of own home rather than carrying on like Brixton was down town San Andreas

 

[Pickman's model]

That’s an extraordinarily dangerous route to go down and casts aspersions on every not guilty verdict that’s ever been returned.

In legal and moral terms the verdict is one of absolute exoneration.

One might also look at the brevity with which the decision was reached, as an indication of the jury’s certainty, and consider that they made their decision to acquit in less time than it takes to watch The Godfather.

I think you're overstating the matter with moral exoneration since it is a court of law not a court of morals.