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

[Spymaster]

Not sure he's entirely innocent tbh. The officers claimed to have shouted "armed police" and that JCDM moved towards when neither were true. One of them also deleted evidence. Giving a self serving interview in which he lies again about shouting "armed police" is pretty out of order as well tbh.

But, yes, there were many major fuck ups and many heads should have rolled but none did and Cressida Dick in fact ends up with the top job. The Met needs major reform and/or to be broken up. The fact they are unwilling to learn anything from the Chris Kaba killing just highlights this. Their first instinct is always to lie and cover up.

I'm not sure what lessons you're suggesting they could have learned from the JCDM case that would have changed the Kaba outcome. The first was an appalling fuck up on multiple levels that led to the death of a wholly innocent man who did absolutely nothing wrong. The Met should have been hung out to dry on that.

Kaba basically got himself killed through his own actions and there was no serious police incompetence or attempt to cover anything up. All they hid from the public was the fact that Chris Kaba was a nasty gangster who used to shoot and stab people, and that's to their credit.

The first has no relevance to the second.

 

[Pickman's model]

I'm not sure what lessons you're suggesting they could have learned from the JCDM case that would have changed the Kaba outcome. The first was an appalling fuck up on multiple levels that led to the death of a wholly innocent man who did absolutely nothing wrong. The Met should have been hung out to dry on that.

Kaba basically got himself killed through his own actions and there was no serious police incompetence or attempt to cover anything up. All they hid from the public was the fact that Chris Kaba was a nasty gangster who used to shoot and stab people, and that's to their credit.

The first has no relevance to the second.

Yes, it was a very competent killing

 

[Spymaster]

Yes, it was a very competent killing

I'm not sure I'd frame it in those terms myself but I get where you're coming from.

 

[edcraw]

I'm not sure what lessons you're suggesting they could have learned from the JCDM case that would have changed the Kaba outcome. The first was an appalling fuck up on multiple levels that led to the death of a wholly innocent man who did absolutely nothing wrong. The Met should have been hung out to dry on that.

Kaba basically got himself killed through his own actions and there was no serious police incompetence or attempt to cover anything up. All they hid from the public was the fact that Chris Kaba was a nasty gangster who used to shoot and stab people, and that's to their credit.

The first has no relevance to the second.

Obviously there are lessons to be learned from how hard stops are carried out, as the Met has been told but refuses to do so.

The culture of how the Met reacted to JCDM is very relevant and to ignore that is lunacy.

And to say the Met should have been hung out to dry for JCDM when you know that didn't happen should leave you to be very fucking suspect of everything they do.

 

[Spymaster]

The culture of how the Met reacted to JCDM is very relevant and to ignore that is lunacy.

In what way though? You must be able to articulate where this lunacy lies.

And to say the Met should have been hung out to dry for JCDM when you know that didn't happen should leave you to be very fucking suspect of everything they do.

Why?

What does it have to do with Kaba? We've seen what happened in the Kaba case, a jury has examined the evidence and unambiguously deemed there to have been no murder. What's left to "suspect"?

What do you suspect has happened in the Kaba incident, that you've learned from the case of JCDM?

 

[edcraw]

In what way though? You must be able to articulate where this lunacy lies.



Why?

What does it have to do with Kaba? We've seen what happened in the Kaba case, a jury has examined the evidence and unambiguously deemed there to have been no murder. What's left to "suspect"?

What do you suspect has happened in the Kaba incident, that you've learned from the case of JCDM?

No - the jury decided that it wasn't murder. To leave it at that and not investigate it further is absolutely bollocks and just what the Met would want. Hard stops need to be reviewed as a tactics but the Met are refusing to do that.

The culture of the Met to lie and not help investigation as in JCDM and this (the officer refused to be interviewed by IOPC) should be scrutinised.

I get defending officers that have to take hard decisions but the Met has been shown again and again to be unwilling to scrutinise itself so I don't see why they should be given any leeway until they do.

 

[PTK]

Not sure he's entirely innocent tbh. The officers claimed to have shouted "armed police" and that JCDM moved towards when neither were true. One of them also deleted evidence. Giving a self serving interview in which he lies again about shouting "armed police" is pretty out of order as well tbh.

But, yes, there were many major fuck ups and many heads should have rolled but none did and Cressida Dick in fact ends up with the top job. The Met needs major reform and/or to be broken up. The fact they are unwilling to learn anything from the Chris Kaba killing just highlights this. Their first instinct is always to lie and cover up.

The armed police officers in the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes were operating according to the principles of Operation Kratos, it was claimed. Kratos dictated that suicide bombers were to be shot in the head without warning, to prevent them detonating their bombs.

Therefore, if the police officer shouted a warning, he was acting contrary to operational rules, and thereby endangered members of the public, and should have been punished.

On the other hand, if he did not shout a warning (and no witness heard a warning), then he was lying, and should have been punished.

 

[edcraw]

Loving this "heads should roll" and "should have been punished" when we know this didn't happen.

What are we meant to do then? Just move on? Not question anything else the Met says?

If the police can't police themselves why should we have any faith in them at all?

 

[edcraw]

Therefore, if the police officer shouted a warning, he was acting contrary to operational rules, and thereby endangered members of the public, and should have been punised.

He's saying this in a TV interview! Why do you have so much faith in the police despite tons of evidence they aren't to be trusted.

 

[PTK]

He's saying this in a TV interview! Why do you have so much faith in the police despite tons of evidence they aren't to be trusted.

Why do you conclude that I have faith in the police despite having read my post?

 

[edcraw]

Why do you conclude that I have faith in the police despite having read my post?

Apologies then, saying "should have" without acknowledging that didnt happen seemed weak.

 

[alex_]

In what way though? You must be able to articulate where this lunacy lies.



Why?

What does it have to do with Kaba? We've seen what happened in the Kaba case, a jury has examined the evidence and unambiguously deemed there to have been no murder. What's left to "suspect"?

What do you suspect has happened in the Kaba incident, that you've learned from the case of JCDM?

They fucked up the stop, this enabled Kaba to try to escape, when he tried to ram the police cars - at this point shooting him became pretty likely.

Kaba was scum and is no loss to anyone.

But the met fucked up stopping him - this is the lesson they probably aren’t learning

 

[PTK]

Apologies then, saying "should have" without acknowledging that didnt happen seemed weak.

No-one seemed to point out that this cop had actually entrapped himself. Either he was lying, or he was not following procedure.

 

[Spymaster]

They fucked up the stop, this enabled Kaba to try to escape, when he tried to ram the police cars - at this point shooting him became pretty likely.

Kaba was scum and is no loss to anyone.

But the met fucked up stopping him - this is the lesson they probably aren’t learning

Yeah, that's what the Panorama bloke said, but at the end of the day when you're doing something like that it's not always going to go perfectly. I think the car stopped about a metre short of where it should have been ideally. Hardly massive incompetence is it? I'm sure they'll try to learn from that, but if Kaba had just stopped the car and got out when nine coppers were pointing guns at him he'd still be alive. The old bill shouldn't be losing any sleep over this.

 

[alex_]

Yeah, that's what the Panorama bloke said, but at the end of the day when you're doing something like that it's not always going to go perfectly. I think the car stopped about a metre short of where it should have been ideally. Hardly massive incompetence is it? I'm sure they'll try to learn from that, but if Kaba had just stopped the car and got out when nine coppers were pointing guns at him he'd still be alive. The old bill shouldn't be losing any sleep over this.

I hope they are practicing doing it better in future, it’s not rocket science - you either box them in so they can’t escape or you don’t

 

[Pickman's model]

Yeah, that's what the Panorama bloke said, but at the end of the day when you're doing something like that it's not always going to go perfectly. I think the car stopped about a metre short of where it should have been ideally. Hardly massive incompetence is it? I'm sure they'll try to learn from that, but if Kaba had just stopped the car and got out when nine coppers were pointing guns at him he'd still be alive. The old bill shouldn't be losing any sleep over this.

When you return perhaps you can tell us how ck should have got himself out if the car without any cops losing sight of his hands

 

[GarveyLives]

It has now been reported that Sergeant Martyn Blake, the officer responsible for killing The Late Chris Kaba, is now being considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector.

 

[dessiato]

It has now been reported that Sergeant Martyn Blake, the officer responsible for killing The Late Chris Kaba, is now being considered for promotion to the rank of Inspector.

If he's passed all the relevant requirements, and he's not been found guilty of murder (like it or not he was found not guilty) why shouldn't he be considered? Being considered for a promotion is not the same as getting a promotion.

 

[edcraw]

If he's passed all the relevant requirements, and he's not been found guilty of murder (like it or not he was found not guilty) why shouldn't he be considered? Being considered for a promotion is not the same as getting a promotion.

Has there been any kind of intern Met review into the killing or do they just leave it up to the IOPC which they then refuse to cooperate with?

 

[Pickman's model]

If he's passed all the relevant requirements, and he's not been found guilty of murder (like it or not he was found not guilty) why shouldn't he be considered? Being considered for a promotion is not the same as getting a promotion.

there was some talk about him still facing a disciplinary process in the met

 

[edcraw]

there was some talk about him still facing a disciplinary process in the met

Yep, doesn't seem like it tgoygh. And to promote him before the inquest is carried out seems premature.

 

[gosub]

If he's passed all the relevant requirements, and he's not been found guilty of murder (like it or not he was found not guilty) why shouldn't he be considered? Being considered for a promotion is not the same as getting a promotion.

People get promotions for all sorts of reasons...he's being kicked upstairs

 

[Sasaferrato]

People get promotions for all sorts of reasons...he's being kicked upstairs

I saw this in the army, major fuck up resulting in promotion and posting. Always to a non-operational role though.

 

[SLBDWELL]

there was some talk about him still facing a disciplinary process in the met

I don’t think so ; apart from the inquest the only outstanding matter is the gross misconduct allegation to be investigated by the IOPC. Their statement issued on the 5th November r2024 in response to the BBC panorama documentary stated’ We are now reviewing our original decision prior to the trial, that Sergeant Blake should face a gross misconduct hearing, and will be taking into account the evidence examined in court and further representations from the Metropolitan Police Service’. It seems sort of quirky that a jury can find a not guilty and the person is then subject to gross misconduct investigation by the IOPC who investigated the criminal matter first- Why is the review taking so long? They gathered the evidence for the prosecution ; the evidence was heard in court.

 

[SLBDWELL]

Has there been any kind of intern Met review into the killing or do they just leave it up to the IOPC which they then refuse to cooperate with?

Well it depends what one means; my understanding is that IOPC investigators have ‘police powers’ to seize documents and view documents etc and arrest- In terms of interviews the IOPC document ‘information for police officers etc’- states The interview will be under the misconduct caution ( which I think is a balance of probabilities ) and, where appropriate, criminal caution. I assume under caution in both cases one can remain silent as is the law.

 

[edcraw]

Well it depends what one means; my understanding is that IOPC investigators have ‘police powers’ to seize documents and view documents etc and arrest- In terms of interviews the IOPC document ‘information for police officers etc’- states The interview will be under the misconduct caution ( which I think is a balance of probabilities ) and, where appropriate, criminal caution. I assume under caution in both cases one can remain silent as is the law.

So no internal enquiry then? Doesn't seem great does it. Imagine any other large organisation having a major incident (let alone one that resulted in a death) and refusing to learn any lessons from it!

 

[emanymton]

I don’t think so ; apart from the inquest the only outstanding matter is the gross misconduct allegation to be investigated by the IOPC. Their statement issued on the 5th November r2024 in response to the BBC panorama documentary stated’ We are now reviewing our original decision prior to the trial, that Sergeant Blake should face a gross misconduct hearing, and will be taking into account the evidence examined in court and further representations from the Metropolitan Police Service’. It seems sort of quirky that a jury can find a not guilty and the person is then subject to gross misconduct investigation by the IOPC who investigated the criminal matter first- Why is the review taking so long? They gathered the evidence for the prosecution ; the evidence was heard in court.

These things always take ages for no obvious reason.

But the 2 questions are quite different, so the evidance for the murder trial and the evidance for a misconduct hearing could be very different and would be assessed in totally different ways.

 

[SLBDWELL]

So no internal enquiry then? Doesn't seem great does it. Imagine any other large organisation having a major incident (let alone one that resulted in a death) and refusing to learn any lessons from it!

well there is a difference between an internal enquiry ( i would be surprised that it has not been/being carried out; clearly a question to the Mayor to seek the answer from the comissioner) which would look at the operation as a whole and an individual facing 'gross misconduct'.

 

[SLBDWELL]

These things always take ages for no obvious reason.

But the 2 questions are quite different, so the evidance for the murder trial and the evidance for a misconduct hearing could be very different and would be assessed in totally different ways.

I agree with your 2 question thats why the cautions for interviews are different. To prove gross misconduct allegations are on a balance of probabilities ( as mentioned) as compare to criminal; beyond reasonable doubt.