Personally I think if you shoot someone, and that person doesn’t have a gun or weapon why shouldn’t it go in front of a jury?Many experts who followed the case say it should never have been brought by the CPS.
Personally I think if you shoot someone, and that person doesn’t have a gun or weapon why shouldn’t it go in front of a jury?Many experts who followed the case say it should never have been brought by the CPS.
No they didn't. They accepted that there was a real danger to police officers' lives - if they hadn't the verdict would in all likelihood have been different.Precisely, so what was the thought process as to whether to fire or not? The jury concluded they didn't feel the officer's life was at risk, there's only one conclusion: race
Because the CPS’s duty is to prosecute cases with a realistic chance of conviction.Personally I think if you shoot someone, and that person doesn’t have a gun or weapon why shouldn’t it go in front of a jury?
What is your source for this?The jury concluded they didn't feel the officer's life was at risk, there's only one conclusion: race
Witness reports said Kaba was “using his car as a weapon”.Personally I think if you shoot someone, and that person doesn’t have a gun or weapon why shouldn’t it go in front of a jury?
He had a weapon and was using it.Personally I think if you shoot someone, and that person doesn’t have a gun or weapon why shouldn’t it go in front of a jury?
A pre-assumption that everything is 'race' in some way?What is your source for this?
Why a gun? driving a car at someone can be lethalPersonally I think if you shoot someone, and that person doesn’t have a gun or weapon why shouldn’t it go in front of a jury?
What the f***!?Precisely, so what was the thought process as to whether to fire or not? The jury concluded they didn't feel the officer's life was at risk, there's only one conclusion: race
*Race baiting utter nonsenseWhat the f***!?
Your last two posts have been utter nonsense.
‘It’s commonplace for black people to have loaded guns pointed at them by police.’
‘The policeman shot him because he was black’.
Genuinely astonishing.
‘Or weapon’Why a gun? driving a car at someone can be lethal
Some already have according to this article from the BBCIf this had gone the other way, I suspect many firearms officers around the country would have handed in their tickets.
You’ve been brainwashed to look for race / gender / something to protest by society. Have a look at the poor bloke pissing blood out of both legs cos this twat shot both his legs. He was a wrongun and anyone protesting for him and claiming race are creating problems that simply aren’t there. Oh the shot bloke was also black I think (see I didn’t even 100% notice as I’m not racist!)Precisely, so what was the thought process as to whether to fire or not? The jury concluded they didn't feel the officer's life was at risk, there's only one conclusion: race
If a policeman kills someone in the line of duty, then it should be thoroughly investigated and scrutinised to the highest level. Whether it should ever see the inside of a courtroom is a hugely contentious issue though, and could well inhibit the actions of a firearms officer in that split second when he literally has to make a life or death call. Recruitment would inevitably become an issue too, if you know a wrong call could land you with a very long sentence.I think the tragedy here is that this went to court at all. It's a tough job being a Firearms Officer and we should be grateful to the people prepared to risk their own lives.
Indeed …i remember reading that 300(?) officers trained in firearms had given up the right to carry a weapon in the last year ..I think this was The Met …and then you have articles such as thisI think the tragedy here is that this went to court at all. It's a tough job being a Firearms Officer and we should be grateful to the people prepared to risk their own lives.
Can you share the source for this re the juryPrecisely, so what was the thought process as to whether to fire or not? The jury concluded they didn't feel the officer's life was at risk, there's only one conclusion: race
I guess you must know what was in the note passed onto Mr Justice Gross by the Jury then . If so are you free to divulge here ?Precisely, so what was the thought process as to whether to fire or not? The jury concluded they didn't feel the officer's life was at risk, there's only one conclusion: race
There are always people pursuing their agendas.Oh shock there were protesters making it a ‘black lives matter’ case, when in reality they should be saying ‘bellends who think they’re above the law lives matter’. Twats.
He did have a weapon though. He used his car as one. It might not be a weapon per say but once he starts using it as one it has just as much ability to kill as a gun doesPersonally I think if you shoot someone, and that person doesn’t have a gun or weapon why shouldn’t it go in front of a jury?