[News] Chris Kaba .. Justice served ?

[jcdenton08]

Nailed it....

Isaiah Nature, 52, questioned why lethal force was necessary. “Even though [Chris Kaba] was known as a violent man, if this is my job, I’ve got to look at the situation. I could shoot him in the leg, you could reach for the gun,” he said. But while Isaiah was insistent that the shooting “wasn’t justified”, he added: “The police officer is doing his job – you obey the law. The police officers know him as a gunman and a troublemaker – [If I’m a police officer] I’ve got to make sure I’m safe. They were both wrong – there’s no right.”

Meanwhile, race relations activist Lee Jasper, a former policing director for London, called for juries in such cases to hear expert evidence on institutional racism.
“If the rationale is a police officer only needs a reasonable belief to fire his weapon, then it’s tantamount to a licence to kill,” he said. “This verdict will make it absolutely clear to Black communities that when it comes to the Met police, Black lives don’t matter.”

‘Shocking’: Chris Kaba verdict stokes old frustrations in Brixton

Latest acquittal of an officer who shot dead unarmed Black man provokes disbelief, frustration and resignation in south London

www.theguardian.com

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

Sorry, what? The jury didn’t conclude anything apart from him being not guilty of murder.

Does a jury offer a conclusion, or just a verdict?

What is your source for this?

Can you share the source for this re the jury

Could you post a link to that conclusion please?

Where did they conclude this please? Could you provide a source?

Can you provide a source for saying “The jury concluded they didn't feel the officer's life was at risk”?

 

[GT49er]

Still posting garbage.

To be fair (reluctantly) The Guardian is also reporting a lot of garbage!

 

[jcdenton08]

I feel a bit like Paxman Did you threaten to overrule him?

 

[METALMICKY]

That's the law. Verdicts based on evidence, not offender profiling.

That's right and proper. And the laws were changed because people were routinely convicted in the past based on 'previous', and the previous was sometimes itself false.

Verdicts based on things other than evidence is called prejudice.

I'm actually astonished that someone didn't understand that principle that you've explained well.

 

[A mex eyecan]

Nailed it....

Isaiah Nature, 52, questioned why lethal force was necessary. “Even though [Chris Kaba] was known as a violent man, if this is my job, I’ve got to look at the situation. I could shoot him in the leg, you could reach for the gun,” he said. But while Isaiah was insistent that the shooting “wasn’t justified”, he added: “The police officer is doing his job – you obey the law. The police officers know him as a gunman and a troublemaker – [If I’m a police officer] I’ve got to make sure I’m safe. They were both wrong – there’s no right.”

Meanwhile, race relations activist Lee Jasper, a former policing director for London, called for juries in such cases to hear expert evidence on institutional racism.
“If the rationale is a police officer only needs a reasonable belief to fire his weapon, then it’s tantamount to a licence to kill,” he said. “This verdict will make it absolutely clear to Black communities that when it comes to the Met police, Black lives don’t matter.”

‘Shocking’: Chris Kaba verdict stokes old frustrations in Brixton

Latest acquittal of an officer who shot dead unarmed Black man provokes disbelief, frustration and resignation in south London

www.theguardian.com

so tell me. You are the policeman with the gun. You and your colleagues lives are in danger of being killed by someone refusing repeatedly to get out of their car. Revving its engine. Clearly demonstrating that they will stop at nothing to get away. You are already aware said driver is linked to 2 shootings in recent days. You have a split second to decide what to do.….. What is it you choose?

 

[Stumpy Tim]

I'm actually astonished that someone didn't understand that principle that you've explained well.

I did understand it, but in cases like this I find it frustrating

 

[jcdenton08]

To be fair (reluctantly) The Guardian is also reporting a lot of garbage!

I always point this out whenever people are (rightly) slating the Daily Fail. The Grauniad go absolutely batshit with these types of stories, because they think it’s what the readership wants. Most Grauniad readers I know find it a bit embarrassing.

 

[Stumpy Tim]

If such information were pivotal.....it would be a tough call. I agree.

I think I'd prefer it to have someone found not guilty, based on evidence, rather than found guilty based on no evidence but consideration of 'previous'.

Consider Winston Silcott. He had previous when he was convicted of murder (PC Blakelock).

"In March 1987, three local men, Winston Silcott, Engin Raghip and Mark Braithwaite, were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, despite no witnesses and no forensic evidence. The Tottenham Three are Innocent Campaign and the Broadwater Farm Defence Campaign pressed for a retrial. On 25 November 1991, all three defendants were cleared by the Court of Appeal when an ESDA test demonstrated police notes of interrogations (the only evidence) had been tampered with."

It turns out a previous murder conviction was also suspect.

He was certainly a wrong 'un, but . . . . because of the fitting up and the disclosure of previous convictions it is pretty much impossible to determine how much of a wrong 'un.

That's not good for the justice system.

The difference in this case is his previous history is being used to defend someone, not prosecute. But it’s a tough one… the justice system isn’t perfect and never will be. There are pros and cons to everything

 

[Iggle Piggle]

If only we'd sent Blake on a D&I course, he could have spoken to Chris about his feelings and everything would have been OK.

On a more serious note, it's taken 2 years to get to this point with murder charges hanging over Blake, his identity made public - having shot a prolific gang member - and still has a threat of Gross misconduct from his employers I wonder who on earth would be an armed policeman?

When you look at the evidence, Kaba had shot someone 2 days previously, might have had a gun on him and was driving his car at speed using it as a weapon it's got to be pretty hard for it not to end up court if you pull the trigger. It doesn't feel like that makes Britain a safer place to me.

 

[Shaktarman]

so tell me. You are the policeman with the gun. You and your colleagues lives are in danger of being killed by someone refusing repeatedly to get out of their car. Revving its engine. Clearly demonstrating that they will stop at nothing to get away. You are already aware said driver is linked to 2 shootings in recent days. You have a split second to decide what to do.….. What is it you choose?

Check their skin colour, religion and ‘pronouns’ first then decide?

 

[A mex eyecan]

Check their skin colour, religion and ‘pronouns’ first then decide?

i dare say some would have you do that

 

[Easy 10]

so tell me. You are the policeman with the gun. You and your colleagues lives are in danger of being killed by someone refusing repeatedly to get out of their car. Revving its engine. Clearly demonstrating that they will stop at nothing to get away. You are already aware said driver is linked to 2 shootings in recent days. You have a split second to decide what to do.….. What is it you choose?

Point of order - the police were NOT aware that the driver was linked with 2 shootings. The car had been tagged as having been in the vicinity of a shooting incident (hence it being pulled over), but Kaba was not the owner of the car, and at the time of the shooting, they didn't know who he was.

 

[jcdenton08]

Point of order - the police were NOT aware that the driver was linked with 2 shootings. The car had been tagged as having been involved, but Kaba was not the owner of the car, and at the time of the shooting, they didn't know who he was.

Had he complied calmly, like most innocent people would do, and you know, not attempt to run over the policemen, he would be alive now. And facing serious charges for attempted murder.

 

[oneillco]

To be fair (reluctantly) The Guardian is also reporting a lot of garbage!

Headline in today's Guardian: "Chris Kaba shot man in club and was alleged core member of London gang"

 

[jcdenton08]

Headline in today's Guardian: "Chris Kaba shot man in club and was alleged core member of London gang"

Also The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ba-verdict-stokes-old-frustrations-in-brixton

 

[oneillco]

I always point this out whenever people are (rightly) slating the Daily Fail. The Grauniad go absolutely batshit with these types of stories, because they think it’s what the readership wants. Most Grauniad readers I know find it a bit embarrassing.

Headline in today's Guardian: "Chris Kaba shot man in club and was alleged core member of London gang"

How do you want them to report it?

 

[jcdenton08]

Headline in today's Guardian: "Chris Kaba shot man in club and was alleged core member of London gang"

How do you want them to report it?

See above.

 

[oneillco]

Also The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ba-verdict-stokes-old-frustrations-in-brixton

That story is reporting how some people in Brixton feel about the verdict, and some of those people are supportive of the Police...

 

[Easy 10]

Had he complied calmly, like most innocent people would do, and you know, not attempt to run over the policemen, he would be alive now. And facing serious charges for attempted murder.

Absolutely. But he wasn't an innocent person, he was a total wrong-un, a feral ratboy, so acted according to type. And paid the ultimate price.

I'm just genuinely glad it didn't end up ruining the life of the firearms officer. Imagine having this hanging over you for the last 2 years.

 

[Da Man Clay]

Point of order - the police were NOT aware that the driver was linked with 2 shootings. The car had been tagged as having been in the vicinity of a shooting incident (hence it being pulled over), but Kaba was not the owner of the car, and at the time of the shooting, they didn't know who he was.

And this is the reason his previous convictions were not allowed to be referenced - because it is irrelevant to the reason he was shot. Allowing it to be used would cloud the decision making for the jury.

If the police had know who he was the time of the shooting and this happened during an operation to arrest him for example it likely would have been included - as that information would have reasonably been factored in (however briefly) before the officer took the shot.