UK Policing

TheReligion said:
He was using the car to try and ram his way out of the situation though wasn’t he? Quite a big vehicle too. Another important point when you look at the situation as a whole.

Tragic someone lost their life and heartbreaking for the family.
Click to expand...
I watched the body cam footage and, while it’s true he tried to ram his way through, he wasn’t going anywhere as they boxed him in. If he was unarmed and had both hands on the steering wheel at the time he was shot like the article states, I don’t see how he was an imminent threat or how Martyn “feared for his colleagues’ lives” like he claimed.
 
Sara125 said:
I watched the body cam footage and, while it’s true he tried to ram his way through, he wasn’t going anywhere as they boxed him in. If he was unarmed and had both hands on the steering wheel at the time he was shot like the article states, I don’t see how he was an imminent threat or how Martyn “feared for his colleagues’ lives” like he claimed.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you didn’t but an independent jury decided they did? They have seen all of the evidence too and in detail.

He would have both hands on the steering wheel as he was driving the SUV.
 
Moral of the story, do as Armed police say

Recklessly ram your car back and fourth putting police officers lives at risk, you play with fire imo

Also, driving a car linked with a shooting the previous day, a gun from that shooting hadn’t been accounted for, they guy was obviously linked with crime too be in this car evading the police

Don’t want too be shot? Don’t do crime and then Reckless try evading the police using a vehicle as a death machine

Of course the police officer shouldn’t have been charged
 
TheLiverBird said:
Moral of the story, do as Armed police say

Recklessly ram your car back and fourth putting police officers lives at risk, you play with fire imo

Also, driving a car linked with a shooting the previous day, a gun from that shooting hadn’t been accounted for, they guy was obviously linked with crime too be in this car evading the police

Don’t want too be shot? Don’t do crime and then Reckless try evading the police using a vehicle as a death machine

Of course the police officer shouldn’t have been charged
Click to expand...

Is it better in a way that he was charged, so that it went to court and all the evidence outlined and a judgement by a jury? In terms of transparency, reducing the scope for conspiracy theories and accusations of institutional corruption etc.

Obviously on the other hand it's pretty shit for the officer to have been charged and to endure a criminal trial.
 
Trequarista10 said:
Is it better in a way that he was charged, so that it went to court and all the evidence outlined and a judgement by a jury? In terms of transparency, reducing the scope for conspiracy theories and accusations of institutional corruption etc.

Obviously on the other hand it's pretty shit for the officer to have been charged and to endure a criminal trial.
Click to expand...

Investigations into every police shooting is I’d imagine the absolute norm, but too go too court with this having seen the basic information is worrying.

I’m sure the Armed police officer didn’t sign up too this kind of scrutiny for essentially doing his job which surely should have been clear from the investigation, that might sound harsh towards the deceased and the deceased family, but it’s not the Armed Police officers fault that Chris chose the wrong path in life, and put himself in position where he was a threat too life around armed officers.

I hear what your saying about conspiracy theorist and the race card pushers etc etc having all the information judged by a jury too quash all that, but for me it’s a total waste of tax payers money, and will it quash anything?

We are all different, I read briefly into the details of this and came very quickly too the conclusion a criminal trial for this was OTT.

Others will no doubt feel indifferent but that’s where I am with this particular case, waste of time.
 
Last edited:
TheLiverBird said:
Investigations into every police shooting is I’d imagine the absolute norm, but too go too court with this having seen the basic information is worrying.

I’m sure the Armed police officer didn’t sign up too this kind of scrutiny for essentially doing his job which surely should have been clear from the investigation, that might sound harsh towards the deceased and the deceased family, but it’s not the Armed Police officers fault that Chris chose the wrong path in life, and put himself in position where he was a threat too life around armed officers.
Click to expand...

I think the problem is that internal investigations (and I would include the IOPC as a type of internal investigation as their independence is questionable at best) are not perceived by the public to be fair or trustworthy as a result of past high profile internal cover ups. In addition to incidents of officers killing people in the line of duty, there's also events like Hillsborough. A criminal trial at least confirms that it's been scrutinised comprehensively and provides closure. Especially in this case because there are potential racism connotations, so resolving it by internal investigation would likely stoke accusations of institutional racism and potentially lead to backlash.

It's shit for the officer but I think if there's a death then self defence should be established at court rather than outside of court, except in perhaps the most extreme circumstances.
 
Opened fire on a packed dancefloor shooting a guy in both legs, and was stabbing people since he was 13. No wonder his family tried to get an injunction to keep that out the news. Wont be missed.

Imagine the officer had been convicted by a jury and then all this information on the "victim" was released the next day, would have been total public uproar. Shouldn't have gone anywhere near trial.
 
Last edited:
hobbers said:
Opened fire on a packed dancefloor shooting a guy in both legs, and was stabbing people since he was 13. No wonder his family tried to get an injunction to keep that out the news. Wont be missed.

Imagine the officer had been convicted by a jury and then all this information on the "victim" was released the next day, would have been total public uproar. Shouldn't have gone anywhere near trial.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Don't understand how this information wasn't relevant to the trial.

I was on the fence before hand, but given the dangerous driving, the positioning of the police and the car being linked to gun crime days prior, the officer appears to have had very reasonable grounds for fearing another persons life was in danger.
 
Phil Jones Face said:
Agreed. Don't understand how this information wasn't relevant to the trial.

I was on the fence before hand, but given the dangerous driving, the positioning of the police and the car being linked to gun crime days prior, the officer appears to have had very reasonable grounds for fearing another persons life was in danger.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be relevant if it wasn't known to the officer at the time of the shooting because it would not undermine any of the requirements to prove a crime...

If it was known then it might be relevant, but given the circumstances are very different still it might be considered too prejudicial
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Interesting the way they’re releasing all this information now as a way to reduce “unrest on the streets”
Click to expand...
What is wrong with that? It might help change some people’s minds?
I’m sure they would have liked to do it right from the start but it wasn’t made available to the jury either.
 
The Purley King said:
What is wrong with that? It might help change some people’s minds?
I’m sure they would have liked to do it right from the start but it wasn’t made available to the jury either.
Click to expand...

It’s mainly interesting because they’re so open about the rationale. I don’t particularly have an issue with what they’ve done. If it makes violent protests less likely then that’s a good thing.
 
Phil Jones Face said:
Agreed. Don't understand how this information wasn't relevant to the trial.

I was on the fence before hand, but given the dangerous driving, the positioning of the police and the car being linked to gun crime days prior, the officer appears to have had very reasonable grounds for fearing another persons life was in danger.
Click to expand...

I understand the arguments - the armed police didnt know who was driving so their background isn't relevant to the shooting. And obviously, no jury in the world is ever going to convict the officer if they knew what a piece of shit the driver was.

But armed police have to go into these situations and assess threat with no background information. Blake made the judgement in the moment that he and the 2 officers next to him were in imminent threat of being rammed/run over. The background of the driver proves he had no respect for human life and would have happily run anyone over to get away, so that assessment was correct. Withholding it from the jury seems unfair. If the driver had no gang affiliation or convictions and links to violent crime the prosecution would have rammed that down the jury's throats at every opportunity.
 
Steven Seagull said:
Is releasing information to the public after a trial has concluded abnormal?
Click to expand...

The trial was purely and explicitly about the immediate actions of the police officer and Suspect at the scene.

Bringing in unnecessary information not in anyway relating to the incident the trial was about could have been damaging too the trial.

Fortunately the police officer was found too be innocent and his actions justified.

That’s a dirty scumbag he’s cleared off our streets thank goodness
 
Phil Jones Face said:
Agreed. Don't understand how this information wasn't relevant to the trial.

I was on the fence before hand, but given the dangerous driving, the positioning of the police and the car being linked to gun crime days prior, the officer appears to have had very reasonable grounds for fearing another persons life was in danger.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty obvious why it wasn’t

The trial was against the Police officers actions

Not the Suspect.
 
Wonder how the guy he shot and his many other victims feel about the protests about their assailant's lawful death.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Interesting the way they’re releasing all this information now as a way to reduce “unrest on the streets”
Click to expand...

Why? It's no different to any other report you would have read where certain convicted criminals are named in the media, it's in the public interest.

They just clearly couldn't allow any info to be released before this trial had been concluded for obvious reasons.
 
Lu Tze said:
Wonder how the guy he shot and his many other victims feel about the protests about their assailant's lawful death.
Click to expand...
Probably have a chuckle to themselves tbf.

Guy got shot and survived meanwhile the police are taking out his shooter for him. Id imagine that's the best result he could have dreamed of.
 
Trequarista10 said:
I think the problem is that internal investigations (and I would include the IOPC as a type of internal investigation as their independence is questionable at best) are not perceived by the public to be fair or trustworthy as a result of past high profile internal cover ups. In addition to incidents of officers killing people in the line of duty, there's also events like Hillsborough. A criminal trial at least confirms that it's been scrutinised comprehensively and provides closure. Especially in this case because there are potential racism connotations, so resolving it by internal investigation would likely stoke accusations of institutional racism and potentially lead to backlash.

It's shit for the officer but I think if there's a death then self defence should be established at court rather than outside of court, except in perhaps the most extreme circumstances.
Click to expand...
Completely agree with your rational here but also at the same time do not believe it makes a difference. It certainly won’t appease those most vocal. Who’ll simply claim the system is rigged.

Those who’d decided the officer was guilty of murder won’t change their minds after these findings. They’ll simply massage the facts to suit the narrative they’d already chosen or just ignore facts.
I think if you look at this case, watch the video, look into Chris Kaba’s background. His gang involvement, (said gang who ironically are responsible for the deaths of several young black men) and then still conclude we’re dealing with an unlikely victim/a victim of police brutality who should somehow act as some sort of beacon against said brutality then your agenda is clear. And I've seen this on social media- a lot-.
Nothing more than extremely bias anti police rhetoric hidden under the guise of being some sort of social justice activist. Imagine thinking your some sort of advocate for black lives or anti racism but then sticking behind a man who was part of a gang who were responsible for the deaths of a number of black men. Or through the pushing of drugs-the deterioration of communities within South London - an area with large black demographics. This isn’t George Floyd in any way shape or form. Remove their allignment. It’s an insult to George Floyd and all the families who’ve suffered at the hands of Kabba and his gang.
 
Steven Seagull said:
Is releasing information to the public after a trial has concluded abnormal?
Click to expand...
Think it quite normal.

Knowing what the police already knew it should never have gone to trial. The police officer should never have been named pre trial.
 
Last edited:
Seems like the defence made a request to keep the officers name secret on the basis his life and that of his family would be a risk from the gang. It was denied and now look how the situation is. Twisted way of dealing with things.
 
Think this is a tricky one. Watching the body cam footage you could argue that he wasn't targeting officers with the vehicle, he was just trying to get away, but on the other hand can understand the argument of imminent danger to life of others and the decision made to fire.

Think the shit thing about the situation is naming the officer which has led to him now fearing for his and his families safety.
 
Anyone saying 'both his hands were on the steering wheel' or that he was unarmed is signposting themselves as deluded. Or just too stupid to grasp the fact that a 2.5 ton suv is a weapon if you drive it at someone.
 
Sara125 said:
I think these takes in particular are quite fair and agreeable:











Click to expand...

^Even then actually, bringing up any criminality/gang involvement is irrelevant because the officers didn’t even know who was driving the car, let alone that he was part of a gang or was said to be involved in that nightclub shooting
 
Sara125 said:
^Even then actually, bringing up any criminality/gang involvement is irrelevant because the officers didn’t even know who was driving the car, let alone that he was part of a gang or was said to be involved in that nightclub shooting
Click to expand...
They did know that the vehicle was linked to the shooting though didn’t they? That’s why it was subject to a hard stop. The fact the driver then tried to ram their way out of the situation would have further elevated that risk assessment.
 
And ask yourself this, what the feck do these twitter bots actually want to happen? They dont seem interested in sharing that part.

It doesn't fit their grievance harvesting narrative that the officer was named and charged (wrongly), taken to trial (wrongly), and a jury, with no knowledge of the driver's background, found him not guilty i.e. the shooting was justified. And he's still possibly facing an internal disciplinary. What more do they want to happen here?

Extrajudicial lynching of the officer and defunding the police, presumably.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.