Armed Police Officers

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

10 hours ago, Aggy said:

You seem to think the ‘interests’ of armed police are more important than the actual law.
 

What’s in my interest is knowing that if, following the proper investigations, a police officer is suspected of murder, the police officer in question faces a trial which will determine his or her guilt.

Well, if we're talking about what people 'seem' to think, you seem to think that armed criminals in the UK can be kept under control by giving police wooden spoons to give them a rap over the knuckles. Then again, I imagine you'd want the police to be tried for unlawful corporal punishment in that situation, post-humously if they happened to be shot in the process.

Kaba wasn't on trial. He was on a street and subject of a lawful arrest where there was reason to believe he was armed and where he already showed he was willing to put lives at risk with his vehicle trying to evade arrest. The police's first duty in that situation should be the public's safety and their own safety; not Kaba's.

The facts are already known as to what happened. It has been thoroughly reported. He was killed by an armed officer deployed to apprehend a gun crime suspect who behaved recklessly in response to attempts to stop him that supported the suggestion he was a threat to the public.There's simply something wrong with people who think it's right to try an officer given what we know as far as I'm concerned. It's totally inappropriate to try the officer like he was some have a go hero taking the law into his own hands.

Fun fact: 15 teenagers victims of homicide this year in London: 13 stabbed and two shot.

Edited September 29, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[canarydan23 4,060]

9 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Are you really suggesting that had the driver been white but all other circumstances identical then the Police would have acted differently?

I wish I could say no.

[Naturalcynic 641]

33 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

I wish I could say no.

Well why not try?  Go on, give it a go and overcome your ingrained ideological bias.

[horsefly 4,309]

On 27/09/2023 at 16:47, littleyellowbirdie said:

You do surprise me. He still got stopped by an organised armed police road block specifically for him in a car linked with a firearms incident and started smashing into police cars trying to get away. Nobody in their right mind should think him getting shot in that situation was unreasonable. If the police officer is cleared then heads need to roll in the CPS for a waste of money, because it's a disgrace that this is even going to trial.

 

So, I take it you must have full access to all the evidence submitted to the police investigation of the incident, and passed on to the CPS? It just happens that they interpreted the full evidence differently from you; is that the case?

[horsefly 4,309]

On 27/09/2023 at 21:23, Barbe bleu said:

Is lyb calling for immunity, or for careful consideration of the unique nature of an armed officers' job when coming to charging decisions?

You think "Nobody in their right mind should think him getting shot in that situation was unreasonable." is a call from LYB for "careful consideration" of the evidence do you? I think I'll stick to the view that those who have had full access to ALL the evidence available have very likely given "careful consideration" to the situation confronted by the particular officer concerned.

[horsefly 4,309]

On 27/09/2023 at 21:59, Indy said:

As for CPS bowing to public pressure it happened in 2014 where they bowed to public reassure, 9 years after the event!

Azelle Rodney – On 30 July 2014, the CPS concluded there was sufficient evidence and that it was in the public interest for an officer, who shot and killed Azelle Rodney on 30 April 2005, to be prosecuted for murder. This followed a public inquiry into the death. Despite the deeply critical findings of the inquiry, the officer was found not guilty by a majority verdict from a jury on 3 July 2015.

That is an absurd claim. The fact that a jury finds someone not guilty proves absolutely nothing at all about why the CPS thought there were grounds for a prosecution.

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

25 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You think "Nobody in their right mind should think him getting shot in that situation was unreasonable." is a call from LYB for "careful consideration" of the evidence do you? I think I'll stick to the view that those who have had full access to ALL the evidence available have very likely given "careful consideration" to the situation confronted by the particular officer concerned.

LYB is basically accepting the police are judge, jury and executioner. As you or somebody else stated that's almost a definition of a police state and can only end badly. It also a very illiberal naive view ! 

Everybody else on here although they may have issues and conflate Kaba's past accepts that there is case to answer and there will be a jury trial where the full facts will come out. 

I hope the policeman was acting correctly and will be acquitted but I can easily see and accept that might not be the case.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[horsefly 4,309]

On 28/09/2023 at 00:36, Iwans Big Toe said:

Hmm, so what you're saying is preventing law abiding citizens from owning guns doesn't decrease gun crime? Interesting.

 

What does the OP think?

 

 

Since you asked, I believe there is no doubt that preventing "law abiding citizens" owning guns would decrease gun crime. Remember Michael Ryan, Dunblane, or the recent mass shooting in Plymouth that saw 6 people murdered by a man in legal  possession of a gun licence?  https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/read-this/plymouth-shooting-six-dead-in-keyham-incident-including-suspect-and-a-child-3344882  If my brother (now retired) is typical of the average long-serving rural Norfolk police officer, many will be able to recount a story or two about encountering a disgruntled "customer" pointing a shotgun.

As it is, we continue to allow law abiding citizens the regulated possession of guns. I would like to see those regulations tightened, but would not be in favour of a complete ban.  Hope that answers your question.

 

[TheGunnShow 5,951]

4 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Since you asked, I believe there is no doubt that preventing "law abiding citizens" owning guns would decrease gun crime. Remember Michael Ryan, Dunblane, or the recent mass shooting in Plymouth that saw 6 people murdered by a man in legal  possession of a gun licence?  https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/read-this/plymouth-shooting-six-dead-in-keyham-incident-including-suspect-and-a-child-3344882  If my brother (now retired) is typical of the average long-serving rural Norfolk police officer, many will be able to recount a story or two about encountering a disgruntled "customer" pointing a shotgun.

As it is, we continue to allow law abiding citizens the regulated possession of guns. I would like to see those regulations tightened, but would not be in favour of a complete ban.  Hope that answers your question.

 

Bet it prevents a fair few suicides as well.

[horsefly 4,309]

5 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

LYB is basically accepting the police are judge, jury and executioner. As you or somebody else stated that's almost a definition of a police state and can only end badly. It also a very illiberal naive view ! 

Everybody else on here although they may have issues and conflate Kaba's past accepts that there is case to answer and there will be a jury trial where the full facts will come out. 

I hope the policeman was acting correctly and will be acquitted but I can easily see and accept that might not be the case.

Spot on! There is no democracy in the world that exempts armed police officers from accountability for their actions in respect of exactly the same laws as those that hold of ordinary citizens. That includes the USA. The change in the USA, regarding the increase in prosecutions of police officers for murder, is largely due to the universal ownership of mobile phones and the opportunity to record first-hand evidence police wrong doing. There has never been a legal exemption for the police regarding the use of weaponry other than in cases of justifiable self-defence. 

[horsefly 4,309]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Bet it prevents a fair few suicides as well.

Yep, and gun deaths described as "crimes of passion".

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said:

Well why not try?  Go on, give it a go and overcome your ingrained ideological bias.

Come on old boy, save a bit of irony for the rest of us.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Well why not try?  Go on, give it a go and overcome your ingrained ideological bias.

What the heck has that to do with any debate? You are saying an opinion that may question what our armed police are expected to do and ask for full evidence is ingrained ideological bias yet yours, with no access to the evidence, is perfectly acceptable.

[Aggy 757]

4 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Well, if we're talking about what people 'seem' to think, you seem to think that armed criminals in the UK can be kept under control by giving police wooden spoons to give them a rap over the knuckles. Then again, I imagine you'd want the police to be tried for unlawful corporal punishment in that situation, post-humously if they happened to be shot in the process.

Kaba wasn't on trial. He was on a street and subject of a lawful arrest where there was reason to believe he was armed and where he already showed he was willing to put lives at risk with his vehicle trying to evade arrest. The police's first duty in that situation should be the public's safety and their own safety; not Kaba's.

The facts are already known as to what happened. It has been thoroughly reported. He was killed by an armed officer deployed to apprehend a gun crime suspect who behaved recklessly in response to attempts to stop him that supported the suggestion he was a threat to the public.There's simply something wrong with people who think it's right to try an officer given what we know as far as I'm concerned. It's totally inappropriate to try the officer like he was some have a go hero taking the law into his own hands.

Fun fact: 15 teenagers victims of homicide this year in London: 13 stabbed and two shot.

Waffle waffle waffle. In much shorter summary, I was correct - you think the police are above the law.

As to your point about the facts already being know, I’ll probably take the view of the IOPC and the CPS, who have actually done a proper investigation into the circumstances of the incident and think there is sufficient reason for a criminal trial to take place, over some chap on the internet who has read half an article online.

Edited September 29, 2023 by Aggy

[Aggy 757]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

LYB is basically accepting the police are judge, jury and executioner. As you or somebody else stated that's almost a definition of a police state and can only end badly. It also a very illiberal naive view ! 

Everybody else on here although they may have issues and conflate Kaba's past accepts that there is case to answer and there will be a jury trial where the full facts will come out. 

I hope the policeman was acting correctly and will be acquitted but I can easily see and accept that might not be the case.

Where I do agree with LYB is that if this goes to trial and is basically thrown out for a complete lack of evidence, then there is clearly a problem with the system.

However, that problem would be with the investigations that have taken place already and/or the decision to prosecute, not with the idea that policemen should face a trial in the same way as anyone else.

If he is found guilty, or even if he is found not guilty but it is clear why it needed to go in front of a jury to determine, then the system is doing what it should.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

48 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Waffle waffle waffle. In much shorter summary, I was correct - you think the police are above the law.

As to your point about the facts already being know, I’ll probably take the view of the IOPC and the CPS, who have actually done a proper investigation into the circumstances of the incident and think there is sufficient reason for a criminal trial to take place, over some chap on the internet who has read half an article online.

And in summary I'm correct. You clearly don't give a sh1t about armed criminals being able to do what they like unchecked. Which is the ultimate outcome if no police agree to carry weapons at all for fear of prosecution as a matter of course if they ever shoot.

Police are not the enemy of the public. They have a difficult job as it is without people like you wanting to make it harder.

Edited September 29, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

42 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Where I do agree with LYB is that if this goes to trial and is basically thrown out for a complete lack of evidence, then there is clearly a problem with the system.

However, that problem would be with the investigations that have taken place already and/or the decision to prosecute, not with the idea that policemen should face a trial in the same way as anyone else.

If he is found guilty, or even if he is found not guilty but it is clear why it needed to go in front of a jury to determine, then the system is doing what it should.

Absolutely agree Aggy.

The original post or question (from BB) was 'political interference' i.e the idea that it was politically convenient to unreasonably prosecute this case because of 'pressure'. I just can't see that as it would be obvious if there was no case to answer at the outset to the IOPC and CPS and to then pursue would frankly then be damaging for everybody. Rather the opposite seems to be the case.

However, given past 'Met' history I'm very sure Mark Rowley (Met Chief Constable) did want a thorough and very open and transparent investigation in as far as possible same as CPS. That doesn't make it wrong though! 

Ultimately a jury will now judge with ALL the facts (and those first person videos not released to the general public) and whatever the verdict nobody will be able to claim 'cover-up' or 'prejudice'. 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Absolutely agree Aggy.

The original post or question (from BB) was 'political interference' i.e the idea that it was politically convenient to unreasonably prosecute this case because of 'pressure'. I just can't see that as it would be obvious if there was no case to answer at the outset to the IOPC and CPS and to then pursue would frankly then be damaging for everybody. Rather the opposite seems to be the case.

However. given past 'Met' history I'm very sure Mark Rowley (Met Chief Constable) did want a thorough and very open and transparent investigation in as far as possible same as CPS. That doesn't make it wrong though! 

Ultimately a jury will now judge with ALL the facts (and those first person videos not released to the general public) and whatever the verdict nobody will be able to claim 'cover-up' or 'prejudice'. 

If they convict, they had better make sure they have an iron-clad justification if we're not to see a substantial proportion of armed police just walking away.

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

13 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If they convict, they had better make sure they have an iron-clad justification if we're not to see a substantial proportion of armed police just walking away.

Let's turn this around shall we LYB.

Your argument infers that you believe it is politically convenient NOT to prosecute a policeman when there is clear evidence to the IOPC and CPS/DPP to the contrary.

Wow Wow wow. Enough said!

 

[Aggy 757]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If they convict, they had better make sure they have an iron-clad justification if we're not to see a substantial proportion of armed police just walking away.

If they convict they will do so because they think he is guilty. That is all that is needed. 

 

Edited September 29, 2023 by Aggy

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

If they convict, they had better make sure they have an iron-clad justification if we're not to see a substantial proportion of armed police just walking away.

If they aren't ready for it then that is what they must do. And if there was a conviction then it would depend on the case and the evidence presented. If the accused ignored orders or didn't even wait then it would be totally different from a jury convicting when the evidence points to just circumstances at the time. 

[Indy 3,307]

From the start I agree that an independent and fair review of the incident had to be done the same as any firearms discharge or fatality. The trial is bought by the CPS and in a number of cases where the police have been taken to trial the result has been in favour of the police they still get criticised for biased judgment by the press and family / friends of the victim.

I haven’t looked at all the numbers of the trial statistics of police officers bought to charge after the shooting and found guilty! I’d love to know what the rate of guilty is?

It’s now up to the court to decide vie a jury and trial and all the evidence will be presented and we will see how this goes.

As for gun culture in this country, gangs & criminals don’t buy firearms legally and the more we protect them with being soft the more innocent normal people get caught up in violent crimes. I have zero sympathy for Kaba or his family, they knew who he was and now choose to paint him in public as an innocent citizen when the reality is very different. The less people like him on the streets the safer we should feel!

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

1 hour ago, Aggy said:

If they convict they will do so because they think he is guilty. That is all that is needed. 

 

Well, I guess the explosion in gun crime from no armed police will be your problem, so knock yourself out with your gleeful police-bashing And just a reminder: It's still innocent until proven guilty as far as the officer in question is concerned. .

Have fun. 

Edited September 29, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Aggy 757]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Well, I guess the explosion in gun crime from no armed police will be your problem.

Have fun. 

Given policemen have faced prosecution before and the police force still exists, I’d be significantly more concerned about police being above the law than your make-believe scaremongering. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

31 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

If they aren't ready for it then that is what they must do. And if there was a conviction then it would depend on the case and the evidence presented. If the accused ignored orders or didn't even wait then it would be totally different from a jury convicting when the evidence points to just circumstances at the time. 

Point is there will be thousands of serving armed police watching this closely and making their own judgements as to whether they can trust the criminal justice system to be fair with them while they do a dangerous job protecting the public from the sort of scum that do go around with illegal firearms killing innocent people. The fact many have already turned in their firearms simply on the back of this charge should be cause for concern for any law-abiding citizen with any sense who wants the streets safe.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,562]

2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Given policemen have faced prosecution before and the police force still exists, I’d be significantly more concerned about police being above the law than your make-believe scaremongering. 

It's not scare-mongering. London is currently struggling because of the number of armed police who have downed tools on the back of this prosecution being announced. You just wait and see what it's like if this guy's convicted for murder.

Edited September 29, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Aggy 757]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

It's not scare-mongering. London is currently struggling because of the number of armed police who have downed tools on the back of this prosecution being announced. You just wait and see what it's like if this guy's convicted for murder.

There are over 6000 armed police in the UK. Reports of 100-300 max handing in their weapons.

That’s between about 1 and 5 percent. Most (all?) of whom are now back. Army lined up and not needed.

Interesting that the other 95-99 per cent of armed police in the country seem to feel less strongly about this than you do.

 

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Point is there will be thousands of serving armed police watching this closely and making their own judgements as to whether they can trust the criminal justice system to be fair with them while they do a dangerous job protecting the public from the sort of scum that do go around with illegal firearms killing innocent people. The fact many have already turned in their firearms simply on the back of this charge should be cause for concern for any law-abiding citizen with any sense who wants the streets safe.

Actually - I'd rather suspect that either way the professional police will welcome this eventually. It will simply show they are accountable and the system works. Either way it will build trust that they can deal with these cases openly and transparently. Isn't that what we all want with armed officers? No cover-ups or political interference even when things go wrong?

[Aggy 757]

23 minutes ago, Indy said:

 

I haven’t looked at all the numbers of the trial statistics of police officers bought to charge after the shooting and found guilty! I’d love to know what the rate of guilty is?

 

Not looked at that particular point, but only one PC in 35 years has been found guilty of unlawful killing. Charged with murder but cleared of that and found guilty of manslaughter. Charged pre-covid, convicted 2021. That was taser/excessive force rather than shooting. 

 

[Yellow Fever 3,804]

22 minutes ago, Aggy said:

There are over 6000 armed police in the UK. Reports of 100-300 max handing in their weapons.

That’s between about 1 and 5 percent. Most (all?) of whom are now back. Army lined up and not needed.

Interesting that the other 95-99 per cent of armed police in the country seem to feel less strongly about this than you do.

 

More to the point Aggy the time to resign on principle (as per LYB) would be now since LYBs argument seems to be that they are above the law / accountable only to themselves and shouldn't be going to trial anyway whatever the outcome! Clearly apart from a handful who do think that way, the rest have thought better of it.