Kaba

The officers knew the car had been involved in a previous incident and so obviously wanted to stop it.

So the car might just have been borrowed by those involved in the shooting outside the school and then returned to its innocent owner?

Really?

My credulity does have limits.

This problem is rife in the States and - having checked - many countries in Europe. I'm sure the police are doing their best and feel we should be supporting them especially after the support shown for the policeman today.

But it could have been an entirely innocent person driving that car and he was then shot in the head and killed.

An entirely innocent person would not have been driving the car, attempting to ram two police vehicles out of the way, while being ordered to stop by armed police.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

We've removed this as it quotes a now-deleted post.

Just a family behaving as predictably as many others would, in denial - don't demonise them, try and accept many families would behave the same. Why the hatred? blame the offender.

eazybee

^But it could have been an entirely innocent person driving that car and he was then shot in the head and killed.^

An entirely innocent person would not have been driving the car, attempting to ram two police vehicles out of the way, while being ordered to stop by armed police.

Exactly this . I don’t doubt the statistics that indicate black drivers are more likely to be stopped than white drivers. That’s a totally different issue than being stopped but attempting to ram yiur way out of the situation. Kaba couldn’t have been unaware he was surrounded by armed officers.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

BlueBelle -- how do YOU know he had no weapon in the car??? IF you're claiming clairvoyance, please supply the weekend's Lottery numbers?

People asking about the CPS should realise that's been a largely failing operation since a certain STARMER was its leader.

For FGT2, I don't think you need to apologise. His family have doubtless had the benefit of umpteen criminal operations, and in my world, would be under investigation to get their illegal gains back off them.

DrWatson

For FGT2, I don't think you need to apologise. His family have doubtless had the benefit of umpteen criminal operations, and in my world, would be under investigation to get their illegal gains back off them.

Proving in court where cash/property came from is impossible all they have to say is the bought it off a man in a pub. A lot of illegal items are bought off “men in pubs.”

I repeat the police know who is thieving and causing trouble but it’s not possible to get proof that stands up in court.

Wyllow3

It ironical that the truth and details about Kaba' criminal past (and restraining order etc) were only able to be released after the trial.
Had they been immediately available after the shooting there might not have been the same levels of response.

I totally agree, but releasing the information would not be legal, the defence could have claimed that it would have influenced the jury and that this meant that there was no possibility of a fair trial.

Yes, its a "catch 22", what remains is the bad decision to name the policeman.

Cooper's proposal to give firearms officers anonymity unless convicted is simply a proposal: it has to be included in a Bill not yet put to the Commons. Don't hold your breath as the same proposal was made by two previous Home Secs.

I wonder why it was turned down before? I hope Cooper is successful.

However I've uncovered a relevant point as to why the police officer was initially named

"The officer in the Kaba case, Blake, was named six months after being charged with murder, after a legal challenge to his anonymity by British news organisations

Presumably the judge could have ruled against naming, but the news was already out there from media pressure.

And more on proposals by police to protect officers

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/22/police-chiefs-government-make-harder-prosecute-officers-after-chris-kaba-shooting

It was the judge's decision to end anonymity. If he had ruled in favour of anonymity the media could not have published the officer's name unless they were prepared to face contempt of court proceedings. I think he was wrong.

From the Telegraph tonight:

“A black rights charity that claimed the gangster Chris Kaba was a victim of “racist state violence” is being examined by regulators.

The Runnymede Trust, which openly criticised the legal system after a police officer was acquitted of murder for shooting Kaba, is facing questions from the Charity Commission following a complaint by Robert Jenrick, a Tory leadership contender.

It has now deleted the controversial social media posts and admitted they were a mistake.”

That’s good news FGT2.
publishing inaccuracies like that can’t do the BLM project any good.

Kaba was a member of a very violent London gang and was wanted for attempted murder. The car he was driving was invilved in a firearms incident and was on a police watch list. Also he tried to ram his way out of a police road block and could have killed a police officer. He wasn't a nice person or some kind of martyr, but a violent low life who could have done something even worse. Hey ho, all the middle class " liberals" and communty activists won't see it like that.