You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/met-firearms-officers-anxious-chris-140601365.html
And a charge of Manslaughter should only be brought where a Firearms Officer has acted recklessly or with gross negligence.
I'm not saying people should not be compensated where mistakes are made-they should. And that is not primarily costing the Officer money-that is the Police/State's cost.
But we cannot expect forearms officers both to make split second decisions and accuse them of Murder when they (with the benefit of hindsight) get it wrong.
The alternative is firearms officers being unable to make split second decisions when they need to. And that will cost lives. Lots of lives.
I couldnt see the CPS opting for a murder charge, unless the evidence was clear cut.
That is not to say that he is guilty.
Many people would expect the other officers present to protect one of their own, and at least muddy the waters, when it came to the investigation.
I would agree that these officers have to make split second decisions, and occasionally one of them will be wrong, with fatal consequences.
I can also understand why some officers may be reluctant to carry guns, in the light of the murder charge.
The evidence released before everything was hushed up was that the guy was driving someone else's car, that car had been used in the commission of a serious offence the previous day, and that armed police and a marksman were instructed to follow the car.
There may well be Criminal Charges and a Civil case, but Murder?
As per usual, the Army instruct serving soldiers to plug the gaps.
I wonder what would happen if a soldier (who is likely to have to make rather more such split-second decisions of this nature) would ever be charged with Murder?
The murder charge in respect of a police officer, was surely a massive step for the CPS?
Would they have gone for this option if they just had some shaky evidence?
Worth noting that quite a lot of the relevant officers have now decided to continue.
Although I do wonder whether, in the pursuit of expediency, a news blackout to the general public for fear of prejudicing a trial can simultaneously be circumvented for his work colleagues without doing exactly the same thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-65352683.amp
Maybe the CPS have charged the officer with murder as they can then pass the buck onto the jury and legal system to decide whether the officer is guilty of murder and at the same time appease those baying for 'justice'.
I find it very difficult to see how the officer can be guilty of murder as surely that has to be premeditated? I can't see how that can apply in this case, unless of course the argument is that all armed officers are just looking for someone to kill.
My father was an armed response officer (or whatever the equivalent was 30-40 years ago), I'm pretty sure he will be turning in his grave now.
Found this elsewhere, yep, by that definition it looks like any armed officer that has to use their weapon and does so effectively (after all they are trained to shoot to kill, not injure, or disarm) should be charged with murder, no wonder they are all handing their weapons in.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, the former director of public prosecutions, said: “It’s been referred to the CPS, the evidence has been considered and the CPS has made their decision.
https://uk.yahoo.com/style/decision-charge-officer-chris-kaba-200000350.html
This is not the fault of the CPS-they are there to deal with the law as it currently stands. Not what it should be.
It has always previously been the case that it is for the Prosecution to prove the Defendant Guilty beyond reasonable doubt. For all serious crimes, including Murder. That is why we say "innocent until proven guilty"
The problem is that some wassock has introduced a totally different test for Police Officers. As the article above rightly says, the current position is that
"If they shoot someone, an officer must show they had an honestly held belief they were doing so to protect themselves, their colleagues or the public".
In addition, an armed officer is "responsible for his own actions, and must be able to show that what they did was necessary proportionate and reasonable."
This is most certainly not treating armed officers like the general public. For everyone else, it is for the Prosecution to prove Guilt, not for the Defendant to prove innocence. Particularly for Murder. There is a world of difference between proving someone did not have an honest belief and the Defendant proving that they did.
No other employee is "responsible for their own actions". If you make a mistake at work that costs your employer a lot of money, he cannot usually sue you for it. People don't get made bankrupt because of mistakes in employment. That is what Employers have Employers Liability insurance for.
I would be most surprised if the anonymity order is removed. Because that is going to place that policeman's life in grave danger.
Finally, Sir Mark Rowley is totally wrong to claim there should be consistency between the civil and criminal systems. There are many occasions when an employee has committed no criminal act but could still rightly face dismissal.
Only the Officers there know how it all played out and any jury will get that evidence.
So what evidence could the CPS have been given, that would result in a murder charge?
What other possible reason could he have for taking the shot?
But there are 2 things on the other side of that particular coin:-
1. The fact remains that the onus is placed upon the Officer to show he had an honestly-held belief. Whereas the burden of proof should be on the Prosecution to show beyond reasonable doubt that he did not
2. It is equally valid to ask questions as to why the armed marksman was following the car in the first place. Because that does not happen routinely-it happens because of a planned operation and/or surveillance. And not a typical surveillance-one that requires the presence of armed police
Kaba had previous for gun possession (albeit imitation), was a member of a notorious gang, affiliated with people who went on to be charged with plotting to murder, GBH and shooting and Kaba was there at the time and would probably have stood trial too had he been alive to do so. He was driving a car with a firearms marker on it.
The CPS have brought a number of murder charges against police officers for similar situations before, apparently all have been dropped due to lack of evidence before reaching court.
There are two cases from 2015 referred to above.
In both cases the suspects were shot.
One was bending down, the other was reaching.
In both cases the officer assumed they were reaching for a gun.
In both cases the officer was wrong.
One was found to be not guilty the other wasnt charged.
Although I agree that these are split second decisions, with lives at risk, but I also think that just moving your arm could be considered reaching.
If someone is trying to kill you by driving a car at you should you, as an armed police officer, stop that threat or jump out of the way and wave cheerily at him as he escapes. I know what I would prefer our police to do.
Of course none of us know exactly what happened but it is quite telling that his family, who were baying for blood, apparently went quiet after being shown video footage of the event.