Chris Kaba. The decision to prosecute the officer was a disgrace

So, an unarmed man is corralled in his car by half a dozen other vehicles before being shot dead. And that is not even worthy of a jury's scrutiny? Funny country you seem to want!

 

If that were the case, then you would have expected that the judge would have directed the jury to find that there was no case to answer, and instructed them to throw the case out at half time. As it was, the judge left the case to the jury, so clearly he can not have felt there was only ever going to be one outcome.

 

Don’t know much about this case tbh, but it only took jury 3 hours to find him not guilty, sounds very much like the evidence was clear and justice prevailed, a very serious case so you would have thought the jury would have took longer to decide if unsure. Done jury service myself and menial crimes we had took longer to decide

 

Must have been a reason for so many armed police to stop one man. Was he known to them ?

 

The car he was in had been linked to a shooting the night before.
2 other officers at the scene said they were about to take the Shot before Mr Blake (the Wrongfully accused) did. He drove the car at them and backed off repeatedly to try and break free.
In none of the statements given after this verdict do his family or the protest groups address the fact that he was willing to kill police officers to evade arrest.
In protest when he was charged over 100 firearms officers turned in their permits that allow them to carry weapons.
While scrutiny is required at all levels of policing I believe the decision to charge and put Mr Blake through a 2 year ordeal was ill judged.

 

Only yesterday a poor petrol station attendant has been rammed and killed by someone driving off without paying for fuel in Castleford. People using cars recklessly should be done for attempted murder and if you are ramming armed police who are trying to stop you and you’re also driving a car involved in a shooting, then the consequences are almost inevitable. Any death at the hands of armed police should be scrutinised, but to prosecute him just seems like they were trying to assuage the mob rather than follow the evidence.

 

Thanks for the replies, no wonder they were so well armed. What is really annoying is that Mr Kaba's family have had prime TV time to make statements and inflame tension while the authorities are denied equal prime air time to inform people in full as to why the Police acted as they did.

 

I agree that this shouldn't have been a murder trial.

There are things that don't ring true though. Why a kill shot to the head from pretty close distance when the accused states he was trying to incapacitate the driver? The accused also couldn't confirm if he shouted he was going to take the shot and no audio was picked up of him doing so.

The suspect was aggressive, erratic and dangerous, granted. Yet despite multiple police officers, armed, no attempt was made to shoot the tyres out or hinder the vehicle further.

And given repeated examples of institutional racism, there is the warranted wonder of whether this would have happened if the driver was white. We'll never know, but each have our subjective opinions.

Murder, definitely not. A manslaughter charge however.... Quite possibly.

 

Does justice have to be seen to be done, just to stop the is it because I'm different gang wading in. I wonder if it would have been a different outcome if the officer was also different to the other officers. The thin blue line gets even thinner. I know they aren't perfect but anarchy would ascend if they disappeared.

 

Intent to kill or intent to cause grievous bodily harm is the test for intention in a murder charge. If you discharge a firearm straight at the head of a suspect from close range it is difficult to see how you can not thereby intend to (at least) cause serious bodily harm. The only question thereafter is whether you have a lawful defence (e.g. necessity, self-defence, etc). The latter is a question quite properly left to juries. It seems to me therefore that murder was the appropriate charge. The jury listened to the evidence before it and quite properly decided to acquit.

 

Could they not have shot the unharmed man in the leg, arm or foot to get him under control an then have him face trial, rather than shooting him in the head?

 

As it also will if the police are not subject to any form of scrutiny.

 

Only if they had got in the car with him, which might have been an unappealing prospect!

 

Just out of interest, what aspect of law protects armed police officers? Obviously we've had cases where terrorists were stopped with lethal force which was obviously intended.

 

I'm in disbelief sometimes how people can comment why didn't they do this, or that, when they've never even seen a gun in real life, let alone shot one. Even if he successfully shot a tyre, despite the immense pressure of the situation, where knowing one misfire could kill one of your coworkers, there's no guarantee that would stop the car from being a battering ram and killing multiple of your friends and work colleagues. Even if, in that immensely pressured situation, he managed to shoot him and not kill him, whats to say he still wouldn't be able to control the car? I think its insane how many people think they'd react differently in these situations when in actual fact they'd be lucky to handle it as well as the officers did.

Its a shame it went the way it did. But even from the evidence publicly available, this was 100% the right call. Id like to think had I been an armed officer I too would have put my gun down in protest at his charge. There's far too many injustices in the world - this isn't one of them