Advertisement



  1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Met police to hand in weapons and stop killing black Britons

Discussion in 'off topic' started by Dogberry, Sep 14, 2022.

  1. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    The family ‘would now be taking a "step back" after some initial campaigning’.
     
  2. Seanm

    Seanm pfm Member

  3. sq225917

    sq225917 Bit of this, bit of that

    The way that phrase is presented is given to make the reader think that the footage has made the family think twice. Perhaps it did, perhaps it didn't.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  4. Cav

    Cav pfm Member

    Is that a real quote from a reputable source or just your spin on something else?
     
  5. suzywong

    suzywong Wot, no electrons?

    From the Beeb's website:

    Afterwards, Mr Kaba's cousin Jefferson Bosela repeated Ms Nkama's comments, saying the family now wants "justice" but that they would now be taking a "step back" after some initial campaigning following Mr Kaba's death.
     
  6. sq225917

    sq225917 Bit of this, bit of that

    I wonder why they didn't quote her directly, the he said she said quote makes me thinks it's a spin job
     
  7. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    Let's not forget that he died from a single gunshot wound to the head - that is an execution.
     
    Finnegan likes this.
  8. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    I don’t think you can infer anything meaningful from the family’s comment, beyond that they are now going to let things run their course without campaigning. Maybe they’re reassured that the investigation will be proper and thorough; maybe they have been made to understand that keeping matters in the public eye could be counterproductive; maybe the footage exonerates the police/is so damning the investigation can’t fail to convict. We just can’t tell, and implying we can infer anything is, as Seanm suggests, just pure DM style innuendo.
     
    sq225917, Andrew C! and ff1d1l like this.
  9. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    The footage was always going to be horrific for the family to view. We’ll have to wait for the enquiry but my interpretation, I stress interpretation of the police showing the video at this early stage is they acted appropriately in the circumstances they faced. Others will I’m sure take a contrary view and simply won’t believe the enquiry should it exonerate the officer(s) in any case.
     
  10. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    Once the decision is made to eliminate a target, what exactly do you expect a SFO to do?
     
  11. Sue Pertwee-Tyr

    Sue Pertwee-Tyr neither here nor there

    AIUI a body shot is usually preferred - bigger target area so more likely to stop/incapacitate and thus neutralise any imminent threat. A head shot is risky unless at very close range. Plus it’s going to be pretty permanent, next to no prospect of recovery.
     
  12. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    The law says that it must 'be absolutely necessary' and that police 'honestly believe' (which is the get out of jail free card) that the person is an imminent threat. I expect him not to shoot an unarmed person and certainly not in the head from close range with a number of police also present having just bumped his car to a halt.
     
    Finnegan likes this.
  13. Andrew C!

    Andrew C! Been around a while....

    Depends on the intel, and what the officer believe they were faced with. Different tactics are trained for different scenarios.
     
  14. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    I suppose it will depend on the circumstances and whether a clear body shot is possible. No doubt we’ll find out.
     
  15. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    No, the decision had been made (rightly or wrongly), there’s no being half pregnant about it. The SFO then acts as swiftly and accurately as possible.
     
  16. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    No - first and foremost there must be an immediate threat and an honestly held belief. If the decision had already been made then the murder is premeditated as in de Menezes. The police, we are told, were responding to an automated call out triggered by a number plate. Kaba wasn't the registered owner of the car.
     
  17. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    You’re completely missing the point. Just accept for a minute that the SFO was beyond reasonable doubt that the correct decision was to eliminate the threat, how should he then act in your view? Not swiftly and accurately?
     
  18. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    No you're by passing the important breaks that the law contains. Your point breaks down to the 'only obeying orders' excuse, which might well be in play here.
     
    Sue Pertwee-Tyr likes this.
  19. Ponty

    Ponty pfm Member

    No I’m not, I’m saying that the decision had been made (rightly or wrongly, we’ll find out). You seemed shocked by a single shot to the head. My question was what else would you expect a SFO to do, given that in his professional capacity he’s made the decision to eliminate the threat.
     
  20. Andrew C!

    Andrew C! Been around a while....

    IME illegal possessors of firearms do not always register their vehicles to themselves. But what do I know.
     

Share This Page





Advertisement


  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice