London: Chris Kaba

My final point was that if Duggan had not even removed the gun from its box, why did certain police evidence claim he had the gun in hand? Secondly, who threw the gun (out of its box, but still in the sock) over the fence? It strongly suggests someone other than Duggan removed it from the box and placed it elsewhere at the scene.

I'm not passing judgement here on the guy who fired the shot. I have no idea (thankfully) what it must be like to be in such a situation, and I never wish to find out. My natural inclination is, indeed, to have far more sympathy for that individual than, say, the officer responsible for the death of Ian Tomlinson.

My concern is that the police do themselves (as a body) no favours by having a history of what I consider to be misinformation and deceit as they double down to protect their own.

Thanks for the reasoned debate
 
This is a sad case whatever the outcome and we will never know the truth.

One thing though - the evidence for police officers lying is compelling and really shouldn’t be up for debate.
Sadly, that is part of the issue because those officers operating fairly get slaughtered.
You reap what you sow?
 
1finny said:
This is a sad case whatever the outcome and we will never know the truth.

One thing though - the evidence for police officers lying is compelling and really shouldn’t be up for debate.
Sadly, that is part of the issue because those officers operating fairly get slaughtered.
You reap what you sow?
Click to expand...
It's a good point, in the current climate must be extremely difficult to be be a good, honest copper in the Met. Any perceived wrongdoing and it's automatically guilty until proved innocent.

The investigation into the shooting of Chris Kaba needs to be impartial and investigated with honesty and integrity.........but you kind of suspect from the moment he was shot, the cover up will have started. And the investigation will be faced with an uphill battle to uncover the truth from day one.
 
Last edited:
1finny said:
This is a sad case whatever the outcome and we will never know the truth.

One thing though - the evidence for police officers lying is compelling and really shouldn’t be up for debate.
Sadly, that is part of the issue because those officers operating fairly get slaughtered.
You reap what you sow?
Click to expand...
The many are definitely tarred by the few in the police but how are you supposed to trust an organisation that is there to protect when they have been found to be lying before. As you say it’s extremely sad and probably avoidable.
 
h_m_boro said:
It's a good point, in the current climate must be extremely difficult to be be a good, honest copper in the Met. Any wrongdoing and it's automatically guilty until proved innocent.

The investigation into the shooting of Chris Kaba needs to be impartial and investigated with honesty and integrity.........but you kind of suspect from the moment he was shot, the cover up will have started. And the investigation will be faced with an uphill battle to uncover the truth from day one.
Click to expand...
Why are you using the term cover up, assuming the officer is at fault and guilty, we don’t know that yet, maybe the guy was just following protocol, did what he was supposed to and is now being thrown under the bus for other peoples political aspirations.
 
1finny said:
This is a sad case whatever the outcome and we will never know the truth.

One thing though - the evidence for police officers lying is compelling and really shouldn’t be up for debate.
Sadly, that is part of the issue because those officers operating fairly get slaughtered.
You reap what you sow?
Click to expand...
You reap what you sow?

Interesting statement, does that mean us football fans reap what we sow when a few idiots result in police brutality and crackdowns on the rest of us. Or do you not apply that logic in that situation.

The few should never be allowed to tarnish the many.
 
Last edited:
Priv said:
You reap what you sow?

Interesting statement, does that mean us football fans reap what we sow when a few idiots result in police brutality and crackdowns on the rest of us. Or do you not apply that logic in that situation.

The few should never be allowed to tarnish the many.
Click to expand...
I agree with your sentiment but the reality is the few do tarnish the many (in the main) and we all have our biases as a result.
Football fans are pariahs to many
Those on benefits are pariahs to many
The same with the police
 
Cress said:
www.bbc.co.uk

If You Don't Know - Chris Kaba: What happened? - BBC Sounds

Chris Kaba died after he was shot by a police officer – this is what we know.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting that - for anyone else who wants to listen it starts just after 3 mins and goes on for about 8 mins in total.

Some thoughts
Earlier, in this thread, he was referred to as a gangster.
It seems he was a member of Drill 67 - they are a group of rappers. Not sure where the ‘gangster’ came from. Maybe automatic prejudice.

The IOPC investigation prevented the Met from giving info to the family. This seems odd and ought to be challenged. If they knew for certain (and it appears they did) he wasn’t carrying a gun they could have told the family without any trial being prejudiced. It’s a fact or it isn’t.

General point when someone is shot by the police.
It is a big thing for the family of the person dead and, I would suspect, the police officer concerned. It’s is worth considering whether they should be ‘stood down’ automatically.
If nothing else - to assess the mental health of the officer.
It will also appease family members.
 
1finny said:
Thanks for posting that - for anyone else who wants to listen it starts just after 3 mins and goes on for about 8 mins in total.

Some thoughts
Earlier, in this thread, he was referred to as a gangster.
It seems he was a member of Drill 67 - they are a group of rappers. Not sure where the ‘gangster’ came from. Maybe automatic prejudice.

The IOPC investigation prevented the Met from giving info to the family. This seems odd and ought to be challenged. If they knew for certain (and it appears they did) he wasn’t carrying a gun they could have told the family without any trial being prejudiced. It’s a fact or it isn’t.

General point when someone is shot by the police.
It is a big thing for the family of the person dead and, I would suspect, the police officer concerned. It’s is worth considering whether they should be ‘stood down’ automatically.
If nothing else - to assess the mental health of the officer.
It will also appease family members.
Click to expand...
Some intersting observations and the obsetenance of the IOPC comes as no surprise to me.

In terms of the officer, he/she would be automatically stood down from any firearms duties and should, as a matter of course, be part of a risk management welfare process.

I think the move to suspend him/her from duty entirely is a very unsupportive one and I am sure designed to appease the critical commentators.
 
Told to stop , just stop .........how many times have people on here ignorened the blues & two,s behind them ?, i just stopped once for a tail light 4 mins later no prob , off yer go . or was that white privilidge !!!!
 
Benjiboy said:
Told to stop , just stop .........how many times have people on here ignorened the blues & two,s behind them ?, i just stopped once for a tail light 4 mins later no prob , off yer go . or was that white privilidge !!!!
Click to expand...
Just a Doyle who can't maintain his motor
 
Priv said:
Why are you using the term cover up, assuming the officer is at fault and guilty, we don’t know that yet, maybe the guy was just following protocol, did what he was supposed to and is now being thrown under the bus for other peoples political aspirations.
Click to expand...
Because the Police - and not just the Met - have form for doing everything they can to make sure their officers walk away scott free.

The officer may have acted absolutely 100% correctly - my point was I hope a full, proper and honest investigation is conducted to find out the truth.
 
Benjiboy said:
Told to stop , just stop .........how many times have people on here ignorened the blues & two,s behind them ?, i just stopped once for a tail light 4 mins later no prob , off yer go . or was that white privilidge !!!!
Click to expand...
You were stopped for a tail light, a genuine reason, many times people are stopped for fictitious reasons,I myself was stopped coming out of Yarm ,the excuse was he thought I wasn’t wearing my seat belt,total bullish!t because the position of the patrol car obscured his view of my driving position.I had a car full of lads and ensured that they were all wearing their seatbelts because I knew I was going to be followed and told them so. 5 minutes up the road and here he comes.He then proceeded to breathalise me despite me not having had a drink.So his reason for pulling me over was only a vehicle he could use to stop me. The lads in the car couldn’t believe what had happened.As I got to my car there was at least three other cars much closer to where he was parked but he followed my car,how do explain it.
 
 
Sexpom said:
The keyword there is ‘unarmed’ hopefully justice is done soon and his family can have closure and the officer who shot will be behind bars.
Click to expand...

Prior to their Sept. 5 shift, officers were given a briefing alerting them to the Audi that may have been linked to the previous day’s gun incident.

The car he was driving.

Kaba involved in two shooting in his lifetime. Really hope the officer did everything by the book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top