Met Police (London PD) firearms officers turning in their weapons following Chris Kaba murder charge - An officer was charged with murder after Chris Kaba was shot dead last year after he drove his Audi into a marked police car.

Metropolitan Police firearms officers have been handing in their weapons after a force marksman was charged with the murder of Chris Kaba.

Mr Kaba, 24, died in Streatham Hill, southeast London, in September last year after he was shot through an Audi windscreen.

The officer accused of his murder, named only as NX121 after an anonymity order was granted by a district judge, appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court and the Old Bailey on Thursday.

Earlier it was reported Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley met with 70 firearms officers who operate across London following the murder charge saying many of them were "understandably anxious" following the decision.

It has since been revealed a number of officers have "taken the decision to step back from armed duties" and that this number "has increased in the last 48 hours".

The force also said it was "exploring contingencies" to cope with a potential dearth of armed officers "should they be required".

A Met Police spokesperson said: "Senior officers, including the Commissioner, have been meeting with firearms officers in recent days as they reflect on the CPS decision to charge NX121 with murder.

"Many are worried about how the decision impacts on them, on their colleagues and on their families.

"They are concerned that it signals a shift in the way the decisions they take in the most challenging circumstances will be judged.

"A number of officers have taken the decision to step back from armed duties while they consider their position. That number has increased over the past 48 hours.

"We are in ongoing discussions with those officers to support them and to fully understand the genuinely held concerns that they have.

"The Met has a significant firearms capability and we continue to have armed officers deployed in communities across London as well as at other sites including Parliament, diplomatic premises, airports etc."

'It is a difficult and fine line senior officers have to take'

Sky News policing commentator Graham Wettone said: "Officers on the frontline do not feel they have the support and backing of their senior leaders.

"Senior leaders are very quick to come out and make statements supporting families and loved ones, but the actual officers involved do not feel they are receiving support.

"It is a difficult and fine line senior officers have to take but there seems to be a lack of public support for the officers while investigations are ongoing.

"This has led to officers deciding they no longer want to, for example, drive police cars or carry weapons. Those skills are voluntary, they don't have to do them and now we are seeing some choose not to."

In the moments before the shooting, Mr Kaba had driven into Kirkstall Gardens and collided with a marked police car.

The officer fired one shot and hit Mr Kaba in the head.

NX121 was released on bail on the conditions that he lives at a named address, surrenders his passport and does not apply for international travel documents.

A plea and trial preparation hearing will be listed for December 1, with a possible trial date of September 9 next year.


 
For everyone thinking the dissolution of the Met will be an improvement think again. Not only is Sadiq Khan giving the existing force his ULEZ camera data, as always was going to be the case, but he would be 100% on board with getting rid of them and replacing them with a private group answerable only to him/his personal allies.

We're not going to get "defund the police" in London, we're going to get acceleration to 1984.
 
So they won't protect your daughter from paki rape gangs, they'll arrest your elderly mother for calling a troon a man and now they won't even drive a police cry to respond in time when your being burglarized. British cops are a fucking joke.

Here have some civil disobedience to thugs with badges.
View attachment 5359155
This was a scene for a film and NOT REAL.

For once.
 
So they won't protect your daughter from paki rape gangs, they'll arrest your elderly mother for calling a troon a man and now they won't even drive a police cry to respond in time when your being burglarized. British cops are a fucking joke.

Here have some civil disobedience to thugs with badges.
From a TV show you dumb nigger.
English cops have to uphold some retarded laws but this is an instance in which they should be applauded. Glad the Met are doing this, at least they're resisting a dumb charge for one of their colleagues.
"If you want to charge my colleague with murder then we'll all quit this squad and leave you vulnerable." Kinda based.
 
  • Like
Reactions: quackrock
What's the point of the officers doing this? If one of them kills a man they refuse to do their jobs?

They aren't the jury and this sounds like a tactic to avoid consequences by them if they make poor choices by trying to force charges not to be made.

Thats corrupt. Perhaps they need to look more closely at the cops turning in their guns.
 
BTW: Chris Kaba, also known as 'Mad Itch' was (LOL) a member of a notorious Brixton gang called 67.
Retard led police on a chase in an Audi which had been linked to a shooting the day before, ended up trapped in a cul de sac and tried to a ram a police officer's car in order to escape. Took a dirt nap in response... good riddance.
 
Why do people even fear the Britbong "police"?
To me, it seems like the only people they can arrest are grandmas who refuse to suck the girldick, because as soon as a crackhead with a knife shows up all of them run for the hills scared shitless.
Because civilized people follow laws and are reasonable. They're not street niggers and pavement shitters swinging knives and machetes. A porch monkey screaming and shitting and swinging a blade doesn't need to worry about being arrested, being run through a kangaroo court, having the money automatically deducted, then the bank dropping them saying they're a risk, and then thrown in jail for an arbitrary amount of time.
 
What's the point of the officers doing this? If one of them kills a man they refuse to do their jobs?

They aren't the jury and this sounds like a tactic to avoid consequences by them if they make poor choices by trying to force charges not to be made.

Thats corrupt. Perhaps they need to look more closely at the cops turning in their guns.
Go back to reddit, faggot.
 
Can't get charged with murder for one-tapping someone trying to run you over if you don't have a gun.
If I am not mistaken, Chris drove his car into another car - not a police officer; he was boxed in and the officers were on foot and he was trying to escape by ramming through the roadblock. I'm not sure under UK law if a person is able to be shot for that. So the letter of the law is going to apply in this situation and the UK law may or may not call it OK for the officer to use deadly force or not.
 
If I am not mistaken, Chris drove his car into another car - not a police officer;
You are. Just because he missed the officer, doesn't mean he wasn't trying to run him over.
The evidence further suggests that officer NX121 was standing to the front of Mr Kaba’s vehicle. A single shot was fired by officer NX121 piercing the front windscreen of the vehicle Mr Kaba was driving.”
“The evidence suggests that contact was made between the Audi driven by Mr Kaba and the police vehicles.
I'm not sure under UK law if a person is able to be shot for that. So the letter of the law is going to apply in this situation and the UK law may or may not call it OK for the officer to use deadly force or not.
Shockingly, I don't care about the letter of the law in the UK. Clearly the former armed patrol officers don't either.
 
Thread is surprisingly negative. I get that this confirms that the bobbies are basically beholden to criminal Good Boys yet again but the actual outcome of this news is a total win in my book.

The British police were founded on the ideal that "The police are the public and the public are the police." That's obviously idealistic today to say the least but anything that in practice removes the police's privilege over the public with respect to weapons is good to me. If law-abiding citizens can't have guns for self defence the police shouldn't either, and they're not likely to be using that gun to protect you anyway.

The 6th of the 9 founding "Peel Principles" of the police is:
  • To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
and while the British police forces are by and large a bunch of petty bullies that only go after people who stand up for themselves, the one thing I'll give to them is that they're not the American police, who are a bunch of hyper-paranoid simpletons who only know how to escalate situations and can get away with murder because they pretty much felt like it. Basically nobody gets killed by the police in the UK and given what they're like I'd like to keep it that way because you know who they'd kill if they were allowed to get away with it.

If the police don't do their job in protecting the safety and property (LOL, as if) of normal people, they don't deserve the tools for that job. The only downside I can see is a potential loss to the police's safety and that's not my problem.
 
Thread is surprisingly negative. I get that this confirms that the bobbies are basically beholden to criminal Good Boys yet again but the actual outcome of this news is a total win in my book.

The British police were founded on the ideal that "The police are the public and the public are the police." That's obviously idealistic today to say the least but anything that in practice removes the police's privilege over the public with respect to weapons is good to me. If law-abiding citizens can't have guns for self defence the police shouldn't either, and they're not likely to be using that gun to protect you anyway.

The 6th of the 9 founding "Peel Principles" of the police is:
  • To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
and while the British police forces are by and large a bunch of petty bullies that only go after people who stand up for themselves, the one thing I'll give to them is that they're not the American police, who are a bunch of hyper-paranoid simpletons who only know how to escalate situations and can get away with murder because they pretty much felt like it. Basically nobody gets killed by the police in the UK and given what they're like I'd like to keep it that way because you know who they'd kill if they were allowed to get away with it.

If the police don't do their job in protecting the safety and property (LOL, as if) of normal people, they don't deserve the tools for that job. The only downside I can see is a potential loss to the police's safety and that's not my problem.
Threads like this make me glad I can carry a handgun in the US for my own protection. Fuck being in an unarmed society with violent criminals. Stay strapped or get clapped.
 
Thread is surprisingly negative. I get that this confirms that the bobbies are basically beholden to criminal Good Boys yet again but the actual outcome of this news is a total win in my book.

The British police were founded on the ideal that "The police are the public and the public are the police." That's obviously idealistic today to say the least but anything that in practice removes the police's privilege over the public with respect to weapons is good to me. If law-abiding citizens can't have guns for self defence the police shouldn't either, and they're not likely to be using that gun to protect you anyway.

The 6th of the 9 founding "Peel Principles" of the police is:
  • To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
and while the British police forces are by and large a bunch of petty bullies that only go after people who stand up for themselves, the one thing I'll give to them is that they're not the American police, who are a bunch of hyper-paranoid simpletons who only know how to escalate situations and can get away with murder because they pretty much felt like it. Basically nobody gets killed by the police in the UK and given what they're like I'd like to keep it that way because you know who they'd kill if they were allowed to get away with it.

If the police don't do their job in protecting the safety and property (LOL, as if) of normal people, they don't deserve the tools for that job. The only downside I can see is a potential loss to the police's safety and that's not my problem.
This is an incredibly naive take. You assume that once criminals know that death is off the table they aren’t going to crank their crime up a few notches. Threat of death is enough to keep most criminals in check. The proof of that is that there are more people in prisons than the cemetery. If they weren’t scared of death they wouldn’t have surrendered. Once death is off the table it’s a free for all. And if you live in London you’re about to experience it first hand. Good luck.
 
"This has led to officers deciding they no longer want to, for example, drive police cars or carry weapons. Those skills are voluntary, they don't have to do them and now we are seeing some choose not to."
If those are the voluntary skills, what's mandatory? Do the ones who can't drive take the tube everywhere?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vecr
You assume that once criminals know that death is off the table they aren’t going to crank their crime up a few notches. Threat of death is enough to keep most criminals in check.
It hasn't been on the table in a meaningful sense in a long time. This action may make the problem worse, but the true problem in question is having a low-trust, high crime society, not having an insufficiently militarised police force. The country got along fine for decades with unarmed police, and I'm not a fan of having an arms race of putting increasingly large sticking plasters over the real problem which is only going to get worse as time goes on. My position is that the more this gets exacerbated the more like it is to push the situation out of an equilibrium position - in other words, the system will have to respond and change in some way. Maybe you could call that a form of accelerationism. I guess I could say I'm in favour of one part of the system staying as static as possible so that the contradictions in the system as a whole can't be masked so easily.
 
The UK is pretty much a dystopian nightmare at this point when it comes to so many things.. The criminal justice system particularly.

Let's be real. This is probably the best they could hope to do there without losing their jobs and maybe even freedom. Hopefully this sends a message to the people at the top and the people in general who vote for them or the people who put them in power.

Why would you want to be a cop in a place like that?
 
Back