Over 100 armed police officers hand their guns back in.

Absolutely spot on for me.

The arrest/charge of that officer who shot yet another career criminal is an utter farce.

Armed officers are there to do a job let them get on with it and back then.

If some people think the Police are trigger happy wait till the squaddies get going.
I could understand a manslaughter charge, but murder implies an element of premeditation and surely not?
 
I could understand a manslaughter charge, but murder implies an element of premeditation and surely not?
It’s a farce mate it really is.

Just watching an article on BBC news about drink drivers who killed people.

One tosser high on alcohol/drugs filming himself doing 121mph at one stage through a built up area mowed down a young pregnant girl he killed both instantly.

He got 6 years 3 months so he’ll be out in just 3 years time yet this Police officer doing his job could get 25 years.

Utter farce.
 
Last edited:
This is why I’m generally against arming all police officers as inevitably there will be mistakes in the heat of the moment & some trigger happy cops. The specialist armed police are necessary & should be accountable for their actions. I haven’t seen all the documented evidence surrounding this case so I’m unable to draw a sensible conclusion. If & it’s a big if the person who was shot tried escape capture for whatever reason he must bear some of the blame for the shooting. I’d also like to see the evidence surrounding the car being used in a gun related incident. The Met however have not given me great confidence in their ability to tell the truth of late & I think this is coming back to bite them. It’ll have to be a proper enquiry. I can also understand the reaction of many officers handling in their firearms certificates, as on face value why risk your job/life in a tough situation & get unjustly punished for doing just that. As a genuine person that would be my take. But whether they are genuine is the question the enquiry must answer.
 
It’s a farce mate it really is.

Just watching an article on BBC news about drink drivers who killed people.

One tosser high on alcohol/drugs filming himself doing 121mph at one stage through a built up area mowed down a young pregnant girl he killed both instantly.

He got 6 years 3 months so he’ll be out in just 3 years time yet this Police officer doing his job could get 25 years.

Utter farce.
Disgusting
 
The thing is, these Firearms officers will have been vetted to the hilt, they will all be outstanding officers and probably decent people too. The decision to take someone’s life can’t be easy especially which the time they have to make this decision. Taking a life will be a life changing experience for both the officer and his target. If you give them that responsibility then surely they should be backed 100%.
 
The thing is, these Firearms officers will have been vetted to the hilt, they will all be outstanding officers and probably decent people too. The decision to take someone’s life can’t be easy especially which the time they have to make this decision. Taking a life will be a life changing experience for both the officer and his target. If you give them that responsibility then surely they should be backed 100%.
I dare say most of them are ok, but you can't generalise to that extent.
 
I just don’t know all the details on this. It’s too early to be certain or take a view.

“Career criminal”? Who says so? I have not seen any such statements in the media. If the car was suspected of being used in a gun crime then the dead guy probably knew and associated with a criminal. That may not make him one.

He was a rapper. Commonly associated with criminals? Maybe. Maybe not. The first rap hit single was by Blondie, but I don’t consider Debbie a career criminal.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not tend to persecute policemen. There has been a very intensive investigation with interviews, there must have been body-worn or dashboard camera footage. They must think the evidence is there for a murder charge. Maybe they are pushing the murder charge thinking they will get manslaughter? Maybe the prosecution is being made just to defuse racial tension? If so, that’s unfair.

Perhaps the dead man made suspicious hand movements making the policeman think people were in danger? I understand his car and a police car collided. Maybe he was just frightened and tried to get away? Did the police ram him? No other armed policeman fired. And there were a few others present.

But if the cop fired without there being any perceived risk of harm to himself and others he has to be tried, I feel. Those are the rules. You don’t sign up to carry a gun with the promotions involved without accepting the responsibility for your decision making, especially in killing someone.

All this will come out in a public criminal trial so the jury will eventually be able to make a fair and balanced decision.

The Met has some bad form in shooting people and then making up wicked lies to cover themselves in the past. They seem not to have done so this time. Why? Culture shift? Or could they not justify it to themselves this time?

Remember Jean Charles de Menezes? Innocent Brazilian plumber executed on the London Underground by mistake. Then the Met police said, in immediate press statements and TV interviews, that he was wearing a bulky jacket inferring him as a suicide bomber, saying he ran and jumped ticket barriers, sweating and acting jumpily and very suspiciously on the train etc. All shown to be lies or, at best, gross errors of reporting back to Cressida Dick in charge of the operation and making the decisions. Yet no-one in the Met was brought to account for their actions that day. Dick got promoted to the top job… and proved useless.

Or Stephen Waldorf, the Mini car passenger, shot 6 times in a case of mistaken identity by 3 Met policemen? He was lucky to survive, the police fired 14 times without warning and missed with most shots. The driver was also put at risk. Those policemen were all charged with attempted murder and causing GBH. They were acquitted and later reinstated, though their firearms authorisations were revoked permanently.

So, I will not rush to support or condemn. Let the jury decide in a fair trial with all the evidence before them. That’s what we all believe in, isn’t it? I am sure the Met will not withhold any helpful evidence in this case.

I reckon the dead man’s character will be damned in court, in the worst possible light, by the defence and the policeman will be acquitted. Just like rape victims’ characters have been in the past. Then there will be more upheaval.
 
Last edited:
It’s a farce mate it really is.

Just watching an article on BBC news about drink drivers who killed people.

One tosser high on alcohol/drugs filming himself doing 121mph at one stage through a built up area mowed down a young pregnant girl he killed both instantly.

He got 6 years 3 months so he’ll be out in just 3 years time yet this Police officer doing his job could get 25 years.

Utter farce.

If you are talking about the M66 Bury crash in May this year in which a pregnant woman was killed, there are some discrepancies in your reportage. If it’s another case, then OK.

The driver got 12 years imprisonment and the sentence is being appealed by the CPS for undue leniency in the light of the maximum sentence having been recently increased from 14 years to life imprisonment.

He was not found to have alcohol/drugs in his system. He also admitted guilt to all charges, though he could hardly do otherwise given he provided video of it himself. He was just a reckless tosser.


A man who killed a pregnant woman as he filmed himself speeding at 123mph has been handed a 12-year prison sentence.
Adil Iqbal, 22, was driving with one hand and holding his phone with the other to film himself, possibly to upload to Facebook, as he tailgated and undertook other vehicles and swerved across lanes, reaching a speed of 123mph in his father’s BMW on the M66 in Bury, Greater Manchester, on 13 May.
 
Last edited:
I'm very uneasy about any police being armed.

Look at America and the trigger happy cops, or closer to home in France.

Violence spawns more violence.
 
There are plenty of firearms circulating on the black market, if the police were disarmed there would be even more.
Why? Do you think the police would sell their guns on the black market?

Mind you, they would get a good price for their Heckler & Koch 9mm machine pistols. That might make up for their austerity budget cuts.
 
Why? Do you think the police would sell their guns on the black market?

Mind you, they would get a good price for their Heckler & Koch 9mm machine pistols. That might make up for their austerity budget cuts.
Because the fact that the police will always outgun the criminals is a relatively good reason not to carry a firearm, if you're a criminal.

If you can guarantee that the criminals will always outgun the police, that changes the equation, and more firearms will be carried as a result.
 
Because the fact that the police will always outgun the criminals is a relatively good reason not to carry a firearm, if you're a criminal.

If you can guarantee that the criminals will always outgun the police, that changes the equation, and more firearms will be carried as a result.
I was being facetious. Whoooosh.
 
I just don’t know all the details on this. It’s too early to be certain or take a view.

“Career criminal”? Who says so? I have not seen any such statements in the media. If the car was suspected of being used in a gun crime then the dead guy probably knew and associated with a criminal. That may not make him one.

He was a rapper. Commonly associated with criminals? Maybe. Maybe not. The first rap hit was by Blondie, but I don’t consider Debbie a career criminal.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not tend to persecute policemen. There has been a very intensive investigation with interviews, there must have been body-worn or dashboard camera footage. They must think the evidence is there for a murder charge. Maybe they are pushing the murder charge thinking they will get manslaughter? Maybe the prosecution is being made just to defuse racial tension? If so, that’s unfair.

Perhaps the dead man made suspicious hand movements making the policeman think people were in danger? I understand his car and a police car collided. Maybe he was just frightened and tried to get away? Did the police ram him? No other armed policeman fired. And there were a few others present.

But if the cop fired without there being any perceived risk of harm to himself and others he has to be tried, I feel. Those are the rules. You don’t sign up to carry a gun with the promotions involved without accepting the responsibility for your decision making, especially in killing someone.

All this will come out in a public criminal trial so the jury will eventually be able to make a fair and balanced decision.

The Met has some bad form in shooting people and then making up wicked lies to cover themselves in the past. They seem not to have done so this time. Why? Culture shift? Or could they not justify it to themselves this time?

Remember Jean Charles de Menezes? Innocent Brazilian plumber executed on the London Underground by mistake. Then the police said, in immediate press statements and TV interviews, that he was wearing a bulky jacket inferring him as a suicide bomber, saying he ran and jumped ticket barriers, sweating and acting jumpily and very suspiciously on the train etc. All shown to be lies or, at best, gross errors of reporting back to Cressida Dick in charge of the operation and making the decisions. Yet no-one in the Met was brought to account for their actions that day. Dick got promoted to the top job… and proved useless.

Or Stephen Waldorf, the Mini car passenger, shot 6 times in a case of mistaken identity by 3 Met policemen? He was lucky to survive, the police fired 14 times without warning and missed with most shots. The driver was also put at risk. Those policemen were all charged with attempted murder and causing GBH. They were acquitted and later reinstated, though their firearms authorisations were revoked permanently.

So, I will not rush to support or condemn. Let the jury decide in a fair trial with all the evidence before them. That’s what we all believe in, isn’t it? I am sure the Met will not withhold any helpful evidence in this case.

I reckon the dead man’s character will be damned in court by the defence and the policeman will be acquitted. Then there will be more upheaval.
60B79D01-1468-43F3-9AFD-74DA4083F389.jpg
 
Who says so?

There’s links all over the place of his past if you search.

Certainly no innocent party that’s for sure.

The car was being followed for a reason.
 
I just don’t know all the details on this. It’s too early to be certain or take a view.

“Career criminal”? Who says so? I have not seen any such statements in the media. If the car was suspected of being used in a gun crime then the dead guy probably knew and associated with a criminal. That may not make him one.

He was a rapper. Commonly associated with criminals? Maybe. Maybe not. The first rap hit was by Blondie, but I don’t consider Debbie a career criminal.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) does not tend to persecute policemen. There has been a very intensive investigation with interviews, there must have been body-worn or dashboard camera footage. They must think the evidence is there for a murder charge. Maybe they are pushing the murder charge thinking they will get manslaughter? Maybe the prosecution is being made just to defuse racial tension? If so, that’s unfair.

Perhaps the dead man made suspicious hand movements making the policeman think people were in danger? I understand his car and a police car collided. Maybe he was just frightened and tried to get away? Did the police ram him? No other armed policeman fired. And there were a few others present.

But if the cop fired without there being any perceived risk of harm to himself and others he has to be tried, I feel. Those are the rules. You don’t sign up to carry a gun with the promotions involved without accepting the responsibility for your decision making, especially in killing someone.

All this will come out in a public criminal trial so the jury will eventually be able to make a fair and balanced decision.

The Met has some bad form in shooting people and then making up wicked lies to cover themselves in the past. They seem not to have done so this time. Why? Culture shift? Or could they not justify it to themselves this time?

Remember Jean Charles de Menezes? Innocent Brazilian plumber executed on the London Underground by mistake. Then the police said, in immediate press statements and TV interviews, that he was wearing a bulky jacket inferring him as a suicide bomber, saying he ran and jumped ticket barriers, sweating and acting jumpily and very suspiciously on the train etc. All shown to be lies or, at best, gross errors of reporting back to Cressida Dick in charge of the operation and making the decisions. Yet no-one in the Met was brought to account for their actions that day. Dick got promoted to the top job… and proved useless.

Or Stephen Waldorf, the Mini car passenger, shot 6 times in a case of mistaken identity by 3 Met policemen? He was lucky to survive, the police fired 14 times without warning and missed with most shots. The driver was also put at risk. Those policemen were all charged with attempted murder and causing GBH. They were acquitted and later reinstated, though their firearms authorisations were revoked permanently.

So, I will not rush to support or condemn. Let the jury decide in a fair trial with all the evidence before them. That’s what we all believe in, isn’t it? I am sure the Met will not withhold any helpful evidence in this case.

I reckon the dead man’s character will be damned in court by the defence and the policeman will be acquitted. Then there will be more upheaval.
Thats a really level post to be fair Archi
👍
 
Who says so?

There’s links all over the place of his past if you search.

Certainly no innocent party that’s for sure.

The car was being followed for a reason.
I eventually found that article. It’s from the Telegraph on the 4th November last year. I wonder who leaked all that detail to the press? Some was public domain but not all. There has been a lot of water under the bridge and much investigation in the last 10 months since then.

Also, the article is more nuanced than you imply. Kaba was not accused of conspiracy, he was one of 5 men suspected of it but was not charged. He was not involved in the nightclub attack. But you can be suspected of conspiracy for having been seen having a pint in a pub with someone. Also, I note Kaba had a past criminal record as a 16 or 17 year-old young offender for possessing a firearm. Pretty damning, I agree. But probably holding it for someone else. Gangsters use naive kids like that. Yes, Kaba does not sound like a nice chap.

But all that is irrelevant to the actual incident when he was shot dead. The policeman was either justified in his action or he was not. Until all the evidence of that whole day is presented to the jury we cannot be sure. For example did he say to a fellow officer “I hope we shoot him” implying premeditation?

As I said, I am uncommitted and will not judge. That is why I think a public trial must proceed. That is the way the English justice system works. If anything, to maintain our confidence in the police. If every police shooting was brushed aside, as in Brazil and Argentina as past examples, where do you think we might end up?

I have posted the full text of that Nov 2022 article below. If that is what the defence uses then Kaba will be portrayed as a “career criminal” and his death made to seem “beneficial” to society, to influence the jury. That could stir up a hornets’ nest. But the defence can use that as a legitimate tactic as far as the judge will allow.

The CPS prosecution will seek to limit the circumstances to the events of that day, accepting that officers would be influenced and affected by prior warnings in their pre-operation briefing. As I said, I expect the policeman will be acquitted. But we have to hear all the evidence. Justice has to be seen to be done.




Chris Kaba suspected of involvement in 'nightclub gun attack' days before he was shot dead by police​

The Telegraph can reveal he was allegedly one of five men suspected of conspiring to murder a rival at a party in east London

Chris Kaba, the man shot dead by police in south London in September, is suspected of being involved in a nightclub gun attack just days earlier, The Telegraph can reveal.
The 24-year-old was allegedly one of a group of five men suspected of conspiring to murder a rival at a Notting Hill Carnival after-party held in east London.
The victim was attending an event at the Oval Space nightclub in Cambridge Heath in the early hours of August 30 when the incident took place.
After being shot at on the dancefloor the 23-year-old was chased from the venue into the street by a gunman who shot him twice.
The victim was rushed to the Royal London Hospital in Whitechapel where he was put under armed guard and treated for gunshot wounds to both legs. He survived the attack and is expected to make a full recovery.
Last week four men appeared in court charged with conspiracy to murder.
They appeared at Thames Magistrates Court on October 28 and were remanded into custody.
They are next due to appear at the Old Bailey on November 25 with a trial expected to take place sometime next year.
The Telegraph understands the prosecution case will allege Mr Kaba was involved in the plotting of the attack and was present at the time of the shooting.

The expectant father was shot dead by police on September 5, a week after the nightclub incident, as he was driving an Audi Q8 alone through south London.
At the opening of an inquest into Mr Kaba’s death, held last month, it was revealed that armed officers in an unmarked police car began covertly following the Audi after spotting it parked in the Camberwell Green area of south London.
The vehicle had triggered the police’s Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) system, indicating it had been involved in a firearms incident the day before.
It is not clear whether the car had been linked to the nightclub shooting.
The armed officers followed the vehicle without activating their lights or sirens, intending to carry out an “enforced stop extraction” on the driver when it was deemed appropriate to do so.
The Audi was not owned by Mr Kaba and was not registered in his name, and Scotland Yard said officers were not aware of the identity of the driver at the time.
At around 10.07pm Mr Kaba turned into Kirkstall Gardens, a residential road in the Streatham Hill area of south London, where a marked police armed response vehicle was waiting.
Armed police officers got out of their cars and walked towards the Audi, ordering the driver to also exit his vehicle.
A witness at the scene claimed the driver attempted to escape the roadblock by ramming his vehicle into one of the police cars.
One of the armed officers, identified only as NX121, who was standing in front of Mr Kaba’s car then opened fire.
A statement read out of the inquest said: “A single shot was fired by officer NX121 piercing the front windscreen of the vehicle Mr Kaba was driving and struck him.”
Chris Kaba

The scene in Streatham Hill, south London, where Mr Kaba was shot by armed officers from the Metropolitan Police on September 6 CREDIT: Jonathan Brady/PA Wire
No firearms were discovered in the vehicle after Mr Kaba was shot and his family have suggested his race may have played a part in his death.
The firearms officer was initially placed on restricted duties, but following a backlash from Mr Kaba’s family and members of the community, he was subsequently suspended.
As with all police shootings, the matter was referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) which launched an investigation.
On September 9, four days after the fatal shooting, the IOPC announced it had launched a homicide investigation and the officer was facing a potential murder or manslaughter charge.
Mr Kaba’s family have viewed the body-worn camera footage recorded by the Met Police and have called for a charging decision in the case of the officer to be made as soon as possible.
However, the IOPC has said it could take up to nine months to complete its investigation.
Mr Kaba, whose girlfriend is due to give birth in January, was jailed for four years in 2019 after being convicted of a firearms offence.
He was charged with possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence after shots were fired on 30 December 2017 in the Canning Town area of east London.
He appeared at Snaresbrook Crown Court in January 2019 where he was found guilty of possessing an imitation firearm.
He was sentenced to four years in a Young Offenders Institute but was released on licence the following year.
Chris Kaba

Mr Kaba's death prompted Demonstrators march down Whitehall to Scotland Yard calling for justice CREDIT: Guy Smallman/Getty Images

In August of that year, however, he was returned to jail after he was caught driving without insurance and with a knife in his car.
Because the offences were committed while he was still on licence, he received an extra five months in custody.
Court records also show that in April this year, Mr Kaba was served with a 28-day domestic violence protection order relating to the mother of his unborn child barring him from contacting her on social media or entering the street where she lives.
Mr Kaba’s family have insisted that his past is not relevant to the events that led up to his shooting and have said he would not have been killed if he had been white.
His family have also insisted he had been working hard to turn his life around and harboured ambitions of becoming an architect.
Referring to the incident at the Hackney nightclub a Scotland Yard spokesman said: “Police were called at 4:25am on
Tuesday, 30 August, to reports of a shooting at a nightclub in Temple Street, Hackney. Officers attended along with the London Ambulance Service.
“A 23-year-old man was found with gunshot wounds and taken to hospital where his injuries were assessed as not life-threatening.”
The spokesman confirmed that four men have been charged with conspiracy to murder and are next due to appear in court on November 25.
 
Last edited:
@Ollygon was calling for disarmament, and my post was a response to that.
Saying something makes you uneasy doesn't mean you are calling for it to be stopped. I don't know if that's what he actually wants but it's certainly natural to be uneasy with armed police, I always am if I see one, and In glad we are in a country with strict firearm laws unlike the US
 
Saying something makes you uneasy doesn't mean you are calling for it to be stopped. I don't know if that's what he actually wants but it's certainly natural to be uneasy with armed police, I always am if I see one, and In glad we are in a country with strict firearm laws unlike the US
Yeah, guns make me nervous too.

Imagine visiting a work colleague’s house in Houston, Texas and the conversation with them turns to burglars, a woman being in the house alone, guns in the kitchen drawer and the missus stating quite clearly she would have no problem shooting said burglar dead, as he was forcing the back door, knowing full well and telling me that the police would take no further action.

“And would you like to see my loaded Glock 9mm automatic pistol ?”

Faaaaaaack… no !
 
Last edited:
The thing is, these Firearms officers will have been vetted to the hilt, they will all be outstanding officers and probably decent people too. The decision to take someone’s life can’t be easy especially which the time they have to make this decision. Taking a life will be a life changing experience for both the officer and his target. If you give them that responsibility then surely they should be backed 100%.
Doing masses of personality profiles for work there are a fair few psychos out there; who knows in this case but cannot assume anything. This will have been properly investigated by a outstanding officer who is probably a decent person and they felt the need to pass it onto the CPS.
 
You have to understand that the UK Police are guided by the rule....No Gun, you don't shoot.
Police are taught to only shoot if 'life is in danger'
The officers body cam video will indicate if he followed protocol.....That will be the major part of evidence for the prosecution.

A 'suspect' with an 'expectation' of having a firearm will be held and then asked to exit the vehicle, searched and then moved
This 'suspect' was shot in the car, in the drivers seat, with no firearm....
The angle of the gun, the time taken to shoot and what was said in-between will decide if it's justified.

The time between seeing a gun and a suspect firing a gun is just seconds.....That's seconds to decide if someone is going to kill you.
I can see why other Police want to hand back their guns.....but as Cuthbert says, this will have been investigated before calling it murder.
 
Saying something makes you uneasy doesn't mean you are calling for it to be stopped. I don't know if that's what he actually wants but it's certainly natural to be uneasy with armed police, I always am if I see one, and In glad we are in a country with strict firearm laws unlike the US
That wasn't all he said.
 
I think it is also fair to ask generalised questions like:

What is the motivation to apply to become a police officer? Family tradition reasons? Career advice? Natural leadership?
What type of person applies to become a police officer? Or is there even a prevalent “type”?
How does the police training and culture affect a person's behaviour? Is it meant to?
What type of person and attitude tends to lead to them becoming promoted, thus encouraging such behaviours in others? Is this the “Met culture” that has been criticised ?

And what encourages a police officer to become a Firearms Officer?
Is it that they are regarded as the elite? Better pay, promotion? Looks good on the CV? More interesting/exciting work? Enjoyable team work?
Or is it simply a machismo thing? I have to admit to not understanding the motivation, perhaps it's a range of reasons for different people.

I am sure someone like Bendit-like-Suddick could offer us some real insight and understanding. If he wishes to.
Clearly, the Met has accepted and tolerated some evil psychopaths like Couzens and Carrick, how does one spot them and weed them out?
 
Last edited:
The thing is, these Firearms officers will have been vetted to the hilt, they will all be outstanding officers and probably decent people too. The decision to take someone’s life can’t be easy especially which the time they have to make this decision. Taking a life will be a life changing experience for both the officer and his target. If you give them that responsibility then surely they should be backed 100%.
Wayne Couzens was an authorised firearms officer. He murdered Sarah Everard.

David Carrick was an authorised firearms officer. He sexually abused countless women.

That’s two serious convicted criminals who wore police uniforms and who were authorised to carry and use firearms.

That’s not a comment on the officer facing charges currently by the way. Or this incident. It’s a comment on your claim that it’s guaranteed firearms officers will always be “outstanding officers and probably decent people too”.
 
I think it is also fair to ask generalised questions like:

What is the motivation to apply to become a police officer?
What type of person applies to become a police officer?
How does the police training and culture affect a person's behaviour?
What type of person and attitude tends to lead to them becoming promoted, thus encouraging such behaviours in others?

And what encourages a police officer to become a Firearms Officer?
Is it that they are regarded as the elite? Better pay, promotion? Looks good on the CV? More interesting/exciting work? Enjoyable team work?
Or is it simply a machismo thing? I have to admit to not understanding the motivation, perhaps it's a range of reasons for different people.

I am sure someone like Bendit-like-Suddick could offer us some real insight and understanding. If he wishes to.
Clearly, the Met has accepted and tolerated some evil psychopaths like Couzens and Carrick, how does one spot them and weed them out?
It’d never happen but part of me wonders whether only female police officers should be authorised to carry firearms. It’d weed out the John Wayne wannabes that’s for sure (unless their first name is Marion).
 
Wayne Couzens was an authorised firearms officer. He murdered Sarah Everard.

David Carrick was an authorised firearms officer. He sexually abused countless women.

That’s two serious convicted criminals who wore police uniforms and who were authorised to carry and use firearms.

That’s not a comment on the officer facing charges currently by the way. Or this incident. It’s a comment on your claim that it’s guaranteed firearms officers will always be “outstanding officers and probably decent people too”.
Unfortunately the odd bad apple can slip through the net as you’ve shown above.
 
Everyone is subject to the law, including Police Officers, I would have thought the Home Secretary would have known that.

The Policeman is innocent until proved guilty, as many on here have previously said about others. Not even any of the stirring press have alleged that the victim had a weapon. The Policeman's defence may well be that he thought he was reaching for a weapon, the fact that the CPS thinks there is a reasonable chance of conviction looks like the evidence of this is at least dodgy.

I have gone on record on here before saying that, with the exception of at the football, the police with whom I have had professional and personal dealings have been superb. However, the armed units in both the Met and Scotland have taken a huge hammering recently for mysogenistic, testosterone fuelled behaviors.
 
Back
Top