Home secretary publicly interferes in criminal investigation

[pellinore]

The Home Secretary publicly prejudges a criminal trial with another attack on the UK judiciary. The woman is quite mad. I hope she becomes the next Tory leader (they are overdue a new leader as Sunak has been PM for over a year)-  it would serve as a great figurehead for them and keep them out of power for a decade.

The army is on standby to cover for Met Police firearms officers who are refusing to carry guns after a colleague was charged with murder.

An unnamed marksman was charged this week over the death of Chris Kaba in south London last year, prompting a protest from Met officers who turned in their weapons and stepped back from their duties sparking yet another crisis for Scotland Yard.

It comes as Suella Braverman has been accused of “interfering” in a live prosecution, after commenting on the ongoing case on social media. On Sunday, the home secretary said she had ordered a review into armed policing, adding “we depend on our brave firearms officers to protect us”.

Suella Braverman backs officers handing in guns after Chris Kaba murder charge | The Independent

Edited September 24 by pellinore

[Setton]

18 minutes ago, pellinore said:

The Home Secretary publicly prejudges a criminal trial with another attack on the UK judiciary. The woman is quite mad. I hope she becomes the next Tory leader (they are overdue a new leader as Sunak has been PM for over a year)-  it would serve as a great figurehead for them and keep them out of power for a decade.

The army is on standby to cover for Met Police firearms officers who are refusing to carry guns after a colleague was charged with murder.

An unnamed marksman was charged this week over the death of Chris Kaba in south London last year, prompting a protest from Met officers who turned in their weapons and stepped back from their duties sparking yet another crisis for Scotland Yard.

It comes as Suella Braverman has been accused of “interfering” in a live prosecution, after commenting on the ongoing case on social media. On Sunday, the home secretary said she had ordered a review into armed policing, adding “we depend on our brave firearms officers to protect us”.

Suella Braverman backs officers handing in guns after Chris Kaba murder charge | The Independent

I'm not clear how this is interfering in the ongoing investigation.

The review is in response to the large number of firearms officers who, as a result of the murder charge, have chosen to step away from those voluntary roles, as is their right. There is no reference to the Kaba case, or the officer involved. I also note that the source article describes him as 'unarmed Kaba' and neglects to mention where he used his vehicle as a weapon against officers. But that's a separate issue.

I don't want to see soldiers gunning down British citizens on our streets because police don't feel safe to take on the role. So I'm in favour of whatever is needed to ensure police feel safe to perform their duties, and the public have confidence in those officers.

God knows, I think Braverman is arguably one of the worst secretaries of state in recent history, and a pretty horrendous human being, but I don't see how your criticism is valid in this instance.

[pellinore]

15 minutes ago, Setton said:

I'm not clear how this is interfering in the ongoing investigation.

The review is in response to the large number of firearms officers who, as a result of the murder charge, have chosen to step away from those voluntary roles, as is their right. There is no reference to the Kaba case, or the officer involved. I also note that the source article describes him as 'unarmed Kaba' and neglects to mention where he used his vehicle as a weapon against officers. But that's a separate issue.

I don't want to see soldiers gunning down British citizens on our streets because police don't feel safe to take on the role. So I'm in favour of whatever is needed to ensure police feel safe to perform their duties, and the public have confidence in those officers.

God knows, I think Braverman is arguably one of the worst secretaries of state in recent history, and a pretty horrendous human being, but I don't see how your criticism is valid in this instance.

There is a crystal clear connection between the officer being tried for unlawful killing and the officers subsequently refusing to carry arms. They have said so. Also, the CPS is reluctant to take on cases unless there is a reasonable case to answer. It should go to trial. Braverman is publicly intervening in this particular case- unless you think it a coincidence, and she was always intending to Tweet her support of them before the Kaba trial was announced. 

I'm not anti-police and think they do a difficult job- not particularly well, always, as Sarah Everard's parents could attest, and the women who held a vigil in memory of her.

I can't see a great deal of difference between the army unlawfully killing people or the police doing it. I agree the police have a right to step away from armed response if they feel they can't do it safely- fair enough, lots of people (PSV drivers, surgeons, pilots, etc take risks with public lives and if they feel they can't do it, they should step down).

No, it's just Braverman taking a pot shot at the judiciary. It's entirely in line with her support of law-breaking generally. If she cared about the safety of the police, she would be supporting recruiting safe numbers of them.

The police forces around the country are short of manpower and need public support and consent to do their jobs properly- the Tory policy, and Braverman's in particular, of stoking up divisions is undermining social order.

 

 

[+and-then]

If they genuinely believe one of their own is being falsely accused, then they should go out on strike.  Just refusing to carry weapons seems a bit lame and potentially deadly for more officers.

[Alchopwn]

I am puzzled as to how the police got from following a non-suspect to shooting him?

I could imagine that perhaps the direction Kaba's vehicle was travelling made the police suspicious.  I suppose that if an officer walked in front of the vehicle they were potentially in danger.  If the officer in front of the vehicle believed they were about to be run over, it would be reasonable to fire with lethal force, as a car is a lethal weapon.  We are not being told that Chris Kaba started up the car and was attempting to flee however.  That is about the only scenario where this outcome makes any sense to me.  Does someone else have a better insight perhaps?

[pellinore]

1 hour ago, and-then said:

If they genuinely believe one of their own is being falsely accused, then they should go out on strike.  Just refusing to carry weapons seems a bit lame and potentially deadly for more officers.

They have gone on strike, effectively. London has armed response teams on standby 24 hours- they are no longer part of it.

15 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I am puzzled as to how the police got from following a non-suspect to shooting him?

I could imagine that perhaps the direction Kaba's vehicle was travelling made the police suspicious.  I suppose that if an officer walked in front of the vehicle they were potentially in danger.  If the officer in front of the vehicle believed they were about to be run over, it would be reasonable to fire with lethal force, as a car is a lethal weapon.  We are not being told that Chris Kaba started up the car and was attempting to flee however.  That is about the only scenario where this outcome makes any sense to me.  Does someone else have a better insight perhaps?

These are all questions which will be answered by the courts.

Instead, Braverman has publicly pre-judged it by effectively saying: 'armed police have to make snap judgments, they may occasionally get it wrong, get over it!' It's a bit like the occasions when an airliner flies into the ground: 'it's a difficult job, everyone's fallible, nothing to investigate, let's move on.' 

She should have spoken to the Met Commissioner privately to offer support. I actually support the police, and I'm glad we have armed response units. I accept occasionally bystanders will get caught in crossfire. But if the CPS feel there should be an investigation into an incident, or that there is evidence to support a criminal trial, the CPS should be allowed to conduct it. We shouldn't be giving judicial powers to ministers and the police.

It is blatant electioneering. She knows how angry people are about our open borders. She knows a lot of people think the problem is not that we kill the odd immigrant, but that we are not killing them by the thousand. She is pandering to them. She doesn't care about the people who are concerned about the rule of law, or law and order, because she knows the Tories are not going to get their vote anyway.

[pellinore]

Here is a summary of the shooting and its aftermath: Who is Chris Kaba and why his fatal shooting led to protests by Met police (msn.com)

 

[Electric Scooter]

10 hours ago, pellinore said:

The Home Secretary publicly prejudges a criminal trial with another attack on the UK judiciary. The woman is quite mad. I hope she becomes the next Tory leader (they are overdue a new leader as Sunak has been PM for over a year)-  it would serve as a great figurehead for them and keep them out of power for a decade.

The army is on standby to cover for Met Police firearms officers who are refusing to carry guns after a colleague was charged with murder.

An unnamed marksman was charged this week over the death of Chris Kaba in south London last year, prompting a protest from Met officers who turned in their weapons and stepped back from their duties sparking yet another crisis for Scotland Yard.

It comes as Suella Braverman has been accused of “interfering” in a live prosecution, after commenting on the ongoing case on social media. On Sunday, the home secretary said she had ordered a review into armed policing, adding “we depend on our brave firearms officers to protect us”.

Suella Braverman backs officers handing in guns after Chris Kaba murder charge | The Independent

I read the article and noted its heavy politicisation.

Therefore I searched for other sources because where politics is involved you always get a distorted narrative made to attack other parties or the government. I would recommend this skill to help you critically evaluate what you are reading.

From a collection of other sources the story behind what occurred is that an armed incident happened the day before being linked to the car being driven. That car was owned by Chris Kaba. It has not been disclosed what happened the day before, the operational decisions going on from senior police officers, or the instructions given to the armed police unit. All we know at this stage is that the police followed his vehicle, and when it stopped they went to extract him. Then for reasons we do not yet understand one of the armed officers fired a bullet through the windscreen killing Chris Kaba with a head shot.

All deaths by armed response are investigated in the UK and in this instance there is a murder investigation underway. That is not the same as saying it was murder, it needs to be proven in a court of law. In response 100 officers have refused to function as armed police. We do not know why they have all essentially refused to work as armed officers at this stage. One would suspect they think the murder investigation is out of order and shows a lack of confidence being placed in them.

Something is going on behind the scenes for them to have given their guns in. 

One thing I will say is that if this is mistake, or a gun hoe police officer, then why do these incidents only ever go on around crime? If Chis Kaba was not involved in the armed offence then why was he letting someone who was use his car? Poor life decisions. And if he was involved and then he has been unlawfully killed then this situation wouldn`t have even arisen if he wasn`t a criminal. That is not to justify an unlawful killing, but to place focus on poor life decisions leading to the scenarios where people are killed in error.

We will never know if that armed officer was given the order to kill on sight. Is there a provision for that in the UK? While it is the more murky side of running a state all countries will encounter that from time to time. Where if they dont take out a serious offender they will continue to commit serious offences. 

Is a murder investigation underway because there was no gun in the vehicle? If so we will get to hear about that as well as the officers account as to why they opened fire. If its a cockup then this will occasionally happen with an armed police response. How does that get dealt with and if things have gone wrong is it right to charge an officer when it does?

Is it cold blooded murder? We do not know at this stage, and neither do the politicians of the Labour Party quick to capitalise on the incident for their own political aims.

[Electric Scooter]

2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

I am puzzled as to how the police got from following a non-suspect to shooting him?

I could imagine that perhaps the direction Kaba's vehicle was travelling made the police suspicious.  I suppose that if an officer walked in front of the vehicle they were potentially in danger.  If the officer in front of the vehicle believed they were about to be run over, it would be reasonable to fire with lethal force, as a car is a lethal weapon.  We are not being told that Chris Kaba started up the car and was attempting to flee however.  That is about the only scenario where this outcome makes any sense to me.  Does someone else have a better insight perhaps?

The suspect committed a serious offence the day before, they are extremely dangerous, kill on sight?

[pellinore]

29 minutes ago, Electric Scooter said:

I read the article and noted its heavy politicisation.

Therefore I searched for other sources because where politics is involved you always get a distorted narrative made to attack other parties or the government. I would recommend this skill to help you critically evaluate what you are reading.

From a collection of other sources the story behind what occurred is that an armed incident happened the day before being linked to the car being driven. That car was owned by Chris Kaba. It has not been disclosed what happened the day before, the operational decisions going on from senior police officers, or the instructions given to the armed police unit. All we know at this stage is that the police followed his vehicle, and when it stopped they went to extract him. Then for reasons we do not yet understand one of the armed officers fired a bullet through the windscreen killing Chris Kaba with a head shot.

All deaths by armed response are investigated in the UK and in this instance there is a murder investigation underway. That is not the same as saying it was murder, it needs to be proven in a court of law. In response 100 officers have refused to function as armed police. We do not know why they have all essentially refused to work as armed officers at this stage. One would suspect they think the murder investigation is out of order and shows a lack of confidence being placed in them.

Something is going on behind the scenes for them to have given their guns in. 

One thing I will say is that if this is mistake, or a gun hoe police officer, then why do these incidents only ever go on around crime? If Chis Kaba was not involved in the armed offence then why was he letting someone who was use his car? Poor life decisions. And if he was involved and then he has been unlawfully killed then this situation wouldn`t have even arisen if he wasn`t a criminal. That is not to justify an unlawful killing, but to place focus on poor life decisions leading to the scenarios where people are killed in error.

We will never know if that armed officer was given the order to kill on sight. Is there a provision for that in the UK? While it is the more murky side of running a state all countries will encounter that from time to time. Where if they dont take out a serious offender they will continue to commit serious offences. 

Is a murder investigation underway because there was no gun in the vehicle? If so we will get to hear about that as well as the officers account as to why they opened fire. If its a cockup then this will occasionally happen with an armed police response. How does that get dealt with and if things have gone wrong is it right to charge an officer when it does?

Is it cold blooded murder? We do not know at this stage, and neither do the politicians of the Labour Party quick to capitalise on the incident for their own political aims.

I agree with this, except your second sentence. Seems like you agree with me, too. I wonder if the Home Sec speaking out in support of the Met just after this incident was an attempt to prejudge the trial, or whether it was just a coincidence and she was going to Tweet her support anyway in a general way. Perhaps we will never know.

[pellinore]

31 minutes ago, Electric Scooter said:

The suspect committed a serious offence the day before, they are extremely dangerous, kill on sight?

A licence to kill, like James Bond has, eh? Only exists in fantasy. 

[Alchopwn]

1 hour ago, Electric Scooter said:

The suspect committed a serious offence the day before, they are extremely dangerous, kill on sight?

Did Chris Kaba even look like the suspect tho?  And who in the police force gets a kill on sight order, let alone in the UK? 

[Setton]

8 hours ago, and-then said:

If they genuinely believe one of their own is being falsely accused, then they should go out on strike.  Just refusing to carry weapons seems a bit lame and potentially deadly for more officers.

Police are legally forbidden from going on strike in this country.

But the AR role is voluntary, so they've stepped away from that until they feel safe to perform their duties.

[Setton]

7 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

If the officer in front of the vehicle believed they were about to be run over, it would be reasonable to fire with lethal force, as a car is a lethal weapon.  We are not being told that Chris Kaba started up the car and was attempting to flee however. 

That's exactly what happened. Just the politicised articles conveniently leave that out. He used his car to try and smash through a roadblock, at which point he was shot.

[Alchopwn]

15 hours ago, Setton said:

That's exactly what happened. Just the politicised articles conveniently leave that out. He used his car to try and smash through a roadblock, at which point he was shot.

 

Well if that IS what happened then Kaba brought the lethal response on himself.  Play GTA IRL, get shot dead IRL.

Edited September 26 by Alchopwn

[pellinore]

21 hours ago, Electric Scooter said:

The suspect committed a serious offence the day before, they are extremely dangerous, kill on sight?

17 hours ago, Setton said:

That's exactly what happened. Just the politicised articles conveniently leave that out. He used his car to try and smash through a roadblock, at which point he was shot.

 

1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

Well if that IS what happened then Kaba brought the lethal response on himself.  Play GTA IRL, get shot dead IRL.

We don't know what exactly happened, which is why it is going to trial. The "Lefty lawyers" agree with me, though I'm sure the man in the street will think he was just 'in the wrong place at the wrong time.' The view that she was 'just showing support' is unheard of by a government minister at the start of a criminal trial. She didn't Tweet support for Lucy Letsby, for example, saying working in paediatric ITU was a difficult and stressful job.

A police officer has been charged with the murder of Chris Kaba in London last year. That’s all that can be said about the case, as it is “live” and any further comment is likely to impact on the judge and jury’s decision making. Saying anything more could amount to contempt of court – and may lead to the Attorney General prosecuting you.

You might think that’s sufficient clarity to offer a deterrent to those on social media for them to minimise their commentary. Not so, for the home secretary, Suella Braverman – who tweeted a thread which expressed support for firearms officers who, she acknowledged, have a difficult job.

In one view (and that of every criminal lawyer I have spoken to) she has overstepped the mark by prejudging the case and thereby potentially prejudicing it.

Every lawyer I’ve spoken to thinks Suella Braverman has overstepped the mark with her Chris Kaba tweet | The Independent (archive.ph)

Edited September 26 by pellinore

[Setton]

5 hours ago, pellinore said:

We don't know what exactly happened, which is why it is going to trial.

 

Quote

Locals described how police used their own cars to box in the Audi Q8 while shouting at the driver to get out.

But witnesses claimed the driver ignored police requests to give himself up and when he attempted to ram his way out of the roadblock, officers opened fire.

Are you suggesting the witnesses fabricated their statements?

As I understand it, the prosecution depends on whether Kaba ramming the roadblock was justification for the shot, not whether he did so or not.

[pellinore]

34 minutes ago, Setton said:

 

Are you suggesting the witnesses fabricated their statements?

As I understand it, the prosecution depends on whether Kaba ramming the roadblock was justification for the shot, not whether he did so or not.

Oh well, we don't need a trial then, you've sorted it! As Braverman says, they are doing a difficult job under difficult circumstances, nothing to see here, time to move on, lessons will be learned. The point of the trial is not to dispute whether he was shot, or even if he deserved to be shot- it is whether he should have been shot.

Firearms police: What's the law when officers open fire? - BBC News

Edited September 26 by pellinore

[Setton]

2 hours ago, pellinore said:

Oh well, we don't need a trial then, you've sorted it! As Braverman says, they are doing a difficult job under difficult circumstances, nothing to see here, time to move on, lessons will be learned. The point of the trial is not to dispute whether he was shot, or even if he deserved to be shot- it is whether he should have been shot.

Firearms police: What's the law when officers open fire? - BBC News

Of course the trial is to establish whether he should have been shot!

You're not arguing the justification, you're arguing the facts. There are multiple witness statements that he drove his car at officers to break through the roadblock. Yet you're trying to act like no one has any idea what happened.

And all of this is irrelevant because, again, Braverman's comments relate to the officers who no longer feel confident to carry weapons, not the officer accused of murder.

[pellinore]

13 minutes ago, Setton said:

Of course the trial is to establish whether he should have been shot!

You're not arguing the justification, you're arguing the facts. There are multiple witness statements that he drove his car at officers to break through the roadblock. Yet you're trying to act like no one has any idea what happened.

And all of this is irrelevant because, again, Braverman's comments relate to the officers who no longer feel confident to carry weapons, not the officer accused of murder.

Tbh, I haven't a clue about the details, I haven't read anything about it or watched a news programme about it. All I know is that a police officer shot someone dead and is being investigated on a murder charge. Whether the perp deserved it is neither here nor there from the point of my argument.

The point is that the armed police are the only striking civil servants that Braverman has supported. And she has done so while a criminal investigation has started. Why? To make the point that the Tories support law and order, and in the hope that "Loony Lefties" will protest at her actions, so striking a blow in the culture war, which is one of their main electoral strategies.