In the news

Pretty sure they don't teach aiming for the head

Didn't he say in court that he was aiming for centre mass?

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, that he was crouching down in the seat. It was also reported that part of the bullet was deflected by the windscreen.

Probably teach center body mass but in this case it was stated he was crouched forward.

It is taught but not trained, so to speak. If you are engaging someone with the same level of PPE as you have got then the place to shoot is the head. Officers do not train headshots as a matter of course because they are trained to stop so are trained to shoot the centre of mass however. The area at which to aim at the driver of a Q8, a tall car, is probably limited to the head.

🤷 why are armed police even doing a traffic stop? They had a helicopter ready, this was planned. If they knew so much why not grab him as he got out the car or before it was in public traffic. Why not let him drive off and arrest him later? Fact is this guy hasn't been proven guilty of anything and the police did a shoddy job of stopping his car then panicked and shot the guy in the head. Incredibly bad precedent imo.

Kaba's criminal history has been released. Full story in the Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-shot-man-in-club-and-was-alleged-core-member-of-london-gang If you read the whole thing I don't reckon you can suspect it was all manufactured to justify the shooting after the event. When I first posted about Kaba in this thread I was unhappy about the verdict. But now I'm not sorry that Kaba's dead. Good riddance. I'm still not happy about him being shot when he wasn't IMO a threat to officers' lives. But the way he lived he was asking for a violent death.

The evidence presented in court said they didn't know who was driving the car. So they didn't.

I don't know. I'm not interested and have no dog in this fight.

They didn’t know it was him in the car just that the car was involved in a shooting.
If they knew before the car was being driven by a violent criminal who had recently shot someone in a nightclub and carried out a drive by shooting nobody but fools would doubt the police actions.

i had a firearms ticket back in the day when I was in GMP. You are taught to shoot to stop. Winging someone isn't an option and that makes sense if the trigger is being pulled for the correct reason.

If they knew the car was being driven by a violent criminal who had recently shot someone in a nightclub and carried out a drive by shooting

They'd have to actually prove something in a court of law for that.

Totally agree.

There were 18395 firearms ops, 10 with a weapon discharged, year ending March 23. People trying to characterise the ARV as bloodlusting crazy racists is absolutely bizarre. People who end up shot are "illegal gun adjacent", hostage-taking, or involved in a violent criminal act.

Why are potential reasons for ramming a police blockade always "afraid for his life" or "didn't want to go to jail" and not "still buzzing from merking someone in a crowded nightclub , I'm untouchable".

.

You have lost me here.

Are you saying when they are assessing risk they can only include information proved in a court of law?

(The sort of court that has just found the Police Officer not guilty)

They didn't know who was driving so they didn't know who they were shooting. What if one of the gang members had leant it to his grandma?

So he shot another man in a nightclub days before? doesn’t that change things slightly when a known gunman is about to be arrested?
the firearms officer would have know he was likely to be armed and not afraid to shoot.

I'm guessing that the grandma was unlikely to be smashing the Audi back and forth in an attempt to escape the police.

I would say that is the justification for the presence of armed officers but I'm having trouble reconciling the dude employing both hands to manouvre his car away with shooting him as being reaasonable force to prevent a crime

I don't think that bit is relevant, since the Met apparently didn't know who was driving the vehicle before the stop, but that the vehicle was involved in a shooting the night before probably is

Just repeating for this page that neither the police (at the time of the shooting) nor the jury (at the time of the trial) knew that Kaba was a suspect in a shooting in Hackney, so it is not relevant.

The police (and I think the jury), did know that the Q8 Kaba was driving was alleged to be a getaway car in a different shooting in Brixton the day before, which is why the stop was made.

What was the test set for the jury by the judge? I am guessing that the officer reasonably believed his life, or his colleagues lives, were in danger.

It's idiotic to keep driving a car after it has been involved in a public shooting. You're just begging to be stopped by armed police.

In this case, the lethal weapon is the car. He's ramming it back and forth.

Yes he is. However, is it an immediate threat to the officers?Is he driving at them? I coudn't see that and the whole incident was circa 13 seconds. If you go down the shoot to stop a car for being a lethal weapon then you are really saying it is ok to shoot any driver who fails to stop for police and a car chase ensues with that driver driving recklessly