-
It's fascinating that this issue is absolutely clear to so many people, but in completely opposite directions. I can't work out if that's a sign that the answer really isn't obvious or that people are just bringing their own biases to it really hard.
Can I ask what you think the purpose of armed officers is if not to confront people who might have lethal weapons and/or have possibly recently been involved in violent crime?
ffm-
It's fascinating that this issue is absolutely clear to so many people, but in completely opposite directions.
I thought the same.
Another paradoxical part is that his criminal past wasn't reported at the time as the police couldn't have known it was him driving, yet was revealed after to 'calm emotions in the community' or something like that.
As if it's OK because a bad guy was killed, despite the fact they didn't know it was him at the time.
(Small edit for clarity) -
The very baseline issue here is that the cost of non-compliance should not be extrajudicial killing (except maybe in situations of extreme risk of harm / death).
The contentious part seems to be whether people believe Kaba was trying to get away or whether there was real risk of harm / death to the officers. It might have been scary for the officers but I'm not convinced it reached a threshold that lethal force was required.
It's pretty obvious why there are armed response units. I think rather there's a disagreement on whether they acted proportionally or lawfully, or whether infact it was an abuse of police powers and a miscarriage of justice.
And you know what ...it's possible to say all this AND think crooks who do bad things are bad. Go figure
abr
🅑🅐🅣🅣
What in hot hell judge dredd is this thread. Anyone defendng a street side execution of anybody should be ashamed. The verdict was arrived at because Blake convinced the jury he shot to stop (and protect) and killed by accident, which – as others have attested to here given proximity, training and proficiency of AFOs – is unlikely.
Car was identified as connected to a violent gun crime, but driver was not identified. Officers took a risk to assume therefore that Kaba (unidentified) was in some way a threat due to associated likelihood for presence of a firearm. IMO the risk that the FA officers took was unacceptable given that there are multiple other protocols to deal with the sort of situation the officers found themselves in (where a vehicle is being driven away, not at officer).
And no, stopping someone with lethal force to avoid a chase is not an acceptable action. The litmus for this is if the officer had been found to have shot him in the head deliberately the jury would have likely returned a different verdict.
Guns dont kill people, etc etc.