As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting >to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was >lying, quite unnecessarily.
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a >failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
On 22 Oct 2024 17:58:35 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting >> to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.
I'm not sure that he actually said that he was specifically aiming to
disable rather than kill. I think that's a gloss put on it by the media reports. I suspect that what he actually said was that he was simply aiming to hit, rather than specifically to kill, and that disabling the driver
would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome.
Mark
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police- officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
On 22/10/2024 18:00, Fredxx wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-
officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a
failed prosecution.
For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
He said he didn't intend to kill.
But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger from
that.
The jury clearly agreed.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified. Certainly
the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his criminal past.
On 22 Oct 2024 at 19:05:52 BST, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2024 17:58:35 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting
to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was >>> lying, quite unnecessarily.
I'm not sure that he actually said that he was specifically aiming to
disable rather than kill. I think that's a gloss put on it by the media
reports. I suspect that what he actually said was that he was simply aiming >> to hit, rather than specifically to kill, and that disabling the driver
would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome.
That makes a great deal of sense, and is almost the opposite of what was >reported by the previous poster. It is clearly stopping the person that is >important, and there is no reason for particularly wanting to kill him, that >is just a common side effect of stopping people with bullets.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a >notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else in
a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well have >been, and his actions were in my view totally justified. Certainly the
jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his
criminal past.
On 22 Oct 2024 18:41:18 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2024 at 19:05:52 BST, "Mark Goodge" >><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 22 Oct 2024 17:58:35 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
In the police situation the only aim would be for the centre of mass
as seen through the windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. >>>>Shooting
to wound would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was >>>> lying, quite unnecessarily.
I'm not sure that he actually said that he was specifically aiming to
disable rather than kill. I think that's a gloss put on it by the media
reports. I suspect that what he actually said was that he was simply aiming >>> to hit, rather than specifically to kill, and that disabling the driver
would have been a perfectly acceptable outcome.
That makes a great deal of sense, and is almost the opposite of what was >>reported by the previous poster. It is clearly stopping the person that is >>important, and there is no reason for particularly wanting to kill him, that >>is just a common side effect of stopping people with bullets.
This report from the Evenin Stannit is one which supports that >interpretation:
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/chris-kaba-police-shooting-murder- >trial-martyn-blake-old-bailey-streatham-b1187695.html
or https://tinyurl.com/2rsu5je5
He told the court he had aimed his gun above the steering wheel to give
the best chance of hitting the central body mass of the driver, as
officers are trained.
Asked by Mr Gibbs if he had intended to kill Mr Kaba, he replied: "No."
He acknowledged that taking a shot into the central body mass at that
range could be fatal.
In other words, he was aiming for the best chance to hit, rather than >specifically to kill, but was aware that death was a possible outcome.
On 22 Oct 2024 at 19:15:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 22/10/2024 18:00, Fredxx wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police- >>> officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.
You have missed out all the factors that might make it manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Irrelevant in this case as it was clearly self-defence.
Because none of these were raised I assume it was not open to the jury to give
a manslaughter verdict.
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a >>> failed prosecution.
For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.
I think you miss the point that juries usually give a verdict of manslaughter when the actual killing is not disputed but the killer has claimed provocation, mental illness or something of the sort. Not when the jury is not
sure they've done it.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
He said he didn't intend to kill.
He may have said that but that in itself was not a defence to murder. He did intend to use potentially lethal force that he knew was likely to cause severe
harm or death, so if it had not been self-defence (or manslaughter for a a different, not raised, reason) then it would still have potentially been murder even if he didn't intend to kill.
But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger from
that.
The jury clearly agreed.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a
notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the news. >>
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified. Certainly
the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his
criminal past.
On 22 Oct 2024 at 19:15:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 22/10/2024 18:00, Fredxx wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police- >>> officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.
You have missed out all the factors that might make it manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Irrelevant in this case as it was clearly self-defence.
Because none of these were raised I assume it was not open to the jury to give
a manslaughter verdict.
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a >>> failed prosecution.
For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.
I think you miss the point that juries usually give a verdict of manslaughter when the actual killing is not disputed but the killer has claimed provocation, mental illness or something of the sort. Not when the jury is not
sure they've done it.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
He said he didn't intend to kill.
He may have said that but that in itself was not a defence to murder. He did intend to use potentially lethal force that he knew was likely to cause severe
harm or death, so if it had not been self-defence (or manslaughter for a a different, not raised, reason) then it would still have potentially been murder even if he didn't intend to kill.
On 22/10/2024 18:00, Fredxx wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-
officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention
to kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at
the chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure
a failed prosecution.
For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
He said he didn't intend to kill. But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger from
that.
The jury clearly agreed.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the
news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified. Certainly
the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any knowledge of his criminal past.
I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the prosecution
as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming to light as
they would in a criminal court.
However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.
On 22/10/2024 19:57, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 22 Oct 2024 at 19:15:35 BST, "Norman Wells" <hex@unseen.ac.am> wrote:
On 22/10/2024 18:00, Fredxx wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police- >>>> officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence or
of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of some
harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to shoot
others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply.
You have missed out all the factors that might make it manslaughter by reason
of diminished responsibility. Irrelevant in this case as it was clearly
self-defence.
Because none of these were raised I assume it was not open to the jury to give
a manslaughter verdict.
The judge didn't allow the prosecution to get their way, for a charge of manslaughter to be available to the jury.
And they only asked the judge after Blake gave his testimony.
I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the
prosecution as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming
to light as they would in a criminal court.
However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.
There are two cases I think should have gone to court in the same way,
namely the deaths of Harry Stanley and Mark Duggan. At least in Blake's actions there is body-cam footage that I feel exonerates him. Shamefully
any witnesses to Mark Duggan's extra judicial murder were told, or made
to look elsewhere.
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to >>>> kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a >>>> failed prosecution.
For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should also
have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the same
facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be reluctant
to convict for murder but may well settle for second best because there
is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle for that
regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they probably
don't appreciate anyway.
I think you miss the point that juries usually give a verdict of manslaughter
when the actual killing is not disputed but the killer has claimed
provocation, mental illness or something of the sort. Not when the jury is not
sure they've done it.
The point is still valid. If there is uncertainty over intent, then the result will be manslaughter rather than murder.
On 22/10/2024 in message <vf8v7h$1k811$1@dont-email.me> Fredxx wrote:
I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the prosecution
as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming to light as
they would in a criminal court.
However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.
It may be a question of justice being seen to be served as there is
clearly an element of the community who are unhappy about this?
I don't have an issue with what happened, Kaba was effectively using his
car as a weapon. I would go as far to say I would support the
prosecution as I am tired of deaths happening without the facts coming
to light as they would in a criminal court.
However I'm not sure why the IOPC are considering disciplinary action.
The point is still valid. If there is uncertainty over intent, then the >result will be manslaughter rather than murder.
On 22 Oct 2024 at 20:42:41 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
The point is still valid. If there is uncertainty over intent, then the
result will be manslaughter rather than murder.
In principle, yes. But if a) you know what guns do and b) you shoot *at* >someone then intent (to cause serious, life-threatening injury) is amply >proved for murder, unless (as in this case) you have a valid excuse for >intending serious injury. I really do not see that any lesser intent is >remotely possible.
On 22/10/2024 07:15 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
On 22/10/2024 18:00, Fredxx wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-
police- officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
Because manslaughter has to be the result either of gross negligence
or of conduct taking the form of an illegal act involving a danger of
some harm that resulted in the death.
He was a duly authorised firearms officer obviously authorised to
shoot others who are endangering life. Neither therefore seems to apply. >>
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention
to kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at
the chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to
ensure a failed prosecution.
For the reasons given above, a prosecution for manslaughter should
also have failed.
I think alternative verdicts such as murder or manslaughter on the
same facts in the same trial are inherently unfair. Juries may be
reluctant to convict for murder but may well settle for second best
because there is always some doubt and it's an easy option to settle
for that regardless of the law, the fine distinctions of which they
probably don't appreciate anyway.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
He said he didn't intend to kill. But the whole incident lasted just
some 17 seconds so his actions were pretty instinctive and happened as
the car was revved up, moving and in all probability trying to escape.
He said he was trying to protect his colleagues who were in danger
from that.
The jury clearly agreed.
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of a
notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone else
in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown on the
news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified.
Certainly the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any
knowledge of his criminal past.
To whom does that last sentence refer, and what does it mean?
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 20:42:41 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes, this is one of the things that seems to have been missed or ignored
by a lot of commenters who make a lot of the fact that Kaba was unarmed
at the time he was shot.
I am quite happy that there are circumstances in which a police
officer can quite legitimately shoot an unarmed suspect who is running
away from them. Which is probably the most extreme example I can think
of. However - as with all cases where death occurs as a result of
police action - I'd like it to be *properly* investigated.
On 22 Oct 2024 at 18:00:41 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-polic
e-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention
to kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at
the chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to
ensure a failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
It was a brilliant shot to hit him at all in the circumstances. It is ridiculous to suggest shooting someone in the chest to wound them,
anyway. It is likely to kill.
The only real life example of shooting to wound I know of is the
Israeli army shooting unarmed Gaza men, women and children protesting
on the other side of a strong fence, deliberately to disable them and
cost expensive medical treatment; but then they had plenty of time to
aim and fire as they were in no danger. In the police situation the
only aim would be for the centre of mass as seen through the
windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting to wound
would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in news:vfakpc$1ke55$1@dont-email.me:
[quoted text muted]Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived threat to life to either officers or the public?
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:05:01 +0000, Peter Walker wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in
news:vfakpc$1ke55$1@dont-email.me:
[quoted text muted]Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to
apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived
threat to life to either officers or the public?
You have amended my statement.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in news:vfakpc$1ke55$1@dont-email.me:
[quoted text muted]Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived threat to life to either officers or the public?
On 23/10/2024 00:47, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2024 07:15 pm, Norman Wells wrote:
Incidentally, it turns out tonight that the deceased was a member of
a notorious and major London gang, had convictions for possession of
offensive weapons, and was due to face trial for shooting someone
else in a nightclub of which a convenient video exists and was shown
on the news.
I don't know if that was known to the police officer, but it may well
have been, and his actions were in my view totally justified.
Certainly the jury convicted him, perfectly fairly, without any
knowledge of his criminal past.
To whom does that last sentence refer, and what does it mean?
Sorry, it was written in a rush. It should have said the jury acquitted him, totally fairly, without having any knowledge of the deceased's
criminal past which may have been seen as an undue influence to acquit.
On 18:58 22 Oct 2024, Roger Hayter said:
On 22 Oct 2024 at 18:00:41 BST, "Fredxx" <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-polic
e-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention
to kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at
the chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to
ensure a failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
It was a brilliant shot to hit him at all in the circumstances. It is
ridiculous to suggest shooting someone in the chest to wound them,
anyway. It is likely to kill.
The only real life example of shooting to wound I know of is the
Israeli army shooting unarmed Gaza men, women and children protesting
on the other side of a strong fence, deliberately to disable them and
cost expensive medical treatment; but then they had plenty of time to
aim and fire as they were in no danger. In the police situation the
only aim would be for the centre of mass as seen through the
windscreen in the hope of disabling the driver. Shooting to wound
would be meaningless. If the policeman actually said that he was
lying, quite unnecessarily.
Is it known exactly where on the head the bullet struck Chris Kaba, or
is that too grisly a detail to release?
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:00:41 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly not the case here.
On 22/10/2024 19:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:00:41 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is
murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if
something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly >> not the case here.
Assuming the police were using their usual expanding rounds, a shot to
the torso would probably not be survivable. So, I'm not sure that a shot
to the chest "with the intention of wounding" makes much sense. Did Mr
Blake really say that?
On 22/10/2024 19:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:00:41 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is
murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if
something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly >> not the case here.
Assuming the police were using their usual expanding rounds, a shot to
the torso would probably not be survivable. So, I'm not sure that a shot
to the chest "with the intention of wounding" makes much sense. Did Mr
Blake really say that?
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
He hit a moving target under pressure. The fact that he didn't hit the
target in precisely the spot he might have preferred to doesn't make him a bad shot. This isn't like Olympic target shooting where everything takes place under carefully controlled conditions and the shooter takes the shot
in their own time. As an armed police officer, the target is the person you are shooting at. If you hit that person anywhere then it's a hit.
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:05:01 +0000, Peter Walker wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in
news:vfakpc$1ke55$1@dont-email.me:
[quoted text muted]Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid to
apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a perceived
threat to life to either officers or the public?
I didn't add the qualifier you did. Which is indeed the one which makes
it valid.
It is entirely possible that a person fleeing a policeman (so running
away with their back to them) could pose a serious threat to the public.
If they happen to be running *towards* someone they could either harm, or attempt to use as a hostage - particularly a child.
On 23/10/2024 17:57, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:05:01 +0000, Peter Walker wrote:or trying to reach the detonator of a bomb.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote in
news:vfakpc$1ke55$1@dont-email.me:
[quoted text muted]Can you please clarify under what circumstances you consider it valid
to apply lethal force to a suspect in flight when there is not a
perceived threat to life to either officers or the public?
I didn't add the qualifier you did. Which is indeed the one which makes
it valid.
It is entirely possible that a person fleeing a policeman (so running
away with their back to them) could pose a serious threat to the
public. If they happen to be running *towards* someone they could
either harm, or attempt to use as a hostage - particularly a child.
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to
kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
Either way why isn't it up to the jury? It seems a manoeuvre to ensure a failed prosecution.
I'm also left wondering if there was evidence he was indeed such an
awful shot?
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 21:12:32 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 22/10/2024 19:01, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:00:41 +0100, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.invalid> wrote:
As per:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2024/oct/22/chris-kaba-death-why-police-officer-was-not-charged-with-manslaughter
Why isn't the jury given the chance to chose?
I know the legal argument is that a shot to the head is an intention to >>>> kill and so cannot be manslaughter, but Blake claimed he aimed at the
chest with the intention of wounding.
It was still intent to cause GBH. And death following intentional GBH is >>> murder, not manslaughter. The only way it could be manslaughter is if
something like diminished responsibility comes into play, but that's clearly
not the case here.
Assuming the police were using their usual expanding rounds, a shot to
the torso would probably not be survivable. So, I'm not sure that a shot
to the chest "with the intention of wounding" makes much sense. Did Mr
Blake really say that?
No, he didn't. Without a full transcript it's impossible to know exactly
what was said, but piecing it together from a number of different reports suggests that in answer to the question "Did you intend to kill Mr Kaba?",
PC Blake replied "No, I intended to hit him", or words to that effect. That is, while Blake was aware that death was a likely consequence of a
successful shot, he would still have considered it a successful shot nonetheless even if Kaba had survived.
Mark
On 23/10/2024 22:22, Mark Goodge wrote:
[quoted text muted]
These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that Mr Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why. The
trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:48:56 +0100, GB wrote:
These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that Mr
Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why. The
trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.
The same could be said where householders get charged when they kill an intruder in the pitch black, dead of night with no idea what the
intruders intentions are. "Proportionate response" is best left in
textbooks. Some scrote breaks in to my house and wakes me in the dead of night, what is proportionate then ? Is there a sliding scale of how load
I am allowed to shout ?
On 2024-10-24, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:48:56 +0100, GB wrote:
These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that
Mr Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why.
The trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.
The same could be said where householders get charged when they kill an
intruder in the pitch black, dead of night with no idea what the
intruders intentions are. "Proportionate response" is best left in
textbooks. Some scrote breaks in to my house and wakes me in the dead
of night, what is proportionate then ? Is there a sliding scale of how
load I am allowed to shout ?
Why are you under the impression that police, the CPS, and the courts
don't already take that into account?
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:31:55 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-10-24, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:48:56 +0100, GB wrote:
These trials all follow a pattern, which is fundamentally unfair. The
entire incident lasted only a few seconds, and I very much doubt that
Mr Blake had time to consider carefully what he was doing, and why.
The trial, on the other hand, expands those few seconds into days of
questions to which there is mostly no sensible answer.
The same could be said where householders get charged when they kill an
intruder in the pitch black, dead of night with no idea what the
intruders intentions are. "Proportionate response" is best left in
textbooks. Some scrote breaks in to my house and wakes me in the dead
of night, what is proportionate then ? Is there a sliding scale of how
load I am allowed to shout ?
Why are you under the impression that police, the CPS, and the courts
don't already take that into account?
Because it's not the law, which makes "proportionate" an objective, not subjective test.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 429 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 116:50:50 |
| Calls: | 9,056 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 13,396 |
| Messages: | 6,016,547 |