Martyn Blake - Armed Copper on Trial for Doing his job

[flea79]

i dont love the police at all, i know how this thread will end up

but why are we entrusting these officers to carry weapons and deal with some of the most violent criminals going then prosecuting them when they do what they are trained to do, which is literally to act in a split second!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g5ppgpzkdo

its plainly obvious the lad shot in the car was up too something by how he tried to escape, whenever im stopped i comply and nobody shoots at me

[iancransonsknees]

🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿🍿

[wagsastokie]

Whatever the jury decides I can see even more police especially if he’s convicted
Handing in their weapons licenses

[salopstick]

dont know the exact circumstances as i wasnt there but if it wasnt in line with the appropriate police regulations he wasnt doing his job properly

it is right that these things get investigated and hopefully they will find him not guilty

carrying a firearm is a massive responsibility, they guys are facing real dangers but they are have to act appropriatley as they are not above the law

[salopstick]

Pte Lee Clegg was convicted in northern ireland as the danger had passed when he fired the fatal wound. its a fine line

[lawrieleslie]

Oct 3, 2024 15:23:50 GMT salopstick said:

Pte Lee Clegg was convicted in northern ireland as the danger had passed when he fired the fatal wound. its a fine line

Wasn’t his conviction overturned?

[wannabee]

When this was originally debated on the Met thread the general consensus was that the Police Officer was completely justified and would face no further action.

That didn't age well as the CPS determined there was a case to answer, some have now already reached a verdict.

The facts of the case are very straightforward and have been captured on Bodycam Footage. Kaba was unarmed and the car stationary when he was shot dead. What the Jury will have to decide is also straightforward, at the time Kaba was shot did he pose a danger to the Police Officer who shot him or to any other Police Officers or could the Police Officer that shot Kaba reasonably believe he or his colleagues were in danger.

I can't see the trial lasting very long one way or another.

[salopstick]

Oct 3, 2024 15:45:18 GMT lawrieleslie said:

Oct 3, 2024 15:23:50 GMT salopstick said:

Pte Lee Clegg was convicted in northern ireland as the danger had passed when he fired the fatal wound. its a fine line

Wasn’t his conviction overturned?

Yep very lucky

At the retrial Clegg was cleared of murder, but a conviction for "attempting to wound" the driver of the car, Martin Peake, who also died in the incident, was upheld.

[Orbs]

Oct 3, 2024 15:23:50 GMT salopstick said:

Pte Lee Clegg was convicted in northern ireland as the danger had passed when he fired the fatal wound. its a fine line

That doesn’t sound like much of a fine line if he fired a fatal shot when the danger had passed? (I have absolutely no knowledge of this case Salop)

[salopstick]

Oct 3, 2024 16:50:57 GMT Orbs said:

Oct 3, 2024 15:23:50 GMT salopstick said:

Pte Lee Clegg was convicted in northern ireland as the danger had passed when he fired the fatal wound. its a fine line

That doesn’t sound like much of a fine line if he fired a fatal shot when the danger had passed? (I have absolutely no knowledge of this case Salop)

Apparently he fired at the car after it had tried to ram through a check point.

Example someone runs at you with a petrol bomb you can shoot to stop the danger. As soon as he chucks it he no longer is a threat so you lose the right to shoot him. The fact a petrol bomb is heading for you is irrelevant

Same with police. As soon as the suspect is not a threat you lose the right to fire.

It’s a fine line and to have the faith in police it will be investigated

[Chewbacca the Wookie]

Oct 3, 2024 16:06:48 GMT wannabee said:

When this was originally debated on the Met thread the general consensus was that the Police Officer was completely justified and would face no further action.

That didn't age well as the CPS determined there was a case to answer, some have now already reached a verdict.

The facts of the case are very straightforward and have been captured on Bodycam Footage. Kaba was unarmed and the car stationary when he was shot dead. What the Jury will have to decide is also straightforward, at the time Kaba was shot did he pose a danger to the Police Officer who shot him or to any other Police Officers or could the Police Officer that shot Kaba reasonably believe he or his colleagues were in danger.

I can't see the trial lasting very long one way or another.

The media are suggesting that the courts think it’ll last 3 weeks.

Early indications from the defence are that Mr Kabba has tried to drive at officers been warned to stop ignored instructions and reversed at speed towards other officers and was then shot whilst he was stationary.

I guess the big point to prove for the prosecution is whether the officer had justifiable belief that Kaba was going to drive at officers again or whether he had stopped.

I just don’t see where the actions of the officer are premeditated enough to be murder but that’s for the prosecution and defence to argue.

One things for sure though Kaba had clearly but officers in immediate danger from the manner of his driving.

It’s going to be an interesting 3 weeks.

I’m just hoping that the pressure outside the courtrooms won’t affect the juries decision and that the correct decision is made on the evidence given.

I’ll leave it at that.

[thehartshillbadger]

One things for sure. This country is fucked

[wannabee]

Oct 3, 2024 21:40:22 GMT Chewbacca the Wookie said:

Oct 3, 2024 16:06:48 GMT wannabee said:

When this was originally debated on the Met thread the general consensus was that the Police Officer was completely justified and would face no further action.

That didn't age well as the CPS determined there was a case to answer, some have now already reached a verdict.

The facts of the case are very straightforward and have been captured on Bodycam Footage. Kaba was unarmed and the car stationary when he was shot dead. What the Jury will have to decide is also straightforward, at the time Kaba was shot did he pose a danger to the Police Officer who shot him or to any other Police Officers or could the Police Officer that shot Kaba reasonably believe he or his colleagues were in danger.

I can't see the trial lasting very long one way or another.

The media are suggesting that the courts think it’ll last 3 weeks.

I think you're right media are indicating 3 weeks, I could see Jury Deliberations taking a while

Early indications from the defence are that Mr Kabba has tried to drive at officers been warned to stop ignored instructions and reversed at speed towards other officers and was then shot whilst he was stationary.

The Prosecution evidence today was that the car reversed at a speed of between 8/12 mph. I'm quite sure the Bodycam Evidence will be able to calculate the speed but I'd be surprised if the prosecution presented false evidence 

I guess the big point to prove for the prosecution is whether the officer had justifiable belief that Kaba was going to drive at officers again or whether he had stopped.

My understanding is that the Prosecution case today was that it was impossible for Kaba to drive forward as he was boxed in, again the Bodycam will show which is correct

I just don’t see where the actions of the officer are premeditated enough to be murder but that’s for the prosecution and defence to argue.

The prosecution case today was that the Police Officer was angered because Kaba refused to obey instructions. I tend to agree with you that it will be difficult to prove Murder which would involve premeditation, but that doesn't rule out Manslaughter 

One things for sure though Kaba had clearly but officers in immediate danger from the manner of his driving.

That may be true but entirely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is whether Kaba posed an immediate danger at the precise time he was shot.

It’s going to be an interesting 3 weeks.

I’m just hoping that the pressure outside the courtrooms won’t affect the juries decision and that the correct decision is made on the evidence given.

We are in even worse trouble if the Jury can be influenced by whatever pressure 

I’ll leave it at that.

[lawrieleslie]

Oct 3, 2024 23:24:20 GMT wannabee said:

Oct 3, 2024 21:40:22 GMT Chewbacca the Wookie said:

The media are suggesting that the courts think it’ll last 3 weeks.

I think you're right media are indicating 3 weeks, I could see Jury Deliberations taking a while

Early indications from the defence are that Mr Kabba has tried to drive at officers been warned to stop ignored instructions and reversed at speed towards other officers and was then shot whilst he was stationary.

The Prosecution evidence today was that the car reversed at a speed of between 8/12 mph. I'm quite sure the Bodycam Evidence will be able to calculate the speed but I'd be surprised if the prosecution presented false evidence 

I guess the big point to prove for the prosecution is whether the officer had justifiable belief that Kaba was going to drive at officers again or whether he had stopped.

My understanding is that the Prosecution case today was that it was impossible for Kaba to drive forward as he was boxed in, again the Bodycam will show which is correct

I just don’t see where the actions of the officer are premeditated enough to be murder but that’s for the prosecution and defence to argue.

The prosecution case today was that the Police Officer was angered because Kaba refused to obey instructions. I tend to agree with you that it will be difficult to prove Murder which would involve premeditation, but that doesn't rule out Manslaughter 

One things for sure though Kaba had clearly but officers in immediate danger from the manner of his driving.

That may be true but entirely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is whether Kaba posed an immediate danger at the precise time he was shot.

It’s going to be an interesting 3 weeks.

I’m just hoping that the pressure outside the courtrooms won’t affect the juries decision and that the correct decision is made on the evidence given.

We are in even worse trouble if the Jury can be influenced by whatever pressure 

I’ll leave it at that.

I don’t think manslaughter verdict would be an option would it? Manslaughter is an unlawful killing without the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. If you shoot someone with a gun it’s a stop them by any means scenario and likely to end in a killing. I don’t think you can say that the officer shot him but he accidentally died. I think it will be up to the defence to prove Kaba was posing a serious threat by driving at the police and/or that the police officer genuinely believed he was armed. The car had been used the previous day in an armed robbery and the reason it was stopped by police.
These incidents always beggar the question: why didn’t Kaba respond to police instructions if he had nothing to hide?

[Chewbacca the Wookie]

Oct 3, 2024 23:24:20 GMT wannabee said:

Oct 3, 2024 21:40:22 GMT Chewbacca the Wookie said:

The media are suggesting that the courts think it’ll last 3 weeks.

I think you're right media are indicating 3 weeks, I could see Jury Deliberations taking a while

Early indications from the defence are that Mr Kabba has tried to drive at officers been warned to stop ignored instructions and reversed at speed towards other officers and was then shot whilst he was stationary.

The Prosecution evidence today was that the car reversed at a speed of between 8/12 mph. I'm quite sure the Bodycam Evidence will be able to calculate the speed but I'd be surprised if the prosecution presented false evidence 

I guess the big point to prove for the prosecution is whether the officer had justifiable belief that Kaba was going to drive at officers again or whether he had stopped.

My understanding is that the Prosecution case today was that it was impossible for Kaba to drive forward as he was boxed in, again the Bodycam will show which is correct

I just don’t see where the actions of the officer are premeditated enough to be murder but that’s for the prosecution and defence to argue.

The prosecution case today was that the Police Officer was angered because Kaba refused to obey instructions. I tend to agree with you that it will be difficult to prove Murder which would involve premeditation, but that doesn't rule out Manslaughter 

One things for sure though Kaba had clearly but officers in immediate danger from the manner of his driving.

That may be true but entirely irrelevant. The only thing relevant is whether Kaba posed an immediate danger at the precise time he was shot.

It’s going to be an interesting 3 weeks.

I’m just hoping that the pressure outside the courtrooms won’t affect the juries decision and that the correct decision is made on the evidence given.

We are in even worse trouble if the Jury can be influenced by whatever pressure 

I’ll leave it at that.

Fair points.

It’s a really tricky one though as we’re all human and if someone has potentially tried to kill us by whatever means and then refused to stop and preceded to try to do it again to other friends and colleagues then there’s going to be a huge doubt in anyone’s mind as to whether the other party are genuinely going to stop regardless of the vehicle being stopped at that time (let’s not forget he’s ignored a previous instruction and used the vehicle as a weapon).

The officer’s taken the decision to make a pre-emptive strike because he’s felt Kaba was going to go again even though he was currently stationary.
The problem is we’ll never know what would have happened if he didn’t shoot but it could have resulted in the deaths of officers.
There will always be the factor of what might have been in cases like this one.

There’s so many factors in this case not related to the actual stop like the vehicle being linked to a firearm very recently too that would affect the decision and be a factor.

I think it’s wrong for the prosecution to start throwing around accusations around officer Blake being angry when he has no evidence of that.
From what I’ve read Officer Blake’s highly trained and actually trained others so clearly has great experience and isn’t someone new in the role.

[wannabee]

Oct 4, 2024 6:20:59 GMT lawrieleslie said:

Oct 3, 2024 23:24:20 GMT wannabee said:

I don’t think manslaughter verdict would be an option would it? Manslaughter is an unlawful killing without the intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. If you shoot someone with a gun it’s a stop them by any means scenario and likely to end in a killing. I don’t think you can say that the officer shot him but he accidentally died. I think it will be up to the defence to prove Kaba was posing a serious threat by driving at the police or that the police officer genuinely believed he was armed. The car had been used the previous day in an armed robbery and the reason it was stopped by police.

That is not my understanding but you may well be correct. I believe it comes down to the Judge as to how he directs the Jury as to what they should consider and what options are available to them.

Manslaughter is a partial defense to Murder and what distinguishes them is whether the act was 
intentional, reckless or an accident, I think we can discount the latter.

Self defense is the only defense against Murder and is the route the Police Officer is going down 

There are two types of manslaughter voluntary and involuntary and different grounds for each partial defense 

A) Diminished Responsibility, looking at how the defense is progressing this does not look like an option as it would involve presenting medical evidence as to state of mind at time of the shooting 

B) Provocation/Loss of control, I think this may yet play a role and it is in fact the prosecutions contention that this is exactly what happened. For this partial defense to work the Jury must be satisfied that the provocation that caused the act is "reasonable". In other words there may have been provocation but was it sufficient to cause the Police Officer to do what he did.

A verdict of Involuntary manslaughter can be reached when  death is caused by a defendant’s recklessness, gross negligence or by an unlawful or dangerous act. I think this ground of partial defense is stronger than B). In this case the action was unintentional but the resulting outcome  has been caused through some form of recklessness or criminal negligence. 

I guess we shall see as the trial progresses 

[wannabee]

Oct 4, 2024 7:18:15 GMT Chewbacca the Wookie said:

Oct 3, 2024 23:24:20 GMT wannabee said:

Fair points.

It’s a really tricky one though as we’re all human and if someone has potentially tried to kill us by whatever means and then refused to stop and preceded to try to do it again to other friends and colleagues then there’s going to be a huge doubt in anyone’s mind as to whether the other party are genuinely going to stop regardless of the vehicle being stopped at that time (let’s not forget he’s ignored a previous instruction and used the vehicle as a weapon).

The only thing the Jury can consider is what was happening at the precise moment the Police Officer shot Kaba, other than by partial mitigation (manslaughter), what occurred beforehand is irrelevant. Kaba's car had previously reversed at a speed of between 8 and 12 mph and was stationary. Bodycam can establish if, how far and a what speed Kaba may have been able to move forward. It is the prosecutions contention, not at all, as he was boxed in.

The officer’s taken the decision to make a pre-emptive strike because he’s felt Kaba was going to go again even though he was currently stationary.
The problem is we’ll never know what would have happened if he didn’t shoot but it could have resulted in the deaths of officers.
There will always be the factor of what might have been in cases like this one.

And this is the exact point on which a conviction will be secured or not. Was it reasonable for the Police Officer to believe Kaba posed a danger to himself or his colleagues. Was Kaba's weapon, the car, in a position to cause harm, the prosecution so no because it was boxed in. Again Bodycam evidence will show which is correct 

There’s so many factors in this case not related to the actual stop like the vehicle being linked to a firearm very recently too that would affect the decision and be a factor.

Not something the Jury need to consider unless the Defense introduce it which is unlikely because as far as I know the Police Officer has never said it was a factor in him shooting Kaba in any of his previous statements 

I think it’s wrong for the prosecution to start throwing around accusations around officer Blake being angry when he has no evidence of that.
From what I’ve read Officer Blake’s highly trained and actually trained others so clearly has great experience and isn’t someone new in the role.

A trial is adversarial, the Jury know that Blake shot Kaba, they will want to understand why and this is the reason put forward by the prosecution, it's quite normal. A prosecution and a defense is about building a narrative that convinces a Jury.

[Chewbacca the Wookie]

Oct 4, 2024 8:01:59 GMT wannabee said:

Oct 4, 2024 7:18:15 GMT Chewbacca the Wookie said:

Fair points.

It’s a really tricky one though as we’re all human and if someone has potentially tried to kill us by whatever means and then refused to stop and preceded to try to do it again to other friends and colleagues then there’s going to be a huge doubt in anyone’s mind as to whether the other party are genuinely going to stop regardless of the vehicle being stopped at that time (let’s not forget he’s ignored a previous instruction and used the vehicle as a weapon).

The only thing the Jury can consider is what was happening at the precise moment the Police Officer shot Kaba, other than by partial mitigation (manslaughter), what occurred beforehand is irrelevant. Kaba's car had previously reversed at a speed of between 8 and 12 mph and was stationary. Bodycam can establish if, how far and a what speed Kaba may have been able to move forward. It is the prosecutions contention, not at all, as he was boxed in.

The officer’s taken the decision to make a pre-emptive strike because he’s felt Kaba was going to go again even though he was currently stationary.
The problem is we’ll never know what would have happened if he didn’t shoot but it could have resulted in the deaths of officers.
There will always be the factor of what might have been in cases like this one.

And this is the exact point on which a conviction will be secured or not. Was it reasonable for the Police Officer to believe Kaba posed a danger to himself or his colleagues. Was Kaba's weapon, the car, in a position to cause harm, the prosecution so no because it was boxed in. Again Bodycam evidence will show which is correct 

There’s so many factors in this case not related to the actual stop like the vehicle being linked to a firearm very recently too that would affect the decision and be a factor.

Not something the Jury need to consider unless the Defense introduce it which is unlikely because as far as I know the Police Officer has never said it was a factor in him shooting Kaba in any of his previous statements 

I think it’s wrong for the prosecution to start throwing around accusations around officer Blake being angry when he has no evidence of that.
From what I’ve read Officer Blake’s highly trained and actually trained others so clearly has great experience and isn’t someone new in the role.

A trial is adversarial, the Jury know that Blake shot Kaba, they will want to understand why and this is the reason put forward by the prosecution, it's quite normal. A prosecution and a defense is about building a narrative that convinces a Jury.

We’ll have to agree to disagree.
It’ll be a very interesting case and one that I’m sure will have a huge impact on policing moving forwards.

[Gawa]

Oct 3, 2024 16:59:12 GMT salopstick said:

Oct 3, 2024 16:50:57 GMT Orbs said:

That doesn’t sound like much of a fine line if he fired a fatal shot when the danger had passed? (I have absolutely no knowledge of this case Salop)

Apparently he fired at the car after it had tried to ram through a check point.

Example someone runs at you with a petrol bomb you can shoot to stop the danger. As soon as he chucks it he no longer is a threat so you lose the right to shoot him. The fact a petrol bomb is heading for you is irrelevant

Same with police. As soon as the suspect is not a threat you lose the right to fire.

It’s a fine line and to have the faith in police it will be investigated

If they shot people for running with petrol bombs we'd be extinct by now over here 😁

[Chewbacca the Wookie]

Oct 4, 2024 9:20:02 GMT Gawa said:

Oct 3, 2024 16:59:12 GMT salopstick said:

Apparently he fired at the car after it had tried to ram through a check point.

Example someone runs at you with a petrol bomb you can shoot to stop the danger. As soon as he chucks it he no longer is a threat so you lose the right to shoot him. The fact a petrol bomb is heading for you is irrelevant

Same with police. As soon as the suspect is not a threat you lose the right to fire.

It’s a fine line and to have the faith in police it will be investigated

If they shot people for running with petrol bombs we'd be extinct by now over here 😁

The question you have to ask though is

1- Would there be less people (some innocent) killed or maimed by petrol bombs?
2- Would people be so keen to throw them?

[wannabee]

Day 9 of the Murder Trial of Martyn Blake the Police Officer who shot Chris Kaba

Today the prosecution cross-examined Blake

The Old Bailey was told the bullet used travelled at 800 metres a second and was fired from a few metres away by Blake (I think describing the speed of the bullet is hyperbolic, we know a bullet travels at great speed, the question is was Blake justified in discharging his weapon at that time) , who said his decision was “intuitive” as he feared his colleagues would imminently face death or serious harm.

Little (Prosecution KC) showed the court video footage of the incident, accusing Blake of getting wrong the key parts of his claim he was acting in self-defence of himself or others.

The Audi, once boxed in by police, rammed and revved its engine as it tried to escape, striking a police car. Police then tightened the box, and 17 seconds after the vehicle was forced to stop Blake fired a single shot though its windscreen.

The officer said he feared his colleagues were so close to the car, within “touching distance”, they would imminently be run over or dragged under its wheels.

Little ran footage from cameras worn on officers’ bodies and from vehicles present to claim police were not as close as Blake had said. While Blake alleged the Audi had driven at him, Little said video footage showed it had not.

The prosecutor said: “The vehicle actually drives away from you rather than towards you.” Blake replied: “It felt like it was coming at me at the time. It certainly made me feel very uncomfortable.”

Little then asked the officer if he accepted the vehicle had come to a halt and was stationary when he pulled the trigger. Blake replied he did not know.

Later Little said: “Your discharged your firearm without properly assessing the risk in front of you?”

“I disagree,” said Blake.

Little said: “You discharged the firearms when you should not have done so, I suggest?” Blake disagreed.

The officer told the court he had opened fire not intending to kill, but to incapacitate the driver and stop the vehicle.

He said he aimed around the area of the steering wheel: “I aimed my firearm at the central body mass as we are trained to do, over the steering wheel. Obviously I was aware that the bullet would hit his body at some point but I didn’t intend to kill. It was the only way I thought I had at the time to stop the vehicle.”

Blake said if he had missed and the vehicle stopped, he would not have fired again, and denied firing deliberately at Kaba’s head.

The jury has heard that “perceptual distortion” after stressful and fast-moving events can lead to errors in remembering even key details. Blake said: “Memory after these sort of incidents is always going to be distorted.”

The jury was told that in interview with investigators under criminal caution, Blake refused to answer verbal questions, instead providing written answers.

Again I contend that the Jury are in a fairly unique position to make a Judgement based on Bodycam evidence 

The contested evidence is a) was Kaba's vehicle moving forward (as claimed by Blake), backwards or stationary when Blake discharged his firearm and b) in whichever direction Kaba's vehicle was travelling or stationary did it present a threat to Blake and/or his colleagues sufficient for Blake to discharge  his firearm 


www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/15/met-police-officer-denies-exaggerating-threat-to-justify-shooting-chris-kaba

[CBUFAWKIPWH]

Oct 15, 2024 23:21:32 GMT wannabee said:

Day 9 of the Murder Trial of Martyn Blake the Police Officer who shot Chris Kaba

Today the prosecution cross-examined Blake

The Old Bailey was told the bullet used travelled at 800 metres a second and was fired from a few metres away by Blake (I think describing the speed of the bullet is hyperbolic, we know a bullet travels at great speed, the question is was Blake justified in discharging his weapon at that time) , who said his decision was “intuitive” as he feared his colleagues would imminently face death or serious harm.

Little (Prosecution KC) showed the court video footage of the incident, accusing Blake of getting wrong the key parts of his claim he was acting in self-defence of himself or others.

The Audi, once boxed in by police, rammed and revved its engine as it tried to escape, striking a police car. Police then tightened the box, and 17 seconds after the vehicle was forced to stop Blake fired a single shot though its windscreen.

The officer said he feared his colleagues were so close to the car, within “touching distance”, they would imminently be run over or dragged under its wheels.

Little ran footage from cameras worn on officers’ bodies and from vehicles present to claim police were not as close as Blake had said. While Blake alleged the Audi had driven at him, Little said video footage showed it had not.

The prosecutor said: “The vehicle actually drives away from you rather than towards you.” Blake replied: “It felt like it was coming at me at the time. It certainly made me feel very uncomfortable.”

Little then asked the officer if he accepted the vehicle had come to a halt and was stationary when he pulled the trigger. Blake replied he did not know.

Later Little said: “Your discharged your firearm without properly assessing the risk in front of you?”

“I disagree,” said Blake.

Little said: “You discharged the firearms when you should not have done so, I suggest?” Blake disagreed.

The officer told the court he had opened fire not intending to kill, but to incapacitate the driver and stop the vehicle.

He said he aimed around the area of the steering wheel: “I aimed my firearm at the central body mass as we are trained to do, over the steering wheel. Obviously I was aware that the bullet would hit his body at some point but I didn’t intend to kill. It was the only way I thought I had at the time to stop the vehicle.”

Blake said if he had missed and the vehicle stopped, he would not have fired again, and denied firing deliberately at Kaba’s head.

The jury has heard that “perceptual distortion” after stressful and fast-moving events can lead to errors in remembering even key details. Blake said: “Memory after these sort of incidents is always going to be distorted.”

The jury was told that in interview with investigators under criminal caution, Blake refused to answer verbal questions, instead providing written answers.

Again I contend that the Jury are in a fairly unique position to make a Judgement based on Bodycam evidence 

The contested evidence is a) was Kaba's vehicle moving forward (as claimed by Blake), backwards or stationary when Blake discharged his firearm and b) in whichever direction Kaba's vehicle was travelling or stationary did it present a threat to Blake and/or his colleagues sufficient for Blake to discharge  his firearm 


www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/15/met-police-officer-denies-exaggerating-threat-to-justify-shooting-chris-kaba

If the officer's statement does not match the video footage, which appears to be the case, then surely there is good reason for a trial?

[stuammo]

You can be involved in something and have a different perception and recollection of it from your own view due to the stress and mental toll the incident takes. There’s lots of work and studies on perceptual distortion around this which can explain differences. It’s all about how the brain reacts and deals with stress and fear.

[wannabee]

Oct 16, 2024 8:20:54 GMT CBUFAWKIPWH said:

Oct 15, 2024 23:21:32 GMT wannabee said:

Day 9 of the Murder Trial of Martyn Blake the Police Officer who shot Chris Kaba

Today the prosecution cross-examined Blake

The Old Bailey was told the bullet used travelled at 800 metres a second and was fired from a few metres away by Blake (I think describing the speed of the bullet is hyperbolic, we know a bullet travels at great speed, the question is was Blake justified in discharging his weapon at that time) , who said his decision was “intuitive” as he feared his colleagues would imminently face death or serious harm.

Little (Prosecution KC) showed the court video footage of the incident, accusing Blake of getting wrong the key parts of his claim he was acting in self-defence of himself or others.

The Audi, once boxed in by police, rammed and revved its engine as it tried to escape, striking a police car. Police then tightened the box, and 17 seconds after the vehicle was forced to stop Blake fired a single shot though its windscreen.

The officer said he feared his colleagues were so close to the car, within “touching distance”, they would imminently be run over or dragged under its wheels.

Little ran footage from cameras worn on officers’ bodies and from vehicles present to claim police were not as close as Blake had said. While Blake alleged the Audi had driven at him, Little said video footage showed it had not.

The prosecutor said: “The vehicle actually drives away from you rather than towards you.” Blake replied: “It felt like it was coming at me at the time. It certainly made me feel very uncomfortable.”

Little then asked the officer if he accepted the vehicle had come to a halt and was stationary when he pulled the trigger. Blake replied he did not know.

Later Little said: “Your discharged your firearm without properly assessing the risk in front of you?”

“I disagree,” said Blake.

Little said: “You discharged the firearms when you should not have done so, I suggest?” Blake disagreed.

The officer told the court he had opened fire not intending to kill, but to incapacitate the driver and stop the vehicle.

He said he aimed around the area of the steering wheel: “I aimed my firearm at the central body mass as we are trained to do, over the steering wheel. Obviously I was aware that the bullet would hit his body at some point but I didn’t intend to kill. It was the only way I thought I had at the time to stop the vehicle.”

Blake said if he had missed and the vehicle stopped, he would not have fired again, and denied firing deliberately at Kaba’s head.

The jury has heard that “perceptual distortion” after stressful and fast-moving events can lead to errors in remembering even key details. Blake said: “Memory after these sort of incidents is always going to be distorted.”

The jury was told that in interview with investigators under criminal caution, Blake refused to answer verbal questions, instead providing written answers.

Again I contend that the Jury are in a fairly unique position to make a Judgement based on Bodycam evidence 

The contested evidence is a) was Kaba's vehicle moving forward (as claimed by Blake), backwards or stationary when Blake discharged his firearm and b) in whichever direction Kaba's vehicle was travelling or stationary did it present a threat to Blake and/or his colleagues sufficient for Blake to discharge  his firearm 


www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/15/met-police-officer-denies-exaggerating-threat-to-justify-shooting-chris-kaba

If the officer's statement does not match the video footage, which appears to be the case, then surely there is good reason for a trial?

Of course there is good reason for the Trial.

I'm not sure who introduced "Perceptual Distortion" but it must have been the Defense as a means to try and explain why Blake's evidence is completely contradictory to what actually happened and shown on video 

Under cross examination even Blake didn't dispute the vehicle was stationary, although his previous evidence was that it had driven at him, when he fired the shot, but even after being shown the video of what happened he still said he didn't know!

I've long maintained that this Old Bailey Jury have the easiest job ever in reaching a verdict as the whole event was played out for them. 

[wannabee]

Oct 16, 2024 8:28:17 GMT stuammo said:

You can be involved in something and have a different perception and recollection of it from your own view due to the stress and mental toll the incident takes. There’s lots of work and studies on perceptual distortion around this which can explain differences. It’s all about how the brain reacts and deals with stress and fear.

I'm quite sure the Defense introduced "Perceptual Distortion" as a means to explain why Blake's written evidence to the investigating team  (he refused to give verbal evidence) and on the Witness Stand is contrary to the video evidence.

If the Jury accepts that Blake suffered from "Perceptual Distortion" when he gave his written evidence and on the stand, it doesn't alter the facts of what occurred.

The only Defense against a Murder charge is Self Defense there is no such thing as mitigation. A lower charge of Manslaughter can introduce mitigation.

[stuammo]

Guessing you’ve seen all the footage and all the evidence then to make a statement that “it’s completely contractictory”?

[wannabee]

Oct 16, 2024 9:18:27 GMT stuammo said:

Guessing you’ve seen all the footage and all the evidence then to make a statement that “it’s completely contractictory”?

Blake was invited by Little KC to look at the video and agree that the vehicle was stationary, Blake said "I don't know"

What do you conclude from this where Blake had previously said the vehicle was moving towards him? Wouldn't even "I don't know" be completely contradictory to what he said previously?

In any case it's up to the Jury who have watched the video evidence 

[xchpotter]

Oct 16, 2024 8:28:17 GMT stuammo said:

You can be involved in something and have a different perception and recollection of it from your own view due to the stress and mental toll the incident takes. There’s lots of work and studies on perceptual distortion around this which can explain differences. It’s all about how the brain reacts and deals with stress and fear.

Perceptional distortion is fascinating. Until one has encountered and seen what it actually does, it’s hard for some to get their head around. I’ve seen cases where individuals swear on their life about a version of events and are astonished when they see what happened. They are bewildered, question whether what they were now seeing was true and even doubt their own sanity, such is the impact perceptional distortion has.The default for many is to assume they are lying, but it is incredibly difficult to determine that. Doesn’t stop people from forming that opinion though and it’s down to the jury.

Will be an interesting outcome either way. If he’s not convicted it will kick off. If he’s convicted there could well be a mass hand in of firearms officer tickets. Won’t play out well whatever the outcome.

[flea79]

Oct 16, 2024 12:07:13 GMT xchpotter said:

Oct 16, 2024 8:28:17 GMT stuammo said:

You can be involved in something and have a different perception and recollection of it from your own view due to the stress and mental toll the incident takes. There’s lots of work and studies on perceptual distortion around this which can explain differences. It’s all about how the brain reacts and deals with stress and fear.

Perceptional distortion is fascinating. Until one has encountered and seen what it actually does, it’s hard for some to get their head around. I’ve seen cases where individuals swear on their life about a version of events and are astonished when they see what happened. They are bewildered, question whether what they were now seeing was true and even doubt their own sanity, such is the impact perceptional distortion has.The default for many is to assume they are lying, but it is incredibly difficult to determine that. Doesn’t stop people from forming that opinion though and it’s down to the jury.

Will be an interesting outcome either way. If he’s not convicted it will kick off. If he’s convicted there could well be a mass hand in of firearms officer tickets. Won’t play out well whatever the outcome.

there can be no winners in this

but i think we can all agree that if a copper pointing a firearm at you tells you to stop you should probably stop, not continue the actions you were previously doing, fuck around and find out comes to mind

[Chewbacca the Wookie]

Oct 16, 2024 8:28:17 GMT stuammo said:

You can be involved in something and have a different perception and recollection of it from your own view due to the stress and mental toll the incident takes. There’s lots of work and studies on perceptual distortion around this which can explain differences. It’s all about how the brain reacts and deals with stress and fear.

Spot on. It’s far easier for the armchair quarterbacks to criticise when they’ve never had to deal with that level of threat.