Police Firearms: The fallout from NX121

[transportphoto]

There are legal ramifications to discussing the specific circumstances surrounding the Metropolitan Police officer (known only as NX121) who is awaiting trial following the shooting of Chris Kaba in Streatham Hill on 5th September 2022.

With view of staying the right side of the law, it’s probably best to acknowledge that this case is the cause of this conversation but to ensure we remain generalised in our topic.

It is widely reported that “more than 100 police officers turned in permits allowing them to carry firearms” across the Met Police as a direct result of the decision to charge NX121 with murder. The Ministry of Defence has received a Military Aid to the Civil Authorities request to provide support to the Met counter terrorism contingencies. (Source: BBC News)

Police officers do not get paid more to carry guns yet they are responsible for split second decisions which can be fatal. Their decision to shoot will be pulled apart and questioned for years to come. In this instance NX121 being trialed for murder.

I’ve just seen a tweet on X by @JJSharpers which I can’t help but agree with:

As a cop, I don’t want responsibility of carrying a gun, but respect those who do.

As the wife of a cop, if he carried, I’d want him to hand his ticket in immediately.

As a Mother, if grieving the loss of a son, I’d want no stone left unturned.

There are no winners here.

What are your thoughts on this subject? Do you support the officers handing in their firearms tickets? I think I do.

 

[Irascible]

Do you support the officers handing in their firearms tickets? I think I do.

I do too, as the son of a policeman. Soldiers in NI had it worse, possibly, as the troubles weren't a war, but soldiers were put in a position where they'd be fighting guerillas while still liable for prosecution in the same way civilians would be. After being trained to fight a war.

Train CT/counter-firearm squads separately ( we've trained MoD CT squads for decades ), don't start expecting less specialised roles to pick up the slack.

 

[brad465]

Braverman appears to have formed an opinion on the case that could make the trial much more difficult:

https://twitter.com/SuellaBraverman/status/1705854919171768585

We depend on our brave firearms officers to protect us from the most dangerous & violent in society. In the interest of public safety they have to make split-second decisions under extraordinary pressures. 1/3

They mustn’t fear ending up in the dock for carrying out their duties. Officers risking their lives to keep us safe have my full backing & I will do everything in my power to support them. 2/3

That’s why I have launched a review to ensure they have the confidence to do their jobs while protecting us all. 3/3

She doesn't defend the defendant directly, but what she's said could be interpreted by the defence as such.

 

[Randomer]

So I view this at two levels with one side comment.

To get the side comment out of the way, a person does not have to be in possession of a firearm to present a lethal threat that can only be stopped by the use of lethal force. The continued media comments of Chris Kaba being unarmed are legally not relevant in the circumstances outlined at the inquest. I don't want to expose the forum to any potential sub judice issues so all I will say further is that reporting at the time from local residents about how the car was being driven might be enlightening.

From the London Standard:

Chris Kaba: Inside story of shooting that shocked London

The killing of the 24-year-old unarmed rapper by a police marksman in Streatham has sparked calls for justice from angry protesters and has left his grieving family distraught. Here, the Standard investigates the events leading up to his death that has left many in the capital demanding urgent...

www.standard.co.uk

Just before 10pm, residents in Kirkstall Gardens heard a single shot. An anonymous witness later told the Standard: “Armed police jumped out and were shouting at the man, ‘Get out of the car’. It was at least a dozen times. The guy in the car had a lot of opportunities to stop but he refused. He then started driving towards a police car and smashed into it, then reversed, he just wouldn’t stop the vehicle.”

The resident claimed that Mr Kaba “could have killed one of the officers with his car”.

1) I have a strong suspicion that the decision to charge NX121 could have come about because the IOPC or the CPS officials in charge of the decision didn't want to face public scrutiny for not having done so. Rather than there having been a proper evaluation by the CPS of the full threshold test required before charges are brought. It does seem very interesting that the IOPC were happy to share evidence including bodycam recordings with the family far before any charging had been made.

2) You can't blame people who now see the balance of the risk of losing there freedom vs a voluntary aspect of the job having to re-evaluate that balance if they believe the above to be true. If the rumours I've been reading are true and that the Met was down to less than 4 armed response vehicles and a duty CTSFO team that would only deploy if they believed it was an emergency involving terrorist attack and not on pre-planned operations then it is a very serious issue. Police forces from well outside London are being asked for mutual aid to cover the ARV roles and aren't getting positive responses from officers. It would be interesting to know what is happening with the City of London Police and BTP ARV officers as they are deployed as a London wide resource.

 

[GusB]

While police officers have difficult judgements to make, they're as accountable as the rest of us are if they get things wrong. They're carrying lethal weapons and if they're not fit to use them properly, they shouldn't have them.

This isn't about individual officers, though - it's about a severe lack of resources and no individual should have to carry the can for that.

 

[transportphoto]

While police officers have difficult judgements to make, they're as accountable as the rest of us are if they get things wrong. They're carrying lethal weapons and if they're not fit to use them properly, they shouldn't have them.

Indeed, I’d be inclined to agree. As would the Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis:

Met Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley has welcomed a Home Office review into armed policing.

In an open letter to the home secretary, he said it was right his force was "held to the highest standards" - but the current system was undermining his officers and suggested they needed more legal protections.

(https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66906201)

We obviously don’t know the full details of the case however it is implied that even if officers stick to their trained methods of work/tactics etc - they still find themselves liable for prosecution.

It would be interesting to know what is happening with the City of London Police and BTP ARV officers as they are deployed as a London wide resource.

It’d be interesting to know what the picture is nationally. We’ve a focus on the Met at the moment (as ever) but the implications of this case will be felt nationally. The risks apply equally to a county ARV wherever they are as they do to a London ARV.

 

[spyinthesky]

The rules of engagement or whatever the term is now must be clear but there are many occasions where the danger to life of yourself or others reaches a critical moment. The decision made should be an easy one to make but quite often it will not be the case. The hard decisions are generally the ones that have no clear critical moment yet not opening fire may result in the loss of life and opening fire may still involve the loss of life.
Having been in a situation where 9 of us had that split decision to make and all 9 did not open fire. A few said that the critical point had passed and further danger had subsided.
Without specifying any further details, there was a point in which this incident where 2 of us could have justified opening fire under the rules yet would have found themselves in court had they done so with a political decision being made for conviction.
As I am not aware of any of the details of this particular case it appears imo that many of the officers handing back their permits know a lot more.
Simply saying the officers are not fit to use them is very harsh unless you understand the mental and physical aspects for carrying out such a role.
A suspect who is not armed can endanger life in many ways, there has to be a method to prevent it.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

I would imagine that the officer in question deemed a serious threat to life, hence their actions !

 

[dakta]

Gut reaction and that's all it is, but gut reaction is that whilst there must be accountability, and given the very nature of firearms, accountability has to be paramount - it has clearly got to a degree where people with more training than I have, or will ever have, have realised those milliseconds to make a judgement call could put them in prison. This is clearly so severe that people who have received the training no longer feel comfortable with doing the job. Also, without being specific, it doesn't look like a firearms officer gone rogue therefore I'd say there's definitely some valid concern here and thus my gut is to support those officers.

It's a difficult one, but I think we need to step back sometimes and be realistic even if not 100% correct for the sake of preventing further harm down the line - there is still a lot of outcry over someone local who was also shot in his car a few years ago, and there have been a lot of public outcry to crucify the officers involved, but in reality, the person involved was very much a high risk person, who did a lot of harm, who was ultimately found to be carrying. In this case the police involved did get the backing of the law, but the concern here is when you have to make a decision, it's realistic to understand you might have to make some assumptions, and a 100% correct decision may not be possible and in reality you might be making a decision on a balance of public safety and risk. No training will get this right in every scenario and that's the nature of it, an action might be fatal but so might inaction and the facts will only be truly known in a wooden pannelled room down the line with the full benefit of evidence and hindsight.

If police are now saying they can't do their job because of the risk to themselves for what happens in these situations then I fully support them. If it was a case of an officer breaching training or being grossly negligent I'd feel different. I think we need to take a long hard look at what negligence actually is under these situations.

 

[skyhigh]

If police are now saying they can't do their job because of the risk to themselves for what happens in these situations then I fully support them. If it was a case of an officer breaching training or being grossly negligent I'd feel different. I think we need to take a long hard look at what negligence actually is under these situations.

Fully agree with this. If it were the case of a rogue officer the rest wouldn't really be concerned.

The fact that allegedly over 100 firearms officers have handed in their permit suggests that there's a feeling it could have been them in that same position.

 

[spyinthesky]

I think we need to take a long hard look at what negligence actually is under these situations.

I will explain it somewhat with a traffic light situation.
Red- Do not open Fire
Amber- Prepare to open fire
Green- Open Fire
The issue is like the boy racer, if he waits for green then he loses. If he anticipates green then he wins(unless he gets hit or flashed) The firearms officer is dealt with that same decision, if he waits for full green he may be too late and risks his own or others lives. If he anticipates then it’s somehow negligent and winds up in court unless his instincts were correct.
Unfortunately instincts seems to be a word that is not liked in a courtroom.

 

[HSTEd]

Fully agree with this. If it were the case of a rogue officer the rest wouldn't really be concerned.

The fact that allegedly over 100 firearms officers have handed in their permit suggests that there's a feeling it could have been them in that same position.

On the other hand, the Metropolitan police has a long history of shooting people when they shouldn't have.

They also have a long history of fabricating stories to cover up said shootings, the obvious example on both counts being Jean Charles De Menezes.
In addition, we know the culture within the Metropolitan armed police unit to be absolutely rotten (see the fallout over the Sarah Everard case), even more so than the general culture of the Met itself.

Given that, forgive me if I am extremely skeptical that this is anything than what it appears on the surface - that the armed police are upset that they might actually face scrutiny for shooting people.
I am of the opinion that if police officers are not willing to accept the scrutiny that comes with possessing the ability to use lethal force, the police service and society is better off without them.

 

[Busaholic]

While police officers have difficult judgements to make, they're as accountable as the rest of us are if they get things wrong. They're carrying lethal weapons and if they're not fit to use them properly, they shouldn't have them.

Absolutely, and it is very rare indeed for an officer who has killed someone in the course of their duty to face any criminal charges, let alone one of murder. The implication to the public of the individual officers' decision to withdraw from gun-carrying duties was to say their judgments should not be challenged, and that situation is unacceptable. I recognise that it is a very demanding job and split second decisions may need to be made, but in most cases the latter is not so, which may be the suggestion here.

It has now been reported that a number of those individual officers have decided, on reflection, to bear arms again, a sensible move in my estimation.

 

[spyinthesky]

It has now been reported that a number of those individual officers have decided, on reflection, to bear arms again, a sensible move in my estimation.

A much better outcome than using soldiers for this purpose.
On too many occasions they have been dragged into situations that they were neither qualified nor wished to partake in.

 

[DarloRich]

a simple statement: Those who seek to hold us accountable for our actions are required to accept that they must be held to the same ( if not a higher) standard. We police by consent in this country and that consent will only last as long as all are seen to be equal under the law. Wearing a blue (or green) suit does not absolve one from criminal responsibility OR the requirements for alleged breaches of that responsibility to be investigated and/or for those investigated to face charges if that investigation finds they are merited.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Some officers may well have decided to bear arms again but I can't help but imagine that, if they're required to draw their weapon in the course of their duty, they might find themselves second-guessing their decision making in what could be life-or-death circumstances... not ideal.

 

[DarloRich]

Some officers may well have decided to bear arms again but I can't help but imagine that, if they're required to draw their weapon in the course of their duty, they might find themselves second-guessing their decision making in what could be life-or-death circumstances... not ideal.

the bit I am missing is what is different today about being a firearms officer? Was the risk of this kind of thing just the same last week/month/year?

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

the bit I am missing is what is different today about being a firearms officer? Was the risk of this kind of thing just the same last week/month/year?

Probably, however if I am reading the tea leaves correctly, then the rank and file feel that one of their members has been chucked under the bus to satisfy the public opinion of one sector of society?

 

[Ediswan]

the bit I am missing is what is different today about being a firearms officer? Was the risk of this kind of thing just the same last week/month/year?

The impression I get is that, this time, the CPS have decided to prosecute under circumstances where previously they would not have.

 

[DarloRich]

Probably, however if I am reading the tea leaves correctly, then the rank and file feel that one of their members has been chucked under the bus to satisfy the public opinion of one sector of society?

The impression I get is that, this time, the CPS have decided to prosecute under circumstances where previously they would not have.

ok i could get that, thanks. To play devils advocate a bit - the blue suit exemption has unexpectedly and very suddenly worn off and the old bill don't like it! The CPS doesn't proceed for nothing after all.

 

[1D54]

Surely to have any chance of getting a murder conviction they have to prove intent? This seems very far fetched to me obviously without knowing the facts of what happened. Would a charge of manslaughter not be seen as having a better chance of success?

 

[HSTEd]

Surely to have any chance of getting a murder conviction they have to prove intent? This seems very far fetched to me obviously without knowing the facts of what happened. Would a charge of manslaughter not be seen as having a better chance of success?

They have to prove intent to kill or cause grevious harm to the person.

Unless the firearm discharge was negligent, shooting someone is probably going to result in a murder charge as opposed to manslaughter. A loss of control defence is probably going to be difficult to arrange for someone who is trained to do this professionally and in any case would likely be decided at trial.

 

[Irascible]

Prior intent for murder, is it not? as in the officer would have had to decide previous to the immediate scenario where the firearm was discharged. That seems slightly far fetched but maybe there is something the CPS didn't like. It'll come out in the trial anyway, let's not speculate too much here.

Whatever I think of the Met & policing in general - and it's as mixed as everything else - if these officers are handing their permits in because they don't feel confident in their ability to carry out firearms duties, then good for them and the system could possibly do with a look-over. If it's a form of work to rule and nothing to do with concience then that would be yet another hole poked in the Met's integrity...

 

[AlterEgo]

Prior intent for murder, is it not? as in the officer would have had to decide previous to the immediate scenario where the firearm was discharged.

All intent is prior, by definition.

You can form an intent to kill and be guilty of murder in the moment though - for example during the scenario in which the firearm was discharged.

Not saying this happened in this specific case, but let us say the officer has their weapon pointed at a suspect to get them to comply, safety catch off, ready to fire, and is issuing instructions. If the suspect then makes an unexpected action, and the officer discharges their weapon, one might reasonably think the intent was to kill the suspect. The officer would need to try to rely on other defences like self-defence, which will be entirely contextual, particularly in relation to the actions of the person killed prior to being shot. Were they reaching into a pocket, were they making threats of killing with a weapon themselves, were they raising their hands, were they turning to flee and cease causing a hazard?

The specifics of this case are unknown and we cannot speculate on them as proceedings are live.

 

[Meerkat]

What annoys me somewhat is that all the focus is on the big bad Met and no fuss about why the Met needs so many armed officers. The armed officers are a symptom of the problem, not the cause.
Big public outcry about police shootings, no huge community outrage and campaign to clear out the gunmen in their community that cause the armed plod to be there.
Wasn’t the car he was in linked to a gun incident - is there a witch hunt after who was driving it then?

 

[dakta]

I don't know the specifics of this case, but that was one of the things I also found with the example I somewhat referenced earlier, because there was such an outcry as to whether he was unlawfully killed but the guy was carrying a weapon in his car, and it turns out was well known and quite frankly a significant threat in general.

It doesn't mean there shouldn't be accountability but too much focus in the wrong area, it's a complex area but to try and simplify it for me as much as I can to go for murder there must somewhere be a material argument somewhere for the policeman involved to have wanted and acted towards a fatality as an outcome, as opposed to a consequence of police action.

It might seem flippant but if it's more the case the copper did the wrong thing, then it's a training matter or even just pure damn bad luck. I know there will probably be an outcry on that but these situations are so, well, heated, the variabilities got to be up through the roof even with the best training. That's why the situation sucks.

 

[Meerkat]

somewhat cynical but…..
If I was involved in organised crime, particularly drug supply needing transport and armed enforcement/protection, I would make sure I had the connections in my local community and media to create ‘public’ uproar leading to stop and search and armed police use being restricted. Even easier now you can do it yourself via rumours and accusations on social media
Just a variation on how gangs have always operated I guess….the Krays were lovely boys etc.

 

[JamesT]

They have to prove intent to kill or cause grevious harm to the person.

Unless the firearm discharge was negligent, shooting someone is probably going to result in a murder charge as opposed to manslaughter. A loss of control defence is probably going to be difficult to arrange for someone who is trained to do this professionally and in any case would likely be decided at trial.

You would imagine the police officer would claim self-defence, rather than one of the mitigations that would downgrade to manslaughter. Interestingly the CPS website has on https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

Self-defence is as much a defence to murder and manslaughter as to any other offence. As with all cases of offences against the person, when considering the sufficiency of evidence under the Code, if it is plain that such a defence is likely to succeed it would not be right to commence proceedings.

Which does suggest the CPS consider the case to be suitably strong to get past that bar to prosecution.

 

[HSTEd]

You would imagine the police officer would claim self-defence, rather than one of the mitigations that would downgrade to manslaughter. Interestingly the CPS website has on https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter

Which does suggest the CPS consider the case to be suitably strong to get past that bar to prosecution.

Given the apparent circumstances of the shooting, I am not sure a self defence claim is going to work. I'm not sure I should really say more given the ongoing proceedings.

 

[JamesT]

Given the apparent circumstances of the shooting, I am not sure a self defence claim is going to work. I'm not sure I should really say more given the ongoing proceedings.

The circumstances do appear to be disputed somewhat, I've read news reports such as https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/06/police-shoot-dead-man-lambeth/ which include

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.

Trying to use a car as a weapon would seem to be something you would defend against.