The Metropolitan police has called on the SAS to provide counter-terrorism support after firearms officers downed their weapons in protest at the charging of their colleague with murder.

Suella Braverman ordered a review of armed policing to calm a growing rebellion of about 100 officers over the charging on Wednesday of an officer for the murder of 24-year-old Chris Kaba, an unarmed man killed last September by a single shot to the head.

 

Met commissioner Sir Mark Rowley called for greater protections for armed officers, accusing the police watchdog of being too quick to criminally investigate those who use force.

The scale and speed of the protest by Met armed officers prompted the home secretary to order an emergency review of armed policing, with several sources telling the Guardian there were fears the rebellion could spread further within the Met and around the country.

The Met, which polices most of London, had to ask other smaller forces to lend it armed officers and then on Sunday to ask the military for help.

The Guardian understands that the Met asked for soldiers from the SAS to be put on standby for deployment against terrorist suspects, as a significant number of police counter-terrorism firearms officers refused to be available for armed duties.

 

FULL STORY

 

Get our Daily Newsletter - Click HERE to subscribe

 

So 100 normally armed Met officers are all up for upholding the law until it’s one of their own charged with murder after shooting an unarmed man in the head.

 

Braverman jumps right in, but has she said anything about the unarmed murder victim?

 

 

 

26 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So 100 normally armed Met officers are all up for upholding the law until it’s one of their own charged with murder after shooting an unarmed man in the head.

 

Braverman jumps right in, but has she said anything about the unarmed murder victim?

 

 

 

He was using his vehicle as a weapon. 

48 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He was using his vehicle as a weapon. 

Link?

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Link?

plenty of info on google, 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Link?

Lazy

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/06/police-shoot-dead-man-lambeth/

 

Ramming a police road block set up to apprehend him on gun charges.

20 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Lazy

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/09/06/police-shoot-dead-man-lambeth/

 

Ramming a police road block set up to apprehend him on gun charges.

Oh, so not using the car as a weapon.

 

And the ‘gun charges’, there were no non police guns, no justified claim of ‘gun charges’.

 

The CPS obviously see grounds for murder charges.

26 minutes ago, steve187 said:

plenty of info on google, 

Indeed, but when alleging the use of a car a a weapon it’s fir the person making the allegation to provide a link.

 

Not for others to have to go looking.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh, so not using the car as a weapon.

 

And the ‘gun charges’, there were no non police guns, no justified claim of ‘gun charges’.

 

The CPS obviously see grounds for murder charges.

He rammed a police road block with his car.

 

He was using a car as a weapon.

 

Had previous convictions for gun crime.

 

The car he was driving was being investigated for gun crime the previous day.

 

Not quite George Floyd levels of scumbaggery but on the correct path.

 

Stop painting this as a man being assassinated on the way to buy a pint of milk. We don't need your baiting in the UK. 

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Indeed, but when alleging the use of a car a a weapon it’s fir the person making the allegation to provide a link.

 

Not for others to have to go looking.

Lazy. You know what he did. It's a very irritating tactic. I'd go as far as to call it trolling.

14 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

He rammed a police road block with his car.

 

He was using a car as a weapon.

 

Had previous convictions for gun crime.

 

The car he was driving was being investigated for gun crime the previous day.

 

Not quite George Floyd levels of scumbaggery but on the correct path.

 

Stop painting this as a man being assassinated on the way to buy a pint of milk. We don't need your baiting in the UK. 

“The car he was driving was being investigated for gun crime the previous day.“

It wasn’t the car that was shot was it?!

 

“Stop painting this as a man being assassinated on the way to buy a pint of milk.”

 

I never even suggested he was in his way to buy a pint of milk, though he might have been, he certainly didn’t have any guns on his person or in the vehicle.

 

Interestingly, you argue elsewhere that those accused of crimes should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

This guy has been shot dead for trying to evade arrest. 
 

Whoever would you bring George Floyd up?

“We don't need your baiting in the UK”

Thankfully the limits of your belief in freedom of speech don’t get to dictate to me, or anyone else, on where we get to express our thoughts on masters of interest.

 

 

 

Edited September 25, 20232 yr by Chomper Higgot

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Lazy. You know what he did. It's a very irritating tactic. I'd go as far as to call it trolling.

Clearly the CPS also know what he did.

 

It’s the CPS, not me, that have brought the murder charge.

 

 

Edited September 25, 20232 yr by Chomper Higgot

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Clearly the CPS also know what he did.

 

It’s the CPS, not me, that have brought the murder charge.

 

 

The CPS often bring cases where the result is not guilty.

 

I suspect the same will happen here. 

 

Meanwhile, the Army are required to police London. Marvellous. I bet those squaddies will be thrilled to be charged with murder when stopping someone trying to smash through their roadblock in an Audi Q8.

 

 

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The CPS often bring cases where the result is not guilty.

 

I suspect the same will happen here. 

 

Meanwhile, the Army are required to police London. Marvellous. I bet those squaddies will be thrilled to be charged with murder when stopping someone trying to smash through their roadblock in an Audi Q8.

 

 

Maybe the officer will be found innocent, maybe not.

 

The Home Secretary expressing views on the matter doesn’t bode well for a fair trial.

 

Are soldiers being deployed, or is that just a suggestion?

 

 

13 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“The car he was driving was being investigated for gun crime the previous day.“

It wasn’t the car that was shot was it?!

 

“Stop painting this as a man being assassinated on the way to buy a pint of milk.”

 

I never even suggested he was in his way to buy a pint of milk, though he might have been, he certainly didn’t have any guns on his person or in the vehicle.

 

Interestingly, you argue elsewhere that those accused of crimes should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

This guy has been shot dear for trying to evade arrest. 
 

Whoever would you bring George Floyd up?

“We don't need your baiting in the UK”

Thankfully the limits of your belief in freedom of speech don’t get to dictate to me, or anyone else, on where we get to express our thoughts on masters of interest.

 

 

 

Always siding with the criminals.

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The Home Secretary expressing views on the matter doesn’t bode well for a fair trial

Are you suggesting corruption?

 

If so, links please. 

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Are you suggesting corruption?

 

If so, links please. 

No I am not suggesting corruption.

 

So therefore no link to something I did not suggest.

11 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Always siding with the criminals.

I’m not siding with any criminals.

 

The allegations and charges have not yet been proven in a court of law.

 

 

50 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Oh, so not using the car as a weapon.

 

And the ‘gun charges’, there were no non police guns, no justified claim of ‘gun charges’.

 

The CPS obviously see grounds for murder charges.

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.

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

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.

Has anyone disputed that?

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Has anyone disputed that?

Yes, you.

Just now, nauseus said:

Yes, you.

No I haven’t.

1 minute ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I haven’t.

You said: "Oh, so not using the car as a weapon".

15 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I am not suggesting corruption.

 

So therefore no link to something I did not suggest.

So why are you suggesting that the home secretary's comments would affect the trial?

 

Maybe better to retract that comment if you don't have links to back it up.

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

You said: "Oh, so not using the car as a weapon".

Yes I did.

 

I did not dispute he was attempting to ram his way out of a police road block:

 

“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.”

 

Please point out which bit of the witness accounts I have objected to.

41 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

“The car he was driving was being investigated for gun crime the previous day.“

It wasn’t the car that was shot was it?!

 

“Stop painting this as a man being assassinated on the way to buy a pint of milk.”

 

I never even suggested he was in his way to buy a pint of milk, though he might have been, he certainly didn’t have any guns on his person or in the vehicle.

 

Interestingly, you argue elsewhere that those accused of crimes should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

 

This guy has been shot dead for trying to evade arrest. 
 

Whoever would you bring George Floyd up?

“We don't need your baiting in the UK”

Thankfully the limits of your belief in freedom of speech don’t get to dictate to me, or anyone else, on where we get to express our thoughts on masters of interest.

 

 

 

Making excuses for people the police are trying to protect you from.

 

You are not a troll, you are weird...........

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

So why are you suggesting that the home secretary's comments would affect the trial?

 

Maybe better to retract that comment if you don't have links to back it up.

Because the Home Secretary’s remarks might very well impact the trial.

 

She doesn’t have to be corrupt to do so, she might be simply stupid.

 

She certainly should not be making comments on cases being sent to trial.

 

 

4 minutes ago, transam said:

Making excuses for people the police are trying to protect you from.

 

You are not a troll, you are weird...........

Erm no.

 

 

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

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.

I'm sure Chomhpherh would consider the criminal with convictions for weapon possession unarmed if he simply ran her over in his Audi Q8.

 

Weapon? What weapon? He used his car...

So here’s a question.

 

Should armed police officers be subject to the law?