CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 3:51 pm
If your aim is indeed to parody an indefensible position that in nonetheless characteristic of the crankier left, thus undermining the left, then by that metric, you win every day.
It’s just that I would have thought that that’s the sort of thing that a righty might choose to do for fun.
I'm merely pointing out that the tame left are missing the point and instinctively cleaving to the establishment as always.
Kaba does seem to have been a viscious criminal but that doesn't excuse his execution with no accountability.
CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 3:42 pm
Genuinely baffling that some people have chosen to die on this hill.
I assumed MB Gold was on a wind up.
I only got involved because crickets over for the day
He was held to account through a prosecution attempt at trial by jury. The jury, having considered all of the evidence, said "get to f*ck!". Cope harder.
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 4:07 pm
He was held to account through a prosecution attempt at trial by jury. The jury, having considered all of the evidence, said "get to f*ck!". Cope harder.
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 4:07 pm
He was held to account through a prosecution attempt at trial by jury. The jury, having considered all of the evidence, said "get to f*ck!". Cope harder.
CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 3:42 pm
Genuinely baffling that some people have chosen to die on this hill.
I assumed MB Gold was on a wind up.
I only got involved because crickets over for the day
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 4:07 pm
He was held to account through a prosecution attempt at trial by jury. The jury, having considered all of the evidence, said "get to f*ck!". Cope harder.
Genuinely baffled as to what he gets out of the “I’m going to adopt a position that’s 5% more ridiculous than my actual position”
Is it as simple as that he gets vaguely plausible deniability when he makes a fool of himself? Thats the only thing I can think of, but that would mean awareness that that will happen often enough to make it worthwhile designing his whole persona around it.
CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 4:21 pm
Genuinely baffled as to what he gets out of the “I’m going to adopt a position that’s 5% more ridiculous than my actual position”
Is it as simple as that he gets vaguely plausible deniability when he makes a fool of himself? Thats the only thing I can think of, but that would mean awareness that that will happen often enough to make it worthwhile designing his whole persona around it.
I’m sure that the left never used to be this nuts on this stuff. Like, this is how the righties would characterise the left, but it wasn’t actually like this.
There was always an element of it, but it was referred to as the lunatic fringe. Now it's just become mainstream.
I'd suggest it's because the left, as it was traditionally defined, no longer exists. Workplace solidarity and community cohesion were defeated in the 80s. What we have now is a post-industrial, wet-liberalism that lacks real intellectual weight.
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 1:04 pm
It's not as if the police just shot him in the head while he was stood around minding his own business.
The footage shows that he was using a 2.1 ton car as a weapon against armed police who had very good reasons to stop the vehicle and apprehend him. But rather than comply, he decided to aim his car at other vehicles and the police stood nearby. When armed police are telling you to stop and you not only refuse, but act in a way that could endanger them and the public, getting shot is a very possible consequence of your actions.
As for the headshot, the graphics and bodycam footage show that, due to the angle, once a shot was fired it was very likely going to hit him in the head. Trying to hit any other part of his body was unrealistic. Kaba made his decision, so did the armed officer, and now society will somehow have to struggle on without Kaba's valued contribution.
They shot an unarmed suspect in the head at close range. Was there really no other alternative to a street execution?
Long slender neck wrote: ↑Tue Oct 22, 2024 12:05 pm
Not sure I do agree with headshotting someone ramming a car to be honest.
They shoot to stop not to kill. My cousin is an Authorised Firearms Officer. The Jury found the officer charged, not guilty.
Kaba could have stopped, complied and lived.
Head shot to "stop" but not kill ? How's that work then? Was aiming for his arm at point blank range but hit him in the head? Thought there was a bit of the head that he could hit that wouldn't kill him ?
Write to the Home Secretary. That is the policy, shoot to stop, pardon the pun but ‘don’t shoot the messenger’
Shame Kaba did not have much care when he was indiscriminately shoot a weapon towards a dance floor a few days earlier.
Seems that there are some people who will see good in this hardened vicious criminal come what may. He really is no loss to society.
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 1:04 pm
It's not as if the police just shot him in the head while he was stood around minding his own business.
The footage shows that he was using a 2.1 ton car as a weapon against armed police who had very good reasons to stop the vehicle and apprehend him. But rather than comply, he decided to aim his car at other vehicles and the police stood nearby. When armed police are telling you to stop and you not only refuse, but act in a way that could endanger them and the public, getting shot is a very possible consequence of your actions.
As for the headshot, the graphics and bodycam footage show that, due to the angle, once a shot was fired it was very likely going to hit him in the head. Trying to hit any other part of his body was unrealistic. Kaba made his decision, so did the armed officer, and now society will somehow have to struggle on without Kaba's valued contribution.
They shot an unarmed suspect in the head at close range. Was there really no other alternative to a street execution?
Also, is it really accurate to describe him as unarmed? That implies he did not have a weapon in his possession. You could argue that the way he was aggressively driving the Audi meant that his car was a weapon of sorts.
And given his criminal record, how could the police know with any certainty that he did not have a gun with him in the car ?
They shot an unarmed suspect in the head at close range. Was there really no other alternative to a street execution?
Also, is it really accurate to describe him as unarmed? That implies he did not have a weapon in his possession. You could argue that the way he was aggressively driving the Audi meant that his car was a weapon of sorts.
And giving his criminal record, how could the police know with any certainty that he did not have a gun with him in the car ?
The police didn't know that at the time of their attempt to apprehend him. What they did know was that:
a) the vehicle had been reported as being involved in a firearms incident the previous day, so the risk level was certainly high.
b) the driver was refusing to stop and comply with the police officers' reasonable instructions
c) the driver was using the vehicle as a weapon, and risking the safety of the public and the police in his attempt to evade arrest
Shoot to stop and shoot to kill have an important distinction.
A “shoot to kill” policy risks being disproportionate and shifts the impetus of the officer to trying to *ensure* he kills; a “shoot to stop” policy recognises the possibility of killing, but stops short of making that the intention, instead “killing” may be legitimate and inevitable depending on the circumstances
Also, is it really accurate to describe him as unarmed? That implies he did not have a weapon in his possession. You could argue that the way he was aggressively driving the Audi meant that his car was a weapon of sorts.
And giving his criminal record, how could the police know with any certainty that he did not have a gun with him in the car ?
The police didn't know that at the time of their attempt to apprehend him. What they did know was that:
a) the vehicle had been reported as being involved in a firearms incident the previous day, so the risk level was certainly high.
b) the driver was refusing to stop and comply with the police officers' reasonable instructions
c) the driver was using the vehicle as a weapon, and risking the safety of the public and the police in his attempt to evade arrest
CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri Oct 25, 2024 1:09 pm
Shoot to stop and shoot to kill have an important distinction.
A “shoot to kill” policy risks being disproportionate and shifts the impetus of the officer to trying to *ensure* he kills; a “shoot to stop” policy recognises the possibility of killing, but stops short of making that the intention, instead “killing” may be legitimate and inevitable depending on the circumstances
Does it make a difference if the perp is black or has a gun?
Dunners wrote: ↑Thu Oct 24, 2024 1:04 pm
It's not as if the police just shot him in the head while he was stood around minding his own business.
The footage shows that he was using a 2.1 ton car as a weapon against armed police who had very good reasons to stop the vehicle and apprehend him. But rather than comply, he decided to aim his car at other vehicles and the police stood nearby. When armed police are telling you to stop and you not only refuse, but act in a way that could endanger them and the public, getting shot is a very possible consequence of your actions.
As for the headshot, the graphics and bodycam footage show that, due to the angle, once a shot was fired it was very likely going to hit him in the head. Trying to hit any other part of his body was unrealistic. Kaba made his decision, so did the armed officer, and now society will somehow have to struggle on without Kaba's valued contribution.
They shot an unarmed suspect in the head at close range. Was there really no other alternative to a street execution?
No. Glad you were not on the Jury.
I would have been fair before voting to convict the killer for a cold blooded murder.
