- Police officer who fatally shot Chris Kaba, named as Martyn Blake, 40, cleared of murder
- Kaba died from a single gunshot wound to the head
- Kaba’s family said the verdict was “painful proof that our lives are not valued by the system”
- The ruling comes after reporting restrictions imposed by Kaba’s family were lifted, with CCTV footage identifying him as the gunman at a nightclub shooting in Hackney
Chris Kaba has been named as the gunman in a nightclub shooting just days before he died, it can now be reported.
After a judge lifted reporting restrictions requested by Kaba’s family, CCTV footage has been released showing Kaba allegedly shooting a man in both legs at a nightclub in Tower Hamlets. It comes after the police officer who shot Kaba, named as Martyn Blake, 40, was cleared of murder but still faces other charges.
In protest at Blake’s murder charge, over 100 Met officers turned in their firearms permits. In fact, such was the concern that more officers would hand in their weapons if Blake was convicted, and the army was put on standby for armed responses.
However, Kaba’s family said that Mr Blake’s acquittal “wasn’t just a failure for our family, but for all those affected by police violence”. Sheeda Queen, a cousin of Mr Kaba, and a member of the Justice for Chris campaign group, described “a deep pain of injustice, adding to the unbearable sorrow”.
Met Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said Mr Blake had paid “a huge personal and professional sacrifice” in the two years since the shooting.
He said the officer had made “a split-second decision on what he believed was necessary to protect his colleagues and to protect London”.
An avoidable tragedy
It is unfortunate that a man’s death has been politicised. We often become so caught up in the spectacle of the latest controversy that we often forget about the victims themselves. A man has died – some would argue unnecessarily – which should not invoke feelings of happiness or joy from any self-respecting person.
With that being said, many questions arise out of this incident. Should he have been shot in the first place? Was there a way to bring him to justice without killing him? What justifies his shooting?
Many sceptics would argue that he should have been shot due to his criminal history. The public was allowed to see CCTV footage of Kaba allegedly shooting a rival gang member at a nightclub in Hackney, east London.
His links to a Brixton Hill-based gang called ‘67‘, and his extensive criminal record (including stabbing with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, affray, possession of an offensive weapon and possession of an imitation firearm) dating to when he was just 13 years of age, do not help matters. On paper, this is a remorseless career criminal.
However, we are quick to forget that even ‘career criminals’ are entitled to due process and to have their day in court. Police officers making a judgment based purely upon who they perceive a person to be can be quite dangerous and set a dangerous precedent.
If that were the case, we wouldn’t have a criminal justice system. Innocent people would be wrongfully harassed, arrested and even jailed – something which has happened to the black community in the past, and in some cases, to this very day. This could have contributed to why his family did not want his criminal history or any footage of him in the public domain.
This is not to say that the police aren’t or shouldn’t be allowed to make split-second decisions on whether not to use deadly force against someone; it’s more to do with the justification for doing so and the mental logic that goes into making such a decision that matters, here.
With that being said, it is also impossible to ignore a person’s history and reputation when deciding how to take action against them. The police (and their supporters) will argue that Kaba is not a petty criminal who’s only known for smaller crimes such as phone snatching. This is a hardened criminal who will not hesitate to use violence and weapons to achieve his goals.
The aforementioned CCTV footage is a testament to this, as well as body cam footage from the shooting itself – Kaba, upon being told to exit his vehicle (which was linked to an earlier crime involving a firearm) by armed police, rammed the police car in front of him.
This was when Sergeant Blake shot him. It’s arguable that had Kaba simply obeyed the officers and surrendered, he would be alive today.
Was he part of a gang? Yes. Did he have a criminal record? Yes. Did he attempt to use violence against the police? Yes. Therefore, did the police have reason to believe he was dangerous? Yes.
There have been several times in the past where police officers have been rightfully found guilty of wrongdoing against someone. This is not one of those times.
The mountains of CCTV evidence and body cam video have violently and emphatically put to bed any accusations of discrimination or foul play on the police’s part. Even the most police-sceptical must concede the police had the right to act in this scenario.
What now?
It is still unclear as to whether or not firearms officers are as confident as they were before the case, as it has set a precedent as to how firearms officers are treated if they exercise their power.
Many argue this whole case is a result of politics and the history between the black community and the police. Should officers be under greater scrutiny as to when they’re permitted to shoot? Should the history of the tension between the black community and the police give the former a greater influence on how the police should operate?
Kaba’s former gang has put a £10,000 bounty on Sergeant Blake’s head, forcing him and his family to go into hiding. The Met Police Federation said Blake ‘should have never stood trial’ [in the first place].
