Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Did anyone see Channel 4 news re police killing of Brazillian man?

154 replies

mummycan · 16/08/2005 19:59

Apparently surveillance officer didn't get a good look at him, he was busy relieving himself. He wasn't wearing a padded jacket - just a denim one. He didn't jump over the barier - even stopped to pick up a paper. All police officers were plain clothes - none of the witnesses heard a warning - that poor man didn't stand a chance.

I am not judging - in that climate i would not want to have to make the decision that the police officers had to - just sad at such a tragic waste of life - can't even begin to imagine what his family are going through now.

OP posts:
Gobbledigook · 16/08/2005 20:18

I don't believe any of that.

None of the witnesses heard 'STOP. ARMED POLICE'?? B**llcks.

starlover · 16/08/2005 20:22

it's been in the papers loads a while back.
apparently it's all true. funny ow the CCTV has magically gone missing!
he wasn't wearing a padded jacket. they followed him all the way from his flat without saying anything
they were plain clothes.

the guy who thought he saw him vault the barrier was mistaken.... following descriptions of the guy he realised that the person who vaulted was one of the policemen...

they had him on the floor already. arms locked behjind him. and then shot.

it's absolutely disgusting.

if a load of guys started running after me with guns i would bloody run away too!

starlover · 16/08/2005 20:23

GDG... they are trained NOT to shout a warning... for the reason that it makes people run off/detonate the bomb they are carrying

edam · 16/08/2005 20:23

What makes you so sure they said 'stop, armed police' GGK? Eyewitnesses say there was no warning. Not sure what police are currently claiming but the Met has already changed its story several times. Plus police have said the new guidelines say they don't have to issue a warning. So it seems likely they didn't.

Not surprised re denim jacket and confirmation that he didn't jump the barrier, the way the police have already had to backtrack on their original claims. Terrible, terrible story. That shows exactly why shoot to kill is dangerous, wrong and immoral.

starlover · 16/08/2005 20:25

even if he WAS a bomber... there aws no reason to shoot him.

they had him under control on the floor. by that point they could easily tell he had no bomb on him, and particularly that there was no detonator in his hand.
absolutely NO reason to shoot at all. let alone 7 times!

edam · 16/08/2005 20:25

Not only did they follow him from his flat, apparently they followed him on a bus. Which would be mad, if they genuinely had a reason to suspect he was a suicide bomber. Whole thing stinks to high heaven.

pinkmamma · 16/08/2005 20:27

Sorry but this kind of shit really makes me MAD, you obviously have no idea what police/SAS/etc in these positions do for people like US on a daily basis - put THEIR lives at risk. Do people really believe everything on tv/in the press?
Sorry but I have family in high risk jobs and this seriously makes me MAD

edam · 16/08/2005 20:28

So it's OK for police to gun random people down in the tube, then, Pinkmama?

starlover · 16/08/2005 20:30

pinkmamma.... you think what they did was right?

follow someone simply because they happent o live in the same block of flats.
then chase them and shoot them down.

despite having NO reason to believe they had a bomb, and also having completely disabled him so that even if he was carrying a bomb he wouldn't have been able to use it?

Gobbledigook · 16/08/2005 20:34

I'm with you pinkmamma

I don't know the whole story - none of us does (and never will - this is a major terrorist investigation and London is still on majorly high alert bracing for another attack - intelligence is not going to be broadcast on the evening news) and I'm not about to start judging these officers for their actions.

It's not a position I'd want to be in so I have every admiration for those that do it, especially in these stressful times.

edam · 16/08/2005 20:34

And they aren't killing people for me, pinkmama. I don't want the police killing people at all. We don't have the death penalty in this country. This is a democractic country, but no-one asked us, the voters, whether we wanted a shoot to kill policy. It's certainly not in my name.

edam · 16/08/2005 20:36

Funny how when the police are discredited we should withhold judgement because we don't know the whole story. But when it had happened, it was OK to justify the police, even though we had even less information to go on back then?

Gobbledigook · 16/08/2005 20:37

I'm not judging at any point - then or now, because I know we don't know the full facts.

littleredhen · 16/08/2005 20:45

of course they wouldn't issue a warning to stop to a suspected suidice bomber who'd just boarded a tube.

edam · 16/08/2005 20:46

But we do know an innocent man is dead. Gunned down as he lay on the floor. And we know the police have changed their story six or seven times, each time having to admit a previous justification was wrong. And we know that Channel Four news is a reputable, thorough, balanced and careful programme (at least I'm sure about that bit).

Jimjams · 16/08/2005 21:01

oh god don't tell me its turning into a Harry Stanley cover up. Mind you the guy is charge of the investigation is meant to be a bit ropey isn't he (although will retire half way through?) I heard the person in charge of the day to day stuff was more reliable.

Jimjams · 16/08/2005 21:05

this is interesting . I can't quite read it seriously as it's written by a member of my family (and I can't quite believe that they're writing for the revolutionary communists PMSL) but he does generally know his stuff.

Gobbledigook · 16/08/2005 21:09

But in this delicate situation - information forwarded to the press is going to be selective and with the need to protect the investigation in mind (not only of that event but of future potential attacks - and we are expecting another one).

They are not going to give you full on facts of the whys and wherefores of this are they - or else they would seriously compromise the security of London (and the rest of the UK).

Jimjams · 16/08/2005 21:14

I don't see how whether he was wearing a padded or denim jacket could seriously compromise security in the UK. Nor whether he jumped over a barrier o not , nor whether they shouted "stop armed police" or didn't.

Gobbledigook · 16/08/2005 21:16

"These shootings are designed to inflict fear and terror on black and working class people, the poor and oppressed."

Hmm. Speechless.

Jimjams · 16/08/2005 21:19

PMSL well he did used to be a communist.

Ignore the political stuff though and stick with the facts of the number of innocent people who have been shot. The fact that the police screwed up so badly in such a high profile case is very very unfortunate. They should do themselves a favour and stop trying to pretend he was wearing a padded jacket/leaping barriers whatever. Otherwise they'll lose a lot of goodwill and a lot of trust. And Stockwell isn;;t really the sort of place you want to lose trust.

batters · 16/08/2005 21:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Caligula · 16/08/2005 22:03

are we really not allowed to question people who are in high risk jobs, just because they are in high risk jobs?

If so, that's the end of any idea of accountablity then.

assumedname · 16/08/2005 22:06

Why does the dead man's family need a lawyer? Presumably to clear his name?

QueenOfQuotes · 17/08/2005 00:34

hmmm - it seems perhaps there's been a leak of information from the inquiry

here

(although I must point out it says that ITV - not Ch4 - got hold of it)