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

[mummycan]

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.

ok forget that last bit about ITV/Ch4 - being blonde and need to go to bed LOL

even more interesting is this article - written on the 14th!

I was lashed out at the previous thread about this, because I mentioned I didn't buy the thing of policemen always being guardian angels, though I assumed they were right to shoot if he had failed to stop... Actually, someway shooting an innocent man by mistake doesn't seem as bad as trying to cover all the mess in such a shameles way, and in the way blaming somebody who had not even realised he was a suspect.

BTW, didn't see the channel 4 broadcast but the BBC2 10:00 pm news.

QoQ, I just read your link. It sounds like a complete cock-up, doesn't it

read your link too QOQ - i dont know what to think.... amazed things have gone so "quiet" after such a hectic few weeks.

SO19 does have a bad reputation- I won't be able to find the link now but there was something in one of the broadsheets in the daysfollowing the shooting about their record.

assumedname.. why on earth does his family need to 'clear his name'?
It is now for the police/'intelligence' services (ha) to clear themselves - or perhaps do the best possible job of covering up.

The family will no doubt have a lawyer to try and get to the truth of what happened.. and then claim whatever damages they can.

Im with you edam, and yes, thats a very good point Caligula!

Everyone knows that they do a high risk job and are faced with making life or death decisions that few of us would want the burden of.
However, without accountability, we end up with either fascism or anarchy.
There is more integrity in admitting the mistake than in becoming involved in a messy cover up.

Exactly Homemama. And I agree with Chandra, everyone knows that to err is human. This was quite obviously a monumental f -up. But actually, most reasonable people accept that sometimes, monumental f -ups happen, and subject to all measures being taken to try and ensure that it doesn't happen again, are prepared to forgive errors. But cover-ups are not forgivable. And the fact that the police have changed their story about six times now, does indicate that the immediate response to the cock-up, was to try and cover up. And in this day and age, that is simply not possible and will simply fuel conspiracy theories - much better to just come clean, to say, we screwed up, we're human, we're sorry. The police would get a damn sight more respect from everyone if they did that, instead of trying to blacken the name of the unfortunate man they killed.

unicorn - I assumed the family had a lawyer to 'clear his name' because I could think of no other reason they could possibly need one.

Unless of course it's just for the money.

It makes me wonder about eye witnesses. Remmember those police recruitment ads which used to ask: What do you see? Lots of people said at the time they saw a man jump the barrier with police in pursuit when it appears they saw a police officer jump with other police officers following, all in pursuit of a target which wasn't obvious to the eye witnesses.

We were in the US when most of this went on and and, as many of you are prob aware, the US papers published information which was being withheld from the UK papers due to the US security forces briefings. Not that any of it is significant now except to illustrate that the security forces have lots more info they choose not to share with the public.

assumedname you re joking! People have lawyers if they trip up, to sell their houses, to get divorced, to arrange contact with children, to secure the correct educational placement for their child. Of course the family would have a lawyer if their son had been killed. Would be extremely odd not to.

assumedname have a look here . A random case but notice the family have a lawyer (probably a couple as it took place abroad). I think it would highly offensive to suggest they would be after money. Their daughter was tragically killed so they have a lawyer. Same in this case. Same in any case.

Assumedname, if the police killed your son, your brother, your DH, do you think all you would care about would be the money? Or do you think you might want some answers?

I think it's best to ascribe the same motives to other families, as those you might have yourself in the same position. If you can imagine yourself in their position.

They've renamed the Shoot to Kill policy Shoot to Protect. How depressing that Orwell never seems to date.

Proof that authority really doesn't have the capacity to learn.

i didn't think they were supposed to shoot prospective bombers at all because they could have a hand held detonator which is activated when they LET GO... a la speed!

agree with what others have said. the police would have a lot mroe respect if they admitted that it had been handled terribly and that it should not have happened.
funny how the cctv just happens to not be working. as if!

and very at Shoot to Protect!!

Caligula - answers yes, compensation for an adult son's death absolutely not.

Jimjams - I tripped on a bad paving stone near my house, hurt my knee, blood everywhere.

I informed the Council so they could fix the stone. I did not ask for compensation.

So you'd want answers. So it's reasonable to assume his family do too.

And actually, they're entitled to compensation for his death. We live in a society where everything is valued by money. That may be very sad and very wrong, but until we decide to show our value in other ways, that's the way it is. Financial compensation is not so much for the benefit of the person who receives it, it is a disincentive to the person who gives it.

If companies and organisations didn't have to pay for the mistakes they make in monetary terms, how else do you think they ought to be made accountable? And what do you think would motivate them to not make the same mistakes again?

Did the council fix the stone?

Well said Caligula.

What's the lawyer got to do with that anyway- they need a lawyer to represent them whether they are going for compensation or not. (Last I heard they may be seeking it- not necessarily). Anyway in this case its a little different isn't it- the man was sending money home - you may not want compensation- maybe they need it.