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.

Caligula on Wednesday, 17 August, 2005 9:53:08 AM very well said - that is exactly right.

It is not protection of the people, it is not unaccountable and they did not come clean and tell the truth for what is basically a crime - The media had to uncover the cock-up regardless or whether the police are happy about investigative journalism or not.

Jimjams - compassion for the tragic death of a son and money for the same son's death are a world apart to me.

oh well assumedname you must be a much better person than them then. That's nice for you.

I suspect the family would swap any amount of money to have their son back. It's a bit like when people tell me I'm "lucky" to have a motability car. Really? Would swap a car for child who will grow up to live independently immediately. So what does accepting the car make me? I think if you ascribe money motives then you are a)missing the point and are b) so self centered you are unable to begin to imagine how this family must feel. Is walking in someone else's shoes really so difficult.

Can someone confirm whether the family are actually seeking any compensation. I suppose the mets insurers have some sort of offer they automatically make when they are liable.

assumedname, what are you actually saying about this man's family? Are you trying to imply that they are somehow morally inferior to you if they want compensation? Because that's how your posts are coming across, to me anyway.

This was murder then. Pure and simple.

Sorry, this has moved along a bit before I got a chance to post.

I don?t think that there's nothing morally suspect about receiving compensation. That's the world we live in today. An injustice has been done and this is the way organisations admit their responsibility. What else could they do?

Double negative, sorry.

I believe I heard about they considering claiming compensation but why people is assuming that money from compensationsis always to have a good time yourself, does anybody knows how much does it cost to repatriate a body. It could send a full family to bankrupcy specially if you are from a lower income background.

If it was my son I would use a lawyer, forget about the compensation, nothing will ease the pain of loosing a son, I would be planning to sue if only to have some justice. After all they blame his death on his behaviour and a suspicios jacket he was not even wearing, I'm with Jimjams on this.

Jimjams/Caligula - is it really so difficult for you to walk in my shoes and understand my way of thinking?

I hate this modern compensation culture that some of us seem to live in. You trip up - you need compensation, your child has an accident - you need compensation. Had both of these scenarios and I didn't need a lawyer or compensation for either.

As I said on another previous thread about compensation - I just don't get it. Compensation for the bread winner of a family I understand. Compensation where someone has been permanently disabled and therefore needs monetary help to live, I understand. Someone pointed out to me that funeral expenses too would be justified. But to receive money just because a member of your family died - not for me.

That's why I assumed this family had a lawyer to clear their son's name - ie, make sure that everyone knows he was totally innocent, rather than for any compensation as I truly cannot see why they'd want it.

I also thought that this country would be responsible for repatriating the body to Brazil - not something you'd expect the family to pay for.

Who said I agreed with compensation. I have not sought compensation for my vaccine damaged son (would be unlikely to get i anyway) even though he will need a lifetime of care.

I was disagreeing with your posts which a)assumed the family were after compensation and b) assumes that if they are they must be money grabbing bastards.

has the compensation culture reached the slums of brazil?

Not sure what you think he needs to clear his name for? He hasn't been charged with anything. The family need a lawyer to represent them as their son has been killed.

The compensation for death in monetary terms is pretty small anyway- so don't worry even if they go for it I doubt they'll get much.

Tripping up on a pavement is slightly different to your son being murdered on the tube.

JJ - thought I explained in my last post what I meant by 'clear his name'. To state it again - to make sure that it is widely accepted that he was innocent, despite being followed from the flat that was under surveillance. Ie, not just innocent, but seen to be innocent.

FairyMum - the tripping up on a pavement was in response to a much earlier post by Jimjams who mentioned needing a lawyer if you trip on the pavement. I fell heavily when running - hurt my ankle, both knees, hands, arm and shoulder. It was very painful, embarrassing (right by a main road) and must have been hysterical to watch. I know I was laughing, in between tears. However, I still thought it was my fault for not being more careful and didn't require a lawyer etc etc.

But he's not gong to be tried so how on earth could a lawyer do that?

Agreed FM- ironically probably someone tripping and banging their knee would receive more compensation.

So assumedname are you assuming yourself superior to this family because you wouldn't ask for compensation? (If they are). What you would do is fairly irrelevant surely. I wouldn't persue compensation myself (although would probably take any settlement offered- would probably give a lot of it to charity as well) as I doubt i could deal with the stress. It doesn't mean I judge anyone who does go down that route though. And it doesn't mean that I lose sight of the fact they they have lost a son. Pointlessly.

My POV is that if he was such a suspect, the police should never have allowed him to get on a bus. It wasn't just the tubes that were targetted in the first attack or the failed attack. Yes, I appreciate that there are more people on the tube. But still, why let him get into any area or space where there were lots of other people if they suspected him of carrying something. Surely they should have stopped him straight away to ascertain if he was a threat, rather than following him through crowded public places and onto public transport.

If he had been a suicide bomber, wouldn't all the UK have been applauding the police for averting an attack?

Personally I don't agree with shoot to kill. We dont have the death penalty, we don't have a "life means life" policy in prison. Therefore, if we're not willing to inflict death on those people convicted of a crime, why should we accept a death for somebody who is suspected, especially when this could have been avoided by stopping him earlier??

Jimjams, I said I agreed with you in terms of the family feeling the need to have a lawyer.

In terms of clearing his name, well, in a way he was portrayed first as having a bit of the guilt or at least I understood that when they said the plice had to shoot. It was even implied that he was shot because he run off maybe because his visa was expired. But according to the last news he was not even running away, he didn't even know he was followed, and surely an expired visa is not a reason to shoot specially when you are not aware, in the first place, that the guy needed to have a visa. So, in a nutshell, clearing his name of being blamed of running away and as a result get shot.

Are you still selling the same products Ghosty sells? I want to get some but I found Ghosty a bit far from where I live. .

It's very hard to know the truth as the met will protect themselves by covering up as much as they can whilst the investigation is ongoing and only release the bare minimum of informtion to the media.
Therefore much of what is in the news is based on eye witness reports which can be either very sketchy or ridiculously glorified..
I am very intrigued by this case, and am worried about police being allowed to shoot freely, just another case of our country steadily turning into the 51st state in my opinion.

"Compensation for the bread winner of a family I understand. "

But that's just it - he was the bread winner for his family - he was sending money back home!

What does compensation have to do with it? the real issure is that an innocent man has been killed, his family must be distraught and the police are acting very cagey re; the circumstances.

It seems to me that the longer Jean was followed that morning, the more he was viewed as guilty in the eyes of his pursuers and in the last few volatile minutes before his death no policeman on the scene was able to challenge that belief and stop the chain of events.

On the topic of compensation, if Jean's family decide to go ahead and if by the police taking the blame and paying compensation helps them cope better pschologically and financially then fine. There are enough weak reasons why people seek compensation and this is definately not one of them.

Oh i undetsand that fully..of course it willhelp them but I imagine it is the lastthing on their minds. They would surely rather have a full understanding of events, and a full police enquiry with disciplinaRY ACTION IF NECCESARY and reform of PROCEDURE.

oops..sorry for the random caps there..

Chandra- yes I am- you can order via my website- CAT me if interested and I'll give you the details

the papers are quite interesting although havn't read it all yet

I agree, his family are traumatised. It would be good if ultimately Jean's death led to change within the system and then this tragedy might not have occurred in vain.

The police must have been hyped up to catch someone that day. It reminds me of how in the Iraqi war, the US soldiers had rap music pumped through their helmets when they were bombing and shooting people. The people who are ultimately responsible must be those who prep soldiers and police for their work as well as the policies.

Hmmm, I could be too tired to be writing on this topic. I am not trying to say that the police were stupid but maybe acted too hastily when the pressure was on. Surely they have to be trained to remain level headed and logically there was nothing to suggest that Jean was guilty.