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.

How about this as a form of compensation... The police should send his family on a nice holiday just like the policeman who shot him was given

I was howled down for being shocked at the Met paying for the officer who shot Jean to go on holiday.

Ian Blair, head of the Met, did issue misleading statements. The confusion isn't just down to eyewitnesses - it's down to what Ian Blair said and the statements the Met has put out. Each time they've had to pull back from previous assertions. Blair initially claimed the man shot dead was a suspect directly linked to the inquiry into the bombings, for example. That was not true.

re the holiday - we don't even know where he went - could have been a self catering caravan in Bognor for all we know!

No, but it smacked of the Met protecting their own while there was no official statement saying anything was being done for this poor man's family and friends.

Exactly Edam the irony of it smacked me in the face when I noticed compensation being mentioned - protection of their own and not the people.

hey, I just read jimjam's 'the pages are quite interesting' and I can't believe the story of the lone policeman doing the surveilance of the apartments (that Jean left) on his own. Why would he be on his own when the public have been told that up to 6000 policemen have been deployed in London post bombings. The story that he missed the opportunity to see Jean properly and identify him as a possible suspect because he took a wee is farsical.

I have to step in and take issue with the idea that the policeman (or possibly policeman, according to latest reports) was/were sent on a 'holiday.'

My healthy, full-term baby son died traumatically at the hands of professionals six months ago. He wasn't shot in the head, but he died wrongfully, distressed in a pool of meconium.

I raged and cried and hated the doctor who was ultimately responsible. The one who ignored my pleas for a CS until it was too late. I saw the doctor five hours after the event. She was still in shock ( I am not exaggerating) and so distressed. She kept repeating that she had a baby boy at home. At the time I asked the MW's to remove her from my room as I could not even look at her. I hated her so much.

I found out at the enquiry that she and the anaesthetist involved had been given time off on full-pay (a holiday perhaps?) to give them time to come to terms with what had happened. I can't imagine that they had a fun-filled time.

Bubble, my heart is breaking for you. I'm so sorry.

bubble - that's what I tried to explain in my other thread - but you explained it so well - just so that you could do it so well because it happened to you.

Not debating on the enjoyment level of holiday - its more compare and contrast between the victim, victims family and the ´shooting officer(s)´. An error of this magnitude highlights injustice and inequality of and between the two parties - so solutions / resolution are small compensation indeed.

Compassion/consideration for the feelings of all involved I believe is important - but so are pre and post justification and actions that caused the incident important.

In a high stress public job it is good that the officers are removed from armed roles.

as for what's being done for the family - well I read somewhere today/yesterday (can't remember which) that his parents are coming over to the UK soon (not sure when).

I don't suppose they're paying for that visit themselves! As for most of the rest of the "justification" well I guess we'll have to wait until the enquiry has been completed.

I think it is normal to go off on full pay. And quite right as well. I suspect most people would be a basket case and would need that.

The holiday thing is unclear. I hesitate to condem it because I know the fire service for example do fund holidays for their workers (I think they must own some lodges/chalets which people are free to use at a very reduced rate). If the family were doing something like that then that would be entirely reasonable. It's not quite the same as being bought/given a holiday.

The doctors who killed my son by their wrongful actions did not set out to wrongfully kill a baby.

The policeman/man who shot and killed someone else's son did not set out to wrongfully kill a man.

Our son died outside of a media glare. We received a 'free' cremation and enough offers of counselling to last a lifetime.

I suspect that Jean's family are being well looked-after, likewise.

As I said, its a difficult situation highlighted by the media coverage because we the public can become involved. Also, the point of compensation was raised and we wait and wonder what support Jeans family will receive, not being British citizens being another aspect.

Your tragedy Bubble (as you must realise from the email I sent the other day) is heart-wrenching.

The difference between your tragedy and this one is that no-one gave an order to murder your baby. Somebody gave those officers the order, the license to kill. Holidays and compensation seem small tokens to legislation that allows such occurences.

I agree with Elf1981 post and hope she/he does not mind me pasting it here

´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??´

Message withdrawn

The senior officers gave permission to kill a suicide bomber. They did not give permission to kill an innocent member of the public. At the time the order was given, the senior officers thought, and were told that the armed police were following a suicide bomber.

I hope that Jean's family get the answers they deserve. Someone, at some level, f***d up monumentally. But I hate the way that the police are being portrayed as trigger-happy killers.

I do not view all doctors as baby-killing b***s

Generalisations are never wise in real life are they - resolution of and overcoming grief, any issue would never be possible. Take care Bubble

I agree Pruni

Just seen that apparently a memeber of the IPCC secretarial staff has been suspended over the leaking of a report....

in there 2nd paragraph - and BBC have a ticker at the moment saying same thing - but no story as yet (think they must have slower typers over there as I often see the 'tickers' before Sky has anything, but sky always beat them to the actually written story).

one reason for seeking compensation is surely that it helps to prevent the same thing happening again. Councils are much keener to fix damaged paving stones since they have to pay for accidents caused by them. It may not be so effective in cases like this since the public response would itself force change. However it is still a motive in seeking financial compensation.

I still feel deeply sorry for all the people caught up in this - police as well as the family of the man affected. Keep thinking of Shylock's speech in the Merchant of Venice " if you cut me do I not bleed....."

I'm genuinely shocked that Ian Blair tried to cover this up with an internal investigation, bypassing the proper authorities. The police officer who pulled the trigger may not be culpable. But Blair is. He deliberately misled the public - remember 'this man was challenged and failed to stop'? Even I fell for that one. Despite my first response being 'Oh God, I hope this isn't another Harry Stanley'. Blair must have known at that point that it wasn't true. And then to try to bypass the IPCC... and try to evade responsibility for the death by blaming it on the bombers. Despicable.

Bubble's point about the doctors responsible for her baby's tragic death is valid in that situation, of course. Maybe the officer who pulled the trigger feels terrible. And betrayed by his superiors? But I don't think Ian Blair has given any evidence that he feels remorse. Instead he's tried to bluster and create a cover up.

""Sir Ian told the Evening Standard: "These allegations strike to the heart of the integrity of the police and integrity of the Met and I fundamentally reject them. There is no cover-up.""

It's beginning to sound all to familiar isn't it?

I have to say aI am with Bubble on the issue of the police not willingly killing an innocent man. Ian Blairs statement that he was a suspect that was directly linked to the terrorist bombings was not untrue at the time it was made. What happened is they actually suspected the wrong person! The facts as they had them changed!

I want to re-iterate again that I am waiting for the full and proper outcome of the enquiry before speculating on the finer detail - I really do feel that we are not hearing the full story about what has gone on, we are hearing shoking things that are being presented as the whole fact - but are they? Sorry if I am sounding like a broken record!

gives us a chance in the meantime Ark to jostle and flap our wings

I think of the anger and grief that the mother who sat at the entrance of George Bush´s Texas ranch. This ´War on Terror´ goes on unfortunately even after the enquiry about Jean´s death, after Cindy Sheehan leaves the ranch and goes home. It is what makes thes ugly manifestations which make political policy a horrific reality that just don´t stay on the TV screen.

of course flap and jostle away - just re-iterating my standpoint before I am accused of being a police loving repressor of free speach and media

And it was on the tip of my tongue to say those things, obviously, ark.