New concerns on the Tilson Gardens Police Shooting

Since our last update on the incident on the 21st August, when the police shot a Brixton resident, there have been further reports in The Guardian (here) and Daily Mirror (here). Both papers named the victim as Nathaniel Brophy, a 34 year old mixed race man, and quoted remarks from his father Patrice Duval.

These reports raise new concerns

The victim was surrendering

The police and IPCC had previously emphasised the claim that they found a “non police firearm” at the site, and used this to imply that Mr Brophy was threatening them, and had to be shot to prevent him doing harm. In fact, according to his family, this “firearm” was an air rifle, and Brophy was not holding it at the time he was shot. “My son did not have a gun. He said he had his hands up,” Mr Duval told the Guardian.

The victim was shot in the back

According to the Guardian, police fired four shots at Mr Brophy, three of which hit him. The Mirror specified that these hit him in the leg, the stomach and the back.

Why were the police there in the first place?

Both reports confirm that Mr Brophy had previously been evicted, and had re-entered his flat with his old keys to collect some of his things. Just as we wrote in our last statement, this account suggests that he was not committing a crime. It’s therefore impossible to see why police came to the flat in the first place. The police should have had a reason for going to the flat, but they haven’t said what it was.

The role of the IPCC

The Guardian reports that the IPCC supervised officers writing up their statements, which they did together in the same room, to make sure that they did not confer with each other, unlike in previous incidents where the police have shot somebody. But, unless the officers involved were supervised immediately after the shooting and kept apart until the moment when they sat down to write, they could still have conferred. Given that the IPCC told a public meeting the week after the shooting that they arrived on the scene “within 3 hours”, that still allows plenty of time for the police to confer. The IPCC should release a detailed timeline of events immediately.

The video footage

Some of the officers were wearing cams. There is also CCTV footage that the IPCC have. This must be released. What are they hiding?

Advertisements

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: