Nathaniel Brophy

Nathaniel BrophyMan shot by police after 7-hour siege

compiled from various sources
compiled by: Sobia Hussain – July 2016

Updates on this case listed at the foot of this item

Nathaniel Brophy, aged 34, was left in a critical condition after being shot by the police after a siege that lasted seven hours. On Friday 21 August police escorted a housing officer to a residential address in southwest London. During an exchange it was claimed that Nathaniel produced a firearm and armed officers called in.

Police fired four shots at Nathaniel following the standoff. Nathaniel was being evicted for rent arrears, and armed police are thought to have believed he was posing a threat to them or others when they opened fire.

A number of officers were wearing video body cameras and the footage was handed over to the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigators. In a statement released the day after the shooting, the Metropolitan police said: “At 09:45, unarmed officers attempted to enter the property. As they were doing so a man was seen emerging from one of the rooms in the property.

“Officers withdrew from the property and a police negotiator; London ambulance service and firearm officers were called to the scene. Shortly before 16:46 the man was shot by police outside of the premises.”

Brophy’s family said three of the bullets hit him and he needed several operations to save his life. His father, Patrice Duval, said he was rushing to the scene to talk his son into surrendering when officers took action. “There was no need to shoot him, I’d have talked to him and he’d have come out,” Duval said.

He was taken to a south London hospital suffering serious injuries and was under 24 hour’s police protection according to his family.

Nathaniel explained how he was evicted from his home and did not have the chance to collect his belongings, so he went back to the property and noticed that the locks were not changed. He took this opportunity to retrieve his remaining possessions. Following reports that he had broken into his property housing officers were notified.

On arrival the housing officer and unarmed officers tried to persuade Nathaniel to leave the building. He was trying to explain that he had only returned for his belongings and would leave once his finished. Police officers claimed they noticed that he was in possession of a gun and called armed officers to the scene.

His family say the situation could have been defused without shots being fired.

A police spokesman said officers were “threatened by the suspect who was believed to be in possession of a firearm. The independent Police Complaints Commission was asked to investigate and concluded that a non-police-issue firearm (a 0.177 Calibre air pistol) was recovered from the scene.

Nathaniel told his family that he was shot while surrendering, a claim that was disputed by police. His father said: “My son did not have a gun in his hands. He said he had his hands up.” Officers had said that they believed there was a threat to their lives and in defence fired in response.

In 2016 Nathaniel was sentenced at Southwark Crown Court to two concurrent 16-month sentences for two counts of possessing an imitation firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.

The court heard that Brophy regretted the incident and felt that it was “unfair to officers tasked to the incident and that those officers will have suffered trauma of their own by having to shoot another human being.”

In 2017 the IPCC ruled actions by Met Police officers were “appropriate”.

IPCC Commissioner Jennifer Izekor said: “This was a difficult set of circumstances for all the people involved including Mr Brophy’s family, the officers involved and the community of Tilson Gardens who were displaced from their homes during the incident which took place over several hours.

The investigation also concluded that shots were fired in response to a genuinely perceived escalation in the threat posed by Mr Brophy. The IPCC investigator was satisfied that the officers’ actions were appropriate in the circumstances and it was a justified use of force.”

The IPCC also recommended the Met to review mounting positions for body-worn video after poor quality images were recorded during the siege. The note was recognised as a “technical issue” with no questions about the integrity of the footage.

……………………………………………………………………..

Follow-up News:

Armed police cleared by watchdog over shooting during six-hour armed siege in Brixton
7 February 2017

Father disputes Police case for shooting son in Brixton stand-off
15 September 2015

Man Shot by police in Brixton after six-hour eviction stand off
August 22, 2015

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Sponsored Advertisement