Barrister's family want review

metman

Review of police lawyer shooting

Alllowing firearms officers to confer after the shooting of barrister Mark Saunders raised the possibility of collusion, the High Court has heard.

Mr Saunders, 32, was shot after a siege in May during which he fired at police from his house in Chelsea, west London. His family wants the judicial review to rule the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation broke human rights laws. The family also claims the IPCC failed to give sufficient information to them.

Tim Owen QC, representing Mr Saunders' sister Charlotte, told the court the issue was "whether the hitherto practice of permitting police officers to confer before and during the recording of their accounts" of the incident was compatible with human rights laws. He said: "The officers were not separated before their accounts were given and there was a delay in providing initial statements." He said the IPCC had provided further opportunity to confer by organising meetings attended by groups of officers to put the questions to them. Miss Saunders and her family are also seeking a declaration from Mr Justice Underhill that there has been an unlawful failure to disclose sufficient information about the investigation.

The IPCC practice of allowing officers to confer was agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and is contained in the Acpo Manual of Guidance on the Police Use of Firearms.

Mr Owen said the IPCC will argue at the hearing that until Acpo gives a direction to change the practice, it can do nothing. But he added: "The IPCC is invested with sufficient powers to make a direction to the police authority to reverse the current practice to achieve a different approach which is capable of being compatible." Mr Saunders, 32, died of multiple bullet wounds. A preliminary inquest heard he was shot in the head, the heart and the liver. As the siege unfolded, Mr Saunders threw a message to his wife, Elizabeth, from a window, suggesting a row between the couple may have sparked the incident. Mr Owen said: "It appears that the final fatal shots were fired over 20 minutes after Mr Saunders last fired a shot and at a time when neighbours had all been evacuated or otherwise safely 'contained'."
He added that IPCC evidence showed that seven officers fired 11 rounds at 2129 BST. He said he found it "difficult" to see "who the police may have believed was being put at risk by Mr Saunders' actions at the time when he was shot."

CCTV footage

Earlier, Ms Saunders also raised this issue speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother," she said.

"Immediately after his first shot the police were called and the area evacuated, so there was no risk to the public. He was on his own, he had no hostage and made no demands.

"We have had very little information from the IPCC. What information we have got is from the press, so we know as much as anyone else."

Mr Owen said the CCTV footage of the incident taken from a police helicopter was the main source of information for the family. The IPCC has itself called on three separate occasions for the practice of allowing officers to confer to be ended.

Source.

Once again we are now faced with a situation wherein firearms officers who did their job under very difficult circumstances are subjected to a delay in the outcome of this incident; as no matter what result is arrived at the family will not be happy.

Food for thought here; the individual chose to start randomly firing into his street, knowing full well this would attract an armed police response.

His sister's quote: "Immediately after his first shot the police were called and the area evacuated, so there was no risk to the public. He was on his own, he had no hostage and made no demands", displays a complete lack of understanding on her part as to what the officers who entered the building were trying to do. They did not know if there were injured or dying persons on the premises, or if the suspect had simply taken a break form his shooting spree. They were also confronted with an armed suspect and shot to stop, i.e, were put in a position wherein they used deadly force. Firearms officers don't do this arbitrarily. I find it both disappointing and offensive that the suspect's sister can so readily dismiss the risk the officers on the entry team faced from an armed suspect who had been firing indiscriminately in one of central London's busiest areas.

On top of this the topic of collusion has now been introduced....the phrase smoke and mirrors springs to mind. Whatever next.

Trojan911

metman wrote: »

Food for thought here; the individual chose to start randomly firing into his street, knowing full well this would attract an armed police response.

Did he know full well? Has it been established yet what his state of mind was prior to & during this random firing?

metman wrote: »

I find it both disappointing and offensive that the suspect's sister can so readily dismiss the risk the officers on the entry team faced from an armed suspect who had been firing indiscriminately in one of central London's busiest areas.

You are dealing with wealthy people here, they do not have the first clue about police matters. They only see what they want to see & dismiss the facts because they think they know better. Don't take it personally.

timmywex

metman wrote: »

Mr Saunders, 32, was shot after a siege in May during which he fired at police from his house in Chelsea, west London.

metman wrote: »

"Immediately after his first shot the police were called and the area evacuated, so there was no risk to the public. He was on his own, he had no hostage and made no demands.

He may not be a risk to the public, but he was shooting at poice, how can a sister of the deceased not realise that he was a risk, and in fairness, what can be expected when a man starts shooting AT you, clearly lethal force will be used!

CLADA

Trojan911 wrote: »

Did he know full well? Has it been established yet what his state of mind was prior to & during this random firing?

I sympathise with the Saunders family and indeed all other families including those of the police officers where mental illness has resulted in a fatal confrontation with the police.

Options to the police are very limited where an unstable person is acting recklessly with a firearm. I'm not aware of the finer details of this shooting and I'm open to correction, but I'm sure the confrontation came about because : (a) there must have been an attempt to breach the cordon or (b)the on scene commander was forced to deploy a tactical team for whatever reason.

metman wrote: »

He added that IPCC evidence showed that seven officers fired 11 rounds at 2129 BST.

Overwhelming evidence that all seven highly trained officers were of the exact same opinion at the exact same time that Saunders was an immediate threat to life.

metman

Trojan911 wrote: »

Did he know full well? Has it been established yet what his state of mind was prior to & during this random firing?



You are dealing with wealthy people here, they do not have the first clue about police matters. They only see what they want to see & dismiss the facts because they think they know better. Don't take it personally.

Arguing the state of mind is a moot point for academics, psychologists and commissioners in slow-time. Lets not forget that incidents such as this take place in fast-time. But that's the point that's always lost on the....what do the yanks call it....the monday morning quarterback brigade.

Ok, even factoring out the mindset of the individual, you still had an armed suspect firing randomly and indiscriminately into a busy public thoroughfare. Such action will attract armed intervention, regardless of mindset, and the result will be the same if the suspect fails to lay down his weapon; dynamic intervention. In this type of critical incident an entry team doesn't have the luxury of second guessing or monday morning quarterbacking.

And thanks for the tip, but I'm au fait with egg sucking. However these are intelligent educated people. There's a difference in ignorance and ignoring the obvious, but don't take that personally.

JonAnderton

It's the same 'facts' all the time... you could take any 'report' about a police shooting, redact the names and you'll have the exact same article..

Why did they have to shoot him when he wasn't a threat to anyone?

Why couldn't they have shot him in the arm or sumfink?

Why do all the conniving policemen sit around like old ladies making up stories?

Again, asked by people with now knowledge of police use of fires OR the real facts of the situation.

I can see APCO wanting officers involved in shootings to write all their notes independently... This is a terible idea again being demanded by poeple who have no idea what it's like to be in these situations... Unfortunatly, ACPO will fold to pressure and eventually it'll be bad practice to confer on notes for all officers.

Why was it 20 minutes between him firing his last shot and him being shot himself? Possibly because police may have stopped him from firing another one. Seven (7) officers all felt that he presented an imminent threat to safety???

Eru

Why does this surprise you Met? surely at this stage you realise that EVERYONE knows more about policing than the police and could do a better job if it wasnt beneath them to even imagine being a lowly worthless copper.

You should also be well used to family members that are obviously biased getting the sympathetic ear and support from groups that are equally biased. I bet this is all over Indymedia :rolleyes:

metman

JonAnderton wrote: »

eventually it'll be bad practice to confer on notes for all officers.

Probies will love that :eek:

Esel

CLADA wrote: »

Overwhelming evidence that all seven highly trained officers were of the exact same opinion at the exact same time that Saunders was an immediate threat to life.

Overwhelming evidence that they all received an instruction to fire at the exact same time, more likely!

JonAnderton

esel wrote: »

Overwhelming evidence that they all received an instruction to fire at the exact same time, more likely!

Don't.... just don't....:mad:

When you can explain the SitStat process to me and prove you operationally understand ACPO standing instructions on the circumstances when weapons may be fired by UK AFO's (it's on your blue card.... what?, you haven't got one?... My mistake) .. THEN I'll allow you to bore me with your tripe...

Esel

Please accept my abject apologies for boring you with my tripe. However, unless you can explain to me how 'all seven highly trained officers were of the exact same opinion at the exact same time that Saunders was an immediate threat to life' is a reasonable conclusion, I think my post is a valid comment on CLADA's statement.

JonAnderton

Errr, no, it wasn't. You only think it was because you don't understand the SitStat process or operationally understand ACPO standing instructions on the circumstances when weapons may be fired by UK AFO's. (i'm feeling a bit deja vu). On the facts presented at this moment, there is nothing to suggest this situation warranted co-ordinated fire.

I can't account for how THOSE seven officers all came to the 'same conclusion' at the same time...because I WASN'T THERE! and therefore cannot specifically comment on their actions in this case.

The fact you can even ask me to try to explain it displays your lack of knowledge on this subject and your complete disrespect for anyone involved in it. These people are 'highly trained' but of major importance also is the fact they have the experience and skills which come with being a copper.

In an attempt to explain another factor in play here, 'the basic instinct to survive', here's an analogy put in terms most Sun readers would understand:

Line up ten men on the goalline of a football field... Place a ball on the penalty spot... tell them that at some point, the striker may kick the ball at one of their nuts... allow the striker to run up to the ball... How many of them ten men lined up on that goal line will grab their jewels just as the blokes about to kick the ball??? I'd go for at least seven of them... Why would they do that???.. Have all seven men realised that they could be hurt if they didn't protect themselves??... but how can they ALL have realised that at the same time???? :rolleyes:

There's other factors in play here as well that I know you won't know about and I'm not going to go into for fear of making this post even longer than it is but it was a major factor in another police shooting, which cast inital doubt on the officers accounts until professional witnesses and ballistic experts were called in.

To be honest, if I was in a situation where I was one of several people covering an armed threat and I felt the need to protect myself or others from that threat by shooting, I'd be curious as to why no one else fired. End of the day, the justification of whether to fire or not fire rests firmly on the shoulders of the individual officer based on his perception of the threat.

Time for a JonAnderton story: I've seen a video of a seige where the gunman opens up on a team about to make an entry from a window above the team. The team fire back, one officer breaks cover from behind a landrover, in order to engage with a Glock to protect his mates... one officer, positioned directly opposite the subject, with a clear line of sight and the perfect weapon to take the shot with doesn't.. why not???.. I don't know why, only he does... I wonder was he thinking "what will people say about me if I kill that man" or "will esel be questioning my judgement if I protect my mates by killing the armed and dangerous suspect?"

And thats the reason I've posted this... You've constructed the statement in such a way that I felt you were implying some form of conspiracy or that they must have been given orders from a commander far away and as I said at the beginning of this epic posting, nothing we've read or seen so far even hints at this...

Last point, I promise... Question: A man holding a pistol in one hand and it's loaded magazine in his other. He's telling you he's going to shoot you. At what point would you consider that man to be an imminent threat to life?

1) While he's standing there?
2) When he goes to load the gun?
3) When he has loaded it and its by his side?
4) When he starts shouting "One of us is going to die here today" and he's tapping the gun against his leg?
5) When he begins to raise it?
6) When he has it levelled at your head?
7) When he's fired the first shot?
8) When you colleage realises you've just been killed?

There's no exact answer because everyone has their own threat perceptions. ALL police officers are taught the officer safety model... They have the skills and experiences all good coppers have. Why wouldn't they have the same threat threshhold.

Now, at point 6 insert "levelled at his own head, pulls trigger and shoots himself." Did your threat threshold change? Why? You didn't know what his intent was as it progressed or as he moved his gun

I'm sorry for writing what may be boards longest ever post but I know that whilst there's a lot of people on here who, either through work or other means, understand and appreciate all the above, there's a lot who don't. Just wanted to get my view across.

Here end'th the lesson... Sermon over...

Trojan911

metman wrote: »

Arguing the state of mind is a moot point for academics, psychologists and commissioners in slow-time. Lets not forget that incidents such as this take place in fast-time. But that's the point that's always lost on the....what do the yanks call it....the monday morning quarterback brigade.

But I'm not arguing his state of mind. I asked two questions because you stated "the individual chose to start randomly firing into his street, knowing full well this would attract an armed police response".

How do you know this? Has further evidence emerged since?

You are saying he knew what he was doing, so what was his motive? Suicide by cop?

metman wrote: »

And thanks for the tip,

No problem....

CLADA

CLADA wrote:

Overwhelming evidence that all seven highly trained officers were of the exact same opinion at the exact same time that Saunders was an immediate threat to life.

esel wrote: »

Overwhelming evidence that they all received an instruction to fire at the exact same time, more likely!

I see Jonanderton has clarified and explained the comment I made (Thanks JA).

I would have replied along the same lines only a bit more eloquently:D

Victor

I'm sorry for writing what may be boards longest ever post but I know that whilst there's a lot of people on here who, either through work or other means, understand and appreciate all the above, there's a lot who don't. Just wanted to get my view across.

This is a discussion board, we are here to discuss and try to inform eash other. I would like to thank you and other members here for taking your time. If you didn't boards.ie wouldn't be as good as it is.

I do detect some defensiveness in the way you write, this is understandable, but isn't necessarily necessary.

JonAnderton wrote: »

And thats the reason I've posted this... You've constructed the statement in such a way that I felt you were implying some form of conspiracy or that they must have been given orders from a commander far away

esel is playing devil's advocate, which is perfectly reasonable.

Can we agree that
(a) People getting shot and dieing is a bad thing?
(b) Families are natually traumatised by the death of a loved one.
(c) Families will natually ask questions.
(d) The police shooting people is less than ideal - in some countries / situations it is a cover for abuse of power / political corruption / police crime / police negligence.
(e) Sometimes mistakes happen.
(f) Mistakes involving police powers and / or firearms are serious matters.
(g) There is only one law and nobody should be above it?
(h) It sounds odd that the shooters are allowed to confer - if it was criminals doing a shooting, they wouldn't be allowed confer.

Now, sure the officers need to confer insofar as they need to make sure the scene and any weapons have been secured, but I thought it was a fundamental part of evidence gathering to get independent views from each witness, that there are rules about witnesses sharing information. Sure, every incident will have gaps "Was that shirt white or white with pin stripes?". Surely, it should be left to the investigators to decide what gaps are material and which aren't.

I don't know the layout of the scene, but would it be usual to have that many officers that close to the suspect - surely that puts them at extra risk? Why did some officers fire once and others twice or did some rounds miss? Why was he shot in the head - was this a risky shot or a late shot? Etc.

Many questions can be asked. Asking questions is not "bad".

Last point, I promise... Question: A man holding a pistol in one hand and it's loaded magazine in his other. He's telling you he's going to shoot you. At what point would you consider that man to be an imminent threat to life?

1) While he's standing there?
2) When he goes to load the gun?
3) When he has loaded it and its by his side?
4) When he starts shouting "One of us is going to die here today" and he's tapping the gun against his leg?
5) When he begins to raise it?
6) When he has it levelled at your head?
7) When he's fired the first shot?
8) When you colleage realises you've just been killed?

The man is a threat from the start because he could have another magazine already loaded or one in the breach. I don't know what point I'd shoot at as I haven't been trained in such matters.

JonAnderton

I appologise if any offense was caused. Guards and Police in general get a lot of flack about their work by a lot of 'monday morning quarterbacks' ie people who don't know the job or have never done the job and are not in possession of any relevent facts but still feel qualified to second guess and level accusations at us.

I'm not going to go any more into it as it's covering old gound.

Again, I appologise for any offense caused by my writing style or structure (even though it was edited 25 times before the final draft went in at 4am which is way past my bedtime) but I'll stand by what was said...

I'll be more eloquent in future.. I promise... In fact, before I make any more posts, I might ask a couple of other poster's to confer with me...

dredre

JonAnderton wrote: »

I appologise if any offense was caused. Guards and Police in general get a lot of flack about their work by a lot of 'monday morning quarterbacks' ie people who don't know the job or have never done the job and are not in possession of any relevent facts but still feel qualified to second guess and level accusations at us.

Not just guards; paramedics, fire fighters, doctors, nurses, lawyers, politicians...

As said earlier, asking a question isn't bad. It might be annoying. It might be misinformed. But to restrict all debate to those "in the know" in any profession is bad. So along with all others, you will have to put up with a degree of external questioning.

I get it a lot. I find it misinformed and annoying most of the time. But I try to look at it from the other position too. What if the other person is right? If this makes all of us reflect on our own practice a little and this in turn makes us better professionals then perhaps it can also be a good thing?

JonAnderton

no problem with 'those not in the know' joining in the debate and asking questions..it's what boards is about.

The post i got anoyed at wasn't posed as a question or article for debate, but a statement not based on known facts.

metman

JonAnderton wrote: »

I appologise if any offense was caused.

I too was offended. Your rebuke of the civvy-monday-morning-quarterback-brigade was far too mild

JonAnderton

Got to be nice. My new 'strand' of postings is all about community engagement... Can't be having anyone starting a tribunal against me, we've already got enough for the minute

I've turned into the PCSO of boards...

metman

The killing of Mark Saunders

This police shooting is a disgrace and an outrage, argues a former high-ranking soldier with 20 years' experience incounter-terrorism at home and abroad. He is writing on condition of anonymity

Sunday, 14 September 2008

Four months ago, Mark Saunders, a successful and highly regarded London barrister, came back early from work to his flat in salubrious Markham Square, Chelsea, and started drinking. Having consumed a good deal, evidently, he reached for his shotgun and started firing, mostly from one window, to the alarm and consternation of his neighbours. According to one: "He didn't even bother to open the window – he was shooting through the glass. There are bullet holes in my daughter's bedroom wall. People were screaming: 'What on earth are you doing?'."

The police were called. They evacuated the nearby buildings and surrounded Saunders's flat. A siege followed, with Saunders apparently heedless of police requests, unwilling to negotiate and reportedly still firing the occasional shot.

He wrote a note expressing love for his wife, with whom, according to some accounts, he had argued that morning. After five hours, the police fired about 10 shots (hitting his brain, heart, liver and the main vein of his lower body, according to the coroner), followed by stun grenades. They entered the flat and, without further gunshot, found Saunders badly injured. He died outside soon afterwards.

Last week the High Court heard a variety of arguments about the case. The police position is that they had no choice but to shoot Saunders. One police source was quoted as saying that nine officers discharged their weapons, "an indication of how great the perceived threat was". A police source also said: "Firearms officers are incredibly professional and work to the same drill every time – they must be able to justify each occasion they pull the trigger."

But Saunders's family are not satisfied. They say he posed no risk to the public, that CCTV footage shows that at the moment he was shot he was holding the gun limply in his left, ie weaker, hand, that he had not fired his gun for 20 minutes when the police opened fire and that he had been talking to the police only 10 seconds before he was shot.

Last week the family claimed in the High Court that the police officers should not be allowed to compare notes before giving evidence. We await the judge's view on that long-established practice.

You may say that an unstable man who fires a shotgun in a quiet urban street deserves everything that is coming to him.

Admittedly, this was no innocent-mistaken-for-a-terrorist, but I know whose side I am on. It is a disgrace, an outrage, that Saunders died that day, and in my view somebody should go to prison for it.

Britain does not endorse premeditated use of lethal force in situations other than war. The only arguable exception is Operation Kratos – the use of lethal force to neutralise suspected suicide bombers, which was in force when Jean Charles de Menezes was killed.

I spent a great deal of my army time dealing with comparable situations. Soldiers often have to do brutal things, but outside war, the rule of law is paramount. Life – even the life of a terrorist – must be protected wherever possible, a notion formalised in what is called the yellow card test, a guide to staying within the law.

In brief, the use of lethal force can be justified if it is "to save your life or the life of others", "proportionate to the threat", "an act of last resort" or "absolutely necessary"? Was this the case in Markham Square? In my view, no.

Saunders, though armed, should not have been a threat to anyone's life other than his own. Once the area around his building had been cordoned off and everyone evacuated from the area within his potential "arcs of fire", there was no need to use lethal force to save anyone's life. No one was in danger. He was merely a serious "threat to public order", not a potential killer. He had no hostages, and was not in a position to hurt anyone. He should have been left to calm down, sober up and listen to his wife, counsellors and negotiators, and the "siege" would have ended peacefully. He would have been convicted of a significant public order offence, would have been given the right sort of help. With luck, his life could have been put back on track and he could have lived a long life.

This was not an act of last resort. The decision to put armed policemen within range of the armed and upset lawyer actually escalated the situation and increased the chance of lethal force being needed. Not only was it not necessary, it was very, very wrong.

To calm a situation like this requires armed officers to keep out of sight, or at very least not to alarm the suspect. But if he can see an armed police officer and points his shotgun at him, the police officer is likely to shoot at him – "in self-defence". (Some of those who want to end it all employ a tactic known as "suicide by cop", of which police must be wary.)

The policemen who fired were acting in self-defence (fair enough – to a degree), but the decision-maker who put them into that exposed position is guilty of setting the conditions for this "shoot-out"/deliberate loss of life, and is the person who

should be held responsible for this tragic outcome. Thus this decision-maker who "sets the scene" bears an enormous responsibility. This would typically have been either what is called the "bronze commander" (that is, the police officer running the incident on the ground) or the "firearms silver commander" (the officer in charge of the armed officers).

Further, Saunders had a shotgun with a lethal range of about 40 metres that could fire only two rounds at a time (with at least a three-second pause for reloading). He could have been disarmed during any reloading pause by a Taser or tear gas or other non-lethal means.

The decision to use nine automatic weapons in this circumstance does not appear proportionate to the threat faced. The armed police officers appeared to behave as though Saunders was a Baghdad terrorist with an AK-47, rather than a drunk, upset and broken-down lawyer with a sporting shotgun.

I would say that their behaviour and poor judgment smack of inexperience, haste and panic. This was not proportionate, nor was it in accordance with the standards that we expect of our soldiers in such situations. If soldiers and their commanders had behaved as the police appear to have done at Markham Square, be it in Northern Ireland, or Iraq, then they would have been investigated and probably tried for murder.

The police are not bound by the Army's yellow card system, but work to their own tried-and-tested guidelines. The Association of Chief Police Officers' Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms says: "The imminence of any threat should be judged, in respect to the potential for loss of life, with due regard to legislation and consideration of necessity, reasonableness and proportionality." Elsewhere, the manual says weapons may be fired "only when absolutely necessary after other methods have been tried and failed or must, from the nature of the circumstances, be unlikely to succeed if tried".

To me, there isn't much room for doubt here.

Situations such as these may be the most dangerous a police officer ever faces. They also require great patience. In comparable situations, I can recall teams of men working in shifts, exhausting a situation to its conclusion. Five or six hours may seem a long time, but if time is what is required, time is what should be given.

These situations also call for enormous nerve, judgment and training. The shooting of Mark Saunders, had it come amid a succession of brilliantly executed operations, might have been put down as the exception. But in the context of other questionable police shootings (most notably De Menezes, but also Harry Stanley, shot dead while blamelessly carrying a table leg), it invites questions about levels of competence within a police force that is increasingly armed.

With the 2012 Olympics looming and security likely to be an increasingly important part of that, I worry that police bosses have not insisted on having sufficient resources to ensure the highest levels of professionalism.

I am convinced that soldiers operating within the guidelines of the yellow card would not have killed the lawyer in Markham Square, and that very experienced soldiers (such as SAS men) used to the realities of life in Baghdad and elsewhere would not have shot De Menezes on the London Underground. If they had, they would have been rigorously investigated and, if found guilty of a crime, been convicted for murder.

The fact that incidents requiring armed intervention happen less often on the streets of London than they do in war zones is no reason for the highest of standards to drop.

source
****************************************

What utter rubbish. No wonder he chose to remain anonymous, he'd lose all credibility otherwise. Best to leave the policing to the police, not to old soldiers looking to make a few quid from lousy journalism.

Trojan911

Makes me wonder what, if any, connections this chap has to the family. He being a person of military background should know the rules of engagement.

I would have no doubts that the SAS would have emptied mags into a subject before ceasing fire.

JonAnderton

oh i'm so glad i'm now a boards communtiy fed or else i would have been up all night replying to that..

metman

metman wrote: »

The police were called. They evacuated the nearby buildings and surrounded Saunders's flat. A siege followed, with Saunders apparently heedless of police requests, unwilling to negotiate and reportedly still firing the occasional shot.

Unwilling to negotiate but still firing, so no threat to anyone uh huh.

Saunders, though armed, should not have been a threat to anyone's life other than his own. Once the area around his building had been cordoned off and everyone evacuated from the area within his potential "arcs of fire", there was no need to use lethal force to save anyone's life. No one was in danger. He was merely a serious "threat to public order", not a potential killer. He had no hostages, and was not in a position to hurt anyone. He should have been left to calm down, sober up and listen to his wife, counsellors and negotiators, and the "siege" would have ended peacefully. He would have been convicted of a significant public order offence, would have been given the right sort of help. With luck, his life could have been put back on track and he could have lived a long life.

What utter rubbish. So if someone decides to get pissed up and start firing their shotgun out their window they should be allowed to just sober up. Subsequently they should be charged with a public order offence! This alone displays the complete ignorance of the author.

This was not an act of last resort. The decision to put armed policemen within range of the armed and upset lawyer actually escalated the situation and increased the chance of lethal force being needed. Not only was it not necessary, it was very, very wrong.

So by putting armed police into a firearms situation, the POLICE escalated the situation.

To calm a situation like this requires armed officers to keep out of sight, or at very least not to alarm the suspect. But if he can see an armed police officer and points his shotgun at him, the police officer is likely to shoot at him – "in self-defence". (Some of those who want to end it all employ a tactic known as "suicide by cop", of which police must be wary.)

By dropping in the term 'suicide by cop' the author is hoping to gain a degree of credibility here. I for one think he has failed miserably and displays neither an understanding of the law, nor of police operations.

The policemen who fired were acting in self-defence (fair enough – to a degree), but the decision-maker who put them into that exposed position is guilty of setting the conditions for this "shoot-out"/deliberate loss of life, and is the person who should be held responsible for this tragic outcome. Thus this decision-maker who "sets the scene" bears an enormous responsibility. This would typically have been either what is called the "bronze commander" (that is, the police officer running the incident on the ground) or the "firearms silver commander" (the officer in charge of the armed officers).

Nice balanced assessment there. Police firing in self-defence were correct 'to a degree'.

I'm not even going to waste my time dissecting the rest of this tosh. As Trojan911 points out it is clear that this person has an agenda, and it is not an objective one. The fact he has 'written subject to anonymity', well that says it all really.

the_syco

JonAnderton wrote: »

Why couldn't they have shot him in the arm or sumfink?

Totally agreed... why didn't he wander out into the open so that they could see him... instead of staying insde shooting through the glass at random places.

metman wrote: »

Having consumed a good deal, evidently, he reached for his shotgun and started firing, mostly from one window, to the alarm and consternation of his neighbours. According to one: "He didn't even bother to open the window – he was shooting through the glass. There are bullet holes in my daughter's bedroom wall.

If he had fired some more shots, he could have killed some innocent child nearby.

Eru

Is this the same person speaking his mind a lot or more ex soldiers telling the police they shoot people needlessly? :rolleyes:

And would I be right in saying thet a soldier in a war zone and a pllice officer during a seige are not the same thing? You dont see the Chief constable or Commish telling the boys in Iraq how to do their job do you?

JonAnderton

hmmmm..i wonder could i get 'fast air' for the next crack house i raid..

There's probably about the same chance of that happening as an informed and accuratly balanced article about this incident being written in the media

metman

Police probe into killing lawful

The police investigation into the killing of a barrister shot dead by police during a five-hour armed siege was lawful, the High Court has ruled. A judge dismissed a claim by the family of Mark Saunders, 32, that the police inquiry into his death was unlawful.

Mr Saunders died in a stand-off at his flat in Chelsea, west London in May.
His family wanted the police inquiry to be ruled unlawful as officers were allowed to confer before making statements about the shooting.

During the siege Mr Saunders fired at police officers, neighbours and buildings with a legally-owned shotgun from his £2.2m home in Markham Square. But his family believe he posed "no risk to the public" when he was shot, as the area had been evacuated.

Source

concussion

metman wrote: »

Police probe into killing lawful

The police investigation into the killing of a barrister shot dead by police during a five-hour armed siege was lawful, the High Court has ruled. A judge dismissed a claim by the family of Mark Saunders, 32, that the police inquiry into his death was unlawful.

Mr Saunders died in a stand-off at his flat in Chelsea, west London in May.
His family wanted the police inquiry to be ruled unlawful as officers were allowed to confer before making statements about the shooting.

During the siege Mr Saunders fired at police officers, neighbours and buildings with a legally-owned shotgun from his £2.2m home in Markham Square. But his family believe he posed "no risk to the public" when he was shot, as the area had been evacuated.

Source

No risk to the public? Maybe. However, he was definately a risk to the ES personnel who were there as a result of his actions. Good ruling from the court.