Mud-club
Chat & Social => The Bar - General Chat => Topic started by: Boggert on May 08, 2008, 14:42:28
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20080508/tuk-gunman-s-family-demand-answers-6323e80.html
The family of a barrister killed in a gun siege have demanded answers over how he met his death.
Mark Saunders, 32, was found dead after armed police ended a five-hour shoot-out by storming his luxury Chelsea flat.
His father Rodney questioned why officers shot his son who he claimed was not a lethal threat.
Speaking at his Cheshire home, Mr Saunders said he did not believe anyone had been put in danger.
He told London's Evening Standard: "Put it this way, he didn't endanger anyone at all to my knowledge and we can only surmise what might have happened before the whole thing started. I just don't know. You would imagine that it will come out in the fullness of time. We will want answers as to why police shot him."
Fresh details of what led to the shooting emerged as Mr Saunders' mother Rosemary insisted his wife Elizabeth Clarke was not at home at the time.
She said Mrs Clarke returned home from QEB Chambers, where the couple worked as barristers, but was not able to pass the police cordon.
Investigators are expected to confirm Mr Saunders was shot by police marksmen following a post-mortem examination.
An inquest into his death will be opened and adjourned on Friday at Westminster Coroner's Court.
Mr Saunders died after blasting at police officers, neighbours and buildings with a shotgun from his £2.2 million Markham Square flat.
I'm sorry you have lost your son but....
Yes he did endanger peoples life, he shot at the flat across the street and the first officers who arrived on scene and also continued to shoot during the evening....
This is another "Why did the police shoot him?" for christ sake he was firing a gun at people and property in a public area in the center of London!
What do these people think, we should just wait till he has got bored and then have a chat! For gods sake!
-
with you on this one if a person is firing a gun out of this window across a street in centre london and shooting at police officers then sorry but he is going to be shot at himself to protect civeys and the police. Some people just need to be woken up to the facts that not every person i the world is a angel.
-
It stinks of "My son is a barrister and lives in a £2.2 M flat"
The fact is he shot at armed Police, if it was a local scrote there would be no questions.....
-
Jeeezuz.....
Give him a H&K Carbine... and send him into a killing house with orders to decide when to open fire... let him see how easy it is.
Sorry for his loss and all that but come on...
Live by it... die by it.. that's my perspective.
-
MadNess
-
he didn't endanger anyone at all to my knowledge
Well perhaps he's been enlightened now.
It may seem incredible to us, but we should remember that rationalle is not always uppermost during grief, especially so soon after the event. If what we are being told by the press is complete then I suspect the answers they are after will be quick in coming.
-
I'm sorry for their loss but if he'd been shooting at me he wouldn't have got a second shot off.
easy call for the cops, them or him , him good call
I say easy but to take a life must be a difficult thing to do but I feel more for the guy who had to pull the trigger than the guy who took the bullet...
-
Goodbye and good riddance!
-
Personally, I cant believe that the IPCC need to carry out an investigation, unless its to make sure that whichever copper it was that fired the lethal round gets the credit he deserves.
The guy had a weapon, he had fired off a few rounds proving that he was capable an willing to use it. He had 5 HOURS to lay down his weapon and 'come quietly' but didn't. The police would have thought long and hard about entering the premises in order to bring the stand off to an end on their terms, and not the gunmans.
As Skibum suggests, with mentioning the killing house (not that I've been there myself) on entering a room, there is a split second where you have to make a decision based on what is in front of you, basically, kill or be killed, and the officers, I imagine, are trained to shoot to kill rather than shoot to maim (as it is preferable to do on the battle field).
The officer that fired the lethal round will have to live with what happened, perhaps he will be the only person to know what really happened, he should be supported in his actions, not effectivley put on trial for them.
I would rather the police be confident in future that should the have the same situation, they can rely on the use of lethal force, rather than have the nagging doubt at the back of their head that they might be dragged over the coals. It is that doubt that will cause them, in that split second on entering a room/putting themselves in the firing line, to pause, and not shoot first, putting their life and that life of colleagues and civilians in danger.
-
Personally, I cant believe that the IPCC need to carry out an investigation, unless its to make sure that whichever copper it was that fired the lethal round gets the credit he deserves.
It's standard practice when armed officers fire their weapons. I just wish the press would start reporting that way instead of saying it like they're investigating because something went wrong.
...and the officers, I imagine, are trained to shoot to kill rather than shoot to maim.
I've said this before and I'll say it again. There is no such thing as "shoot to kill". It's an invention of Holywood. When firing any weapon you aim for the "centre of mass" to maximise your chances of hiting the target. In practice in most situations this means aiming for the centre of the chest... co-incidently where the heart and other major organs live.
In a dangerous situation facing an armed suspect no one will try to aim for the arm, the shoulder or any other target hinted at by the many action heroes to come out of Hollywood. Smaller target, harder to hit and no garantee of the individual going down, there are examples of drugged up suspects in the US taking 5&6 hits to the chest and still firing back.
Even the boys in black coveralls and respirators aim two to the chest before two to the head... and they are far more practised at it then the boys in blue coveralls.
Skibum
-
More info
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7391858.stm