Morning:
8°c
Chelsea siege lawyer was shot three times by police marksmen
Robert Mendick and Justin Davenport, Evening Standard08.05.08
Chelsea siege barrister Mark Saunders was shot by police at least three times, it emerged today.
A post mortem revealed he suffered multiple gunshot wounds, including shots to the chest.
All the shots are believed to have been fired by police marksmen in response to blasts fired by the barrister from the windows of his Markham Square home.
It is not clear whether the shots that hit Mr Saunders were fired from the same gun.
The development came as Mr Saunders' father questioned why police had needed to shoot his son. Rodney Saunders said he did not believe the lawyer necessarily posed a lethal threat.
Asked if he thought his son might have killed someone, he said: "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." Mr Saunders, 64, added: "He was a warm and caring and loving son."
Speaking from her home in Alderley Edge, Cheshire, Mark's mother Rosemary said: "All we know is we've lost our son. What went wrong I just don't know."
During a five-hour stand-off on Tuesday Mr Saunders had fired a shotgun repeatedly at police and nearby houses from a window of the £2.2 million first-floor flat. Police marksmen returned fire.
At one point he shouted from the window: "I have been in the f***ing Army." Shortly after 9.30pm officers stormed the building, firing CS gas canisters and setting off stun grenades and distraction devices. It is understood no officers fired any bullets at this stage. They entered the flat to find the barrister fatally wounded. Investigators are examining the possibility that he wanted police to kill him in a "suicide by cop" scenario.
Earlier reports suggested the Oxford graduate, who was picked to be a divorce lawyer for TV presenter Chris Tarrant, suffered a breakdown after drinking heavily and having a row with wife Elizabeth Clarke, 40.
During the siege she was seen crying in the street. At one point Mr Saunders threw down a white cardboard box with the words "I love my wife dearly xxx" scrawled on it in black pen.
But the mother of Mr Saunders insisted Ms Clarke, who is also a barrister, was not at home and returned from QEB Chambers, where the couple worked, to find the police cordon in the square.
Mr Saunders had served in the Territorial Army with the Honourable Artillery Company, but left about five years ago. His father added: "I said, 'You want to get out of there or Tony Blair will ship you off to Iraq.' He was a bit fed up with what he was doing in the TA but also his workload had been increasing."
Mr Saunders had a licence for his shotgun and had it inspected by police after moving to the Square in October. Today one firearms expert questioned whether police needed to use lethal force.
The expert, who did not want to be named, said: "The police would have known they were dealing with a respectable chap, a barrister who had a licensed shotgun. A shotgun is only lethal over a range of up to 70 yards. You have to ask if they properly asked, 'Do we need to use lethal force?'"
However, police sources said the firearms team had no choice. One said: "He was firing directly at people and police officers and into houses. There were attempts to engage him by negotiators but these were not successful.
"This man was out of control and we could not predict what he would have done next."
Reports suggested Mr Saunders had psychological problems. Neighbours saw him two weeks ago rocking back and forth and crying in the street. Sources in the legal world said he was a "binge alcoholic" who suffered depression.
Reader views (12)
Quote:
The expert, who did not want to be named, said: "The police would have known they were dealing with a respectable chap, a barrister who had a licensed shotgun. A shotgun is only lethal over a range of up to 70 yards. You have to ask if they properly asked, 'Do we need to use lethal force?'"
I can understand why the so-called "expert" did not want to be named. The "respectable chap" was shooting at people and buildings, we are lucky nobody else was killed in this incident.
In my view the police did a good job.
- John Mitchell, nottingham, UK
Yes, because being a nice Oxford educated barrister means you should get a little leeway when you start firing a shotgun at people.
Facts are little skewed here; shotgun's are not immediately lethal at long-range, true. However, this does not negate their dangerousness. Although someone standing at a distance is unlikely to be hit with the full force of the blast, the pellets will still travel much further than 70 yards, albeit in a much wider spread. This is still, potentially, lethal.
Police may have a responsibility to people, suspects and the public alike, but they aren't paid to be shooting targets. Shoot at them and what do you expect? Unfortunately, since the Jean Charles de Menezes debacle, every armed incident will be subject to scrutiny after scrutiny.
Don't question the Police, they try their hardest to keep us safe and don't do too badly, most of the time, they're only human after all. Question why your son decided to shoot up a street.
- Jamie, Glasgow
So what if this individual came from a wealthy, Oxbridge educated background and enjoyed a highly successful legal career? Ultimately he was a deranged gunman endangering the public and the Police Officers in the line of duty. If he was military trained, as reported, then he would have known the dangers associated with firearms and be must held accountable for his actions. Thankfully no other innocent lives were lost in this tragedy.
- Palais, London, UK
I find it amazing that the police are being criticised by certain people regarding their actions at this siege. They arrived at the venue following several calls from panicked people and upon alighting their cars were shot at by the suspect. At this point he is not a lawyer in a posh flat he is a threat. End of. And once the flat was contained the police secured the scene and evacuated as many people as was possible...bearing in mind the street was a dead end and people could not pass the target address to be taken to safety.
The officers who went into the address only did so to try to save his life once he was shot.
Great job by the met police in my opinion.
No wonder our country is in such a state when a man goes mad and starts shooting at innocent members of the public and the police and people complain that he is shot.
- John, london
Since the police in London normally shoot dead unarmed citizens the ones who shot this barrister dead must feel like real "boys own heros", Why don't they join the army if they enjoy shooting people or would that be much too dangerous. It would need a successful unintentionally botched prosecution of these "Dirty Harry" gun-ho guys to protect us all.
- George Matheson, Glasgow Scotland
Bryan Armstrong, London - why not wait for him to run out of food and then cut of his water!
- Oscar, London
Guns are not toys
They only have one use
He shot at the police and they shot back
Sadly for him they were better shots than he was
and what were they suppose to do? Run away and hide
They probably shot at his body as it was the biggest target.
As for non lethal weapons or as they should be called less lethal weapons you need to be real close to use them
Would his father be happier if there was dead police as well? Or is he just trying to shift the blame away from his son. Just with the bare facts I’ve seen it does looks like suicide by cop. Nobody wins in this situation.
So very sad.
- Lnight, Aberdeen
This guy was shooting at people! Wait for him to run out of ammo? How on earth could the Police know if that had happened or not? He could have thousands of shells for all they knew. If somebody had been killed there would be people calling for more aggressive Police action. Give them a break
- Mark, London, UK
If there was someone in my street who was drunk and was firing a deadly weapon, with all due respect to his family, I would want the police to shoot him before he shot me, my wife, my kids or even my dog. I strongly suspect that the man who was killed had plenty of opportunities to surrender.
- John Smith, N1
A truly tragic situation, yet it is amazing how naive some people are! Because the man was a "respectable chap with a licensed shotgun", he should be allowed to endanger the lives of law enforcement officers and the residents of his community?! Of course, blame the police for all social ills and not the person(s) responsible for the dangerous and/or criminal actions! With that vacuous statement, it is quite apparent why the "expert" wanted to remain anonymous.
- Ira, Orlando, Florida, U.S.A.
If he was firing into houses that had not been evacuated, why did they not evacuate them? Then seal off the area and wait for him to run out of ammo? These sort of questions have been asked many times before. Our police normally show admirable restraint in use of firearms, but seem to get sucked into "having to use lethal force" in situations like this. From the moment he fired at that first policeman, in the house across the way, and the officer chose to return fire, it could be argued that the police were escalating, rather than containing, the situation.
- Bryan Armstrong, London
Why would Mark be considered a threat? I mean shooting at police and neighbouring houses, must be a evening hobby for him.
He might've been a warm and loving son but clearly not on the day he was shot, he was no different to the criminals that carry out gun crimes within our communities wrecking innocent lives.
And what does it matter if the police knew they were dealing with a respectable barrister, I guess they should've made themselves and the public moving targets for this depressive, alcoholic, unpredictable Oxford graduate.
- Joon, London
