Morning:
13°c
Nine police shot at barrister
Robert Mendick and Justin Davenport19.05.08
Nine police officers shot at barrister Mark Saunders in scenes described today as "like the OK Corral".
Police will now face new questions about why so many opened fire during the Markham Square siege in Chelsea on 6 May.
The 32-year-old was killed after firing a shotgun at members of the public and officers from the windows of his £2.2 million flat.
Mr Saunders, a former member of the Territorial Army, was hit five times by marksmen.
The Standard has established that the officers who fired shots are members of the Met's armed car crews - known as Armed Response Vehicles - who are on 24-hour patrol in London. Eight of the officers were from the Met's specialist firearms unit CO19 and the ninth from the diplomatic protection unit. Further CO19 officers trained in rapid entry and conducting sieges were involved in storming the flat but did not fire any shots. Inquiries have also cast doubt on claims Mr Saunders was an alcoholic depressive. One neighbour claimed there was no evidence the divorce barrister drank heavily or rowed with his wife.
He was shot with rounds from two types of gun during the siege which lasted for nearly five hours. Marksmen surrounded his flat after he fired a shotgun wildly at neighbours, his bullets smashing windows in nearby occupied houses.
Witnesses reported hearing three exchanges of fire between the barrister and police. An inquiry by the Independent Police Complaints Commission will seek to establish how many shots were fired and if officers were heavyhanded in their response.
Police say they had no alternative but to open fire under guidelines which dictate they must shoot if there is an immediate threat to life. Sources have revealed the situation developed so quickly there was little time to put rehearsed plans into action. One source said: "This was a highly unusual situation, it was a spontaneous event that had a spontaneous response."
Another insider said: "If you are firing indiscriminately out of your window there is a very good chance that you are going to get shot. It is very sad that this should happen with someone who was obviously mentally impaired but the armed officers did not have a lot of choice. There are questions over the number of shots fired and the number of officers who fired shots. It was a bit like the OK Corral."
Police are barred from making comment while the IPCC investigates the case but one source said: "Saunders was firing directly at officers and members of the public. He was very clearly posing a threat to life."
Reader views (5)
So, your 'expert' (who has never even been a police officer let alone had training as an armed one) thinks that shotguns are safe after 70 yards does he? Well, I have a question for him. Would he stand still while someone points a shotgun at him at a distance of 70 yards? If he would then he is certainly not the 'expert' he claims to be. The problem with shotguns is that you don't know what they are loaded with. AAA buckshot can be bought on a shotgun certificate and would certainly kill or seriously injure at 70. It requires at least a 500 yard safety zone - something that the real 'experts', like those officers trying to deal with this situation, would have known.
- Mike Waldren, Harrow
9 police shot at him? So? Why is this significant? He was a gunman that posed a risk to the public and to the police officers themselves. I'm glad that the police took action to put this danger to a stop. Of course it is sad that he died, but his actions, and his alone, are to blame for this. I wish the media would stop trying to constantly attack the police.
- Huw Morgan, London
An internal review to ensure that they acted according to procedure? Thats routine, and rightly so.
Being second guessed by people who know nothing about it and have their own axe to grind? Unfortunately routine also.
- Rogan, DFW Texas
This is a sad event, especially for this gentleman's family, but unfortunately if someone opens fire in public, and refuses to surrender, deadly force is the only real choice the police have. Better the shooter is killed than an innocent or a police officer doing his job, since he is the one who has chosen to instigate the situation in the first place. Wounding a shooter is next to impossible in a forced entry scenario as shooting for centre of mass is the fastest way to put the shooter out of action without rounds missing and endangering other members of the public.
It is easy to say this response is heavy handed, but after years of study by special forces and police armed response teams, no one has found a better way to deal with an armed shooter who will be talked down. My sympathy is with the family and with the police offers who have to bear the burden of not just taking the life of someone in this context (and it is a heavy one) but must now also endure the stress of a public enquiry. They deserve thanks for doing a hard job and keeping the public safe by putting themselves in the firing line. Thank you lads.
- Simon, London, UK
Anyone who fires a shotgun at people and continues to do so after being surrounded by armed police officers, regardless how disturbed they are, deserves to be shot. If the Police decide to fill him so full of lead that he looks like a colander well tough, they are protecting the public and doing a good job. If every time somebody using a gun in Britain to threaten harm was met with deadly force we'd soon see a drop in gun crime.
- Squiz, Islington
