Reader views (30)

 Add your view

Wish you the best lady and pray your Brother goes heaven. I do feel the end result was over the top and much could have been done to avoid what i believe is a negative result.

- Mohsin Khan, shepherds bush London, 07/09/2009 14:13
Report abuse

At the end of the day the police did there job and they did it well. This man, who was trained in fire arms, and knew what he was doing was wrong,received the only outcome there could have been without the loss of innocent lives. had he killed or maimed someone wouldnt we be asking "why did the police not act sooner". You cannot have it all ways people.
This ended the only way it could unfortunatly

- Rachroo, edinburgh, 03/11/2008 14:29
Report abuse

To clear a few points -- Police never shoot to kill -They shoot to stop . The only situation ( and this is recent policy )where specially trained officers shoot to immediately and instantaneously neutralize a subject is in the case of suicide bombers .
It is possible that this man was using a round that would contain eight or nine lead balls --the equivalent of that many people each shooting a .38 revolver towards you at the same time ! A very dangerous situation.
Having dealt with shotgun injuries I can assure you that they are devastaing and even a wild shot out of a window
could of killed more than one person .
It is the LAW that other methods must be considered and tried UNLESS it is either not possible OR if tried the alternative method would likely fail .
Being a firearms officer is a massive responsibilty which is taken seriously by all officers concerned .
To all the people who post glib off the cuff remarks -
Take a moment to think -- Do you REALLY think that any police officer wants to take another persons life ?
If you do then I feel sorry for you , as you do not realise what the job entails . Somebody has got to be trained to respond quickly to these situations and be prepared to take action on a split second decision to save firstly , members of the public and then themselves .

- Nigel Ex Met Firearms, France, 03/11/2008 12:33
Report abuse

Two important things to remember:-

1) Had this fine chap been a scag head from Hackney, none of this soul searching would be happening. Police shoot a barrister gone boloh with a deadly weapon, the world catches fire.

2) In response to policewatcher, would you prefer that the target had been "drowned under a hail of gunfire from police"?????

To any disenters, if you REALLY, honestly, think you could do better, join the police and prove it. The justification required just to put your hands in someone elses pockets - let alone use lethal force - is huge.

Everyday, the taxpayer pays the police to do the jobs that society isn't capable of dealing with (physically, emotionally and mentally). They make a far far better job of it than you give them credit for.

- Backtobasics, London, 03/11/2008 08:21
Report abuse

It seems that Mr Saunders family feel that as he was well off and white he should have been treated differently.

This was not a De Menzies situation, here you had a man who was not only armed but using the firearm in an agressive manner. Why should the police marksmen have put themselves in more danger by trying to user a taser against him?

And people wonder why less people are wiloing to join the police force

- Charles, Perth, Australia, 03/11/2008 05:16
Report abuse

If the police had not shot him then the public outcry, had this man gone on to shoot someone, would have been unbelievable ('if the police had shot him instead of standing around watching him then X would still be alive', etc). Having used his gun the police were right to shoot him. As presumably only his upper body was in sight he was at greater risk of a fatal shot - the risk you take if you use a gun illegally.

- Andy, London, 31/10/2008 16:21
Report abuse

As tragic as this incident is, we can ill afford to create an atmosphere whereby Police firearms officers feel unable to shoot suspects in defence of themselves or members of the public, for fear of prosecution if they do so. They face difficult decisions in doing their job and should feel that the law is supporting them, not that is going to be used against them.

- Andy, Sheffield, 31/10/2008 16:10
Report abuse

There is no doubt Mr. S was in a unstable frame of mind for some reason at the time and not acting in an acceptable manner. Unfortunately, no-one will ever know if he ever really was meaning to harm anyone, including himself.
He put the public and the Met in harms way. Never-the-less, the Met has the responsibility to evaluate the scene and act accordingly in a timely fashion. If Taser was an option under the conditions presumably they evaluated that option as well as others. This is what needs to be determined. Presumably the Met does not wish to close any crime scene in this way. They do the best they can under the conditions and they have to live with the results. They too are human. Any event of this magnitude requires examination after the fact. An evaluation and a conclusion. Because it will happen again.
My thoughts and prayers go out to all involved on both sides. This was a tragedy.

- London Resident, London, 31/10/2008 15:57
Report abuse

I think everyone has to look beyond the issue of whether or not the guy nearly shot anyone: he hadn't gone rampaging through a school or out on the street, he stayed in his home and the situation was contained. As the situation was contained, I think it is proper to ask why it ended the way it did. This is not the only case like this: last year a troubled young woman known to the police was shot dead in Sevenoaks in the small hours of the morning. Similarly, there had been on-going dialogue and she wasn't specifically posing a threat - the police decided she wanted 'death by cop'. I wonder if there is a set protocol when, if the situation isn't resolved the police just decide 'Time's Up!'.

If it is OK for the police just to end the matter by shooting the person concerned, why don't they get it over and done with a lot quicker? Would it be acceptable for them just to barge in shoot to kill at the outset?

- Roz, Chamonix, France, 31/10/2008 15:45
Report abuse

He wasn't pointing the gun at anyone. I am agnostic about whether the police should have shot him dead, but the comments on this thread appear to suggest that the man was an imminent danger to the public. I don't believe he was, but I guess the police were there and I wasn't, so I can't judge. Tasers, however, are nasty and frequently lethal items of torture equipment and should remain in countries which routinely torture people, such as the US.

- Neil, london uk, Airstrip ONE ., 31/10/2008 15:29
Report abuse

To use a Taser you have to get up close and personal. The guy had a gun that he had been firing at other people!

1+1=2 - no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise, simple arithmetic follows simple logic.

My condolences to the family for their loss, but this nonsense has turned into a witch-hunt over something that is being fueled by grief rather than reason.

- Rogan, Irving, 31/10/2008 15:07
Report abuse

"Police could have used Taser instead of shooting my brother"
Indeed, the key word in this sentence is could, but then her brother "could" have put his gun down and surrendered, he "could" have not taken post shots in the first place, but he didn't and he paid for it with his life.

- Bob, Cheam, 31/10/2008 15:00
Report abuse

He had a gun, he was firing indiscriminantly, his life or that of innocent people. No question who is should have been. Or would his family rather he had shot his neighbours or passers by.

- E Sullivan, London, 31/10/2008 14:52
Report abuse

There can be no sympathy for that maniac. He got what he deserved.

- Ken, Bexleyheath, 31/10/2008 14:11
Report abuse

Lets think about this logiclly. The man was wielding a shotgun, police would not been able to use a Taser due to the fact he had his finger on the trigger. Using a Taser would have caused a nerve reaction casuing the gun to go off. This is why Police when they shoot to kill are trained to shoot with a clean shoot. Ever seen films where someone is shot in the chest etc but die firing a gun. A clean shot to the head is enough to stop nerves reacting in the body causing the person to instantly become lifeless. An electric shock with a Taser would cause a persons body to jerk around.

- Triffidqueen, Desk in London, 31/10/2008 14:06
Report abuse

It must be awful for his family but I do feel they need to move on from this as it is a waste of Police time and public money. There can be no risk taking and no tolerance of those with guns on our streets, whatever the circumstances.

- Sarah Bradshaw, Enfield, Middx, 31/10/2008 13:49
Report abuse

Oh yeah, and the Met could also have just popped a nice little letter into the post to him, asking him to behave himself and stop firing his deadly weapon into the homes of his neighbours. It was when he took aim with the gun again, lined up his shot and was just about to fire it that made the marksmen take him out. Tough cookies, sweetie- your brother was trying to kill someone.

- Londonsupergirl, London, 31/10/2008 13:41
Report abuse

I might not be a barrister but I am a human being and member of the public. I don't have enough praise for the police who brought this man down. Mark Saunders made the decision to waive a deadly weapon so thank God it was him, rather than an innocent person, who was shot. The family are in a state of grief and mourning so they are, understandly, looking for someone to blame rather than their brother.

- Emily, London, 31/10/2008 13:27
Report abuse

They could have used a taser,equally your brother need not have shot at people. The message if you have a gun you are more likley to get shot.Blaming the police will not bring him back or assuage your feelings of guilt becuase you were unaware of his problems.

- Mary, Hornchurch, Essex, 31/10/2008 13:23
Report abuse

Police Watcher, the GOLD Commander was Commander Ali Dizaei, currently suspended for all sorts of shenanigans, 'nuff said!
That said, I cannot believe that this is still going on, is it just because he was a wealthy lawyer? No one has any sympathy for him or the way his family keeps going on and on about it. He was hardly an 'innocent' man was he?

- Ranter, Maidstone. UK, 31/10/2008 13:10
Report abuse

When Mr Saunders picked up a gun he choose the weapons for the fight.

Personally I wouldn't ask anyone to go up a against an armed man who had been loosing off rounds armed only with a taser.

- Paul, Bristol, 31/10/2008 12:58
Report abuse

Shame on you Policewatcher. If someone was waving a gun in your face, you're telling me you wouldn't want the police to do something about it? Damned if you, damned if you don't. And what part of the air did you pick the word trigger-happy from? If the police told me to stop, I would stop. Quite simply because I have nothing to hide. I certainly wouldn't carry on gun-wielding in Chelsea, or proceed to jump the barriers at Stockwell!

- Jc, London, 31/10/2008 12:41
Report abuse

Who would volunteer to stand within 10 - 15 feet of a nutter with a twelve bore to incapacitate them. In today's society I'm afraid, wave a gun at police, get shot. Simple.

- Jon, london, 31/10/2008 12:35
Report abuse

Our gun-carrying keystone cops aren't up to standards for using the guns these days! Maybe they ought to work closely with the SAS in difficult situations so that they can be more mentally prepared and deal with tricky situations. Sadly, the barrister's death was avoidable and this situation should have been dealt quite easily with taser guns. Look at Menzies's scenario - that's avoidable too! It was likely that Menzies wasn't warned by 'a group of shouting men' - he was blown-off - according to a passenger witness - without hearing any warnings! Very unprofessional! Our civilans at the moment aren't safe with 'trained shooters' cops. Please re-train them properly!

- Max, Purley, Surrey, 31/10/2008 12:28
Report abuse

Lets see: Randomly shooting at the public with a shot gun / rifle from his window and then in a police stand off for over 5 hours; I think we all know who was at blame that day. Mr Saunders family should be questioning his behaviour that led to his death, not that of the police that have a duty to protect the public.

- Brandon Thomas, London UK, 31/10/2008 12:12
Report abuse

It is unbelievable that she thinks shooting randomly around your local neighbour hood with a shotgun is some sort of innocuous crime!

The rest of us live in the real world.

- Frank, Home Counties, England, 31/10/2008 11:46
Report abuse

Shame on you Casper. The strictest possible control must be exercised on our trigger-happy police, otherwise we sanction murder by incompetents. In this case Mark was shot over an extended period of time with bullets from a variety of different weapons - hardly the most professional operation the Met has ever managed. It would also be interesting to know who was 'Gold' for this matter; he or she has a lot to answer for.

- Policewatcher, London, 31/10/2008 11:38
Report abuse

There is absolutely no excuse for the police to have shot this man. Even if it had been to risky to use the Taser gun I understand that the UK Police have access to the Taser XREP which has a considerably longer range then the gun and can incapacitate for 15 seconds.

- Gerszon, Toronto, Canada, 31/10/2008 10:57
Report abuse

I agree about that conferring shouldn't be allowed, but more than one officer discharged there weapon in the final confrontation. This suggest that more than one officer perceived that there was a real threat.

- Stuart, Luton, UK, 31/10/2008 10:51
Report abuse

Yes and your brother could have used a water pistol instead of a shotgun. However he didn't and he got killed - live with it.

- Casper Slides, France, 31/10/2008 10:09
Report abuse

Add your comment