Barrister Mark Saunders shot dead by police in Kings Road (2008). Inquest update
- Thread starter Dhimmi
- Start date
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Apology accepted, thanks. Had to report it as it's the only action I have left as the mods have asked that I don't respond directly to such posts myself (though Crispy's post seems to suggest they don't even want me to do that)
hahahahaha
chico enrico
No hair shows you care.
Gunmen are cool. 
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
the mythical ACAB crew is in the house!
dennisr
the acceptable face
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
HAC according to the telegraph, they won't like that bit of PR.
untethered
For industry & decency
What a tragic story.
The chap seemed to have it all going for him, right up until the moment when he started taking pot shots at his neighbours.
The chap seemed to have it all going for him, right up until the moment when he started taking pot shots at his neighbours.
Maybe right up till the moment he served in Iraq.
Obnoxious, arrogant pricks like you make this a fucking unpleasant place.
Why the fuck the mods allow you to strut around like you fucking own the place, God only knows.
Tedious cunt.
5t3IIa
Registered User
Not really - he was depressed and an alcoholic.
It's a bit spurious to assume that just cuz he's got a good job and some money his life is perfect
Stobart Stopper
Well-Known Member
It now turns out he was shot 5 times. Me and Pig were talking about this last night, he can't understand why they didn't do a stand-off, like they did with that bloke in Hackney a few years ago. That was 15 days, and although it ended by him burning himself to death, they didn't just go in and shoot him.
It doesn't make sense, shooting him like that after only a few hours.
It doesn't make sense, shooting him like that after only a few hours.
I don't think there is an ACAB "crew"
, but from what I see on the boards from time to time, it does look as if there is often a (quite widely-held) presumption that anything the police do is being done in bad faith.I'm no fan of the police, and wouldn't have any more to do with them than I could possibly avoid, but the idea that the entire police service is as intimately involved in some kind of "class war" agenda as some of those who so reliably criticise them clearly are isn't, I think, a very realistic one.
For example, detective_boy often gets instant flak for peddling the police line when it is clear to me that all he's doing is to say how something is done, whether that's right or not. The feeling I get is that his insights into police procedure are automatically assumed by quite a few people to be apologism for everything the police do, good, bad or downright evil. Maybe he doesn't help by getting cross quite so readily, but I can see why he might get that cross if everything he says is put under a very distorting lens of
every time he posts...
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
For once I think the police were right to shoot someone. An emotionally disturbed and drunk ex-soldier taking potshots at all and sundry sounds like a text book target.
It is a bit of a mystery but, knowing what we know from the reports, there are a couple of things which may have contributed to the decision to return fire (which, presumably, the officers will be justifying on the basis that he presented an immediate / imminent threat to themselves (unlikely, as they were in sniper positions reportedly and he had a shotgun) or others (far more likely).
1. There are reports that he had fired into a house opposite - why? Is there a history we don't yet know?
2. There are reports that there were other houses opposite which had not / could not be safely evacuated (from my recollection of the layout of the street there are certainly no easy rear exits from many of the houses)
3. There are reports that he was drunk and, if that is what they believed, that would be a major factor in them possibly concluding he was an unpredictable threat if he had given any indication of being about to leave the premises.
We will not know why the officers did what they did until the investigation has gathered all the evidence and tried to piece it all together.
(The "why five shots?" thing is a red herring though - the issue is purely and simply why did they fire at all - once they made that decision there are a number of possible reasons why there may have been multiple shots, not least that more than one officer may have reached the same decision to fire or that they may have not had clear sight of whether or not the shots had struck him / incapacitated him if he was inside the building still).
untethered
For industry & decency
I suppose that in as much as there might be a controversy it will be whether he could have been successfully contained until the situation had de-escalated. (He'd sobered up, calmed down, got sleepy, etc.)
I don't think he did himself any favours, though.
You have no basis for reaching that conclusion on what is known.
The characteristics you list do not, in and of themselves, provide sufficient grounds for using fatal force. There needs to be a belief that he was in immediate / imminent danger of using potentially fatal force on the officers or another person to justify their action.
An emotionally-disturbed, drunk, ex-soldier taking potshots may, or may not, have presented such a danger. That would be dependent on other circumstances.
They will also have to justify why the use of fatal force was necessary, i.e. why other things (the obvious being containment and negotiation) could not have been tried.
Well the jury have now concluded the inquest with a verdict of lawful killing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/07/mark-saunders-inquest-police-failings
I think that is probably right as an overall decision, and certainly in relation to the individual actions taken by the individual officers in the situations they found themselves.
But there are serious issues about the management of the operation, similar to the issues surrounding the Jean Charles de Menezes case. The Coroner has commented that there are so many guidelines, protocolsm, procedures and Manuals in place (one report mentioned nine, including two running to almost 100 pages each) that officers dealing with a firearms incident need to comply with that "they cannot see the wood for the trees", losing the ability to act with common sense, led by simple, basic principles in the desire to make sure that they comply with everything they need to comply with.
Personally I believe that this comment is actually more widely applicable than the Coroner realises - it is a good summary of what is wrong with a huge amount of policing - focus on process and procedures instead of simply trying to deal effectively and efficiently with the situation in front of them.
I also believe that, despite the muted reporting of police failings (and the apparent failure of it to attract any significant criticism here), this is a far more concerning case than Stockwell and many others. The reason I say that is that this was a far more contained and, in police firearms officer-speak, precise situation than the majority of others. It is well recognised that "imprecise" situations are far, far more dangerous and likely to result in shots being fired and a tragic outcome than "precise" ones. This is common sense really - any situation which you have to deal with without knowing exactly where someone is, what they armed with, who they are, etc., usually with no time to pre-plan and often, at least in the early stages of response, with insufficient resources is bound to be inherently more risky than one in which you have the opportunity, like here, of knowing who is involved, where they are, etc.
I am still at something of a loss as to understand why this situation was managed in such a way as to result in the outcome it did - it seems that (as I think I speculated at some stage on another thread) the containment positions had to be so close as to put the officers in danger for sound operational reasons ... but I'm still not clear why all those containment officers had to be exposed and in danger simultaneously. I'm even more concerned about the lights / helicopter / numbers of armed officers decisions which do not seem to have been designed to reduce the stress, etc. on the subject and which should have been recognised as being very likely to increase the stress on him and, hence, reduce his predictability.
Lots more to come on this case, I'm sure. Will be interesting to see what (if the media choose to report it .. but the fact that the family seem to have accepted the verdict means that it is likely they will soon lose interest ... ).
Also interesting to note Mrs Saunder's comment that she was content that the inquest had provided an opportunity for her to hear from the officers responsible for her husband's death what they did and why they did it - that need for an open and public examination of why fatal (or even non-fatal serious) force has been used by officers of the State is of crucial importance. In this case the inquest appears to have been a satisfactory forum for that examination but, as has been seen in many other cases, the restrictions of the inquest parameters means that is not always the case and, in the absence of criminal proceedings, there is no alternative forum. (Hence my previously-made suggestion for some form of Grand Jury to hear the evidence in cases where IPCC / CPS decide there is insufficient evidence to prosecute).
I think that is probably right as an overall decision, and certainly in relation to the individual actions taken by the individual officers in the situations they found themselves.
But there are serious issues about the management of the operation, similar to the issues surrounding the Jean Charles de Menezes case. The Coroner has commented that there are so many guidelines, protocolsm, procedures and Manuals in place (one report mentioned nine, including two running to almost 100 pages each) that officers dealing with a firearms incident need to comply with that "they cannot see the wood for the trees", losing the ability to act with common sense, led by simple, basic principles in the desire to make sure that they comply with everything they need to comply with.
Personally I believe that this comment is actually more widely applicable than the Coroner realises - it is a good summary of what is wrong with a huge amount of policing - focus on process and procedures instead of simply trying to deal effectively and efficiently with the situation in front of them.
I also believe that, despite the muted reporting of police failings (and the apparent failure of it to attract any significant criticism here), this is a far more concerning case than Stockwell and many others. The reason I say that is that this was a far more contained and, in police firearms officer-speak, precise situation than the majority of others. It is well recognised that "imprecise" situations are far, far more dangerous and likely to result in shots being fired and a tragic outcome than "precise" ones. This is common sense really - any situation which you have to deal with without knowing exactly where someone is, what they armed with, who they are, etc., usually with no time to pre-plan and often, at least in the early stages of response, with insufficient resources is bound to be inherently more risky than one in which you have the opportunity, like here, of knowing who is involved, where they are, etc.
I am still at something of a loss as to understand why this situation was managed in such a way as to result in the outcome it did - it seems that (as I think I speculated at some stage on another thread) the containment positions had to be so close as to put the officers in danger for sound operational reasons ... but I'm still not clear why all those containment officers had to be exposed and in danger simultaneously. I'm even more concerned about the lights / helicopter / numbers of armed officers decisions which do not seem to have been designed to reduce the stress, etc. on the subject and which should have been recognised as being very likely to increase the stress on him and, hence, reduce his predictability.
Lots more to come on this case, I'm sure. Will be interesting to see what (if the media choose to report it .. but the fact that the family seem to have accepted the verdict means that it is likely they will soon lose interest ...
). Also interesting to note Mrs Saunder's comment that she was content that the inquest had provided an opportunity for her to hear from the officers responsible for her husband's death what they did and why they did it - that need for an open and public examination of why fatal (or even non-fatal serious) force has been used by officers of the State is of crucial importance. In this case the inquest appears to have been a satisfactory forum for that examination but, as has been seen in many other cases, the restrictions of the inquest parameters means that is not always the case and, in the absence of criminal proceedings, there is no alternative forum. (Hence my previously-made suggestion for some form of Grand Jury to hear the evidence in cases where IPCC / CPS decide there is insufficient evidence to prosecute).
silverfish
Sprinkling glitter on turds
Cheers for that DB
Too many office dwellers pumping out too many procedures and protocols without any situational, on the ground experience. Same old story. CYAs shiny arses
Too many office dwellers pumping out too many procedures and protocols without any situational, on the ground experience. Same old story. CYAs shiny arses
miss minnie
Well-Known Member
Do these procedures and protocols just pop out of thin air or do they tend to arise from previous incidents, complaints, mistakes, lawsuits against the police etc.?
silverfish
Sprinkling glitter on turds
At some point you have to trust your peoples decisions.
micro managing by tick list and with one eye on every possible comeback political or professional isn't the way to manage a large kinetic workforce who deal with frankly alarming and dangerous situations/people every working day/shift
The cops holding the weapons are on a lose lose, criticised for being overly aggressive if they shoot (JDM), critisised if they let a situation roll for too long and people get hurt (RM and the chap in Cumbria)
micro managing by tick list and with one eye on every possible comeback political or professional isn't the way to manage a large kinetic workforce who deal with frankly alarming and dangerous situations/people every working day/shift
The cops holding the weapons are on a lose lose, criticised for being overly aggressive if they shoot (JDM), critisised if they let a situation roll for too long and people get hurt (RM and the chap in Cumbria)
miss minnie
Well-Known Member
There was that incident in Hackney years ago (maybe 10 or so?) where the police stuck to the letter of their protocols and procedures resulting in an armed siege that cost the taxpayer £11m and took well over a week to resolve (without shots fired iirc).
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. As in all things the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't. As in all things the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
Mostly the latter ... and therefore mostly invented with good intentions ... but in the fuckwitted belief that we can ever legislate for every possibility and that we can ever reach a situation where there will never be a bad outcome ever again.
When I joined the Met we had two sources of policy - the Instruction Book (one volume, about two hundred pages long) which set out sort of routine stuff that every officer needed to know about everyday policing and which they were expected to work by and General Orders (two volumes, each about 300 pages long) which contained policies and procedures about everything that may be encountered from time to time and which supervisors more so than constables were expected to know their way around. They were traditionally described to new officers as a record of everything that had ever gone wrong!
Both regularly updated via Police Orders (later called Police Notices) published weekly and the Station Office copies in each station were amended so they were spot on. Yes, there were some policies and procedures and guidelines and things in addition but very, very few, invariably fairly succinct and user-friendly and primarily aimed at specialist units. And by reference to those two sources, any officer could pretty much find out the basic policies / procedures / rules for almost any situation.
From the 80s onwards this all changed. "Policy units" proliferated (in individual forces and on a national basis in the Home Office, ACPO, the HMIC, organisations like the NPIA and others) and senior officers responsible for a "portfolio" did not feel they had left their mark on it unless they created a Manual or something about it, often duplicating something already in existence but not invented by them. In the Met these units used to be housed in the Yard and other office blocks but in the 90s they outgrew them. Empress State Building in Fulham was leased, ostensibly as an alternative home for the Yard when it's lease on it's Victoria block expired ... but that is now filled with Policy Units and the like ... and the Yard is still there too. If you want to know where hundreds and thousands of police officers and police staff have gone in the Met, go hang about West Brompton Station at 8am or 4pm ...
The other thing that has changed is that in the early 80s we were told that if we did something in good faith, applying the law and procedures to the best of our ability, then we would be supported by the organisation if we made an honest mistake or if something bad resulted. That statement was viewed with cynicism then. It died totally sometime around the early 90s - now if you make a mistake, or if something bad happens, senior officers and the organisation as a whole cannot distance themselves from you quickly enough and you know that there will be a witchhunt, looking for anyone who can be hung out to dry, often for some technical, irrelevant and trivial breach of the myriad rules, policies and procedures.
Policies and Procedures, Accountability and Performance Management are all fine ... but kept in proportion and not to the extent that they get in the way of effective and efficient service delivery. I agree entirely with the Coroner - the police have lost sight of the wood because of the trees, in a far wider sense than just firearms operations.
That is something that the police management, the media and the public generally need to take on board. Until they do (and until it is demonstrated in anger that it is genuine trust and more than words, to be jettisoned as soon as anything goes wrong) policing will never be effective and efficient.
Indeed there was. One of the longest seige situations in the UK (if not the longest), ironically overseen by (then) Commander, er, Quick ...
Despite the criticism of the cost, disruption to people's lives, etc. I would very strongly argue that the outcome (i.e. the subject not being killed or injured and no police officer being required to kill or injure him) was far, far, far better than the alternative. Cost and inconvenience should never be a factor in deciding how to resolve such a situation other than in truly exceptional circumstances.
Similar threads
