Police get their stories straight after shootings.

[AboveTheSalt]

Last May, Mark Saunders, a 32 year old lawyer who was reported to be depressed over difficulties with his marriage and who lived in a £2m house just off the King's Road in Chelsea was shot at least five times by the Police following a five-and-a-half hour stand-off and died as a result of his injuries.

He had been heard to fire shots into a neighbour's garden, into a child's bedroom in a neighbouring house and had fired a couple of shots in the direction of the Police. Nobody was injured.

At some stage, for an unknown reason, the Police decided to shoot and kill him - it is not clear why and there appears to be no reason to believe that there was any urgency or panic.

Four months later, his sister has finally managed to get a High Court review into the circumstances surrounding his shooting. In the meantime the Police have had plenty of time to discuss the incident amongst themselves and agree their stories. (Link)


This case is somewhat reminiscent of Jean Charles de Menezes and of Harry Stanley who was shot by the Police whilst walking home with a table leg wrapped in a plastic bag in the middle of the afternoon nine years ago. (Link)


I can understand that the Police sometimes make mistakes. What I can't understand is that they are allowed to spend time working together and with lawyers to get their stories straight. This seems to be an absolute travesty of justice and accountability.

[Feek]

Mark Saunders, 32, was shot after a siege during which he fired at police from his £2m house in Chelsea.

Assuming this is accurate, what's the problem?

The other guy (from memory) was challenged and didn't do as he was told so he was seen as a threat so was shot. Again, I don't see a problem with this.

I know as sure as eggs are eggs that if I heard a call from armed Police telling me to do something that I'd be doing exactly as they told me and not making any moves that could be mistaken as threatening.

[cleanbluesky]

You're crap at conveying information.

[Justsomebloke]

Nobody that shoots at the Police can complain when they get shot by the Police & nor can there familys.
Always makes me laugh storys like these, If there is a Mad axe man or a knife maniac about who do you ring to come & sort them out ?
If somebody kills your friend who is it that finds out who it was then goes & captures them & then gets them locked up ?
I support the Police & whatever measures they have to take to Protect us & themselves from these Lunatics.

As for talking between each other to get the story down I would think it is important for them to discuss it & get it straight. Not to distort the story but to get the individual accounts down & work out what actually happened. All of them would have seen the situation from a different angle/location etc & would have been involved in different ways. With the heat of the moment & the fact that some will take in some things better than others during these stressful situations I can think of nothing wrong with them discussing it at Any stage throughout the enquiry other than when it is presented to a jury.

[AboveTheSalt]

Originally Posted by Justsomebloke

I support the Police & whatever measures they have to take to Protect us & themselves from these Lunatics.

I don't actually think that the Police were protecting anyone when they shot and killed Mark Saunders - mentally disturbed though he undoubtedly was at the time of his killing by the Police.

Originally Posted by Justsomebloke

As for talking between each other to get the story down I would think it is important for them to discuss it & get it straight. Not to distort the story but to get the individual accounts down & work out what actually happened. All of them would have seen the situation from a different angle/location etc & would have been involved in different ways. With the heat of the moment & the fact that some will take in some things better than others during these stressful situations I can think of nothing wrong with them discussing it at Any stage throughout the enquiry other than when it is presented to a jury.

Absolute rubbish. There is nothing to stop the Police writing down their recollection without agreeing it amongst themselves. Arrested suspects are not allowed to confer and get their stories straight, why should it be any different for the Police?

What they are doing is perverting the course of justice, nothing else.

[Pebs]

Originally Posted by AboveTheSalt

I don't actually think that the Police were protecting anyone when they shot and killed Mark Saunders - mentally disturbed though he undoubtedly was at the time of his killing by the Police.

Themselves perhaps?! OR do they not deserve that luxury? Who else was going to go in and get him? You? THey tried for 5 hours.

[Justsomebloke]

Originally Posted by AboveTheSalt

I don't actually think that the Police were protecting anyone when they shot and killed Mark Saunders - mentally disturbed though he undoubtedly was at the time of his killing by the Police.


.

So him letting of his gun through his neighbours houses/bedrooms don't count as a threat now
Maybe this is to close to home for me to comment.

[cleanbluesky]

BAD MEN ARE GOING TO SHOOT YOU FOR NO REASON, FEAR THESE FACES

[AboveTheSalt]

Originally Posted by Pebs

Ahhh the copy and paste sessions begin.

Unbelievable. If you don't cite sources; people bitch. If you just give a link without any introduction, comment or question; people bitch. If you raise a topical issue any more challenging than "What I had for elevenses" or "What are you listening to right now?", people bitch.

Incidentally, I am not particularly getting at you here Pebs ...

Originally Posted by Pebs

I dont see a story that needs to be straightened. They did their job.

In which case, four months after the event, the High Court will doubtless hail the Police as heroes and say that Mark Saunders deserved to be killed, just as Jean Charles de Menezes and Harry Stanley did.

Originally Posted by Justsomebloke

So him letting of his gun through his neighbours houses/bedrooms don't count as a threat now

Since the area is reported to have been cleared, it certainly doesn't seem to constitute an imminent threat, no.

Originally Posted by Justsomebloke

Maybe this is to close to home for me to comment.

Very possibly.

[cleanbluesky]

Originally Posted by AboveTheSalt

Unbelievable. If you don't cite sources; people bitch. If you just give a link without any introduction, comment or question; people bitch. If you raise a topical issue any more challenging than "What I had for elevenses" or "What are you listening to right now?", people bitch.

Incidentally, I am not particularly getting at you here Pebs ...

Actually, you're the bitch - hence it happens to you a lot. I actually think its a good idea to post news stories but I've seen Nazi propaganda and Guardian articles that are more accurate and unbiased than what you've put in the OP.