Why did they shoot that barrister 5 times? He never had a hostage and he only fired once?

Knownow't

Because they were using automatic weapons...he was firing out into the street and across the road...he obviously had a death wish....no they are not gun crazy.....they didn't start it did they....

Sal*UK

Did he only fire once?? Not according to witness's - and also one of his shots narrowly missed a police officer. I guess due to the danger to the public, he had to be dealt with and quickly.

Watcher

I will try to not insult you for your lack of intelligence. But, this guy shot into a child's bedroom which thank god was not occupied at the time, then shot at the cops. So how many other people should he shoot at before they take him out. 5 whole times, he got off lucky.

Bamford1000

Firearms officers in siege situations shoot to â€œstop the threatâ€, aiming their shots at the torso, but not specifically intending to kill. Police continue firing until they are satisfied a suspect no longer poses a danger, though such action, inevitably, often results in a suspectâ€™s death.

The 32-year-old barrister exchanged fire with police three times on Tuesday night before he was shot and killed at his flat in Chelsea, West London.

Mr Saundersâ€™s refusal to respond to police negotiators, and his continued exchanges of fire, led to speculation that he may have wanted the police to kill him in what has come to be known as â€œsuicide by copâ€.

All such police shootings are investigated fully by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC)

cookie monster FKA Willz

i saw a programme on the 9mm bullet once, they say a 9mm bullet is never enough to stop a man, yeah it will hurt but i wll not stop a crazed gunman thats for sure, 5 or six rounds will stop the gunman i.e "nuetralize the threat" and if i put myself in the officers shoes, i would make sure that guy went down hard before me!

The Expenses Mole

Do you really need an excuse to shoot a lawyer lol

Rowan

Probably because a few people were told to shoot if he shot at them and their guns fire so fast. If someone fires at the police should they not fire back?What if he had killed one of them.

Mick B

Dont go up and down shooting a gun off then they wont shoot at you, or is that to simple for people to understand ?

Jasmine Peters At Home

According to the reports I heard and saw it was three times - but so what - he shouldn't have been waving a gun about in the first place. Next things is when one of the gun thugs in London gets his come-uppance from a police marksman, I suppose THAT will be wrong too........

maca

the person concered was holding out for 4 or 5 hours fireing his gun at will what are the police supposed to do knock on the door and ask if they could come in he was mentally ill??so could have done any thing including setting a bomb of ??

angler

He fired several shots into a neighbours garden and through her
bedroom window.He also fired at police.Waiting 5 hours was to
long.They want shooting.Shoot them.

joan k

He fired more than once and was firing at innocent people, property and the Police. For once I agree with what the Police did.

Gem*

I thought he shot alot more than once?

Yahoo

They would only have shot him because he was seen as a danger. Since Jean Charles DeMenezes (sp?), I'm sure that it was not a decision taken lightly and I do not envy the police who dealt the shots. It could not have been an easy thing to do.

And no, the police are not gun crazy.

Ian UK

They shot him to protect other members of the public.

Waiting him out is fine if he doesn't try and kill someone else but are we prepared to take that chance with a man that's clearly 'unhinged'

kitkat

If you start taking pot shots at innocent bystanders then you deserve to get shot to hell and back in retaliation!!! Was the police supposed to wait until he'd taken out 10 people before they took him down??!?!?!?!

I'm with you there VA-145 Swordsman!!!!

nita

i think its sad, something had pushed the guy over the edge, i still don't understand why he had a shot gun , but i feel for his wife and family a waste of a life

Jack

The crazy man was firing a shot gun at passes by and then at armed Police. 5 times or 50 times. Who cares?

Problem Child

deadly force is deadly force. You don't use a firearm to wound, but rather to kill. If a cops intent is not to kill to save their lives or the lives of bystanders, they need to use another tool other than a gun.
Once you go to a gun, its to implement deadly force. Why, at that point, would it matter if they shot him one time or 100? Their intent is to kill him, not wound him at that point, so if one bullet can kill, it really doesn't matter how many more follow it, because your intent is to kill.

If you had any law enforcement or military training you would know that. Once you make the choice to use deadly physical force, you shoot until the threat is stopped. Wounded people can still shoot back or at others. Thats why you shoot to kill, not wound. If a person is that big of a threat that you must kill them, wounding them or shooting them in the big toe or something equally ludicrous flies in the face of common sense.

Bear

The main aim of any firearms operation / deployment is to 'identify', 'locate' and 'contain' the subject or subjects. Once you have done that you will begin negotiations with the subject to give himself up. If initial negotiations were not forthcoming you would look to utilise trained negotiators. There is no time limit. The police can contain and negotiate for days if necessary.

The police attended (not sure what time) and at 1700 hours the male fired at police. He subsequently fired at police at 2100 hours and 2130 hours. On each of those occasions the police returned fire.

Even from the times shown it can be seen that the police were playing it long. This wasn't a case of rushing in all guns blazing. The police would not enter the property unless life was at risk to another person within that property. I would suggest that the police subsequently entered the property to carry out what is called an 'emergency entry', which means that they believed that the subject was incapacitated, either as a result of being shot by the police or had shot himself. In that case the entry was necessary to save the life of the subject.

There would have been a number of firearms officers on containment of the property. If the male was shooting at them then they were protecting their own and their colleagues lives by shooting back. More than one officer will have probably shot. I doubt very much that one officer shot five times. If more than one officer shot then that would suggest that the officers equally felt their lives were being threatened.

In response to other comments can I add that the police do not shoot to kill, we shoot to stop (big difference). Yes we are firing bullets and yes they may kill, but killing is not the intention, whereas stopping is. The idea is to stop the person in their course of action, generally threatening life. Central body mass is always the target area, unless that is not on display. If anyone is shot we have a duty of care to that person. That means we have to administer first aid.

The police will have been in possession of other less lethal options, such as pepper spray, baton, Taser, passive attack dog and baton gun. The difficulty with those is that you need to be in close..... against a man with a shotgun.....no!!!

P.S The police carbines (H&K G36 and MP5) are single shot variant, NOT AUTOMATIC!!!!

tonyp128

They should have shot him once so he could shoot back. Is that your premise?

OwenGlendwr

There is no reason to bear arms in the urban UK unless you intend to use them, or intimidate someone to get your own way. And, as the guy had opened fire, the Police merely retaliated and protected the public.

vdv_desantnik

What makes you an expert? Oh, of course you were there at the time...Or maybe not. This man had fired his gun into a childrens bedroom across the street from his house, that makes him a lethal threat for my money. You say yourself he only fired once, that makes him a clear threat. And you say they shot him 5 times, it is as yet unclear whether this was one officer shot him 5 times, or 5 officers shot him once. In any event having been in similar situations myself repeatedly, if somebody is pointing a gun at you, shooting until the target falls is the recommended norm for such a situation. Think what you would rather have here. Lunatics running around with guns shooting at you and your family members with impunity and nobody to stop them, or armed policemen who are willing to lay down their lives to protect you and your family and the inevitability that some people are likely to get shot whilst behaving in a dangerous manner, you cannot have it both ways

cheeky chappie

...........so why did they shoot the brazilian lad in the head before they found out he was innocent??

Philbomoog

Why couldn't they have waited him out?

You must have a very short memory.

Remember the Hackney seige of Boxing Day 2002, which finally ended in 2003.

Remember the critisism aimed at police for not resolving the situation sooner. Dozens of people evacuated from their homes, dozens more confined to their own homes, unable to leave. Newspaper headlines demanding police do something. Media rants about the hundred of thousands of pound of tax payers money being spent.

I've got enough provisions in my kitchen to last me about 3 months if I was prepared to ration myself. How long would you want to wait?

Mr Abba

I heard he shot more then once.

groovymaude

He didn't only fire once! He was shooting into his neighbours houses, thank God the lady's daughter (whose bedroom he fired into) wasn't there! You have no idea what the sit was when the police went in after 5 hours negotiating with him, you also have no idea whether any of those bullets were his own.He didn't need to have a hostage to pose a threat to the public!

Nintendouche

1 round or 5 rounds he would of bin dead before he dropped to the ground anyway

what about the people who had to shoot him, isnt anyone thinking about them knowing they had to kill them, also they will not be able to go back on duty until its all cleared up and its classes as a justified killing

junction 19

I understood he owned a shotgun which is not an accurate weapon especially at longer range, but what ever weapon he used he did fire more than one shot and almost his a police officer, The police or any armed unit will not shot to wound, but shot to kill and are taught to shot at the torso which will neutralise the threat.

McB

Most police officers are trained to fire until the suspect is no longer a threat.

Anna1223

The inquest into it isn't going to be until September.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: