Friday 1 October 2010

‘No! You’re Just Supposed To Shoot The Drunken, Gun-Wielding Chavs!’

…not the fine, upstanding (when not drunk) lawyers!

Thus spake Stephen Glover in the ‘Daily Fail’ on the case of trigger-happy lawyer Mark Saunders:
The inquest at Westminster Coroner’s Court into the killing by police of the barrister Mark Saunders has not yet ¬inished. When it has, the jury will deliver its verdict. Whatever that verdict may be, questions have been raised that go far beyond this case, and concern the good sense, humanity and accountability of the police.
Well, that’s not going to go down too well at Inspector Gadget’s blog (and for once, I'm in agreement), but does he have a point?
No doubt like many others reading reports of the inquest, I have been troubled by aspects of the evidence. But it should be said in defence of the police that Mr Saunders must have at first seemed a potentially very dangerous character.
Only ‘at first’? What, exactly, changed?
While police were investigating this, he allegedly fired at them, though neither at this nor at any other stage was anyone hit or wounded. After this happened, reinforcements were reasonably called in. He could, after all, have been a terrorist or a lethal, professional killer.
A shotgun is pretty lethal, Stephen. Just because he missed, doesn’t mean his aim mightn’t have got better once he sobered up….
Some people will say that if a man lets off his shotgun in this way he deserves whatever happens to him. I suppose this may be true.
Pretty grudging of you. How about we park a drunken cokehead with a loaded shooter in your neighbour’s house, see how you feel then?
Yet the police were dealing not with a dangerous terrorist, but with a wildly drunken young man of previous good character who was evidently temporarily deranged, and probably seriously mentally ill.
Thank you for that, Dr Glover. It is ‘Dr’, isn’t it? After all, there you are, making a diagnosis..

And I can’t see anywhere how the mental state of the shootee makes the gun somehow magically less lethal.
Let me say what worries me most about this terrible story. In the first place, it is the apparent absence of good sense on the part of the police. If they had every reason to pour in resources when shooting started in the belief that they were confronted by a dangerous man, they should have backed off and put negotiators in charge when they learned that they were dealing with a drunken, vomiting lunatic.
Negotiators were there. But they can’t make a drunken, coked-up lunatic put down the shotgun within 45 minutes. No, not even if you do employ the cute pair from Fox’s sadly-cancelled ‘Standoff’.

This is reality, not a TV show…
All this overkill — so characteristic of the modern police — for one drunken, disturbed man whose sole weapon, a shotgun, has a limited range and, unless it is used close to its target, is not an accurate weapon.
Hey, if you want to stand in front of one, don’t let me stop you. But you don’t get to determine whether others have to take that risk…
Worse still, there seems to have been a lack of humanity. Despite ¬persistent requests, neither Mr Saunders’ best friend nor his wife Elizabeth were allowed to see him. The barrister had actually asked to see his wife, but she was prevented from doing so by the police.
And if he’d exchanged a final few words with his wife and then *kaboom*, would you be castigating the police for unwittingly allowing his suicide or her murder?

I bet you would…

13 comments:

Captain Haddock said...

I just love these so-called "experts" .. they have no concept of real life, no idea just how lethal a shotgun can be ..

They inhabit another planet entirely ..

Anonymous said...

Maybe they should shoot more lawyers ?
Just because their Lawyers of course.
Any objections to that idea ?

Umbongo said...

JuliaM

I (tend to) agree with you but don't forget that the guy in overall charge was Dizaei: a policeman promoted (purely on ethno-religious grounds) so far beyond his capabilities he made Ian Blair look like Sir Robert Peel. Accordingly, we can be assured that, whatever happened, the whole affair was a monumental cock-up. OTOH, even had the police been led by somebody with nous and competence [rare to unknown in the Met I know but let's be charitable here] I suspect Saunders would have ended up in the mortuary.

MTG said...

Julia's appraisal is on the money.

Gadget's hallmark bad taste was evident in an asinine, inflammatory poll and the customary slob English. Otherwise I found myself in broad agreement with his topic.

DJ said...

Hang on - he was harmless because wasn't someone used to handling firearms and he was using a weapon that doesn't need accuracy. Shome mistake surely?

Ross said...

"Only ‘at first’? What, exactly, changed?"

He was a lot safer after he had been shot.

Inspector SadGit said...

Sorry to be off topic JuliaM:

We can’t speak about strike action on my blog without a very real possibility of me being hunted down and the blog shut down. It is an offence to encourage police officers to take any action like that, or even to publicise it. Sorry folks.

P.S. Does this manipulation of a call for strike action whilst denying it is any such thing, make my head look big?

Anonymous said...

Saunders should / could have been apprehended, without been killed, all he needed was a few weeks in something like the Priory, weaving willow baskets for a while.
The British police and firearms experts is one hell of an oxymoron.

JuliaM said...

”...they have no concept of real life, no idea just how lethal a shotgun can be ..”

Over at Gadget's, there was mention of a test firing of Saunders' shotgun into a side of pork, to bring home just how lethal it would be.

”...don't forget that the guy in overall charge was Dizaei...”

Oh, indeed! I wonder if this is his most high-profile failure, or if he had fingers in other pies we haven't yet learned about?

”Hang on - he was harmless because wasn't someone used to handling firearms and he was using a weapon that doesn't need accuracy. Shome mistake surely?”

Quite!

”Saunders should / could have been apprehended, without been killed...”

That was, to a certain extent, up to him, though...

Furor Teutonicus said...

a shotgun, has a limited range and, unless it is used close to its target, is not an accurate weapon.

Tell that to the next clay pigeon you see you dumbfuck twat.

Furor Teutonicus said...

Fups

Anonymous said...

Saunders should / could have been apprehended, without been killed...”

That was, to a certain extent, up to him, though...

2 October 2010 06:30

No not realy, as he was on anti-depressants, and was drinking.
I am all in favour of the right to shoot people who invade your house, threaten you etc, and approve when the police shoot someone in a self defence situation, what worries me about this situation is the anominity of the police in this case and the wearing of maske in the siege situation.
I am well versed in the use of firearms, and I could have got him out of there without death.

JuliaM said...

You might have. But you can't say that for certain.

He could, at any time, have shot himself.

Certainly, the anonymity worries me too, but I really do believe the police are on a hiding to nothing with these sorts of cases. No matter what they do, there will be complaints.