Shooting back is against the law if you are a policeman
The other week we touched upon the G20 protests riot & why the Metropolitan Police we completely correct to start cracking skulls but just to reiterate, if you want to peaceably protest, thats fine: if you want a scrap, then expect to be given some senior pagga*. However the case of Mark Saunders is several standard deviations worse, but before we dive headlong into invective & vitriol, lets look at the facts of the case:
1. There was a five our armed standoff with the police in Central London
2. During the standoff Mark Saunders fired his shotgun at police & at his neighbours
3. Saunders ended the day dead.
Now those are the facts & it it would seem that the police acted to prevent a very dangerous situation getting worse. However I did forget one thing - just a small thing - other than the fact he looked like a really smary git ...
... Mark Saunders was a lawyer which is possibly why he looked like a really smary git.
Now if it were down to me & by all that is good & light, I hope that it one day will be, the police have have an open mandate to gun down lawyers without having to show good reason. It will be known as Generalissimo Free Market’s Martini Doctrine – as in anytime, anyplace, anywhere. Those of us that have been involved in pest control know that you will never be able to completely exterminate vermin: however if we could manage say a 95% annual cull of the legal profession, within 24 months lawyers will become a statistical irrelevance & the world will become a better place.
& yet in Browntown, the officers that performed this sterling community service may now face charges
Prosecutors are to consider whether to bring charges over the shooting of a lawyer by police officers in London. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has completed an inquiry into the death of Mark Saunders, 32, in Chelsea in May 2008. Mr Saunders was shot dead by Met Police marksmen after a five-hour stand-off at his flat. The IPCC has decided to pass the file to the Crown Prosecution Service for consideration over possible charges
To my mind, the only issue that I have with this case is the question of the armed officers’ marksmanship skills
The IPCC evidence showed seven officers fired 11 rounds at Mr Saunders. The barrister was hit five times and was shot in the head, the heart and the liver.
Now there are those of you that will opine quite reasonably that when it comes to freeing Blighty from the Tyranny of the Lawyers with which we are so cursed, a 45% hit rate is acceptable: to my alcohol ravaged mind, if we are ever to end the Legal Hegemony, better marksmanship will be required
But to return to the central theme here, it doesn’t matter which way to cut it – you end up in an armed confrontation with police & start shooting, they are going to shoot back & rightly so. Period. Only a lawyer (or all of his lawyer mates) would have the temerity to try & argue otherwise which is why we need The Cull to start forthwith ... if not sooner.
* Pagga: Slang term for a large street-fight involving several people all laying into each other with fists, feet, bottles, pool cues and whatever else comes to hand. Thought to derive from "pandemonium
Comments
I have to say, I couldn't agree more. Start shooting and you are inviting retaliation - and even if the do-gooders can prove that you are not mentally responsible, you nevertheless are presenting a risk to innocent citizens and need to be stopped.
The fact that he was a lawyer makes it even more cut and dried!
Posted by: John | June 1, 2009 10:01 AM
I remember wondering what was going on when I read of the hit ratio.
However, I wasn't there; the guy might have been moving; he might have been behind partial cover; and no doubt other considerations apply.
Fair to say that if he hadn't been a pretty boy, and his campaigning sister a lovely, there would have been no fuss. If I ever get over-exuberant like this fellow did, flowers please but no sympathy.
Posted by: Jeff Wood | June 1, 2009 11:26 AM
I do have one objection to the Police conduct. What are the balaclavas all about?
Posted by: Jeff Wood | June 1, 2009 11:28 AM
Better marksmanship????
They hit his heart FFS, how much smaller target is there than that in a lawyer?
As for the result:
He was a lawyer and he had been in the TA (albeit not very successfully);
ergo he knew what he was doing.
ergo the verdict is suicide by HK MP3 (Met branch)
Posted by: Gremlin | June 1, 2009 1:53 PM
Jeff: Balaclavas are about anonymity.
Make of that what you will.
Posted by: Kristopher | June 1, 2009 5:53 PM
Death by misadventure.
Next!
Posted by: bomber Harris | June 1, 2009 9:27 PM
HK MP3 ?? He was killed by a wave of compressed german music....
Posted by: Mad Pad | June 1, 2009 9:57 PM
Pah. Shoot at the cops, you're gonna get shot. End of story.
Posted by: Kim du Toit | June 1, 2009 11:49 PM
"Shoot at the cops and you're gonna get shot..."
Carry a table leg and you're gonna get shot.
Posted by: TV | June 2, 2009 10:36 AM
TV, if you shoot at the cops with a table leg, you deserve to be shot yourself. (And yes, I know what you're talking about.)
If, however, you do NOT shoot at the cops with your table leg, and they shoot you, then THEY are the ones who deserve to be shot, by firing squad.
Posted by: Kim du Toit | June 2, 2009 5:58 PM
Lets see,prosecutors want to go after cops who shot a lawyer. "OK, we will call your charges, and raise you 7 guys who can get 45% hits with their MP3s"
Posted by: walt | June 2, 2009 10:50 PM
Walt: My MP3 player has nothing but hits on it.
Maybe you meant MP-5? Don't make the same mistake the news-idiots made.
Posted by: Kristopher | June 3, 2009 6:23 PM
What IS this country coming to? If said lawyer had shot some innocent members of the public the poor cops would still be in trouble for NOT shooting that idiot!You shoot at cops you will be shot back at,end of story.
Posted by: justin morgan | June 3, 2009 9:08 PM
He fired his shotgun out of his window when blind drunk, I don't know how or why he ended up doing so.
However, he had no hostage, no one to shoot at and no demands. The risks he posed to anyone during this "seige" have been greatly exaggerated.
He was either going to (i) shoot himself; (ii) run out shooting - in which case he would have been justifiably shot; or (iii) he was going to sober up and come out with his hands up. Instead the police shot him.
He was a bloody good bloke - RIP mate.
Posted by: H | June 10, 2009 1:37 PM