Exclusive: Adam Fresco, Crime Correspondent
We've made some changes
to The Sunday Times
The barrister killed after a five-hour siege was shot at least five times by police marksmen positioned outside the building, The Times has been told.
Officers shot at Mark Saunders as he fired his shotgun out of the window of his house in Markham Square, Chelsea, West London, after he was deemed to be a threat to life. At least five of the bullets, possibly six, found their mark, The Times has learnt.
During intense negotiations, Mr Saunders’s mood was said to have been “up and down” and it is believed that at one point negotiators thought he might give himself up.
But at 9.30pm he began firing a shotgun for the third time from a window and was shot. By the time officers entered the three-storey, £2.28 million property on Tuesday evening after apparently throwing in stun grenades, Mr Saunders was dead. None of the officers who stormed the house discharged weapons once inside. Investigators have confirmed a legally registered shotgun was recovered by police.
Some of the first armed officers on the scene were from the Diplomatic Protection Group and initially they returned fire as armed officers from Scotland Yard’s CO19 firearms unit arrived.
Mr Saunders’s father has demanded answers over why his son was shot, and insisted that he had not put anyone in danger.
Rodney Saunders claimed yesterday that his son, a former trooper in the Honourable Artillery Company, was not a lethal threat.
He said: “Put it this way. He didn’t endanger anyone at all to my knowledge and we can only surmise what might have happened before the whole thing started.
“I just don’t know. You would imagine that it will come out in the fullness of time. We will want answers as to why police shot him.”
Mr Saunders, 32, and his wife, Elizabeth Clarke, 40, were both highly-paid family lawyers working from the Queen Elizabeth Building chambers in the Temple. They had been married for two years but had become estranged.
It is said that his behaviour had become increasingly drunken and erratic. Ms Clarke said last night, in a statement released on her behalf through her chambers, that the couple had a “strong union” and had been “deeply committed to each other”.
She also denied having been at the Chelsea home in the hours before Mr Saunders’s shooting spree and said that she had arrived back after the area had been cordoned off.
Police in the UK have become (certainly since their near fatal shooting of Stephen Waldof) a law unto themselves and I have never known of a policeman being prosecuted for murder, let alone manslaughter, for killing an innocent person. Unlike the U.S.A., Domesticated Britons deserve their police
Sibthorpe, Belves,
Paul, yours is the most sensible comment I have read in connection with this matter.
I am fed up with hearing about crimes of passion where the asailant jumps on the "I lost my mind", "I was drunk" bandwaggon.
He knew exactly what he was doing. Unfortunately he paid a high price for it.
Louise Hardy, Mirfield, West Yorkshire, England
I am sure the officers are wracked with guilt for being forced to take a life in this way.
They deserve our support and respect for protecting the lives of the innocent (that includes the deceased, they *did* try to reason with him!). I'm sure that they recognise this as a tragedy just as we do.
Brijit , Paris, France
Give a "policeperson" a gun and they're going to shoot people - what do you think the guns are for? This is only going to happen more often (especially once all the police are armed) and eventually we'll just stop questioning it.
Alan, Edinburgh,
Police made the right decision to shoot. He was a danger to others.
Scott, London,
Dave, London,
Thanks - I stand corrected, however - the licence application clearly states: "either has no magazine or a non-detachable magazine incapable of holding more than two cartridges" Not three. Presumably you're thinking of the one in the barrel. Thanks for the lecture on facts.
Chris, Newcastle, UK
This is not a lefty winge. He was contained. The police could take cover. He did not need to die. Had he been intent on killing someone he could easily have done so - anyone armed with a shotgun in crowded central London has to be pretty incompetent not to kill somebody if they really want to.
Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,
It appears to me that police used necessary force to bring down a very dangerous aggressor. Ascertaining whether or not the police did the right thing in the situation should be an easy task?
I wish the media would not call this particular incident into question, compromising the police's ability to make crucial fast decisions in this kind of situation.
Chris, London,
Put it this way. He didnt endanger anyone at all to my knowledge"
Right. Shooting at strangers doesn't put them in any danger.
Dan, London, Uk
The only person responsible for this mans death was the man himself. It is a very sad and tragic incident but why does everyone in this country think that everything is someone elses fault! He had a gun.. he was drunk.. he was depressed... he chose to pick up the gun he suffered the consequences.
Katie, Cambridge, UK
Simon, Birmingham. Similarly, if you fire a 12 bore shotgun out of your window that is a also a very serious matter, and you bear that responsibility as well.
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
I work with children with challenging behaviour and I teach them one thing (which should be in the national curriculum): If you point a gun or what looks like a gun at the public or police, you will be shot dead.
Is there anyone left in this country who doesn't know this?
If so, learn it. Quickly.
Paul M, Nottingham, UK
If you carry an MP5 & a Glock pistol, you bear the responsiblity that comes with them. The death of a person is a serious matter. It is right that those that killed a man explain why it had to happen. If it did not have to happen, those persons must answer to the very law they uphold.
Simon , Birmingham,
No less than lethal weapon would have been appropriate. The tazer has a max range of 21 ft and baton rounds are less than effective. To all you armchair tactical advisors, until you have had to engage an emotionally disturbed person that is shooting at you, you have no cause to comment.
Lee, coventry, uk
Would such media coverage or public scrutiny be given to someone of lesser social standing than a barrister of the Inns of Court? Another man found irresponsibly firing at will would suffer an ignominious fate. Alas, a Wolffian 'Master of the Universe', is unaccountable even in death.
Amos, London,
If Mr Sauders was a depressive, shouldn't he have had is firearms licence revoked and the shotgun confiscated?
If you're deemed medically unfit to drive you have your licence suspended - what's the difference?
Maybe there should be periodic medical checks on firearms licence holders
KWC, W Yorkshire,
Chris, Newcastle - It's completely legal to own both a semi-automatic (called an auotmatic in shooting terms) or a pump action shotgun in the Uk.
They are also allowed to have a maximum magazine capacity of 3 rounds, not 2.
Don't give your thoughts, give the facts.
Dave, London, Uk
Kevin Miller says "he was not a criminal or a druggy or someone with a history of violence."
Firing a gun at random strangers in an urban area qualifies pretty well as "a history of violence".
Sean, Coventry, UK
There have been many other criminals who are mentally ill or educated - how are the police supposed to tell who the 'real' ones are? Mr Vail - my education helped me read several articles, in reputable papers, which reported that he shot at a neighbour, the police, people in the area - targets, no?
Gemma, Notts,
The police were right to shoot this man, he was armed and dangerous and posed a threat to everyone around him.
The police are their to protect the general public and they have no obligation to put their, and everbody else's, lives on the line to give a madman the chance to calm down.
Alex, Basingtoke, UK
This went on for 5 hours the police tried everything to talk him down, but he continued on firing at the police and others - did you miss the part where he fired into a YOUNG girls bedroom???
Grow up! Of course he was a danger! As for the 5 bullets it does state they are from different guns!
Helena Cumming, Grimsby, UK
To Chris, Newcastle, UK
As a registered shotgun owner myself, I'm afraid you are wrong.
A pump action shotgun and a semi-auto shotgun IS legal in the UK. The magazine cannot hold more than three shells. The barrel length cannot be any less than 24".
Steve, Lincoln, UK
As far as I was aware, Mr Saunders had a downstairs neighbour whom was narrowly missed by bullets when she went out to see what was happening, then spent the rest of the siege trapped in her flat. By all reports the police were dealing with an extremely unpredictable situation - I doubt I could!
Gemma, Notts,
Having safeguarded the area the police had no reason to kill him. He needed containing and patience. I am appalled at how many bloodthirsty comments there are here. The police could easily have established he was not a criminal or a druggy or someone with a history of violence. He needed help!
Kevin Miller, Tonbridge,
The police did the correct thing, the man was a lunatic. Lets support our commendable Police Force, not drunk violent dangerous lunatics. If he had killed someone we would would all moaning as well. They are not only doing their jobs, but doing their jobs very well. Thank you Metropolitan Police!!!!
sunita russell, Northwood Middlesex, UK
To the american asking if we've ever heard of a pump action shotgun or a semi-automatic...
This gun was registered, & therefore by British Shotgun law - must be a gun capable of holding no more than two cartridges, before needing to be reloaded. Owning a pump action or semi here is illegal.
Chris, Newcastle, UK
I am an experienced armorer and I can tell the ignorant souls out there that a shotgun is lethal well beyond 20yds.
A heavy load of lettered shot (BB or AAA) will make an untidy mess of anyone within 80yds.
Despite the hollywood image of deering do coppers, police would like to go home whole.
Steve Phillips, Perth, Australia
If he was my neighbour, drunk, crazy, shooting unpredictably and possibly randomly through his windows, I would want the police to shoot him before five hours had passed. How about you?
Nick, Rotherham, UK
I don't think anyone can judge this man without knowing his true state of mind that day. Clearly he wasn't coping well with his job and private life, perhaps contributing to his alcohol abuse - and sadly, even the most good-natured individual or respected professional can crack under pressure.
Eleanor, Matlock,
Sorry to contradict you - Ella, London,
But War is not civilised but it protected us from Nazism and Communism- Yes to be clear uncivilised methods can be used to protect a civilised society.
It is simplistic to think only and exclusively civilised methods can be used to achieve this goal
Daniel Martin, Dandenong, Australia
Ella, London, - thinking like yours is why we live in a permissive society where crime is rampant and people care for their rights but are not even aware of their responsibilities.
Daniel Martin, Dandenong, Australia
Ted Vail, Atlanta "Brit cops are not smart enough to be allowed to touch weapons, like children". This from the country where 4 armed cops gunned down an unarmed man in the street, firing over 90 shots.
David Leslie, Perth, Scotland
Why haven't police spokesmen addressed these concerns in the public interest? Are the non-lethal means suggested viable? Offer evidence. Explain their policies, capabilities and protocols. Why leave the public to wonder aimlessly, when people can't even agree on the dangers of shotgun fire?
D. Campbell, New York, USA
How very sad.
Mark was obviously mentally ill. I understand the police had to shoot him but I do not understand why tranquilizers cannot be used instead of real bullets. Zoos use them for lions etc so why can't we use them for people who are a threat like Mark was?
My thoughts go to his family
Amy Rose, Southampton, UK
1. The police have to shoot at what they can see, they won't have had the luxury of choosing a 'wound' target
2. How does anyone know whether he had other weapons?
I have sympathy for the family but not a lot for an armed drunkard
Bill, Ramsey,
Why was he shot 5 times? Er, because he was shooting at the police and anyone else that happened to be walking by.
Gareth, London,
What did the father want? Maybe to be sent for so that he could fold an "Acceptable Behaviour Contract" into a paper 'plane and fly it to his son to sign?
Bill Peter, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
'How can we maintain civilised values unless authorites are able to use 'uncivilised' means on those who step out of line?'
Mr Martin, your argument is inherently flawed. The values which the police protect must also be the ones they themselves uphold, for a truly civilised society.
Ella, London,
To all those saying he was "ill" not bad, no one is inherently bad, all criminal behavior can be attributed to circumstance or mental illness. This was a drunk rich grown man who took a shot gun and started firing out of a window.... have you all lost your minds? Ever fired a shotgun??
Jennifer, asheville, USA
So, using clairvoyant powers the police were supposed to establish that a man firing a gun in central London was a harmless gun toting maniac rather than a dangerous one?
Suppose a three year old had a handgun, innocently shooting people. The Courts have held it would be legal to kill then too.
Eddy K, London, Why are comment boxes so short?
'Mr Saunderss father has demanded answers over why his son was shot, and insisted that he had not put anyone in danger'
Does the father really believe that discharging a weapon in central london during rush hour is not putting anyones life in danger?
Richard, london, london
At least his shotgun was registered. That way, he can't commit any more crimes with it... oh, wait.
Ryan, Edmonton, Canada
1. Police dont shoot to disable.
2. The man was armed and dangerous and using his weapon for the third time indiscriminatly.
3. He was drunk.
The police made the right decision in the interest of public safety. How could they be left with any other decision?
My sincere condolences to the family.
Steve, Perth, Australia
Classic case where uneducated people are just plain wrong. Who did he shoot at? No one. There was no target. It was simply an attempt to commit suicide via police, an easily handled situation. Brit cops are not smart enough to be allowed to touch weapons, like children.
Ted Vail, Atlanta, USA
Number one rule when it comes to guns is to never point a gun at something unless you intend to kill it. This young man was pointing a gun at people and actually firing, I think it is only logical to assume he intended to kill them and that deadly force was justified.
Michael, Atlanta , United States.
The father is quite right to ask why his son had to die. After safeguarding the public by containing him in the building there was no need to expose police to danger or to kill him. He was clearly in a disturbed and irrational state. The police owed him a duty of care which they sadly failed in.
Kevin Miller, Penshurst,
A few things.
1. Police are trained to shoot for the center of mass and asked to shoot to injure. Training wins out.
2. To those who say "it was only a shotgun w/ 1-2 rounds", have you ever heard of a "pump-action" or "semi-automatic"?
I applaud the police for their work and I mourn for family.
Mike, Stoughton,MA USA, USA
This guy got what he deserved, he won't do it again will he.
Good job the Police.
Richard, Manchester,
After reading 100 of these comments it seems abhorrent that the only way to subdue someone with a weapon is to fatally shoot them. It seems as if Tony Blair is still alive and kicking, a shotgun is a slow loading old fashioned weapon ( two shots with at best eight seconds before another two shots as
Dick, Malvern,
As a point of principle - someone discharging a gun in a public placed should be killed by the authorities.
How can we maintain civilised values unless authorites are able to use 'uncivilised' means on those who step out of line?
Daniel Martin, Dandenong, Australia
For all the people saying the area was isolated and no public could be killed by his shots...what about the police officers surrounding his flat? are they fair game? remember hackney seige? not a complaint...funny that. when police kill real crims its ok..but a barrister..all you lefty types whinge
tom, london, uk
A 12 gauge shotgun, loaded with 1 or 2 shot will kill a person at 100 yards if the choke is sufficient, and the gun barrel is long enough. I have no idea what ammunition Mr Saunders was using, but believe me, a shotgun is a very effective weapon. Those police were in real harms way.
Tim Rankin, Bowral, Australia
For those people who say that the police should not have opened fire after Mr. Saunders started shooting at random (for the THIRD time) out of his window, I would merely ask what their response would have been if he had killed a member of the public or a policeman because the police failed to act.
David Townsend, Kabul, Afghanistan
If I have any criticism of the police action it is that they did not act more decisively, sooner. I would say that anyone deliberately discharging a firearm into a neighbouring house's window (let alone a childs window) should expect the full and immediate attention of the firearms unit.
John, Brighton,
Probably necessary because the man could have escaped the apartment or building at night and done an American style mass shooting. And maybe necessary he was killed - if he acted this way once, who's to say, still depressed, he wouldn't have killed his wife or anyone else later on.
Claudia, Atlanta, USA
the man was drunk and firing a shotgun out of a window at police and some people are saying they should have reasoned with him? are you insane? oh right...we should also get friendly with teen gangs and put criminals in open prisons for rehabilitation. no wonder crime is on the rise.
Alexander, London, England
he threatened nobody's safety at 930pm. it was dark. im sure they had night sights. what could he have done? it is a disgrace that they blew him to pieces. And that his wife wasnt allowed to talk to him, but the "trained police negotiator" was. Outrageous. How arrogant. who do they think they are?
gray, london,
their is no such thing as shoot to disable ,once you start shooting in a public place their can only be one outcome. end of. that is the brutal truth.
jim rylah, dewsbury, west yorks
Wouldn't fancy having you as my social worker Claire.
Andrew, Luton, UK
This is really a tragedy. It is no use analysing and blaming anyone in hindsight. I am sure the police has tried their very best to negotiate with him and stop him from threatening the safety of the others. May he rest in peace.
Winifred, London,
Another story that shows money doesn't make people happy.
Andreas, London,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the police shoot him first and then throw in the stun grenades? And if so, why? Not claiming to be an expert on these matters but isn't it normally the other way around?
Anders Wennerwik, London, England
Nat, London - "When they found out who he was, they should have treated him in an educated manner that he deserved..." Glad I'm a student, I didn't realise further education gave me a "free pass". He was still a man shooting at the houses of his neighbours, despite the LLB etc.
Victoria, Cardiff,
To all those people who say he was a threat at the time he was shot, i thought the police had cordoned off the entire area and had the property surrounded, therefore no members of the public should have been in the vacinity to have been in any danger.
carl, bristol, uk
Can anybody tell me correctly-
are police using more bullets per person shot now than a few years ago?
MGB, Carmarthen, Wales
When people drink to the extent that Mr. Saunders had that day, they are unpredictable. The situation had escalated out of all conceivable bounds. It's almost as though Mark Saunders had put himself in a position form which there was little retreat.. It is a terrible sad story. Love to the family.
Scully Mc Gregor, Melbourne, Australia
I don't understand how some are defending this guy. He reportedly shot at police and at neighbouring properties in a drunken state. Does he need to hit someone for the police to act??!! From what I have read the police were absolutely right to take him out.
Nik, London,
I find it dificult to understand that it seems that when police marksmen are called in they always shoot to kill an do so. Are there not circumstances when these exellent marksmen could shoot to disable?
Rodney Barker, Gainsborough, England UK
A barrister lies in his application for a shotgun and it is still described as legally held. Does this apply to everyone - so shall we all just lie and arm ourselves?
diana, derby,
Metropolitan Police 8 Brazil 0
Now 5-0 in the Home championships
And I should tell my children to treat the police with respect?
I think I should tell them the truth.
Stephen Page, Felixstowe, UK
On this occasion I think we should all thank the brave policemen who neutralized this criminal.
John, Brighton,
Police are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Firing a shotgun out of a window is not normal behaviour. Imagine the uproar if he had killed someone before he was taken down....police acted properly to a threat and it was his own fault. He had the gun in his hands.
Christian, Manchester,
Surely, if this had been a mentally ill man in Lambeth or Tower Hamlets, there would be no doubting that the police acted in the correct manner.
In fact if it hadn't happened in a wealthy area it wouldn't have gotten half the attention that is has.
charlie, London,
Can people not realise he was in middle of a mental breakdown? Nope, because if it hasn't happened to you you're not interested. This man was ILL, and not a criminal, and should have been treated as an ill person. Do we shoot all our ill people? Why don't police just go mental hosp shoot everyone?
Nat, London,
Why could they not use a tranquliser gun or other method to allow safe disarming also why throw in the grenades after the shooting to kill call was made?
I understand that public safety should come first but this is another example of poorly experienced officers, sympathies go to the parents
Suhail, Milton Keynes,
So many armchair critics.
A high pressure incident with an obvious threat to public safety. Of course they did the right thing. I wonder how many of the people commenting that the police did the wrong thing would also be complaining now about police incompetence if a bystander had been shot.
James, London, Australia
What was the police supposed to do? Negotiate with him forever? What if he shot an innocent person?
It would have been the police's fault either way... They can never win!
In my opinion, they acted like they should!
Ema Gaywood, London, UK
It seems to me that the police are allowed to use unnecessary force and have the shoot first ask questions later policy every time.
Shame, they wasted a life. Troubled life I must add, but it was an unnecessary kill and abuse of the power given to them.
I am sure they lost their nerves. Shame
Koby, London,
Why was he shot 5 times.. um who cares the guy had a gun and was firing it, by all intents and purposes indiscriminately. He needed to be stopped and I'm sure the police thought hard before opening fire because i bet at the forefront of their minds was the ever vocal whinging society.
James, Swindon, UK
Stun grenades AFTER the event? Why not before? This affair could have been sorted without the death of this young man. The Police used excess force in this tragedy.
Simon , Epping, England
This is very unsettling - this man was ill not bad. He was most likely shot after he was dead or dying - that's scary.
ian, belfast,
This would have been a totally different matter if he had shot and killed an innocent by-stander.
Everyone would be asking why the police didn't stop him when they had the chance.
I think the police acted correctly, however that does not ease the pain of his family. My thoughts are with them.
katie, kent,
Negotiators were sent to the scene, let's not forget. Surely the police pondered the situation carefully before taking action. Mr. Saunders was a danger to the others, it's as simple as that. It's he who accepted to exchange fire with the marksmen, not the other way around.
Bob, Roma, Italy
To all those saying "well done": would you be saying this if it was a relative or friend of yours who'd been shot dead? And I doubt the marksmen who shot him are as happy about his death as some people on this site seem to be. The fact is this was an absolute tragedy and there are no "winners".
Rory , London, Britain
Well done to the police. Members of the public were not injured or killed. The family of this man becoming a murderer. He had a loaded gun and was firing it, he was drunk and obviously thought he could do what he liked.
Once again, well done to the police.
kim, london,
If you live on the King's Road, why do you need a shotgun? Any rabbits in the vicinity are presumably pets. Time to review the licensing law I think.
Richard, Munich, Germany
Why did they shoot him 5 times? Ermmm... because he was firing a shotgun out the window onto the high street perhaps!?!?
Have people gone mad? What should they have done... persuaded him to stop shooting with strong language and mime?
Peter K, London, UK
He fired his gun into a womans flat across from him how can his family say he was no threat. The police do a tough enough job as it is. He was firing a weapon into the street, the police responded (after trying other means for 5 hours) to actions he started. Their not to blame, should be commended.
Simon, Cardiff,
His family knew he was unstable and erratic, prone to depression, marriage in trouble and an alcoholic. His family knew he had shotguns in display cabinet at home. He should have had no right to hold licence. His family have questions for the police - the police will have questions for them!
Bernice Cassidy, London, United Kingdom
Right lads
hands up all you current or past S.A.S men who think you could of took this man down without killing him, winged him.
The Dallas S.W.A.T Police have a vast array of non lethal weapons, specially for these type of incedents, why dont our police.
mark, lytham st annes, uk
It is reported that he had served with the HAC, a reserve unit with similar functions to the SF. He was a clear and present danger to the Police Officers and general public. Whilst I sympathise with his family, I've little sympathy for him. If you play with fire...
Jason, IPSWICH, England
What is it with these people who say 'wait till he was tired and the alcohol wore off'? This was someone reclessly firing a shotgun in public. should we wait until he killed a totally innocent party before stopping him? He was a VERY lethal threat and had to be stopped. Well done the police!
Norman Pitkin, London, UK
So, the general public apart, police officers should also have their lives and their families welfare put at risk? In these given circumstances I think not!
To those who have to make very difficult decisons, good luck, you know that the sensible majority are behind you, we trust you and thank you
Rod Hall, Bradenstoke, Wilts
This is a tragedy, but the people on the ground had to make a difficult decision. We cannot second guess that decision. In their opinion his actions were an endangerment and they returned fire. In situations like this there are no right and wrong actions, criticism would follow however they acted
Ron, Milton Keynes, UK
Daily Mail reports, "it has emerged... that the lawyer had a history of alcoholism and depression which was known to colleagues and his parents." He lied on his shotgun licence renewal 8 months ago. His family could have reported him to the police & his licence would have been revoked. Quid pro quo.
Ben, Palma, Spain
Out of this tragedy is the feeling that, however the police acted, the negativity towards them is new-and very disturbing; unsurprising when one reads of the appalling personal behaviour of very senior officers.
JD, London, UK
Clearly a firearms license+ mentally disturbed man is bad combination. The police has to do its job, however there is no doubt things could have been done differently. There is, almost always, another option but when a stressful situation drags on the pressure to end it affects people's judgement.
Anna, London, UK
Mike and Simon. Do you know anything about shotguns. Salt or buckshot may be safe at 20 yards but a slug can easily kill a wildbore (skin way thicker than a human) over a distance of 100 yards. Well done police - the shooter is dead with no collateral damage.
James, Hitchin,
I feel very sorry for this man's family, but how on earth can his father say he was not a threat to anyone - oh sorry, the police don't matter is that what he means, well they are someone's sons, husband or father too, so yes he was a threat to someone, may be to my son or my son in law.
JB, Farham, UK
When I was in the military, some years ago I admit, we were told during training "If you point a gun at a person you intend to KILL him, so learn to do it well... or you will die because he will fire first".
If you use a gun, any gun or even point it at someone you must expect to be killed.
Howard, Basildon, England
What is obvious is that police in this country have a shoot to kill policy, there's also a major switch around in focus. At one time the police were public servants now it is the public that has to be servile to them.
Richard Campbell, Northampton, UK
Surely it's a fair argument to say that as it was possible to evacuate the area within his firing range, and the police could have assumed protected positions, negotiations toward the non-lethal resolution of this incident might reasonably have gone on a lot longer?
kwev, London,
So police are criticised if they don't intervene and when they do...
What should they have done with this guy, given him an asb7777?
Paul , CHESTER, United Kingdom
Alexandra. I would urge his parents and wife to nobly accept the professionalism and risk undertaken by the police in protecting society from this lunatic. Why should they demand answers? I demand his parents answer for their ineptitude at bringing up a normal decent and law adiding citizen.
Paul, London,
It seems that if someone shot a gun into the street or neighbouring houses, they were endangering others lives, therefore the police had to do what was necessary to stop him. It is sad that the man is dead and my sympathy goes to all his family.
Joe, Bristol,
Until there is an enquiry, I wouldn't take at face value anything the police say.
After all the lies (or misleading comments...) made by the police at the time of the shooting in which the Brazilian electrician was killed, I tend to take everything the police say with a big truckload of salt....
Victor, Sheffield, England
Was it really necessary to shoot him dead? He was holed up in an isolated London square. and, if he himself had been isolated in a siege situation, and patiently negotiated with, I feel he may well have emerged of his own accord, especially when the alcohol had worn off. Should have inferred this?
tim, haywards heath, uk
So let me get this right, now in the UK a gunman firing a highpowered weapon into and at other people's occupied houses should be "left alone". The only person responsible for Mr Saunder's death is Mr Saunders. Thank God an innocent person don't die by his hand.
Jim Davies, Denver, USA,
Where do we get these do-gooders from?? I cannot understand their reasoning. He was firing a shotgun and WAS a danger to life in the area. Under these circumstances they were right to shoot to kill and not to take chances. If one of their relatives had been killed they would have been complaing.
Dennis (An Ex Pat), New York, USA
Would there be such an outcry if the shooting happened in Brixton and the subject wasn't a shigh flying lawyer?
Thought not.
Nick, nottingham,
All this out cry over a man who was a danger to the public, I left the UK 6 years ago and now live in Spain, thankfully. He would not of been given 5 hours to shoot again over here and rightly so.
Karen, Malaga, Spain
The police should have used a compressed air gun to propel a stun grenade to diasable the barrister. They could have then have gone in and sectioned him under the mental health act. Perhaps they will do this in similar incidents in future.
John, LONDON, ENGLAND
although the father says that the son wasn't a lethal threat, hen't know the state of mind the son was in and neither did the officers so i believe that the officers were jusified to return fire even though it resulted in a fatality they did the right thing. i's the only way to ensure no return fire
jack, wallasey, england
Philip Stobbart. With respect the area had been sealed off by the police for something like five hours and residents told to stay in their properties and away from windows. Prima facie such a situation warrants containment rather than a shooting but then we are not privy to all of the facts.
Richard Crow, Warsaw, Poland
That's a very sad story. I strongly believe that the police acted in good faith, still keep wondering if it might have been possible to negotiate & persuade this barrister to give in. He was obvioously disturbed &required medical
assistance.
Pam, st.petersburg,
The police were right to pre-emptively shoot him. It is a pity the police and this government didn't permit Tony Martin to have the same right, using the same logic, when an intruder created the same unknown-outcome/what will they do next situation, and possible lethal threat, in the man's own home.
Tom Franklin, London, UK
Of course this is very sad for Mr Saunders' family, but what infuriates me is that if he had been a non-wealthy, non-barrister, non-Chelsea resident, everyone would have been congratulating the police under the same situation - ANYONE firing a gun around the place IS a lethal threat !
Chris, Plymouth, UK
I can understand why a confused and heartbroken father might feel his son was no threat. We can forgive him for that. But he is WRONG. It should NEVER be anyone's *right* to discharge a weapon in public. If this man had been an immigrant, he'd have been labelled a terrorist.
Kim, Bath,
The evidence that the armed man was indeed a threat to life is documented in the article.
The idea of 'shooting to incapacitate' is a fallacy - it is not possible - when armed & confronted with a firearm the only option is to shoot to kill (as it is the only option which guarantees no return fire).
Mark, Deal, United Kingdom
As much as I empathise fully with the family.The fact remains that this individual was firing a lethal weapon out into a public place.
In a post 9/11 world the ante has been upped and everyone is well aware of that.The police have a duty to protect the public.Terrorists beware!
James , London, U.K
I was there just before 5pm when MS fired about 6 shots. The main concern for the police was protecting the public, which inc lots of children & babies. The police acted quickly to get the public out of the way of danger. And even a shotgun can kill.
Joy, London,
How can anyone say the police handled this badly. Fact: He had a gun with live ammunition. Fact: he was firing erratically. He was a danger to others and having seen a shotgun wound and the damage it caused I think the police were spot on. Zero tolerance on gun crime is the only way forward.
S J Gilmore, Leighton Buzzard, England
On the same day, a young woman walking in a poor area of south London, minding her own business, was caught in the crossfire between two teenage (!) drugdealers, and fatally shot in the head.
Hardly a mention in the Press, but the wealthy barrister shooting is headline news. Doubly sad.
Adam, Bristol, UK
Very sad situation and comments are not easy to make unless you were present, but it does seem that the Police and public were in danger.
Are Police do a difficult job but if they were fired at then I think they had every right to fight back. They also have families.
izzy, wirral, england
To say he did not endanger anyone by firing a shotgun in a residential area is just ridiculous.
Paul, Manchester,
Mr Saunders was no drunk merely shouting from a window. If he had succeeded in shooting another person, there would now be public outrage.
Fortunately, he did not hit another person before the police -- rightfully -- put an end to his lethal madness. Sad, but necessary and beyond question.
Joe, New York, US
Was this reasonable force? The police had made the area safe and a shotgun has a short range. The police chose to be in Mark's range. They had the upper hand and could have waited. Martyn, Catherine et al: extra judicial punishment killings are illegal and wrong. Your arguments assume otherwise.
Abigail , London, UK
My boss is the brother of Mark Saunders' wife and the whole situation has shocked the Clarke family. No one expected it to escalate to this level.
Jeff, Boston, USA
It was 5 hours into the siege and the situation was well contained.
Shooting was totally unnecessary.
Mike Hart, London, UK
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and any death is regrettable but public safety must be paramount.
The police cannot know prior to the seige conclusion if he had other weapons in his possession. Five hours cannot be construed as precipitous, In my view Police fully justified in their actions
gary, Southampton, UK
.just a thought, but could the police not have wounded him and he himself took the final step. This hasn't been brought to the table yet. Any thoughts? Also can we start to support our police and not lose track of reality. Criminals are criminals and need to be treated as such.
Yorkie, Amsterdam,
Why did the police wait so long? People like Mr Saunders need to understand that you cannot threaten the public in this way and expected to be treated with kid gloves. The police took the course of action that protected the public. Well done.
David Alexander, hidd, baharin
I feel this was way over the top. 5, maybe 6 bullets. Give him a chance, nock him to the floor with a shoulder shot, or stomach shot, atleast he would have a few minutes for medics to help. But i bet any money they placed 5 shots straight through his cardio pulnary system. He would have no chance.
Max, leicester, England
5 hour standoff - public had long been cleared from risk.
Police knew they were dealing with only a shotgun, & could also keep out of range.
No, not practical to 'shoot-to-wound' or use tranq. darts.
BUT they DID have stun grenades, which serve the same purpose - WHY used only AFTER killing him?!
David, Bristol, UK
This man was killed in his third exchange of fire with the police; he had fired at them twice and the police had returned fire. By firing a third time, Mr Saunders had to expect a response. There was an oppurtunity to end this event with zero innocent casualties, and the police rightfully took it.
Sean, Nottingham, UK
I cannot believe the moronic rants by people whose natural reaction is to abuse the police. It beggars belief that they feel informed enough to make these bold statements. Though, to be fair, they have managed to gleam a deep and accurate knowledge of what happened though reading newspapers and watching the news.
garry, London, England
I am amazed that no-one has pointed out the police could not know for sure what weapons/plans he had. Rifles? Grenades? Explosion through gasleak? Are they supposed to wait until something /really/ bad happens? I am more liberal than most - but Mark went violently mad. He killed himself, alas.
John M, Stockholm,
Charles Mendez's death was a result of police incompetence, paranoia and trigger happy officers. If in 2008, the final solution after only 5 hours is to shoot & kill a clearly unstable and disturbed man, who was no huge threat to the public, it is a sad state of affairs. Another huge police blunder
Geoff , London, UK
This is so sad. Nothing can excuse what Mark did, but it's difficult to deny that the police massively over-reacted. He had no hostages and the area was cordoned off. He was using a shotgun that is almost never lethal to humans beyond 60 yards and it was an army of police v one man. Unreasonable.
Al, London, England
Police were talking with him, Alexandra, but he wanted nothing from them and was past reason. We don't even know if he was angry, or just taking target practice. Police won't clear a London street for 24 hours so an erratic shooter can safely finish out his bender. That's above and beyond.
Debra Campbell, New York, USA
I'm a signed up member of the hang em and flog em brigade, but I wish we didn't kill people because we can and it is justifiable to do so. It's the health and safety mentality in extremis. Dangerous drunk - must be killed. With a bit of imagination on the part of the police he'd still be alive
Stephen, Cambs, UK
Fellow-New Yorker Joanne, "this nonsense," this concern over how to approach an armed citizen who may or may not intend harm, is owing to the enviable fact that till recently, this has been an uncommon dilemma in their countries. Not yet jaded, they can still see the man behind the wielded gun.
Debra Campbell, New York, USA
Rubbish! A man is shooting live ammunition from his window in the middle of London and people are shocked that the police ended up killing him. What do you expect?? I feel sorry for his parents and wife but really you can't blame the police for killing him. He brought that on himself.
Andrea, London,
amazing how short sighted so many of you are! just HOW exactly is this impatience? he could've had a small arsenal in his house, he could've had MORE weapons, he could've KILLED ANYONE!
Its a tragedy, but unfortunately this is what happens.
William, Newcastle upon Tyne, Tyne and Wear
The police should charge Saunders' estate for the cost of this exercise. If only as a signal to others who might be intending to commit suicide by cop that their selfish actions will impact their families even further. The police could then donate it to the Samaritans.
Robert Grundy, London,
Imagine you and your children living on that street, now try criticising the police, I dare you.
Charlie Thomson, Singapore, Singapore
Why police did not use Tear Gas? or just waited until he was tired etc, there must have been another way.
adik, London, u.k
If he had hit someone, you would not be crying that the police have done the wrong thing.
Good job by the marksmen who took down this threat.
James, London,
Thank God I live in the US, where this kind of nonsense is not tolerated.
Londers should thank the police for saving them from the bullet of a mentally unhinged man, not vilify them.
Joanne, new york, ny
For those who say a shotgun isn't lethal over 20-30-40 yards.
Would you be happy to stand in front of me if I plulled the trigger using say BB shot size 3-4mm or an even heavier shot from a 3in magnum shell
One witness said the stone was shattering when shot which would suggest a larger shot size
N Morgan, Stockport, UK
It's a good message: do not shoot guns in public, or you may die. It should not be any other way, to protect the public. A sad story, but he could have killed innocent people.
roger, london,
when he had no more bullets he would stop shooting if he didn't trained police would know he was shooting blanks. When police have cleared the area nobody is in his fire range. He had no bombs threatening to blow anybody up. They could have waited much longer than 5 hours. All night .
Alexandra, Derbyshire,
By using their heads I mean not to rush into shooting to kill. protect themselves clear the area and wait. I 'm no expert but this is just logic . If they had to wait for 24 hours they should have done.Police is there to protect everybody including the man holding the gun in my view.
Alexandra, Derbyshire,
When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. I suspect a sane siege negotiator on site would have pointed out the lack of any overriding need to execute the guy.
Steve Bush, Cirencester, UK
A Man starts shooting a gun in the centre of a city at his neighbours, and his death is blamed on the Police. No wonder society is in such a mess.
Barry Purkis, Havant, England
Paul - so the police aren't human beings, is that it? Do their lives not count, or are they somehow magically protected from harm when someone discharges a shotgun at lethal range? Your comparison between the Stockwell incident and this one stretches the definition of 'spurious' to breaking point.
AJ West, Shrivenham, UK
At 9.30pm when he began firing a shotgun for the third time from a window, he became a threat to the lives of the police and emergency services. Those are the lives he endangered and that is why he was shot.
Steve, Newcastle,
I read somewhere else that Mr. Saunders had an alcohol problem. Was this simply a drinking episode gone badly wrong? Did a dramatic gesture, precipitated by alcohol, simply escalate?
Scully Mc Gregor, Melbourne, Australia
The point is he wasnt endangering anyones lives when he was shot. It was a 5 hour siege so the police would have cleared the area hours ago. If they were that concerned they could have used a tranquilizer dart , or some sleeping gas .
Basically this looks like another Jean Charles de Menezes.
Paul, Southampton,
'The police chose to be in range of fire and could have moved away', Abigal- Doing their jobs protecting the people of London. The guy was shooting at children and his neighbours, of course it was reasonable force, imagine if your child had been in the line of fire.
elsa, london,
Shoot to wound? There is no such thing. Take aim at a human being and fatal injury must be assumed, particularly true because the police, to stop bullets passing through and injuring bystanders, use expanding projectiles. (These are banned from military use under the Geneva convention.)
Peter Rogers, London, UK
Just had an email from a mate who says a cut throat gesture in the military (where most of SO19 came from) means target nutralised.
It's a dirty job that they do well. The Firearms units are not trigger happy- they will have shot as a last resort.
James, Glasgow, Scotland
Mark was an alcoholic, so instead of passing out after 5 hours of "gunplay," he might have created a 2-day castle siege. No, they can't fire tranquilizer darts or "kneecap" him through the window.The best chance of luring him out unarmed was for him to request more thirsty fuel. He didn't.
Debra Campbell, New York, USA
Was this reasonable force? It's not entirely clear who was in danger when Mark opened fire for the third time given that the area had been made safe. The police chose to be in range of fire and could have moved away. Chris, Martyn, James: extra- judicial punishment killing is illegal and wrong.
Abigail , London, UK
"Shoot to wound" needs a clear open shot and can't be trusted to disable immediately or harm lightly. Return fire is likely. For their thanks, the police might be sued by a "victim" claiming damages for a lucrative career lost to physical injury, mental trauma and public humiliation.
Debra Campbell, New York, USA
So it's ok for someone to point a shotgun outside at whoever might be in range? - people are always too quick to look for the police to blame - these situations are explosive and carry unknown threats - decisions have to be made - waste of a life yes - but lets wait please for the facts
Mark, Bradford,
surely he did endeager lives then, but once the police got there they did cordon off the road , everybody was out of his sights and therefore nobody was in danger. He was shooting out of his window not randomely in the streets. people can get out of shot range when he is confined in his flat alone
Alexandra, Derbyshire,
How could the police have possibly known when he had run out of ammunition? He could hardly have been trusted to tell them! In such a crowded part of the city he was clearly a danger to anyone within firing range - a lot of people, in other words.
Michael Wynn-Williams, Pontypridd, UK
The police did handle this badly, its not like he had a rifle, a shotgun isn't even classified as a proper firearm. I would sit 50 odd yards away while you try to pepper me. It is just a shame. I think the armed police should all do a bit of time with the TA in the conflict zones to let off steam
Simon, London,
its doubtful that a sporting shotgun even firing a 12 bore cartridge would be lethal beyond 20 yards. At greater distances it would barely break the skin. There was no need to kill this guy. We were not talking about someone with a high velocity sniper weapon. THe police had several non options.
Mike, Edinburgh ,
Firstly, my sympathies are with his family at this time and of course an investigation must be carried out; however I was brought up to believe the police are there to protect public safety which his behaviour was reportedly threatening. I only hope the police stand up for the police this time!
Catherine, London, UK
Re: Alexandra, Derbyshire
How exactly would the police know when he had run out of ammo, he could have had thousands of rounds of the stuff stored in his house for all they knew.
Re: Dani, solihull,
An injured man can still pull a trigger.
Dan Robertson, Derby, UK
Alexandra, I've no doubt at all you would be the first to complain if he had shot someone and the police subsequently said that they didn't deal with him because they were waiting for him to run out of ammuntion. Speaking of which, how would they have known if he had run out of ammuntion or not?
John, London, Herts
Even if they had "shot to wound" which isn't as easy as it sounds by any means, it would have meant that any police officers entering the house would be faced with someone who might still be capable of using a weapon. Would you want to be first through the door in those circumstances?
Guy, London,
We lack information to make judgement on what might have happened. Certainly a cordon was in place which is meant to keep people out of harms way. The armed officers are highly protected from shotgun pellets, in fact they could all stand back at 60yds and might not even get stung. Impatience.
Conrad Gills, London, UK
Alexandra, until you have 'faced' a man with a firearm you have no idea what it's like. It is very easy to pass judgement sitting in front of a PC. Hopefully you will never know what it's like.
cavan fuller, Lisburn, Northern Ireland
What ???? are you all mad ? he was not a threat ? He was shooting a gun out of the window !!! even in to a young girls bedroom. If that was your daughter I doubt you would feel the same. The police did the right thing .
Damion, grimsby ,
if you pick up a gun and start shooting then you put yourself in a combat arena, its that simple. why are people surprised he was shot by police? nobody forced him to use a gun. zero tolerance with guns no matter what the circumstances.
alan james, london, england
I went to school with Mark and hope his life was not ended unnecessarily, my thoughts are with his family.
James, Macclesfield,
Alexandra, Derbyshire, please explain how you came to the reasoned conclusion that "He was no real threat to anybody if they had used their heads."
This man was "armed with a shotgun, [and] fired at officers on at least three occasions and also sprayed a house opposite with bullets."
matt, London,
In reply to Alexandra, life isn't as simple as that. There may not have been enough time to evacuate the area, or assess where he was likely to shoot next. And I doubt whether the guy was about to tell them how much ammo he had left. An evacuation, might have led to injuries in an open area.
Philip Stobbart, London, England
Couldn't the police have injured him to put him out of action rather than a shoot to kill policy? It's easy for us to make judgements from our cushy little lives but i have sympathy with anyone who is emotionally disturbed. Still don't know why police had to shoot to kill?
Dani, solihull,
They could (Police) have saved his life by evacuating all flats around taking cover themselves and waited until he got tired run out of amunition and then they would take him for treatement. But yet again they shoot people too easily. He was no real threat to anybody if they had used their heads.
Alexandra, Derbyshire,
I urge his parents and wife to demand answers to these questions. It is a terrible shame. As for the policeman who did a cut troat gesture, that says it all. They have lost their humanity, using their guns seems on people seems just another days work to them. shame shame shame!!
Alexandra, Derbyshire,
Its an absolute disgrace that this "poor" man who was obsviously very distressed and confused and needed help at that time, was shot dead by the police. The police should be able to ascertain when there is real danger to life. The only danger was of his (MR Saundr'S) life.
Alexandra, Derbyshire,
If this story is in fact true, I really cannot see any justification for the action taken by the police. From earlier reports it is known that the area had been sealed off to the public and that Mr Saunders was alone in the house.
Richard Crow, Warsaw, Poland
The police shot him because he was shooting randomly at anyone who got in his sights. Fortunately he didn't injure or kill anyone. Does there have to be an innocent victim before the police are allowed to deal with such people? Questioning this police action would imply that there does.
Dave Reynolds, York, england
The father says'' he didn't endanger anyone at all to my knoledge.''.perhaps he should pull his head out of the sand and read the 'witness' reports.
We want answers as to why police shot him
I want answers from him as to why his son reacted like this.
Grief he may have, but please be realistic
andy, london,
Firing into a little girl's bedroom? Firing into his back garden with people in it? Firing in all directions out of his window? Refusing to surrender and come out peacefully? No Mr Saunders, of course your son wasn't a lethal threat. For crying out loud...
James, London, UK
He was shot because he was shooting a gun out of a window and was a danger to the people around him. That's simple enough to understand. The police were doing their job.
Martyn, Bournemouth,
Nine shooters, three hits. Those police marksmen are 'great'
alan, Manchester,
I thought Mr Saunders shot in to a child's bedroom window across the road from his house, surely this is endangering lives and means the Police were correct to take action? The fact that he was shot 3 times is probably not malice but professionals ensuring they eliminate any threat?
Chris Haley, Leeds, England