The Sun OUTRAGED at shot barrister

[CHAPPERS]

SHOCKING video footage of barrister Mark Saunders being shot dead by cops has been seen by The Sun — and it fuels controversy surrounding the tragic siege.
It reveals that Saunders, 32, was NOT aiming his shotgun directly at officers when they opened fire on him.

He is seen staggering drunkenly as he talks to negotiators before a hail of bullets hits him.

The dramatic tape was filmed from a police helicopter hovering above his £2.2million West London flat on May 6.

We cannot publish the images because of legal restrictions.



His sister ... Charlotte

But we can reveal that Saunders is first seen leaning out of a first-floor window, holding the gun across his chest.

As tense negotiations continue, the top divorce lawyer — who earlier had a blazing row with his wife Elizabeth, 40 — holds the gun in his left hand, pointing it at the sky.

Then he takes it in both hands and lowers it slightly.

When he repeats the gesture, cops open fire.

Crucially, he does not shoulder the weapon and it appears to hang limply in his hands.

His devastated family, who have launched a High Court legal challenge over police handling of the siege, claim he was not a threat to the public at that point and had not fired his gun for 20 minutes.

The volley of shots hit Saunders in his brain, heart and liver and twice in the lower body.

On the video he is hurled backwards into the flat by the impact.

Then he slumps to the floor on his back. Officers hurl gas grenades and go in.

Millionaire ex-Territorial Army soldier Saunders had been on a drinking bender before firing at neighbours from his flat in Markham Square, Chelsea.

When police arrived he shot at them and a 4½-hour stand-off began.

At one point Saunders hurled a note into street saying: “I love my wife dearly.”

Police suspect he decided to commit “suicide by cop”.

An officer in charge is heard on the leaked tape telling the chopper crew: “We’ve had shots fired and have returned fire.”

The family’s High Court hearing is set to end today.

Tim Owen, QC, told the court neighbours were safely evacuated by the time seven cops fired 11 rounds.

Saunders’ sister Charlotte, 26, has said: “I question whether they had to kill my brother. I want to know what was in the minds of those officers.”

So he hadn't fired his gun at this neighbours for a whole TWENTY minutes! What a bunch of pricks. He was drunk, had a shotgun that he HAD fired at his neighbours and was making moves to suggest he would fire again. I'm glad they shot him, maybe it'll be a lesson to othesr not to get pissed and wave a f***ing shotgun about.

 

[Fred Oliver - Legend]

i blame his sister

 

[readingstockport]

I wonder. If it had been some black lad in Brixton or some working class chav in the nice parts of Reading would the sun be quite so outraged. Just because it was some tossy rich white twat on the kings road.

Bollocks, he got exactly what he deserved.

 

[Bevendean Hillbilly]

A police spkesman, when asked why the barristers body contained 85 bullets, replied:"Thats all we had"

 

[keaton]

I read about this in the paper yesterday, it does seem a little odd. His family were saying at that point he wasn't a threat to the public, but that was because everyone had been evacuated. He also shot into the bedroom of a kid who lived opposite, but The Sun doesn't mention that

 

[bhaexpress]

The Sun are always screaming about crime and yet when some bloke gets drunk, starts waving a shotgun around and thus the police shoot him they're the bad guys ?

Jeeze, it's tough enough for the police without this sort of hypocracy.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Oh FFS, typical Sun bullshit.

As the poster above says: if the gunman was a 15 year old black lad shooting from a council block in Hackney, they'd be digging up photos of him on his Bebo page, posing with mates and making gun gestures with his fingers, and claiming there were clear signs of his delinquency and danger to the public.

Instead you have a well off white lawyer, taking pot shots at the public and police with a licensed shotgun...so he doesn't deserve it?

Sorry, but people know exactly what happens if you wave a gun around in public in this country- you get an armed response from the police. Frankly if he'd done the same thing in America, he'd have been shot a lot sooner than that, and I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be debating it to this length either.

If it said that, at the time of being shot, he'd put the gun down and had his hands in the air, then fair enough, I might be a bit more sympathetic. But even the Sun's report clearly states he was still holding on to it. How much more of a threat do you need?

 

[User removed 4]

I wonder. If it had been some black lad in Brixton or some working class chav in the nice parts of Reading would the sun be quite so outraged. Just because it was some tossy rich white twat on the kings road.

Bollocks, he got exactly what he deserved.

if it had would you have been just as dismissive ?

 

[User removed 4]

Oh FFS, typical Sun bullshit.

As . How much more of a threat do you need?

perhaps actually pointing it at the police ?

 

[Lady Whistledown]

You know about as much about the circumstances as any of us do, who knows what he was planning.

I don't believe in routinely arming police in this country, but I do believe that if you're a firearms officer, the decision as to whether to shoot somebody or not must be the hardest one you've ever going to make in your life, and I doubt it's one you could make lightly.

All I'm saying is, it's easy for this bloke's sister to say, in the cold light of day, and no doubt overwhelmed by grief, that he didn't have to be shot.

But she's not the one under pressure to make that choice, is she? What happened to personal responsibility on behalf of the criminal? You pick up a gun and shoot at people, drunk or otherwise, you know what the possible consequences are. There's no escaping that.

 

[Black Country Seagull]

Carry a knife or a gun then surely the phrase live by the sword die by the sword is appropriate. I do not go waving weapons around or shooting bullets and people when I'm pissed off or drunk.

 

[User removed 4]

You know about as much about the circumstances as any of us do, who knows what he was planning.

I don't believe in routinely arming police in this country, but I do believe that if you're a firearms officer, the decision as to whether to shoot somebody or not must be the hardest one you've ever going to make in your life, and I doubt it's one you could make lightly.

All I'm saying is, it's easy for this bloke's sister to say, in the cold light of day, and no doubt overwhelmed by grief, that he didn't have to be shot.

But she's not the one under pressure to make that choice, is she? What happened to personal responsibility on behalf of the criminal? You pick up a gun and shoot at people, drunk or otherwise, you know what the possible consequences are. There's no escaping that.

i understand what your saying and its not necessarily the blokes who fired the shots that im blaming , from what ive read in the papers the whole area was cordoned off and he really wasnt a danger to anybody but himself as everybody in the vicinity had been evacuated, why go in at all ?? surely give the bloke time to sober up before they went in ? as usual its probably the peole higher up the chain of command who made the wrong call .

 

[readingstockport]

if it had would you have been just as dismissive ?

Sorry, not sure what you mean so dismissive.

If you mean would I have dismissed the whinging and whining of a bunch of middle class wankers who think because they are white then they are not the same kind of gun criminals as black people and they should have the right to pop off multiple shotgun rounds over a 4 hour period then yes, I would have dismissed the whinging and whining.

If it were a black kid doing the same thing and his relatives were whinging and whining then again yes, I would have dismissed their comments.

Play the gun man expect to get shot, tough shit - he lost.

Edit to add.
Sorry, I've just read your comment above. He had been there for 4 hours popping off rounds. Trained negotiators were talking to him and he was not attempting to place the gun down but was waving it around. If it were you then you would be shot, if it were me then I would be. Just because he's some barrister does not mean he has the right to fire shotguns in the middle of chelsea during the day. End off.

 

[Skint Gull]

as usual its probably the peole higher up the chain of command who made the wrong call .

There is no way that's the wrong call. The fact you've had to close a whole area and it's all over the national news that some twat with a shotgun is shooting through peoples windows is reason enough to shoot him.

I can't believe anyone can stick up for someone firing a gun through peoples windows who then gets shot himself.

 

[readingstockport]

What he said.

 

[Nibble]

i understand what your saying and its not necessarily the blokes who fired the shots that im blaming , from what ive read in the papers the whole area was cordoned off and he really wasnt a danger to anybody but himself as everybody in the vicinity had been evacuated, why go in at all ?? surely give the bloke time to sober up before they went in ? as usual its probably the peole higher up the chain of command who made the wrong call .

He was still a danger to the Police though. And the Police had to be there otherwise his neighbours would be dead. Frankly I'm glad the nutter is dead.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

"Give him time to sober up"?

This is one of those occasions when you can't say it was the wrong decision without the full facts. For all we know, he could have had twenty bottles of whisky and a cupboard full of food with him. He could have taken god knows what. He could have had more weapons. He could have threatened more damage- for example saying that he was going to blow the place up. Who knows?

Facts that we do know:

The law says you can't wave a gun around in public and shoot at people. He did.

The police told him to put the gun down. He didn't.

Based on that alone, therefore, I am not remotely surprised, that he got taken out.

 

[User removed 4]

"Give him time to sober up"?

This is one of those occasions when you can't say it was the wrong decision without the full facts. For all we know, he could have had twenty bottles of whisky and a cupboard full of food with him. He could have taken god knows what. He could have had more weapons. He could have threatened more damage- for example saying that he was going to blow the place up. Who knows?

Facts that we do know:

The law says you can't wave a gun around in public and shoot at people. He did.

The police told him to put the gun down. He didn't.

Based on that alone, therefore, I am not remotely surprised, that he got taken out.

"taken out" ? you're not in an episode of starksy and hutch love

 

[eastlondonseagull]

"Give him time to sober up"?

This is one of those occasions when you can't say it was the wrong decision without the full facts. For all we know, he could have had twenty bottles of whisky and a cupboard full of food with him. He could have taken god knows what. He could have had more weapons. He could have threatened more damage- for example saying that he was going to blow the place up. Who knows?

Facts that we do know:

The law says you can't wave a gun around in public and shoot at people. He did.

The police told him to put the gun down. He didn't.

Based on that alone, therefore, I am not remotely surprised, that he got taken out.

What concerns me is the allegation that the police were allowed to have a nice little natter and get their sides of the story straight before telling the IPC what happened. I can see how that's pissed his relatives off.

.

 

[El Presidente]

I don't remember The Sun being as outraged when the police shot the Brazilian tourist on the Tube because he looked a 'bit funny'