The Chelsea and Stockwell police shootings: some questions

By James Macintyre

Questions are being raised in the Saturday papers over the Chelsea shooting by police of Mark Saunders earlier this week, and rightly so. One that doesn't seem to have been answered (or asked), is why did officers apparently spray him with bullets before throwing tear gas and stun grenades into his house, rather than the other way around? The Met, as ever, is behind the scenes heavily briefing its side of the story to the press. But the scrutiny it faces is notably enhanced since the last high-profile police shooting, that of the innocent Brazilian electrician Jean Charles de Menezes when he was mistaken for a suicide bomber in 2005.

The repeated, point-blank-range de Menezes shooting is now being reported as the last by police before that of Mr Saunders. As it happens, one of the officers involved in the Stockwell station tragedy was reported to have shot and killed again. Either way, the Americanization of our streets, and the increasingly trigger-happy nature of our police, are justifiable matters for concern.

But other worrying questions emerge from the two cases, too: after that of Mr de Menezes, it was reported as the aprehending of a suicide bomber and - after rampant spin by police - the now disproved myth, that the Brazilian jumped tube barriers, was running and wearing a bulky coat, prevailed not for days but for years.

Later, Mr de Menezes was smeared over cocaine use - as if that somehow justified his death - in a fashion not completely different from the narrative about Mr Saunders's undoubted drinking problem. That the police is capable of spin is not in doubt, and it is worth remembering that certain leading Met bosses - apart from Sir Iain Blair who was kept in the dark - unquestionably lied to the media in an attempt to cover their terrible mistake. Should an off-the-record relationship between police and press be allowed? Perhaps.

But there is another, crucial question here. By the way things are looking, the police will not get away with the kind of lies and spin they whipped up over Mr de Menezes. This is a good thing, despite the converse fact that the latter was entirely innocent, while Mr Saunders was, apparently, at the very least firing at neighbours's houses in his residential square.

Certainly it takes a lot for the centre-right press to dare, as it has this week, to ask any questions of police officers, not one of whom - it should be remembered - has ever, despite everything, been held to account for the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

Could it be that in modern Britain the police killing of a white, middle class barrister in Sloane Square receives more scrutiny - and more justice - than a dark-skinned foreign electrician in south London?

Comments

[Elieudo Sergio]

Sr.James Macintyre, his/her lí article on Jean's death talks in London. It is, there is really still many questions to be done on the case. But unhappily this is a world reality. You police them of everybody are always wandering in that that you/they do. It is a feather. We waited one day term one polices more competent world championship.

Elieudo Sérgio
Newspaper Leafs of Ceará

PS: Ceará is a State that is to the Northeast of Brazil

[John]

No policeman/policewoman in England & Wales has EVER been successfully prosecuted for a death in custody. Not EVER.

If that doesn't tell you that the system is corrupt and has been for at least 50 years then I don't know what will.

Want to change the system and make them accountable for their actions?

There's only one way to do this - get rid of the CPS (as they act in the govts interest, not the citizens interest) and bring back grand juries. It surprises people that England & Wales had grand juries, but they did until the govt of the day got rid of them for being "too inconvenient".

[Lara]

Why couldn't they just gas him and not shoot him to death?
It seems very extreme to have riddled his body with bullets...it seems these kind of police want target practice on a human body...it is scary. The police in the USA would do the same for even less....However, this guy obviously had a gun in his Chelsea home which makes you think how many people in society may have weapons concealed in their homes.

[Neil McGowan]

Once AGAIN, I am uneasy about the linkage made between the Menzes slaying and this case. Menezes was entirely innocent of any offense when he was killed by police. That is not true of this case.

Blogging is an exchange of views. Deleting posts with which you disagree is against the spirit of blogging.

[martin j. witort]

Once again the police demonstrate remarkable stupidity and over-kill. If this poor demented fellow , as reported, was firing a shotgun, easily verifiable by any experienced gun handler, then there was absolutely no reason for lethal force. Suited up in Kevlar, with a face shield, one can approach a 12 gauge within 10 yards or closer, with little risk, easily close enough to disarm by other means (Taser, stun grenade, 12 gauge to the lower legs) There was staggering incompetence, the phrase lions led by donkeys springs to mind. Idiots led by morons more like. If these lions want a demonstration of how to tackle a similar situation I would be glad to assist.

[James Macintyre]

To Neil McGowan: I am not sure what you are referring to when you say that "Deleting posts with which you disagree is against the spirit of blogging". For the record, I have never - despite frequent abuse from you and others - deleted a blog post. I agree that should not happen, apart from in cases of racism, say, or slander. So you can feel free to continue to express your thoughts on the issues of the day.

[Neil McGowan]

Thank you, James. I cannot account for the reasons why my earlier post - saying largely what I said in the reposting - was deleted. I appreciate your confirmation that it wasn't you who deleted it.

[Darren Howell]

Martin, just because you know someone does have a shotgun it does not mean that its safe to assume they have nothing else that they can use to harm you.

I read that Mr Saunders was inside a building shooting out - if that is true how do you think that getting within 10 yards would help? do you think that a man shooting at police and neighbors through a window (if that is what happened) would be too stupid to move away from the window when he sees your helmeted shotgun wielding cop coming towards him?

[martin j. witort]

Neil, I was not there, but houses have doors, stairs, and access. Sure there is a risk he has a solid 12 gauge round, or a short arm, but being in law enforcement implies risk, happily accepted by our soldiers. I maintain this man could have been disarmed, and would have been happy to do it myself. Remember the case of the guy shot carrying a chair leg, the couple in a mini shot up by trigger happy cops ? There is something fundamentally wrong when these bozo's can strut around Heathrow with their Glocks, when I know full well they would be totally useless in a real emergency, outside of killing the drunk or deranged.

[Neil McGowan]

Martin, I am not disagreeing with you.

My comment was only to reinforce the difference between Jean de Menezes (going about his lawful business when assaulted and murdered by the Police) and this case (shooting at passers-by out of a window with a shotgun). These two cases should not be linked.

[AndyUK]

I can only agree with Neil here, and say that the Menezes case, was a tragic and in my opinion, unforgivable mistake.
If someone takes a shotgun, and starts to fire indiscriminately in a public place, then they have to realise that the police are not obliged to take risks.
The siege lasted five hours, surely that was long enough for the deceased man to see reason and put down his gun.