Wanted man dies after police shooting in Brighton (From The Argus)

Rocco10 wrote:
I see Google Street View is being put to good use. Excellent!

Security word = hate-hole, by the way. I'm serious!! Lol!

localboy78 wrote:
Such a nice place Kemp Town - NOT!

sparky_2004 wrote:
Pity we're not seeing either of the words 'armed' or 'unarmed' so far in relation to the dead man, since that is rather important. Mind you, at least this time it won't be 'naked in bed' one presumes!

Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Police officers do not just shoot people, they are not the judge and jury. There are strict guidelines they have to follow, not least the safety of members of the publice being taken into consideration. Firearms are used when all else has failed. Our thoughts should be with the family of this person and the police officers who shot him, for it'll be very hard for them. From time to time this is going to happen and some might find it interesting the know that in countries that regularly arm their police a fair percentage of those shot are regular members of the publice and the police themselves - by their own colleagues.

sparky_2004 wrote:
Pity we're not seeing either of the words 'armed' or 'unarmed' so far in relation to the dead man, since that is rather important. Mind you, at least this time it won't be 'naked in bed' one presumes!

Nosh*tsherlock wrote:
I for one am pro police. I just thought I would add a thought for the officer who did his job today. The job of police is hard enough and the job of armed police even harder. When it comes to killing another man things have become extreme. I hope the officer has the proper support of his colleagues and force for that matter.

Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Police officers do not just shoot people, they are not the judge and jury. There are strict guidelines they have to follow, not least the safety of members of the publice being taken into consideration. Firearms are used when all else has failed. Our thoughts should be with the family of this person and the police officers who shot him, for it'll be very hard for them. From time to time this is going to happen and some might find it interesting the know that in countries that regularly arm their police a fair percentage of those shot are regular members of the publice and the police themselves - by their own colleagues.

Cooldude wrote:
Is this the new Tory government's way of cutting public sector costs? Summary execution, avoiding the expenses of a trial and subsequent imprisonment?

armyeng1 wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote: Police officers do not just shoot people, they are not the judge and jury. There are strict guidelines they have to follow, not least the safety of members of the publice being taken into consideration. Firearms are used when all else has failed. Our thoughts should be with the family of this person and the police officers who shot him, for it'll be very hard for them. From time to time this is going to happen and some might find it interesting the know that in countries that regularly arm their police a fair percentage of those shot are regular members of the publice and the police themselves - by their own colleagues.

"Police officers do not just shoot people" have you been in a cave for the last forty years, people officers have been gunning down and killing civilians by the hundreds annually and a good portion arent even armed! Someone needs to take you out for a walk because you have been holed up for way too long. When a police officer kills someone because in err, they generally cover it up and then thier story is backed and covered up by their superiors. What world are people living in these days, the ignorance is terrifying!

exbtnbabe wrote:
Why couldnt they just wound him and not kill him?

armyeng1 wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote: Police officers do not just shoot people, they are not the judge and jury. There are strict guidelines they have to follow, not least the safety of members of the publice being taken into consideration. Firearms are used when all else has failed. Our thoughts should be with the family of this person and the police officers who shot him, for it'll be very hard for them. From time to time this is going to happen and some might find it interesting the know that in countries that regularly arm their police a fair percentage of those shot are regular members of the publice and the police themselves - by their own colleagues.

"Police officers do not just shoot people" have you been in a cave for the last forty years, people officers have been gunning down and killing civilians by the hundreds annually and a good portion arent even armed! Someone needs to take you out for a walk because you have been holed up for way too long. When a police officer kills someone because in err, they generally cover it up and then thier story is backed and covered up by their superiors. What world are people living in these days, the ignorance is terrifying!

exbtnbabe wrote:
ok ok ok Didnt relise there was a gun at the scene and didnt relise he was the one responsible for armed robberies ! but surely if the police were that certain they could of locked him up and thrown away the key !!!

armyeng1 wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Police officers do not just shoot people, they are not the judge and jury. There are strict guidelines they have to follow, not least the safety of members of the publice being taken into consideration. Firearms are used when all else has failed. Our thoughts should be with the family of this person and the police officers who shot him, for it'll be very hard for them. From time to time this is going to happen and some might find it interesting the know that in countries that regularly arm their police a fair percentage of those shot are regular members of the publice and the police themselves - by their own colleagues.

"Police officers do not just shoot people" have you been in a cave for the last forty years, people officers have been gunning down and killing civilians by the hundreds annually and a good portion arent even armed! Someone needs to take you out for a walk because you have been holed up for way too long. When a police officer kills someone because in err, they generally cover it up and then thier story is backed and covered up by their superiors. What world are people living in these days, the ignorance is terrifying!

Old Ladys Gin wrote:

armyeng1 wrote:

Old Ladys Gin wrote:
Police officers do not just shoot people, they are not the judge and jury. There are strict guidelines they have to follow, not least the safety of members of the publice being taken into consideration. Firearms are used when all else has failed. Our thoughts should be with the family of this person and the police officers who shot him, for it'll be very hard for them. From time to time this is going to happen and some might find it interesting the know that in countries that regularly arm their police a fair percentage of those shot are regular members of the publice and the police themselves - by their own colleagues.

"Police officers do not just shoot people" have you been in a cave for the last forty years, people officers have been gunning down and killing civilians by the hundreds annually and a good portion arent even armed! Someone needs to take you out for a walk because you have been holed up for way too long. When a police officer kills someone because in err, they generally cover it up and then thier story is backed and covered up by their superiors. What world are people living in these days, the ignorance is terrifying!

You are not correct in your assertions as I have lived in far worse places than Brighton.
That would suggest I have not been holed up.

Seabreeze wrote:
Maybe he was Brazilian...

scotsguy wrote:
yet again,we have police shooting a suspect,and killing him!
im sick to death of uk police shooting people,rather than bide thier time and wait for the suspect to say fall asleep!....
police will no doubt say,after clearing the area,that he was an imminent threat!
who too?...cant the police hide and wait until he gives himself up?....why didnt they shoot the guy in the leg or arm?
they didnt need to kill him!
and if the copper that shot him is reading this i say:

i wouldnt like to be you on your judgement day!


brighton police=bad news

scotsguy wrote:
scotsguy, London, **** off back to jock land! ahhh discrimination is alive and well in brighton.... by the way: i hope the copper who shot him is suspended,and tried for unlawfull killing,and given 20 years in jail....

scotsguy wrote:
The male was shot in the street, with members of the public around, so if he had a gun he would have been a 'threat' to the public and also the Police. did he actually point the alleged gun at anyone...? by the way....im not a moron...im a taxpayer....

scotsguy wrote:
You know nothing about what its like to make a split decision about something, something that will change your life i do actually.....24 years ex army!

scotsguy wrote:
If thats the case, open ur eyes to what actually happened today. if someone held a gun to you and you believed they were gonna pull the trigger.. would you pull urs 1st? offcourse....but did he?

scotsguy wrote:
"im not a moron...im a taxpayer..." The two aren't mutually exclusive and given some of the comments you have made I think people could be forgiven for thinking you a moron. did this alleged criminal point a gun at anyone? a man died today at the hands of brighton police!...

scotsguy wrote:
thats suicide in my books... precisley....

missuk16 wrote:

Seabreeze wrote:
Maybe he was Brazilian...

what's that got to do with it??There is nothing wrong with Brazilian people.I think your being unfair by saying that.

angry monkey wrote:
wow some really silly people here that think they know everything about what to do when there is a gun man around. The police have set guide lines and im sure they did what they did to keep you the public and themselfs safe.

scotsguy wrote:
Its a shame the male decided to act this way and has now lost his life but well done Sussex police for being professional



and killing the guy.....says it all about you really...

scotsguy wrote:
You know nothing about what its like to make a split decision about something, something that will change your life


i do actually.....24 years ex army!

argunaut wrote:
@sisaydo1
"1, he threatened innocent people that worked for a living.
2, He brandished a gun on the street!"
Please could you let us know where you're getting your facts from?
We don't even know who was killed yet. "A man". It's not the role of the police to be judge, jury or executioner. They've figured that out in Egypt. Let's remember it here. If they fired in self-defence, so be it. But you don't know.

scotsguy wrote:
@scotsguy You beat me to it.


lollllllllllll

val...the voice of reason...ty

secret agent wrote:
A totally traumatised public saw this man shot dead in the street in front of their eyes - I dont think they will easily get over the sight of it, and as the police were in plain clothes thought they were caught in the middle of gang warfare.

Valerie Paynter wrote:
Lots of bile spewed as comments, sadly.

Known facts: the shooting happened in the street in daylight & the police recovered what may or may not be a genuine handgun. Presumably the dead man was holding said 'handgun' and did something (yet to be disclosed) with it....knowing police were there.....else why was he in the street carrying it....Death by Cop?????

I do not absolve the police of blame for killing him. Just seeking clarity in a sea of swilling bile here, and that includes you from Chichester!

If any nearby resident had an iphone or the police were filming.....I hope we get to see who did what and when even if we never learn the 'why'.

argunaut wrote:
@sisaydo1 Your insult says more about you than about me. You still don't know who was killed and should be more guarded in your condemnation.

@Valerie Paynter I hope the word 'presumably' doesn't appear too often in the IPCC report.

scotsguy wrote:
Mark Saunders was shot at least five times by police marksmen
Allowing firearms officers to confer after the shooting of barrister Mark Saunders raised the possibility of collusion, the High Court has heard.

Mr Saunders, 32, was shot after a siege in May during which he fired at police from his house in Chelsea, west London.

His family wants the judicial review to rule the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation broke human rights laws.

The family also claims the IPCC failed to give sufficient information to them.
Tim Owen QC, representing Mr Saunders' sister Charlotte, told the court the issue was "whether the hitherto practice of permitting police officers to confer before and during the recording of their accounts" of the incident was compatible with human rights laws.

Unlawful failure

He said: "The officers were not separated before their accounts were given and there was a delay in providing initial statements."

He said the IPCC had provided further opportunity to confer by organising meetings attended by groups of officers to put the questions to them.

Miss Saunders and her family are also seeking a declaration from Mr Justice Underhill that there has been an unlawful failure to disclose sufficient information about the investigation.

The IPCC practice of allowing officers to confer was agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and is contained in the Acpo Manual of Guidance on the Police Use of Firearms.

I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother

Charlotte Saunders
Mr Owen said the IPCC will argue at the hearing that until Acpo gives a direction to change the practice, it can do nothing.

But he added: "The IPCC is invested with sufficient powers to make a direction to the police authority to reverse the current practice to achieve a different approach which is capable of being compatible."

Mr Saunders, 32, died of multiple bullet wounds. A preliminary inquest heard he was shot in the head, the heart and the liver.

As the siege unfolded, Mr Saunders threw a message to his wife, Elizabeth, from a window, suggesting a row between the couple may have sparked the incident.

Mr Owen said: "It appears that the final fatal shots were fired over 20 minutes after Mr Saunders last fired a shot and at a time when neighbours had all been evacuated or otherwise safely 'contained'."

He added that IPCC evidence showed that seven officers fired 11 rounds at 2129 BST.

He said he found it "difficult" to see "who the police may have believed was being put at risk by Mr Saunders' actions at the time when he was shot."

CCTV footage

Earlier, Ms Saunders also raised this issue speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother," she said.

"Immediately after his first shot the police were called and the area evacuated, so there was no risk to the public. He was on his own, he had no hostage and made no demands.

"We have had very little information from the IPCC. What information we have got is from the press, so we know as much as anyone else."

Mr Owen said the CCTV footage of the incident taken from a police helicopter was the main source of information for the family.

The IPCC has itself called on three separate occasions for the practice of allowing officers to confer to be ended.

ipcc....a joke!

sisaydo1 wrote:

scotsguy wrote:
Mark Saunders was shot at least five times by police marksmen
Allowing firearms officers to confer after the shooting of barrister Mark Saunders raised the possibility of collusion, the High Court has heard.

Mr Saunders, 32, was shot after a siege in May during which he fired at police from his house in Chelsea, west London.

His family wants the judicial review to rule the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) investigation broke human rights laws.

The family also claims the IPCC failed to give sufficient information to them.
Tim Owen QC, representing Mr Saunders' sister Charlotte, told the court the issue was "whether the hitherto practice of permitting police officers to confer before and during the recording of their accounts" of the incident was compatible with human rights laws.

Unlawful failure

He said: "The officers were not separated before their accounts were given and there was a delay in providing initial statements."

He said the IPCC had provided further opportunity to confer by organising meetings attended by groups of officers to put the questions to them.

Miss Saunders and her family are also seeking a declaration from Mr Justice Underhill that there has been an unlawful failure to disclose sufficient information about the investigation.

The IPCC practice of allowing officers to confer was agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) and is contained in the Acpo Manual of Guidance on the Police Use of Firearms.

I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother

Charlotte Saunders
Mr Owen said the IPCC will argue at the hearing that until Acpo gives a direction to change the practice, it can do nothing.

But he added: "The IPCC is invested with sufficient powers to make a direction to the police authority to reverse the current practice to achieve a different approach which is capable of being compatible."

Mr Saunders, 32, died of multiple bullet wounds. A preliminary inquest heard he was shot in the head, the heart and the liver.

As the siege unfolded, Mr Saunders threw a message to his wife, Elizabeth, from a window, suggesting a row between the couple may have sparked the incident.

Mr Owen said: "It appears that the final fatal shots were fired over 20 minutes after Mr Saunders last fired a shot and at a time when neighbours had all been evacuated or otherwise safely 'contained'."

He added that IPCC evidence showed that seven officers fired 11 rounds at 2129 BST.

He said he found it "difficult" to see "who the police may have believed was being put at risk by Mr Saunders' actions at the time when he was shot."

CCTV footage

Earlier, Ms Saunders also raised this issue speaking on BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I have to question whether it was necessary to kill my brother," she said.

"Immediately after his first shot the police were called and the area evacuated, so there was no risk to the public. He was on his own, he had no hostage and made no demands.

"We have had very little information from the IPCC. What information we have got is from the press, so we know as much as anyone else."

Mr Owen said the CCTV footage of the incident taken from a police helicopter was the main source of information for the family.

The IPCC has itself called on three separate occasions for the practice of allowing officers to confer to be ended.

ipcc....a joke!

He had a fire arm and everyone knows that if you brandish a fire arm the police will take evasive action because they do not know if the fire arm is a threat or if the gunman has a hostage.

Nobleox wrote:
Why was it nessessary for the police to bring the neighbourhood to a standstill and tell people to not venture outside "after" this person was shot dead. Do they believe in resurrection then?

cheaptramp wrote:
Have none of you got anything better to do than be so horribly, uneducatedly supersillious?

Would be a much better plan if the Argus didn't let you vent your small minds online.

samikhan wrote:
it shows a complete and total failure of Brighton police,, im just wondering and asking that why police gave so many opportunities to the accused that we saw a horrible result,,,,

halfc wrote:
most of these comments are ignorant.had this man killed any1?NO.attacked any1?NO.If he'd have been a killer he would have deserved instant justice,which means an eye for an eye.have any of u lot had a child killed as i have.NO? so whats worse,going around trying to steal money or cruelly taking a life.we'v got all these killers in jail enjoying their lives when they should be dead.can u c my point or r u too ignorant.the cops couldv used c s gas or a stun gun.

scotsguy wrote:
You know nothing about what its like to make a split decision about something, something that will change your life


i do actually.....24 years ex army!

lainesy wrote:
If the man that died was the one the Police were hunting for then good - one less nuisance off the streets. The above comments regarding how the police should have shot 'to wound' rather than kill are ridiculous - any gunwound can be fatal, can you imagine if police were given the ability to shot to WOUND ONLY - imagine every criminals family that would try and sue because the said wound resulted in the death of their relative! If he deserved to be shot & killed then sorry but it's one less problem on our streets.

Finbar 1 wrote:
Why did they not use a taser ? The Police do seem to be very trigger happy.

Anonymous Sussex Dweller wrote:
ARGGGHHH MAN HOW WRONG AND IGNORANT CAN PEOPLE BE! I dont know why I read some comments from individuals who clearly either hate the police or are purely media driven... I dont know who are worse... it is so infuriating that such people get to air the ill-informed views on a public stage such as this The facts are simple for any such incidents that the boys in blue have to deal with, Police will not use lethal force unless either their own or someone else's life is threatened, they dont shoot to wound they shoot to stop the threat... end of, it really is that simple, period... however you want to say it. It is almost irrelevant as to what any such individual has done previously and the actions of officers are purely governed by what happens in a split second in front of a police officer at the incident... we must never forget this... a split second. If a shot hadnt been taken and the male in question had shot and killed a member of the public, what would you be saying then... oh the police failed to do their job... etc etc... it makes me sick. Argus... you are as much to blame for the ignorant reactions of people too... there is absolutely no need to put the last paragraph in this article regarding a previous incident from 1998 which knowing the true facts has been woefully construed over the years to such an extent that you get comments by individuals such as we see here and this is another typical example of utterly disgusting media behaviour. It is there purely to provoke a reaction, once again shame on you... alas to work in the media these days is not about reporting the truth but selling papers... again I find the whole issue deplorable. It is a perfect example of why I have never bought a single newspaper in nearly 20 years, not a single one. The police have to control a society that is rapidly losing its old fashioned values, they are ridiculously suffocated by the Human Rights of our 'modern age' and I have the utmost sympathy and respect for them and always will have. SHAME ON YOU PEOPLE WHO POSTED SUCH ILL-INFORMED COMMENTS HERE

halfc wrote:
most of these comments are ignorant.had this man killed any1?NO.attacked any1?NO.If he'd have been a killer he would have deserved instant justice,which means an eye for an eye.have any of u lot had a child killed as i have.NO? so whats worse,going around trying to steal money or cruelly taking a life.we'v got all these killers in jail enjoying their lives when they should be dead.can u c my point or r u too ignorant.the cops couldv used c s gas or a stun gun.

Peacehaven27 wrote:
They killed a man For ROBBING BANKS? The very banks that are robbing every single one of us every day and then paying themselves a hefty bonus for the privilege? I assume Sussex Police will be treating bankers the same and shooting on sight?!

scoobyjones1 wrote:
After the wrongful killing of the Brazilian man on the tube how can we be sure this man was correctly identified ... let's see if they got that right. If he was waving a gun he had to be stopped...maybe even shot if the police didnt have tazers...but if he was not armed then it is murder. I hope there were good independent witnesses or the police could easily confer as they did in the Mark Saunders shooting to cover this up.

AmboGuy wrote:

scoobyjones1 wrote: After the wrongful killing of the Brazilian man on the tube how can we be sure this man was correctly identified ... let's see if they got that right. If he was waving a gun he had to be stopped...maybe even shot if the police didnt have tazers...but if he was not armed then it is murder. I hope there were good independent witnesses or the police could easily confer as they did in the Mark Saunders shooting to cover this up.

Oh dear - he has been named! The Argus updated us 3 hours ago with a name! Yes it's unofficial now but where do you think that information came from? There is CCTV footage (as said in their news report). He was found with a gun in his hand (also in the news report). As has also been commented on you can't take on someone with a gun with a ***ing tazer!!! What would the police do, ask him to keep still while they move to a few feet in front of him with a tazer!!

Dizd wrote:
One thing appears to be missing here - if this guy was wanted for gun crimes and robberies what about the effect of his actions that were affected by them? I do not condone his death but also don't forget the other victims of crimes!

scotsguy wrote:
He had a fire arm and everyone knows that if you brandish a fire arm the police will take evasive action because they do not know if the fire arm is a threat or if the gunman has a hostage.


i agree with you there,he did indeed have a firearm,but the whole area was evacuated,and a police marksman took him out....who was he a danger too?

snaggybird wrote:
Instead of rubbishing the police as usual, why dont you we all sit back and wait for the facts?? I'm quite sure if u do u will find there is alot more too it. Its not nice to lose a life, but if it transpires its the life of an armed robber as the news is saying, rather it be him then the poor police officer having to make that awful desicion or god forbid a member of the innocent public

argunaut wrote:
Police confirm the dead man was the person they were looking for. http://is.gd/wnPq4M @AmboGuy: how do you know the gun was real and where did you hear that he fired the first shot?

AmboGuy wrote:

argunaut wrote: Police confirm the dead man was the person they were looking for. http://is.gd/wnPq4M @AmboGuy: how do you know the gun was real and where did you hear that he fired the first shot?

Because I'm good friends with someone within Sussex Police who has knows a fair bit about what happened. @ChrisDS - you are an idiot. You are the kind of moronic individual who hates the police for no reason other than your childish belief that they are all corrupt (you know some people discriminate against other groups in society and think that they're 'all the same' and 'no good' - they're called the racists and homophobes.

ChrisDS wrote:
please let me confirm one thing ...... i am not an idiot, but a hightly educated believer in democracy. I would also like to confirm that in my long and vast experience of the police force, and how they actually work ,is that the truth is second to a 'result'. I dont have a childish belief that the police are all corrupt, but i am not so stupid to think that the police are as ' holier than thou ' as you might believe. Of course one ought to add that i really do hope the police arent actually leaking information to their mates as you seem to be indicating as this would be subjudice!

ChrisDS wrote:
this is rapidly losing sight of the reality ..... lots of police went to arrest a suspect, instead the suspect is no longer alive. The court system in this country is there to prosecute criminals .The police seem, on an all too regular basis, want to circumvent the system and we only really ever have the police's word as to what really actually happened. The IPCC take everything the police say as gospel, as do the courts either way the police win. Until this suspect is actually proven guilty of any crimes the british constitution is INNOCENT until proven guilty, or a suspect is dead if the police shoot him !

ChrisDS wrote:
this is rapidly losing sight of the reality ..... lots of police went to arrest a suspect, instead the suspect is no longer alive. The court system in this country is there to prosecute criminals .The police seem, on an all too regular basis, want to circumvent the system and we only really ever have the police's word as to what really actually happened. The IPCC take everything the police say as gospel, as do the courts either way the police win. Until this suspect is actually proven guilty of any crimes the british constitution is INNOCENT until proven guilty, or a suspect is dead if the police shoot him !

steveP2009 wrote:
It amazes me how everyone keeps stating that crime in this country is spiralling out of control and that the police do nothing. And when they do they get the stick for it. The comments on this story are really winding me up. I comment no more (bring on the 'good we dont like your comments')

steveP2009 wrote:
It amazes me how everyone keeps stating that crime in this country is spiralling out of control and that the police do nothing. And when they do they get the stick for it. The comments on this story are really winding me up. I comment no more (bring on the 'good we dont like your comments')

Peacehaven27 wrote:
They killed a man For ROBBING BANKS?

The very banks that are robbing every single one of us every day and then paying themselves a hefty bonus for the privilege?

I assume Sussex Police will be treating bankers the same and shooting on sight?!