Wanted man dies after police shooting in Brighton

The Argus: FORENSICS: A tent is erected in Rock Place to protect the scene from the driving rain. Picture by Terry Applin FORENSICS: A tent is erected in Rock Place to protect the scene from the driving rain. Picture by Terry Applin

A suspected armed robber has died in hospital after being shot by police in Kemp Town, Brighton.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission has said a gun was found at the scene.

It also said the shooting took place after a pre-planned police operation related to a number of armed robberies in Brighton, Hove and mid-Sussex.

The man, who was in his 40s and has not yet been formally identified, died at the Royal Sussex County Hospital after the shooting in Rock Place this lunchtime.

A statement from the IPCC said: "The Independent Police Complaints Commission is independently investigating the fatal shooting of a man by police in Sussex.

"Armed officers were deployed to the Kemp Town area of Brighton at around lunchtime today, Thursday 10 February 2011, as part of a pre-planned operation in relation to a number of armed robberies in the Sussex area.

"Just after 1pm this afternoon, a man was shot in Rock Place, Brighton. He was taken to hospital but was pronounced dead a short time later.

"What appears to be a black handgun has been found at the scene.

"This will now be examined to establish whether it is real or an imitation weapon and whether it had been fired."

IPCC Commissioner Mike Franklin said: "IPCC investigators are currently in Sussex carrying out enquiries to establish exactly what happened in this case.

"This will involve taking initial accounts from those officers involved to establish which officer or officers fired and why, as well as identifying evidence on police systems such as incident logs and radio transmissions.

"We will be working to identify independent witnesses who saw any part of today’s incident as it unfolded, as well as to gather CCTV in the area which may have captured events.

"Our investigators will also look at the pre-planning of the operation itself.”

The man has not yet been formally identified.

Frankie Sparrowhawk, 18, said he walked outside just as the man was being shot.

He said: "I heard two gunshots and saw someone lying on the floor. There were five or six police officers there at that point.

"I was too far away to see if he was moving but it looked like one of them was trying to resuscitate him.

"An ambulance arrived within about two seconds."

Local resident Janet Hood, 67, said she was not able to get to her ground-floor flat in the street.

She said: "I wasn't in, luckily.

"I'm quite frightened and a bit shaken-up to be honest.

"I only know the neighbours to say hello to but it's usually a very quiet street, we don't usually have any trouble here."

The incident has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which has confirmed it is sending its own investigators to the scene.

An area of the seafront near Lower Rock Gardens has been cordoned off and officers from around the city called in for the operation.

Motorists have been warned by police that a number of roads in the area, including a section of the A259, are currently closed and likely to be so for the approaching rush hour.

Drivers are advised to avoid the area if possible.

Students at the Brighton Institute of Modern Music on Rock Place have been ordered to stay inside their classroom by police.

Cathryn Craddock, head of creative and music said: “We were lucky that most students had left their morning classes before the shooting happened. But it’s still worrying. The principal is down there.

"Police have told all students and teachers to stay inside until further notice.”

Carla Ter Matt sales and marketing manager at Drakes Hotel on Marine Parade said: “The cordon is down Rock Place but stops at the edge of our building. We are checking guests in and the police have told us there is no danger.”

Anybody who witnessed the shooting is asked to contact the IPCC on 0800 0969075 or email brightonshooting@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk.

Last November, an inquest ruled that Sussex police officers acted lawfully when they shot dead gun enthusiast Mervyn Tussler.

Mr Tussler, 64, suicidal after being told he could not look after his sick wife Winifred, pointed an antique Colt 45 handgun at a manager at his sheltered accommodation, sparking a three-hour standoff with armed police in May 2009.

In January 1998, Sussex Police shot dead James Ashley while naked and unarmed at his Hastings home.

The officer who fired the fatal shot, PC Chris Sherwood, was tried for murder and manslaughter and acquitted.

Last year, his family accepted undisclosed damages after Sussex Police admitted negligence.

Did you see what happened? Call The Argus on 01273 544520 or leave your comments below.

Comments (141)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:54pm Thu 10 Feb 11

localboy78 says...

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

3:04pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Hove Actually says...

"a pre-planned operation to locate a man wanted in connection with a number of crimes in Sussex in recent months"
Wow what were his supposed crimes if this was the responce?
"a pre-planned operation to locate a man wanted in connection with a number of crimes in Sussex in recent months" Wow what were his supposed crimes if this was the responce? Hove Actually

3:05pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Baron of Sussex says...

Maybe the spate of robberies at Post Offices and the Co-op?
Maybe the spate of robberies at Post Offices and the Co-op? Baron of Sussex

3:12pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Rocco10 says...

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

Security word = hate-hole, by the way. I'm serious!! Lol!
I see Google Street View is being put to good use. Excellent! Security word = hate-hole, by the way. I'm serious!! Lol! Rocco10

3:14pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Norsemen says...

Why is hate-hole funny?
Why is hate-hole funny? Norsemen

3:21pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Jo Wadsworth says...

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!
It was - but I've now replaced it with one our photographer Tony Wood's picture of the scene today.
[quote][p][bold]Rocco10[/bold] wrote: I see Google Street View is being put to good use. Excellent! Security word = hate-hole, by the way. I'm serious!! Lol![/p][/quote]It was - but I've now replaced it with one our photographer Tony Wood's picture of the scene today. Jo Wadsworth

3:31pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Joeinbrighton says...

One presumes his crimes would have been in some way related to him holding a weapon that could be used if confronted.
One presumes his crimes would have been in some way related to him holding a weapon that could be used if confronted. Joeinbrighton

3:42pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Cooldude says...

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

3:47pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Bennn says...

localboy78 wrote:
Such a nice place Kemp Town - NOT!
You're right, Hove is SO much nicer and safer! Oh wait, didn't a shopkeeper get killed by a cyclist in the street over there the other day?
[quote][p][bold]localboy78[/bold] wrote: Such a nice place Kemp Town - NOT![/p][/quote]You're right, Hove is SO much nicer and safer! Oh wait, didn't a shopkeeper get killed by a cyclist in the street over there the other day? Bennn

3:52pm Thu 10 Feb 11

sparky_2004 says...

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!
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! sparky_2004

4:01pm Thu 10 Feb 11

lordenglandofsussex says...

What a pity B&H has become a criminal tourist attraction for virtually every piece of scum in the UK.

Well done Sussex Police.
What a pity B&H has become a criminal tourist attraction for virtually every piece of scum in the UK. Well done Sussex Police. lordenglandofsussex

4:03pm Thu 10 Feb 11

patchamgirl says...

sorry 4 his family, whatever kind of person he was his family will be suffering today.x
sorry 4 his family, whatever kind of person he was his family will be suffering today.x patchamgirl

4:33pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Nosh*tsherlock says...

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.
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. Nosh*tsherlock

4:35pm Thu 10 Feb 11

swim says...

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!
yes ..rest in peace jimmy
shot in bed unarmed ..unlawfully killed by sussex police and settled out of court.
[quote][p][bold]sparky_2004[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]yes ..rest in peace jimmy shot in bed unarmed ..unlawfully killed by sussex police and settled out of court. swim

4:39pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Old Ladys Gin says...

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, 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. Old Ladys Gin

4:55pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Hove Actually says...

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.
Good point, badly made.
I am pro Police and would welcome them being armed with Non-lethal force ie stun gun, bean bag gun etc.
That way we would not get naked men in bed or people carrying a table leg. getting on a train shot dead by someone doing an impossible job where they are dammed if they do and dammed if they dont.
[quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Good point, badly made. I am pro Police and would welcome them being armed with Non-lethal force ie stun gun, bean bag gun etc. That way we would not get naked men in bed or people carrying a table leg. getting on a train shot dead by someone doing an impossible job where they are dammed if they do and dammed if they dont. Hove Actually

5:12pm Thu 10 Feb 11

exbtnbabe says...

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!
Why couldnt they just wound him and not kill him?
[quote][p][bold]sparky_2004[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Why couldnt they just wound him and not kill him? exbtnbabe

5:16pm Thu 10 Feb 11

exbtnbabe says...

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.
so why shoot to kill ? why not shoot to wound? spose it saves the tax payers money not having to put him in prison
[quote][p][bold]Nosh*tsherlock[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]so why shoot to kill ? why not shoot to wound? spose it saves the tax payers money not having to put him in prison exbtnbabe

5:26pm Thu 10 Feb 11

armyeng1 says...

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!
[quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]"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! armyeng1

5:28pm Thu 10 Feb 11

micklin says...

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?
I blood well hope so!!
[quote][p][bold]Cooldude[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]I blood well hope so!! micklin

5:31pm Thu 10 Feb 11

armyeng1 says...

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!
I am aware that I made several sentencing errors, it should be easy enough to figure out what I meant to mean to say what I said.....lol
[quote][p][bold]armyeng1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]"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![/p][/quote]I am aware that I made several sentencing errors, it should be easy enough to figure out what I meant to mean to say what I said.....lol armyeng1

5:32pm Thu 10 Feb 11

lainesy says...

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.
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. lainesy

5:56pm Thu 10 Feb 11

sussex farmer says...

exbtnbabe wrote:
Why couldnt they just wound him and not kill him?
why couldn't they just give him a strong telling off and ask him, politely, not to commit gun crime and to put the gun away? At worst a penalty ticket with an £80 fine would have done the job.
[quote][p][bold]exbtnbabe[/bold] wrote: Why couldnt they just wound him and not kill him?[/p][/quote]why couldn't they just give him a strong telling off and ask him, politely, not to commit gun crime and to put the gun away? At worst a penalty ticket with an £80 fine would have done the job. sussex farmer

5:57pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Seabreeze says...

Maybe he was Brazilian...
Maybe he was Brazilian... Seabreeze

6:04pm Thu 10 Feb 11

kkj says...

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!
It is indeed; rather than "gunning down and killing civilians by the hundreds" a quick google will show that there have been around 50 in the last 20 years.
[quote][p][bold]armyeng1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]"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![/p][/quote]It is indeed; rather than "gunning down and killing civilians by the hundreds" a quick google will show that there have been around 50 in the last 20 years. kkj

6:05pm Thu 10 Feb 11

kkj says...

It is indeed; rather than "gunning down and killing civilians by the hundreds" a quick google will show that there have been around 50 in the last 20 years.
It is indeed; rather than "gunning down and killing civilians by the hundreds" a quick google will show that there have been around 50 in the last 20 years. kkj

6:10pm Thu 10 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

The shot man was wanted in connection with a string of armed robberies. He pulled a gun on the police so that's why he was shot. To the idiots who say 'why couldn't they just wond him' - maybe you should think before you type.
The shot man was wanted in connection with a string of armed robberies. He pulled a gun on the police so that's why he was shot. To the idiots who say 'why couldn't they just wond him' - maybe you should think before you type. AmboGuy

6:23pm Thu 10 Feb 11

snaggybird says...

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
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 snaggybird

6:28pm Thu 10 Feb 11

devil's advocate's advisor says...

Right then, a series of local armed robberies, an armed police planned operation, a handgun found at scene where the man was shot by police. I think we can we presume that there was a high threat level at the scene. Police self defence is far more likey than police execution; this is Brighton not Los Angeles. Police cover-ups ? Get a life ! Thank God the man was not stopped by un-armed cops.
Right then, a series of local armed robberies, an armed police planned operation, a handgun found at scene where the man was shot by police. I think we can we presume that there was a high threat level at the scene. Police self defence is far more likey than police execution; this is Brighton not Los Angeles. Police cover-ups ? Get a life ! Thank God the man was not stopped by un-armed cops. devil's advocate's advisor

6:47pm Thu 10 Feb 11

exbtnbabe says...

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 !!!
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 !!! exbtnbabe

6:53pm Thu 10 Feb 11

kkj says...

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 !!!
Words almost fail me. Do you honestly, seriously, think that the police went there to shoot and kill him? Do you imagine that its simply a case of knocking on the door and saying "come on chum you're nicked", and he meekly aloows himself to be locked up?
.
In any case, the courts are the ones who do the locking up, and finally, its "could have", not "could of".
[quote][p][bold]exbtnbabe[/bold] 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 !!![/p][/quote]Words almost fail me. Do you honestly, seriously, think that the police went there to shoot and kill him? Do you imagine that its simply a case of knocking on the door and saying "come on chum you're nicked", and he meekly aloows himself to be locked up? . In any case, the courts are the ones who do the locking up, and finally, its "could have", not "could of". kkj

7:05pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

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
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

7:11pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Old Ladys Gin says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]armyeng1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]"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![/p][/quote]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. Old Ladys Gin

7:13pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Old Ladys Gin says...

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.
When someone makes a point you disagree with there is not need, or point, in being agressive in your response.
[quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]armyeng1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Old Ladys Gin[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]"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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]When someone makes a point you disagree with there is not need, or point, in being agressive in your response. Old Ladys Gin

7:19pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Never_Wrong says...

He was a bank robber with a handgun. What is the problem? Well done Sussex Police, one less criminal for us to worry about.
He was a bank robber with a handgun. What is the problem? Well done Sussex Police, one less criminal for us to worry about. Never_Wrong

7:22pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Nobleox says...

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?
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? Nobleox

7:29pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

He was a bank robber with a handgun. What is the problem? Well done Sussex Police, one less criminal for us to worry about.


did he actually point the gun at a police officer at close range..?
if he did,and i was a copper,id have shot him!

but,as is the usual way of things with uk police,no doubt it was probably a police marksman that took him out from 200 yards away!

the suspect being absoloutley no threat to the police.....


a man died today,and id like to think the person that did this,will be held accountable....
He was a bank robber with a handgun. What is the problem? Well done Sussex Police, one less criminal for us to worry about. did he actually point the gun at a police officer at close range..? if he did,and i was a copper,id have shot him! but,as is the usual way of things with uk police,no doubt it was probably a police marksman that took him out from 200 yards away! the suspect being absoloutley no threat to the police..... a man died today,and id like to think the person that did this,will be held accountable.... scotsguy

7:30pm Thu 10 Feb 11

missuk16 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]Seabreeze[/bold] wrote: Maybe he was Brazilian...[/p][/quote]what's that got to do with it??There is nothing wrong with Brazilian people.I think your being unfair by saying that. missuk16

7:34pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Anonymous Sussex Dweller says...

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
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 Anonymous Sussex Dweller

7:35pm Thu 10 Feb 11

MrEnigma says...

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
How is someone like you able to make a sweeping, inaccurate and totally idiotic comment like this?

It seems probable that the Police didn't know where he was staying, so couldn't wait till he fell asleep?

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.

What if the Police did wait for him to give himself up? When would he do that? What if he committed another robbery and someone got hurt or worse, killed?

If his gun was real and the Police shot him in the leg or arm, he could potentially still be a threat and continue to shoot at officers or members of the public.

No fire arms officer wants to have to make the decision to shoot someone....so if the 'copper' that shot the male reads this, I say:

What a hard job you have and I am thankful that there are people like yourself that put your own life on the line to look after others (the public and your un armed colleagues). I would hate to be in your position and by reading comments like this is just not on.

Brighton Police = Thank you
Scotsguy = Moron
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]How is someone like you able to make a sweeping, inaccurate and totally idiotic comment like this? It seems probable that the Police didn't know where he was staying, so couldn't wait till he fell asleep? 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. What if the Police did wait for him to give himself up? When would he do that? What if he committed another robbery and someone got hurt or worse, killed? If his gun was real and the Police shot him in the leg or arm, he could potentially still be a threat and continue to shoot at officers or members of the public. No fire arms officer wants to have to make the decision to shoot someone....so if the 'copper' that shot the male reads this, I say: What a hard job you have and I am thankful that there are people like yourself that put your own life on the line to look after others (the public and your un armed colleagues). I would hate to be in your position and by reading comments like this is just not on. Brighton Police = Thank you Scotsguy = Moron MrEnigma

7:36pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

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, 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

7:42pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

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....
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

7:47pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Anonymous Sussex Dweller says...

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....
You utter utter brainless idiot... this is no place for comments like that, you have no clue as to what went on today and yet you post such damning and unfactual remarks.
There is an officer today who did his job to the letter and you post a shameful shocking comment like that, that facts will come out about this in time and people will see what an outstanding job was done.
I'd like to think the majority of people share the same opinion of you as I... just go back into you sad little hole and do us all a favour.
If all you wanted to achieve is to wind people up then congratulations, that is one thing you have achieved.

You are a perfect example of all that is wrong with todays society, be proud of that fact and deal with it. That is my one and only reply so fire away and continue to get your ill-informed and blatantly anti-police rants off your chest. I will waste no more time on you.
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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....[/p][/quote]You utter utter brainless idiot... this is no place for comments like that, you have no clue as to what went on today and yet you post such damning and unfactual remarks. There is an officer today who did his job to the letter and you post a shameful shocking comment like that, that facts will come out about this in time and people will see what an outstanding job was done. I'd like to think the majority of people share the same opinion of you as I... just go back into you sad little hole and do us all a favour. If all you wanted to achieve is to wind people up then congratulations, that is one thing you have achieved. You are a perfect example of all that is wrong with todays society, be proud of that fact and deal with it. That is my one and only reply so fire away and continue to get your ill-informed and blatantly anti-police rants off your chest. I will waste no more time on you. Anonymous Sussex Dweller

7:49pm Thu 10 Feb 11

mark_d says...

The whole incident is a PR stunt to promote the new movie Brighton Rock, guys, can't you tell? ;-)
The whole incident is a PR stunt to promote the new movie Brighton Rock, guys, can't you tell? ;-) mark_d

7:51pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

There is an officer today who did his job to the letter...


that remains to be seen...
There is an officer today who did his job to the letter... that remains to be seen... scotsguy

7:56pm Thu 10 Feb 11

kkj says...

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....
"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.
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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....[/p][/quote]"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. kkj

8:02pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

"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!...
"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

8:07pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

i totaly agree, I'm sure decent people support armed police in dealing with these parasites!


shoot first...ask questions later?
i totaly agree, I'm sure decent people support armed police in dealing with these parasites! shoot first...ask questions later? scotsguy

8:08pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

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!
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

8:11pm Thu 10 Feb 11

RotNo11 says...

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!
With you attitude, i thank god its EX ARMY!
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?
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]With you attitude, i thank god its EX ARMY! 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? RotNo11

8:16pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

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?
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

8:23pm Thu 10 Feb 11

RotNo11 says...

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?
you honestly think that officer woke up this morning and thought "hey im gonna shoot someone today".. stupid.
Sussex Police Firearms Officers are trained to the government standards that give them the power to shoot to kill. They dont just shoot for the sake of it or on a whim.. that officer, another officer or an innocent bystander could have lost their life today. Due to that brave officers actions, that was not the case. If someone is stupid enough to have a firearm on their persons, immitation or real, they should be prepared for what consequences may lay ahead.. especially if you are gonna start waving it around with armed officer around.. thats suicide in my books.
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]you honestly think that officer woke up this morning and thought "hey im gonna shoot someone today".. stupid. Sussex Police Firearms Officers are trained to the government standards that give them the power to shoot to kill. They dont just shoot for the sake of it or on a whim.. that officer, another officer or an innocent bystander could have lost their life today. Due to that brave officers actions, that was not the case. If someone is stupid enough to have a firearm on their persons, immitation or real, they should be prepared for what consequences may lay ahead.. especially if you are gonna start waving it around with armed officer around.. thats suicide in my books. RotNo11

8:25pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

If someone is stupid enough to have a firearm on their persons, immitation or real, they should be prepared for what consequences may lay ahead.. especially if you are gonna start waving it around with armed officer around.. thats suicide in my books...


did he wave a gun around?....lets wait and see.
If someone is stupid enough to have a firearm on their persons, immitation or real, they should be prepared for what consequences may lay ahead.. especially if you are gonna start waving it around with armed officer around.. thats suicide in my books... did he wave a gun around?....lets wait and see. scotsguy

8:27pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

thats suicide in my books...

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

8:36pm Thu 10 Feb 11

kkj says...

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!...
"a man died today at the hands of brighton police!..."
.
Yes, thats roughly all we know at the moment, yet you appear to be convinced that the police have acted someway inappropriately. (Or at least you did at 7:36 - you appear less certain in subsequent posts).
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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!...[/p][/quote]"a man died today at the hands of brighton police!..." . Yes, thats roughly all we know at the moment, yet you appear to be convinced that the police have acted someway inappropriately. (Or at least you did at 7:36 - you appear less certain in subsequent posts). kkj

8:40pm Thu 10 Feb 11

RotNo11 says...

scotsguy wrote:
thats suicide in my books... precisley....
then y couldnt he take his own life if he wanted to die so much. Y drag a brave, honest officer in to the mix?
Go around robbing places and concealing a gun on his persons, what kind of person does that. And speaking from someone who knows the officers that attended Brighton today, it wasnt a fun day, it took a hell of alot of resources and caused dissrruption to the entire city. so not only was he content in robbing places, he caused a lil chaos after he was gone.
wish ud think about the officer for a few seconds and think what he might be feeling.
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] wrote: thats suicide in my books... precisley....[/p][/quote]then y couldnt he take his own life if he wanted to die so much. Y drag a brave, honest officer in to the mix? Go around robbing places and concealing a gun on his persons, what kind of person does that. And speaking from someone who knows the officers that attended Brighton today, it wasnt a fun day, it took a hell of alot of resources and caused dissrruption to the entire city. so not only was he content in robbing places, he caused a lil chaos after he was gone. wish ud think about the officer for a few seconds and think what he might be feeling. RotNo11

9:01pm Thu 10 Feb 11

devil's advocate's advisor says...

Scotsguy, you are an ignorant cop-hating cliche, what's the matter ? Get a speeding ticket lately ? or do the cops stop you fghting at the football ground ? I bet the armed robberies at least reduce in number if not stop completely. I bet the IPCC say "lawful killing". Do you know what the IPCC is Scotsguy ?
Scotsguy, you are an ignorant cop-hating cliche, what's the matter ? Get a speeding ticket lately ? or do the cops stop you fghting at the football ground ? I bet the armed robberies at least reduce in number if not stop completely. I bet the IPCC say "lawful killing". Do you know what the IPCC is Scotsguy ? devil's advocate's advisor

9:15pm Thu 10 Feb 11

peter_peter says...

Blimey :|

Is this the Daily Fail website ? (From some of the ignorant bile on here it looks like it)

Shame to see the amount of bigotry & assumptions/pre judgements on here really - I hope lots of those commenting aren't ever on a Jury the case will be decided before anyone hears or sees any ANY evidence
Blimey :| Is this the Daily Fail website ? (From some of the ignorant bile on here it looks like it) Shame to see the amount of bigotry & assumptions/pre judgements on here really - I hope lots of those commenting aren't ever on a Jury the case will be decided before anyone hears or sees any ANY evidence peter_peter

9:19pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Dave At Home says...

The guy that died today lived by the gun, he most likely robbed by the gun, frightened by the gun and unfortunately got killed by the gun. People who play with fire will always get burnt. If he was innocent, Intel would not have led the police to him. I hope he felt as terrified as some of the people he threatened in the post offices in Western Road and Seven Dials, plus a few more places. Brighton & Hove is a little safer tonight knowing there is one less thug on our streets.
The guy that died today lived by the gun, he most likely robbed by the gun, frightened by the gun and unfortunately got killed by the gun. People who play with fire will always get burnt. If he was innocent, Intel would not have led the police to him. I hope he felt as terrified as some of the people he threatened in the post offices in Western Road and Seven Dials, plus a few more places. Brighton & Hove is a little safer tonight knowing there is one less thug on our streets. Dave At Home

9:22pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Hove Actually says...

Good old Argus changing the story now so the comments dont refer to what was written.

Why bother having a comments section on these types of stories?
Good old Argus changing the story now so the comments dont refer to what was written. Why bother having a comments section on these types of stories? Hove Actually

9:33pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Gazza says...

I shall feel much safer now going to my local post office. Thank you Sussex Police for a job well done. I’m not religious but doesn’t it say who lives by the gun dies by the gun or was it sword.
I shall feel much safer now going to my local post office. Thank you Sussex Police for a job well done. I’m not religious but doesn’t it say who lives by the gun dies by the gun or was it sword. Gazza

9:34pm Thu 10 Feb 11

gersuk says...

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.
He/she is referring to Jean Charles de Mendez, murdered by the police.....

http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Death_of_Je
an_Charles_de_Meneze
s
[quote][p][bold]missuk16[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Seabreeze[/bold] wrote: Maybe he was Brazilian...[/p][/quote]what's that got to do with it??There is nothing wrong with Brazilian people.I think your being unfair by saying that.[/p][/quote]He/she is referring to Jean Charles de Mendez, murdered by the police..... http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Death_of_Je an_Charles_de_Meneze s gersuk

9:34pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Alan P says...

To clarify - Police shoot to neutralise. Not to kill.
And scotsguy for your info shooting the person in the leg doesnt stop someone from pulling a trigger. Oh and as most people have two arms/hands, shooting them in the arm doesnt help either! Doughnut
Police aim at the biggest bodily mass area as trying to shoot someone in the finger is quite hard!
Its a shame the male decided to act this way and has now lost his life but well done Sussex police for being professional
To clarify - Police shoot to neutralise. Not to kill. And scotsguy for your info shooting the person in the leg doesnt stop someone from pulling a trigger. Oh and as most people have two arms/hands, shooting them in the arm doesnt help either! Doughnut Police aim at the biggest bodily mass area as trying to shoot someone in the finger is quite hard! Its a shame the male decided to act this way and has now lost his life but well done Sussex police for being professional Alan P

9:47pm Thu 10 Feb 11

angry monkey says...

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.
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. angry monkey

9:52pm Thu 10 Feb 11

jay316 says...

Well people would be bleating if they got shot by an armed robber..

I am interested to know what people would do if they had a gunman pointing a gun at them.. oh yeah nothing probably.

As for gun ho police, all people who have been shot by police have been given time to drop weapon.. if you have police shout "armed police, drop your weapon" surely its best to do that.

Tazers I believe are the way forward, and I am a firm believer that all police including PCSO's should be issued with them.

Also remember the old saying "shoot or be shot"...


Finally we have to be thankful we don;'t have police like many other countries, who all carry guns, and shot to kill.. not **** about like ours!
Well people would be bleating if they got shot by an armed robber.. I am interested to know what people would do if they had a gunman pointing a gun at them.. oh yeah nothing probably. As for gun ho police, all people who have been shot by police have been given time to drop weapon.. if you have police shout "armed police, drop your weapon" surely its best to do that. Tazers I believe are the way forward, and I am a firm believer that all police including PCSO's should be issued with them. Also remember the old saying "shoot or be shot"... Finally we have to be thankful we don;'t have police like many other countries, who all carry guns, and shot to kill.. not **** about like ours! jay316

9:53pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

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...
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

9:54pm Thu 10 Feb 11

gersuk says...

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.
When an incident like this occurs (somebody losing their life), questions need to be asked. Even the police are not above the law.
[quote][p][bold]angry monkey[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]When an incident like this occurs (somebody losing their life), questions need to be asked. Even the police are not above the law. gersuk

9:57pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

As for gun ho police, all people who have been shot by police have been given time to drop weapon..

really! what about police marksmen 300 yards away....


it seems to me that the vast majority on here are advocating killing!...but its ok,its the police that are doing it!...
As for gun ho police, all people who have been shot by police have been given time to drop weapon.. really! what about police marksmen 300 yards away.... it seems to me that the vast majority on here are advocating killing!...but its ok,its the police that are doing it!... scotsguy

10:06pm Thu 10 Feb 11

angry monkey says...

scotsguy you been watching to many films maybe you should get out your livingroom and see the real world.
I really think you should think of the police and pressure that must be under at this sort of incident. They would not shot if not feel them selfs or public life at risk.
scotsguy you been watching to many films maybe you should get out your livingroom and see the real world. I really think you should think of the police and pressure that must be under at this sort of incident. They would not shot if not feel them selfs or public life at risk. angry monkey

10:15pm Thu 10 Feb 11

gersuk says...

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...
No point debating with people just out of primary 3, mate.
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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...[/p][/quote]No point debating with people just out of primary 3, mate. gersuk

10:33pm Thu 10 Feb 11

argunaut says...

The Telegraph quote police as saying it happened in Upper Rock Gardens
(http://www.telegrap
h.co.uk/news/uknews/
law-and-order/831646
1/Man-shot-dead-by-p
olice.html)
but the Argus picture is clearly Rock Place.
http://goo.gl/maps/D
VTT

(Where the Tele's photo is from (beyond AP) is anybody's guess.)
The Telegraph quote police as saying it happened in Upper Rock Gardens (http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/news/uknews/ law-and-order/831646 1/Man-shot-dead-by-p olice.html) but the Argus picture is clearly Rock Place. http://goo.gl/maps/D VTT (Where the Tele's photo is from (beyond AP) is anybody's guess.) argunaut

10:41pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Bingowings says...

Spare a thought for the innocent people traumatised by this armed robber. It's a horrible experience they'll never forget.

As for him. It was only a matter of time before he came to a sticky end.
Spare a thought for the innocent people traumatised by this armed robber. It's a horrible experience they'll never forget. As for him. It was only a matter of time before he came to a sticky end. Bingowings

10:46pm Thu 10 Feb 11

D360 says...

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!
You are not ex army otherwise you wouldn't be making stupid comments like "why didn't they shoot him in the leg"
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]You are not ex army otherwise you wouldn't be making stupid comments like "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" D360

10:52pm Thu 10 Feb 11

secret agent says...

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.
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. secret agent

11:07pm Thu 10 Feb 11

Metro Reader says...

an i the only one who thinks the reporting is rather poor, even by the argus standards?

Repeats its self at least twice if not more.
an i the only one who thinks the reporting is rather poor, even by the argus standards? Repeats its self at least twice if not more. Metro Reader

11:08pm Thu 10 Feb 11

argunaut says...

"Wanted man dies..."
Do we even know if it's the wanted man who was killed? He hasn't been identified as far as I'm aware. Ten hours later and we're still in the dark. One more mention of "pre-planned" operation and I'll scream. So glad it wasn't a post-planned operation.

"PoliceOracle" are talking about Upper Rock Gardens too (http://is.gd/1fXRxB
) while Sky use the exact same quote substituting Rock Place. http://is.gd/KhhIlP

Get on the case.
"Wanted man dies..." Do we even know if it's the wanted man who was killed? He hasn't been identified as far as I'm aware. Ten hours later and we're still in the dark. One more mention of "pre-planned" operation and I'll scream. So glad it wasn't a post-planned operation. "PoliceOracle" are talking about Upper Rock Gardens too (http://is.gd/1fXRxB ) while Sky use the exact same quote substituting Rock Place. http://is.gd/KhhIlP Get on the case. argunaut

11:22pm Thu 10 Feb 11

tpebop... says...

Police are people, and people LIE lets not forget this fact.
Police are people, and people LIE lets not forget this fact. tpebop...

11:23pm Thu 10 Feb 11

meaty loaf says...

The combination of fire arms and police officers is always going to be a lethal combination. And as for the Police Complaints Authority, that's a joke. I remember making a complaint against a police officer once for assault but no one wanted to believe me when I told them he was violently unstable or rather they chose to cover it up. I wonder what happened to him? Oh yes, a couple of years later he was prosecuted for beating up his girlfriend. If you type in Sergeant Michael Fitzgerald in the Argus search box the article comes up.
The combination of fire arms and police officers is always going to be a lethal combination. And as for the Police Complaints Authority, that's a joke. I remember making a complaint against a police officer once for assault but no one wanted to believe me when I told them he was violently unstable or rather they chose to cover it up. I wonder what happened to him? Oh yes, a couple of years later he was prosecuted for beating up his girlfriend. If you type in Sergeant Michael Fitzgerald in the Argus search box the article comes up. meaty loaf

11:26pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

You are not ex army otherwise you wouldn't be making stupid comments like "why didn't they shoot him in the leg"



24 years,ACC and proud of it,you my friend have a potshot at me,rather than addressing the issue...how sad....shallow mind!

ps in the army youd always go for a full body shot!,but in civvy st....i think not.
You are not ex army otherwise you wouldn't be making stupid comments like "why didn't they shoot him in the leg" 24 years,ACC and proud of it,you my friend have a potshot at me,rather than addressing the issue...how sad....shallow mind! ps in the army youd always go for a full body shot!,but in civvy st....i think not. scotsguy

11:53pm Thu 10 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

Well for 1, he threatened innocent people that worked for a living.

2, He brandished a gun on the street!

3, The world is much better rid of scum like him

Well done Sussex police....


my friend...you ovbiously seem to be in the know as regards this alleged criminal...


where do you get your facts from?

i have no problem if a lawfull police officer is faced with a gun totting criminal,who has pointed a gun at him...kill or be killed!....

but if no one pointed a gun....then its a different story.

i have no wish to see anyone die,regardless of the circumstances,but in the times that we live in,its not a reality,but we live in uk....and i thank god that incidents like this are rare.
Well for 1, he threatened innocent people that worked for a living. 2, He brandished a gun on the street! 3, The world is much better rid of scum like him Well done Sussex police.... my friend...you ovbiously seem to be in the know as regards this alleged criminal... where do you get your facts from? i have no problem if a lawfull police officer is faced with a gun totting criminal,who has pointed a gun at him...kill or be killed!.... but if no one pointed a gun....then its a different story. i have no wish to see anyone die,regardless of the circumstances,but in the times that we live in,its not a reality,but we live in uk....and i thank god that incidents like this are rare. scotsguy

11:57pm Thu 10 Feb 11

argunaut says...

@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.
@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. argunaut

12:00am Fri 11 Feb 11

argunaut says...

@scotsguy You beat me to it.
@scotsguy You beat me to it. argunaut

12:02am Fri 11 Feb 11

sisaydo1 says...

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.
The news said a MAN in his 40s you numpty!
[quote][p][bold]argunaut[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]The news said a MAN in his 40s you numpty! sisaydo1

12:03am Fri 11 Feb 11

Valerie Paynter says...

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'.
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'. Valerie Paynter

12:08am Fri 11 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

@scotsguy You beat me to it.


lollllllllllll

val...the voice of reason...ty
@scotsguy You beat me to it. lollllllllllll val...the voice of reason...ty scotsguy

12:10am Fri 11 Feb 11

argunaut says...

@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.
@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. argunaut

12:13am Fri 11 Feb 11

sisaydo1 says...

scotsguy wrote:
@scotsguy You beat me to it.


lollllllllllll

val...the voice of reason...ty
I suppose you would prefer to see him locked up for a few years at the tax payer expense while lording it with an easy life and sky tv, Bloody human rights supporters
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] wrote: @scotsguy You beat me to it. lollllllllllll val...the voice of reason...ty[/p][/quote]I suppose you would prefer to see him locked up for a few years at the tax payer expense while lording it with an easy life and sky tv, Bloody human rights supporters sisaydo1

12:14am Fri 11 Feb 11

Valerie Paynter says...

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.
Your comment suggests there are lots of witness statements that will be taken down in due course and used to provide answers for all the overexcited schoolboys ranting away like billyo behind this story.
[quote][p][bold]secret agent[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]Your comment suggests there are lots of witness statements that will be taken down in due course and used to provide answers for all the overexcited schoolboys ranting away like billyo behind this story. Valerie Paynter

12:14am Fri 11 Feb 11

gersuk says...

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'.
Bingo! Doubt the nutter sisaydo1 will agree though.
[quote][p][bold]Valerie Paynter[/bold] 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'.[/p][/quote]Bingo! Doubt the nutter sisaydo1 will agree though. gersuk

12:15am Fri 11 Feb 11

sisaydo1 says...

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.
I would say the majority actually!
[quote][p][bold]argunaut[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]I would say the majority actually! sisaydo1

12:17am Fri 11 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

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!
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! scotsguy

12:22am Fri 11 Feb 11

sisaydo1 says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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. sisaydo1

12:26am Fri 11 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

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?
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? scotsguy

12:26am Fri 11 Feb 11

gersuk says...

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.
Christ knows whet this fellah did to upset the gavvers....

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
1093190/De-Menezes-j
ury-damns-police-cov
er-Officers-claims-w
arning-Brazilian-rej
ected.html

or him...

http://www.guardian.
co.uk/uk/g20-police-
assault-ian-tomlinso
n
[quote][p][bold]sisaydo1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]Christ knows whet this fellah did to upset the gavvers.... http://www.dailymail .co.uk/news/article- 1093190/De-Menezes-j ury-damns-police-cov er-Officers-claims-w arning-Brazilian-rej ected.html or him... http://www.guardian. co.uk/uk/g20-police- assault-ian-tomlinso n gersuk

1:00am Fri 11 Feb 11

Rocker says...

A guy,assumed to be tracked down for a series of armed robberies gets exterminated as he walks the streets with a gun. Good stuff.

Moral of the story : dont wave a gun in the streets or you'll get executed.

Brighton is a safer place tonight. Well done the Old Bill on this one,getting rid of rubbish like armed robbers.
A guy,assumed to be tracked down for a series of armed robberies gets exterminated as he walks the streets with a gun. Good stuff. Moral of the story : dont wave a gun in the streets or you'll get executed. Brighton is a safer place tonight. Well done the Old Bill on this one,getting rid of rubbish like armed robbers. Rocker

1:12am Fri 11 Feb 11

cheaptramp says...

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.
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. cheaptramp

1:13am Fri 11 Feb 11

scotsguy says...

Brighton is a safer place tonight. Well done the Old Bill on this one,getting rid of rubbish like armed robbers.


im sure the IPCC will have a different view....
Brighton is a safer place tonight. Well done the Old Bill on this one,getting rid of rubbish like armed robbers. im sure the IPCC will have a different view.... scotsguy

1:13am Fri 11 Feb 11

Baron of Sussex says...

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?
Inquests. We, the public, want to know if the correct procedure was followed, as I am sure the deceased family does.
[quote][p][bold]Nobleox[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]Inquests. We, the public, want to know if the correct procedure was followed, as I am sure the deceased family does. Baron of Sussex

1:56am Fri 11 Feb 11

samikhan says...

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,,,,
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,,,, samikhan

2:40am Fri 11 Feb 11

P.Dant says...

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.
You mean "supercilious".
[quote][p][bold]cheaptramp[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]You mean "supercilious". P.Dant

2:52am Fri 11 Feb 11

halfc says...

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.
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. halfc

4:47am Fri 11 Feb 11

Sussevingian says...

The police ought to summarily shoot litterers and jaywalkers. Other crimes wouldn't even be thought about then.
The police ought to summarily shoot litterers and jaywalkers. Other crimes wouldn't even be thought about then. Sussevingian

4:53am Fri 11 Feb 11

JamesFarter says...

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,,,,
What information are you basing your views on? The information in this report is:
1) police shot a male
2) he was a suspect to armed robberies
3) a gun was recovered at the scene

how did the police give him opportunities? Did they give him the gun? Please do give us the extra information you clearly must hold to make such an informed statement.

Or, if like most, you are reading the article above and putting your own version of events together then please don't bother posting.

My view is, that if you carry a gun, whether you point it at anyone or not, you have to realise you may get shot by police. We're not talking about a pencil sharpener, guns were designed to kill things..

If he had a gun, well done Sussex Police, the right person has died.
[quote][p][bold]samikhan[/bold] 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,,,,[/p][/quote]What information are you basing your views on? The information in this report is: 1) police shot a male 2) he was a suspect to armed robberies 3) a gun was recovered at the scene how did the police give him opportunities? Did they give him the gun? Please do give us the extra information you clearly must hold to make such an informed statement. Or, if like most, you are reading the article above and putting your own version of events together then please don't bother posting. My view is, that if you carry a gun, whether you point it at anyone or not, you have to realise you may get shot by police. We're not talking about a pencil sharpener, guns were designed to kill things.. If he had a gun, well done Sussex Police, the right person has died. JamesFarter

5:02am Fri 11 Feb 11

JamesFarter says...

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.
It would appear that your first observation is correct for your comment too..

So if he was about to kill someone then he shouldn't have been shot? Do you know whether he attacked anyone? Do you know whether he killed anyone? Do you know him?
[quote][p][bold]halfc[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]It would appear that your first observation is correct for your comment too.. So if he was about to kill someone then he shouldn't have been shot? Do you know whether he attacked anyone? Do you know whether he killed anyone? Do you know him? JamesFarter

7:05am Fri 11 Feb 11

Ya wine me UP, 'sta says...

123 of the previous comments are pointless.
123 of the previous comments are pointless. Ya wine me UP, 'sta

7:32am Fri 11 Feb 11

lordenglandofsussex says...

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!
Where have you served in combat?
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Where have you served in combat? lordenglandofsussex

7:44am Fri 11 Feb 11

Finbar 1 says...

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

8:18am Fri 11 Feb 11

rolivan says...

"I only know the neighbours to say hello to but it's usually a very quiet street, we don't usually have any trouble here."
It would appear They go and cause trouble elsewhere then
"I only know the neighbours to say hello to but it's usually a very quiet street, we don't usually have any trouble here." It would appear They go and cause trouble elsewhere then rolivan

8:28am Fri 11 Feb 11

steveP2009 says...

What a load of speculative comments. Thanks god none of you work for the police. Just let the inquiry take place and make your comments then. As for cover ups, that's what I used to think when I went to raving clubs. My paranoia stopped when I stopped taking substances...
What a load of speculative comments. Thanks god none of you work for the police. Just let the inquiry take place and make your comments then. As for cover ups, that's what I used to think when I went to raving clubs. My paranoia stopped when I stopped taking substances... steveP2009

9:17am Fri 11 Feb 11

armyeng1 says...

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.
The only problem with your statement besides the fact that it shows your ignorance and lack of intelligence; is that if this was the man the police where looking for he would still be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a mob style execution by trigger happy police.

Also unlawful death is going to cost the taxpayers of this City alot more than unlawful injury. I can honestly say that I would feel more comfortable having this man around than having people that think like you do. You act and speak without thought and obviously intelligence and the scary part is that you believe what you say and think. Scarrrrrry
[quote][p][bold]lainesy[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]The only problem with your statement besides the fact that it shows your ignorance and lack of intelligence; is that if this was the man the police where looking for he would still be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not a mob style execution by trigger happy police. Also unlawful death is going to cost the taxpayers of this City alot more than unlawful injury. I can honestly say that I would feel more comfortable having this man around than having people that think like you do. You act and speak without thought and obviously intelligence and the scary part is that you believe what you say and think. Scarrrrrry armyeng1

9:25am Fri 11 Feb 11

D360 says...

Finbar 1 wrote:
Why did they not use a taser ? The Police do seem to be very trigger happy.
Idiot...
[quote][p][bold]Finbar 1[/bold] wrote: Why did they not use a taser ? The Police do seem to be very trigger happy.[/p][/quote]Idiot... D360

9:34am Fri 11 Feb 11

armyeng1 says...

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
The reason you have not bought a paper in twenty years is because you are cheap and chose to read it online for free! As for the media being tough on Police, I dont agree with this at all, again with hundreds of civilians killed annually and Police rarely if ever held accountable, I believe more needs to be done.

They say a black item was found at the scene but they have to analyze it to see if its a toy or a real gun and test wether it has been fired? Are you kidding me? Police cant pick up a gun and tell wether its real or fake? Cant smell it and find a casing to see if its been fired? If this is the case, then they shouldnt be allowed to handle a real one.

Have you seen the video of police shooting a man in a wheel chair weilding a knife in the middle of the street? There was six police with guns and shot guns and they opened fire on him and said he was a threat to them. LMAO, threat? Really? Give me a break!
[quote][p][bold]Anonymous Sussex Dweller[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]The reason you have not bought a paper in twenty years is because you are cheap and chose to read it online for free! As for the media being tough on Police, I dont agree with this at all, again with hundreds of civilians killed annually and Police rarely if ever held accountable, I believe more needs to be done. They say a black item was found at the scene but they have to analyze it to see if its a toy or a real gun and test wether it has been fired? Are you kidding me? Police cant pick up a gun and tell wether its real or fake? Cant smell it and find a casing to see if its been fired? If this is the case, then they shouldnt be allowed to handle a real one. Have you seen the video of police shooting a man in a wheel chair weilding a knife in the middle of the street? There was six police with guns and shot guns and they opened fire on him and said he was a threat to them. LMAO, threat? Really? Give me a break! armyeng1

9:44am Fri 11 Feb 11

elfinbrighton says...

@armyeng1 You're clearly a) not an army engineer and b) a ****.
@armyeng1 You're clearly a) not an army engineer and b) a ****. elfinbrighton

9:46am Fri 11 Feb 11

Brighton Lad says...

I feel sorry for the police in this instance. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I don't know the circumstances any more than most of you, but I don't believe that the armed police sit around in their canteen and 'hope they can use their weapons today' They were obviously in a no win situation, and a decision was taken to eliminate a threat. I am just glad I don't have to make these life changing decisions.
I feel sorry for the police in this instance. They are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. I don't know the circumstances any more than most of you, but I don't believe that the armed police sit around in their canteen and 'hope they can use their weapons today' They were obviously in a no win situation, and a decision was taken to eliminate a threat. I am just glad I don't have to make these life changing decisions. Brighton Lad

10:12am Fri 11 Feb 11

Peacehaven27 says...

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?!
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?! Peacehaven27

10:33am Fri 11 Feb 11

Baldseagull says...

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.
If you carry a gun, or something that looks like a gun, you risk being shot.
Stun guns and CS spray need to be used at close range, and I am not sure that CS would stop him pulling a trigger or that passing 50,000 volts through his body will not cause his finger to contract on to the trigger.

That said, it always should be investigated thoroughly when the police cause the death or serious injury of a suspect.
[quote][p][bold]halfc[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]If you carry a gun, or something that looks like a gun, you risk being shot. Stun guns and CS spray need to be used at close range, and I am not sure that CS would stop him pulling a trigger or that passing 50,000 volts through his body will not cause his finger to contract on to the trigger. That said, it always should be investigated thoroughly when the police cause the death or serious injury of a suspect. Baldseagull

11:06am Fri 11 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

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?!
Peacehaven27 you just don't seem to be getting it do you? They killed a man because he pulled a gun on them (I've spoken to a mate in Sussex Police who confirmed that he was aiming the gun at the armed officers).
I'm not sure why you don't understand why he was shot. It doesn't matter what he was wanted for - he was known to be armed and pointed the gun at the police (that's why his body still had the gun in its hand!!!). If you just went on here to have another (very boring) pop at bankers bonuses then why not wait for another student march and comment on that story.
[quote][p][bold]Peacehaven27[/bold] 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?![/p][/quote]Peacehaven27 you just don't seem to be getting it do you? They killed a man because he pulled a gun on them (I've spoken to a mate in Sussex Police who confirmed that he was aiming the gun at the armed officers). I'm not sure why you don't understand why he was shot. It doesn't matter what he was wanted for - he was known to be armed and pointed the gun at the police (that's why his body still had the gun in its hand!!!). If you just went on here to have another (very boring) pop at bankers bonuses then why not wait for another student march and comment on that story. AmboGuy

11:09am Fri 11 Feb 11

scoobyjones1 says...

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.
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. scoobyjones1

11:23am Fri 11 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

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!!
[quote][p][bold]scoobyjones1[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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!! AmboGuy

11:36am Fri 11 Feb 11

scoobyjones1 says...

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!!
I was commenting on the above posts which were related to the original report and the man was unknown at that time. From what we are hearing now it seems the police acted lawfully. However this needs to be confirmed in a court of law and not just by newspaper comments which may well be true, but may also come from the police media liason officer. Let's hope the police have learnt from previous mistakes and improved their procedure. If they have then well done to them for that at least.
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]scoobyjones1[/bold] 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.[/p][/quote]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!![/p][/quote]I was commenting on the above posts which were related to the original report and the man was unknown at that time. From what we are hearing now it seems the police acted lawfully. However this needs to be confirmed in a court of law and not just by newspaper comments which may well be true, but may also come from the police media liason officer. Let's hope the police have learnt from previous mistakes and improved their procedure. If they have then well done to them for that at least. scoobyjones1

12:09pm Fri 11 Feb 11

Dizd says...

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!
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! Dizd

2:43pm Fri 11 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

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!
I agree. Some people on here seem to think that he was 'just' a bank robber! I can't imagine the sheer terror of having someone point a gun at you when you've just come in to do your days work. Sadly we seem to live in a world where the victims of crime seem to be all too easily forgotten about. As for the guy who got shot - if you live by the sword then you have to be prepared to die by the sword.
[quote][p][bold]Dizd[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]I agree. Some people on here seem to think that he was 'just' a bank robber! I can't imagine the sheer terror of having someone point a gun at you when you've just come in to do your days work. Sadly we seem to live in a world where the victims of crime seem to be all too easily forgotten about. As for the guy who got shot - if you live by the sword then you have to be prepared to die by the sword. AmboGuy

3:43pm Fri 11 Feb 11

Brightonscouse2 says...

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?
He was a danger to the police officers involved in the operation and himself. What are they meant to do pop up to his front door and ask him to come quietly?

You appear to be convinced the police are in the wrong. Yet when anyone challenges you on this you say "wait for the investigation". Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

To the person that keeps claiming the police "shoot hundreds of civilians a year" would you care to provide some evidence to back this up? Instead of going on a mad rant.
[quote][p][bold]scotsguy[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]He was a danger to the police officers involved in the operation and himself. What are they meant to do pop up to his front door and ask him to come quietly? You appear to be convinced the police are in the wrong. Yet when anyone challenges you on this you say "wait for the investigation". Perhaps you should practice what you preach. To the person that keeps claiming the police "shoot hundreds of civilians a year" would you care to provide some evidence to back this up? Instead of going on a mad rant. Brightonscouse2

3:55pm Fri 11 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

And to all of the bleeding heart brigade who seem to be painting Michael Fitzpatrick as some kind of innocent victim here - he had a gun on him, it was a real gun and HE fired the first shot at the police. What were the police supposed to do? Give him a stern talking to?
And to all of the bleeding heart brigade who seem to be painting Michael Fitzpatrick as some kind of innocent victim here - he had a gun on him, it was a real gun and HE fired the first shot at the police. What were the police supposed to do? Give him a stern talking to? AmboGuy

4:41pm Fri 11 Feb 11

Frank-In-Sense says...

90% of the people commenting clearly have no idea about ballistics, or firearms in general.


Suggesting such rubbish as shooting someone in the leg?
Such a shot would never be taken, it's always center of mass, shoot to stop the threat. For one you can hit the CoM much more easily, there's a much reduced chance of over-penetration (the bullet passing through the body, continuing on, and hitting another person), and when someone is shot in the CoM, it is much more likely to stop them from continuing on.


Spraying someone holding a gun with CS gas is just ridiculous frankly, a blinded, angry person with a gun is barely any better, and the officer would have to get within the operational distance for their spray to work (you're talking less than 10m).
If he had a knife, then fair enough, a spray or a tazer will be a good option, a gun is a different story altogether.


Are commenters seriously suggesting that an unarmed police officer should have walked over and asked him nicely to put his gun away and put his hands behind his back?


Finally, how would the commenters feel if he hadn't been hard-stopped, and instead taken refuge in the nearby Brighton Institute of Modern Music which was full of students?
90% of the people commenting clearly have no idea about ballistics, or firearms in general. Suggesting such rubbish as shooting someone in the leg? Such a shot would never be taken, it's always center of mass, shoot to stop the threat. For one you can hit the CoM much more easily, there's a much reduced chance of over-penetration (the bullet passing through the body, continuing on, and hitting another person), and when someone is shot in the CoM, it is much more likely to stop them from continuing on. Spraying someone holding a gun with CS gas is just ridiculous frankly, a blinded, angry person with a gun is barely any better, and the officer would have to get within the operational distance for their spray to work (you're talking less than 10m). If he had a knife, then fair enough, a spray or a tazer will be a good option, a gun is a different story altogether. Are commenters seriously suggesting that an unarmed police officer should have walked over and asked him nicely to put his gun away and put his hands behind his back? Finally, how would the commenters feel if he hadn't been hard-stopped, and instead taken refuge in the nearby Brighton Institute of Modern Music which was full of students? Frank-In-Sense

5:33pm Fri 11 Feb 11

argunaut says...

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?
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? argunaut

6:32pm Fri 11 Feb 11

ChrisDS says...

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
now theres the joke ............ the facts will be, as they always are, inventions to fit what the public want to hear rather than what actually happened! the ploice shot this man there were then hours for the police to change and or remove the evidence to fit what they wanted anyone to see. They of course will deny any wrongdoing and there isnt a cat in hells chance the REAL truth will ever come out !
[quote][p][bold]snaggybird[/bold] 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[/p][/quote]now theres the joke ............ the facts will be, as they always are, inventions to fit what the public want to hear rather than what actually happened! the ploice shot this man there were then hours for the police to change and or remove the evidence to fit what they wanted anyone to see. They of course will deny any wrongdoing and there isnt a cat in hells chance the REAL truth will ever come out ! ChrisDS

6:42pm Fri 11 Feb 11

kostas says...

I see the Argus removed my previous comment. WHY?
Here it is again:
This scumbag got what he deserved and now, 24 hours on, we learn even more about what a scumbag he really was! ROT IN HELL you horrible little man!!!
I see the Argus removed my previous comment. WHY? Here it is again: This scumbag got what he deserved and now, 24 hours on, we learn even more about what a scumbag he really was! ROT IN HELL you horrible little man!!! kostas

7:44pm Fri 11 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

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.
[quote][p][bold]argunaut[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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. AmboGuy

9:32pm Fri 11 Feb 11

ChrisDS says...

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.
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!
[quote][p][bold]AmboGuy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]argunaut[/bold] 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?[/p][/quote]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.[/p][/quote]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

9:36pm Fri 11 Feb 11

ChrisDS says...

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!
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

11:05pm Fri 11 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

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!
Hmm a highly educated believer in democracy eh? Sounds very self righteous. No-one has said that the Police are, as you put it, 'holier than thou' and I do not believe this myself but neither do I think that were there 'changing or removing evidence' as you stated in your extremely libelous statement. I am interested to know what your long and vast experience of the police force actually is and how you know exactly how they work. Do you know something we don't? Have you ever worked for them? - no thought not. I'm thinking that if you suspect they were purposely perverting the course of justice by changing or removing evidence (and lets face it you're insinuating the gun was planted) then you should contact the IPCC - or are they in collusion with the police too? As for leaking information! Come on do you think that no-one else knows this? There were lots of witnesses who saw him do this so I doubt it's a state secret really is it? This will be out in the media soon.
[quote][p][bold]ChrisDS[/bold] 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![/p][/quote]Hmm a highly educated believer in democracy eh? Sounds very self righteous. No-one has said that the Police are, as you put it, 'holier than thou' and I do not believe this myself but neither do I think that were there 'changing or removing evidence' as you stated in your extremely libelous statement. I am interested to know what your long and vast experience of the police force actually is and how you know exactly how they work. Do you know something we don't? Have you ever worked for them? - no thought not. I'm thinking that if you suspect they were purposely perverting the course of justice by changing or removing evidence (and lets face it you're insinuating the gun was planted) then you should contact the IPCC - or are they in collusion with the police too? As for leaking information! Come on do you think that no-one else knows this? There were lots of witnesses who saw him do this so I doubt it's a state secret really is it? This will be out in the media soon. AmboGuy

2:22am Sat 12 Feb 11

ChrisDS says...

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 !
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

9:08am Sat 12 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

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 !
You seem to have purposely avoided answering the question of what your long and vast experience of the police force actually is and how you know exactly how they work. You now come out with another bold statement of "The police seem, on an all too regular basis, want to circumvent the system". How do you know this? Is this something you can prove to be true or is it just something you heard down the Cowley Club?
[quote][p][bold]ChrisDS[/bold] 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 ![/p][/quote]You seem to have purposely avoided answering the question of what your long and vast experience of the police force actually is and how you know exactly how they work. You now come out with another bold statement of "The police seem, on an all too regular basis, want to circumvent the system". How do you know this? Is this something you can prove to be true or is it just something you heard down the Cowley Club? AmboGuy

3:08pm Sat 12 Feb 11

GRANDAD says...

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 !
So you rightly ask for the suspect to be proven guilty of his crimes in a court of law yet the police, who are forced into these situations and are protecting the public, you condemn without any recourse to natural justice because you, and a few others like you, want a gunman to be given every benefit of the doubt.
Well, I for one am glad we have a police force brave enough to tackle these incidents and we don't have to rely on barrack room lawyers like you
[quote][p][bold]ChrisDS[/bold] 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 ![/p][/quote]So you rightly ask for the suspect to be proven guilty of his crimes in a court of law yet the police, who are forced into these situations and are protecting the public, you condemn without any recourse to natural justice because you, and a few others like you, want a gunman to be given every benefit of the doubt. Well, I for one am glad we have a police force brave enough to tackle these incidents and we don't have to rely on barrack room lawyers like you GRANDAD

3:25pm Sat 12 Feb 11

steveP2009 says...

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')
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

5:50pm Sat 12 Feb 11

Mr Lahey says...

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')
well said
[quote][p][bold]steveP2009[/bold] 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')[/p][/quote]well said Mr Lahey

6:54pm Sat 12 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

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')
I agree. The problem is people like ChrisDS who describes himself as 'highly educated' coming on here with a hatred of the police and making extremely serious allegations against them without even being there. I aksed him to explain how he has 'a long and vast experience of the police force, and how they actually work' but he has failed to eleborate - I'm thinking now it seems that his experience of them is from him being on the wrong side of the law a few times! There will always be stupid people in this world - it's just a shame some of them post on this website.
[quote][p][bold]steveP2009[/bold] 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')[/p][/quote]I agree. The problem is people like ChrisDS who describes himself as 'highly educated' coming on here with a hatred of the police and making extremely serious allegations against them without even being there. I aksed him to explain how he has 'a long and vast experience of the police force, and how they actually work' but he has failed to eleborate - I'm thinking now it seems that his experience of them is from him being on the wrong side of the law a few times! There will always be stupid people in this world - it's just a shame some of them post on this website. AmboGuy

11:22pm Mon 14 Feb 11

AmboGuy says...

ChrisDS you there? Hello, care to answer how you know the police so well? No? Cheerio then!!
ChrisDS you there? Hello, care to answer how you know the police so well? No? Cheerio then!! AmboGuy

10:05pm Wed 16 Feb 11

Dah says...

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?!
So true.
[quote][p][bold]Peacehaven27[/bold] 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?![/p][/quote]So true. Dah

1:51am Thu 17 Feb 11

joeyzf1? says...

Ambogay and IZzy for real seem to grab hold of a spelling mistake more than the real facts! I'm just so glad I get
My enjoyment out if running a business by taking severely disabled people on daytrips DAILY! not leaving old ladies in hospitals for hours on end whilst looking important in green uniforms awaiting a ride home normally5-8 late! Able to comment on a odd spelling mistake ! How low can one go, the findings are not known as yet, Ambogay and plastic man "izzyforreal"! How English is that?? Hmm, ignore the lowlife no nothings! If they
New michael Fitzpatrick as i once dis i could understand! they could pass judgement! But Mc d,s and feeling important , great job boys! lmao! , I won't answer these apparent nosey losers! To those who new fitZy I will answer! If the 2 in question want to chat about things save the forums say a place I'll take
My patients to brighton, show then a contract phone!! Not a
Freeby work phone or pay as you throw. Just date and time me at
Your
Leisure and well have a coffee and some English lessons for myself!! My my! The story is a
Man has been shot dead by armed police and await
Ipcc findings! As for anybody like
Myself
Who new the man can pass comments, iZzy and Ambogay there's many forums apart
From
This one you can peruse, michael was an Old Friend !!cannot change the fact I new the man!!' so to
Those who no nothing such as Ambogay(green uniformed A-level needed gizzaJob v.I.p, strange how you comment on things
You no zero about! Henpecked I think! Email me
Arrange a chat look forward to it , fitzy is not about to answer the questions!! Or morons like your good selves wouldn't think spelling mistakes are
More important, 9am dss, like unsaid you understand there literature, ipcc so do the job to shut these loafers up please, Brighton feb 21st my disabled daytrip has been booked, to those having to put up with neandathals, I apoiligise!, anybody with funeral dates please inform,thanks, izzyplastic and Ambogay will Be on the next juicy story by then im am sure!! To those that new him please post, to those with nothing better to do get a
Life and
Goodbye! I've booked a college course just for you 2 payasyougo lads? Lasses? Both? Please get this sorted ipcc and get the next nutters off the streets!... And to the officers involved, my thoughts are with you....
Ambogay and IZzy for real seem to grab hold of a spelling mistake more than the real facts! I'm just so glad I get My enjoyment out if running a business by taking severely disabled people on daytrips DAILY! not leaving old ladies in hospitals for hours on end whilst looking important in green uniforms awaiting a ride home normally5-8 late! Able to comment on a odd spelling mistake ! How low can one go, the findings are not known as yet, Ambogay and plastic man "izzyforreal"! How English is that?? Hmm, ignore the lowlife no nothings! If they New michael Fitzpatrick as i once dis i could understand! they could pass judgement! But Mc d,s and feeling important , great job boys! lmao! , I won't answer these apparent nosey losers! To those who new fitZy I will answer! If the 2 in question want to chat about things save the forums say a place I'll take My patients to brighton, show then a contract phone!! Not a Freeby work phone or pay as you throw. Just date and time me at Your Leisure and well have a coffee and some English lessons for myself!! My my! The story is a Man has been shot dead by armed police and await Ipcc findings! As for anybody like Myself Who new the man can pass comments, iZzy and Ambogay there's many forums apart From This one you can peruse, michael was an Old Friend !!cannot change the fact I new the man!!' so to Those who no nothing such as Ambogay(green uniformed A-level needed gizzaJob v.I.p, strange how you comment on things You no zero about! Henpecked I think! Email me Arrange a chat look forward to it , fitzy is not about to answer the questions!! Or morons like your good selves wouldn't think spelling mistakes are More important, 9am dss, like unsaid you understand there literature, ipcc so do the job to shut these loafers up please, Brighton feb 21st my disabled daytrip has been booked, to those having to put up with neandathals, I apoiligise!, anybody with funeral dates please inform,thanks, izzyplastic and Ambogay will Be on the next juicy story by then im am sure!! To those that new him please post, to those with nothing better to do get a Life and Goodbye! I've booked a college course just for you 2 payasyougo lads? Lasses? Both? Please get this sorted ipcc and get the next nutters off the streets!... And to the officers involved, my thoughts are with you.... joeyzf1?

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree