You say reasonable, I say tomato

Here's another example of the disconnect between British and American attitudes regarding what actions are reasonable to take in defense of oneself or others. This editorial in the Independent blog complains of the creeping "Americanization" of Britain in the wake of the police shooting of an urban gunman:

The Chelsea and Stockwell police shootings: some questions

By James Macintyre

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macintyre's account gives few details of the situation that the police encountered outside Saunder's home that led up to their decision to storm the house. This article in the Guardian provides those details:

Mark Saunders was shot dead by police when they feared that he would kill or seriously injure an officer or member of the public if he was not stopped, the Guardian has learned.

Details of the reasoning by police when faced by the barrister who began firing indiscriminately after drinking came on the day an inquest heard he had been shot at least five times, and by more than one officer.

Sources familiar with police decision-making say people had been still trapped in their homes in Markham Square, west London, when the 32-year-old opened fire on Tuesday afternoon. Officers considered trying to evacuate all the residents in the vicinity, but decided there was a risk that Saunders would open fire on anyone he could see from his window overlooking the square. They believed he would shoot any officer trying to get people out, and any of his neighbours.

Saunders came across as drunk, the sources said, and he displayed a highly volatile mood while talking to police who were trying to convince him to lay down his shotgun and surrender.

Experts say that three of the five shots - to Saunders's head, heart and liver - would have incapacitated him, and would have almost certainly proved lethal. These shots were fired as he and police were engaged in an exchange of fire for the third time, with Saunders holed up in his flat where he had fired from his second floor window three times over a 4½-hour period.

The sources say the plan had been to wait Saunders out, after he first opened fire in the direction of his neighbours, and then again at armed police called to the scene just before 5pm.

But that plan was scrapped when the former Territorial Army soldier fired at police from his window after 9pm.

A senior source told the Guardian: "It was the strong belief that he would shoot someone, either a police officer or resident who was trapped and emerged from their house or flat."

On Thursday his father, Rodney Saunders, questioned whether police had been obliged to use lethal force.

A senior police source said that storming the flat and trying to take him alive would have been highly dangerous to the officers involved. After he took the fatal shots the flat was stormed by armed officers using stun grenades.

Nine officers believe they opened fire during the siege; in keeping with police procedure the nine have been removed temporarily from firearms duties.

Yesterday an inquest into Saunders's death opened at City of Westminster coroner's court. Coroner's officer Lynda Morris told the hearing that Saunders did not use his shotgun on himself: "The multiple gunshot wounds present are associated with severe internal damage to the brain, the heart, the liver and the main vein of the lower body. The external and internal gunshot-related damage is consistent with a minimum of five shots having hit the deceased." She was reading a preliminary report by pathologist Nathaniel Cary.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is investigating the incident. Investigators said they were looking at various lines of inquiry, and refused to rule out the possibility he was trying to commit so-called "suicide by cop".

Somehow I think, given the circumstances of a drunk gunman firing at neighbors and police over more than a four hour period, that Macintyre's knee-jerk suspicions of foul play and the unreasonable use of deadly force are in themselves unreasonable. It is fine and proper to take the civil rights of a criminal into consideration, and to look for ways to resolve a situation without bloodshed, but never at the cost of putting the lives of the police and the public at undue risk. It is not like the British police have demonstrated a persistent pattern of deadly confrontations, yet their motives will be second and third guessed by people like Mcintyre, and they could quite possibly face charges.

These are the attitudes that prompted my comment in Human Psychology 101 about a "legal philosophy which makes the law-abiding citizen responsible for the safety and well-being of the law-breaker." Based on the facts as presented in the article, I can't say that the police acted improperly or with undue force or recklessness. I think they did their job properly.

If I were a homeowner in England who had to take drastic action to protect myself from an intruder, I would not feel in the least bit comforted if my jury were composed of people like Mcintyre. Not my definition of reasonable.