This cunt got what he deserved!

[Madness]

And despite ( possibly ) seeing it again later in the post your still being obtuse.

*you're

welcome.

[unstuck]

That video was actually posted earlier in the thread.

You must have missed it.

And despite ( possibly ) seeing it again later in the post your still being obtuse.

Seen lots of different versions on different sites of the video. But I am entitled to hold an opinion, as you are. When someone does not agree with your opinion, that should not give you the right to start with the insults, thats what school children and Ed do.
I do not trust american government and media, and I think there is more to the story, that is an opinion I am entitled to hold.
If you cannot accept that fact of life, maybe you should talk to someone who can help you with that.:niceone:

[husaberg]

Have a look at the sign it happened out outside of a bagel store.
Not a donut store.

As I said that vid was posted by Katman. pg 1

[Virago]

It was on Katmans Video about 1.23
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pvspr2riMNM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

C'mon, where's all the conspiracy theorists? Look at the cover still on the video above, that is clearly a fake human. It's definitely a dummy.

[unstuck]

Wait, what are you talking about, we decided!?
My best interest?! How can you know what's my best interest is?
How can you say what my best interest is? What are you trying to say, I'm crazy?
When I went to your schools, I went to your churches,
I went to your institutional learning facilities?! So how can you say I'm crazy?

They say they're gonna fix my brain
Alleviate my suffering and my pain
But by the time they fix my head
Mentally I'll be dead


It doesn't matter, I'll probably get hit by a car anyway.

[scumdog]

But by the time they fix my head
Mentally I'll be dead




Meh, sounds like it's already happened to a lot on here already....<_<

[husaberg]

Meh, sounds like it's already happened to a lot on here already....<_<

There seems to be a pretty vocal percentage on KB lately with persecution complex's.
I wonder what they would do if they were robbed or shot.

[MIXONE]

There seems to be a pretty vocal percentage on KB lately with persecution complex's.
I wonder what they would do if they were robbed or shot.

Probably be poorer and bleeding...

[unstuck]

https://www.facebook.com/CopBlock Yeah, America has no problem whatsoever with it's police force.:shifty:

[unstuck]

But also..........



https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11014621_10152733746892939_6305878415213488433_n.p ng?oh=2c9fb52ff953871d0978901eb8549283&oe=55DA368E&__gda__=1436658417_5bf15b68f2a58c70b48dea9c0f946ff e

[mossy1200]

I think it illustrates if your going to rage around with a stolen gun in front of police you need sharpen up your awareness and reactions.
Overall a poor effort by the offender.

[TheDemonLord]

I think it illustrates if your going to rage around with a stolen gun in front of police you need sharpen up your awareness and reactions.
Overall a poor effort by the offender.

Maybe if he was wearing a Hi-Viz this wouldn't have happened?

[jasonu]

https://www.facebook.com/CopBlock Yeah, America has no problem whatsoever with it's police force.:shifty:

Well if it is on farcebook it must be true.

[Katman]

Well if it is on farcebook it must be true.

Why do people so often fall back on that piss-weak argument?

The secret is to look at the information presented and decide for yourself whether you believe it or not.

The fact that it has been presented on Facebook shouldn't stop you from exercising your brain.

[avgas]

Don't take a gun to a car fight?

[FJRider]

https://www.facebook.com/CopBlock Yeah, America has no problem whatsoever with it's police force.:shifty:

Police shot a man that was just talking about revolution ... and 505 people liked it ... :confused:

[jasonu]

Why do people so often fall back on that piss-weak argument?

The secret is to look at the information presented and decide for yourself whether you believe it or not.

The fact that it has been presented on Facebook shouldn't stop you from exercising your brain.

But you are the first one to question information posted and quoted from links connected to actual news agencies (except of course if the information suits your argument).
Any numpty can post anything at all on facebook with no proof, backing or confirmed sources.

[Katman]

<img src="https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCHnMOGVIAE3jBJ.jpg"/>

[jasonu]

Someone on facebook said police shot a man that was just talking about revolution ... and 505 people liked it ... :confused:
That is more accurate than what you posted.

[Katman]

But you are the first one to question information posted and quoted from links connected to actual news agencies (except of course if the information suits your argument).


The content and slant of mainstream media most definately should be questioned.

So too should that which is posted on Facebook, Youtube etc.

The thing is though - you have to view it first to be able to question it.

[mossy1200]

The content and slant of mainstream media most definately should be questioned.

So too should that which is posted on Facebook, Youtube etc.

The thing is though - you have to view it first to be able to question it.

Sounds like you would be better off with a colouring book and a Gameboy.
If you don't like what the media or interwebs says ignore it. You spend a lot of time wanting to create your version of events then preach it to others. In fact its like your the alternate media. Your the other side of every broadcast. The truth that lurks in shadows behind every conspiracy.

[Katman]

Sounds like you would be better off with a colouring book and a Gameboy.
If you don't like what the media or interwebs says ignore it. You spend a lot of time wanting to create your version of events then preach it to others. In fact its like your the alternate media. Your the other side of every broadcast. The truth that lurks in shadows behind every conspiracy.

That's an interesting view.

Not entirely rational - but interesting none-the-less.

[mossy1200]

That's an interesting view.

Not entirely rational - but interesting none-the-less.

So the media paints a picture that some will believe, others will partially believe and others will regard absolute rubbish. Most stories will have enough truth to sound believable.

Footage shows me an unstable guy capable of doing damage to others at any stage or possibly even looking for death by cop as a version of suicide. Seems desperate people choose this as a form of suicide and or to reach for help but nobody can tell what intention he had at the time.
Run down was an effective form of risk reduction for the general public. That's what I see watching the footage. Remember decisions need be made in real time not after several looks at what unfolded and an extended period of thought and discussion. The thread may or may not have been about police failing to act quickly enough to save lives. You may call the ending hasty but I think it was justified.

[JATZ]

The content and slant of mainstream media most definately should be questioned.

So too should that which is posted on Facebook, Youtube etc.

The thing is though - you have to view it first to be able to question it.

Why ?

Why does it need to be questioned.

[Katman]

Why ?

Why does it need to be questioned.

Seriously???

[husaberg]

Why ?

Why does it need to be questioned.
Everything should be questioned (other than Katman)

[Katman]

Everything should be questioned (other than Katman)

Refer post #268.

[husaberg]

Refer post #268.

Refer to the video you posted with him discharging the rifle.

Well, it turns out he stole the gun from Walmart and was only threatening to shoot himself.

Paints a fairly clear picture of police over-reaction.

Here's a longer version.


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Pvspr2riMNM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
In case you missed it 1.22 ish

[Katman]

Refer to the video you posted with him discharging the rifle.


Did you think I hadn't watched it?

[JATZ]

Seriously???

Yip :yes:


Everything should be questioned (other than Katman)

Why ??


like that ? :bleh:

[husaberg]

Why ??
like that ? :bleh:

Yes I do,:shifty: but I do answer questions, Go on ask him about the speeding incident




Did you think I hadn't watched it?

I think you only see what suits your agenda, He was only threatening to shoot himself you said.

Well, it turns out he stole the gun from Walmart and was only threatening to shoot himself.
Paints a fairly clear picture of police over-reaction.




So its pretty obvious you don't understand what he did.
When a firearm is presented and discharged in public places.
Tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman

[Katman]

I think you only see what suits your agenda, He was only threatening to shoot himself you said.


So its pretty obvious you don't understand what he did.
When a firearm is presented and discharged in public places.
Tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman

You put forward a strong case for having no sympathy for the mentally ill.

[Swoop]

Why ?

Why does it need to be questioned.
The first rule of tinfoil hat club is "question everything".

[husaberg]

You put forward a strong case for having no sympathy for the mentally ill.

Katman. I have often said I feel sorry for you.



Yet my sympathy doesn't extend to endangering other peoples lives When the preparatory of a series of crimes is armed dangerous discharging his high powered rifle and is an obvious threat to the innocent public population as well as to the other officers.

So tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman.

[FJRider]

Sympathy doesn't extend to endangering other peoples life when he is armed dangerous and an obvious threat to the innocent public population not to the other officers.

Obvious ... or ... perceived threat ... ???

How long before all is required ... is a possible threat ... ???



then ... maybe ... looks dodgy .. ??

[scumdog]

You put forward a strong case for having no sympathy for the mentally ill.

Hmm, glad you think you deserve no sympathy...I won't argue with THAT!:bleh:

[Katman]

Sympathy doesn't extend to endangering other peoples life when he is armed dangerous and an obvious threat to the innocent public population nor to the other officers.


So you saw it too? - the bit where he wasted that other dude across the road from him?

[husaberg]

Obvious ... or ... perceived threat ... ???

How long before all is required ... is a possible threat ... ???
then ... maybe ... looks dodgy .. ??

As soon as he discharged the weapon in a public place or presented it. Or refused to drop it. It became a obvious threat to the officers and the general public.
Lets not forget this is an urban area did you miss the pedestrians?

[Katman]

Lets not forget this is an urban area did you miss the pedestrians?

Ok, so you saw the pedestrian.

You must have just imagined he got wasted then.

[husaberg]

So you saw it too? - the bit where he wasted that other dude across the road from him?

Katman. I have often said I feel sorry for you.



Yet my sympathy doesn't extend to endangering other peoples lives When the preparatory of a series of crimes is armed dangerous discharging his high powered rifle and is an obvious threat to the innocent public population as well as to the other officers.

So tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman.


Ok, so you saw the pedestrian.

You must have just imagined he got wasted then.

I told you what was in the video, that was enough for me. Likely for near everyone else but you.
If they hadn't have acted and he had shoot someone whose fault would that be Katman.
Tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman?

[scumdog]

Obvious ... or ... perceived threat ... ???

How long before all is required ... is a possible threat ... ???



then ... maybe ... looks dodgy .. ??

I guess the cop being nice to the guy from a domestic incident on TV tonight didn't perceive the threat was there.

So he ended up dead when without warning the cretin pulled a six-shooter out of his pocket and shot the cop...:(

[Katman]

I told you what was in the video, that was enough for me. Likely for near everyone else but you.


Ok, so we're not talking a murderous rampage by the gunman then?

[scumdog]

Ok, so we're not talking a murderous rampage by the gunman then?

Nah, the cop kicked his ass before he had a chance to change his mind about who he was going to shoot...:devil2:

[husaberg]

Ok, so we're not talking a murderous rampage by the gunman then?
Like I keep saying





Yet my sympathy doesn't extend to endangering other peoples lives When the preparatory of a series of crimes is armed dangerous discharging his high powered rifle and is an obvious threat to the innocent public population as well as to the other officers.

So tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman.

[TheDemonLord]

Ok, so we're not talking a murderous rampage by the gunman then?

Mayne not a murderous gunman - but ask of yourself this:

How many times has a mentally unstable person with a firearm turned into a Murderous gunman?

The answer is one too many times.

It is clear that you cannot accept that the individual posed a threat not only to the Officers but also to potential bystanders - would he have actually shot a cop or an innocent - we will never know but I would rather not know in this instance, than risk finding out.

[Katman]

....would he have actually shot a cop or an innocent - we will never know.....

Shall we ask that dude across the road?

[FJRider]

I guess the cop being nice to the guy from a domestic incident on TV tonight didn't perceive the threat was there.

So he ended up dead when without warning the cretin pulled a six-shooter out of his pocket and shot the cop...:(

The officers actions were neither good, bad ... or wrong.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful thing.


Question ... would your actions have differed from that officers .. ???




If they wouldn't ... those that know you ... wouldn't have the respect for you they do.

[rastuscat]

Another non-sequitur

Eight more and you get a free toaster!

That's starting to sound like a quota............

[Katman]

That's starting to sound like a quota............

Hush your dirty mouth.

There's no such thing as a quota.

[TheDemonLord]

Shall we ask that dude across the road?

Indeed we shall - because we can, because the police disarmed the threat

[Katman]

Indeed we shall - because we can, because the police disarmed the threat

Seriously man, get your glasses cleaned.

The pedestrian was long gone before the cops played Gran Turismo 3.

[mossy1200]

Shall we ask that dude across the road?

He didn't see or hear the cop car. Maybe he didn't see your lucky pedestrian either.

[husaberg]

Seriously man, get your glasses cleaned.

The pedestrian was long gone before the cops played Gran Turismo 3.

There were to cops straight ahead of him, what was there to say he wasn't going into the bagel store or a mall.

[Katman]

He didn't see or hear the cop car.

The stealth approach will always fool the filthy citizen.

[Katman]

There were to cops straight ahead of him, what was there to say he wasn't going into the bagel store or a mall.

You're a fucking bagel.

[mossy1200]

If he did hes got the reactions of a sloth or was after death by cop.

[husaberg]

You're a fucking bagel.
Oh abuse again, that obviously must mean your point of view is entirely correct and any rational disagreement is childish............:lol::killingme
Tell us again if you were actually speeding when you got that ticket on the way to the cold Kiwi.........

[unstuck]

How many times has a mentally unstable person with a firearm turned into a Murderous gunman?



This thread is about 1 mentally unstable guy, not the threat to innocent people from american rambo cops.:msn-wink:

[awayatc]

Feller nicks a rifle, walks around in public, aims at cops, fires in the air, puts barrel under his own chin etc......

cops are supposed to deal with situatons like that...
public nuisance and that
It is their job,
(at least it is in countries without a quota)
as a Meriken he doesn't walk, let alone run...
He has got a gun,
he has got a police cruiser,
he still remembers that shooting unarmed people(on camera) is not entirely PC anymore...
not even blacks..!
this feller is definitely armed (remember..?)
Camera running, shooting frowned upon.......
he runs feller over!!!
brilliant promblem solving skills
for a Meriken
Meriken cop even...


What is the problem....?

[unstuck]

What is the problem....?

As far as I can tell, the cops want us to live by the rules, and are paid to make sure we do so.
I am pretty sure most of us want them to live by the same rules, and not make it up as they go along. Who knows where that could lead.:devil2:

[TheDemonLord]

This thread is about 1 mentally unstable guy, not the threat to innocent people from american rambo cops.:msn-wink:

I will admit - I laughed...

[TheDemonLord]

You're a fucking bagel.

Thats the second time you have been unable to defend your position with a logical rebutle and have had to resort to Ad Hominems - so you have lost the debate - and we win.

[awayatc]

As far as I can tell, the cops want us to live by the rules, and are paid to make sure we do so.
I am pretty sure most of us want them to live by the same rules, and not make it up as they go along. Who knows where that could lead.:devil2:

Haha my old friend,
a very romantic idealistic view...
cops just do their job....
their bosses tell them what that job is.
in enzed it is to write as many speeding tickets as possible,
in USA it is more to serve and protect....
well , protecting he did...
no way was that feller gonna shoot anybody or anything...
not on his watch...
not sneaky either,
he fuckin filmed it himself......
I rather have 1 cop like that in my neighbourhood,
then the swarms of them with radarguns we got here

[Katman]

Tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman



Tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman?



So tell us again if you were actually speeding at all that day when you got that ticket down at the cold Kiwi again Katman.



Tell us again if you were actually speeding when you got that ticket on the way to the cold Kiwi.........

I'm guessing you have an obsessive compulsive disorder.

[jasonu]

Shall we ask that dude across the road?

Your 'arguments' are now just as stupid and pointless as Cassina's.

[jasonu]

I'm guessing you have an obsessive compulsive disorder.

and you continue to avoid a simple question because it doesn't suit your argument.

[Katman]

Your 'arguments' are now just as stupid and pointless as Cassina's.

Really?

You seem convinced that this guy was about to embark on a murderous rampage.

I'm just pointing out that he missed a prime target if murderous rampaging was his intent.

[Katman]

and you continue to avoid a simple question because it doesn't suit your argument.

How does a question about me speeding have anything to do with this particular 'argument'?

[Bikemad]

Clearly you haven't got a fucking clue what I think.

i sometimes think even you don't have a fucking clue what you think


Negotiation.

Not "put down the gun or I'll....BANG....shoot".

how do you know all that wasn't tried already......


I'm sure the likes of Scumdog literally salivate over the idea of being allowed to shoot every mentally ill person they come across.

Trouble is, that does not make for a civilised society.

and thats the point right there............how do you negotiate with a mentally ill person.........maybe like Cunstable Abbott negotiated with Steven Wallace.....is that what you mean


Fuck me .. crazy steals a gun from a shop, points it at cops, points it at himself .. fires into the air ...

Cop takes him down ...

What the fuck is your problem ??? Cop did a GREAT job .. bad guy only does two days in hospital ... if they'd shot him (which would have been an acceptable option) dopey dude would be dead ...

Better to take him out with a car than to have him shoot someone ...

Yep

[TheDemonLord]

and thats the point right there............how do you negotiate with a mentally ill person.........maybe like Cunstable Abbott negotiated with Steven Wallace.....is that what you mean


If memory serves correctly - that negotiation ended succesfully: Bullets succeeded in convincing Mr Wallace to stop...

[Katman]

If memory serves correctly - that negotiation ended succesfully: Bullets succeeded in convincing Mr Wallace to stop...

See, there's another example of a big difference between us.

I don't see any humour in the Stephen Wallace incident either.

[Crasherfromwayback]

If memory serves correctly - that negotiation ended succesfully: Bullets succeeded in convincing Mr Wallace to stop...

Don't get me wrong...you threaten a police officer with a golf club you're gonna get yourself in all sorts of trouble. But getting shot seems a lil over the top to me. Waiting for a dog handler may've been a better option. He was smashing windows...not heads.

[Bikemad]

Don't get me wrong...you threaten a police officer with a golf club you're gonna get yourself in all sorts of trouble. But getting shot seems a lil over the top to me. Waiting for a dog handler may've been a better option. He was smashing windows...not heads.

in a nutshell

[Big Dog]

in a nutshell

This one will always be contentious.
The machine says he was advancing on police officers when they took action after a long standoff.
The family says he was just acting out and he would never hurt anyone. Although how the police are supposed to know that is beyond me.
I am sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Bikemad]

This one will always be contentious.
The machine says he was advancing on police officers when they took action after a long standoff.
The family says he was just acting out and he would never hurt anyone. Although how the police are supposed to know that is beyond me.
I am sure the truth lies somewhere in the middle.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

so 3 highly trained police officers in full riot gear with batons and spray can't deal with one pissed/high emotional/angry retard with a golf club..........shit imagine if he had a gun...........

[TheDemonLord]

See, there's another example of a big difference between us.

I don't see any humour in the Stephen Wallace incident either.

How about this:

If I ever go on a rampage with a deadly weapon, regardless if I am endangering the public or not - and I get shot by the Police, I give you my full permission to laugh and make whatever disparging remarks about me you feel like.

Deal?

I for one, see lots of humour in the Stephen Wallace incident:

Don't bring a Golf club to a gun fight
Don't try and advance on a policeman with a Firearm brandishing a dangerous weapon
Don't be a twat in public
Don't let your mentally unstable family members get drunk and go on a rampage: get them committed so they can get the help they need

etc.

[Katman]

If I ever go on a rampage with a deadly weapon, regardless if I am endangering the public or not - and I get shot by the Police, I give you my full permission to laugh and make whatever disparging remarks about me you feel like.

Deal?


What if you don't ever go on a rampage with a deadly weapon?

Can I still laugh and make disparaging remarks about you?

[TheDemonLord]

Don't get me wrong...you threaten a police officer with a golf club you're gonna get yourself in all sorts of trouble. But getting shot seems a lil over the top to me. Waiting for a dog handler may've been a better option. He was smashing windows...not heads.

I seem to recall some debate around this at the time - around what was correct police procedure:

if I get this wrong - I apologise, I CBF digging up the records - but it was something along the lines that in a situation where there was no danger to the public, the correct procedure was to back off and wait for the Armed Offenders squad. The debate was whether or not there was danger to the Public or the officer himself: The courts in the end sided with the Officer that when Williams advanced on him and I think threw a club or bat at the Officer that was grounds for the Officer to use Deadly force - and that Williams dropped about 5 m from the Officer (which isn't a great deal of distance)

[TheDemonLord]

What if you don't ever go on a rampage with a deadly weapon?

Can I still laugh and make disparaging remarks about you?

Of course you can - I'll just think you are a knob :msn-wink:

[Katman]

Of course you can - I'll just think you are a knob :msn-wink:

Deal .

[TheDemonLord]

Deal .

Gentlemanly Handshake

[Katman]

Gentlemanly Handshake

:finger: .

[unstuck]

I wonder if Ed will reveal the FULL story, so we can all be well informed with ALL the facts that have been peer reviewed and gotten scientific backing.:lol::lol:

Oh how the mighty are falling.:banana::banana:

[pritch]

Well, it turns out he stole the gun from Walmart and was only threatening to shoot himself.



That's a fair description. He probably should have been in the funny farm rather than on the street but nobody does that much anymore. Whether you agree with the way it was handled or not, it was a piece of quick thinking by the cop and the only person hurt is the offender who is still alive. A good result.

This event was given considerable coverage in US news sources when it happened last week(ish), nothing in our local news but then it's nothing to do with us.

[jasonu]

What if you don't ever go on a rampage with a deadly weapon?

Can I still laugh and make disparaging remarks about you?

Like that has ever stopped you before....

[Bikemad]

I seem to recall some debate around this at the time - around what was correct police procedure:

if I get this wrong - I apologise, I CBF digging up the records - but it was something along the lines that in a situation where there was no danger to the public, the correct procedure was to back off and wait for the Armed Offenders squad. The debate was whether or not there was danger to the Public or the officer himself: The courts in the end sided with the Officer that when Williams advanced on him and I think threw a club or bat at the Officer that was grounds for the Officer to use Deadly force - and that Williams dropped about 5 m from the Officer (which isn't a great deal of distance)

for a start the victims name was WALLACE.........there were 3 officers on the scene......dogs on the way..........they had already contained him for 20-30 minutes......whats another 20-30 minutes....did the club/bat hit cuntstable abbott..NO..........would you expect someone who is drunk,under the influence of drugs,maybe a bit crazy and emotional,for whatever reason we will never know,or all of the above,to act with common sense and reason when confronted with someone pointing a gun at him.....police officer or not.
Abbott swore an oath to protect and serve ALL NZers.......Stephen Wallace included.From what i understand this behavior was out of character for Wallace and he probably would of apologised and paid for any damage he did,sadly he didn't get the chance

[Katman]

This event was given considerable coverage in US news sources when it happened last week(ish), nothing in our local news but then it's nothing to do with us.

I think you'll find it actually happened a couple of months ago.

The video has only just surfaced in the last week.

A cynic might wonder whether the police needed a couple of months to get their stories straight.

:whistle:

[Swoop]

He probably should have been in the funny farm rather than on the street
Sadly, that is exactly the same nowadays...
After the politicians shut down the looney-bins and threw them into "community care".

[unstuck]

This event was given considerable coverage in US news sources when it happened last week(ish), nothing in our local news but then it's nothing to do with us.

February the 19th is when it happened. See how things get out of wack when we dont have ALL the facts.:innocent:

[jasonu]

and that Williams dropped about 5 m from the Officer (which isn't a great deal of distance)

You are dead right. At 6 meters a bad guy with a knife, hammer, golf club can be right on you in less than 2 seconds. That doesn't give you much time to think about what he might do with the weapon, if he is going to use it on you, what the press might say or wether some know it all wanker experts on motorcycle forums are going to tell you what you should have done.

[TheDemonLord]

for a start the victims name was WALLACE.........there were 3 officers on the scene......dogs on the way..........they had already contained him for 20-30 minutes......whats another 20-30 minutes....did the club/bat hit cuntstable abbott..NO..........would you expect someone who is drunk,under the influence of drugs,maybe a bit crazy and emotional,for whatever reason we will never know,or all of the above,to act with common sense and reason when confronted with someone pointing a gun at him.....police officer or not.
Abbott swore an oath to protect and serve ALL NZers.......Stephen Wallace included.From what i understand this behavior was out of character for Wallace and he probably would of apologised and paid for any damage he did,sadly he didn't get the chance

Like I said - I was going off memory...

There are so many parts of this statement that I could pick apart, but at the end of the day, the Jury(s) that attended the courts (so not the IPCA) were the ones that found that the Officer acted reasonably.

[Bikemad]

Like I said - I was going off memory...

There are so many parts of this statement that I could pick apart, but at the end of the day, the Jury(s) that attended the courts (so not the IPCA) were the ones that found that the Officer acted reasonably.

and Jurys NEVER make BAD decisions......ever
please feel free to pick apart my statement........i'm curious to know what you think is wrong with it

[TheDemonLord]

and Jurys NEVER make BAD decisions......ever
please feel free to pick apart my statement........i'm curious to know what you think is wrong with it

Sure, Juries are imperfect, but if multiple Juries come the the same decision (I seem to remember a trial, a high court hearing then a re-trial) then

Oh well, since you asked:


they had already contained him for 20-30 minutes......whats another 20-30 minutes

Volatile situations like this one can change alot in 20-30 minutes, especially when dealing with Drunk/Mentally Unstable/High people (who can change rapidly as they get frustrated/confused/irritated)


did the club/bat hit cuntstable abbott..NO

Not the point - it was attempted assault with a deadly weapon against a police officer (yes a Golf Club can be considered a Deadly Weapon) - doing some reading on this, it only missed because the Officer ducked, not by any virtue of Mr Wallace. Ask yourself this - would you expect the police to act differently if Mr Wallace had fired a weapon at them and missed or if he had tried to stab the officer with a knife and missed?


would you expect someone who is drunk,under the influence of drugs,maybe a bit crazy and emotional,for whatever reason we will never know,or all of the above,to act with common sense and reason when confronted with someone pointing a gun at him.....police officer or not.

If someone is in such a state that they show no fear when being presented with someone pointing a gun at them then they are a very dangerous individual - if they have no regard for their own life, what regard will they have for others?

As for Alcohol or drugs being a mitigating factor - I've been drunk, I've been high and I've never done anything to that degree of recklessness, sure I have done minor silly things, but never to the point of challenging someone who is armed (and yes, I have been intoxicated around someone that was armed) because despite being drunk, I still rather liked the prospect of living.


Abbott swore an oath to protect and serve ALL NZers.......Stephen Wallace included.

What gives Mr Wallace the right then to ignore direction from the police and act with impunity? The police are also charged with maintaining Law and are obligated to act when Laws are being breached - in the same way that the Police are allowed to engage in a pursuit to apprehend a driver. There is a point at which the seriousness of the offending mandates that the Police cannot back down - both from a societal perception PoV but also from a Moral PoV.


From what i understand this behavior was out of character for Wallace and he probably would of apologised and paid for any damage he did,sadly he didn't get thechance

I'm going to quote BigDog on this part:

"The family says he was just acting out and he would never hurt anyone"

If that is truly the families position then reading into it:

They were neither shocked nor surprised by his action: 'Just acting out' which tends to suggest that something similar has happened before (maybe not to the same degree) either that or his family has no comprehension of the consequences of actions

so with scenario one - we have someone who should have been committed to recieve help for a condition where they could go batshit crazy
or
Scenario two - he was raised in an environment where he thought he could do what he wanted and nothing bad would happen.

[Katman]

As for Alcohol or drugs being a mitigating factor - I've been drunk, I've been high and I've never done anything to that degree of recklessness, sure I have done minor silly things, but never to the point of challenging someone who is armed (and yes, I have been intoxicated around someone that was armed) because despite being drunk, I still rather liked the prospect of living.

Have you ever suffered from mental illness?

(Aside from the time you spend on here, of course).

[TheDemonLord]

Have you ever suffered from mental illness?

(Aside from the time you spend on here, of course).

No I have not - would having Mental Illness (and not getting it treated) give me Carte Blanche to do as I please free from consequences, no it does not.

[Katman]

No I have not - would having Mental Illness (and not getting it treated) give me Carte Blanche to do as I please free from consequences, no it does not.

Of course it doesn't give you cart blanche to do as you please free from consequences.

But in a civilised society it should be expected that the manner in which you're dealt with may be handled somewhat more delicately.

[Banditbandit]

My first thought was something like "are you all such bad shots you can't pop a couple of rounds in him?" so you run the guy down in a patrol car...

It's not that easy to hit a person with a pistol - let alone place a shot somewhere where it won't kill. And the guy had a gun ... if wounded he may well start firing back.

I've seen people (not cops) miss a human target with a pistol at one and a half meters ...

[TheDemonLord]

Of course it doesn't give you cart blanche to do as you please free from consequences.

But in a civilised society it should be expected that the manner in which you're dealt with may be handled somewhat more delicately.


Absolutely - when acting Civilised in a Civilised society - but what of those acting in an uncivilised manner?

[Katman]

Absolutely - when acting Civilised in a Civilised society - but what of those acting in an uncivilised manner?

Are you being deliberately retarded?

People with a mental illness will often act in an uncivilised manner.

[TheDemonLord]

Are you being deliberately retarded?

People with a mental illness will often act in an uncivilised manner.

No, I am deliberately backing you into a logical corner:

Uncivilised People (Mental Illness or not) require uncivilised means to deal with them - sometimes that means a straight Jacket, sometimes it means sedation, and other times (like when they are armed and running amok in public) it means a bullet.

In the Wallace incident - it appears the police tried Civilised means first - they failed and had to resort to uncivilised means (this was before NZ Police had access to Less-than-Lethal options such as a Taser - if memory serves, this was a seminal case in the Taser debate as a situation where Less-than-Lethal Force would have been used if it was an option)

[Katman]

Uncivilised People (Mental Illness or not) require uncivilised means to deal with them - sometimes that means a straight Jacket, sometimes it means sedation, and other times (like when they are armed and running amok in public) it means a bullet.


Believe me, you're not backing me into any sort of corner.

Using uncivilised means to deal with the mentally ill indicates an uncivilised society.

[oldrider]

It's not that easy to hit a person with a pistol - let alone place a shot somewhere where it won't kill. And the guy had a gun ... if wounded he may well start firing back.

I've seen people (not cops) miss a human target with a pistol at one and a half meters ...

I saw on TV news once a NZ cop firing (a full clip?) point blank at a bloody dog milling about and completely missed FFS - trained in firearms use? - Failed surely! :facepalm:

[TheDemonLord]

Believe me, you're not backing me into any sort of corner.

Using uncivilised means to deal with the mentally ill indicates an uncivilised society.

What happens when Civil means fails then? Mental Illness or not - what then? We must resort to Uncivilised means - unless you have another suggestion?

[Crasherfromwayback]

What happens when Civil means fails then?

https://www.facebook.com/408428095912101/videos/842858835802356/?pnref=story

[unstuck]

https://www.facebook.com/408428095912101/videos/842858835802356/?pnref=story

Seems reasonable. :killingme:killingme:killingme

[Madness]

Seems reasonable. :killingme:killingme:killingme

Well he is wearing a uniform, of sorts.

[unstuck]

Well he is wearing a uniform, of sorts.

I thought it was an american police training video.:shifty:

[Madness]

I thought it was an american police training video.:shifty:

I think you'll find it's actually from the Whangaparaoa Parking Wardens department :weird:

[Katman]

What happens when Civil means fails then? Mental Illness or not - what then? We must resort to Uncivilised means - unless you have another suggestion?

Civilised means should be exhausted first rather than jumping straight to the uncivilised means.

[Katman]

American cops and guns.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/22qbZ6Qccdw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

(And don't worry, they don't actually shoot the dog).

[awayatc]

American cops and guns.
.

We all agree that guns are not to be used freely or readily......

cop did not use his gun.....

He used his car.....

You a bit slow.?

[unstuck]

I think you'll find it's actually from the Whangaparaoa Parking Wardens department :weird:

Parking wardens in Whangaparoa? What you talking bout willis? Last time I was in Whangaparoa was probably 15yrs ago though, so I suppose it is more a suburb of east coast bays now.:confused:

[scumdog]

for a start the victims name was WALLACE.........there were 3 officers on the scene......dogs on the way..........they had already contained him for 20-30 minutes......whats another 20-30 minutes....did the club/bat hit cuntstable abbott..NO..........would you expect someone who is drunk,under the influence of drugs,maybe a bit crazy and emotional,for whatever reason we will never know,or all of the above,to act with common sense and reason when confronted with someone pointing a gun at him.....police officer or not.
Abbott swore an oath to protect and serve ALL NZers.......Stephen Wallace included.From what i understand this behavior was out of character for Wallace and he probably would of apologised and paid for any damage he did,sadly he didn't get the chance

I sometimes wonder if the innacurate clap-trap such as above are trolls, I certainly hope so!.:shit:

However if the above poster is serious I despair at some of the people who I share this planet with, heaven forbid they ever have control of anything of consequence...:facepalm:

[Bikemad]

I sometimes wonder if the innacurate clap-trap such as above are trolls, I certainly hope so!.:shit:

However if the above poster is serious I despair at some of the people who I share this planet with, heaven forbid they ever have control of anything of consequence...:facepalm:

what have i said that is innacurate scummy........i am prepared to acknowledge your inside info.......go ahead.

[scumdog]

what have i said that is innacurate scummy........i am prepared to acknowledge your inside info.......go ahead.

Sorry mate, I suspect given your untruthful posting it would be a waste of time - 'pearls before swine' and all that, you probably believe all Dermot Nottinghams ravings...

[Katman]

However if the above poster is serious I despair at some of the people who I share this planet with, heaven forbid they ever have control of anything of consequence.

<img src="http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2012/08/79_58158_0_JudgeDreddVol39I.jpg"/>

[Bikemad]

Sorry mate, I suspect given your untruthful posting it would be a waste of time - 'pearls before swine' and all that, you probably believe all Dermot Nottinghams ravings...

oh good grief..........untruthful?....who the fuck is DN ?..........or do we have to do some more research........is that you ED?

[Edbear]

I sometimes wonder if the innacurate clap-trap such as above are trolls, I certainly hope so!.:shit:

However if the above poster is serious I despair at some of the people who I share this planet with, heaven forbid they ever have control of anything of consequence...:facepalm:

Oh, they are serious, but you'll never have to worry about them being in control of anything. They are keyboard warriors only.

[Katman]

...who the fuck is DN ?.........

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0105/S00140.htm

[husaberg]

I'm guessing you have an obsessive compulsive disorder.

No I just enjoy watching you avoid simple questions yet while at the same time fully expecting people to take your views seriously.:whistle:

[Katman]

No I just enjoy watching you avoid simply questions yet expecting people to take your views seriously.

What has your 'simply' question got to do with this thread?

[scumdog]

oh good grief..........untruthful?....who the fuck is DN ?..........or do we have to do some more research........is that you ED?


Oh, sorry, I forgot to say - the use of emotive childish terms like 'cuntstuble' doesn't enhance your argument BTW...

[husaberg]

What has your 'simply' question got to do with this thread?

The simple question is quite relevant, as it shows your obvious bias to anything police, that fact you choose not to answer a the simple question that was asked of you during one of your corrupt cops rants , suggests to everyone, including me the ticket was actually quite justly deserved.

[Katman]

The simple question is quite relevant as it shows your obvious bias to anything police, that fact you choose not to answer the simple question, suggests to everyone including me the ticket was actually quite valid.

Did you miss the bit about there being someone else's name, date of birth and license number written underneath mine on the ticket?

[husaberg]

Did you miss the bit about there being someone else's name, date of birth and license number written under mine on the ticket?

No not at all I asked you if you were speeding, I recall all the other details you gave. The missing bit of the story is were you speeding or not?

[scumdog]

Did you miss the bit about there being someone else's name, date of birth and license number written underneath mine on the ticket?

Oh, does that mean you WEREN'T speeding???:confused:

[Katman]

No not at all I asked you if you were speeding, I recall all the other details you gave. The missing bit of the story is were you speeding or not?

I don't know.

The ticket was for 116kph - not 160kph.

[Katman]

Oh, does that mean you WEREN'T speeding???:confused:

It might mean that the other person named on the ticket was speeding.

[mossy1200]

It might mean that the other person named on the ticket was speeding.

If your the last person posting on a KB thread does it mean you won?

[Katman]

If your the last person posting on a KB thread does it mean you won?

I believe so.

[husaberg]

I don't know.

The ticket was for 116kph - not 160kph.

Really You don't know if you were speeding? Neither can I say that you were.
Neither I can you, or I say either that the guy in the video didn't intend, or would attempt to shoot some kids or other innocent people or the police.
Neither did the cops know at all what he would do.
They knew only what they could see in front of them, A man armed dangerous discharging a weapon in public and refusing to drop the firearm. They acted to minimise the threat to themselves and the public.
Yet you are so quick to judge the behaviours of people like in the case of the cops in the video.
Suggesting you can see that he was not a imminent threat to anyone. That they should have handled it better.
All the while whist you loudly proclaim that a ticket you received was totally unjustified. When you claim to not even recall if you were really speeding or not.

[Katman]

Really You don't know if you were speeding? Neither can I say that you were.
Neither I can you, or I say either that the guy in the video didn't intend, or would attempt to shoot some kids or other innocent people or the police.
Neither did the cops know at all what he would do.
They knew only what they could see in front of them, A man armed dangerous discharging a weapon in public and refusing to drop the firearm. They acted to minimise the threat to themselves and the public.
Yet you are so quick to judge the behaviours of people like in the case of the cops in the video.
Suggesting you can see that he was not a imminent threat to anyone. That they should have handled it better.
All the while whist you loudly proclaim that a ticket you received was totally unjustified. When you claim to not even recall if you were really speeding or not.

Dude, do you get your pet monkey to type your posts?

[Crasherfromwayback]

Oh, they are serious, but you'll never have to worry about them being in control of anything. They are keyboard warriors only.

That's pretty rich coming from you Ed! This IS KiwiBiker after all. Not KiwiMX5Driversareus.

[mossy1200]

All the while whist you loudly proclaim that a ticket you received was totally unjustified.

I had one that was unjustified.

Failure to stop at a stop sign.
Wet road in Dunedin with lights shinning on the road you couldn't see the painted lines.
I stopped a car length to early and after a car went through drove across.
Plod only came into view in time to see me enter the intersection.

22 years later im still sore about it.

[husaberg]

Dude, do you get your pet monkey to type your posts?

Sorry I don't have your obvious command of the vernacular, but it should be noted. A monkey would tend to throw shit around when he is cornered like you are.

[Crasherfromwayback]

I had one that was unjustified.

Failure to stop at a stop sign.
Wet road in Dunedin with lights shinning on the road you couldn't see the painted lines.
I stopped a car length to early and after a car went through drove across.
Plod only came into view in time to see me enter the intersection.

22 years later im still sore about it.

I thought you were ok provided you came to a complete stop?

[Crasherfromwayback]

All the while whist you loudly proclaim that a ticket you received was totally unjustified. .

I'm not sure he's ever claimed that.

[Madness]

That's pretty rich coming from you Ed! This IS KiwiBiker after all. Not KiwiMX5Driversareus.

Hey, cut him some slack. Ed's in complete control of his medication. Or Ed's medication is in complete control of him, I forget which it is.

[mossy1200]

I thought you were ok provided you came to a complete stop?

Yes but at the time I was stationary he wasn't within sight. He spotted me as I was beginning to move and assumed I hadn't stopped.
Was at the corner of the warehouse (wasn't there at the time) and Speights brewery in Dunedin.

Everyone can make a mistake and his cost me $75.00

[Katman]

Everyone can make a mistake and his cost me $75.00

Hey, you better not be trying to win this thread.

[husaberg]

I'm not sure he's ever claimed that.


Where you speeding???



Where you speeding??



Were you speeding and were you asked if you were? If you were not what would you have said if you were asked?? Looking at the way you fought the ticket you would have lied - if so what do we think of you then???


Are you that naive?

How many examples of police fabricating or planting evidence and lying under oath do you need?


It raises the old question - who is the judge or JP going to believe? The defendant or the police officer?

And where does it leave us if we can't trust the police to tell the truth?


'Eventually' being the operative word - and then only because I was prepared to take the case to the Court of Appeal.

The system has many inherent faults in it.

We have corrupt cops who will lie under oath, we have corrupt JPs (and possibly even judges) who are prepared to support lying cops and we have jury members who actually couldn't give a fuck whether they fulfill their duty to the best possible standard.

There have been numerous high profile cases that have shown considerable police incompetance.

How many small profile cases have seen the defendant similarly shafted?


Even one is one too many.

(And I doubt I found New Zealands only corrupt cop).


It got me wondering though just what degree of integrity the justice system has, when a police officer can concoct such a ridiculous story (having had it spelled out to him well before the hearing what my defense was going to be) and then lie under oath - all the while relying on the JP to support his ridiculous story and ignore his blatant lying.

It's a clear example of the police focusing solely on obtaining a conviction without the slightest consideration for any of the details of the case. (And an example of an area of our justice system which the police appear to rely upon to support their dodgy dealings).


I was handed a speeding ticket on the way to the Cold Kiwi some years ago. I didn't take any notice of the ticket until later when I noticed that my name, date of birth and license number had been scribbled over the top of someone else's. I decided to defend the charge on the grounds that there was serious question as to who the ticket was actually intended for. (A ticket for 116kph). Knowing this, the police chose to pursue the charge. On the day in court, when I asked him to tell me who else's name was on the ticket, the police officer stated under oath that there was no-one else's name on the ticket and my name had been re-written over my own name because of his pen running out of ink. When I expressed surprise at his response the JP quickly glanced at the ticket and agreed that there was no other name there. She found me guilty.

With one look, the judge at my appeal hearing awarded a rehearing.

The police withdrew the charge and I laid a complaint of perjury.


It's been proven time and again that police will not investigate anything that jeopardises their case.

How can we have faith in something that seeks a conviction before truth?
...............................................

[Katman]

:facepalm:

[mossy1200]

Hey, you better not be trying to win this thread.

Been married 12 years.
I don't even remember what winning an argument(discussion) feels like.

[husaberg]

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/8f/de/17/8fde1744405bf7f70f67ba9e3e1fc60e.jpg

[TheDemonLord]

Civilised means should be exhausted first rather than jumping straight to the uncivilised means.

And so we are back to square one - which is - what if the situation is such that there is not time to try Civilised means?

On the Wallace case - they backed off, he came at them, seems to me that they had exhausted All Civilised means - unless you have some extra insight or would care to elaborate what other options they should have tried?

[Edbear]

That's pretty rich coming from you Ed! This IS KiwiBiker after all. Not KiwiMX5Driversareus.

Clutching at straws Pete? I am right though.

By the way I sold the MX5 last year. Got a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV now.

[unstuck]

I am right though.



:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Oh of course you are Ed. I am surprised you can drive anything with a head that big Mr Smith.:whistle::whistle:

[Crasherfromwayback]

Clutching at straws Pete? I am right though.

.

Far from it. Just loving the irony and hypocrisy.

[bogan]

Clutching at straws Pete? I am right though.

By the way I sold the MX5 last year. Got a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV now.

Well, perhaps you should try www.kiwisoccermums.co.nz then?


:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Oh of course you are Ed. I am surprised you can drive anything with a head that big Mr Smith.:whistle::whistle:

More head room in the outlander though...

[Edbear]

Far from it. Just loving the irony and hypocrisy.

Ah well, whatever makes you happy... :yes:

[Edbear]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Oh of course you are Ed. I am surprised you can drive anything with a head that big Mr Smith.:whistle::whistle:

I know how it rankles you whenever someone posts a true statement, but we can't all live in our own imaginations. :whistle:

[unstuck]

but we can't all live in our own imaginations. :whistle:

More real than living in someone else's though I would have thought. That cannot be healthy for you.:2thumbsup

[bogan]

I know how it rankles you whenever someone posts a true statement, but we can't all live in our own imaginations. :whistle:

I feel I must point out that when your 'true statement' is just your opinionated judging of others, it shows unstuck's statement to be far more accurate than your own...

[Bikemad]

Oh, sorry, I forgot to say - the use of emotive childish terms like 'cuntstuble' doesn't enhance your argument BTW...

so that is all you got.........your upset about the cuntstable thing........nothing to add to my earlier summary of events?............i will concede "contained" was the wrong word........more like monitered or observed before Abbott confronted Wallace.......so come on Scummy...........do tell.....what was innacurate in my statement?

[husaberg]

I seem to recall some debate around this at the time - around what was correct police procedure:

if I get this wrong - I apologise, I CBF digging up the records - but it was something along the lines that in a situation where there was no danger to the public, the correct procedure was to back off and wait for the Armed Offenders squad. The debate was whether or not there was danger to the Public or the officer himself: The courts in the end sided with the Officer that when Williams advanced on him and I think threw a club or bat at the Officer that was grounds for the Officer to use Deadly force - and that Williams dropped about 5 m from the Officer (which isn't a great deal of distance)


for a start the victims name was WALLACE.........there were 3 officers on the scene......dogs on the way..........they had already contained him for 20-30 minutes......whats another 20-30 minutes....did the club/bat hit cuntstable abbott..NO..........would you expect someone who is drunk,under the influence of drugs,maybe a bit crazy and emotional,for whatever reason we will never know,or all of the above,to act with common sense and reason when confronted with someone pointing a gun at him.....police officer or not.
Abbott swore an oath to protect and serve ALL NZers.......Stephen Wallace included.From what i understand this behavior was out of character for Wallace and he probably would of apologised and paid for any damage he did,sadly he didn't get the chance



I sometimes wonder if the innacurate clap-trap such as above are trolls, I certainly hope so!.:shit:

However if the above poster is serious I despair at some of the people who I share this planet with, heaven forbid they ever have control of anything of consequence...:facepalm:


what have i said that is innacurate scummy........i am prepared to acknowledge your inside info.......go ahead.


30 April 2000, 4am in the town of Waitara, a cop and a criminal stood locked in what was to become one of New Zealand’s most controversial face offs. Broken glass and battered cars lay around them. All the product of a golf club attack wheedled by Steven Wallace.
As Senior Constable Keith Abbott drew his gun, Wallace advanced towards him armed with a baseball bat and a golf club. When after a warning was given, a retreat had been made and a warning shot failed to stop the advancing Wallace, Abbott fired 4 shots. Wallace fell to the ground. Steven Wallace later died in hospital.

It’s unclear what sparked Steven Wallace’s rampage through Waitara that night. After cooking his tea and watched a Super 12 game on T.V, Steven had headed out to a New Plymouth bar. Once returning home it is unclear what triggered the violent reaction that would end his life only hours later. Neighbours to the Wallaces were said to have heard yelling and swearing as Wallace beat the family shed with a golf club around 3am that morning. His mother stood by calling to him to calm down and come inside. Wallace threw the golf clubs in the boot of his car and sped away with blood-alcohol level twice that of the legal driving limit. As he left his mother was worried enough to dial 111 but hung up before the call was answered.

Wallace rampaged like a man possessed. Leaving golf clubs at various scenes he smashed and beat windows and cars. 3 cars were damaged. A taxi with passengers, a private car with 6 youths in it, the third car was a police patrol car. It has been said that night Wallace was intent on killing either himself or someone else and that the Senior Constable was an unwitting pawn in his game.

Collecting his pistol from the police station, Senior Constable Keith Abbott arrived at the scene of destruction. Beaten cars and 140 smashed windows a testimony of the Suspects State of mind. Steven Wallace began to aggressively advance on Abbott armed with a golf club and a baseball bat. Negotiation with the man proved fruitless. Wallace was warned that the policeman was armed and a warning shot was fired. With still no sign of the danger of the attack lessening Abbott withdrew 50m but was circled by Wallace and was cut off. When he reached 20m away Wallace threw the golf club at the Constables head causing him to duck and continued advancing with the softball bat. Abbott shot four shots before the man fell at 5-6m from the constable.
With Wallace death the nightmare of that horrific evening was far from over for Senior Constable Abbott and both his and Wallace’s family. A police investigation was lunched and Abbott’s actions were presented to an independent review. Although the review found that Constable had acted lawfully, Abbott moved his family soon after the incident. The wife of Keith Abbott was harassed and abused by members of Wallace's family. After one occasion in August 2001 when Mrs Abbott was followed home, there was a ruling that the Wallace's were prohibited to associate with the Abbott family for a 12 month period.

The Wallace Family brought a private prosecution against the Constable in September 2001. By February 2002, justices of the peace also found Abbott acted in self-defence and the case was dismissed. However in an appeal in June 02 a Chief Justice overturned the decision and the case went to the High Court. It wasn’t until 04 December 2002, that Abbott ordeal was finally over with an acquittal in the Wellington High Court after a jury deliberated for less than three hours.

Approximately 31 months after the shooting Abbott is about to return to full duties in the New Year of 2003
http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=28532
What's in doubt?

[Katman]

What's in doubt?

You could always go back and read the link in post #369 if you were actually interested.

[husaberg]

You could always go back and read the link in post #369 if you were actually interested.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0105/S00140.htm

I took the time to read it.
I did not read the second part as it is tripe, The killer etc.........NO interest in it when it is that slanted at least take the time to appear unbiased

Only problem is its fine to say what he could have done from that angle it should not have occurred.
The view is pretty biased and it was not accepted by the courts either.
How many people when confronted with a pistol continue to advance. Even after he was warned the policeman was armed, then he fired a warning shot. How many people after a warning shot is fired continue to advance.
He was armed with a softball bat he had showed a great willingness to use it.
He was advancing on the police officer not the other way around.
To say the police should have used batons or even tackled him is pretty simplistic. They other back up police were a lot further away than Wallace was to the policeman who shot him.
According to the account he still got up after the forth shot.

Like I said what facts are in dispute here.

[Katman]

I did not read the second part it is tripe, The murder etc.........


Then you're hardly in a position to comment on it.



Like I said what facts are in dispute here.

The Crown Law Office saw fit to appeal the decision to dismiss the case against Constable Abbott.

A Chief Justice obviously agreed that there was a case to be heard and ordered a High Court trial.

A jury subsequently found the cop not guilty.

And we all know that juries never get it wrong, don't we?

[husaberg]

Then you're hardly in a position to comment on it.

?

I can read a document without bias just as well, if not better than most.
I can also recognise what is a item of propaganda.
I read the first half as it was based on facts, the second half was that obviously slanted and showed such a high degree of prejudice it wasn't even worth considering as being an accurate account of events.
Did you not realise that.

Like I asked what facts of what occurred are in dispute here.
Other than the intent of either the policeman's or Wallaces actions.
Which you obviously dispute. Yet the jury found that the evidence did not support.
By it going to the high court does not mean he was guilty or that the judge considers him to be guilty.
He was subsequently found to be not guilty
Justice was served its just you don't like what they dished up.

[Katman]

I can read a document without bias just as well, if not better than most.
I can also recognise what is a item of propaganda.
I read the first half as it was based on facts, the second half was that obviously slanted and showed such a high degree of prejudice it wasn't even worth considering as being an accurate account of events.
Did you not realise that.


You do realise there are two sides to any story and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, don't you?

[Katman]

Like I asked what facts of what occurred are in dispute here.
Other than the intent of either the policeman's or Wallaces actions.
Which you obviously dispute. Yet the jury found that the evidence did not support.
By it going to the high court does not mean he was guilty or that the judge considers him to be guilty.
He was subsequently found to be not guilty
Justice was served its just you don't like what they dished up.

See, there you go again making shit up.

My initial comment regarding the Wallace case was simply that I don't see any humour in the fact that he was shot dead.

Since then I have merely posted a link to another side of the story.

[Banditbandit]

You do realise there are two sides to any story and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, don't you?

No - that is not always true ...

Yes, there are two sides to every story - sometimes only one of those sides it true ...

[husaberg]

You do realise there are two sides to any story and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle, don't you?

I do but when the statement starts off as that one did it just gets ignored.
The first part of the link is the important bit as it is what was presented as evidence.


I did notice this though, its a shame you never pursued your case or even filed a charge.
Which means he is still assumed to be not guilty



109 Punishment of perjury


(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who commits perjury.


(2) If perjury is committed in order to procure the conviction of a person for any offence for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years' imprisonment, the punishment may be imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 131
Section 109(2): amended, on 26 December 1989, by section 3(3) of the Abolition of the Death Penalty Act 1989 (1989 No 119).



110 False oaths
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years who, being required or authorised by law to make any statement on oath or affirmation, thereupon makes a statement that would amount to perjury if made in a judicial proceeding.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 132



111 False statements or declarations
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who, on any occasion on which he is required or permitted by law to make any statement or declaration before any officer or person authorised by law to take or receive it, or before any notary public to be certified by him as such notary, makes a statement or declaration that would amount to perjury if made on oath in a judicial proceeding.

Compare: 1908 No 32 s 133



112 Evidence of perjury, false oath, or false statement


No one shall be convicted of perjury, or of any offence against section 110 or section 111, on the evidence of 1 witness only, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the defendant.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 134; Criminal Code (1954) s 115 (Canada)
Section 112: amended, on 1 July 2013, by section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85).



113 Fabricating evidence
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.
Compare: 1908 No 32 s 135



114 Use of purported affidavit or declaration


Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years who—
(a) signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit sworn before him or her or a statutory declaration taken by him or her, when the writing was not so sworn or taken, or when he or she knows that he or she has no authority to administer that oath or take that declaration; or


(b) uses or offers for use any writing purporting to be an affidavit or statutory declaration that he or she knows was not sworn or made, as the case may be, by the deponent or before a person authorised to administer that oath or take that declaration.


Compare: Criminal Code (1954) s 118 (Canada)



115 Conspiring to bring false accusation
Every one who conspires to prosecute any person for any alleged offence, knowing that person to be innocent thereof, is liable—
(a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to preventive detention, or to imprisonment for a term of 3 years or more:


(b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years if that person might, on conviction of the alleged offence, be sentenced to imprisonment for a term less than 3 years.

Of course you never did, did you? Did you not want to subject your actions to that level of scrutiny for some reason.

[husaberg]

Then you're hardly in a position to comment on it.



The Crown Law Office saw fit to appeal the decision to dismiss the case against Constable Abbott.

A Chief Justice obviously agreed that there was a case to be heard and ordered a High Court trial.

A jury subsequently found the cop not guilty.

And we all know that juries never get it wrong, don't we?

I can read a document without bias just as well, if not better than most.
I can also recognise what is a item of propaganda.
I read the first half as it was based on facts, the second half was that obviously slanted and showed such a high degree of prejudice it wasn't even worth considering as being an accurate account of events.
Did you not realise that.

Like I asked what facts of what occurred are in dispute here.
Other than the intent of either the policeman's or Wallaces actions.
Which you obviously dispute. Yet the jury found that the evidence did not support.
By it going to the high court does not mean he was guilty or that the judge considers him to be guilty.
He was subsequently found to be not guilty
Justice was served its just you don't like what they dished up.




See, there you go again making shit up.

My initial comment regarding the Wallace case was simply that I don't see any humour in the fact that he was shot dead.

Since then I have merely posted a link to another side of the story.
Baking powder?
.............................

[husaberg]

No - that is not always true ...

Yes, there are two sides to every story - sometimes only one of those sides it true ...
Granted There is other occasions where one side is a total fabrication
Mostly I often find there can be truths on both sides slanted to suit.
But if both the people who are in dispute are reasonable and trustworthy the truth generally is in the middle.

but the Wallace case I do not see a lot disputed to nearly all the facts, other than the intent of either party.

[Katman]

Of course you never did, did you? Did you not want to subject your actions to that level of scrutiny for some reason.

I foolishly thought the IPCA would adequately deal with it.

I foolishly didn't lay a complaint to the Judicial Conduct Commissioner about the conduct of the JP in the case either.

She certainly deserved a kick in the slats as well.

[Swoop]

I saw on TV news once a NZ cop firing (a full clip?)
Gah! Thud.
It is called a "magazine". Americans need to learn this English word.

I thought it was an american police training video.:shifty:
Yup. A hairy-lip caterpillar that big means bacon, for sure!

Well, perhaps you should try www.kiwisoccermums.co.nz then?
Link is broken. Please fix promptly.:yes:

[Virago]

I've just watched Bruce Willis reverse over a bad guy on TV. If it's alright with Brucey, it's alright with me.

[oldrider]

I've just watched Bruce Willis reverse over a bad guy on TV. If it's alright with Brucey, it's alright with me.

Let me know when you are going to do it - should be interesting to see done on a Virago! - :blip:

[PrincessBandit]

I've just watched Bruce Willis reverse over a bad guy on TV. If it's alright with Brucey, it's alright with me.

As long as you add "yippee-kay-aye mofo" while doing it. (Or you can use the quote properly - I'm only a vanilla badass).

[husaberg]

I've just watched Bruce Willis reverse over a bad guy on TV. If it's alright with Brucey, it's alright with me.


Let me know when you are going to do it - should be interesting to see done on a Virago! - :blip:


As long as you add "yippee-kay-aye mofo" while doing it. (Or you can use the quote properly - I'm only a vanilla badass).

Odd I was picturing this
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3ib4xJx2D1rrqhmko1_500.gif

[unstuck]

Ah well, whatever makes you happy... :yes:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHoZ8eBNzn1FxDLiwqiWyO6CPCvqp5k O6AC1B3UUc4oaKbpVPm

[Katman]

Did this guy get what he deserved also?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/28/man-calls-suicide-line-police-kill-him.html

[TheDemonLord]

Did this guy get what he deserved also?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/28/man-calls-suicide-line-police-kill-him.html

Yep:


“they told Justin to drop the knife and he didn’t—so they shot him because ‘That’s what we do.’”

If someone with an assault rifle tells you to drop a knife and you don't....

[Katman]

Yep:



If someone with an assault rifle tells you to drop a knife and you don't....

You don't have much of an understanding of mental illness, do you?

[TheDemonLord]

You don't have much of an understanding of mental illness, do you?

This isn't a question of mental illness - this is a question of a 6 ft 4 drunk, armed with a knife in a small confined space, being threatening.

That scenario regardless of whether the man was drunk or mentally ill (and FYI - being a recovering alcoholic isn't mental illness) is one in which the officers responsibilities (both to the victim, themselves, and the general public at large) necessitates that if the person doesn't disarm themselves or makes any threatening moves, that they shoot first ask questions later.

So yes - threaten people armed with assault rifles with a knife - don't complain when you get shot.

[Banditbandit]

Did this guy get what he deserved also?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/28/man-calls-suicide-line-police-kill-him.html

he got what he wanted at least ...


This isn't a question of mental illness - this is a question of a 6 ft 4 drunk, armed with a knife in a small confined space, being threatening.

That scenario regardless of whether the man was drunk or mentally ill (and FYI - being a recovering alcoholic isn't mental illness) is one in which the officers responsibilities (both to the victim, themselves, and the general public at large) necessitates that if the person doesn't disarm themselves or makes any threatening moves, that they shoot first ask questions later.

So yes - threaten people armed with assault rifles with a knife - don't complain when you get shot.

I'm sorry - but addiction is a mental illness ...

We do not know if he made threatening moves ... only the cops int eh room would know that and the story does not say he was threatening them ... he was only a threat it himself ... lying in bed in his own house he could not possibly be an immediate threat to the public ...

The family wanted mental health professionals to arrive - not armed cops ready to kill ...

[TheDemonLord]

I'm sorry - but addiction is a mental illness ...

Vehemently disagree: nowhere in either the dictionary definition or the wikipedia definition does it define Addiction as Mental Illness.



We do not know if he made threatening moves ... only the cops int eh room would know that and the story does not say he was threatening them ... he was only a threat it himself ... lying in bed in his own house he could not possibly be an immediate threat to the public ...

The family wanted mental health professionals to arrive - not armed cops ready to kill ...

What did they expect if they call a help line and tell them that he is armed and threatening suicide/harm?!? Secondly why did they not talk to the officers before they went in the house?!?

[Katman]

Vehemently disagree: nowhere in either the dictionary definition or the wikipedia definition does it define Addiction as Mental Illness.

Whether you consider addiction to be a mental illness or not you'd be hard pressed to claim that depression isn't.

[mashman]

Vehemently disagree: nowhere in either the dictionary definition or the wikipedia definition does it define Addiction as Mental Illness.

Well, Portugal have based their entire drugs policy based on the premise that addiction is a mental illness. An entire country that don't know what they're talking about?

[Banditbandit]

Vehemently disagree: nowhere in either the dictionary definition or the wikipedia definition does it define Addiction as Mental Illness.

The World health Organisation certainly defines it as a mental illness ... they now call it "dependency syndrome" ...

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/



What did they expect if they call a help line and tell them that he is armed and threatening suicide/harm?!? Secondly why did they not talk to the officers before they went in the house?!?

If you call a help line in Godzone would you expert the Armed Offenders Squad to arrive fully equipped and ready to shoot?

Threatening suicide/self-harm does not mean that person posses a threat to anyone else .. the cops arreap to have given the family no time to talk - ordered themout of the house .. went into the bedroom ...

[Big Dog]

Sounds like the same team that arrested Osama.

I am of no delusion that at 6'4" I would get any different outcome in a country that arms it's cops.
Even here in little ok NZ you can see the fear whenever I get pulled for a breath test or similar. Cop on their back foot. Hand on their weapon if they have one.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[Erelyes]

Anyone remember the cunt that was buck naked and eating someone's face (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151098/Rudy-Eugene-Naked-man-eats-face-victim-high-LSD-police-shoot-Miami.html)? Yeah, no doubt he was out of his normal mind. Doesn't mean you suspend duty to reduce public risk.

This whole mental health bullshit is irrelevant. I am not saying shoot first, ask questions later. I am saying if they shoot (or chew) first, we can ask questions later....

[ElCoyote]

You don't have much of an understanding of mental illness, do you?

Obviously you are well acquainted with mental illness, it shows.....................Just saying

[Katman]

Obviously you are well acquainted with mental illness, it shows.....................Just saying

I face it every time I log on here.


...he was a nigra to boot.

You're all class.

[TheDemonLord]

The World health Organisation certainly defines it as a mental illness ... they now call it "dependency syndrome" ...

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/terminology/definition1/en/

Interesting article, certainly - but not once does it use the word mental OR Illness.





If you call a help line in Godzone would you expert the Armed Offenders Squad to arrive fully equipped and ready to shoot?

Threatening suicide/self-harm does not mean that person posses a threat to anyone else .. the cops arreap to have given the family no time to talk - ordered themout of the house .. went into the bedroom ...

Again - it depends on what I am doing, and history has shown us that unstable people contemplating suicide don't always just off themselves.

[caspernz]

Every situation is different of course. My main concern is with the "shoot first/ask questions later" mentality that Hollywood perpetuates as a justifiable answer. Maybe I'm mellowing as I grow older, but it bugs me when the lethal solution to a temporary problem becomes accepted to the point it's the first (and only) choice in some eyes.

[jasonu]

Did this guy get what he deserved also?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/28/man-calls-suicide-line-police-kill-him.html

When the whole story comes out from credible sources...
Not sure I would rely on a report from an outfit calling themselves The Daily beast.

[husaberg]

When the whole story comes out from credible sources...
Not sure I would rely on a report from an outfit calling themselves The Daily beast.

Nor would I rely on the ability of a grieving family who are traumatised to be able to assess what occurred with a degree of impartiality.
I wonder from reading it whether they had been asked during their call for help if they were afraid of him or thought he could harm others.
Of course that would mean someone would have to put aside prejudices they have, that all police are only out to kill, that they shoot first and ask questions later though.

[Smifffy]

I was once told that if you say "Stop or I will shoot", and they don't stop and you don't shoot, then not only are you at greater risk of death or disability, but it now also makes you a liar. Nobody likes a liar.

[hungryretire]

They can shoot the guy somewhere to incapacitate him or to limit his mobility, right?

[Smifffy]

They can shoot the guy somewhere to incapacitate him or to limit his mobility, right?

Yes, they always try to limit his mobility by aiming at the centre of mass. A direct hit there usually incapacitates them quite quickly.

[husaberg]

They can shoot the guy somewhere to incapacitate him or to limit his mobility, right?

If the police make a decision to shoot someone, They are trained only to shoot to kill, otherwise it was not necessary to shoot them in the first place, as there were other options available. Shooting is used as lethal force. To protect the officer or someone else.

[gammaguy]

Well, it turns out he stole the gun from Walmart and was only threatening to shoot himself.

Paints a fairly clear picture of police over-reaction.

Here's a longer version.




There ya go then,hes a goddam shoplifter should be shot

Fucker