This cunt got what he deserved!

[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]

[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]

[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.

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

[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?

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

More head room in the outlander though...

[Edbear]

Far from it. Just loving the irony and hypocrisy.

Ah well, whatever makes you happy...

[Edbear]

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

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

[unstuck]

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

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

[bogan]

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

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!.

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...

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?