Clint, your slip is showing.

[Lou Girardin]

True that. Keith Abbott was on trial for something done on duty, and thus he was trialled as a cop.

It sounds like Rickards was doing a little R&R on duty too.
I wonder why they weren't charged with misuse of Police equipment?

I don't think the uniform issue relates to whether the crime was done on duty or not. Rickards is suspended, was Abbott the killer suspended?

[spudchucka]

True that. Keith Abbott was on trial for something done on duty, and thus he was trialled as a cop.

He can't be tried as a "cop". He can only be tried as a person. The fact that he was a cop was of course relevant to the case but the charge was laid against Keith Abbott, not Constable Abbott.

[Finn]

This case is interesting and I'm wondering if "failing to stop" is a now a legitimate action given the fear of being raped by the cops.

I really feel for Keith Abbott. We get pissed off when the public are unnecessarily dragged through the legal system and here we had a case where a cop was just doing his job. That wallace was a mongrel and a $1 bullet was a good investment.

[Marmoot]

He can't be tried as a "cop". He can only be tried as a person. The fact that he was a cop was of course relevant to the case but the charge was laid against Keith Abbott, not Constable Abbott.

Oh, it was a civil prosecution. You're right.

[texmo]

He's suspended from duty, technically I guess you could say that he isn't currently a police officer.

The notable difference was Keith Abbott, on trial for murder but wore his police uniform every day in court.

IMHO he should be done for what anybody else would be done for, impersonating an officer... doesnt matter weather hes guilty or not. He is hiding behind the fact hes a cop looking for unearned sympathy.

PS im not a cop hater like every other KB out there....

[spudchucka]

Oh, it was a civil prosecution. You're right.

Doesn't matter if it was privately laid charge or laid by police or any other prosecuting agency. The charges are laid against the person, not the person and their chosen line of work.

[spudchucka]

IMHO he should be done for what anybody else would be done for, impersonating an officer... doesnt matter weather hes guilty or not. He is hiding behind the fact hes a cop looking for unearned sympathy.

PS im not a cop hater like every other KB out there....

I'm not defending the guy, in fact I hope the cops do discipline him, he should know better.

[Ixion]

The difference though, is that Mr Abbot's defence rested on the fact that he *was* a cop. That what might have been illegal if done by a private citizen was not so in his case, since he was acting in pursuant to his duty as a police officer. And had the support of his superiors with regard to his actions. So in a sense it was the police force on trial.

Whereas no one would claim that Mr Rickards was acting in pursuance of his duty, nor that he had the support of his superior officers for his actions.

[jaybee180]

I too worked with Rickards in Hamilton. Considered him then, as now, as nothing other than a bully.

Will be watching this case with interest!

[texmo]

I'm not defending the guy, in fact I hope the cops do discipline him, he should know better.

Bling your way, we need more coppers like you.

[Lou Girardin]

nor that he had the support of his superior officers for his actions.

One did, Dwyer actively dissuaded her from laying a complaint.
But he has other problems with his former employers now.

[Hitcher]

What does the truth have to do with justice?

In this case I have hopes for a convergence!

[Hitcher]

An interesting fact about the Abbott/Wallace case is that only one mainstream media channel ever named "Constable X", even thought the supression order was lifted. That was the National Business Review. Its subscription levels have never returned to what they were prior to the decision to name the Constable. Make of that what you will.

[Lou Girardin]

An interesting fact about the Abbott/Wallace case is that only one mainstream media channel ever named "Constable X", even thought the supression order was lifted. That was the National Business Review. Its subscription levels have never returned to what they were prior to the decision to name the Constable. Make of that what you will.

That everyone's sick of Fran O'Sullivan?

[spudchucka]

The difference though, is that Mr Abbot's defence rested on the fact that he *was* a cop. That what might have been illegal if done by a private citizen was not so in his case, since he was acting in pursuant to his duty as a police officer. And had the support of his superiors with regard to his actions. So in a sense it was the police force on trial.

Whereas no one would claim that Mr Rickards was acting in pursuance of his duty, nor that he had the support of his superior officers for his actions.

In reference to Abbott, section 48 of the crimes act, (which relates to self defence and the defence of others), applies to all citizens, not just police officers.

Other sections of the crimes act relating to use of force used to effect an arrest and to prevent escape or rescue of persons in custody are more specific to police. These would have added weight to the defence but it was section 48 that was the primary consideration.

However, it was his work as a police officer that placed him in a situation where he had to consider the use of lethal force in self defence. An ordinary citizen would not have been in any way compelled to put themselves into the position that he found himself in that night.

One of the primary differences for an ordinary citizen in the same circumstances is that the carriage of the firearm in those circumstances would have been unlawful. The use of the firearm in the end may have been justified under section 48 but the initial carriage of the firearm would in all likelyhood remain an offence.