Chef stabs assailant and now faces prison.

[Wolf]

Indeed. In fact the only rational I can think of for denying someone in the chef's situation the right to take whatever action he sees fit to minimise the chance of serious injury or death is the premis that the police will deal with the offenders on his behalf.

The fact is they're rarely there at the time of such an incident, so as far as I can see the law is inappropriate. Surely someone under attack by a superior force should have the right to employ superior weapons. It's fuck all consolation for the next of kin that one obeyed the law if it costs you your life.

If you're outnumbered and they show no signs of backing down, I feel any rational person would have reason to fear for his/her life and so should be allowed to respond appropriately, whether or not there are "weapons" on display. Boots are weapons if used badly enough (a single person kicking the shit out of another is justification for an "assault with a lethal weapon" charge in Texas, apparently) people have been beaten to death by "unarmed" gangs all over the world.

Superior numbers = reason to fear for one's life = justification for extreme force - shoot to stop.

Of course, if you plug one of your 7 attackers and the other 6 run away, you're not allowed to shoot them in the back.

[Wolf]

"the chef stabbed the fella as he was leaving so it wasn't self-defence"
how could the chef be certain he was leaving?
he could have turned to check that no-one was coming before turning back to finish the job .... or swivelling away to get another good swing at the chef ..... one would hope that a reasonable defence lawyer could think of a dozen such things that would raise a reasonable doubt

All good points, which is why I think it should have gone to trial rather than a plea-bargain.

Best to let a jury decide if the chef genuinely had reason to believe his life was in danger at the time he plunged the knife in or whether it was "red mist" time.

[Mr Merde]

This thead is still progressing and still staying relatively on topic.

I am impressed.



This kid has fallen foul of the "Nanny State".

He took responsibility for his own safety and the result was a wanna be bully boy got hurt.

His problem has been the fac t that we are not allowed to do this anymore. The bleeding heart, liberal, tree hugging, politicos have decided that the right to protect ones self and ones family is an archaic right and therefore not relevant to their view of todays society, unless it is their safety or pocessions that are involved.

Look at the anti firearms fraternity in the US. Preaching fire and brimstone and protecting themselves with armed bodyguards. Sarah Brady and Teddy kenedy are both guilty of these double standards.

I notice that some people have suggested that here in NZ we do not have the right of self defence. RUbbish. Our laws are based upon those imported into this country by the original British settlers. Those laws that were copied by the signees of the American Declaration of Independence. The 2nd ammendment was a re write of the English Bill of Rights. Written about 150 years earlier. in the time of oliver Cromwell.

Even the UN recognises the factr that the most basic of human rights is that of self protection and safety in the life of the individual.

Our problem is that we are not encouraged to be individuals. We might start asking awkward questions of the government. Questions that the y powers would rather we didnt ask.

I agree that those gang members should be charged. The other thing I wish to know is who stood witness for the proscecution? The gang members? They have a v ersted interest in putting this kid away. makes them look tough. It also gets back some of their lost reputation.

I fully believe that any injury received in the commision of a crime is the fault of the criminal and any evidence from them is null and void.

Merde

[Wolf]

Well said, Mr Merde.

Personally, if I felt in fear of my life (or feared for the lives of my family/friends) and was not paralysed by fear, I would do what it took to stop the assailant(s) and then let the jury decide whether or not I acted out of line.

I would also be loudly baying to any reporter within earshot that those who threatened me or mine should be arrested for putting me in that life-threatening situation.

Whether or not the chef "went too far" is irrelevant to the question of the gangstas - they were committing crimes and they should have been arrested and charged. If the chef did go too far, then there would be reason to send all of them to jail, not just the chef.

They sought him out and threatened him, not the other way 'round. If, subsequently, he over-stepped the mark - like some store keepers in the States have done by exiting their shops and shooting at the fleeing armed robbers, then that is a separate matter.

One rule for all - put all of those who committed crimes on trial, not just one person.

[Patrick]

Well, I'd read some of the media stuff about the case, including these snippets:

Read those snippets, the court stuff was fine, the rest was utter shite. FACTS they claim... what a load of bollocks. Gutter trash is what that was.

i have ALWAYS wondered why a hulking great, fit, young policeman, trained up in all sorts of japanese nose-holds and other mayhem-restraining measures, is permitted to legally carry a gun and shoot someone in self-defence

1 training day in 6 months is all we get for these Japanese Nose Hold thingies... You have to train daily so that the reaction comes naturally. If you have to think about how to do the hold, you lose.

The real world is quite different to your imaginings... Ever struggled with a nutter? Took 7 of us once to restrain one. All skin, cock and ribs and I was the smallest at 6'2 and 95kgs. I almost broke his leg with a baton strike but it didn't even make him flinch. They call that type of drive "goal oriented." They feel no pain and have absolutely amazing power and strength.

IV done a few forms of martial arts over the years. It takes a significant period of time to become proficient and requires constant training to remain so. It gives you the ability to look after yourself agains an angry adversary, two at a pinch. go up against somebody with a weapon and the odds ara against you.

Besides if somebody is prepared to pull a knife on you that tells me they are prepared to use it and kill me. Then its game on.. you do what it takes to survive. you have a bigger meaner weapon, then use it.

Never a truer word spoken... bling to you...

Get a whack in the head by a golf club and you are unlikely to get up. I have no doubt that the police officer considered his life in peril.

However having said that I am unsure if said officer was in a position of where he could retreat or if he was cornered. I have not followed this too closely ...Skyryder

He had backed up, was met by the curb and could go no further, could not take his eyes from the offender as he approached. Also had other obstacles in the area, again unable to take his eyes from the offender because if he did, and he rushed at him, copper would lose. How quick do you think a fit young man could move in a second or two while you took your eyes off him?

What is not reported: whether or not the gangstas are arrested for intimidation, assault and carrying concealed weapons (and illegal - the switchblade).

If they were not arrested and charged, then they should have been - including the wounded one.

Exactly... and yet still no word from anywhere on this....

[davereid]

I clearly heard the cops telling Mr Wallace to please be patient and not do anything silly, that back-up would be here soon, otherwise they would be obliged to baton, pepper-spray or shoot him - and oh, could he please refrain from beating them with the golf-club if they had to get close to him and use their batons.
And please stay down-wind of them in case they had to pepper spray him, and by the way, pepper-spray DOES work on you, doesn't it?.

Scumdog has hit the mark. Wallace was shot for not doing as he was told. The Police were only endangered because they made a threat, and Wallace didn't do as he was told. He wasn't killing or even scaring anyone. He was just breaking windows. All the cops had to do to avoid shooting him was walk away. And all that would have happened was a few more windows would have been broken.

I'm not passing judgement as to shooting him was justified or not. I don't really think it matters that Patrick and 10 other cops were needed to subdue a similar offender.

I am saying that Police shoot based on exactly the same self defence laws as Joe Citizen.

So when looking at a citizen who uses force in self defence, the question is, "Would a Police officer have been charged ?and if so, found guilty ?"

[Wolf]

All the cops had to do to avoid shooting him was walk away. And all that would have happened was a few ore windows would have been broken.

And if it had been your property he had vandalised you'd probably be asking why they hadn't arrested him while they were there. Fucking cops, bloke's smashing up my property and they just get back in their cars and drive away, leaving him to have a fucking field-day on my premises. Should've arrested him, the cocks.

So they go to arrest the guy as per their duty and instead of putting the club down he elects to directly threaten them, obliging them to shoot-to-stop or wind up with their brains splattered over the surrounding countryside.

"Shoot to stop" is as many rounds in the centre of mass as it takes to down the person. if they crumple quickly enough they won't get shot very often. They may be lucky and be one of the 85% (OK, US figure there but it shouldn't be too different to elsewhere) who survive being shot in the centre of mass by a cop.

Sometimes they die - them's the breaks when threatening to kill a police officer.

Read Tueller's report. A baseball bat, golf club or knife is a clear and present danger to life at up to 21 feet. That fact is recognised by law enforcement officials and is treated accordingly.

Don't want to be shot? Put down anything that could be used as a weapon and surrender when told.

[davereid]

A baseball bat, golf club or knife is a clear and present danger to life at up to 21 feet. That fact is recognised by law enforcement officials and is treated accordingly.

Exactly the point .. the police (in theory) face exactly the same test as Joe Citizen.

The Chef would have passed that test...

[Wolf]

Exactly the point .. the police (in theory) face exactly the same test as Joe Citizen.

The Chef would have passed that test...

The assailants were definitely well within lethal range - of their boots, if they weren't carrying that assortment of weapons.

I do not know the full story behind why the chef's lawyer advised him to take a plea bargain rather than defend the greater charge before a jury. I do not know if, in his situation, the use of potentially lethal force was "justifiable". Perhaps he stabbed the crim after it was "obvious to a reasonable person" that the ordeal was over and they were leaving. Maybe it's just "they had empty hands, you drew a knife, therefore you're wrong." I don't know.

I strongly think that the law should recognise basic inequalities - me vs a hardened gang member the size of Lias, two or more against one, etc and recognise that there is no such thing as an "unarmed" attacker, that boots and fists DO kill.

Perhaps some of these scummy little toe-rags should kick a few politicians to death (I know, fat chance of that as these anti-gun, anti-self-defence arsewipes spend all their time surrounded by armed personal protection specialists) and do the country three favours at once - they'd get the law changed to recognise the seriousness of so-called "unarmed" attacks, they'd remove a few of the wastes of oxygen in parliament and they'd be shot by the cops so they'd be removing themselves from the gene pool as well.

The cops can't be everywhere at once and the intelligent ones know it. The citizenry should be able to take an appropriate course of action if they feel their lives are in danger, which means the legal system should recognise that 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 etc vs one is not a "fair fight" that the average member of public can get out of by running (ever hear of a wolf pack?) or gentlemanly fisticuffs.

Only the drongo politicians in their little ultra-safe universe of armed bodyguards seem to think that a half dozen gangstas pose no threat.

[Mr Merde]

...or gentlemanly fisticuffs.

....

When I was a very young man (about 13 years old) my father (a regular soldier and a vetran of the Malaya campaign and the Vietnam police action) gave me one of his few fatherly pieces of advice.


He told me that if I had to fight then I better fight to win by any means. He told me to forget about fighting like a GENTLEMAN as one who was such wouldnt be fighting in the first place.

Gentlemen dont fight, they talk, they evade, they leave but when they have to resort to violence all gentlemanly behaviour goes by the board.


BTW. Missed the full account but the late news had a breaking story about the police shooting dead a man who was threatening them with a hammer. Not six gang members reportedly with knives and such but a hammer. I dont know the full story but they felt they were in such danger that they shot to kill.

Double standards again? A civilian can't defend themselves but the "armed forces" can. What would have happened if there had of been 6 atagonists all armed with knives? The perfect excuse to break out the Bushmasters and go full rock and roll I bet.


Merde.

[Delerium]

Im a little unsre what you mean when referring to 'armed forces'. Those in the NZDF can be charged with murder just like anybody else. They are issued with a rules of engagement card and receive briefs on these also. You dont follow them you get charged. Im fairly certain that the policw will be bound by similar rules.

The thing is its easy to pick apart and criticise a situation like this when your not there, its a lot harder to make the correct decision when your pumped full of adrenalin and have 2 seconds to decide. It comes down to what can do in order to not get myself hurt.

[mstriumph]

........................The real world is quite different to your imaginings... Ever struggled with a nutter? Took 7 of us once to restrain one. All skin, cock and ribs and I was the smallest at 6'2 and 95kgs. I almost broke his leg with a baton strike but it didn't even make him flinch. They call that type of drive "goal oriented." They feel no pain and have absolutely amazing power and strength......................

yes actually
minding a deli for a mate
young fella my height but half my age, twice my strength and high on something other than adrenaline took exception to my not handing over the takings when told
attacked me with a large rusty screwdriver i hit him around the ear with a chairleg - it didn't even touch him [so i do know what you mean, Patrick] - disarmed him but copped a fair beating in the process [what did i expect? superman to intervene? -lol -but what the heck, i had nowhere to run to ...]and he took the money anyway
- on the bright side i think i may have ruptured him because he was certainly running funny as he left
- on the dark side a very young policeman that attended said i should have just handed over the money and that, as i had used a 'weapon' on him i could be prosecuted if they caught him and he was hurt

are you suprised i am cynical?

if i had had a firearm would i have shot him? .......probably
but if i had had a firearm would he have regarded me as prey? .......probably not

[Wolf]

- on the dark side a very young policeman that attended said i should have just handed over the money and that, as i had used a 'weapon' on him i could be prosecuted if they caught him and he was hurt

WTF? He attacked you with a screwdriver - lethal weapon within 21 feet - you equalised it with a chair leg. Doubt a jury would do you for clobbering an armed bloke with whatever came to hand. Yours was an iompromptu weapon, he deliberately carried a weapon into the shop (as I doubt he grabbed a screwdriver that just happened to be left on the counter by a serviceman who'd been fixing something in the shop.)

[mstriumph]

--- i think it was inexperience talking - he WAS very young ..

... but it IS advertised police policy over here that the general public should hand over the money without resistance when told to do so by a robber [which is probably why there are so many robberies, no?]

personally i believe that, if you do that, you are complicit in the crime because you are a] tacitly agreeing that the robber has a right to rob you and, b] by not resisting, are actually helping him do so ......... then again, i'm a cynic with some VERY quaint notions at times!

[Patrick]

He was just breaking windows.

And that is what the media kept on repeating... not the fact that he attacked a taxi and its occupants, the copp windscreen, advanced on a cop who went to talk to him beciase he thought he recognised him, but while advancing and threatening, cop drew his weapon while backing away until he could back away no further...

Exactly the point .. the police (in theory) face exactly the same test as Joe Citizen.

The Chef would have passed that test...

Totally agreed.... lawyer was either incompetent or there actually was more to this than what the "media" told everyone.... Perhaps the chefs story wasn't quite true and the kids were picked on by him.... but who knows, we haven't heard anything from these kids, if they were charged for any wrongs they were meant to have done to the chef, nothing..... Hmmmm.....

yes actually
- on the dark side a very young policeman that attended said i should have just handed over the money and that, as i had used a 'weapon' on him i could be prosecuted if they caught him and he was hurt

are you suprised i am cynical?

if i had had a firearm would i have shot him? .......probably
but if i had had a firearm would he have regarded me as prey? .......probably not

That is a kid robber, not a nutter..... but yes, I can see how one could be cynical... that cop was "technically speaking" correct.... In reality, you would be hailed as a hero and I bet a jury would not convict.

As for the handing over money thing, that is what they say everywhere...

"Better to hand over the money than end up dead." Your call, but is it really that hard a call???

Its just some money, but it is potentially your life you might be throwing away for not handing the money over.....

Personally, You're a hero and deserve a DB...