This cunt got what he deserved!

[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.

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.

[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! -

[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).