Chef stabs assailant and now faces prison.

[Indoo]

oh bling, bling, blingy bling bling

yes - most definately ---- here in Aus. too -----
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

while a dear little white-haired shopkeeper, frail, fragile and elderly, is just expected to stand there and take a beating because the law does not permit them a firearm.

madness

You are taking the piss right?

[peasea]

"Japanese nose holds", wish I'd thought of that.

[Delerium]

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.

[scumdog]

It seems that if you are two police officers, armed with batons, handcuffs, pepper spray, firearms and with backup on the way, that you are protected by the law when using lethal force against a nut breaking windows with a golf club.

True.

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?.

And if they had to shoot him please fall over nicely after the first shot.


But I guess he didn't hear them..

Now if only some members of the public had been there to talk to him things might have turned out different..like say if his family had been there...


But the unthinking buggers were to scared to go near him and he got shot.

[mstriumph]

You are taking the piss right?

of the system - yes

of you? i don't even know you ---- but speak to me, put your viewpoint - we can debate the issue

you - i take it - on the side of testosterone-rich, rugged, firearm-enhanced constabulary and the politicians that support them

me on the side of the frail, elderly and defenceless who the politicians are determined will remain that way

hmmmmm?

[idb]

Can't speak for either case with 100% accuracy as I wasn't there BUT I beleive in the chef incident that the dick-heads were about to leave.

Not so with Mr Wallace who also had been warned. - I gather the chef acted without the same courtesy.

I have trouble sympathising at all with the bus bullies SD.
Taking the report at face value (that's all you can do here) one of them took the time and trouble to stop, or come back and punch the chef.
If the chef had issued a warning it would have given the little tossers a chance to even the odds somehow.
Surprise is as important as carrying a bigger weapon.

As for Mr Wallace, it's just dumb to bring a golf club to a gun fight.

[Skyryder]

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 but have not heard of anything about the officer being trapped. If he was not and he could have retreated why did he not do so?

On issue of following instructions this is not as simple as it sounds. By the time these guys get to the state where they are threating armed officer it would appear to me that any rational that they may have had no longer exists. On that basis if an officer can retreat without endangering his or the public safety then he has a duty to do so. Unless some kind of evidence can be produced that would be in conflict of this then the officer has the right to take the appropiate action that he deems necessary. 'Bout my take on this issue.

Skyryder

[davereid]

..me on the side of the frail, elderly and defenceless who the politicians are determined will remain that way...

I think this is getting to the heart of the matter.

You can argue all you like that the Police didn't need to shoot Wallace, all they needed to do was retreat... its a good question but in this case it's not relevant, it just buries the real question.

We arm Police for their self defence only. The arguement is that Police are at risk because of their job, and the kind of people they have to deal with. Its true, police do need the tools of self defence.

But, the first person at the scene of a home invasion is the home owner.
The first person at the scene of a bank robbery is the teller.
The first person at the scene of a rape is the victim.
The first person at a burglary is the victim or his security company.

The first person at virtually all crimes is an innocent member of the public. Yet your dairy owner is not allowed a baton or pepper spray.

The real question is what are police trying to gain by prosecuting people who defend themselves ?

The Police have a product - the reduction of crime.

That means they also should have a "target customer", the person or group of people that they see as being the beneficiary of their work, in the end the paying customer.

If I was in the police I would be wondering why middle class, middle aged New Zealanders with good incomes (like many of the posters on this site) no longer have confidence in the system or its enforcers.

Because that would be a signal to me, that if I can't get support from those kinds of Kiwis exactly who am I working for ?

[Hitcher]

The real question is what are police trying to gain by prosecuting people who defend themselves?

You're missing the point. The issue here is what the Courts determine in relation to the prosecution. If the Police believe that a law has been broken, then they have an obligation to prosecute. To do anything less would be a huge dereliction of their duty. After examining all of the circumstances relating to that prosecution, the Court may let people walk away without conviction or sanction, or it may decide to impose a lesser sentence than the full extent available. Or it may determine that a real crime has been committed, despite what may be alleged by the defendant, and rightfully bust their arses.

New Zealand doesn't yet allow "citizen justice". And thank god, based on the recent experience of TVNZ trying to give away a wedding.

[davereid]

If the Police believe that a law has been broken, then they have an obligation to prosecute.

Not sure thats quite right...

The Police regularly decide that its "not in the public interest" to prosecute. Recent examples of course are Helen Clarks electoral spending fraud, but I'm sure any watcher of the news could name another half dozen or so.

All New Zealanders in theory have the right to self defence.

I'm not sure of the exact words, but basically the law says something like "you are allowed to use reasonable force for the defence of yourself or others, in the circumstances as you believe them to be"

So I can't understand why regularly as clockwork, the police prosecute Joe Citizen if he uses force to defend himself.

After all, it's exactly the same law as the police rely on for their use of force.

[Delerium]

Not sure thats quite right...

The Police regularly decide that its "not in the public interest" to prosecute. Recent examples of course are Helen Clarks electoral spending fraud, but I'm sure any watcher of the news could name another half dozen or so.

All New Zealanders in theory have the right to self defence.

I'm not sure of the exact words, but basically the law says something like "you are allowed to use reasonable force for the defence of yourself or others, in the circumstances as you believe them to be"

So I can't understand why regularly as clockwork, the police prosecute Joe Citizen if he uses force to defend himself.

After all, it's exactly the same law as the police rely on for their use of force.

Except when it involves exhuming a body, then you dont prosecute.

[Indoo]

So I can't understand why regularly as clockwork, the police prosecute Joe Citizen if he uses force to defend himself.

Do you know how many times the Police turn a blind eye or condone Joe Citizen using force to defend himself?

The cases where people have been prosecuted are when the force used is in the extreme, ie stabbing someone, shooting someone etc, the vast majority of cases where Joe Citizen might have gone a bit overboard are not prosecuted although legally they surely could be.

[Wolf]

OK, so I gather from reading it all that a bunch of wannabe gangstas patterning themselves off an American gang decided that some straight-looking bloke wearing a certain-coloured shirt is a member of a rival gang of wannabes, also patterned off and American gang, and start threatening him, throwing things at him, spitting on him and one of them punches him as they are about to leave the bus.

The bloke then grabs a knife out of his roll and plunges it up to its hilt in one of the gangstas. He then flees the scene and is later arrested and pleads guilty. It is inferred in the original report that this bloke does have a minor criminal record.

It is later revealed that the gangstas are carrying concealed weapons.

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.

They were engaged in criminal activities whilst carrying weaopns: they committed assault (spitting is assault under the law, as is the punch that was throw), they deliberately intimidated the bloke.

It could be argued (anywhere but here in NZ) that he was in fear of his life - outnumbered by a threatening mob and then assaulted.

That could be argued as justification for an armed response in several States in the USA.

However, it is also stated that they were leaving when one of them hit him so it could be counter-argued that the "threat" was about to go away, removing justification for self-defence.

Even in "gun-crazy" USA, you're not allowed to plug an assailant who is leaving/escaping.

If they were leaving, the "in fear of one's life" argument is nullified and the stabbing becomes an offence.

NZ law needs tightening up in a lot of areas.

Those gangstas also should have been arrested and charged with a variety of offences.

What next? In a brawl between Mongrel Mob and Black Power they'll arrest only the members of one of the gangs and let the other gang go home?

While one could argue that the chef was in the wrong for stabbing one of them as they were about to leave, the yoofs were also in the wrong for intimidating him, assaulting him and carrying offensive weapons.

Much is made of the police having an "obligation" to prosecute the chef. Do they not also have an obligation to prosecute the youth gang?

[Ocean1]

Much is made of the police having an "obligation" to prosecute the chef. Do they not also have an obligation to prosecute the youth gang?

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.

[mstriumph]

"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

i certainly hope the chef is not imprisoned or fined for this .......