Hopefully the final chapter in the Wallace shooting

March 18th, 2009 at 8:13 am by David Farrar

I have always been amazed that there has been any controversy over the shooting of . I’ve criticised the cops on many occasions, but not for shooting a guy who is trying to kill them.  If armed cops tell you to drop your baseball bat, and you not only refuse but you keep advancing on the officer proclaiming you are going to kill him – well I call it suicide by cop. He even continued to advance after they fired a warning shot .

Anyway the Independent Conduct Authority has spent almost a year doing a full review of what happened. This is the new which doesn’t just review internal investigations but has the resources to independtly investigate.

The Herald reports on their conclusions:

  • Steven Wallace engaged in a “lengthy and violent rampage” through Waitara armed with a baseball bat and golf club, “borne of an unexplained rage, which showed no signs of abating”.
  • Constable Keith Abbott was justified in arming himself and using the gun within the law and police procedures.
  • Mr Wallace had a history of violence.
  • Constable Abbott had no other option available to him.
  • No evidence supported rumours that Constable Abbott had been drinking at two social functions before the shooting.
  • The lack of communication between Constables Abbott and Dombroski reflected the urgency of the situation they faced.
  • Police should have done more for Mr Wallace after the shooting, when they refused to give him first aid and did not put a blanket offered by a witness over him. But even if first aid was provided it would not have saved his life.

The IPCA make it very clear that Wallace was not killed for breaking windows:

“Steven Wallace was shot, not because he had broken windows, or because he was resisting or escaping from arrest, but because Senior Constable Abbott had reasonable grounds to fear for his own life and for that of Constable Dombroski,” said Authority Chair Justice Lowell Goddard.

The full report is a 45 page pdf. I suggest people read it – it is very thorough. Fo those who think Wallace was just breaking some windows in a deserted area of town and no threat to anyone:

Steven then stopped on the corner of McLean Street and Domett Street, where he got out of his vehicle and began to smash glass panes in the surrounding buildings. As the taxi passed, after having dropped off its passenger, he crossed the road swinging a baseball bat and smashed the driver’s window as it drove past, giving the taxi driver the impression that he was aiming for the windscreen.

On two occasions, Steven also moved aggressively towards a car containing some young people who knew him. The driver left in a hurry each time.

At some stage, Steven also drove at high speed directly towards a security guard on a bicycle. The guard feared for his life and went immediately to the petrol station to report the incident.

The whole notion that the Police should have just left him alone to smash windows is farcical.  And when the Police did turn up:

Raising the club in both hands, he used it to smash the windscreen directly in front of Constable Herbert’s face. As she attempted to reverse away, Steven pulled the head of the golf club out of the broken windscreen and launched a second attack on the Police car, this time smashing a side window.

There is a world of difference between smashing a shop window, and smashing the windscreen of a car a police officer is sitting in. And at the scene:

Constable Dombroski’s evidence was that, after the warning shot had been fired, Steven Wallace appeared even more determined to get to Senior Constable Abbott, saying “You fucking arsehole, I’m going to kill you”.

Constable Dombroski said he did not fire any shots himself. However, believing that Steven intended to kill Senior Constable Abbott, he was preparing to shoot when Senior Constable Abbott fired at Steven.

I can’t think of how anyone can dispute the justification for shooting. Wallace is advancing on armed police, he has ignored a warning shot, he is closing the gap despite the Police retreating (he would be alive if he had stopped advancing on them), he is telling the Police he is going to kill them, and he has a weapon which would allow him to quite easily do so.

Constable Abbott has now been cleared by a police inquiry, a private prosecution, by the coroner and by the IPCA. Despite this the family remain hell bent on vengeance. For their own sake they should let go.

Tags: , ,

42 Responses to “Hopefully the final chapter in the Wallace shooting”

  1. Inventory2 (9,380 comments) says:

    I’ve also blogged on this today. I’m left wondering what might have happened had Wallace’s family been such strong advocates for him prior to the shooting as they have been since it. It’s not a nice thing to say, and I hesitated before blogging it, but I believe it’s a question that needs to be asked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. big bruv (14,219 comments) says:

    Don’t be bloody stupid DPF, apologists for Maori violence (Willie Jackson & John Harawira) are not interested in the facts.

    Facts only complicate the issue, they will keep peddling their lies until they find a court of a judge who agrees with them.

    Let’s face it, the release of the Steven Wallace report is a god send for Maori radicals, it takes away a lot of the glare surrounding ANOTHER Maori child killed at the hands of its family and allows these apologists for Maori child killing and violence to focus their faux outrage on the NZ police for the totally justifiable shooting of Wallace.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Gooner (919 comments) says:

    Here’s what someone named Squaredrive said over at No Minister:

    I agree with KG – the police were at fault in not giving prompt first aid (as locals said at the time of shooting – police apparently blocked them from helping Wallace).

    Beyond that, while the Herald may be just shamelessly grabbing whatever controversy they can, this whitewash IPCA report was sadly inevitable. The ‘findings’ contradict the known facts that even police accept – that the 2 male cops spent 10 minutes going off to get guns, leaving 1 female cop watching Wallace alone. Wallace approached no-one in that time, though the sole cop was clearly visible. Wallace only advanced after Const Abbott approached Wallace, then shot a ‘warning’ shot above his head in the dark. Wallace appears to have misinterpreted this as shooting ‘at him’, further advanced, and Abbott killed him.

    The report also notes Abbott was not breathtested, and cops still don’t breathtest police who have shot someone – this is a serious failing, as cops (esp. AOS and rural) are often called to such incidents while off-duty. Witnesses to Abbott’s alleged drunkenness were not interviewed for the IPCA report!!!

    I could go on, but it should be cleaqr that – as usual – a whitewash report has conclusions unsupported by the facts agreed by all parties. Not the finest hour for police or the IPCA.

    Squaredrive or edge to first slip?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. goodgod (1,317 comments) says:

    Why was he shot 4 times?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chris2 (775 comments) says:

    I am curious how the family funded their legal counsel for nine years – is this something that Legal Aid kept paying for (and how much?) or did the lawyers work for nothing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. SafT (3 comments) says:

    goodgod – When the police shoot, they shoot to kill. As i understand it if an officer shoots with an intention of wounding the offender to stop him advancing its a breach of procedure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. gomango (98 comments) says:

    Any time you hear people arguing against the use of Tasers by Police, mentioning the Steven Wallace case should end the argument. If Keith Abbot was carrying a Taser, Steven Wallace wouldn’t be dead, and this whole saga would have been a one day minor news story.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. LiberalismIsASin (290 comments) says:

    This ‘issue’ gained traction because it appealed to an anti-authority streak that some have. Every society has its malcontents and imbeciles, what used to happen was they were ignored and they disappeared up their own backsides. Now however, our sensationalistic media milks it for every column cm or sound bite they can get. I agree with DPF, this was suicide by cop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    goodgod said:
    “Why was he shot 4 times?”

    Only in hollywood is one body shot from a pistol guranteed to bring a man down. Moreover in the case of a rapidly advancing attacker, it may be impossible to accurately aim the gun in time to hit the offender before he gets close enough to attack. Given this, one generally fires off two or more rounds in rapid succession and continues to fire until the threat from the offender is neutralised (which generally means the offender collapses on the ground).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. goodgod (1,317 comments) says:

    So the cops need bigger guns, clearly.

    There is the danger here of constructing a case in hindsight too – a scenario of ends justified the means. According the police report, the fact that Wallace had been smashing and attacking stuff all over town was not known to the officers who confronted him. So the rebuttal of the argument “…Wallace was just breaking some windows in a deserted area of town and no threat to anyone…” that says he was a serious danger, cannot be used to justify the chronological events of that night.

    If the cops truly set out to kill, they should have admitted it to begin with. Only offensive weapons were taken from the station, no protective gear. One police constable was left to observe – she was not attacked. So when they returned they were there to kill. And if the comment above is true, that arming to inflict injury only is against police protocol, that conclusion is quite plain.

    But they didn’t admit it – they themselves had no idea what was really happening and once again in a monumental communications and PR stuff up they fudged and lied instead of saying nothing. The same communications and training bungle has been played out just recently with the fatal shooting on the NW Motorway. They just aren’t learning. Nothing is changing and it will happen again.

    There’s nothing wrong with killing dangerous crims in the act, but random killings should not be the realm of a professional police force in a civilised country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. He-Man (269 comments) says:

    Those cops are just poofters for shooting the kid. Should have gone toe to toe like a man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    What’s this “cops setting out to kill” meme? Wallace was the one who set out to kill. Or at the very least, to assault with reckless disregard for life. Here’s a thought experiment for those who are anti-police. How about you rest your head against a window and let me swing a golf club against it? Willing to do that?

    Thought not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Gooner (919 comments) says:

    “Why was he shot 4 times?”

    Because 3 shots didn’t stop him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Gooner (919 comments) says:

    Random killings goodgod?

    Your name is very apt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. goodgod (1,317 comments) says:

    Read the report. They did not know what was happening, the action was not co-ordinated – yet playing out slowly enough to have an on the scene observer in no immediate danger – they didn’t follow procedure in taking weapons or protective gear and communications and target identification had broken down and was running on assumption.

    Random, lack of skill, seat of the pants stuff. All completely justifed in hindsight. It’s a dangerous precendent to support.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    “So the cops need bigger guns, clearly.”
    goodgod, nothing short of a rocket propelled grenade is guranteed to kill a man in a single body hit. Moreover, I don’t see the difference between firing 1 large bullet at a person or several small ones. The intent and end result are generally the same. I am also not sure that standard police body armour is that effective against heavy blunt force such. The vests are usually designed more to stop stabbing or slashing weapons. Even with the body armour, limbs are still exposed and a single baseball bat swing could permanently cripple a man. I similarly suspect that even with a helmet, a single baseball bat swing to the head could cause severe damage.

    Interestingly, a taser is pretty much guranteed to knock down an offender with one hit. As gomango points out it is a pity they were not equiped with them then, as a taser would have resolved the situation bloodlessly.

    [DPF: I am fairly sure a photon torpedo will take you out in one hit. Of course it also takes out a 20 km radius :-)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. goodgod (1,317 comments) says:

    Now I’m goign to run out of breath repeating myself to people who have no intention of examining the IPCA report and I haven’t that much time today. I recommend it is read though. It raises more questions than it answers and includes implications of taking a dim view of what happened without actually saying it. There was no need to mention the lack of protective gear. They might just have well said they didn’t stop for pie. But they did. They were embarrassed by the lack of proceedure themselves.

    My main concern is that the failings outlined in this report have not been addressed, since they’ve been played out once again already. I imagine the report into that incident will read similarly, in a few years time. In theory the solution is easy, but in practice, applying it is almost impossible. Possibly the best the police can do is equip their frontline staff with better communications equipment and hire a better group of PR professionals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. alex Masterley (1,535 comments) says:

    I’ve read the report.
    It is thorough.
    It shows that we do not live in a perfect world and that some-times there is not the opportunity to stop and think about what is or has to be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    I can interpret the events a little differently. The police were called to stop Wallace from wrecking things and being a general threat to those around him. Three officers arrived, they assessed the situation, and decided they didn’t want to confront him without equipment. Two officers went to get equipment leaving the third to observe but stay out of Wallace’s way.

    Once they returned with equipment (guns), they confronted him so that they could stop him wrecking stuff and threatening people. They asked him to stop, he didn’t. They fired a warning shot, he attacked them. They shot him. Sounds like a reasonable chain of events, and pretty much what I’d expect the police force that I pay for to do in those circumstances. I pay them enough that I expect them to stop people from wrecking private property – they are paid to confront him. I don’t pay them enough to recklessly put their own lives in danger in doing so, so I am OK that they shot him when he turned on them. Not perfect, but none of my other employees do a perfect job either. They appear to have broadly followed both police procedures and common sense, that is what I would expect of anyone. If they were a mile outside procedures (v’s a few details), or if the sequence of actions was clearly at odds with common sense, then I’d be more concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. slightlyrighty (2,097 comments) says:

    In the eyes of the Wallace family, the police will never be vindicated. This is a natural reaction, although a little misguided when one looks at the evidence from an independent and dispassionate view.

    It appear that the only report that will satisfy the Wallace Family is one that sees the entire incident through their eyes, which would hardly be an unbiased report.

    However, there are a number of people who will continue to enable the Wallace family in the pursuit of justice as they see it. What are their motivations? Do they actually agree with the Wallace family or are they there for their own ends?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. paradigm (452 comments) says:

    DPF says via edit:
    [DPF: I am fairly sure a photon torpedo will take you out in one hit. Of course it also takes out a 20 km radius :-)]

    I’m sure I said taser not phaser… :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Gooner (919 comments) says:

    I’ve read the report and cannot find fault with one single word or words. The most pertinent comments I think are these:

    1. that the IPCA was solely concerned with the 64 second period between the arrival on the scene and the shooting (yes, 64 seconds. It all happened in the blink of an eye but with nine years of hindsight some people allege they know better).
    2. this comment at para 187 “…comments by Prime Minister Helen Clark, that the shooting reflected racial tension in Waitara”.

    That was a terrible thing to say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    When the Police start shooting, maiming, assaulting, extorting or even make snide remakrs at ordinary people going about their business, then we should definitely start to worry about setting precedents and police states.

    When cops shoot a dangerous criminal in the midst of a violent rampage, we should all buy them a beer.

    I don’t like the police in this country much, because they’re generally a pack of total incompetents, but this guy needed to be shot.

    Hell, I’d be happy if they shot him just for breaking windows. If you’re enough of a prick that you think smashing up other people’s property and threatening people is a good idea, then quite frankly you deserve to get knocked off and good fucking riddance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    Any person who thinks that a golf club isn’t a threat should allow me to have one shot at their head with one. I bet they wouldn’t – why – they would be scared to be severely injured or killed. Wallace wanted to get shot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. big bruv (14,219 comments) says:

    Christopher

    Let me wish you a belated welcome to this site, your posts are bloody interesting and well thought out.

    Your membership of the VRWC is on its way. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Grizz (244 comments) says:

    Mrs Wallace Loved her boy and I can understand that she was upset. However, It is a bit rich for people to say they would know better had they been in the position of the police officers. Wallace was clearly threatening and displaying extreme violence to others. He needed to be stopped. Unfortunately shooting was the only means possible to the police officers at the time. I have not read any reports, but I wonder what drugs Steven Wallace had consumed before his rampage. Think of what would have happened if Wallace killed someone and police stood by and let it happen. Rightfully so, you would have another family complaining to the police, and people would say they the police should have shot him while they had the chance.

    Mrs Wallace and family do have a right to ask questions and make sure proper police procedure were followed. However, they need to let it go. Their son was clearly putting other people’s lives in danger and needed to be stopped. If they want to make a difference, rather than criticise officers who had to make the split second decision, they should work with police to improve methods to prevent further similar incidents. For instance, they should be advocates for tasers which are far less likely to kill. There is not going to be any compensation payout. Steven Wallace will not be brought back to life. However a difference could be made if you channel your energies differently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. freethinker (677 comments) says:

    I had the priviledge to talk with an ex S African crack shot ex Military who said the NZ police’s expertise in firearms was very poor advising that the standard in S Africa was to be able to shoot a persons little finger at 100 Metres and shooting at the trunk was just an excuse for being an incompetent. Whatever – Abbott by leaving the scene confirms that Wallace posed no immediate threat and on his return had the option of retreating to allow Wallace to cool down – a similar situation in Christchurch occurred were an armed police office with several backup officer was cornered in the middle of the street and again killed the offender. I have no truck with such people but shooting to kill in circumstances were there are viable options gives the impression of an execution, I have no inside knowledge of the Wallace affair and make no judgement but given subsequent events and the TV video of Police attempting to shoot of a dog in which they fired 12 + shots in a residential area without even hitting the target does confirm their incompetence and recklessness/Gung Ho attitude confirmed by the UK expert who pointed out the obvious dangers of uncoorinated shooting – but of course S Africa & UK and perhaps the rest of the world are so different to NZ that their experience/methods are inapplicable here. The message is the Police need to be fully competent at all times and at least be accountable for their mistakes even if the result is excused – the fact that police are still not breath/drug tested after a major incident to remove the question indicates that Police managerment are incompetent in spades.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. gd (1,780 comments) says:

    I recall at the time my thoughts are reading the reports were that his family were not only grieveing there was an element of guilt As i recall Wallace had an arguement with a member or members ofn his family and stromed out of the house just before the incident

    It may well be that the family are wishing they had stopped him or not engaged in the aruguement that led to him leaving

    But alas they are in denial he and only he was responsible for his death

    Sadly Suicide by Cop is the most appropriate conclusion

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. nigel201065 (35 comments) says:

    I’m with Grizz on the drug question
    By his actions and by his families fear of him was he the first ‘P’ pshyco to run amuck

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Christopher (425 comments) says:

    Christopher

    Let me wish you a belated welcome to this site, your posts are bloody interesting and well thought out.

    Thanks BB. It’s genuinely interesting to read all the opinions on Kiwiblog, and I read everyone’s (even if I do mostly end up agreeing with you, Brian Smaller, and [most of the time] RB). I actually especially enjoy Toad’s and Mickeysavage’s posts, but for different reasons.

    Your membership of the VRWC is on its way. :)

    I’d love to pay the membership fee, but unfortunately I just saw how much I paid this month in secondary tax….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    I had the priviledge to talk with an ex S African crack shot ex Military who said the NZ police’s expertise in firearms was very poor advising that the standard in S Africa was to be able to shoot a persons little finger at 100 Metres and shooting at the trunk was just an excuse for being an incompetent.

    Freethinker – The South African crack shot ex-military was pulling your pud. If the standard for marksmanship with a handgun was that good at that range, why don’t South Africans will all the Shooting Gold Medals at the Olympics?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Brian Smaller (3,966 comments) says:

    Thanks BB. It’s genuinely interesting to read all the opinions on Kiwiblog, and I read everyone’s (even if I do mostly end up agreeing with you, Brian Smaller, and [most of the time] RB). I actually especially enjoy Toad’s and Mickeysavage’s posts, but for different reasons.

    I am not a member of the VRWC. I just hate socialists, bludgers and Greenies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Chthoniid (2,047 comments) says:

    Freethinker – The South African crack shot ex-military was pulling your pud. If the standard for marksmanship with a handgun was that good at that range, why don’t South Africans will all the Shooting Gold Medals at the Olympics?

    Agreed.
    The reality is that accuracy standards in all police forces vary, largely as a result of personal skill and experience.

    Spotting a little finger at 100m would be pretty impressive by itself, let alone hitting it with a handgun. Accurate shooting with handguns is pretty hard beyond any proximate range.

    Torso shots are preferred as there’s less chance of bullets going where you don’t intend, and you’ve got the best chance of stopping the offender cold (well, aside form between the eyes). Limb shots are for the movies and TV.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. big bruv (14,219 comments) says:

    “I am not a member of the VRWC. I just hate socialists, bludgers and Greenies.”

    Bloody good place to start if you ask me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RAB (1 comment) says:

    1. he was armed with a softball bat…which is aluminium and hollow .ive seen one used on someone..it broke the skin and bounced off.
    2.It seems PC Abbot was drunk because why else would they now be recommending drug-alcohol testing…based on rumours..thats a laugh..since when did the judicial base anything on rumours.
    3.Steven was apparently Attention Deficit Disorder..combine this with alcohol and this explains the rage.Thousands of windows are broken in europe every year from Berlin to Athens..how many people get shot for it..and if they do its in a major riot situation.Steven was a one man army..yeah right.
    3.The Wallaces legal defence was paid for by people like me who donated money.
    4.The NZ Police are over armed and under trained.They shoot to kill..ask questions later.Auckland motorway example take heed.
    5.Anybody above who states that he deserved it is a racist narrow minded idiot without a doubt..and a pro death penalty bigot. Hey..lets stab to death all taggers..shoot window breakers and lets also lay landmines on the front lawn to save the white picket fence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. noskire (835 comments) says:

    There were only two possible conclusions for that night. Either an innocent party (or more) was killed, or the perpetrator.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Rex Widerstrom (5,013 comments) says:

    A fair verdict for Constables Abbott and Dombroski, who can’t be blamed for the situation in which they found themselves or the way in which they responded.

    But there’s a difference between absolving the Police officers and absolving the Police. goodgod has a point when s/he states:

    But they didn’t admit it – they themselves had no idea what was really happening and once again in a monumental communications and PR stuff up they fudged and lied instead of saying nothing. The same communications and training bungle has been played out just recently with the fatal shooting on the NW Motorway. They just aren’t learning. Nothing is changing and it will happen again.

    The Police are responsible for:

    1. Resourcing decisions which saw Abbott alone for some time and then with inadequate back-up when it finally arrived. How many officers were assigned elsewhere to speed traps and RBT points that evening I wonder?

    2. Inadequate training, as goodgod suggests. Possibly inadequate equipping as well… with helmets, body armour and perhaps even riot shields I don’t see why two police officers culdn’t take down a man armed with only a club. Given they had none of those things, they did the only thing they could.

    3. Lying, fudging, obfuscating and arse-covering which had the effect of leaving room for it to be suggested the officers were to blame rather than the higher-ups.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. jims_whare (408 comments) says:

    Serving Officers currently get a 5-8 hour refresher training twice a year. This is normally the total sum of any firearms handling that they do. Current procedures are that if you are in a situation that calls for the use of a firearm that the officer is to shoot to incapcitate. (In other words to remove the threat presented)
    At the training sidearms are used to train out to a distance of 20m. Even at this distance it takes a very steady hand to keep your shots within the body mass outline of the taget.

    For people to think that in a volatile situation in difficulties of darkness, with the pucker factor present, and an extremely hyped up individual charging at you with a golf club telling you that he is going to kill you, that you should be able to shoot off his little finger from a 100 metres is dreamland fairy tail stuff.

    IF there was an alternative it could have been to run WALLACE over with the police vehicle but even this could have been dangerous as he could dodge around the car and still pose a threat from the side.

    The unfortuante ending to this situation has to placed at the feet of WALLACE entirely. He had plenty of warnings to stop his rampage but he ignored them all. As the saying goes you live by the sword (golf club) you die by the sword.

    The Wallace family would do better to go public to warn young people of the dangers of abusing mind altering substances and the tragic consequences that can follow and perhaps reflect on the shortfalls of the upbringing that made Wallace who he was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Scott (1,807 comments) says:

    I agree with DPF and object to the ongoing endless investigations the cops were put through.

    Also the allegations of racism which is totally what you expect when radicals like the last Labour government were in charge.

    Steven Wallace had his chances and I for one would hate the cops to have backed down and let this guy run amock.

    I think the police need to be a lot tougher on criminal behaviour. In my experience they are too soft already.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,760 comments) says:

    You mess with the bull, you get the horns

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. dad4justice (6,594 comments) says:

    Great stuff Ms Goddard and her bias PCA. Now we can all wait for you to clear Anton in the Stephen Bellingham slaughter. Will that take 9 years? Corruption is cool in the land of the long black lie. Bang,bang, goes Mr Plod.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (14,219 comments) says:

    Jesus D4J, you often say stupid things but you have surpassed yourself this time.

    Just because you have had the odd run in with the cops does not make the whole system corrupt, try breathing through your nose once in a while, the VAST majority of cops are good guys doing a shitty job, if you have met one or two who are less than sympathetic to your irrational rants then tough luck.

    Perhaps you should just grow up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote