Abbott found NOT guilty

YAYYYYY!!!!

Agree. Whether he should have shot him to injure or not, he was following police guidelines. The wallaces need to let it end now. Carrying on the bitterness is doing no-one any good.

damn straight.

Yes would probably have to agree. While the whole incident is regrettable I'm sure that Constable Abbott was acting in self defence. He was after all twice Steven Wallaces age which would make hand to hand combat dangerous for him.

Hopefully though the police have also learnt some lessons and will have more options at their disposal in the future should this kind of incident reoccur.

good

The situation should never have arisen...

abbot was a memmber of the armed offenders squad and therefore according to police policy should never have been allowed to return to being a regular police officer...

had steve wallace been white I, don't think he would have been shot.. I'm not saying that const abbot is racist, but I think Institutional racism is a big problem that needs to be adressed in police forces all around the world and institutional racism against minorities is a problem for all officers, even those that are memmbers of the same minority group.

I think that a NOT guilty finding is setting a very dangerous presidant, I think a guilty finding on a lesser charge would have been a good idea.

I too believe he should face at the least police punishment for his actions, the fact that he was 5 meters away from him (jury told he could cover that in 2 seconds and it takes 1 second to fire the gun (i bet you i could get 4 shots off in that time)) on top of the fact he was behind his police car means he was not in any physical danger (dont forget theres 3 cops and a dog team was 10 minutes away)

Abbott has been in trouble before for firing at a FLEEING bank robber suspect down the main street of some town during buisness hours.

Surely the fact that they (3 cops) had a car to use as a barrier and pepper spray is useful to 3 meters means that shooting him 4 times was a gross over reaction.

didn't realise there was already a thread about this.... i think that the last 2 posts bring up some questions.

i still think the amount of shots fired was a bit overkill

the gun will always beat the baseball bat ... a shot to the leg could have stopped the man from advancing, a shot to the shooters firing arm could have stopped him from swingin that big hefty scary "fear for ya life" baseball bat

doh ... correction ... doh ...

" .... a shot to the guys arm could have stopped him from swingin that big hefty scary "fear for ya life" baseball bat ...

i think you should be able to gather what i mean anyway

meLele: You may want to check out the "nz police - license to kill" thread.

I think meLele that he got shot in both arms first, followed by one to the chest and then one in the back. Abbott must have crap eye sight or be a crap shot. The last shot would have to be over kill. Although the third shot was supposed to be the fatal one, how do they work this out when he is shot one more time and then denied medical treatment for twenty minutes?

So the guy's innocent, good for him. Doesn't look that good for the Police. Will they always shoot to kill when someone has a weapon? They are also trained to fire two shots not four and when is it ok to shoot someone in the back. Surely after shooting him the third time, Abbott could have taken cover.If the third shot was fatal why did he have to fire a fourth time? Obviously it happened really quickly and he paniced.

With all the conflicting evidence from police and eye witnesses I suppose only Keith Abbott will know for sure.

thanks harvey ...

but nah