steven wallace

does anyone else agree with me that constable A should have shot to disarm rather than shot to kill? i was talking to a friend in the states about it (who happens to be a cop over there) and sed they'll shoot someones kneecaps out b4 they try to kill them. apparently its cos the families sue etc. comments? sorry if this thread has already been done

Hmmm, not really, from all accounts by profesional snipers, its very difficult to get a shot that only disables. Especially so if the target is moving, and the cop has to make his move quickly. And Constable A was only a cop, not a specialist shooter.
Better to aim for a body mass than have a stray bullet hitting someone else.

Yeah, I'd tend to agree with Smiley.

The cops in the US have a lot more firearms training than do ours, from what I understand, and a kneecap sounds like a pretty precise target!

but there wasnt any chance of anyone else being hit as wallace was the only person on the street. shooting someone in the shoulder also disarms (not literally). i think 5 bullets is too much as well.

It sounds a lot I suppose. It's hard to tell since we weren't there and all the witnesses reports seem to be somewhat tainted and at times, inconsistent as to what happened when.

It may sound brutal but if you get drunk, go out and start smashing windows etc, and then threatening cops with death by baseball bat, you get everything that comes with you.

Maybe he didn't deserve capital punishment, but as far as I'm concerned, you put your life up for grabs as soon as you threaten anybody physically - a cop, another citizen, your boyfriend, girlfriend, whoever. As soon as that threat comes from you mouth adn you start to advance physically you've opened yourself up to the self defense plea, I reckon. And fair enough.

He fucked up - he died. Too bad, Steven/Stephen.

(this should elicit some flames. Excellent!)

How about we reword the question?
Should constable A have shot to kill a man at near point blank range when the individual he was shooting was obviously a little bit mad at the time?

Simple fact New Zealand train a front line office in a period of less than 1/2 a year. This is why most cops have no idea of the law etc.
Firearms training consists of a paper target on an indoor range. Score maximum points and you pass, yah!
Sadly max points can be gained by hitting the chest area. ie shoot to kill training in a very short space of time.

At least we can be sure that constable A passed his firearms training with flying colours. He managed to put 4 bullets into Steve Wallaces chest.
There are a lot of target areas on the human body, other than a knee that can disable an offender. Shoulders, big area, legs in general even the lower torso would leave the offender some chance of survival if treated within a few hours.
Bullets in the heart, well you are fucked.
As for weapon type. the Glock pistol used by the cops is the same weapon as most US police departments

Lower torso!? If you get shot in the stomach you die pretty quickly....! And pretty painfully too.

It wasn't point blank range, he was a few metres away. A baseball bat has a pretty long reach.

I guess it gives a pretty good lesson to other offenders eh - don't threaten the cops with violence.

Takes a few hours to bleed to death if shoot in the stomach.

And when at the business end of 4 rounds from a Glock a few metres is point blank.

And VIU don't take this the wrong way but some of the stuff you put up here makes me think you have been caught in a time warp that has moved you from Germany and dumped you about 70 years in the future.

*grin* How can one possibly take "you are a Nazi" the wrong way?

I don't write your average Joe's politcally correct bullshit that's for sure. But calling someone a Nazi, is well pretty harsh n'est-ce pas? Besides I'm not a fascist, that being the defining characteristic of a Nazi.

It's always very easy to defend the loser or the underdog in these situations (Wallace). It's also easy to label someone who defends the 'winner' a fascist. It could have quite easily been the cop with the cracked skull on the ground with brain damage - and then who would we have been defending?

Incidentally, point blank implies no risk of hitting the wrong area. Being a few metres back meant the cop had to at least aim and there was some risk he'd miss the intended area.

Seems you fell for the bait molatov.... *smile*

Hmmm nasty nasty nasty

Well you did ask for a flaming dude. Don't complain when get your wish.
You don't think that an attitude that supports the police killing citizens, for property damage, when the option not to kill them is possible, is a little on the extreme side of things.
Particulary in Nz where we have a major binge drink/macho culture (problem?)

Indeed the officer concerned was in great danger, fine granted. At a range of four meters I find it very hard to believe that they could not have hit something other than Steven W's chest 4 times.
The officer obviously resorted to their training and boom we have a corpse.

And dude this is a forum for debating topics. Keep the little baiting games for the lounge.

However i agree that the officer should not be held responsible. the fault lies with the training they recieved with very deadly weapons

i know i wasnt there but i dont see how wallace needed to be shot 5 times. also he was left lying on the road for upwards of 20 minutes dying before an officer put a blanker over him. advocating that kind of brutality for someone who is smashing windows is a bit over the top. if someone was committing an offense against another person then ok mayebe a shot to disarm or scare them off would maybe have worked. but to shoot someone 5 times in the chest (apparently the warning shot was fired only a few seconds before constable A unloaded his gun into wallace) is WAY over the top.

Hehe, I wasn't complaining - hence the smilies throughout my post.

I don't support the police killing citizens, not without good reason, and I don't think he 'deserved to die' ... but when you threaten a police office with violence, I think every now and then there is going to be a less-optimal outcome such as this. Most of the time, they don't go this far and the situation is disarmed calmly, that being a good thing. However, every now and then this kind of thing might happen, and although the cop shouldn't be awarded anything for bravery etc, and it /was/ his 'fault', his plea of self defense in the line of duty is understandable if you ask me.

If me can avoid a death - excellent. If someone does get killed in such a circumstance, however - I have very little sympathy for them.

Sure, the cop (sorry I forget this name) killed Steven Wallace. I don't blame the training etc, cops need to know how to deal with situations that may be much worse than Wallace's.

Sorry about the impression of 'baiting' - you make a good point. I was merely wrapping my attitude/opinion up in harsh language to make it deliberately inflammatory I suppose - try and spark some debate in this forum, not argument. I guess it's barely baiting when I actually admitted at the bottom of the post that it'd attract flames.

stargirl: Five times sounds like a lot, but I think that the officers' testimonies say that Wallace was still advancing after the first few. (anyone want to clarify here?)

The guy was threatening police offers with death, and advancing on them with a baseball bat, not just smashing windows.

I'm not sure about the twenty minutes thing - after five shots he was probably pretty dead, and they couldn't just let anyone come and tend to him just in case he /was/ still alive and he lashed out. It was still a dangerous situation in their reckoning I guess.

hmmm. maybe cops should have stun guns?????

someone with 5 bullets in there chest is no threat. otherwise why not have unloaded more rounds into him??? the 20 minutes thing was talked about on the news the other day, its part of a witness's testimony.

i also find it hard to believe that wallace would still be advancing after2 let alone 3 shots. i cant get past the idea that the cop was trigger happy sorry voice.

Stun gun aint much use when there's a baseball bat against your skull!

However, I agree - I see in The Dominion this morning that the cops are looking for 'volunteers' to test their new equipment on, crazy pepper guns, stun guns etc. Hehe, maybe I should volunteer.

Maybe he was trigger happy, but if your only defense is a gun, and a guy is swinging a baseball bat at you, making threatening insults and advancing towards you manacingly, you'd be trigger-happy too.

In terms of him being a threat - I think you'll find it's probably standard polciy with the police, to get confirmation of death from someone 'authorised' to come into a dangerous crime scene. You can do a fair bit with a bullet in your chest anyway, it depends where it hits entirely...

Yeah, I agree with stargirl. O.K. Steven was being a violent dickhead and I think the use of force is justified, but lethal force?! Its not like we're talking about an indestructible undead creature of the night. I'd very much doubt if he was still coming at them after being shot a couple of times.

One or two shots seems more than enough to kill a human. Why squeeze off 4 then stand around watching him die, refusing medical aid and blankets for the guy?

I think our police really get most of their training from action movies where the order of the day is to shout a lot, yell "GO GO GO!" and shoot stuff.

Why do I keep on thinking of southpark?
Jimbo - "Hes coming stright for us! Quick Ned! Thin out their numbers!"
Ned - "Thin out their numbers!" *Ned lets loose with the flamethrower*

yes TT u are right. the force of a single shot is possible powerful enough to knock a man over, especially if he is drunk and staggering. also the loss of blood if hes drunk should mean he will pass out b4 20 minutes are up and therefore didnt need to be lying on the road that long

Fully agree with ya TT

couple of things:
a) Contstable A was considered 'an excellent marksmen' by his peers. Of course they changed their stories after the incident to protect him - fair enough, I'm fully down with looking out for one another in that respect.
b) Wallace was CLOSE, exactly how close is undergoing vicious debate, but he was CLOSE and posed a serious threat, maybe not an immediate fatal threat, but he was advancing on armed police threatening them in a 'beserked state' .... and given that Wallace was so close, action had to be taken.
c) Does anyone know what round the NZ police use? probably a jacketed hollow point?
Hollow 9mm rounds have virtually no man-stopping power. Especially if you score hits in the central chest area...its entirely possible to continue advancing for a short time after being shot once or twice in the relatively well protected chest area of the body.
Shots to the arms & shoulders actually would have been more effective at putting him off balance so that he could be restrained.

Indeed, would have been 'nice' if he could have been stopped in another manner, but it's all very well sitting in your armchair and expecting cops to be able to take a perfect shot every time they handle a gun. He was in danger from a criminal, the criminal got shot and he died. It's a shame, somewhat, but can't say I'll be shedding any tears for Steven.

Some of you guys seem to ahve delusions about how powerful a bullet is. For example, it's quiet commnplace for people to attempt to kill themselves with gunshots to the head and to survive, at point blank range. One bullet isn't a hell of a lot, unless it's in the right area. Perhaps the constable was aiming for the shoulder and got the chest with some of the shots? Who knows?

The guy wasn't a fixed target. He was moving remember, swinging a baseball bat. The shoulder isn't exactly stationary enough to be taken out easily in such a situation. He might have missed and shot him in the face - and that would not have gone down well either...

note: borin was defending Constable A in his post, he did the best he could in the tough situation.

I just couldn't be bothered writing a conclusion hehe ahh its too hot

Yeah, that's what /I/ thought anyway. Although I was suprised to see you agree with me for once. *laughs* Had to do a doubletake.

Actually, I'm always surprised to see ANYONE agree with me in this forum.

heh stranger things have happened
dude, I just looked at the lounge for the first time in ages and saw some topic about starting a Biggie political party! - those people worry me ):

Yes the political party is starting in Flipside as well. hmmmmm

Haha, it's funny because in general with politics its me vs. the rest of Biggie. Ah well, makes it a bit spicier right?

O.K we'll give constable A the benefit of the doubt and say its fairly reasonable for him to defend himself and probably the other officers by shooting wallace.

So what's with the standing around refusing medical aid and blankets for him while he's lying on the ground bleeding from 4 bullet wounds? The police said they refused it because they thought he was still a threat. Come on. Thats so lame. If they have a protocol that says that they stay away from wounded suspects, then why didn't they quote the protocol? At least if theres a rule that defines their conduct, theres also some logic for what they did.

Otherwise, they basically stood and watched a man die and didn't lift a finger to help him. Don't you guys think that at some level, its just weird to watch someone die and not even try to help them? Even if you've just shot them?

And don't hand me your "criminals get what they deserve" speech voice. Its not that black and white.

Damn. I was trying to read this seriously, but for some reason, the phrase 'shot in the face' makes me laugh. I'm thinking of Marvin in Pulp Fiction.

Anyway. If you give people guns, some people are going to get shot. It's crazy but it's true. Mistakes get made, and as someone noted before, I don't think the police receive enough frontline firearms training before they're allowed to point guns at people. It's shitty, and I find it hard to believe that other options weren't available - but maybe they weren't. Constable A caused Steven Wallace's death, and I don't reckon he should be put in the same situation again. But as to what was at fault in causing his death - I'd say it was a really worried cop, an angry drunk guy, and a bit of panic. A crazy situation, in other words. But what would I know.

Maybe we should give police some martial arts training. Then Constable A could've gone all kung fu on his arse.

After he was taken down, though, what the fuck's with that? A guy who's by all accounts acting mighty fucking crazy and irrational, who's just been shot in the chest repeatedly, is probably not lying there thinking 'I'm gonna lie here quitly, wait till one of them comes near me, then I'm gonna nab the fucker.' A member of the public tried to put a blanket on him, which would seem to indicate to me that he was pretty much 'sedated'. You take away his weapon and do all you can to keep him alive - after all, the policeman shouldn't have been executing him, he should have been trying to disarm a situation.

LOL@kung fu his arse I'd love to see this happen.

But actually martial arts training, now there's an idea, if it didn't take so many years to perfect

transtemp: Point taken, I realise it's not that black and white - I'm just getting frustrated having to say the same things over whenever someone comes into the discussion. My argument wasn't really as simple as you imply it was, I qualified it in other posts.

In terms of refusing medical aid, blankets etc - it does seem a little 'off', but I can understand it. Did they not quote a protocol or that it was standard practise? I thought they had. Anyway, I proabbly do agree with you - the refusing of aid makes the rest of the police's art in the incident look much worse, and much more callous.

I can understand them not allowing the public to help out, but if there were other options available, it would have been sensible to use them. admittedly my recollection of what happened in this area is a tad hazy so I'm not sure what the police's defense was on all counts.

I'm prepared to admit that I don't think the police's behaviour on this incident was the greatest, and much could be done better in the future.

I can understand the police not helping him, although this does not excuse it. They'd all just been through an intimidating, scary time, and such feelings of fear inevitably lead to anger. It must be hard to feel sympathy for such a guy when you've just been threatened by him and you've been scared yourself. The cops /should/ be above this kind of attitude, but after all, they're only human, so I can understand how it might have happened.

Does anyone want to enlighten me more extensively on what the cops have said in their defense over not helping Steven? Or is this outside the relevance to the actual prosecution case for Keith Abbott?

The police are human, they will make mistakes. They had a guy that was obviously in a very angry state advancing on them.

I think its sad that someone was killed, but these things will happen. But by the sounds of it, the actions of the police immediately after the shooting could be called into question, whether or not anyone could have helped after being shot so many times I don't know.

The issue is guns - the sad and tragic story is that of Steven Wallace and the policeman who shot him.

Simple fact - give a person a gun(police or not) and the end result is the potential for someone being shot is increased. Without guns its nil.

All guns do is up the level of violence - the US shows this better than anywhere in the world.
Arm the Police and the "baddies" arm themselves. Increase the risk of being shot and people shoot back, not rocket science.

The Steven Wallace scenario will happen again and again as long as guns are part of the equation.

Its a tegedy and its being handled in the most ineffective manner possible I reckon...

Peace!

Yes, there is an element of truth in what you say there, but it isnt as easy to get hold of a gun (without resorting to the Blackmarket) in NZ. In the States its all too easy.

Its part of that wonderful constitution y'know!

bob dak: Yes, fair call but I don't think baton vs. baseball bat would have got the police very far. It's hard to compare us with the US, as the US have the most ridiculously liberal poplcies as regards to gun control ("tis maa gawddd--givven constitoooootional riight to have as mannny guns ass i want, jetthhhro").

Arming the police while keep strict control on gun sales to the public (we're not too bad on this in NZ, IMHO) seems okay to me. The police deserve the security and the threat of such force as a tool, I believe. Not many people get shot in NZ by the police by international standards, as far a I believe - yet sometimes these unfortunate incidents do occur.

How do you reckon it should be handled Bob? I'm interested and open to better solutions for dealing with violent offenders. Did any of you read about these knew weapons the police are trialing? Such as guns that shoot pepper spray pellets and stuff. I thought they sounded quite promising. They had ye olde stun gun/taser in there too. (taser? did I make that word up? Am I hallucinating?)

Thank god its not as easy as the States.

I certainly don't want to send my children to schools where kids have guns, that just sucks.

agreed - however the US gun laws are symptomatic of their whole attitude to guns, its why they have so many gun related problems.

New Zealand runs the risk of following the US's model - its only hard to get guns currently, laws can change and do.

It wasn't that long ago the general Police would not have had guns at their disposal and hence people didn't get shot.

(Damn, I was too slow to type that, Smiley beat me to it. )

Heh,
Fortunately: We have the states to learn from.
Unfortunatley: Our law-makers are lemmings.

Voice: Taser I think is a real word for stungun.

Rather than looking for effective means to deal with violent or percieved threats of violence why not look at ways to reduce the problem before it eventuates.

If you try and sort out the social and economic conditions that lead to the increase in discontent and thus violent crime then the whole issue of force hopefully becomes redundant.

Create poor living and social conditions and crime rises, give everyone the chance for a decent standard of living and crime would even out and start dropping, especially on the domestic front.

There will always be crime, that won't go away but the nature of what makes people resort to crime can be addressed.

Currently we as a nation react to crime, how about trying to be pro-active and reduce the threat in the first place.

Sorry voice, I didn't mean to imply your argument was simplistic, I was being a bit tounge in cheek!

More than anything its the idea that people can stand by and watch someone die, police or not, that disturbs me. Doesn't do much for my faith in people, you know?

Whats your email address dude?

me? *bats eyelids* Why transtemporal, darling!

I'm loathe to post it as I might get molatov-cocktailed. (ho ho ho) But anyway my work address is chad dot wilson at cam dot co dot nz. Not sure why you want it. :-/

I've lost most of my faith in people as individuals anyway. I believe the time of 'revelation' was at precisely the moment that I realised that Boy George was actually popular. Either that or when I watched the Gulf War unfold as a kid, not understanding anything.

Smiley: Woooo, taser sounds cool eh? *laughs*

But ah need my uzi - fur huntin'!

Smiley - just because our policy makers can be bought and sold like a two-dollar ho doesn't mean they'll pass laws to allow us to carry guns. I wish they would though cos theres this kid up the street whos been flashing me westside signs and I wanna smoke his ass.

The states is a scary place. A few of my friends from the states have moved here. NZ is a good place. Yay for NZ!

Ay? Watchu talkin' bout' not wanting to post your email address voice? You've got a link to your own personal site in your details ya plonker! *shakes head*

Mind you, you don't post dodgy stuff about drugs so you're probably fine!

Bob Daktari: That is the single smartest thing I have heard in a long time and, (surprise surprise) I totally agree.
My comment on lawmakers (or anyone in power, and people that support them too actually, er, middle NZ?) being lemmings is most appropriate here, as it seems this bold type of thinking doesn’t enter anyone’s heads.
What you’re suggesting can be applied to many areas actually, such as, um, well drug education springs to mind for obvious reasons...
Unfortunately we are stuck in the mindset of us & them and crime & punishment, and any attempt to change that results in mass distain of any new initiatives from middle NZ. Good ole' armchair middle NZ.

I'd expand, but, its been a while, I gave up using my brain when I discovered no one listens...

tt: Yeah, but it takes more effort to get to that , as in several clicks. And my philosophy works on the premise that people are inherently lazy and don't look at those profiles. *smile*

policemen should never have to face civil procedings for the execution of thier job.end of story

as i was not there when it happened, and haven't followed the case that closely, i put forward that maybe steven wallace was advancing on the cop.

Sure, initially i feel that Constable A should have only shot to disarm, but if you were in the same situation(a cop) and you shot someone once and they kept coming at you, what else would you do? Turn and run? I dont think so.

buti dont know the facts, maybe that wasn't the case at all, maybe he just stood there and took it!

Detective Senior Sergeant Grant Coward (what a name...) in court today -

'He agreed under questioning... that police policy was to shoot for the central body mass and keep shooting until the threat was averted. The police force did not have a policy of shooting to wound. Research had shown (research? what kind of fucking research? shooting volunteers?) shooting to wound by aiming for limbs could make situations more dangerous'

The bits in brackets obviously weren't there originally.

So, there you go.

What? You mean the bits in brackets weren't from the original? How disappointing. I thought the news people might have added those comments for effect.

And hey, at least they used the phrase "Research has shown" and not "Tests have shown"!

Smiley: the leemings and middle aged middle NZ is too true...

the future however is going to be dictated by the young, sow seeds now and we might just have a decent caring society instead of a shitty user pays and no support system we have so willingly adopted.

Short term solutions only delay the enivitable. Problem being politicians etc only think in 3 year blocks - and thats the forward thinking ones it seems.

Smileys first post. No cop WANTS to kill a guy.

I'm sure not every cop has the time to sit and watch TV on their day off BEFORE the incident and think about where they're going to draw the line when the adrenalin is rushing, if you went through training but shooting wasnt a hobby of yours you arent necessarily THAT good at it. You shoot at them, not at their knee caps.

Crazy guy (drunk?) threatens your life then runs at you with a baseball bat. Personally I woulda taken him on. So you take a hit to the head? Your mate backs you up. But, the cop was within his rights, hence why the police investigation didnt actually reprimand him. The personal suit against him finding him guilty proves he was at the edge of his allowable actions, but still within them.

I find this whole personal suit thing very American and unneccessary. I do think the cop should have shot to injure not kill, but I also think he has become another victim in this. What pleases me about this case is how much debate there is when something like this happens. Americans (and people from many other countries) probably wouldn't believe the debate over this because in many countries no-one would think twice about the cops doing something like this. It is great that we think that the cops should do their absolutely utmost to not kill an offender. I hope that never changes.

Smilley/Daktari: Agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments. It is so easy to deal with issues like this on face value only. There are a lot of issues behind this case. If you increase the gap between rich and poor then you breed anger in the havenots.

Yes, the issue 'behind' the incident are important, but not the issue at hand, and does not mean that we should ignore strategies for the police to defend themselves and the public at current times.

You can't dismiss it and blame it all on some abstract (yet important) notion of childhood upbringing etc. In this case it sounds pretty much like it was an emotionally unstable guy getting on the booze, losing control (as you do) and fucking some shit up. Self control is part of being human too. You can't dismiss individual responsibility by saying "oh well, it's to be expected, since he was poor/had a bad upbringing etc". I hope none of you is intending to do this because it is a fallacy, I'm sure.

Four shots tho? You don't fire four shots to disarm someone. Adrenalin or not, four shots is excessive if not man slaughter. Plus the cop wasn't exactly cornered he could have easily moved away from Wallace. Also constable A is a member of the armed offenders squad, he is more than profincent with firearms., and has been described as an expert shot. He knew exactly what he was doing with that gun.

couldn't be bothered reading all above posts but heres my say

If your gonna act like a big man take your punishment like one

He was "armed" and was a threat to people and property
He went to attack an officer and the officer defended himself with what ever force he deemed fit at the time
just so happens he had a Glock and mr Wallace lost that battle
Dont forget he was warned repeatedly by more than one officer

Moral of the story
If you got a bat dont fu*k with a cop with a gun

Voice, anger comes from the shit you have to put up with. Sure you have responsibility for the way you exercise your anger and Steven Wallace did that very badly and paid the ultimate price. I agree he has responsibility for the way he acted, but at the same time society has some responsibility for the ways it treats people. If you are dealt a shit set of cards in life you can't win and that is frustrating as hell. It is inevitable that with some people it will become too much. It is very easy to blame the individuals in this situation without looking at what led to them being the way they are. Blame must be shared.

So there were four or five shots to Stephen which proved to be fatal but for 20 minutes after the shots were inflicted cops still thought he was enough of a threat to deny him the medical care he neeeded. now you have to admit that that is wrong even if you agree he should have been shot. I doubt he was going to cause anyone much harm lying on the street with five bleeding holes in his body

twinkle: You haven't watched enough cop-related action movies, I'm sure.


*grin*

A guy in the states got shot 19 times in the back (60+ shots were fired at him, nice shooting guys). When they went to inspect the weapon he was allegedly pulling out, it was found to his wallet. The cops involved were absolved of all blame. Incompetence all round from the front line cops to high court judge. Lets hope things never get that bad here.

Hmmm...
What was that case where a cop, (NZ-born, from memory) in Australia shot someone in the head for reaching to take their seatbelt off?