Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 98260	2009-03-17 18:17:00	Steven Wallace Shooting - give up please	Digby (677)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
757242	2009-03-18 03:28:00	Perhaps if he hadn't commited a crime in the first place he would be alive today? Yeah ... In the famous words of Jim Carrey in Liar Liar "stop breaking the law ********" aw man, no swearing	Gobe1 (6290)
757243	2009-03-18 03:31:00	wrong again, get a life Thank for your insights oh wise and eloquent one, I am indeed wrong, we do pay the cops to kill us. Do we also pay the military to kill us?, Imagine the contribution they could make....	Metla (12)
757244	2009-03-18 03:48:00	Looking at Wallace's photos, he seems to have been a pretty beefy guy. Police or not, there will not be many brave enough to 'fight' an enraged beefy guy with a baseball bat. That's just suicidal. Wallace asked for it. He ignored all the warnings. He advanced towards the police. Deserved it or not, his death is one that doesn't sadden me one bit. nor me	voyager (10529)
757245	2009-03-18 04:22:00	I thought it was a golf club? Potatoes, Patatas, both things will hurt you a lot. :p The officer that fired the weapon should have let Steven physically attack him. Then they would have reason to shoot him. Preferably in the limbs. :lol: Good luck finding a police willing to take a mortal blow. One huge swing on the head could cause a serious brain injury, or even death. Shoot in the limb thing would be preferable, of course. But in such a situation not many will be able to accurately aim. Like when I was ambushed in Crysis. Damn North Koreans killed me in a jiffy.	qazwsxokmijn (102)
757246	2009-03-18 05:51:00	Don't ever let the facts get in the way of a good argument....... Report on Steven Wallace shooting at Waitara Conclusions | Recommendations | Contents | Download full report Steven James Wallace fatally wounded at Waitara Sunday 30 April 2000 - Report Detective Inspector BR Pearce, June 2000 ConclusionsThe following conclusions have been compiled following a detailed investigation into the circumstances leading up to and particularly immediately prior to, Steven WALLACE being shot by Police. These conclusions follow a careful examination of the principal scene including forensics, ballistics and toxicological examinations. The testimony of a number of key witnesses has significantly contributed to the formulation of the conclusions. That in the 15-20 minutes which immediately preceded his being shot by Police, Steven WALLACE was acting in an irrational, destructive, threatening and dangerous manner in various public places within the Waitara township. That during that period he embarked on a rampage of destruction directed at various buildings in Waitara including the Police Station, Fire Station, New World Supermarket and other businesses situated in McLean Street, Waitara. That within that 15-20 minute period he attacked and damaged with a golf club, an occupied taxi and Police patrol, drove dangerously and at speed narrowly avoiding at least two collisions with a motorist and a cyclist. That Steven WALLACE threatened to attack an occupied motor vehicle owned and driven by Witness 16. That after Constables A and B had independently observed WALLACE's violent activities they, without collaboration, quite correctly concluded the need to arm themselves with firearms for selfdefence purposes. That in initially approaching WALLACE from a safe distance, Constables A and B did nothing to provoke WALLACE, other than by their presence. That only after initially approaching WALLACE and realising he had armed himself with a golf club and baseball bat did Constable B draw his pistol and identify himself as an armed Police Officer. That Constable A kept his pistol holstered until WALLACE threw a golf club at him. That Constables A and B immediately adopted a defensive, conciliatory retreating response in direct contrast to WALLACE's offensive and threatening advance. That Constable A repeatedly, as he retreated, endeavoured to communicate and negotiate with WALLACE, calling on him to desist while advising that he was armed. That Constables A and B retreated over a distance of 60 metres during which time WALLACE significantly reduced the distance between himself and Constable A from approximately 20 metres to approximately 5-6 metres. That the firing of a warning shot by Constable A was appropriate in the circumstances but did nothing to deter WALLACE's advance. That having drawn his firearm in self-defence, Constable A had no opportunity to adopt a less violent means even had he considered that to be an option. That in the face of what appeared to be an imminent physical attack involving a baseball bat, Constable A had to take a positive action or risk losing control of his own weapon and serious injury to himself. That Constable A genuinely feared for his own life and shot WALLACE in an act of self-defence. That Constable B also genuinely feared for Constable A's life and seriously contemplated shooting WALLACE in self-defence of Constable A and himself. That in the circumstances they found themselves in, Constables A and B could not reasonably have adopted a less violent means in self-defence. 23.18 That Constables A and B conformed with Police General Instructions and relevant sections of the Crimes Act 1961 relating to the carriage and use of firearms. General Instructions F60, F61 and F64 and S48 (self-defence) Crimes Act 1961. That on the facts Constable A is not culpable for the death of Steven WALLACE. Neither is Constable B as a party, ie Section 66 Crimes Act 1961. That while issues of fact are more properly the domain of a jury, it is considered that no jury properly directed could, beyond reasonable doubt, find that Constable A shot Steven WALLACE other than in selfdefence. That Steven WALLACE died as a direct result of an unsurvivable gunshot wound to his liver and that no act or omission by any person to render first aid or other emergency treatment could have saved his life.... final fact: Constable A had previously shot himself in the foot at the local gun range. Funny how everyone conveniently covered that up. Would this not be pertinent to the Constables confidence with/efficient use of a gun? Are our cops that incompetent with their firearms that, if they must shoot, they can't hit someone in the legs? Or do they just point, close their eyes and hope like hell?It would appear so. Remember the innocent guy in Auckland... shot dead by a cop, and he was just a bystander Hell, lets shoot all the bystanders, then we might knock out a few future crims. Apparently bystanders have no right to live either But anyway.... I love how a lot of you just live by and lap up every word the media throws your way. Like rabid dogs around a bone Fools are easily lead I guess...	Myth (110)
757247	2009-03-18 06:31:00	You can die in thirty second from arterial bleeding - and there's a damn good chance that a shot in the leg from a revolver will get an artery. That's without the fact that the shock wave alone can be lethal from a large calibre handgun bullet hitting you anywhere in the body. The idea of shooting for the legs is ridiculous. Firearms are lethal weapons and are used where lethal force is needed. Police are taught to shoot for the centre of mass - and so they should be. But we train our police to handle violent situations and armed and violent offenders. They have many options available to them in any given situation. However, the moment the Police at an incident present a firearm the options are extremely limited - the weapon is either fired or not fired. Abbot and his cohort went back to the station and armed themselves. From that point on the outcome was set in stone.	Deane F (8204)
757248	2009-03-18 06:32:00	wrong again, get a lifeDespite the new user account, you aren't a forum newbie so you are familiar with the forum rules. Don't get personal.	Jen (38)
757249	2009-03-18 07:10:00	Despite the new user account, you aren't a forum newbie so you are familiar with the forum rules. Don't get personal. spill the beans, who is it	plod (107)
757250	2009-03-18 07:18:00	If they shot everyone for vandalism and lunatic driving there would be dead people all over the place. Isn't this the way evolution works? Failure to survive by those least fitted to do so	R2x1 (4628)
757251	2009-03-18 07:19:00	Despite the new user account, you aren't a forum newbie so you are familiar with the forum rules. Don't get personal. spill the beans, who is itIm guessing roddy...	Myth (110)
1 2 3 4 5 6