Steven Wallace's killer walks free.

Waitara police say Steven Wallace had repeatedly threatened to kill the police officer
who fatally shot him. At a police briefing held in the town today, a spokesman said Mr Wallace, 23, had thrown a golf club at a police officer and was threatening an officer with a baseball bat when he was shot. (comment added ... eye witnessess said that Steven did not have a bat in his hand when the execution took place)

The spokesperson said Mr Wallace also approached a police patrol vehicle, smashing
the car’s windows before the police returned armed.

The police account differs from that of a witness to the shooting.

The witness said Mr Wallace, who was shot five times by a police officer, was effectively "murdered" by police.

The man, who did not wish to be named, said after the shooting Mr Wallace lay unattended and bleeding for 20 minutes until ambulance crews arrived.

Mr Wallace was fatally shot last the weekend by a policeman after an early morning
incident where he went on the rampage, smashing shop-front windows on the town’s
main street.

The incident has put police gun procedure under the spotlight, with many commentators
questioning whether Wallace’s shooting constituted a “minimum reasonable use” of
force.

Shoot, Dont Shoot .... well I got roasted by some (including Leighton Smith of Newstalk ZB in Auckland) when I came out against the cop for the cold blooded murder of the young man named Steven Wallace ... But guys the truth is out now and ye can all see for yourselves.
We have a killer in our police force here in NZ and he's walked home free.

A 60 Minutes documentary screened last night (See. Shoot; Don't Shoot - 60 Mins On Steven Wallace) on TV1 raised significant questions about the shooting Waitara student Steven Wallace in the early hours of April 30th last year.

In the report presented by Kim Webby and featuring footage of a re-enactment of the shooting incident (from which the two accompanying images are taken), two experienced police officers, were interviewed about the police shooting. They concluded, after considering the evidence as presented in the police report into the shooting, that the police officer Keith Abbott - identified in the report as Constable A - seriously mishandled the incident.

Quote: "There used to be a tradition of courage and ingenuity in the Police. Now it appears, all we have is a legally sanctioned gang of boys with guns who are encouraged to roam around and commit acts of physical and economic violence."

They concluded, after considering the evidence as presented in the police report into the
shooting, that the police officer Keith Abbott - identified in the report as Constable A -
seriously mishandled the incident. ... and

FACT: Keith Abbot and Jason Dombroski made no attempt whatsoever to incapacitate or restrain Stephen Wallace with non-lethal methods. They did not use mace, they did not rush him with riot shields and batons, they did not try to pin him under the car, they did not cordon, contain and appeal, they did not try running away from Stephen - even though Keith claimed that he , '..genuinely feared for..' his life.

FACT: Three trained police'men' should be able to confront and restrain one boy with a bat. It's a public expectation.

FACT: Keith Abbot is a gun freak who knew - before, during, and after he'd killed Stephen Wallace - of the lethality of a handgun at close range - and still he made no attempt to restrain
or otherwise incapacitate Stephen. In Abbot's mind, there was no option but to shoot (ie. kill) Stephen.

FACT: Keith Abbot is a good enough marksman to have injured/incapacitated Stephen with one shot. He shot 5 times.

FACT: Stephen Wallace did not pose a threat to Abbot or Dombroski he was talking too much, and was moving too slow to be a real threat.

FACT: Keith Abbot is taller than Stephen Wallace. This gave him a psychological and physical advantage over Stephen.

FACT: The police report uses a distorted and shrunken window of accountability to determine the lawfulness of Abbot's actions.

Q: Why wasn't Abbot's omission to consider other means taken into consideration?

A: His actions can only be lawful if the time before the 'approach' is ignored, and the actions after the shooting are ignored. How very convenient that they have.

FACT: Our law requires /reasonable/ use of force in self-defence.

FACT: Our law is riddled with the phrase, "any act or omission", and this is particularly apparent in the crimes act regarding homicide.

FACT: Our law puts duties on us respecting the preservation of life.

FACT: Keith Abbot and Jason Dombroski did not use reasonable force, they omitted to consider or /attempt/ non-lethal alternatives and they left Stephen to die on the street alone. They treated
a dying young man as a 'crime scene'.

FACT: Abbot and Dombroski, through their solicitor, don't want to testify at the coroners inquest unless they're assured that they won't be subject to a private prosecution.

Their actions were disgusting. Their actions were cowardly. And to top it all off, their actions appear to be perverting justice.