Trial begins for cop accused of using dog as weapon
The trial of a police dog handler charged with assault using a dog as a weapon began at Wellington District Court today. Guilty as charged. I don't need to read the rest. If the general public can be charged, so should he. Now lets read the rest...
The police officer, who has interim name suppression until the end of the trial, pleaded not guilty.
Crown prosecutor David Laurenson said the dog handler ordered his dog to attack an unarmed offender without justification or apparent reason as the man was not resisting arrest. Why does this sound like I would actually beleive this? Is it because I am losing faith in the police? Is it because I know that the police have changed their entrance levels to accept lower level of educated cops? That SOME cops are just bullies with uniforms?
The Crown alleges that early on January 24 2005 the complainant, Samuel Wilby, stole a van from Lyall Bay in Wellington, starting it with a "multi tool". So it can still be done. I thought you needed more modern technology, but just a plain old multi tool... I'm impressed :)
Wilby drove the van north on the motorway heading towards Lower Hutt. A police car began following the vehicle, with lights and siren both on. I'd like to know why he was being followed... just interest's sake. The van pulled off the motorway into the forecourt of a BP service station but then drove past the petrol pumps and past a police dog vehicle, driven by the accused, which had tried to block the exit.
Both police cars then pursued the van for about 10 minutes until the van spun out of control.
The Crown alleges Mr Wilby then got out of the van with his hands in a position that clearly indicated he was giving himself up. He had nothing in his hands.
A police constable, Jason Spence, grabbed Mr Wilby and pushed him against the side of the van intending to handcuff and arrest him. Mr Wilby was cooperative.
The Crown said the accused then grabbed Mr Wilby, knocked Mr Spence away and forced Mr Wilby face first to the ground. Will Mr Spence testify that this is what happened? Or will he keep with the boys in blue?
The accused then crouched beside Mr Wilby and started motioning to his dog to bite him. At first the dog seemed confused, then it bit Mr Wilby a number of times on the upper arms and elbows before the accused pulled the dog away. At that point Mr Spence noticed the "multi tool" on the ground. Oh for heaven's sakes... the guy was already on the ground... what threat can he be to you?
Shortly after the incident while Mr Spence was questioning Mr Wilby, the accused approached Mr Spence to tell him what he was planning to write on the police job sheet "so that we are reading off the same page". Ashlot!
He told Mr Spence he thought the "multi tool" was a knife and that was why he used
the dog. But he was TIED you idiot! In a brief opening statement to the jury, defence lawyer Mike Antunovich said when the accused let his dog go he believed Mr Wilby had a weapon in his hand.
"He was acting in the defence of his fellow officer when he let the dog go, he was not acting like the common criminal the Crown alleges." ya right!
The real issue was why the accused let the dog go, Mr Antunovich said.
The trial before Judge Susan Thomas is expected to last five days.
READ THE VERDICT in the previous post (Dec 15 06)
The police officer, who has interim name suppression until the end of the trial, pleaded not guilty.
Crown prosecutor David Laurenson said the dog handler ordered his dog to attack an unarmed offender without justification or apparent reason as the man was not resisting arrest. Why does this sound like I would actually beleive this? Is it because I am losing faith in the police? Is it because I know that the police have changed their entrance levels to accept lower level of educated cops? That SOME cops are just bullies with uniforms?
The Crown alleges that early on January 24 2005 the complainant, Samuel Wilby, stole a van from Lyall Bay in Wellington, starting it with a "multi tool". So it can still be done. I thought you needed more modern technology, but just a plain old multi tool... I'm impressed :)
Wilby drove the van north on the motorway heading towards Lower Hutt. A police car began following the vehicle, with lights and siren both on. I'd like to know why he was being followed... just interest's sake. The van pulled off the motorway into the forecourt of a BP service station but then drove past the petrol pumps and past a police dog vehicle, driven by the accused, which had tried to block the exit.
Both police cars then pursued the van for about 10 minutes until the van spun out of control.
The Crown alleges Mr Wilby then got out of the van with his hands in a position that clearly indicated he was giving himself up. He had nothing in his hands.
A police constable, Jason Spence, grabbed Mr Wilby and pushed him against the side of the van intending to handcuff and arrest him. Mr Wilby was cooperative.
The Crown said the accused then grabbed Mr Wilby, knocked Mr Spence away and forced Mr Wilby face first to the ground. Will Mr Spence testify that this is what happened? Or will he keep with the boys in blue?
The accused then crouched beside Mr Wilby and started motioning to his dog to bite him. At first the dog seemed confused, then it bit Mr Wilby a number of times on the upper arms and elbows before the accused pulled the dog away. At that point Mr Spence noticed the "multi tool" on the ground. Oh for heaven's sakes... the guy was already on the ground... what threat can he be to you?
Shortly after the incident while Mr Spence was questioning Mr Wilby, the accused approached Mr Spence to tell him what he was planning to write on the police job sheet "so that we are reading off the same page". Ashlot!
He told Mr Spence he thought the "multi tool" was a knife and that was why he used
the dog. But he was TIED you idiot! In a brief opening statement to the jury, defence lawyer Mike Antunovich said when the accused let his dog go he believed Mr Wilby had a weapon in his hand.
"He was acting in the defence of his fellow officer when he let the dog go, he was not acting like the common criminal the Crown alleges." ya right!
The real issue was why the accused let the dog go, Mr Antunovich said.
The trial before Judge Susan Thomas is expected to last five days.
READ THE VERDICT in the previous post (Dec 15 06)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home