Author Topic: Federal agent involved in Waikiki shooting (Read 19446 times)

Cougar8045 · « **Reply #260 on:** January 30, 2012, 06:09:29 PM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on January 30, 2012, 06:04:08 PM

So you're saying that if someone stole your belongings in front of you would let them have it with out saying anything? If someone was smashing your vehicle you would not say anything and just walk away? Sometimes not doing anything is actually worse then actually doing something.

I think he means that in the past the prosecutor would have pressed charges, claiming that the guy should have just walked away, or that self-defense wasn't justified because they instigated the confrontation. He's glad they're not doing that now.

Dblnaknak · « **Reply #261 on:** January 30, 2012, 06:17:24 PM »

There is a difference between standing up for what is right and instigating a confrontation. Either of these cases would be considered instigating within the letter of the law.

vooduchikn · « **Reply #262 on:** January 30, 2012, 06:41:26 PM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on January 30, 2012, 06:04:08 PM

So you're saying that if someone stole your belongings in front of you would let them have it with out saying anything? If someone was smashing your vehicle you would not say anything and just walk away? Sometimes not doing anything is actually worse then actually doing something.

Someone needs a lesson in reading comprehension. This is NOT what they are saying.

Dblnaknak · « **Reply #263 on:** January 30, 2012, 06:57:22 PM »

Ah yes, reading comprehension. Haha. I was cooking dinner while I was reading. I'm not good at multi-tasking.

vooduchikn · « **Reply #264 on:** January 30, 2012, 06:58:11 PM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on January 30, 2012, 06:57:22 PM

Ah yes, reading comprehension. Haha. I was cooking dinner while I was reading. I'm not good at multi-tasking.

knowing is half the battle.

Kingkeoni · « **Reply #265 on:** January 30, 2012, 06:59:41 PM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on January 30, 2012, 06:57:22 PM

Ah yes, reading comprehension. Haha. I was cooking dinner while I was reading. I'm not good at multi-tasking.

So are you saying you're a bad cook?

vooduchikn · « **Reply #266 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:05:49 PM »

Quote from: Kingkeoni on January 30, 2012, 06:59:41 PM

So are you saying you're a bad cook?

haha, i knew that was coming from somewhere..

Dblnaknak · « **Reply #267 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:08:52 PM »

Good cook, bad reader when done in conjunction.

vooduchikn · « **Reply #268 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:14:04 PM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on January 30, 2012, 07:08:52 PM

Good cook, bad reader when done in conjunction.

So at what point are you going to explain why you posted a douche nozzle comment and then blamed your inability to comprehend a simple paragraph on dinner? Do you care to contribute or are we left with a bad taste from your first few posts? Pun not to be blamed on your cooking.

Dblnaknak · « **Reply #269 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:27:17 PM »

I believed it was sarcasm. So I responded as I did. He got an apology out of me. What is it that you want?

vooduchikn · « **Reply #270 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:36:10 PM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on January 30, 2012, 07:27:17 PM

I believed it was sarcasm. So I responded as I did. He got an apology out of me. What is it that you want?

Nope, just applying anti troll questions, congrats, you appear to be human. Welcome!

Kingkeoni · « **Reply #271 on:** January 30, 2012, 07:53:58 PM »

Quote from: Kingkeoni on January 30, 2012, 06:59:41 PM

So are you saying you're a bad cook?

I joke, I joke, I kid, I kid.

Dblnaknak · « **Reply #272 on:** January 30, 2012, 08:04:06 PM »

My kids say I'm a good cook because I give them options. Option 1, eat what I cook. Option 2, starve. hahaha.

Cougar8045 · « **Reply #273 on:** January 30, 2012, 10:40:34 PM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on January 30, 2012, 08:04:06 PM

My kids say I'm a good cook because I give them options. Option 1, eat what I cook. Option 2, starve. hahaha.

I remember those options back in the day!

GZire · « **Reply #274 on:** January 31, 2012, 09:16:27 AM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on January 30, 2012, 06:17:24 PM

There is a difference between standing up for what is right and instigating a confrontation. Either of these cases would be considered instigating within the letter of the law.

KK got it. Just to clarify my point better. I believe in Texas if you see a guy stealing your car, you could go outside and just drill him. Down here I think the prosecutors would say, "You sir should have called the proper law enforcement agency and had them deal with it. I am going to charge you with Murder or Manslaughter." You get some guy who wants to make a name for himself and they might just take such a stance.

GZire · « **Reply #275 on:** January 31, 2012, 09:18:43 AM »

One more thing, I think it's pretty much human nature (and maybe nature in general) to be curious. You know something is up so you go to check and see. Down here skin divers wait on the bottom and throw up sand to attract fish and then shoot them. The fish know something is up, but they still come in. Sometimes it's the same with us when we know something bad is happening, we are curious as to us confirming we need to get the hell out of Dodge, or for the fewer to lend a hand.

bass monkey · « **Reply #276 on:** May 17, 2012, 07:27:26 PM »

Hate to be that guy posting up, but what the hell. Cant login in to see the full article.

http://www.staradvertiser.com/s?action=login&f=y&id=151843615&id=151843615

clshade · « **Reply #277 on:** May 17, 2012, 11:22:40 PM »

Bets on if the judge will grant his request based on his supposed immunity?

Dblnaknak · « **Reply #278 on:** May 18, 2012, 05:34:46 AM »

It's called qualified immunity. It makes him exempt from prosecution and any civil claims. He has to prove that his actions were within the scope of the law.

Growler67 · « **Reply #279 on:** May 18, 2012, 10:14:40 AM »

Quote from: Dblnaknak on May 18, 2012, 05:34:46 AM

It's called qualified immunity. It makes him exempt from prosecution and any civil claims. He has to prove that his actions were within the scope of the law.

That'll be an interesting can of worms. The "law" as it is written in Hawaii/Honolulu County regarding Concealed Carry of Firearms and their use in self defense situations? Or perhaps withing the scope of his (temporary) duties while assigned to the detail which directed his place of employment as Hawaii/Honolulu County? The response from he judge could very well affect the direction of "the Lawsuit" implicating Chief Kealoha and the Govenor.