I wish I had those stories...

All I have are the 'mistook the white Hawaiian guy for a haole' stories. 

Last mistake was that bow tie. 

I thought that was his first mistake... 

Not taking any sides but my observations thus far:

Assumption: Deedy will not be proved to be legal intoxicated (no sobriety test or BAT), therefore the case hinges on whether the use of deadly forced was justified as a private citizen claiming self-defense.

On March 11 Deedy's lawyers withdrew the request to dismiss the case on the basis that he was acting as a federal agent at the time of the incident and said the killing was in self-defense. Therefore, he was not acting in a law enforcement capacity but as a private citizen claiming self-defense. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding and I've read it from multiple sources...private citizen and not acting in a law enforcement capacity. That makes a big difference. He is also being charged with felonious use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

LEOs may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in self-defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for LEOs are different from those for citizens. However, Deedy was not acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time of the incident.

If he was prosecuted for murder or manslaughter as a LEO (which he is not), he would be able to claim as a defense that he complied with the statutory standard for using deadly force. Once this defense has been properly raised at trial, the state would have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. To meet the initial burden of proof to establish this defense the state must present sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational juror as to whether the officer's use of deadly force was justified. The jury must first determine whether the defendant honestly believed that the use of deadly force was necessary in the circumstances. If the jury determines that the defendant in fact had believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, the jury must make a further determination as to whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable LEO in the defendant's circumstances.

BTW...a DSS special agent stationed in the United States, who is not otherwise in any way legally disqualified from carrying a firearm, is authorized to carry approved firearms on and off duty in accordance with U.S. Department of State Deadly Force and Firearms Policy, approved by U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. on November 29, 2011. Just in case anyone wondered.

here's the thing
he's claiming to be able to carry since he's an LEO, but when he shoots someone, he's a civilian?
who cannot be carrying at mickey d's
these two claims do not match up

does anyone else think that the first problem in this whole case was deedy's co-worker explaining to him that f'in haole was the same as the n-word?
if it wasn't for that advice, deedy probably would not have been carrying, and he wouldn't have over-reacted so much to elderts

what about the use of less than lethal options?

I can see the logic if you are faced with immenent life threatening danger, you need to have lethal force.
but what about using things like a tazer, mace/pepper spray, etc.  especially with an unarmed assailant.
I am no expert in LEO protocol, but arent they trained to use these as well?

what about the use of less than lethal options?

I can see the logic if you are faced with immenent life threatening danger, you need to have lethal force.
but what about using things like a tazer, mace/pepper spray, etc.  especially with an unarmed assailant.
I am no expert in LEO protocol, but arent they trained to use these as well?

Does he have bat slippers that had all this inside of it?

Does he have bat slippers that had all this inside of it?

apparently his bat slippers could only fit a handgun.
maybe if he put on some pants he would have a place to put it.