2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: Deep Throat Harry on July 01, 2014, 04:49:35 AM
-
Hawaiʻi Police Department
Office of the Chief
Chief Harry S. Kubojiri
Phone: 961-2244
Media Release (update)
The Hawaiʻi Police Department will make an “active shooter” presentation at an evening meeting in Waimea next week.
The meeting will take place 5-6:30 p.m. on Wednesday (July 2) at the Waimea Community Center located at 65-1260 Kawaihae Road.
The presentation is designed to help individuals increase their survivability should they encounter an active shooter or other type of active violent incident.
Police will provide information on previous incidents of mass violence, recent events, best practices for those caught in such situations, law enforcement’s response, and how to work together as a community toward prevention. They will also provide additional resources for participants so they can continue their education on this topic, followed by a question-and answer segment.
Chief Harry Kubojiri encourages the public to attend. “We hope no tragedy like this ever happens in our community,” he said, “but we want our citizens to know how to best protect themselves if it ever does.”
-
So polite, articulate people should attend this talk.
And these polite people should ask some rather pointed questions about concealed carry.
And it should be video recorded. Both the speaker and the crowd from multiple angles
-
An interesting and purely hypothetical case to consider.
Currently we are denied our rights. In fact, the Chief of the Police sits in judgment of us. He decides at *his* discretion if we are allowed to defend ourselves against criminals.
We are required to justify our "fear".
Well, hypothetically, the Police Chief himself could be a criminal. And hypothetically, one of his victims could apply for a ccw.
And hypothetically, this victim, could justify his or her fear with, " I need a carry permit because of people like you, Mr. Police Chief".
Hypothetically.
-
So polite, articulate people should attend this talk.
And these polite people should ask some rather pointed questions about concealed carry.
And it should be video recorded. Both the speaker and the crowd from multiple angles
Mr. Kubojiri has never ever, even once, seen a situation in which circumstances dictated he issue a CCW license. After writing him long, polite, detailed, "pointed" questions in several letters, it's quite clear from his very short, sometimes evasive answers that he will never ever, even once, issue a CCW license to a citizen of the Big Island, unless and/or until forced to do so by the courts/legislature. The idea of him giving a presentation about what to do during an "active shooter" situation makes a mockery of the Constitutions of both the United States and Hawaii, wherein the "right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". If you are outside your home when confronted by an active shooter situation, you will be legally disarmed (from carrying almost any kind of effective weapon, not just a firearm) unless that active shooter confrontation takes place at the police station, retail gun store, legal gun repair location, a range, or legal hunting area. What are the odds of that happening? :wtf:
-
So polite, articulate people should attend this talk.
Well, that sort of leaves me out of it, doesn't it?
Assuming anyone does ask about why we are not allowed to defend ourselves, it would go downhill fast for me.
-
Well, that sort of leaves me out of it, doesn't it?
Assuming anyone does ask about why we are not allowed to defend ourselves, it would go downhill fast for me.
I have to edit my letters to chief Kubojiri for at least two days before sending them to get them into the almost "fully polite" zone. (I'm guessing the very act of questioning authority at all, much less even "politely" may be an affront to many.) Then when I get the response from him in which he avoids giving the kind of answer I was clearly and unmistakably asking for (e.g. he sends me the legal boiler plate statute when I've specifically asked him to give examples of 5 specific statements on an application that he would then evaluate as eligible for a CCW license, etc.), I have to wait two or three weeks before even beginning to compose my response and further questions to allow my, uh, unhappiness with his response to settle down enough to attempt to compose a "polite" letter. Things are so politically correct that a display of even mild anger or sarcasm over being denied a natural, fundamental, individual, inalienable, Constitutionally-protected right is considered "impolite" and thus verboten in public discourse. It's almost like "they won". I'll say it again: :wtf:
-
Rats. Working down in Hilo at exactly that time. :/
Maybe I can postpone. That sucks as I should really be at this presentation. I'm curious what they have to say to concerned citizens and active shooter situations.
"Take cover behind something solid, call 911 and remain on the line. If the shooter notices you throw something at them and use the distraction to hide somewhere else. Cringe and beg for your life when they catch you. Let the 911 operator know who to contact to execute your estate. You may wish to prepare by having have a good lawyer write up your last will and testament."
-
When these liberal types have presentations like this, it utterly disgusts me. They might as well tell the public to just lie down in a line so the 'active shooter' doesn't have to move around so much to kill people.
This will help the police when they arrive. The police doesn't have to worry about collateral damage, since all the civilians are already dead. They can concentrate on capturing the shooter, giving him a mentsl eval, and setting him back out in the street... since 'he's such a good boy, and it isn't his fault'
-
I am somewhat dismayed at the direction this conversation has taken.
I believe I articulated the solution.
Perhaps I am wrong, but it is fairly well known that Harry has engaged in dishonorable behavior in the past. My understanding is the records of this behavior are now sealed, expunged.
It is also my understanding this behavior likely continued and was not registered in the criminal record during his later life
So if this hypothesis is correct, we merely need to find one of the victims and have them apply for a CCW. My sources are impeccable, incidentally.
It would make for a fascinating newspaper article and a fascinating court case and it would set precedent for other applications.
-
I actually went to an active shooter seminar at a trade show back in March. What they told us was pretty much the following.
-Run away from noise, never towards it.
-Hide, barricade doors, stay quiet, silence cell phones.
-Only fight as a last resort and improvise whatever weapons you can.
Yea... an hour and a half lecture and that was pretty much it.
-
Wow.....so I am still not making myself clear.....for legal types the following is purely hypothetical.......
So the Police Chief is a fucking criminal.......
Fucking Criminals are called criminals because they hurt people .....
Hurt People are called victims.......
Victims have a reason for FEAR.....
FEAR is the legal basis for CCW on the Big Island.....
So if the Victims of the Criminal who is the Police Chief applied for CCW, we would have a good news story....a good legal case....precedent .....
Are you people fucking deaf ?
Hypothetically speaking ?
-
Wow.....so I am still not making myself clear.....for legal types the following is purely hypothetical.......
So the Police Chief is a fucking criminal.......
Fucking Criminals are called criminals because they hurt people .....
Hurt People are called victims.......
Victims have a reason for FEAR.....
FEAR is the legal basis for CCW on the Big Island.....
So if the Victims of the Criminal who is the Police Chief applied for CCW, we would have a good news story....a good legal case....precedent .....
Are you people fucking deaf ?
Hypothetically speaking ?
(http://i.imgur.com/W60OKkD.jpg)
-
wow, no need use profanity.
-
Wow.....so I am still not making myself clear.....for legal types the following is purely hypothetical.......
So the Police Chief is a fucking criminal.......
Fucking Criminals are called criminals because they hurt people .....
Hurt People are called victims.......
Victims have a reason for FEAR.....
FEAR is the legal basis for CCW on the Big Island.....
So if the Victims of the Criminal who is the Police Chief applied for CCW, we would have a good news story....a good legal case....precedent .....
Are you people fucking deaf ?
Hypothetically speaking ?
1. "Fear" is not sufficient reason to issue a CCW license according to the current administration (and the former administrations). It doesn't matter who or what one is afraid of, nor how much fear or how reasonable that fear is, they don't care. Nor is there any other sufficient reason, at all. No one is getting a CCW license no matter what (unless Peruta is eventually upheld).
2. If you have a case that you believe will somehow require a license to be issued, then go ahead and make the case and see what happens. Even if there is such a case alleging illegal activity, I suspect it would be fought with the full force of the County legal resources, and if, and that's a huge if, the decision came down against the county, there would likely be a resignation and your case would be moot. But I could be wrong, maybe after the meeting tomorrow night when you ask your polite questions and make your polite comments CCW licenses will begin being issued the next day. I'm looking forward to finding out what happens. Hypothetically.
-
Your hypothetical rationality of needing a CCW because of criminal intent demonstrated by the police chief is going to come off very crass and narrow minded. That is not a proper legal precedent either, you are just attempting to make brash jumps between A to B to justify your logic.
Stick to non-accusatory questions relevant to the topic being discussed. Remember that this is a presentation on active shooters. You can stray into political territories, but do so in an assertive way, not an aggressive way.
They will likely mention at some point that active shooter situations are becoming more and more commonplace. Use his own words against him.
"Sir, you yourself said that active shooter scenarios are not just becoming more commonplace and are claiming more and more lives of our citizens. With shootings on the rise, how is this not considered a just reason for an American to not be in justified in his fear of his safety of life".
"You stated that an active shooting can happen any time, and anywhere. My life does not suddenly depreciate the second I am out in public. There is never a time or a place that I am not concerned with my well being. By denying the rights to carry legally outside of my home, this leads me to believe that your concern for my safety does not apply once I've passed my doorstep."
Bring up the SPU shooting, and Jon Meis, the student that took down the shooter.
"During the tragic Seattle Pacific University shooting, a student, Jon Meis, proved that an exceptionally brave citizen can play a pivotal role in stopping anymore innocent lives from being taken. He did so by risking his life for the people around him. He is a hero, and is incredibly lucky to be alive. However, there have been so many other people, in so many other incidents, that placed the lives of those around them above their own in an attempt to stop needless killing. Many of those people are no longer with us. No one asked them to give their lives trying to save others, they did so because that's the kind of people they were. You cannot deny that being allowed to carry the appropriate tools to defend ones life, these people would have had an exponentially greater chance at succeeding and surviving."
These are the kinds of questions you need to ask. Make your points and yourself look good, without painting him as evil. Let him do that to himself for you.
Cite the Peruta case, or better yet, our very own Baker vs Kealoha case. Tell him that this just isn't your opinion on the 2nd amendment, it is the circuit court's as well.
Remember, this isn't so much about directly addressing him. You are speaking and voicing this to the entire group of people listening. Make sound points without coming off as pompous. Winning the hearts and minds of people that would traditionally be either on the fence, or against CCW should be your main goal so that there is more public awareness drummed up.
-
From the very law which Harry's lawyer quoted to me:
Issuing Authority:
In an exceptional case, when the applicant shows reason to ***fear**** injury to his person or property, the respective chief of police may grant a license to carry a concealed firearm on his person within the county where the license is granted to a U.S. citizen or duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation age 21 or older.
----------------------
So I would imagine that people who have been victimized by the Police Chief (hypothetically) would have reason to fear him.
Indeed people using Free Speech to defend their rights might also have reason to Fear Him....which his lawyers will request of you when you apply for a permit......you must articulate Fear of Injury......from some bad person who has a sealed record of hurting people .... a sociopath.....who craves power and enjoys lording it over others....
I don't know about you guys but obviously my remarks are coming from TOR.
-
Your hypothetical rationality of needing a CCW because of criminal intent demonstrated by the police chief is going to come off very crass and narrow minded. That is not a proper legal precedent either, you are just attempting to make brash jumps between A to B to justify your logic.
Remember, this isn't so much about directly addressing him. You are speaking and voicing this to the entire group of people listening. Make sound points without coming off as pompous. Winning the hearts and minds of people that would traditionally be either on the fence, or against CCW should be your main goal so that there is more public awareness drummed up.
Well finally somebody with two neurons to rub together.....
It ain't personal....but it is for his victims....isn't it ?
My sources are 3 letter Federal Agencies which have taken an interest in him.
-
Well finally somebody with two neurons to rub together.....
It ain't personal....but it is for his victims....isn't it ?
My sources are 3 letter Federal Agencies which have taken an interest in him.
Try wrapping your neurons around this...
If you go into that meeting and appear to have and agenda that is more "smear the police chief", and NOT about the specific topic, "How to Survive an Active Shooting', you'll distract from what should be the objective: convince people the best way to survive a shooting is to have the means to defend yourself.
That's all you should be trying to do. If you think creating a news story about how the PC is using his discretion to disarm his own supposed victims and make them helpless for whatever vile reason he may have, it has nothing to do with the topic of the discussion.
It's like thread jacking here. Try to stay on point. If you go off on a deep tangent, the original meaning of the thread gets buried pretty darn quick!
Excuse my French! >:D
-
From the very law which Harry's lawyer quoted to me:
Issuing Authority:
In an exceptional case, when the applicant shows reason to ***fear**** injury to his person or property, the respective chief of police may grant a license to carry a concealed firearm on his person within the county where the license is granted to a U.S. citizen or duly accredited official representative of a foreign nation age 21 or older.
----------------------
So I would imagine that people who have been victimized by the Police Chief (hypothetically) would have reason to fear him.
Indeed people using Free Speech to defend their rights might also have reason to Fear Him....which his lawyers will request of you when you apply for a permit......you must articulate Fear of Injury......from some bad person who has a sealed record of hurting people .... a sociopath.....who craves power and enjoys lording it over others....
I don't know about you guys but obviously my remarks are coming from TOR.
Read the county law relating to the state statute, Sec.4, 2: "The applicant shall show proof that: (A) That there is reason to fear injury to his person or property to the degree which necessitates the carrying of a concealed firearm."
Also notice 5: "No license shall be issued unless the Chief of Police is satisfied that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed and has demonstrated proficiency with the firearm to be carried."
In other words, no chief of police in the state of Hawaii has EVER (well maybe some time in the distant past, and then maybe only for friends and the politically connected) seen any kind of fear which "necessitated" carrying a firearm. No such conditions have ever existed, nor are they ever likely to exist. You have other options: hire personal security, move to another state, etc.
Also note that there is no definition of "suitable", so the chief can arbitrarily and capriciously deny you a permit as "unsuitable" to him, and that is the end of it. Please also note that there are no definitions of what constitutes "demonstrated proficiency", so that could also mean anything... 500 hours of advanced training or whatever. The only thing (in my personal opinion) that will change this situation is Peruta, and we won't likely know about how that ends up for at least a couple of years, and even if it goes our way the legislature, et. al. will drag their feet as long as possible and then attempt to impose absurd requirements.
But I hope you turn things around at the meeting tomorrow night.
-
Try wrapping your neurons around this...
If you go into that meeting and appear to have and agenda that is more "smear the police chief", and NOT about the specific topic, "How to Survive an Active Shooting', you'll distract from what should be the objective: convince people the best way to survive a shooting is to have the means to defend yourself.
That's all you should be trying to do. If you think creating a news story about how the PC is using his discretion to disarm his own supposed victims and make them helpless for whatever vile reason he may have, it has nothing to do with the topic of the discussion.
It's like thread jacking here. Try to stay on point. If you go off on a deep tangent, the original meaning of the thread gets buried pretty darn quick!
Excuse my French! >:D
Dude....I am busy....I can't come ...
But I need photos and video of every person at the event....we need to know their faces.....
Multiple agents have been deployed on my end and on his end.....
Getting a bit tired of being jerked around and held down by this fellow while he thrusts away...
-
(http://foolishreporter.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/ihasconsprcythery.jpg)
-
Dude....I am busy....I can't come ...
But I need photos and video of every person at the event....we need to know their faces.....
Multiple agents have been deployed on my end and on his end.....
Getting a bit tired of being jerked around and held down by this fellow while he thrusts away...
Given what you are writing, your handle here, the animosity toward the BI PC, and asking members to video people at a public meeting so you can "know their faces" ...
Something tells me the word "agenda" is totally inadequate. More like "vendetta!"
It's probably a good thing you won't be at the meeting. I can't see any good coming from the types of questions or taking of video you are asking.
And if you have to ask a bunch of strangers on a forum to do what you can't find time for, don't come here and rant about how people aren't picking up what you're laying down.
For all we know, you're a government troll, looking to entrap someone with a conspiracy charge of some type.
See? What did I tell you about thread jacking? What were we talking about again??
:stopjack:
To be fair, it's your thread! Jack away!!!! :rofl:
-
Given what you are writing, your handle here, the animosity toward the BI PC, and asking members to video people at a public meeting so you can "know their faces" ...
Something tells me the word "agenda" is totally inadequate. More like "vendetta!"
It's probably a good thing you won't be at the meeting. I can't see any good coming from the types of questions or taking of video you are asking.
And if you have to ask a bunch of strangers on a forum to do what you can't find time for, don't come here and rant about how people aren't picking up what you're laying down.
For all we know, you're a government troll, looking to entrap someone with a conspiracy charge of some type.
See? What did I tell you about thread jacking? What were we talking about again??
:stopjack:
I appreciate your angle on the situation...but no....I have bigger fish to fry....
-
Also notice 5: "No license shall be issued unless the Chief of Police is satisfied that the applicant is a suitable person to be licensed and has demonstrated proficiency with the firearm to be carried."
So if the police chief thinks someone is suitable and proficient, what happens when that someone screws up, ie, shoots bystander instead of bad guy. Law suits galore, naming police chief, the department, the county. It is in his best interest not to issue a permit and avoid potential liability and the way the law is currently written, it is at the police chief's discretion. Until we become a shall issue state, which would remove the liability from the police chief, it's in his best interest not to issue them, regardless of his personal views on concealed carry.
-
So if the police chief thinks someone is suitable and proficient, what happens when that someone screws up, ie, shoots bystander instead of bad guy. Law suits galore, naming police chief, the department, the county. It is in his best interest not to issue a permit and avoid potential liability and the way the law is currently written, it is at the police chief's discretion. Until we become a shall issue state, which would remove the liability from the police chief, it's in his best interest not to issue them, regardless of his personal views on concealed carry.
Turn that around...
What happens when girl friend gets a TRO against boy friend, but boy friend keeps stalking. He's just obvious enough to terrorize, but smart enough to not get caught by police doing anything overtly against the TRO.
Girl friend buys a pistol, practices for weeks (uses a friend's pistol at the range until the 2 week wait is over), then takes the gun home.
She feels safe and happy at home, knowing her new protector is by her side.
However, she leaves for work, goes shopping, visits family, or has appointments ... she's totally paranoid! She sees the boy friend around every dark corner, behind every tinted car window, sitting across the street ... sometimes it's him, sometimes it's imagination.
One day, she finds her car tires flattened with knife cuts in the sidewalls. She goes to the police and asks for an application for CCW.
Four days later, she gets a letter from the police chief saying she failed to justify why she needs to carry a concealed weapon in public. The chief advises her to stay in populated, well-lit areas, keep her phone charged and on her, and call 911 if she feels she is in danger.
Two days later, they find her body. She was leaving work after a late night meeting. Even though she asked for the car and house keys back, she was not aware he'd made copies. Police say she was strangled by hand while facing her attacker, based on the marks on her neck.
Now, how much responsibility and liability do you think the police chief, the city, the county, and the state have in this? The girl friend had every right, and adequate justification, to carry a concealed pistol. Thanks to the policy of the Hawaii police departments, there is no such thing as a good enough justification. It's 100% subjective and assumes the applicants are all untrustworthy regardless of prior military, LE or private shooting experience.
You use the typical anti argument "what if she hits an innocent bystander?"
#1 - COPS hit innocent bystanders ALL THE TIME. You don;t see a march on city hall to ban COPS from carrying guns, right?
#2 - When someone is carrying concealed, they are very UNLIKELY to take a shot unless they are sure they can hit their target. It's just a fact. They know pulling the trigger means firing a bullet that can kill, and most are not secure enough in their skills under pressure to act too quickly. They are hesitant and careful. They know they can die if they don't get it right. they aren't panicking and shooting at anything that moves.
#3 - whether carrying concealed, driving a car, or walking across the street, there are no guarantees someone won't get hurt or killed. That's what we call "personal responsibility". If the license holder shoots someone else, then punish them if they did something wrong. You don't punish 100% of the people by taking away a right because a very small number of them might accidentally hurt or kill another person. Hell, if we used that logic, nobody would be flying, driving, riding a bus, roller skating, biking, selling knives, hammers, bows & arrows, poisons for pests and weeds, selling lawn mowers, selling sharp landscaping implements ... I think you get my drift.
In all things, there is some inherent risk. We work to minimize that risk. There is no way that anyone knows of to eliminate risk. That's how life works.
What we also know is people have a natural right to defend their lives against a threat. Removing that right because of a hypothetical risk is illogical and unconstitutional.
-
Good luck with that, DTH. And I'm not being snide in saying it.
Experience would suggest that since there is no direct accountability to the public on the part of the Chief of Police and the law doesn't stipulate any reason for or against granting a CCW permit... your logic is irrelevant no matter how many neurons you have firing away. Correct, sure, but still irrelevant. And an active shooter seminar is far from the place to effectively address such legal issues.
The only effective place to address that issue is in court.
As for the man himself... if he's being investigated then he's being investigated. It'll be interesting to see how that turns out. I'm not really sure how asking pointed questions at a trite little public seminar would do anything except get egg on the face of the questioner, though.
-
Ask him about Mr. Young's appeal. County of Hawaii i.e. his legal counsel conceded there must be some form of rifle and shotgun carry for lawful self defense. As such as him how rifle and shotgun carry should be implemented.
-
Mauidog, there's an arguable amount of liability in anything we do because of the way our civil court system works. Let me try and take the 2A part out of what I was trying to get across earlier. You ask to borrow my chainsaw to cut your tree that's going into neighbor's yard. I let you borrow it and the tree you cut falls on your neighbor's house. Or, with the same scenario, I don't let you borrow it, your neighbor gets mad at you for not taking care of your tree, punches you in the face. Seems to me I'm more responsible if I give you the ability to do what goes wrong, than not give you the ability and that leads to a third party doing something wrong to you. But what do I know, I got sued by my ex and lost for taking the exact amount of money I put into a joint bank account when we ended our relationship. I think personal responsibility is dwindling in general in part because civil courts make it easy to blame someone else for what happened. Thanks for the thought provoking conversation dog. You ever come to the big island, drop me a line for beers and talk story about guns.:))
On topic, I think all active shooter presentations are run, if you can't run then hide, if you can't hide then fight. They'll suggest how you should run, don't use the elevator, try not to run in a straight line or in a narrow space, things you can use to hide, use to barricade your position. They don't really tell you how to fight, except maybe grab whatever you can to use as a weapon.
-
So if the police chief thinks someone is suitable and proficient, what happens when that someone screws up, ie, shoots bystander instead of bad guy. Law suits galore, naming police chief, the department, the county. It is in his best interest not to issue a permit and avoid potential liability and the way the law is currently written, it is at the police chief's discretion. Until we become a shall issue state, which would remove the liability from the police chief, it's in his best interest not to issue them, regardless of his personal views on concealed carry.
Sorry, you're wrong. Qualified immunity would kick in should the worse happen and a CCW permittee shots an innocent third party. Also applies if an applicant for CCW is denied and then is injured or killed and "could" have defended himself if he had been carrying a firearm.
-
So I am inclined to take the lawyer's advice and do it mauidog's way.
If I am ever in Hawaii, I hope he will serve as my lawyer.
-
So I am inclined to take the lawyer's advice and do it mauidog's way.
If I am ever in Hawaii, I hope he will serve as my lawyer.
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf:
-
So I am inclined to take the lawyer's advice and do it mauidog's way.
If I am ever in Hawaii, I hope he will serve as my lawyer.
DISLAIMER
This information is given for topic discussion and personal opinion only. It may not apply to your specific situation.
It is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer. You have to find your own local lawyer to get legal advice and help with your problem.
-
DISLAIMER
This information is given for topic discussion and personal opinion only. It may not apply to your specific situation.
It is not legal advice, and I am not a lawyer. You have to find your own local lawyer to get legal advice and help with your problem.
That is only if he is ever in Hawaii. Sounding like Harry had him deported??? :wtf:
-
That is only if he is ever in Hawaii. Sounding like Harry had him deported??? :wtf:
Either that or he fled Harry's jurisdiction to avoid persecution.....
... sounds like he's living on another planet! :crazy:
-
So....deep throating Harry is not from here and the only posts he has is for this thread that he started......???
-
So....deep throating Harry is not from here and the only posts he has is for this thread that he started......???
And he is not even in Hawaii but has somehow been wronged by Harry the County of Hawaii police chief. :wtf: