2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on July 31, 2014, 10:39:24 PM
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/26158090/happening-now-portion-of-kuhio-avenue-closed-as-police-investigate-shooting (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/26158090/happening-now-portion-of-kuhio-avenue-closed-as-police-investigate-shooting)
-
Lol I saw that
-
That guy's choice actually inspires confidence. If Drinky McSwervey had jumped a curb and taken out some tourist family the officer probably would never have been able to forgive himself.
-
I'm going to have to take the other side in this instance.
The last time I checked neither drunk driving, resisting arrest or fleeing the scene of an accident are capitol offenses. I also don't believe that the possibility that you "could" do something to injure someone else justifies the use of deadly force. Were any of us to do the same thing, and in our own defense state that " well, he COULD have hurt or killed someone, I was trying to save lives" do you honestly think we wouldn't go to prison?
In the video clip that I saw the guy seemed to be trying to get away from the officer. The officer was chasing the vehicle on foot, placing HIMSELF in danger. Was his radio not working? I mean come on, most of us have seen traffic stops in Waikiki. Someone making illegal left turn gets pulled over and is surrounded by 8 cops and 7 cars within 30 seconds. This guy couldn't have used his radio to bring in some back up and have another car or two block the guy in a little further down the road?
BS
Please understand, I'm not saying the driver was right nor am I promoting drunk driving. This guy certainly deserved to go to jail. My point is that I don't think this guy deserved to be shot 5 times and killed for it. Further, if we hold law enforcement to a different standard in regards to use of deadly force, IE. He/she COULD HAVE hurt someone. How long before this power is abused? Police here and across the nation have become more willing to abuse their power. Should we have to live in fear that the next time we get pulled over for speeding or some other infraction that we could be shot because of a nebulous perceived threat that the officer felt?
A lot of you guys know me. I don't think any you of consider me a shrinking violet, there are certainly people that deserve to be shot and killed for the crimes they have committed.
Wait, let's look at that last statement again, crimes they have COMMITTED. Not crimes they COULD HAVE COMMITTED.
I just don't think this guy was one of them. I think the officer had other options at his disposal and made questionable choices.
-
The last time I checked neither drunk driving, resisting arrest or fleeing the scene of an accident are capitol offenses. I also don't believe that the possibility that you "could" do something to injure someone else justifies the use of deadly force.
Were any of us to do the same thing, and in our own defense state that " well, he COULD have hurt or killed someone, I was trying to save lives" do you honestly think we wouldn't go to prison?
Police officers need to be held to the same standard as the average citizen. This officer was 100% wrong and should be tried for murder.
Further, if we hold law enforcement to a different standard in regards to use of deadly force, IE. He/she COULD HAVE hurt someone. How long before this power is abused?
It already is. Just read the news. Nationwide, LEO's believe they're above the law and as long as their agencies or departments back up their bad decisions, it will only get worse.
Should we have to live in fear that the next time we get pulled over for speeding or some other infraction that we could be shot because of a nebulous perceived threat that the officer felt? Yes, it's a very real threat. The fact that your life is in the hands of a local overseers mood at the moment.
A lot of you guys know me. I don't think any you of consider me a shrinking violet, there are certainly people that deserve to be shot and killed for the crimes they have committed.
Wait, let's look at that last statement again, crimes they have COMMITTED. Not crimes they COULD HAVE COMMITTED.
I just don't think this guy was one of them. I think the officer had other options at his disposal and made questionable choices. a wrong and unlawful decision.
-
Some of you are quick to Monday morning quarterback from the comfort of your safe, well armed homes about a decision an officer had to make in a split second under duress. Some of you are saying he made the wrong or even an illegal choice but I bet if that drunken idiot ran over and splattered a couple of innocent children or one of your kids, you would also be the first to say "why didn't the cop shoot that guy" or "see if Hawaii was a CCW state one of us could have stopped him before his drunk ass caused all that carnage". This a-hole was definitely a threat to innocent lives and was trying to evade the police by any means necessary and proved his intent by his actions.
-
A car is a weapon. If I kill a home invader in a defensive shooting then I don't want to be judged on the assumption that the guy might have only been using his weapon to threaten and not kill. The standard is the threat of bodily harm or death (not rape in this case) and the officer acted accordingly.,
-
Some of you are quick to Monday morning quarterback from the comfort of your safe, well armed homes about a decision an officer had to make in a split second under duress. Some of you are saying he made the wrong or even an illegal choice but I bet if that drunken idiot ran over and splattered a couple of innocent children or one of your kids, you would also be the first to say "why didn't the cop shoot that guy" or "see if Hawaii was a CCW state one of us could have stopped him before his drunk ass caused all that carnage". This a-hole was definitely a threat to innocent lives and was trying to evade the police by any means necessary and proved his intent by his actions.
Yep, you're right. I stand corrected. In fact, since all drunk drivers are capable of "all that carnage" and are "definitely a threat to innocent lives" they should ALL be shot on the spot.
Big time saver.
-
Yep, you're right. I stand corrected. In fact, since all drunk drivers are capable of "all that carnage" and are "definitely a threat to innocent lives" they should ALL be shot on the spot.
Big time saver.
Let's go ahead and add every Caucasian, Polynesian, black person, etc... Since they are technically capable of crimes simply because of their ethnicity.
Everyone that has been convicted of a crime of violence should be killed because statistically they are more prone to violence.
-
I wonder how hard it is to shoot tires out...perhaps this could be done at the next HDF event? I'd participate. Anyone got a tire commonly used by criminals? A scary, black assault tire? I know there are a lot of people who got ran over by a tire before.
-
Maybe they should have a law to make it illegal to operate a vehicle while consuming and/or under the influence of alcohol. Then none of this stuff will ever happen again...
-
I shot the perp because he spat on the ground and he COULD have STD's
I've watched the video over and over.
Cop at vehicle behind bus.
He reaches in with right hand, then pulls something from hip with left hand and sticks it into car
Driver makes U-turn. Cop is never in front of vehicle but may have placed himself in jeapordy by hanging onto car.
Cop pursues on foot with something in each hand.
Vehicle hits post and that is where it stops.
footage ends
I never hear a gunshot during the footage sooooooooooo...
1) cop fired while vehicle was still behind the bus and you don't hear shots because they were fired while inside the car
2) cop fired AFTER vehicle is stopped by post and after footage ends.
3) blame the guy overheard telling the cop to "shoot him".
Seems to be alot more of this happening all over.
Agreed there are good and bad employees in all jobs, but when the powers that be (and you pay) support decisions and actions wether right or wrong "from the comfort of your safe, well armed homes" is where we may all be confined to. :shake:
-
Taking a stance on a topic like this with less than all of the information is unwise. Relying on anything reported by a news agency is similarly ignorant. Lets see, decorated veteran Officer, decorated veteran with the military with multiple combat deployments, assigned to a select unit due to merit of his career performance. Lets take into account who gets briefed and how the investigation ensues. Supervisor on scene (Sgt), watch commander on scene (LT), District commanders on scene (CPT / Major), Professional Standards Office (formerly IA) on scene, takes over investigation, Detectives on scene, Prosecutors Office on scene, which included #1 himself Keith Kaneshiro who was on scene, briefed and provided oversight into the investigation. Scene processed, witness, video, etc, etc.... 100% concurrence by all involved / briefed that the incident was justified use of Force. That is also not just HPD. One might conclude that it is all City related, but the FBI takes very close oversight on local Law Enforcement and they are also indirectly involved at this point. If the Feds feel there is any wrong doing they will step in and take over the investigation. Your not going to hear a peep out of the FBI and they are anxious to get involved cases involving wrong doing. That is how many agents make their name.
So I guess if all of those really smart people with combined decades of experience in these matters, with ALL of the first hand information / witness accounts / evidence come to the same conclusion, I guess we should go with the Monday morning quarterbacking that happens on a web forum. Uhh, not.
There is A LOT of information that those commenting here do not have access to. Keep in mind there is much more to this incident than the news story relay. I would bet a paycheck that if every individual here had all of the information, there would likely not be a single person commenting here NOT in agreement with the decision made by that Officer.
-
Everything you said makes perfect sense, but one thing is missing.
Public confidence in authorities is not exactly at a record high, thanks especially to the actions of some bad egg LEOs in various places and times in recent years.
-
I apologize that this thread has taken some unexpected turns...I just wanted to point out the public's misperception of how shooting tires only work in movies with some CGI !!!!!
-
I would not take a stance either for nor against the incident, because as correctly stated, I simply do not have all of the story. However, I do find it kind of alarming that there are sooo many incidents of officers shooting unarmed motorists dead, while when there is an armed killer motorist rampaging down the freeway actually shooting out of the moving vehicle, they capture those, basically unharmed and unshot.
But then again, I don't have that whole story either. ......
-
so when were the shots fired ?
-
I believe the shots were fired sometime after the footage ends.
-
CGI !!!!! CGI!!!!!
(http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj503/dvdstandup/cr/2004ChrisRock-NeverScared.jpg)
-
Taking a stance on a topic like this with less than all of the information is unwise. Relying on anything reported by a news agency is similarly ignorant. Lets see, decorated veteran Officer, decorated veteran with the military with multiple combat deployments, assigned to a select unit due to merit of his career performance. Lets take into account who gets briefed and how the investigation ensues. Supervisor on scene (Sgt), watch commander on scene (LT), District commanders on scene (CPT / Major), Professional Standards Office (formerly IA) on scene, takes over investigation, Detectives on scene, Prosecutors Office on scene, which included #1 himself Keith Kaneshiro who was on scene, briefed and provided oversight into the investigation. Scene processed, witness, video, etc, etc.... 100% concurrence by all involved / briefed that the incident was justified use of Force. That is also not just HPD. One might conclude that it is all City related, but the FBI takes very close oversight on local Law Enforcement and they are also indirectly involved at this point. If the Feds feel there is any wrong doing they will step in and take over the investigation. Your not going to hear a peep out of the FBI and they are anxious to get involved cases involving wrong doing. That is how many agents make their name.
So I guess if all of those really smart people with combined decades of experience in these matters, with ALL of the first hand information / witness accounts / evidence come to the same conclusion, I guess we should go with the Monday morning quarterbacking that happens on a web forum. Uhh, not.
There is A LOT of information that those commenting here do not have access to. Keep in mind there is much more to this incident than the news story relay. I would bet a paycheck that if every individual here had all of the information, there would likely not be a single person commenting here NOT in agreement with the decision made by that Officer.
Hey surf, I wasn't trying to put down cops in general. They have a difficult job and for the most part do it quite well. I just feel that in this particular instance the officer made some questionable choices.
You share an obviously intimate knowledge of how the investigation should progress, but a picture is worth a thousand words. The chain of command and most especially the city have a vested interest in finding the shoot justified. If it's not, in an election year no less, the proverbial fecal matter will hit the fan. Not good news for the department or the city.
Also, the fact the officer is "highly decorated" is really irrelevant. Just today I read about one of the officers from the shootout in Kahala that had been awarded the highest honor the department has to give being arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault. Even officers that have done great service in the past aren't immune to making mistakes.
That was really my point. From what I saw in the video it seemed to me that the officer made some poor choices.
Sticking his arm into the vehicle. He's lucky the guy didn't grab his arm, roll up the window and drag his ass down the street.
Hanging on to the vehicle after it started moving. He endangered himself there, he's lucky he was able to stay on his feet and not get run over. This wasn't the drivers fault.
Pursuing the vehicle on foot. No idea what he was trying to accomplish there. Maybe he thought he could tase and disable the car?
Failure to use his radio to call in backup. As I said in my original post, many of us have seen traffic stops in Waikiki where 3 to 5 cars show up almost instantly. Or is this just reserved for hot chicks? Had he done this, they could've allowed the guy to move on to an area less congested with pedestrians and stopped him using their cars. A little body damage to a couple of cruisers, nobody dead.
I won't even go into the possibility of innocent bystanders being hurt by ricochets or over penetration when he discharged his weapon on a crowded street.
As far as I can see, with the information available, unless the driver was threatening the officer with a gun or a bomb, he didn't need to be shot 5 times and killed. If this was the case, I think it would've been all over the news by now.
-
Yep, you're right. I stand corrected. In fact, since all drunk drivers are capable of "all that carnage" and are "definitely a threat to innocent lives" they should ALL be shot on the spot.
Big time saver.
In this case, yes
-
I am going to offer some insight as you seem to be open to rational discussion. You second guess or criticize numerous actions, so to get a better feel for where you come to those conclusions, it might help the conversation if you cite your experience or any expertise in these areas? Be honest with yourself and perhaps do a no shit self evaluation. There are individuals who look to find fault and their judgment is extremely biased in that direction from the start. Is that the issue here with your initial observations? Having said that....
Hey surf, I wasn't trying to put down cops in general. They have a difficult job and for the most part do it quite well. I just feel that in this particular instance the officer made some questionable choices.
I never took your statements as a put down on cops as a generalization, but I took it rather as judgment by yourself which was based off of very few facts. I would think that statements condemning an action based off of so little information, much less what is reported in the news, would be an action worth avoiding.
Even yet again you state the Officer made some "questionable choices". Again you are basing this off of very little information. I am about 99.9% positive that if you had the brief and all of the information in regards to the entire incident you would feel quite different and would probably feel quite stupid (for a lack of a better word) for having made the comments. Of course you will not get all of the information and you will stand behind the comments made, but this just shows the ugly side of web forums can be. Rational discussion is good. Ignoring those who thrive on self indulgence via the www. is easily ignored, but I would think rational thinkers would opt to avoid coming to a condemning conclusion with what would obviously be far less than all the facts. Now if the facts showed any negligence, then so be it.
You share an obviously intimate knowledge of how the investigation should progress, but a picture is worth a thousand words. The chain of command and most especially the city have a vested interest in finding the shoot justified. If it's not, in an election year no less, the proverbial fecal matter will hit the fan. Not good news for the department or the city.
It would really help if you had a better understanding of how the investigative process truly works. There are too many checks and balances in place. The City Prosecutor is a politician and the #1 bottom line is that he is not wanting to make incorrect decisions or losing cases. His concern is not so much the City paying out lawsuits as opposed to his own untarnished records of wins and loses. Making a bad call on a use of force and failure to bring charges, would be a huge loss for him. If Kaneshiro shows up you need to be worried. If he goes through all the facts and commends your actions, not just calling it justified, that is a big deal. They will just as quickly bring charges against an Officer if there is even a hint of in-propriety. The HPD AND the Prosecutors Office go after Police Officers and do more stringent investigations against them, then they would give the same attention to a private citizen in a similar case. They will cut you loose and let you hang without second thought. That has been the huge trend for over the past decade.
Also, the fact the officer is "highly decorated" is really irrelevant. Just today I read about one of the officers from the shootout in Kahala that had been awarded the highest honor the department has to give being arrested for kidnapping and sexual assault. Even officers that have done great service in the past aren't immune to making mistakes.
Past or prior behavior either good or bad is "irrelevant"? Hmm, that is an interesting summation from a legal and common sense perspective. Of course bad people can become good, or good people can go bad, but to think that prior acts good or bad is "really irrelevant" is again not a wise consideration.
That was really my point. From what I saw in the video it seemed to me that the officer made some poor choices.
There really is little video that was shown on the news. Do you feel that was the only video available? Do you think quite a bit may have happened prior to where the video started? Do you think that perhaps quite a bit happened after the end of the video up until the actual shoots were fired? Or are you basing your simple assumption off of that short clip? Sound like the latter. Again not wise. So we have an experienced Officer who obviously has worked under pressure quite a bit, who made a calculated decision, yet you feel he made some poor choices? And which amount of your training and experience combined with this short video clip, makes you feel that you would opt for another option? Perhaps the shoot the tires, or shoot the gun out of their hand option?
Sticking his arm into the vehicle. He's lucky the guy didn't grab his arm, roll up the window and drag his ass down the street.
Calculated risk, no doubt. Do you feel that the Officer was not smart or experienced enough to have known this? Do you think that he had more or less information than you do at the time of the incident? Do you think he made decisions based off of his training, experience and that information, or that he just was completely out if left field? Are you privy to all of the possible verbal exchange and comments that may have been made by the driver? Are you privy to any of the overt actions that may have been attempted by the driver prior?
Hanging on to the vehicle after it started moving. He endangered himself there, he's lucky he was able to stay on his feet and not get run over. This wasn't the drivers fault.
So you are condemning this action as an error? Could it perhaps have been a non-lethal attempt at disabling the vehicle, which may have been deemed a necessity from prior bad actions, comments, or both by the driver, perhaps in an attempt to safeguard the heavy vehicular and pedestrian foot traffic?
Pursuing the vehicle on foot. No idea what he was trying to accomplish there. Maybe he thought he could tase and disable the car?
Exactly. You have no idea because you were not there and had not seen and experienced everything that Officer did up to that point. He made certain decisions obviously on training and experience and a first hand evaluation of the situation as it unfolded. What are you basing your summation off of?
Failure to use his radio to call in backup. As I said in my original post, many of us have seen traffic stops in Waikiki where 3 to 5 cars show up almost instantly. Or is this just reserved for hot chicks? Had he done this, they could've allowed the guy to move on to an area less congested with pedestrians and stopped him using their cars. A little body damage to a couple of cruisers, nobody dead.
Failure to use his radio to call backup? And you know this to be a fact, how? You have "seen" cars showing up almost instantly, so obviously that must apply to every single situation? You have so little information on the actual circumstance it is almost comical, but you make the cracks about "hot chicks"? Do you know if he had back up available to help attempt a stop? Do you know anything about any of the traffic situation in that area, at that time, that may have caused that part of Kuhio avenue to have been overly inundated with vehicular AND pedestrian traffic? Do you even know if this was the case or not and why it may have been like that?
I won't even go into the possibility of innocent bystanders being hurt by ricochets or over penetration when he discharged his weapon on a crowded street.
What are your credentials in regards to ballistics? Do you feel that the Officer had no consideration for his target, backstop and possible surroundings? Do you know from his angle what his backstop and surroundings were? Do you feel he fired wildly? Do you know his angles? Do you know how many shots were hits or misses? Do you not think that a detailed ballistic workup, including trajectories were not a part of a standard investigation?
As far as I can see, with the information available, unless the driver was threatening the officer with a gun or a bomb, he didn't need to be shot 5 times and killed. If this was the case, I think it would've been all over the news by now.
As far as you can see? Therein lies the problem. You have so little information on the entire process, from training, to experience, to investigation, to how the system actually works, not to mention having far far far from all of the factual information and evidence from the actual incident. Trust me, very few on this forum have access to this information and I can guarantee that you are not one of those individuals that does. This is not a jab, but your comments are coming from a very uniformed position and I will tell you 100% that your are way off the mark here.
** I will edit to add that I am not trying to convince you of anything, but to perhaps to give you other perspectives that you may not have taken into account. If you are still set with your beliefs, that is, what it is and I am good with it.
-
Well Surf, I appreciate your insights but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this for the time being.
Perhaps when and if more information is made available I'll reconsider my opinion.
I have to admit that my trust for government agencies is virtually nil at this point. Especially when they are controlling the flow of information and, based on your statements, not giving us the whole story.
-
Well Surf, I appreciate your insights but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this for the time being.
Perhaps when and if more information is made available I'll reconsider my opinion.
I have to admit that my trust for government agencies is virtually nil at this point. Especially when they are controlling the flow of information and, based on your statements, not giving us the whole story.
edster, it is very clear by your posts that I have read here on this forum that you indeed have a base level of discontent for .gov agencies. IMO this bias clouds your ability to take a non-partisan viewpoint when it comes to LE or .gov agencies. You seem to automatically use the opportunities to smear actions and potentially very good people, with families who may be working hard and putting their lives on the line to indeed attempt to make a difference for our country and our communities. Not everyone or every agency is corrupt. It really contributes to the undermining of our local LE and judicial system. I have lived in different places, worked and interacted closely with LE across the nation. While the HPD may not be perfect, they are an excellent agency and Hawaii really is fortunate to have, what is in reality, so few issues internally given the actual size of the agency. There is a saying, Lucky we live Hawaii. That IMO includes our current legal and judicial system. Is it perfect? No, nothing is really perfect where humans are concerned, but we are darn lucky.
You should also understand that initially you will not get a lot of information. It is due to an open investigation and that information that is fed to you is weening you on controversial spins on stories which is the media's cash cow. Why do you not get further or follow up information AFTER the conclusion of the investigation and when the case is closed out? Because if it is not controversial, it is not news worthy. The media simply ignores it because they got what they wanted when they broke the story and it is no longer a money maker for them. Perhaps take a step away from Fox News a bit (I am a big fan of Fox), or turn off the Glen Becks or the Alex Jones', or increase the personal BS filter a bit more. Don't buy into all the media's crap. They are often a bigger enemy then your Local LE. That you can count on.
-
I believe the shots were fired sometime after the footage ends.
If this is true, the vehicle was already stoppped and "appears to be disabled" when the unarmed driver was shot.
Surf, what is your "opinion" should this be the case ?
-
First let me say that I am unable to give any information.
However if we simply look at the video and photo's released by the news media, it is pretty easy to come to the conclusion that the vehicle continues after collision with the tree and the shots fired came after that. It is also clear that the vehicle continued even after the location where the shots were fired. This is also eluded to in the news story, but no doubt it is left ambiguous for a reason and dramatic open ended content sells stories.
Another point, there were hundreds of people in the area witness to the incident and no doubt many people interviewed. Why is there no huge outcry about this incident in the news from those who actually viewed the incident. It is ironic that the news decided to interview on camera one individual who said the police officer was wrong. Take a good look at the guy. All other actual accounts that have been reported conflict this in saying that the Officer was forced into the situation and made the correct decision. Why were none of those individuals interviewed by the media? Cause those witnesses didn't exist is pure BS, they were simply left out for content. There is no outcry, because those present understood the gravity and danger of the situation and I am guessing understood that the outcome while sad, saved lives.
-
One must also remember that in this day and age, media outlets are under tremendous pressure to be "first to press" or in this case first on air with breaking news. Often times, they rush to report something and don't have much information and much of that information can be many steps removed from a reliable source. So much speculation is injected and the public often take that speculation as fact and it snowballs from there. Like the exercise where you put 6 people in a line and you give person 1 a message and he passes it on to person 2 and so on. By the time you get to the last person, it's amazing at how the message can change, many times not even anything close to the original message.
My point is that we often jump to conclusions and in some cases based on inaccurate information. People usually remember their first reaction to a story, so it's often difficult to change that perception once their initial reaction takes hold.
Quite often in life, you just have to be there to get the full appreciation for what happened. No matter how well an event is conveyed, so much can be "lost in the translation".
-
Trying to figure out why people here are defending someone who was drunk driving erratically. As for the comments about "you need to wait until he's done something" - hilarious. So let me ask you - when someone busts into your house, you're going to wait until they attack you to defend yourself? Not saying you need to open fire the minute they come in the door, but this notion that one can't be pre-emptive is comical.
Cars are deadly weapons just like guns. Once you've seen someone you know severely injured or killed by a drunk driver guarantee your opinion will change. If someone was running around downtown with a gun and they got shot you wouldn't be going on about how someone should have tried to shoot the gun out of their hand or some bullshit.
Get real.
-
I don't think anyone is defending a drunk driver. Running around down town with a gun and getting shot, that is a different scenario altogether. (sadly in Hawaii this probably will get you shot)
I think that if an officer shot a guy with a gun, and the guy was not doing anything agressive with it, (ie pointing, refusing orders, charging, shooting in the air etc) then I think that officer would be in deep doodoo.
-
I don't think anyone is defending a drunk driver. Running around down town with a gun and getting shot, that is a different scenario altogether. (sadly in Hawaii this probably will get you shot)
I think that if an officer shot a guy with a gun, and the guy was not doing anything agressive with it, (ie pointing, refusing orders, charging, shooting in the air etc) then I think that officer would be in deep doodoo.
I agree that if someone was peaceably trying an OC demonstration here (which would be illegal here anyway but.. different topic) and not menacing anyone they shouldn't be shot, and I certainly wasn't implying that anyone should be shot merely by drunk driving, but the point is that if someone is reckless and in possession of a deadly instrument be it gun, car, whatever, then deadly force is not a crazy or unwarranted response.
but when edster said..
The last time I checked neither drunk driving, resisting arrest or fleeing the scene of an accident are capitol offenses. I also don't believe that the possibility that you "could" do something to injure someone else justifies the use of deadly force.
I don't really want to get into a line-by-line quote-war, but I took that to basically mean 'hey drunk driving like an idiot and risking to run people over isn't a big deal'. Again, doesn't mean you absolutely should get shot, but this officer thought it was necessary; based on the video I've seen I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt. Fact is it's a rough call to make, I don't envy him.
At the end of the day, the subject made a conscious decision to drink and drive, placing other people's lives at risk with disregard for their lives. Drunk driving isn't some sort of esoteric phenomenon that mysteriously "happens". He _chose_ to drink, he _chose_ to drive. I certainly will buy that PTSD and other factors were at fault here, and yes that's tragic as well; but you can't always have a perfect neat outcome.
I see no difference than if someone broke into my home and threatened me and family with a knife. If I shoot them - I'm sure the family will be like.. oh.. why did you have to do that? He had a troubled past. .Blah blah blah. Yeah life is unfair, but you know what? People need to accept responsibility for their choices and stop crying about how their life 'made them' into something.
-
I agree that if someone was peaceably trying an OC demonstration here (which would be illegal here anyway but.. different topic) and not menacing anyone they shouldn't be shot, and I certainly wasn't implying that anyone should be shot merely by drunk driving, but the point is that if someone is reckless and in possession of a deadly instrument be it gun, car, whatever, then deadly force is not a crazy or unwarranted response.
but when edster said..
I don't really want to get into a line-by-line quote-war, but I took that to basically mean 'hey drunk driving like an idiot and risking to run people over isn't a big deal'. Again, doesn't mean you absolutely should get shot, but this officer thought it was necessary; based on the video I've seen I'm willing to give him benefit of the doubt. Fact is it's a rough call to make, I don't envy him.
At the end of the day, the subject made a conscious decision to drink and drive, placing other people's lives at risk with disregard for their lives. Drunk driving isn't some sort of esoteric phenomenon that mysteriously "happens". He _chose_ to drink, he _chose_ to drive. I certainly will buy that PTSD and other factors were at fault here, and yes that's tragic as well; but you can't always have a perfect neat outcome.
.206 BA
:wtf:
-
.206 BA
:wtf:
Yep, since it is now open source information, Blood Alcohol .206, well over twice the legal limit. He was currently on charges with an open case for DUI. He was in contempt of court as he was a no show for a Court mandated psych evaluation with the prior DUI case still pending. This info was nothing but a small blurb with the media.
-
Yep, since it is now open source information, Blood Alcohol .206, well over twice the legal limit. He was currently on charges with an open case for DUI. He was in contempt of court as he was a no show for a Court mandated psych evaluation with the prior DUI case still pending. This info was nothing but a small blurb with the media.
This just shows how the system has failed everyone. The dead drunk driver, the officer who had to make this decision, the potential victims in the vicinity at the time, and the taxpayers who will foot the bill for all the ensuing investigations and other nonsensical lawsuits that may arise from this. If the legal system is working properly, this type of stuff would likely be minimized.
-
If he was black, Al Sharpton and CNN would be all over this. Then they would blame the State of Hawaii for failing to take care of its citizens...well they probably did...
-
And it begins...
"If Jim can get away with shooting someone, heck we all can. Shoot, we're the police. We'll just say that we felt our lives were in danger"
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/26211824/breaking-suspected-car-thief-killed-in-officer-involved-shooting-in-pearl-city-details-on-kgmb-and-hawaiinewsnowcom (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/26211824/breaking-suspected-car-thief-killed-in-officer-involved-shooting-in-pearl-city-details-on-kgmb-and-hawaiinewsnowcom)
-
So many factors...
People playing Grand Theft Auto and taking it on the real? Being naive to the consequences.
I think it is another sign of an ill society. Overall, people having no regard for our society's guidelines laws.
Maybe officers are getting better training, better pistols (Glocks) and having the effective means to stop?
I don;t know about you guys but going to a job where people are trying to run you over will get me beyond concerned.
-
So many factors...
People playing Grand Theft Auto and taking it on the real? Being naive to the consequences.
I think it is another sign of an ill society. Overall, people having no regard for our society's guidelines laws.
Maybe officers are getting better training, better pistols (Glocks) and having the effective means to stop?
I don;t know about you guys but going to a job where people are trying to run you over will get me beyond concerned.
...
Well said. I think you hit the nail on the head. :thumbsup: