2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on September 17, 2014, 08:47:40 PM
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/26562914/convicted-criminal-arrested-again-after-chase-crash-fight-with-police (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/26562914/convicted-criminal-arrested-again-after-chase-crash-fight-with-police)
-
Maybe cause there was a passenger in the car? At the same time, not shooting caused all three officers to get hurt?
-
One thing in noticed is the officers have 12 to 20 something years on the force opposed to 6 years of the officer in the Waikiki incident.
I applaud them for thier restraint and hope for a speedy recovery.
-
Maybe cause there was a passenger in the car? At the same time, not shooting caused all three officers to get hurt?
And I'm okay with that. Nobody, including the officers, was killed.
The guy already had some 30 convictions. Habitual drug user and dealer. Do you think we could have stopped this entire situation by not placing habitual offenders back in society? If you're looking for someone/something to blame for "all three officers to get hurt," I would focus on a judicial system that allows someone with this kind of history back on the streets to start with.
-
I'm fine with nobody getting killed but having the Officers getting hurt sucks. I also think the system is flawed and he still should have been locked away. At the same time it wouldn't bother me if the guy did get shot. If I was looking for someone to blame it wouldn't be the judicial system, it would be the criminal.
-
I'm fine with nobody getting killed but having the Officers getting hurt sucks. I also think the system is flawed and he still should have been locked away. At the same time it wouldn't bother me if the guy did get shot. If I was looking for someone to blame it wouldn't be the judicial system, it would be the criminal.
The criminal committed the crimes, but the system enabled him to make a lifelong career of it, allowing him to continue to victimize society. The system is at least in my opinion an accomplice.
-
I congratulate and respect these officers for actually being police officers.
I'm waiting for the jacks on this forum to comment about how this guy should have been shot because of scenario A, B, C & D and how he could have killed kids, puppies and bunny rabbits.
The reality is that the officers in this arrest are actual police officers that were not afraid to do actual police work.
Not some wimp with a badge that has no business being a police officer.
If a police officer can't take a couple of punches to arrest someone, he should quit and go manage a Mc Donald's.
I'd like to say a very sincere "Thank You" to these officers for their excellent service to the community.
If all police officers were like this, we wouldn't have people getting shot recklessly.
-
As is usually the norm, these officers handled this situation with aplomb.
I don't think anyone will disagree when I say our police force has many excellent officers that do their jobs well. The fact they suffered injuries in the course of this arrest is unfortunate, but dealing with physical aggression is a reality in their line of work.
I agree with Mauidog on this, the judicial system is complicit in the problems faced by HPD. They do a good job of arresting these pukes, it's not their fault that the courts and penal system release violent offenders.... 30 times or more.
Kudos officers, heal quickly, we need you out there.
-
Discretion is the better part of valor.
Good to have a story about some good officers
I know a few good ones myself.
So I know they are out there. :thumbsup:
-
As is usually the norm, these officers handled this situation with aplomb.
A bit off-topic but I learned a new word today. Thanks Ed. :shaka:
aplomb - self-confidence or assurance, especially when in a demanding situation.
-
There is HOPE for these convicts.
-
I congratulate and respect these officers for actually being police officers.
I'm waiting for the jacks on this forum to comment about how this guy should have been shot because of scenario A, B, C & D and how he could have killed kids, puppies and bunny rabbits.
The reality is that the officers in this arrest are actual police officers that were not afraid to do actual police work.
Not some wimp with a badge that has no business being a police officer.
If a police officer can't take a couple of punches to arrest someone, he should quit and go manage a Mc Donald's.
I'd like to say a very sincere "Thank You" to these officers for their excellent service to the community.
If all police officers were like this, we wouldn't have people getting shot recklessly.
So you sayin that po's who use their guns for self defense are whimps? this is a gun forum and prob over half bought guns for self defense so we dont have to fight them. you sayin we all cowards?
-
Not sure how you concluded that, but deadly force is a last resort for citizens and should be the same for law enforcement. I for one did not get guns just so I don't have to fight. I got it as a means to be able to fight if my life depended on it.
-
So you sayin that po's who use their guns for self defense are whimps? this is a gun forum and prob over half bought guns for self defense so we dont have to fight them. you sayin we all cowards?
Hahaha..... TROLL :thumbsup:
-
So you sayin that po's who use their guns for self defense are whimps? this is a gun forum and prob over half bought guns for self defense so we dont have to fight them. you sayin we all cowards?
Since when are the terms "whimps" and "cowards" synonymous?
Some whimps may be cowards, but so are some physically intimidating people.
Some "whimps" may be slight in stature, physically challenged (maybe in a wheelchair), elderly, or simply less athletic than the iron-pumping "rehabilitated members of society" you often see being released from prison.
I believe KK is trying to articulate that police officers must be capable of going hands-on with a suspect and be confident of forcing him/her into submission without having to resort to deadly force.
If the only way you can subdue a bad guy is to shoot them, maybe police field work isn't for you?
-
So you sayin that po's who use their guns for self defense are whimps? this is a gun forum and prob over half bought guns for self defense so we dont have to fight them. you sayin we all cowards?
Yup
-
ok you got me on the technical wording if you want to be anal about. as for hand combat sure they can do it but thats kinda hard when the guy is using his car to try to murder them. you seem to forget that one cop got hurt trying to escape. they could have shot and ended it or what you prefer and let him go which caused a high speed chase and then him ending up knocking over a pole. dont forget he had a young passenger in that chase. he could have hurt her and or other people. in fact he did, two more cops. you want the judical system to work by maybe tripling the consequence? who going pay for that? all that will do is extend the vacation time in between crimes. you know 3 meals a day, tv, internet, gym, aircon. do you really think it will prevent people from doing crimes? hell they got death sentences out there yet people still murder. imagine tax payers paying for 10 years in prison for stealing a car.
-
Yup
i guess so lol. we should lobby for cops to not carry guns cause they should go up and up since they train. what u no mma, sucks for u bro.
-
ok you got me on the technical wording if you want to be anal about. as for hand combat sure they can do it but thats kinda hard when the guy is using his car to try to murder them. you seem to forget that one cop got hurt trying to escape. they could have shot and ended it or what you prefer and let him go which caused a high speed chase and then him ending up knocking over a pole. dont forget he had a young passenger in that chase. he could have hurt her and or other people. in fact he did, two more cops. you want the judical system to work by maybe tripling the consequence? who going pay for that? all that will do is extend the vacation time in between crimes. you know 3 meals a day, tv, internet, gym, aircon. do you really think it will prevent people from doing crimes? hell they got death sentences out there yet people still murder. imagine tax payers paying for 10 years in prison for stealing a car.
And the Cops could have shot and killed the passenger trying to hit just the driver.
We can play this game all day long, but it doesn't change any of the facts in this specific story.
"What if" cars all had devices that let COPs disable them to stop fleeing suspects?
"What if" all parents raised their kids to respect COPs and do what they tell you to do without hesitation?
"What if" the minor girl in the car was actually kidnapped and being held against her will?
"What if" most of the COPs stayed in their cars and blocked the suspect's vehicle while a couple of other COPs approach him?
"What if" the guy was an ISIS terrorist planning to car bomb the Navy Exchange?
"What if" "What if" "What if" "What if" "What if" "What if"
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
-
so whats ur point. king says that cops shouldnt use their guns and should beef all criminals. all po's who uses guns are whimps. screw that. also what does it matter how you get a criminal off the streets as long as they off it. id prefer they say off of it for good.
-
so whats ur point. king says that cops shouldnt use their guns and should beef all criminals. all po's who uses guns are whimps. screw that. also what does it matter how you get a criminal off the streets as long as they off it. id prefer they say off of it for good.
That's a great sentiment when the suspect is in fact a criminal.
What would you say if the same treatment were given to someone the police mistook for the suspect?
Ooopsie? :oops:
There is a little thing called due process. You are supposed to be innocent until the system finds you guilty. It sounds like you are advocating street justice.
-
That's a great sentiment when the suspect is in fact a criminal.
What would you say if the same treatment were given to someone the police mistook for the suspect?
Ooopsie? :oops:
There is a little thing called due process. You are supposed to be innocent until the system finds you guilty. It sounds like you are advocating street justice.
what u talking about what if they mistook someone else for the suspect . this was no mistake. this was definently a criminal as he tried to kill the cops. how can they get the wrong person. " Atiz revved the engine and tried to run down the officers. They had to jump out of the way." " A third officer was injured jumping out of the way of the car." btw, "he was arrested for attempted murder, assault, resisting arrest, and numerous traffic violations."
"What if" "What if" "What if" "What if" "What if" "What if"
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Oh ok you innocent if you try to run down officers and then fight the officers causing injury to all three of them. nobody here said anything about advocating street justice, just shoot in self defense when their life was in extreme danger which was the car incident.
Oh so now you want ur so called due process when you stated that judicial system needs to be focused on and will just allow them back on the streets. make up ur mind. you want criminals on or off the streets. you sticking up for criminal rights?
-
what u talking about what if they mistook someone else for the suspect . this was no mistake. this was definently a criminal as he tried to kill the cops. how can they get the wrong person. " Atiz revved the engine and tried to run down the officers. They had to jump out of the way." " A third officer was injured jumping out of the way of the car." btw, "he was arrested for attempted murder, assault, resisting arrest, and numerous traffic violations."
"What if" "What if" "What if" "What if" "What if" "What if"
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Oh ok you innocent if you try to run down officers and then fight the officers causing injury to all three of them. nobody here said anything about advocating street justice, just shoot in self defense when their life was in extreme danger which was the car incident.
Oh so now you want ur so called due process when you stated that judicial system needs to be focused on and will just allow them back on the streets. make up ur mind. you want criminals on or off the streets. you sticking up for criminal rights?
Bahahaha. This guy reminds me of that other ho guy. Could this be TROLLHO? :popcorn:
-
so whats ur point. king says that cops shouldnt use their guns and should beef all criminals. all po's who uses guns are whimps. screw that. also what does it matter how you get a criminal off the streets as long as they off it. id prefer they say off of it for good.
-
So you sayin that po's who use their guns for self defense are whimps? this is a gun forum and prob over half bought guns for self defense so we dont have to fight them. you sayin we all cowards?
If the shoe fits...
so whats ur point. king says that cops shouldnt use their guns and should beef all criminals. all po's who uses guns are whimps. screw that. also what does it matter how you get a criminal off the streets as long as they off it. id prefer they say off of it for good.
Your excellent grammar leads me to believe you are a highly educated man, so I'll articulate this as well as my public school education allows.
My point is that wimps shouldn't be police officers.
There is a time to use deadly force.
There is a time to use physical force.
If you are a police officer, your primary concern should be the protection and preservation of life. If it's not, you're in the wrong line of work. Plain and simple.
-
what u talking about what if they mistook someone else for the suspect . this was no mistake. this was definently a criminal as he tried to kill the cops. how can they get the wrong person. " Atiz revved the engine and tried to run down the officers. They had to jump out of the way." " A third officer was injured jumping out of the way of the car." btw, "he was arrested for attempted murder, assault, resisting arrest, and numerous traffic violations."
"What if" "What if" "What if" "What if" "What if" "What if"
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
Oh ok you innocent if you try to run down officers and then fight the officers causing injury to all three of them. nobody here said anything about advocating street justice, just shoot in self defense when their life was in extreme danger which was the car incident.
Oh so now you want ur so called due process when you stated that judicial system needs to be focused on and will just allow them back on the streets. make up ur mind. you want criminals on or off the streets. you sticking up for criminal rights?
Why do you keep flip flopping between this specific case and then criminals in general? You weren't just talking about this one criminal. You were talking about all suspects:
also what does it matter how you get a criminal off the streets as long as they off it. id prefer they say off of it for good.
Try to focus. I realize jumping around from this scenario to another helps your arguments sound like they make sense, but that's not even close to the truth!
I'm sticking up for the rights of everyone being allowed to survive a police encounter long enough to defend themselves in court. Obviously by your statement above, you prefer the shoot 'em dead first, avoid questions later method of law enforcement regardless of the suspected crime.
:wtf:
-
If the shoe fits...
Your excellent grammar leads me to believe you are a highly educated man, so I'll articulate this as well as my public school education allows.
My point is that wimps shouldn't be police officers.
There is a time to use deadly force.
There is a time to use physical force.
If you are a police officer, your primary concern should be the protection and preservation of life. If it's not, you're in the wrong line of work. Plain and simple.
its a subject that we disagree on. no need to get personal. no need sick ur dog on me. ill just end it right here bro :shaka:
-
Update to the story
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140918_Police_release_case_against_man_who_allegedly_tried_to_run_over_officers.html?id=275708641 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140918_Police_release_case_against_man_who_allegedly_tried_to_run_over_officers.html?id=275708641)
-
Another Police Officer hit by a car thief, they must watch the news and know the cops aren't going to shoot because of bad press.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140921_Accident_in_Punchbowl_area_involved_police_car.html?id=275932381 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140921_Accident_in_Punchbowl_area_involved_police_car.html?id=275932381)
-
i guess he tried to fight but lost ::)
-
Another Police Officer hit by a car thief, they must watch the news and know the cops aren't going to shoot because of bad press.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140921_Accident_in_Punchbowl_area_involved_police_car.html?id=275932381 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140921_Accident_in_Punchbowl_area_involved_police_car.html?id=275932381)
I'm starting to see a pattern here. What I'm noticing is the lack of Blue and Whites, you know, standard police cruisers.
I saw coverage of this on the evening news as well. What I saw was a lot of relatively new, highly polished, taxpayer subsidized personal vehicles, but very few Blue and Whites.
It would seem to me that utilizing 2-3 police cruisers to block in someone driving a stolen car makes more sense than putting your flesh and bone body in front of one and risking death or injury. I'm not saying it's easy, but in lieu of the fact that the drivers of these stolen cars seem to be willing to risk an attempted murder charge to escape capture, it just makes more sense to me.
I know this sounds crazy, but, is the reason they're not doing this because they don't want to damage their cars?
If the officer involved here had time to pull over the vehicle, she { in this instance } had time to call in some backup to assist in keeping the vehicle from escaping before she initiated the stop. Why not wait until the vehicle is immobilized before attempting to arrest the driver?
Am I missing something here?
-
I know this sounds crazy, but, is the reason they're not doing this because they don't want to damage their cars?
If the officer involved here had time to pull over the vehicle, she { in this instance } had time to call in some backup to assist in keeping the vehicle from escaping before she initiated the stop. Why not wait until the vehicle is immobilized before attempting to arrest the driver?
Am I missing something here?
So Edster, you're advocating intelligent police work?
You're trying to tell us that a 3500 pound vehicle would be better at stopping a criminals car than a 155 pound police officer?
Aaaah come on.
-
Seems the police officer got hurt attempting to stop the car thief.
Officer injured in Honolulu hit-and-run crash: http://www.kitv.com/news/officer-injured-in-honolulu-hitandrun-crash/28177418
A Honolulu police officer is recovering from a hit-and-run crash near Lusitana Street and South School Street Sunday morning.
It happened at around 2:30 a.m., according to Emergency Medical Services officials.
Police say the officer took down the license plate of the car and discovered it was stolen. The officer proceeded to pull over the car, but the driver hit the officer's car.
The stolen car was last seen heading down School Street.
The 30-year-old male officer was taken to the hospital in critical condition.
No word yet on the description of the car police are searching for.
-
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140918_Police_release_case_against_man_who_allegedly_tried_to_run_over_officers.html?id=275708641
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140921_Accident_in_Punchbowl_area_involved_police_car.html?id=275932381 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20140921_Accident_in_Punchbowl_area_involved_police_car.html?id=275932381)
http://www.kitv.com/news/officer-injured-in-honolulu-hitandrun-crash/28177418 (http://www.kitv.com/news/officer-injured-in-honolulu-hitandrun-crash/28177418)
good thing they didn't shoot first. at least nobody got hurt...except the cops. at least they out on the loose to catch another day. they should have traned harder
-
good thing they didn't shoot first. at least nobody got hurt...except the cops. at least they out on the loose to catch another day. they should have traned harder
And people who try to hit police with a car, either while the Cops are in their cars or on foot, should be punished and given the max sentence. If trying to kill or injure a Cop carried 3 x the standard sentence of the normal sentence (special circumstances), then maybe people would be less likely to try it.
If we adopt your thinking, Cops need to shoot BEFORE they get hurt. So, now all suspects in a car are fair game?
Punish the few who actually use their cars as weapons. I empathize with the police if they get hurt on the job, but such is the nature of police work. You can't let fear dictate the laws/rules of engagement.
We can't give Cops a free pass to shoot everyone to keep themselves safe. In these cases you linked to, the suspects tried to use their cars as weapons. Up to that point, they had not done anything that warranted dying over. Car theft and running from police are not capital offenses, in case you forgot.
-
And people who try to hit police with a car, either while the Cops are in their cars or on foot, should be punished and given the max sentence. If trying to kill or injure a Cop carried 3 x the standard sentence of the normal sentence (special circumstances), then maybe people would be less likely to try it.
If we adopt your thinking, Cops need to shoot BEFORE they get hurt. So, now all suspects in a car are fair game?
Punish the few who actually use their cars as weapons. I empathize with the police if they get hurt on the job, but such is the nature of police work. You can't let fear dictate the laws/rules of engagement.
We can't give Cops a free pass to shoot everyone to keep themselves safe. In these cases you linked to, the suspects tried to use their cars as weapons. Up to that point, they had not done anything that warranted dying over. Car theft and running from police are not capital offenses, in case you forgot.
how much more punishment can you add to attempted manslaugher/murder and especially of a cop? these cases are not car thefts. they started as one but once they tried to run ova the cops it became attempted manslaugher/murder. if we adopt your thinking, these cops could be dead if they dont protect themselves. in fact one is in critical condition. remember these are not theft cases anymore. like i said they cant just go shooting everybody in any situation. i said once their lives are in great danger (which was when the criminals used their cars as weapons) they are waranted to shoot to protect themselves. isnt that why you guys have guns for hd?
Question for you and anyone else who disagree. when can a cop use his gun?
-
If trying to kill or injure a CIVILIAN carried 3 x the standard sentence of the normal sentence (special circumstances), then maybe people would be less likely to try it.
:thumbsup:
-
If trying to kill or injure a CIVILIAN carried 3 x the standard sentence of the normal sentence (special circumstances), then maybe people would be less likely to try it.
:thumbsup:
so what, 3x a life sentence? does that really matter? in hawaii no mo death sentence so now what? in places with death sentence what you going do kill him 3x? that still dont stop people from attempting or commiting murder. if you already thinking of murdering no law is going to sway or stop you
-
so what, 3x a life sentence? does that really matter? in hawaii no mo death sentence so now what? in places with death sentence what you going do kill him 3x? that still dont stop people from attempting or commiting murder. if you already thinking of murdering no law is going to sway or stop you
That's the problem right there:
that still dont stop people from attempting or [committing] murder.
Isn't that the purpose of laws and law enforcement, to actually deter crime?
So, the real problem isn't that the suspect tried to hit the Cop with a car. The real problem was that he was already a criminal (car thief), and he escalated to attempted murder to avoid getting caught (or he was just too stupid to think more than 3 seconds ahead).
If the suspect steals a car, is the answer to shoot him on sight, even IF he doesn't try to kill a Cop? Sounds like nothing else is working to prevent crime. Had he never stolen the car, the Cops would have been safe. Is that not logical?
There has always been and will always be crime. Sometimes it's justifiable (stealing to feed the family) and others it isn't (stealing to feed a habit). Justice is supposed to fit the crime. That's why we have judges and jurors. Someone needs to weigh the evidence and decide on punishment accordingly.
If a Cop feels his life is in danger, AND there are no other alternatives short of taking a life, then he is justified shooting the suspect. Deadly force should be the last resort. Until the suspect escalates to use of deadly force, serious bodily injury, or threatens to use those, nonlethal alternatives should be employed.
-
That's the problem right there:
Isn't that the purpose of laws and law enforcement, to actually deter crime?
So, the real problem isn't that the suspect tried to hit the Cop with a car. The real problem was that he was already a criminal (car thief), and he escalated to attempted murder to avoid getting caught (or he was just too stupid to think more than 3 seconds ahead).
If the suspect steals a car, is the answer to shoot him on sight, even IF he doesn't try to kill a Cop? Sounds like nothing else is working to prevent crime. Had he never stolen the car, the Cops would have been safe. Is that not logical?
There has always been and will always be crime. Sometimes it's justifiable (stealing to feed the family) and others it isn't (stealing to feed a habit). Justice is supposed to fit the crime. That's why we have judges and jurors. Someone needs to weigh the evidence and decide on punishment accordingly.
If a Cop feels his life is in danger, AND there are no other alternatives short of taking a life, then he is justified shooting the suspect. Deadly force should be the last resort. Until the suspect escalates to use of deadly force, serious bodily injury, or threatens to use those, nonlethal alternatives should be employed.
i agree with most of what you said. yes laws is meant to deter crime. maybe there wouldnt have been an attempted murder case if the criminal was too scared to steal a car in the first place. however at the same time these criminals above in these specific situations took it to the next level knowing what the consequences are. they were already prepared to take it to the highest level if they were to get caught for stealing. and idk how many times i said that i dont agree they can just shoot them for stealing a car. i said they can shoot them when their life was in danger when the criminals used their car as a deadly weapon. i also disagreed that fist fighting and not using their gun in those situations are whimps. i believe that our leo/military are brave just for signing up. how u gona fist fight a car? like i said the last guy must have tried and lost.