2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: 6716J on February 21, 2019, 07:19:25 AM
-
Dafuq going on with HPD this week? Shot and killed 2 in less than a week. First a drunk at the capitol, now a POS at Walmart Mililani. If this is going to become a regular thing, we should take away firearms from HPD as obviously they cannot be trusted with them and they have deep psychological issues and should seek professional help. Maybe be more like the traditional English Bobby and just have a billy club and whistle. That should be more than enough to deter any crime here in Hawaii.
Capitol
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/19/authorities-respond-report-gunshot-hawaii-state-capitol/
Mililani
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/21/police-respond-apparent-shooting-mililani/
-
Rampage?
Capitol - From what I read, the guy attacked the sheriff.
Mililani - Haven't read much details besides neighbors with the "oh my, I thought my neighborhood was so safe" and "stuff like this never happens it utopian Mililani" type stuff that is typical when news outlets rush just to report anything.
I'll wait for more facts to come out and not rush to judge. . .
[end rant]
-
I take it you are being sarcastic?
Criminals play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
-
I'd say multiply that by 20 or 30 times, and include armed citizens defending themselves EVERYWHERE from criminal predation in the mix, and I'd guess there could be a slight reduction in crime within a couple of years... :geekdanc:
-
What bothered me was the guy they interviewed in Mililani said he heard loud pops and went outside to look. Told the wife, if she hears "pops" don't be nosey. Grab the guns and be ready. Stay inside and away from windows.
-
I take it you are being sarcastic?
Criminals play stupid games and win stupid prizes.
You da winna!
-
You da winna!
Ahh, my bad. . . Coffee hadn't hit yet. :shaka:
-
Dafuq going on with HPD this week? Shot and killed 2 in less than a week. First a drunk at the capitol, now a POS at Walmart Mililani. If this is going to become a regular thing, we should take away firearms from HPD as obviously they cannot be trusted with them and they have deep psychological issues and should seek professional help. Maybe be more like the traditional English Bobby and just have a billy club and whistle. That should be more than enough to deter any crime here in Hawaii.
Capitol
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/19/authorities-respond-report-gunshot-hawaii-state-capitol/
Mililani
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/21/police-respond-apparent-shooting-mililani/
Since carrying of any loaded firearm is illegal here in Hawaii, you idea has merit. ;D
-
Dafuq going on with HPD this week? Shot and killed 2 in less than a week. First a drunk at the capitol, now a POS at Walmart Mililani. If this is going to become a regular thing, we should take away firearms from HPD as obviously they cannot be trusted with them and they have deep psychological issues and should seek professional help. Maybe be more like the traditional English Bobby and just have a billy club and whistle. That should be more than enough to deter any crime here in Hawaii.
[/quote
Interesting comment on what I perceive to be either a growing trend of shoot first, ask questions later, a growth in the resistance offered by perpetrators or suspects when it comes to obeying instructions given by cops or a combination of both.
I ran into a circuit court judge at the gym about two weeks ago. He handles criminal cases. Interestingly, he mentioned that he's seeing a trend with HPD and their use of firearms as a means of addressing situations rather than taking less drastic measures.
-
Interesting comment on what I perceive to be either a growing trend of shoot first, ask questions later, a growth in the resistance offered by perpetrators or suspects when it comes to obeying instructions given by cops or a combination of both.
I ran into a circuit court judge at the gym about two weeks ago. He handles criminal cases. Interestingly, he mentioned that he's seeing a trend with HPD and their use of firearms as a means of addressing situations rather than taking less drastic measures.
And another yesterday. While in this case on the surface it does look justified, it does seem to be a growing trend. There have quite a few officer involved shootings lately.
https://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/officer-involved-shooting-in-waikele/1800698095
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2018/10/12/breaking-news/fatal-police-shootings-on-oahu-climb-to-6-year-high/
"...Dinney was the sixth person fatally shot by HPD this year, the highest number of fatal police shootings on Oahu since 2013. It was also HPD’s 11th officer-involved shooting this year.
In previous years, there were two fatal police shootings on Oahu in 2017, 2014, and 2013. There was one fatal police shooting in 2016 and no fatal police shootings in 2015..."
-
[/quote
Interesting comment on what I perceive to be either a growing trend of shoot first, ask questions later, a growth in the resistance offered by perpetrators or suspects when it comes to obeying instructions given by cops or a combination of both.
I ran into a circuit court judge at the gym about two weeks ago. He handles criminal cases. Interestingly, he mentioned that he's seeing a trend with HPD and their use of firearms as a means of addressing situations rather than taking less drastic measures.
[/quote]
Those on this forum should actually be highly critical of police in any police involved shooting, especially if non-lethal options are available. Even when faced with deadly force, police should always seek the non-lethal solution, first. Police are there to protect life, not take it.
Who knows? In such an anti-2nd Amendment environment as we live in Hawaii, would any pro-2nd Amendment supporter like to be stalked by shoot first, ask questions later police officers at the next pro-2nd Amendment rally?
I think not.
-
[/quote
Interesting comment on what I perceive to be either a growing trend of shoot first, ask questions later, a growth in the resistance offered by perpetrators or suspects when it comes to obeying instructions given by cops or a combination of both.
I ran into a circuit court judge at the gym about two weeks ago. He handles criminal cases. Interestingly, he mentioned that he's seeing a trend with HPD and their use of firearms as a means of addressing situations rather than taking less drastic measures.
Those on this forum should actually be highly critical of police in any police involved shooting, especially if non-lethal options are available. Even when faced with deadly force, police should always seek the non-lethal solution, first. Police are there to protect life, not take it.
Who knows? In such an anti-2nd Amendment environment as we live in Hawaii, would any pro-2nd Amendment supporter like to be stalked by shoot first, ask questions later police officers at the next pro-2nd Amendment rally?
I think not.
a Taser against a vehicle = total fail.
-
I live by this philosophy. Obey commands given, then fight it in court or ask for a supervisor if I disagree with the command/charge after I comply. I rather be wrong and alive, than right and dead. Escalating a situation will not make things better. PD go from ask, tell, make.
If these guys shot were up to no good, then I shed no tears for them.
-
a Taser against a vehicle = total fail.
Yeah, that's what the police officers who did the shooting said.
Where there any other witnesses that corroborated the police officer's story that the perpetrator deliberately tried to run over them?
Did the police officers shoot the perpetrator first, before he accelerated his vehicle?
Both officers were in fear of their lives? REALLY. Where they standing shoulder to shoulder in the middle of the street? If so, HPD should revise their training protocols for such situations.
-
Both officers were in fear of their lives? .
Those are the magic words they are trained to say after a shooting.
Get out of jail, free.
-
Those are the magic words they are trained to say after a shooting.
Get out of jail, free.
If I remember correctly, the officer not in the path of the truck said he was in fear for the other officer's life.
I'll have to watch to the video again to verify.
EDIT: I was right.
The first officer, who was holding onto the door of the suspect vehicle, feared for the second officer's life."
--Chief Ballard
HPD Press Conference
-
If the officer who said he was in fear for his partner's life was holding on the perpetrator's door, is there a report as to where was the second officer's location at the time of shooting?
Furthermore, did both officers discharge their weapons?
-
If the officer who said he was in fear for his partner's life was holding on the perpetrator's door, is there a report as to where was the second officer's location at the time of shooting?
Furthermore, did both officers discharge their weapons?
He was standing in front of the truck and moved out of its path before he was struck.
You didn't listen to the HPD press conference?
Maybe get all the facts before posting derogatory comments about the Cops?
The truck was blocked in by 3 police vehicles. The driver was ordered multiple times to exit. Instead, he reversed into one car before driving forward toward officer #2. What did he think would happen?
https://www.khon2.com/top-stories/officer-involved-shooting-in-mililani/1797922314
-
He was standing in front of the truck and moved out of its path before he was struck.
You didn't listen to the HPD press conference?
Maybe get all the facts before posting derogatory comments about the Cops?
The truck was blocked in by 3 police vehicles. The driver was ordered multiple times to exit. Instead, he reversed into one car before driving forward toward officer #2. What did he think would happen?
So the police did trap the perpetrator using their vehicles, but one officer deliberately put himself in harms way within the police vehicle barricade. HPD really needs to rethink its SOP in these situations.
Do we have officer camera footage of the event, civilian eye witnesses, or just hearsay by the police officers involved?
Police must be always put on their toes when they choose to execute somebody, instead of bringing a suspect to due process of the law, no matter what the risks may be. That is what they are specially trained and paid large amounts of money and overtime to do.
-
So the police did trap the perpetrator using their vehicles, but one officer deliberately put himself in harms way within the police vehicle barricade. HPD really needs to rethink its SOP in these situations.
Do we have officer camera footage of the event, civilian eye witnesses, or just hearsay by the police officers involved?
Police must be always put on their toes when they choose to execute somebody, instead of bringing a suspect to due process of the law, no matter what the risks may be. That is what they are specially trained and paid large amounts of money and overtime to do.
There were 3 people in the truck. Why not wait to see what the 2 in the hospital have to say before letting your imagination run amok?
:wacko:
-
There were 3 people in the truck. Why not wait to see what the 2 in the hospital have to say before letting your imagination run amok?
:wacko:
#thevictimmustbebelieved
-
There were 3 people in the truck. Why not wait to see what the 2 in the hospital have to say before letting your imagination run amok?
:wacko:
How does asking questions for clarification equal to imagination running amok?
Your comments are condescending to one who is only looking for the truth, given the unusual rise of police shootings and fatalities that are happening as of February 2019.
-
How does asking questions for clarification equal to imagination running amok?
Your comments are condescending to one who is only looking for the truth, given the unusual rise of police shootings and fatalities that are happening as of February 2019.
You're making insinuations and conclusions about SOP and "executions".
Please. Save me the "condescending" accusations. You have a history of posting defamatory comments about police. Don't make this about me.
If you were looking for the truth, you'd be waiting for information to come out before jumping to conclusions.
"but one officer deliberately put himself in harms way within the police vehicle barricade. HPD really needs to rethink its SOP in these situations."
"Police must be always put on their toes when they choose to execute somebody, instead of bringing a suspect to due process of the law, no matter what the risks may be."
Those are not "questions."
-
HPD really needs to rethink its SOP in these situations.
How about don't try and injury cops. Listen and follow commands. Problem solved.
-
You're making insinuations and conclusions about SOP and "executions".
Please. Save me the "condescending" accusations. You have a history of posting defamatory comments about police. Don't make this about me.
If you were looking for the truth, you'd be waiting for information to come out before jumping to conclusions.
"but one officer deliberately put himself in harms way within the police vehicle barricade. HPD really needs to rethink its SOP in these situations."
"Police must be always put on their toes when they choose to execute somebody, instead of bringing a suspect to due process of the law, no matter what the risks may be."
Those are not "questions."
The police report stated that one officer was in the path of the trapped vehicle. How did that happen? Why were police officers in a position of potential danger when their own report clearly said they established a vehicle barricade? Moreover, were the officers in-question even in the path of the vehicle or is that just what the police said?
You may argue semantics, but an officer responsible fatality occured without due process of the law and the only thing the police has said to this point was they had to kill the perpetrator because they thought some of their officers were in deadly harms way.
Well, shooting at a driver of a vehicle where other passengers were present is not a wise course of action, especially if the vehicle was in motion. The chances of a direct hit is far from certain, while the chances of injuring innocent passengers rises exponentially. What kind of law enforcement officer would use their firearms if innocent bystanders are present?
-
The police report stated that one officer was in the path of the trapped vehicle. How did that happen? Why were police officers in a position of potential danger when their own report clearly said they established a vehicle barricade? Moreover, were the officers in-question even in the path of the vehicle or is that just what the police said?
You may argue semantics, but an officer responsible fatality occured without due process of the law and the only thing the police has said to this point was they had to kill the perpetrator because they thought some of their officers were in deadly harms way.
Well, shooting at a driver of a vehicle where other passengers were present is not a wise course of action, especially if the vehicle was in motion. The chances of a direct hit is far from certain, while the chances of injuring innocent passengers rises exponentially. What kind of law enforcement officer would use their firearms if innocent bystanders are present?
Those are questions. See the difference?
The answers require facts. Facts are not the same as assumptions.
If witness statements and police body cam videos support your assumptions as facts, THEN you have the information needed to question police tactics and SOP.
See how that works?
The DRIVER, not the police, put the passengers in peril. But you blame the Cops.
I'm done with you. Feel free to continue ranting. I've said all that can be said until more information is made public.
:shaka:
-
Extra, extra, read all about it! The little facts on the killing at the capitol has finally been made public!
So it appears the drunk that was killed at the capitol was not a former MMA champion, as inferred by the deputy sheriff who claims he had to shoot the perpetrator because he had the sheriff in some form of headlock.
I guess when you are confronting a drunk 5'3" 105 lbs. cripple, who was reported as barley being able to maintain his balance while standing; lethal force is definitely the only option, instead of pepper spray or baton.
Could have it been more likely that the drunk perpetrator could not hear or even was obeying the deputy sheriff's commands to vacate the premises, and as he tried to stand-up or walk away, he lost his balance and instinctively lunged or grabbed on the deputy sheriiff to regain his balance, which might have been wrongfully misinterpreted as an attack through which the deputy sheriff ended that person's life?
In any case, another incident of questionable judgement at the hands of law enforcement resulting in an avoidable fatality.
But I guess for the supporters with the shoot first and ask questions later approach to law enforcement in this forum, lets see if HPD can break the all-time record for police shootings and/or fatalities in this year. :wtf:
-
Extra, extra, read all about it! The little facts on the killing at the capitol has finally been made public!
So it appears the drunk that was killed at the capitol was not a former MMA champion, as inferred by the deputy sheriff who claims he had to shoot the perpetrator because he had the sheriff in some form of headlock.
I guess when you are confronting a drunk 5'3" 105 lbs. cripple, who was reported as barley being able to maintain his balance while standing; lethal force is definitely the only option, instead of pepper spray or baton.
Could have it been more likely that the drunk perpetrator could not hear or even was obeying the deputy sheriff's commands to vacate the premises, and as he tried to stand-up or walk away, he lost his balance and instinctively lunged or grabbed on the deputy sheriiff to regain his balance, which might have been wrongfully misinterpreted as an attack through which the deputy sheriff ended that person's life?
In any case, another incident of questionable judgement at the hands of law enforcement resulting in an avoidable fatality.
But I guess for the supporters with the shoot first and ask questions later approach to law enforcement in this forum, lets see if HPD can break the all-time record for police shootings and/or fatalities in this year. :wtf:
I read he was 5' 4" and 120 lbs. Not sure where you got 105 lbs. At his size, a 15 lb difference is not insignificant.
"Sherrif’s deputies are not equipped with tasers or body cams."
"Surveillance footage didn’t cover the area where encounter took place."
Speculation by his mother and mother's boyfriend is still not "fact." They didn't witness anything.
I'll wait for something besides emotional statements by people who weren't there.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/24/heartbreak-tears-family-man-shot-capitol-raises-questions-over-his-death/
-
I read he was 5' 4" and 120 lbs. Not sure where you got 105 lbs. At his size, a 15 lb difference is not insignificant.
The accounts reported by today's Star Advertiser beg to differ. You are right, he wasn't 105 lbs. the article reported court records showing as the victim being even lighter at 102 lbs.
"Sherrif’s deputies are not equipped with tasers or body cams."
Clearly something wrong here with their SOP.
"Surveillance footage didn’t cover the area where encounter took place."
Exactly, all we have is the deputy sheriff's account of killing clearly a relatively short and light drunk man.
Speculation by his mother and mother's boyfriend is still not "fact." They didn't witness anything.
I'll wait for something besides emotional statements by people who weren't there.
According to the victim's parents recounted by the article in the today's Star Advertiser, he was born with twisted feet that required surgery at the Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children and walked with a limp. Hence, since the victim was disabled, how can one justify using lethal force against such a short and light crippled adversary.
-
According to the victim's parents recounted by the article in the today's Star Avertiser, he was born with twisted feet that required surgery at the Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children.
Hence, the victim was a disabled cripple, who walked with a limp.
If you read the article I linked, it also included the polio at birth story.
Did the report you read actually say he was "a disabled cripple" at the time of the shooting?
I didn't see anything saying he's crippled, or that the condition wasn't corrected. Maybe the Shriner's Hospital corrected the majority of the polio effects. He may have had many surgeries and physical therapy in his 28 years.
Walking with a limp is not synonymous with "crippled." Just saying.
I'm not a Star-Pravdatizer subscriber, so I didn't read their report. Maybe she provided more recent information on his condition. Anything to add from what you read?
-
So a person who is "crippled" is not capable of causing injury to someone else?
Whats the stats on the sheriff? Was he 6"3 300lbs?
Like i said, how about obey commmands and dont use force on any LE.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
So a person who is "crippled" is not capable of causing injury to someone else?
Whats the stats on the sheriff? Was he 6"3 300lbs?
Like i said, how about obey commmands and dont use force on any LE.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
This is going to turn into another Monday morning quarterback situation like the Deedy fiasco. Family and friends now want to destroy the Deputy Sheriff, yet there's even less independent evidence as to what actually happened.
There are a few arrests involving a defendant with the name Delmar C. Espejo in Honolulu court records, including criminal property damage last Nov 2018.
It would be nice to see if the Deputy has any history of excessive force complaints, too.
-
I was at a bar once. Had this cripple talking shit to everyone the whole night. He had a cane too. Finally someone got tired of it and stepped up. The cripple pushed the guy with 1 hand. Guy pushed back and cripple went flying. He then played the cripple card and was crying.
Everyone there knew he deserved it and no one helped him up.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
So a person who is "crippled" is not capable of causing injury to someone else?
Whats the stats on the sheriff? Was he 6"3 300lbs?
Like i said, how about obey commmands and dont use force on any LE.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
That's the issue though, there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that the victim was in compliance or non-compliance. All we do know is that someone was killed and according to the link provided by Flapp, the deputy sheriff did not have a taser or body cam, BUT was fitted with pepper spray and a baton. Especially dealing with someone that clearly had no advanced hand-to-hand fighting skills and had irreversible physical impediments, why didn't the deputy sheriff utilize the less lethal tools at his disposal?
If a civilian was faced in a similar situation and choose to use a firearm against a perpetrator with the same physical disabilities, but had pepper spray or baton also in the arsenal, you bet the local prosecutor would try to throw that civilian in jail for unnecessary use of force and/or murder./b]
-
I was at a bar once. Had this cripple talking shit to everyone the whole night. He had a cane too. Finally someone got tired of it and stepped up. The cripple pushed the guy with 1 hand. Guy pushed back and cripple went flying. He then played the cripple card and was crying.
Everyone there knew he deserved it and no one helped him up.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Yep. Someone can use a cane as a weapon, too.
I'm not stating an opinion either way. I do know the Deputy said he ordered Espejo to leave the area. I can't imagine why he'd lie about that detail. If true, the "victim" could have diffused the situation by leaving. When you're drunk & drinking in public, it's not wise to ignore the orders of any law enforcement officer.
Every situation like this involves at least 2 people. It just takes one making the choice to do something different to change the outcome.
-
That's the issue though, there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that the victim was in compliance or non-compliance. All we do know is that someone was killed and according to the link provided by Flapp, the deputy sheriff did not have a taser or body cam, BUT was fitted with pepper spray and a baton. Especially dealing with someone that clearly had no advanced hand-to-hand fighting skills and had irreversible physical impediments, why didn't the deputy sheriff utilize the less lethal tools at his disposal?
If a civilian was faced in a similar situation and choose to use a firearm against a perpetrator with the same physical disabilities, but had pepper spray or baton also in the arsenal, you bet the local prosecutor would try to throw that civilian in jail for unnecessary use of force and/or murder./b]
Are you seriously saying only people with advanced hand-to-hand training represent a threat to others if they decide to attack?
I ASSUME he was carrying a bottle, since it was reported he was drinking alcohol in public. Was he also carrying a blade? He potentially had a weapon in his hand and weapons of opportunity. Disable the Deputy with a hit over the head with any object (bottle), then take his firearm. It's been done.
Your imagination is still running amok. :popcorn:
-
If a civilian was faced in a similar situation and choose to use a firearm against a perpetrator with the same physical disabilities, but had pepper spray or baton also in the arsenal, you bet the local prosecutor would try to throw that civilian in jail for unnecessary use of force and/or murder.
It's not even been a week yet, and here you are saying the Deputy is getting special treatment. He's on leave pending the results of the investigation.
Cart <behind> Horse
-
I'm not stating an opinion either way. I do know the Deputy said he ordered Espejo to leave the area. I can't imagine why he'd lie about that detail.
Who knows? Maybe he woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? Maybe he was too excessive in his commands or was actually begging for a confrontation?
If true, the "victim" could have diffused the situation by leaving. When you're drunk & drinking in public, it's not wise to ignore the orders of any law enforcement officer.
If you are drunk, you are not in your right mind and not in-control of your faculties; hence, it should be no surprise to the deputy sheriff to receive non-compliance. Moreover, this is even more reason for the deputy sheriff to have prepared for a potential physical altercation, but ready to utilize non-lethal means to address that contingency if it arose.
-
Try posting something that doesn't start with "maybe" for a change. :thumbsup:
Even drunks know when they are interacting with a uniformed Deputy. if he's so drunk he's incoherent, then it's very possible he did attack the Deputy for no good reason -- "not in-control of your faculties". That's his fault for getting that drunk, not the Deputy's.
-
Are you seriously saying only people with advanced hand-to-hand training represent a threat to others if they decide to attack?
No, but our trained deputy sheriff should be more than capable to handle a physical altercation against the average Joe or the victim in this case.
ASSUME he was carrying a bottle, since it was reported he was drinking alcohol in public. Was he also carrying a blade?
No evidence, but hard to believe such a weapon not reported yet if there was one.
He potentially had a weapon in his hand and weapons of opportunity. Disable the Deputy with a hit over the head with any object (bottle), then take his firearm. It's been done.
Possible, but then you are talking about a victim with physical impediments and intoxicated. His moves based on such an adversary would be clumsy and uncoordinated at best, which is much less a match for our trained deputy sheriff.
-
Even drunks know when they are interacting with a uniformed Deputy.
Some may or may not. That is not conclusive.
if he's so drunk he's incoherent, then it's very possible he did attack the Deputy for no good reason -- "not in-control of your faculties". That's his fault for getting that drunk, not the Deputy's
It is the victim's fault if he did indeed attacked the deputy sheriff, BUT the issue is whether the lethal force which resulted in a fatality was justified given all of the circumstances.
-
You're assuming he had physical impediments that rendered him harmless.
You're also assuming the Deputy was aware of the impediments.
The interview with the mother's boyfriend said Espejo didn't like to complain about his physical problems. So, how would the Deputy know if the guy hid them? Even a limp can be compensated for and hidden.
You're dragging me down your imaginary tunnel of "What ifs". I don't mind playing when it has a purpose. But there can be no resolution to this discussion for quite some time.
You want to make judgments and conclusions based on partial information. Have fun! I just know a 28 year old with booze in him could be a handful for anyone to wrestle regardless of "impediments".
https://youtu.be/wBKTcmQrCgo
-
I just watched the interview with the crying mom....And of course, the interview was at the lawyers office.
"My son is a good boy...I love my son"
I suppose as I get older I'm just getting fed up with this BS.
Good boys aren't wandering around downtown Honolulu drunk.
A mom who loves her son wouldn't be letting her son wander around downtown Honolulu drunk either.
So they are at a lawyers office contemplating legal action for what? Money?
Money ain't bringing the boy back to life.
Mom and the boyfriend won't admit to failing to help the dysfunctional boy.
But they sure jumped on the lawyer train fast.
And we, the taxpayers, are going to pay if they decide to file a wrongful death suit.
-
I agree. Not buying the teary eyed he was a good boy. Why was the guy homeless and drunk on the lawn of the capitol, now all of a sudden mom gives a shit?
I might be more inclinded to sympathy, if teary eyed mom wasn't inside a lawyers office...
-
Almost all criminals are “good boys” on the verge of turning their life around. I say BULLSHIT. Good boys don’t make or get into trouble, as evidenced by the tens of thousands of true “good boys” right here in Hawaii.
-
So they are at a lawyers office contemplating legal action for what? Money?
Of course.
Money ain't bringing the boy back to life.
100% True.
Mom and the boyfriend won't admit to failing to help the dysfunctional boy.
Don't know for sure.
But they sure jumped on the lawyer train fast.
And we, the taxpayers, are going to pay if they decide to file a wrongful death suit.
You would too if the use of lethal force was not justifiable in lieu of the FACT that the deputy sheriff had less lethal means at his disposal.
-
You're assuming he had physical impediments that rendered him harmless.
No, anyone is capable of violence, but his impediments does not realistically support the accusation of the victim being able to successfully execute a headlock on a hand-to-hand trained sheriff's deputy, who also presumably was trained in close quarter grappling skills.
You're also assuming the Deputy was aware of the impediments.
The interview with the mother's boyfriend said Espejo didn't like to complain about his physical problems. So, how would the Deputy know if the guy hid them? Even a limp can be compensated for and hidden.
If the sheriff's deputy was properly trained in situational awareness, he would/should have been able to reasonably size up and at least make a determination of the victim's overall physical capabilities.
I just know a 28 year old with booze in him could be a handful for anyone to wrestle regardless of "impediments".
I would wager that the 28 year old you mentioned was not 5'3" and 102 lbs.
-
You would too if the use of lethal force was not justifiable in lieu of the FACT that the deputy sheriff had less lethal means at his disposal.
Sheriffs don't have Tasers
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/24/heartbreak-tears-family-man-shot-capitol-raises-questions-over-his-death/ (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/02/24/heartbreak-tears-family-man-shot-capitol-raises-questions-over-his-death/)
Sherrif’s deputies are not equipped with tasers or body cams. During Tuesday’s press conference, public safety officials said they were looking into acquiring that technology prior to this shooting.
LE is a tough job in today's socially charged anti-police environment. Damned if you do damned if you don't. The media can't even spell it right.
-
Sheriffs don't have Tasers
Sherrif’s deputies are not equipped with tasers or body cams. During Tuesday’s press conference, public safety officials said they were looking into acquiring that technology prior to this shooting.
But they do have pepper spray and batons as does HPD; why were those options not used?
Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.
-
But they do have pepper spray and batons as does HPD; why were those options not used?
Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.
According to the sheriff, his life was in danger - at that point less lethal would not be a good option to immediately stop the threat. Perhaps it was deployed and was ineffective against the drunken / doped up? suspect.
According to the Star Advertiser:
Espejo has a criminal record of one conviction of liquor in public places and one conviction of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Both convictions are petty misdemeanors.
The Medical Examiner’s Office said Espejo was homeless.
So we have a person with a record of public intoxication and who was homeless.
We have seen what DUI has done to 7 innocent bystanders
Given those circumstances what would you have done?
-
According to the sheriff, his life was in danger - at that point less lethal would not be a good option to immediately stop the threat. Perhaps it was deployed and was ineffective against the drunken / doped up? suspect.
If he did make honest attempts of utilizing his pepper spray and/or baton and they were not effective to stop a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled individual, then I would agree the sheriff's deputy had reasonably tried all less lethal options and had no choice, but to deploy his firearm as a last resort. Let us remember, however, the victim was drunk and not under the influence of crack or other illicit drug as far as it has been reported.
According to the Star Advertiser:
Espejo has a criminal record of one conviction of liquor in public places and one conviction of operating a vehicle under the influence of an intoxicant. Both convictions are petty misdemeanors.
The victim of course was not an upstanding member of society, but he had no criminal history of assault or battery as far as it had been reported.
The Medical Examiner’s Office said Espejo was homeless.
So we have a person with a record of public intoxication and who was homeless.
We have seen what DUI has done to 7 innocent bystanders
Given those circumstances what would you have done?
I would have asked the suspect to cease his drinking and vacate the premises immediately all from a reasonably safe distance. If he did not comply, I would call HQ to report, request instructions from my supervisor, and wait for back-up before physically approaching the suspect, who at that time was not a physical threat to any one.
-
I would have asked the suspect to cease his drinking and vacate the premises immediately all from a reasonably safe distance. If he did not comply, I would call HQ to report, request instructions from my supervisor, and wait for back-up before physically approaching the suspect, who at that time was not a physical threat to any one.
What's a reasonably safe distance for a drunken person to be heard from you?
-
"What's a reasonably safe distance for a drunken person to be heard from you?"
I personally would employ the 21 foot standard, the referenced distance someone armed with a firearm needs to have against a person armed with a knife.
If the suspect can't hear my commands, I would report, ask for instructions, and wait for back-up before approaching the suspect to enforce the law.
-
"What's a reasonably safe distance for a drunken person to be heard from you?"
I personally would employ the 21 foot standard, the referenced distance someone armed with a firearm needs to have against a person armed with a knife.
If the suspect can't hear my commands, I would report, ask for instructions, and wait for back-up before approaching the suspect to enforce the law.
21 foot standard? Pffft.
You asked “Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.” Seems to me you’re the one rushing to judge YOUR side and YOUR beliefs.
You then state that you would employ basically an “ask nicely” then “ask supervisor” for direction. Seriously? Lovely perfect utopia your mind lives in.
As you can see, I had not rushed to judgement, but your statements are making like 1) you think you’re perfect and would have handled the situation perfectly and 2) you hold LE to some standard like they aren’t human and don’t want to simply do their job and go home to loved ones. Bottom line, put yourself in the LE’s shoes. If I’m armed in that situation and a guy attacks me, it’s on. The attacker chose to cross the line and it’s on HIM, not the responder.
-
21 foot standard? Pffft.
You asked “Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.” Seems to me you’re the one rushing to judge YOUR side and YOUR beliefs.
You then state that you would employ basically an “ask nicely” then “ask supervisor” for direction. Seriously? Lovely perfect utopia your mind lives in.
As you can see, I had not rushed to judgement, but your statements are making like 1) you think you’re perfect and would have handled the situation perfectly and 2) you hold LE to some standard like they aren’t human and don’t want to simply do their job and go home to loved ones. Bottom line, put yourself in the LE’s shoes. If I’m armed in that situation and a guy attacks me, it’s on. The attacker chose to cross the line and it’s on HIM, not the responder.
#micdrop
-
21 foot standard? Pffft.
You asked “Why is everybody not critically analyzing this FACT and only looking for ways to help justify the taking of someone's life, who at that point was only a suspect that should have been arrested and later tried for his violations.” Seems to me you’re the one rushing to judge YOUR side and YOUR beliefs.
The alternative would either be to shoot first and ask questions later, which what did happen or leave the man alone to do as he pleases. The suspect clearly was doing something not allowed at the location he was situated.
You then state that you would employ basically an “ask nicely” then “ask supervisor” for direction. Seriously? Lovely perfect utopia your mind lives in.
I don't recall any accounts of what was released to the public saying the suspect was in the process of any violent crime necessitating an immediate life or death response.
As you can see, I had not rushed to judgement, but your statements are making like 1) you think you’re perfect and would have handled the situation perfectly
I was asked a specific hypothetical question by Ren and responded with my opinion.
and 2) you hold LE to some standard like they aren’t human and don’t want to simply do their job and go home to loved ones. Bottom line, put yourself in the LE’s shoes. If I’m armed in that situation and a guy attacks me, it’s on. The attacker chose to cross the line and it’s on HIM, not the responder.
First of all, we only have the deputy sheriff's account were he claimed he was attacked. Hence, this should not necessarily presumed to be as 100% factual.
Second, there is no account by the deputy sheriff to indicate that the suspect immediately attacked him upon sight.
Third, all we have is the deputy sheriff approached the suspect alone without back-up. This tells us that he obviously felt no immediate danger or why would have he moved into hand-to-hand combat range if he thought otherwise. And somehow an unarmed 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled and drunk suspect was able to outmaneuver a well-trained hand-to-hand combat law enforcement officer and get him into a headlock through which he willingly choose his firearm over the other less lethal tools on his person resulting in a fatality.
If the deputy sheriff felt the suspect was potentially more that he could handle by himself or potentially had a concealed weapon, there is no reason to believe that he would not either strategically retreat upon assessing what he was up against or call for immediate support.
The deputy sheriff's reported actions showed that he did not see no immediate physical danger or concealed weapons; felt confident going into hand-to-hand combat range; somehow got overpowered by a clearly physically disabled and alcohol impaired individual; but decided to employ his firearm killing the suspect when his less-lethal options were available.
-
Third, all we have is the deputy sheriff approached the suspect alone without back-up. This tells us that he obviously felt no immediate danger or why would have he moved into hand-to-hand combat range if he thought otherwise. And somehow an unarmed 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled and drunk suspect was able to outmaneuver a well-trained hand-to-hand combat law enforcement officer and get him into a headlock through which he willingly choose his firearm over the other less lethal tools on his person resulting in a fatality.
If the deputy sheriff felt the suspect was potentially more that he could handle by himself or potentially had a concealed weapon, there is no reason to believe that he would not either strategically retreat upon assessing what he was up against or call for immediate support.
The deputy sheriff's reported actions showed that he did not see no immediate physical danger or concealed weapons; felt confident going into hand-to-hand combat range; somehow got overpowered by a clearly physically disabled and alcohol impaired individual; but decided to employ his firearm killing the suspect when his less-lethal options were available.
the man was intoxicated and unable to hear/obey his orders to leave. Wondering if the man was in need of assistance, he approached the individual, knowingly placing himself within dangerous proximity should the man attack. Placing the man's welfare above his own, he walked closer to better communicate with him and determine whether medical assistance was needed.
-
"the man was intoxicated and unable to hear/obey his orders to leave. Wondering if the man was in need of assistance, he approached the individual, knowingly placing himself within dangerous proximity should the man attack. Placing the man's welfare above his own, he walked closer to better communicate with him and determine whether medical assistance was needed."
This possible scenario, if true, still does not negate the main issue of whether the use of deadly force was justified, when other less-lethal options were available.
Once again, your responses slowly uncovers your firm bias to the use of deadly force for any circumstance and that the use of less-lethal means of defending oneself against an unarmed opponent is never appropriate.
I guess a number of members of this forum is just hoping all law enforcement officers behave as Judge Dread of DC Comics, where cops function as judge, jury, and executioner. Well, just remember you will be dealing with those same type of cops if the government decides to confiscate your firearms and you try to resist.
-
"the man was intoxicated and unable to hear/obey his orders to leave. Wondering if the man was in need of assistance, he approached the individual, knowingly placing himself within dangerous proximity should the man attack. Placing the man's welfare above his own, he walked closer to better communicate with him and determine whether medical assistance was needed."
This possible scenario, if true, still does not negate the main issue of whether the use of deadly force was justified, when other less-lethal options were available.
Once again, your responses slowly uncovers your firm bias to the use of deadly force for any circumstance and that the use of less-lethal means of defending oneself against an unarmed opponent is never appropriate.
I guess a number of members of this forum is just hoping all law enforcement officers behave as Judge Dread of DC Comics, where cops function as judge, jury, and executioner. Well, just remember you will be dealing with those same type of cops if the government decides to confiscate your firearms and you try to resist.
Why are you judging me? I only offered an equally plausible scenario for the Deputy's actions, JUST LIKE YOU.
Again, there's not enough information to support a single thing you've posted,
But, don't let something minor like a complete lack of facts stop you from pontificating and posting your anti-police, biased accusations.
There's no difference between your rush to judgement in this case and the Jussie Smollett hoax. You are using an incident to push an agenda before all the facts are known.
We need to be better than that.
-
"What's a reasonably safe distance for a drunken person to be heard from you?"
I personally would employ the 21 foot standard, the referenced distance someone armed with a firearm needs to have against a person armed with a knife.
If the suspect can't hear my commands, I would report, ask for instructions, and wait for back-up before approaching the suspect to enforce the law.
sounds like the LEOs in Demolition Man.
I never could figure out the seashell thing...
http://youtu.be/Kb21_qI90pE
-
Why are you judging me? I only offered an equally plausible scenario for the Deputy's actions, JUST LIKE YOU.
You have been passing judgements on my posts, I thought well I might as well do the same.
Again, there's not enough information to support a single thing you've posted,
But, don't let something minor like a complete lack of facts stop you from pontificating and posting your anti-police, biased accusations.
There is no conclusive evidence to prove the deputy sheriff's recounting of events either. All we have to consider is the circumstances that led to the fatality.
There's no difference between your rush to judgement in this case and the Jussie Smollett hoax. You are using an incident to push an agenda before all the facts are known.
What anti-police agenda do you speak of?
If you are accusing me of being a strict adherent to due process of law and against any movement of law enforcement becoming judge, jury, and executioner; I am guilty as charged.
We need to be better than that.
That's the first thing I am total agreement with you in this thread.
-
You have been passing judgements on my posts, I thought well I might as well do the same.
I never judged YOU like you are judging ME.
I pointed out my opinion of your posts containing invalid or unsupportable "facts", like how the Deputy is being protected by the system when it's not even been a week and the investigation hasn't concluded.
I guess to you, pointing out obvious things you can't know or conclusions you can't support is "judging".
If that's the case, I'm judging my interest in further engagement with you on this thread as "not worth my time."
-
The capitol shooting is very questionable to me for the reasons stated prior such as 102lbs, possibly crippled, and drunk. It's possible that lethal force was indeed justified, but odds wise its very unlikely. There are small guys that are very skilled at fighting and jiu jitsu, but that is uncommon. A drunk person at the capitol isn't an immediate threat where you don't have time to call for backup or aren't able to stay at a distance.
My theory is there's a lot of drunks and homeless that are chased away all the time. This small guy didn't seem like a threat so deputy was going to kick him out by himself. Guy surprised the deputy and put up resistance and the deputy panicked and shot. Probably was truly in fear for his life, but didn't use good judgement.
-
There is a bill going through the legislature to arm sheriff's and DOT officers with Tasers. Useful in some cases like the prior shooting at the capitol, which was unsuccessful. I don't think it would've been used in this case tho. Should be an option for them.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=456&year=2019
-
The capitol shooting is very questionable to me for the reasons stated prior such as 102lbs, possibly crippled, and drunk. It's possible that lethal force was indeed justified, but odds wise its very unlikely. There are small guys that are very skilled at fighting and jiu jitsu, but that is uncommon. A drunk person at the capitol isn't an immediate threat where you don't have time to call for backup or aren't able to stay at a distance.
My theory is there's a lot of drunks and homeless that are chased away all the time. This small guy didn't seem like a threat so deputy was going to kick him out by himself. Guy surprised the deputy and put up resistance and the deputy panicked and shot. Probably was truly in fear for his life, but didn't use good judgement.
Exactly, there has never been any question whether the suspect was illegally drinking on government property and needed to escorted off the premises.
What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available. The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen.
Moreover, I find it extremely fascinating to see how a well-trained hand-to-hand combat officer of the law could be compromised in a headlock given the physical and cognitive limitations of the suspect. Let's get real here, the suspect was not an MMA champion and the deputy sheriff was not the average undertrained person who works for minimum wage as a security guard for Walmart.
A fatality has occurred yet again since the beginning of 2019 and its not something, especially the responsible citizens in the firearms community who are fighting to protect the 2nd Amendment should condone. Law enforcement as well as 2nd Amendment supporters should have one thing in-common, which is to protect life, not take it the first chance they get.
-
Exactly, there has never been any question whether the suspect was illegally drinking on government property and needed to escorted off the premises.
What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available. The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen.
Moreover, I find it extremely fascinating to see how a well-trained hand-to-hand combat officer of the law could be compromised in a headlock given the physical and cognitive limitations of the suspect. Let's get real here, the suspect was not an MMA champion and the deputy sheriff was not the average undertrained person who works for minimum wage as a security guard for Walmart.
A fatality has occurred yet again since the beginning of 2019 and its not something, especially the responsible citizens in the firearms community who are fighting to protect the 2nd Amendment should condone. Law enforcement as well as 2nd Amendment supporters should have one thing in-common, which is to protect life, not take it the first chance they get.
Who said that?
-
Exactly, there has never been any question whether the suspect was illegally drinking on government property and needed to escorted off the premises.
What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available. The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen.
Moreover, I find it extremely fascinating to see how a well-trained hand-to-hand combat officer of the law could be compromised in a headlock given the physical and cognitive limitations of the suspect. Let's get real here, the suspect was not an MMA champion and the deputy sheriff was not the average undertrained person who works for minimum wage as a security guard for Walmart.
A fatality has occurred yet again since the beginning of 2019 and its not something, especially the responsible citizens in the firearms community who are fighting to protect the 2nd Amendment should condone. Law enforcement as well as 2nd Amendment supporters should have one thing in-common, which is to protect life, not take it the first chance they get.
I find it interesting that you are allowed to make allegations and suppositions that are automatically true and those that are reported in the news and by the authorities are automatically false...
and you have made those statements in this last post at least 3-4 times in this thread already, repeating them does not make them more true...
can we just agree that we should wait for the facts?
-
I find it interesting that you are allowed to make allegations and suppositions that are automatically true and those that are reported in the news and by the authorities are automatically false...
and you have made those statements in this last post at least 3-4 times in this thread already, repeating them does not make them more true...
can we just agree that we should wait for the facts?
Feelings don't wait for facts.
-
I find it interesting that you are allowed to make allegations and suppositions that are automatically true and those that are reported in the news and by the authorities are automatically false...
What allegations am I making up?
The suspect has a history of being disabled, was drinking alcohol, and very small in stature. FACT
The suspect was not an expert in hand-to-hand combat. FACT
The suspect did not have any convictions of assault or battery. FACT
The deputy sheriff was equipped with less lethal tools for self-defense. FACT
The deputy sheriff did not call for assistance and approached the suspect. FACT
The deputy sheriff choose to use his firearm resulting in the death of the suspect. FACT
The deputy sheriff did not state using any of his less lethal weapons (i.e., pepper spray or baton). FACT
What am I missing?
-
Exactly, there has never been any question whether the suspect was illegally drinking on government property and needed to escorted off the premises.
What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available. The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen.
Moreover, I find it extremely fascinating to see how a well-trained hand-to-hand combat officer of the law could be compromised in a headlock given the physical and cognitive limitations of the suspect. Let's get real here, the suspect was not an MMA champion and the deputy sheriff was not the average undertrained person who works for minimum wage as a security guard for Walmart.
A fatality has occurred yet again since the beginning of 2019 and its not something, especially the responsible citizens in the firearms community who are fighting to protect the 2nd Amendment should condone. Law enforcement as well as 2nd Amendment supporters should have one thing in-common, which is to protect life, not take it the first chance they get.
define a "combat officer". I agree with some of your points and you bring a balanced perspective. I don't agree that the majority of posters are rallying for LE to shoot in response to a threat.
I agree that LE is there to protect life. But according to the news article the suspect put the LEO in a situation which warranted the response from said LEO. It's against the law to drink in the public but the suspect disregarded that law through his physical interaction with the LEO. The outcome would definitely be different had the suspect heeded the LEO's directions.
-
What allegations am I making up?
What am I missing?
stalked by shoot first, ask questions later police officers
police officers shoot the perpetrator first, before he accelerated his vehicle
Both officers were in fear of their lives? REALLY.
police did trap the perpetrator using their vehicles, but one officer deliberately put himself in harms way within the police vehicle barricade.
hearsay by the police officers involved
Police must be always put on their toes when they choose to execute somebody, instead of bringing a suspect to due process of the law, no matter what the risks may be.
he lost his balance and instinctively lunged or grabbed on the deputy sheriiff to regain his balance, which might have been wrongfully misinterpreted as an attack through which the deputy sheriff ended that person's life
another incident of questionable judgement at the hands of law enforcement resulting in an avoidable fatality
But I guess for the supporters with the shoot first and ask questions later approach to law enforcement in this forum, lets see if HPD can break the all-time record for police shootings and/or fatalities in this year.
how can one justify using lethal force against such a short and light crippled adversary
Maybe he woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning
Maybe he was too excessive in his commands or was actually begging for a confrontation
If you are drunk, you are not in your right mind and not in-control of your faculties; hence, it should be no surprise to the deputy sheriff to receive non-compliance. Moreover, this is even more reason for the deputy sheriff to have prepared for a potential physical altercation,
clumsy and uncoordinated at best, which is much less a match for our trained deputy sheriff.
presumably was trained in close quarter grappling skills
If the sheriff's deputy was properly trained in situational awareness, he would/should have been able to reasonably size up and at least make a determination of the victim's overall physical capabilities.
The alternative would either be to shoot first and ask questions later, which what did happen or leave the man alone to do as he pleases
he obviously felt no immediate danger or why would have he moved into hand-to-hand combat range if he thought otherwise
well-trained hand-to-hand combat law enforcement officer
he willingly choose his firearm over the other less lethal tools on his person
there is no reason to believe that he would not either strategically retreat upon assessing what he was up against or call for immediate support.
The deputy sheriff's reported actions showed that he did not see no immediate physical danger or concealed weapons; felt confident going into hand-to-hand combat range; somehow got overpowered by a clearly physically disabled and alcohol impaired individual; but decided to employ his firearm killing the suspect when his less-lethal options were available.
slowly uncovers your firm bias to the use of deadly force for any circumstance and that the use of less-lethal means of defending oneself against an unarmed opponent is never appropriate
number of members of this forum is just hoping all law enforcement officers behave as Judge Dread of DC Comics, where cops function as judge, jury, and executioner
What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available. The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen
-
define a "combat officer".
My mistake, there should have been a comma between combat and officer; hand-to-hand combat, officer of the law.
I agree with some of your points and you bring a balanced perspective. I don't agree that the majority of posters are rallying for LE to shoot in response to a threat.
I agree that LE is there to protect life. But according to the news article the suspect put the LEO in a situation which warranted the response from said LEO. It's against the law to drink in the public but the suspect disregarded that law through his physical interaction with the LEO. The outcome would definitely be different had the suspect heeded the LEO's directions.
Ren, that is the area that I question. The deputy sheriff claims that the suspect was not compliant, which is highly possible, but goes on to say that the suspect attacked him and secured a headlock, which forced him to apply deadly force. This is all hearsay by the deputy sheriff.
Once again, we are talking about a drunk and disabled individual all of a sudden uncharacteristically attack a law enforcement officer. I am not sure this is consistent with his court history, which he had prior infractions with the law with alcohol before, but none with assault or battery.
Granted anything is possible in dealing with intoxicated suspects, but it is hard to envision a 5'3", 102 lbs. man with a limp somehow getting a jump on a hand-to-hand trained deputy sheriff. Unless that deputy sheriff was equally small in stature and totally looking in the opposite direction, there should be no reasonable way the smaller unskilled suspect get and maintain a headlock on the larger deputy sheriff, resulting in the deputy sheriff making the decision to lethally shoot the suspect to protect himself. I guess the deputy sheriff was not familiar with the infamous low front kick used by Agent Deedy at MacDonald's.
-
What allegations am I making up?
What am I missing?
stalked by shoot first, ask questions later police officers
police officers shoot the perpetrator first, before he accelerated his vehicle
Both officers were in fear of their lives? REALLY.
police did trap the perpetrator using their vehicles, but one officer deliberately put himself in harms way within the police vehicle barricade.
hearsay by the police officers involved
Police must be always put on their toes when they choose to execute somebody, instead of bringing a suspect to due process of the law, no matter what the risks may be.
he lost his balance and instinctively lunged or grabbed on the deputy sheriiff to regain his balance, which might have been wrongfully misinterpreted as an attack through which the deputy sheriff ended that person's life
another incident of questionable judgement at the hands of law enforcement resulting in an avoidable fatality
But I guess for the supporters with the shoot first and ask questions later approach to law enforcement in this forum, lets see if HPD can break the all-time record for police shootings and/or fatalities in this year.
how can one justify using lethal force against such a short and light crippled adversary
Maybe he woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning
Maybe he was too excessive in his commands or was actually begging for a confrontation
If you are drunk, you are not in your right mind and not in-control of your faculties; hence, it should be no surprise to the deputy sheriff to receive non-compliance. Moreover, this is even more reason for the deputy sheriff to have prepared for a potential physical altercation,
clumsy and uncoordinated at best, which is much less a match for our trained deputy sheriff.
presumably was trained in close quarter grappling skills
If the sheriff's deputy was properly trained in situational awareness, he would/should have been able to reasonably size up and at least make a determination of the victim's overall physical capabilities.
The alternative would either be to shoot first and ask questions later, which what did happen or leave the man alone to do as he pleases
he obviously felt no immediate danger or why would have he moved into hand-to-hand combat range if he thought otherwise
well-trained hand-to-hand combat law enforcement officer
he willingly choose his firearm over the other less lethal tools on his person
there is no reason to believe that he would not either strategically retreat upon assessing what he was up against or call for immediate support.
The deputy sheriff's reported actions showed that he did not see no immediate physical danger or concealed weapons; felt confident going into hand-to-hand combat range; somehow got overpowered by a clearly physically disabled and alcohol impaired individual; but decided to employ his firearm killing the suspect when his less-lethal options were available.
slowly uncovers your firm bias to the use of deadly force for any circumstance and that the use of less-lethal means of defending oneself against an unarmed opponent is never appropriate
number of members of this forum is just hoping all law enforcement officers behave as Judge Dread of DC Comics, where cops function as judge, jury, and executioner
What I find disturbing is how many responses in this thread have rallied to support the using of deadly force by law enforcement when the initial situation itself did not warrant a firearms response, while alternative less-lethal options were indeed available. The challenges of drawing your firearm under the alleged physical altercation would be no less similar to reaching for your pepper spray and/or baton in this case and yet the shoot first and ask question later approach was what was chosen
So says the thought policeman, when the statements posted does not agree with him.
So what are you going to do, shoot me first and ask questions later because you don't like my position on this issue?
-
So says the thought policeman, when the statements posted does not agree with him.
So what are you going to do, shoot me first and ask questions later because you don't like my position on this issue?
so you agree that none of what I posted is FACT
doesn't that make you the thought policeman?
especially given the fact that I never said I don't agree with (or like) your position on this issue...
-
so you agree that none of what I posted is FACT
doesn't that make you the thought policeman?
That is your entitled interpretation of the things I posted. The assessment and positions I posted regarding the fatality at the capitol were all based on the available facts made public up to this point.
especially given the fact that I never said I don't like your position on this issue...
So, do you or do you not concur with my position challenging the legitimacy of the deputy sheriff's use of deadly force on his alledged claim that a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled drunk with no prior history of assault and battery that walks with a limp somehow got him into a headlock through which he felt he was about to die, if he did not use his firearm?
-
So, do you or do you not concur with my position challenging the legitimacy of the deputy sheriff's use of deadly force on his alledged claim that a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled drunk with no prior history of assault and battery that walks with a limp somehow got him into a headlock through which felt he was about to die, if he did not use his firearm?
He already answered that (same position I've been stating from the beginning):
...
can we just agree that we should wait for the facts?
I thought only Liberals jumped off the deep end without waiting for facts.
-
He already answered that (same position I've been stating from the beginning):
What additional facts are you waiting for?
You already know almost everything there is to know in regards to the 5'3", 102 lbs. part-time homeless, disabled individual with no prior conviction of assault or battery who happened to satisfy his love for alcohol at the capitol on that fateful day.
You already know the disposition of the deputy sheriff, who was given your standard hand-to-hand combat training and equipped with less lethal weapons of pepper spray and a baton, in addition to his firearm.
You already are aware of the official statement given to the public that the deputy sheriff alleged that his approach to the suspect was without back-up and ended in an altercation with the suspect and put in a headlock.
You also know that the suspect was unarmed with a deadly weapon and yet the deputy sheriff felt he was going to loose his life if he did not end the suspect's life with his firearm, despite the fact he had a choice to use his pepper spray and/or baton.
The only fact I am waiting for now is for the authorities to claim he had a concealed gun so they can further demonize gun ownership and their gun confiscation agenda.
-
What additional facts are you waiting for?
You already know almost everything there is to know in regards to the 5'3", 102 lbs. part-time homeless, disabled individual with no prior conviction of assault or battery who happened to satisfy his love for alcohol at the capitol on that fateful day.
You already know the disposition of the deputy sheriff, who was given your standard hand-to-hand combat training and equipped with less lethal weapons of pepper spray and a baton, in addition to his firearm.
You already are aware of the official statement given to the public that the deputy sheriff alleged that his approach to the suspect was without back-up and ended in an altercation with the suspect and put in a headlock.
You also know that the suspect was unarmed with a deadly weapon and yet the deputy sheriff felt he was going to loose his life if he did not end the suspect's life with his firearm, despite the fact he had a choice to use his pepper spray and/or baton.
The only fact I am waiting for now is for the authorities to claim he had a concealed gun so they can further demonize gun ownership and their gun confiscation agenda.
So, in your world, the press gives you 100% complete and accurate information before any investigating is done by the police?
Good news! We can just use newspaper reports and TV video from lawyer offices to take people to court. No need to look for witnesses or physical evidence.
Such a time and money saver!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
So, in your world, the press gives you 100% complete and accurate information before any investigating is done by the police?
Good news! We can just use newspaper reports and TV video from lawyer offices to take people to court. No need to look for witnesses or physical evidence.
Such a time and money saver!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
So you are putting your faith on the authorities on finding anything that will incriminate their own deputy sheriff, especially when there is no video footage and/or eye witness accounts. How naïve indeed.
I usually don't trust the print media, but they would be less bias than the internal investigation conducted by the authorities in regards to this particular case. This is like asking HPD to present a study with their own crime data to show how gun ownership does not increase crime in Hawaii. Good luck in getting them to do that!
-
No one should ever take any advice from @Kuleana regarding tactics, techniques, and use of force. He/She knows just enough about the language to be deadly wrong about the applications. Dangerous combination.
-
No one should ever take any advice from @Kuleana regarding tactics, techniques, and use of force. He/She knows just enough about the language to be deadly wrong about the applications. Dangerous combination.
Funny, I never offered to give any self-defense advice to anyone.
If you just plan to jump in to troll and cast insults to my character, please be a man and say so!
-
The police report stated that one officer was in the path of the trapped vehicle. How did that happen? Why were police officers in a position of potential danger when their own report clearly said they established a vehicle barricade?
There are a large number os plausible explanations to this question.
-Maybe the officer did not think the individual would decided to flee for just a shoplifting offense
-In the heat of the moment there is a lot going on. 3 people in the car to watch, other vehicles to take into account. The officer might have simply decided to take the shortest path to address the driver
-When it became clear the guy was going to ram other cars and it was time to escalate force the officer might have been in a crossfire situation and had to quickly move so as to get out of the potential fire of the other officer.
-
That's the issue though, there isn't conclusive evidence to prove that the victim was in compliance or non-compliance.
So why do you take the default position that the officer did something wrong and that he must be guilty of some wrongdoing unless he can prove his innocence?
-
You guys have way too much free time lol....
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
-
Funny, I never offered to give any self-defense advice to anyone.
If you just plan to jump in to troll and cast insults to my character, please be a man and say so!
He's not trolling at all and he's not insulting your character - just your experience or lack of.
-
He's not trolling at all and he's not insulting your character - just your experience or lack of.
That's right, he is making insults and advocating readers of this thread to have a negative view of his perception on one aspect of my experience based on my posts in this thread that he has taken out of context.
Sounds like a personal attack and defamation of my character to me.
-
There are a large number os plausible explanations to this question.
-Maybe the officer did not think the individual would decided to flee for just a shoplifting offense
-In the heat of the moment there is a lot going on. 3 people in the car to watch, other vehicles to take into account. The officer might have simply decided to take the shortest path to address the driver
-When it became clear the guy was going to ram other cars and it was time to escalate force the officer might have been in a crossfire situation and had to quickly move so as to get out of the potential fire of the other officer.
All plausible, the problem is all we have is testimonial from the police officers involved. As of this writing, there is no video or civilian eye witness accounts corroborating the claim of at least one officer who was in clear and present danger that nictitated another officer to open fire with his firearm ending with a fatality.
In fairness, the survivors of those in the truck will understandably not be as credible as well, as they will presumably present their side against HPD.
-
So why do you take the default position that the officer did something wrong and that he must be guilty of some wrongdoing unless he can prove his innocence?
With all due respect to HPD, I'd like to think the use of their firearms are done only as a last resort, as they are there to protect life, suspects and all.
Hence, I am always weary when we have police shooting fatalities, which have been traditionally small in number. This being a credit to HPD, historically.
-
You guys have way too much free time lol....
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'm probably "guilty" of that lately. However, you should be happy in a way that you have many reasons to have less free time. ;D
-
I'm probably "guilty" of that lately. However, you should be happy in a way that you have many reasons to have less free time. ;D
I was at the range bro!
-
I was at the range bro!
Nice! :thumbsup: :geekdanc:
I was gonna go Friday, but went to the dentist instead. . . :(
Anyways, :stopjack:
-
I was gonna go Friday, but went to the dentist instead. . . :(
heads
-
With all due respect to HPD, I'd like to think the use of their firearms are done only as a last resort, as they are there to protect life, suspects and all.
Hence, I am always weary when we have police shooting fatalities, which have been traditionally small in number. This being a credit to HPD, historically.
The "last resort" is a very gray area with no well defined line. Waiting an extra second could allow the officer to resort to different method but it could also cost them their life.
Often times all we have is the officers account but it can't be discounted on the account that there are no other accounts. Obviously if we demand lethal force not be used unless there is a camera or witness then there are many times where an officer wouldn't be able to use force when they might need to to save someone's life.
-
The "last resort" is a very gray area with no well defined line. Waiting an extra second could allow the officer to resort to different method but it could also cost them their life.
Granted.
Often times all we have is the officers account but it can't be discounted on the account that there are no other accounts. Obviously if we demand lethal force not be used unless there is a camera or witness then there are many times where an officer wouldn't be able to use force when they might need to to save someone's life.
Regardless, the basic question remains, were there any other less lethal options that the law enforcement officer could have utilized to regain control of the situation in both what happened in Mililani and at the capitol. From all available facts made open to the public, arguments can be made that there was that possibility. In both cases, neither suspect were armed with guns, while that was not true of the officers involved.
If a civilian in Hawaii decided to use their firearm to defend themselves on their property from an attempted assault from someone who was not armed and it was known the civilian actually had pepper spray and a baton on their person that they could have utilized, instead of their firearm, I would wager that person will still be facing murder/manslaughter charges from the prosecutors office.
-
Regardless, the basic question remains, were there any other less lethal options that the law enforcement officer could have utilized to regain control of the situation in both what happened in Mililani and at the capitol. From all available facts made open to the public, arguments can be made that there was that possibility. In both cases, neither suspect were armed with guns, while that was not true of the officers involved.
If a civilian in Hawaii decided to use their firearm to defend themselves on their property from an attempted assault from someone who was not armed and it was known the civilian actually had pepper spray and a baton on their person that they could have utilized, instead of their firearm, I would wager that person will still be facing murder/manslaughter charges from the prosecutors office.
There will always be a less lethal option but it doesn't make it a good option. For example, if someone were coming at you with a knife there would always be the option that you could use open hand techniques to disarm him but it is dangerous and unreasonable to expect you to take that option.
Now I haven't read heavily into the shooting at the capital but if I understand correclty the suspect had put the sheriff in a choke hold of some sort?
Are there escapes to choke holds? Yes but unless one is proficient it isn't going to be a realistic option.
Is pepper spray or a taser a viable option? Taser is going to be difficult if the person was at your rear and pepper spray might work though you risk exposing yourself.
Baton? Harder to hit the safer impact points on someone behind you and hitting them in the head is still risky and could be lethal.
The downside to these options are that you have a very limited amount of time if someone has the choke on good, maybe 4 seconds if it is perfectly applied. If you elect to try these other less lethal options but they fail, you might not have ability to upgrade to the lethal option before passing out/dying.
A regular civilian would nearly always be arrested if they killed another person because that would be a homicide. That doesn't mean the civilian can't claim self defense and the burden of proof is on the prosecutors to prove the person wasn't acting in self defense. Yes, cops do get a pass here but it is in the beginning. Cops get a certain benefit of doubt that they were doing their job properly and then prosecutors consider the evidence and decide whether or not to charge the officer with a crime. It doesn't mean the civilian faces a different level of proof though.
-
There will always be a less lethal option but it doesn't make it a good option. For example, if someone were coming at you with a knife there would always be the option that you could use open hand techniques to disarm him but it is dangerous and unreasonable to expect you to take that option.
Moot point, as there is no such thing as hand-to-hand knife defense. If there are techniques, the caveat is that they are not really meant to be used.
Now I haven't read heavily into the shooting at the capital but if I understand correclty the suspect had put the sheriff in a choke hold of some sort?
Are there escapes to choke holds? Yes but unless one is proficient it isn't going to be a realistic option.
That suspect was a 5'3", 102 lbs. disabled unarmed individual, with no prior convictions of assault or battery, who sometimes walked with a limp and cognitively incapacitated due to alcohol.
Is pepper spray or a taser a viable option? Taser is going to be difficult if the person was at your rear and pepper spray might work though you risk exposing yourself.
The deputy sheriff was not armed with a taser, but had pepper spray and a baton. Yes, he might have exposed himself with the pepper spray, but so would the intoxicated suspect as well. At least there would not be any lost of life.
Baton? Harder to hit the safer impact points on someone behind you and hitting them in the head is still risky and could be lethal.
Less lethal than using a firearm.
The downside to these options are that you have a very limited amount of time if someone has the choke on good, maybe 4 seconds if it is perfectly applied. If you elect to try these other less lethal options but they fail, you might not have ability to upgrade to the lethal option before passing out/dying.
That may be true, if that drunk was B.J. Penn, but the suspect physically and cognitively was no match for the trained armed deputy sheriff in-question, which is furthermore surprising how that suspect could get the jump and headlock secured on him in the first place.
A regular civilian would nearly always be arrested if they killed another person because that would be a homicide. That doesn't mean the civilian can't claim self defense and the burden of proof is on the prosecutors to prove the person wasn't acting in self defense. Yes, cops do get a pass here but it is in the beginning. Cops get a certain benefit of doubt that they were doing their job properly and then prosecutors consider the evidence and decide whether or not to charge the officer with a crime. It doesn't mean the civilian faces a different level of proof though.
Well, with the latest corruption scandals HPD and the Prosecutor's Office are mutually facing; it is hard for anyone to blindly trust their judgements on the two cases referenced above when there were no civilian eye-witnesses or video footage to corroborate the claims of the law enforcement officers involved.
-
Moot point, as there is no such thing as hand-to-hand knife defense. If there are techniques, the caveat is that they are not really meant to be used.
That suspect was a 5'3", 102 lbs. disabled unarmed individual, with no prior convictions of assault or battery, who sometimes walked with a limp and cognitively incapacitated due to alcohol.
The deputy sheriff was not armed with a taser, but had pepper spray and a baton. Yes, he might have exposed himself with the pepper spray, but so would the intoxicated suspect as well. At least there would not be any lost of life.
Less lethal than using a firearm.
That may be true, if that drunk was B.J. Penn, but the suspect physically and cognitively was no match for the trained armed deputy sheriff in-question, which is furthermore surprising how that suspect could get the jump and headlock secured on him in the first place.
Well, with the latest corruption scandals HPD and the Prosecutor's Office are mutually facing; it is hard for anyone to blindly trust their judgements on the two cases referenced above when there were no civilian eye-witnesses or video footage to corroborate the claims of the law enforcement officers involved.
So what kind of LE training or any other type of similar training did you receive to deal with this situation?
-
No such thing... ???
https://youtu.be/oHmSl_KMH2U
While I haven’t trained the exact techniques in the above video, there are many others for knife disarms.
Not really meant to be used? Well, then I and many others are training just for fitness.
While I admit that going hands on against an attacker with is knife wouldn’t be what I’d want to do, since when do I get to dictate exactly how things will go down.
Dude, just stop...
-
disarm M9 too
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adnXzutxWcQ
-
Irrelevant question. :stopjack:
-
No such thing... ???
https://youtu.be/oHmSl_KMH2U
While I haven’t trained the exact techniques in the above video, there are many others for knife disarms.
Not really meant to be used? Well, then I and many others are training just for fitness.
While I admit that going hands on against an attacker with is knife wouldn’t be what I’d want to do, since when do I get to dictate exactly how things will go down.
Dude, just stop...
My opinion. Good luck with your knife disarms. :stopjack:
-
My opinion. Good luck with your knife disarms. :stopjack:
So YOU say no such thing as hand to hand knife disarm. So what are folks supposed to use. Harsh language? You said one should use less lethal...
Opinion? I thought you were all about FACT...
-
So YOU say no such thing as hand to hand knife disarm. So what are folks supposed to use. Harsh language? You said one should use less lethal...
Opinion? I thought you were all about FACT...
I know nothing of your martial skills as you know nothing of mine, and yet you pass judgement on what I clearly indicated as an opinion, which you freely insult.
I, once again, kindly wish you good luck in your knife defense training. :stopjack:
-
I know nothing of your martial skills as you know nothing of mine, and yet you pass judgement on what I clearly indicated as an opinion, which you freely insult.
No, I'm pretty sure we know more about that than you want us to.
Just my opinion. Don't go judging me!
:wave:
-
No such thing... ???
https://youtu.be/oHmSl_KMH2U
While I haven’t trained the exact techniques in the above video, there are many others for knife disarms.
Not really meant to be used? Well, then I and many others are training just for fitness.
While I admit that going hands on against an attacker with is knife wouldn’t be what I’d want to do, since when do I get to dictate exactly how things will go down.
Dude, just stop...
Rockette and I (and our friend from our last rifle class) were just introduced to these techniques and others in a Krav class by a master instructor. :worship:
True, the #1 defense from knife attack is still running away, but these "disarmament" techniques are beneficial when there is no where to run.
We called 9:43 and 10:27 "Return to Sender".
:wave:
-
Groups protest deadly police shooting
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/02/28/hawaii-news/groups-protest-deadly-police-shootings/?HSA=dae835384c21f90698781600664fdf66128a66f6
-
Groups protest deadly police shooting
Https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/02/28/hawaii-news/groups-protest-deadly-police-shootings/?HSA=dae835384c21f90698781600664fdf66128a66f6
...
The article is behind a paywall
-
Try it again, url got messed up.
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/02/28/hawaii-news/groups-protest-deadly-police-shootings/?HSA=dae835384c21f90698781600664fdf66128a66f6
-
First words of the first sentence: "About a dozen people from five groups..."
Okay. That is "organized". Karl Rhoads immediately dismisses anything they have to say... right?
-
Try it again, url got messed up.
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/02/28/hawaii-news/groups-protest-deadly-police-shootings/?HSA=dae835384c21f90698781600664fdf66128a66f6
=========
Thanks, I see it.
What a bunch of naïve snowflakes :rofl:
-
So cop almost got stabbed by UH a few days ago and no shots fired. I wonder if he was under orders to not shoot so quickly? Imagine if the blade went thru his vest then everyone will be singing a different story. "Why didn't he shoot". And I only say "almost" because there was no puncture or laceration. But there was "heavy bruising" to the side of his stomach, under his vest where the blade made contact according to the news.
So again, how about don't attack police in any manner, even if you think you're right and they have no reason to be there.
-
So cop almost got stabbed by UH a few days ago and no shots fired. I wonder if he was under orders to not shoot so quickly? Imagine if the blade went thru his vest then everyone will be singing a different story. "Why didn't he shoot". And I only say "almost" because there was no puncture or laceration. But there was "heavy bruising" to the side of his stomach, under his vest where the blade made contact according to the news.
So again, how about don't attack police in any manner, even if you think you're right and they have no reason to be there.
Maybe he did not shoot because he is not a shoot first and ask questions later type of police officer. He is there to apprehend the suspect; not to be judge, jury, and executioner as soon as he receives resistance from a suspect. That officer should be commended for the less lethal actions he displayed and made a hero for his conduct in this case in light of the other police fatalities that have occurred earlier this year. :thumbsup:
-
Maybe he did not shoot because he is not a shoot first and ask questions later type of police officer. He is there to apprehend the suspect; not to be judge, jury, and executioner as soon as he receives resistance from a suspect. That officer should be commended for the less lethal actions he displayed and made a hero for his conduct in this case in light of the other police fatalities that have occurred earlier this year. :thumbsup:
With all the HPD shootings, I'm leaning more toward "don't shoot memo" that went out. Cop was lucky the knife didn't penetrate, not commended for not shooting.
-
With all the HPD shootings, I'm leaning more toward "don't shoot memo" that went out. Cop was lucky the knife didn't penetrate, not commended for not shooting.
If a police officer finds himself worried about the possibility of being killed in the line of duty, then that person should find another line of work. Just like signing up for the military and losing sleep at night of the possibility of being sent to a war zone, don't expect sympathy because no one forced you to sign-up.
Police officers as with most civilized militaries in the World have rules-of-engagement that no one likes practicing in the field. However, those rules are there because we are not or should not be mindless killers. Police officers should be held to the highest regard not only because they put their own lives on the line every day, but also exercise to the highest restraint of taking life whenever possible.
-
I
Police officers as with most civilized militaries in the World have rules-of-engagement that no one likes practicing in the field. However, those rules are there because we are not or should not be mindless killers. Police officers should be held to the highest regard not only because they put their own lives on the line every day, but also exercise to the highest restraint of taking life whenever possible.
So ROE for a guy coming at them with a knife and being hit with the knife is to not use deadly force? You're praising the cop for not shooting. IDK if he didn't have time not to shoot or maybe he is 1 badass cop and someone with a knife didn't pose a threat to him (Steven Segal).
I'm just saying that a memo probably went out and could have cost this officer serious injury or his life just because of politics. "4th HPD involved shooting in 2 weeks" would be the headlines.
-
So ROE for a guy coming at them with a knife and being hit with the knife is to not use deadly force?
Never said that.
You're praising the cop for not shooting. IDK if he didn't have time not to shoot or maybe he is 1 badass cop and someone with a knife didn't pose a threat to him (Steven Segal).
All police offices are well-trained in handling hand-to-hand situations should such events require those skills. I praise the police officer you mentioned because his training allowed him to not only to survive, but succeed without any police fatality. May it be luck or to skill, the point is the police officer you mentioned is now evidence that such encounters, in this case a suspect armed with a knife, can be professionally handled without the use of a firearm.
I'm just saying that a memo probably went out and could have cost this officer serious injury or his life just because of politics. "4th HPD involved shooting in 2 weeks" would be the headlines.
Very Possible.
-
Never said that.
All police offices are well-trained in handling hand-to-hand situations should such events require those skills. I praise the police officer you mentioned because his training allowed him to not only to survive, but succeed without any police fatality. May it be luck or to skill, the point is the police officer you mentioned is now evidence that such encounters, in this case a suspect armed with a knife, can be professionally handled without the use of a firearm.
Very Possible.
One thing you can not replicate in your comfy AAR is the stress the officer was facing. This terrible tragedy could have completely been avoided if the suspect obeyed the law. Armchair quarterbacking of this very dynamic situation can lead to infinite outcomes. The root cause is one suspect who did not obey the law. Disarmament of a knife-wielding suspect by hand is very risky. The 21 foot rule is the MINIMUM distance between a suspect armed with a knife and a person with a holstered firearm.
-
I use a 35 ft rule and that would make almost any place inside my home a danger zone. 21 ft is too close.
-
I keep seeing police are highly trained in hand to hand... I'm not a police trainer or expert, I do believe they are trained, however, probably a little more than basic tactics and practical use. Just like their firearms training and quals. I doubt they frequently practice or train it, unless they are really into it on a personal level.
-
https://www.khon2.com/news/local-news/violence- :crazy:against-officers-a-troubling-trend/1816257290
HPD says officers were trying to arrest him for a 500-thousand dollar warrant when the assault began.
$500k? Hope that was a typo. Whoever wrote that article is one high caliber writer! :crazy:
-
"One thing you can not replicate in your comfy AAR is the stress the officer was facing."
No, I can not replicate what the stress every police officer is facing, but my response is SO WHAT?
That kind of stress comes with the job, if you can't handle the stress and pressure of being a police officer, professional athlete, medical surgeon, etc,, you have no business being in that profession. I am not a medical doctor because I can't handle that kind of pressure they face; however, those who choose those professions knew what they potentially getting into, so no sympathy here.
"This terrible tragedy could have completely been avoided if the suspect obeyed the law. Armchair quarterbacking of this very dynamic situation can lead to infinite outcomes. The root cause is one suspect who did not obey the law."
You call me naïve; well your statement above is completely naïve. If the suspect obeyed the law in the first place, that person would not be a suspect, now would they? Hence, did you expect someone who is breaking the law will somehow obey police commands?
"Disarmament of a knife-wielding suspect by hand is very risky. The 21 foot rule is the MINIMUM distance between a suspect armed with a knife and a person with a holstered firearm."
That is correct and law enforcement as well as civilians should pay heed to this rule. Having said that, are you saying all police officers should draw their firearms and be prepared to fire every time they approach someone just in case they might have a concealed knife?
-
I keep seeing police are highly trained in hand to hand... I'm not a police trainer or expert, I do believe they are trained, however, probably a little more than basic tactics and practical use. Just like their firearms training and quals. I doubt they frequently practice or train it, unless they are really into it on a personal level.
Many on this forum continuously train and provide basic/advanced firearms training to the general 2nd Amendment community. That is a conscious choice of those who wish to be prepared for any violent encounter.
Law enforcement officers received similar, if not, outright advanced training and have options to further their training, if they so desire. Hence, the lack of updating their training should never be an excuse to resort to their firearms when such situations are not warranted. That's all.
-
No, I can not replicate what the stress every police officer is facing, but my response is SO WHAT?
stress is a very big factor in decision making. There is no lab to replicate that exact stressor.
That kind of stress comes with the job, if you can't handle the stress and pressure of being a police officer, professional athlete, medical surgeon, etc,, you have no business being in that profession. I am not a medical doctor because I can't handle that kind of pressure they face; however, those who choose those professions knew what they potentially getting into, so no sympathy here.
You call me naïve; well your statement above is completely naïve. If the suspect obeyed the law in the first place, that person would not be a suspect, now would they? Hence, did you expect someone who is breaking the law will somehow obey police commands?
I didn't say you were naive. Like I stated he would'nt be a suspect and this tragedy would have been avoided if he was not drunk or vacated the premises. Verbal commands are part of the process of usage of force.
That is correct and law enforcement as well as civilians should pay heed to this rule. Having said that, are you saying all police officers should draw their firearms and be prepared to fire every time they approach someone just in case they might have a concealed knife?
It is clear through all your posts of your innate disdain for law enforcement. You have no sympathy for law enforcement officers. If one were killed in the line of duty you would not place as much analysis in the officer's death. Your lack of sympathy for anyone taking a high-risk job that you would not partake in is very sad. I'm not defending the LEO's actions. I was not there. I was comfortably at home.I'm sure that LEO has to regrettably live with that tragic decision. To assume that LEOs are out there to murder innocent people is blatantly naive and faithless. This wasn't Sierra Leone or Rwanda.
But you go on with your sense of security and comfort while others help provide that blanket for you.
-
"It is clear through all your posts of your innate disdain for law enforcement. You have no sympathy for law enforcement officers. If one were killed in the line of duty you would not place as much analysis in the officer's death. Your lack of sympathy for anyone taking a high-risk job that you would not partake in is very sad. I'm not defending the LEO's actions. I was not there. I was comfortably at home.I'm sure that LEO has to regrettably live with that tragic decision. To assume that LEOs are out there to murder innocent people is blatantly naive and faithless. This wasn't Sierra Leone or Rwanda."
I have the upmost respect and close friends in law enforcement. If you read my response to our resident HPD member, eyeeatingfish, you will have seen how I specifically admired the fact how police fatalities were historically low among HPD, as it was a testament to their professionalism and commitment to using deadly force when absolutely necessary.
"But you go on with your sense of security and comfort while others help provide that blanket for you."
That's the point though.
I do not believe in living with the security and comfort that the police provides. I believe in the 2nd Amendment and would rather live where I can take responsibility for my own safety and that of my family with the possession of my own lethal and less lethal means of self-defense.
Long Live the Second Amendment!
-
That suspect was a 5'3", 102 lbs. disabled unarmed individual, with no prior convictions of assault or battery, who sometimes walked with a limp and cognitively incapacitated due to alcohol.
I am 6' 220 lbs and I was choked out in judo by a teammate who was about that height and maybe 125lbs so the size doesn't mean as much as you suggest. Secondly, even if he knew the individuals record (probably didn't) officers aren't required to check background records before choosing an appropriate level of force. Pointing out the individual didn't have a violent record is monday morning quarterbacking.
The deputy sheriff was not armed with a taser, but had pepper spray and a baton. Yes, he might have exposed himself with the pepper spray, but so would the intoxicated suspect as well. At least there would not be any lost of life.
I realize he didn't have a taser, I was just mentioning the common less lethal options. Pepper spray on both of them doesn't really help the officer, it just makes them both hindered somewhat.
That may be true, if that drunk was B.J. Penn, but the suspect physically and cognitively was no match for the trained armed deputy sheriff in-question, which is furthermore surprising how that suspect could get the jump and headlock secured on him in the first place.
An officer doesn't know whether an individual is well trained in martial arts so you cannot really use that to judge the officer afterwards. Do you know what condition the sheriff was in? The attacker might have been small but the sheriff might have also been overweight. You can't interject a bunch of facts not knowable to the officer at the time into the officers decision. Thats like accusing a cop of murder because the realistic gun pointed at him was discovered later to be a toy. You can only use what the officer knew at the time.
Well, with the latest corruption scandals HPD and the Prosecutor's Office are mutually facing; it is hard for anyone to blindly trust their judgements on the two cases referenced above when there were no civilian eye-witnesses or video footage to corroborate the claims of the law enforcement officers involved.
I don't see why. Just because Kealoha was involved in some drug ring doesn't mean they are going to go frame you or me just because.
-
^^^Truth
-
I am 6' 220 lbs and I was choked out in judo by a teammate who was about that height and maybe 125lbs so the size doesn't mean as much as you suggest. Secondly, even if he knew the individuals record (probably didn't) officers aren't required to check background records before choosing an appropriate level of force. Pointing out the individual didn't have a violent record is monday morning quarterbacking.
Well, I have yet to see how a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled, drunk, unarmed, and untrained individual who walks on a limp somehow gets a deputy sheriff in a headlock in an overall life or death struggle. :shake:
I realize he didn't have a taser, I was just mentioning the common less lethal options. Pepper spray on both of them doesn't really help the officer, it just makes them both hindered somewhat.
Well, the suspect in question would be far more hindered than the deputy sheriff in this case.
An officer doesn't know whether an individual is well trained in martial arts so you cannot really use that to judge the officer afterwards. Do you know what condition the sheriff was in? The attacker might have been small but the sheriff might have also been overweight. You can't interject a bunch of facts not knowable to the officer at the time into the officers decision. Thats like accusing a cop of murder because the realistic gun pointed at him was discovered later to be a toy. You can only use what the officer knew at the time.
We do know the physical characteristics and limitations of the suspect and we do know that the deputy sheriff did not call for assistance in this case. Consequently, these facts tell us that even in the worst scenario, he felt he could handle the suspect. If the deputy sheriff saw the suspect as being a drunk BJ Penn, you can bet he would have called S.W.A.T. for assistance.
I don't see why. Just because Kealoha was involved in some drug ring doesn't mean they are going to go frame you or me just because.
The Kealoha case shows how corruption in HPD in not limited to officers who work the streets, but can be on the higher echelons of leadership as well. As for Kaneshiro, we see that it is not out of the realm of the prosecutor's office to protect HPD for any questionable wrongdoings.
-
Guy who stabbed hpd was killed by occc trying to escape.
"Why did they have to shoot? No more guns in prison for him to use".
"Why wasnt less lethel used?"
"Why didnt occc officer use hand to hand?"(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190302/95362b2ce80f967f7cb1d1c899ff89cf.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
-
Guy who stabbed hpd was killed by occc trying to escape.
"Why did they have to shoot? No more guns in prison for him to use".
"Why wasnt less lethel used?"
"Why didnt occc officer use hand to hand?"(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190302/95362b2ce80f967f7cb1d1c899ff89cf.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Taking any human life is reprehensible.
At least we know what's your psychological make-up in regards to taking human life. :shaka:
-
Taking any human life is reprehensible.
Really? I hope you are not serious, but suspect you are.
Here is the example I gave in my testimony re HB1541, the so-called "Hawaii Gun Violence Prevention Center", that would be funded at least in part by taxpayers to produce more (fraudulent) "research" to "prove" that more of our rights needs to be infringed. It centers on the propaganda term "gun violence" as an obvious pejorative that ignores all the far more frequent uses of firearms for self-defense that actually enhance public safety, and thus don't need to be "prevented". If you judge the action taken by the father in the following hypothetical (but similar to known real-life examples) instance as "reprehensible", I pity anyone who may ever find themselves to be dependent upon you for their safety.
* * * * *
First, and not without great significance, is the fact that “gun violence” is nothing more than a propaganda term, designed to deceive the uninformed. All of the claimed “statistics” the authors of this bill list as justifications are fabricated upon deliberate statistical manipulations, including confounding and conflating highly dissimilar events.
Let me give you an example of “gun violence” and how it has been “computed” by the authors of this bill to supposedly justify taxpayers of Hawaii spending money to generate “evidence” to further curtail their rights. Suppose a father in one part of his home, armed with a handgun in a holster, hears what he considers an unusual noise coming from another distant part of the house. He goes to investigate and determines that the sound is coming from the bedroom of his 10 and 7-year-old daughters. He opens the closed door of the room to see his 10-year-old daughter bound, gagged, raped, and murdered by knife wounds, while his 7-year-old daughter, also bound and gagged lies next to her on the bed, with a large man standing over her, still holding a knife. The father yells “Stop!”, at which point the man turns toward the 7-year-old girl and brings the knife up as if to attack her, the father then fires the gun at the rapist murderer and stops the attack, killing him and saving his second daughter.
Now, is that “gun violence” that needs “preventing” according to the authors of this bill? They seem to think so. It certainly is violence that included the use of a firearm. Do we want to prevent such an instance of “gun violence”?
-
Really? I hope you are not serious, but suspect you are.
Here is the example I gave in my testimony re HB1541, the so-called "Hawaii Gun Violence Prevention Center", that would be funded at least in part by taxpayers to produce more (fraudulent) "research" to "prove" that more of our rights needs to be infringed. It centers on the propaganda term "gun violence" as an obvious pejorative that ignores all the far more frequent uses of firearms for self-defense that actually enhance public safety, and thus don't need to be "prevented". If you judge the action taken by the father in the following hypothetical (but similar to known real-life examples) instance as "reprehensible", I pity anyone who may ever find themselves to be dependent upon you for their safety.
* * * * *
First, and not without great significance, is the fact that “gun violence” is nothing more than a propaganda term, designed to deceive the uninformed. All of the claimed “statistics” the authors of this bill list as justifications are fabricated upon deliberate statistical manipulations, including confounding and conflating highly dissimilar events.
Let me give you an example of “gun violence” and how it has been “computed” by the authors of this bill to supposedly justify taxpayers of Hawaii spending money to generate “evidence” to further curtail their rights. Suppose a father in one part of his home, armed with a handgun in a holster, hears what he considers an unusual noise coming from another distant part of the house. He goes to investigate and determines that the sound is coming from the bedroom of his 10 and 7-year-old daughters. He opens the closed door of the room to see his 10-year-old daughter bound, gagged, raped, and murdered by knife wounds, while his 7-year-old daughter, also bound and gagged lies next to her on the bed, with a large man standing over her, still holding a knife. The father yells “Stop!”, at which point the man turns toward the 7-year-old girl and brings the knife up as if to attack her, the father then fires the gun at the rapist murderer and stops the attack, killing him and saving his second daughter.
Now, is that “gun violence” that needs “preventing” according to the authors of this bill? They seem to think so. It certainly is violence that included the use of a firearm. Do we want to prevent such an instance of “gun violence”?
In the following hypothetical situation you described, I WOULD HAVE and EXPECT any reasonable human parent to respond similarly under those conditions.
However, in the aftermath during the ensuing police investigation, I WOULD HAVE NO REMORSE in the steps I took to respond to the criminal actions being committed, but I WOULD STILL REGRET the fact I had to take a human life to do what had to be done.
-
[Previously]: Taking any human life is reprehensible.
In the following hypothetical situation you described, I WOULD HAVE and EXPECT any reasonable human parent to respond similarly under those conditions.
However, in the aftermath during the ensuing police investigation, I WOULD HAVE NO REMORSE in the steps I took to respond to the criminal actions being committed, but I WOULD STILL REGRET the fact I had to take a human life to do what had to be done.
Oh, I see. You don't know the definitions of the words "reprehensible" and "regret" and thus the fact that they are completely different and unrelated concepts. Thanks for clarifying.
(https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fstatic.foxnews.com%2Ffoxnews.com%2Fcontent%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F03%2F0%2F0%2FAmberly-Barnett.jpg%3Fve%3D1%26amp;tl%3D1&sp=f80347b049bbfe86fc837ab94d8d32d2)
If you believe that anything that could happen to the murderer of the above abducted and murdered 11-year-old girl this past weekend would be "reprehensible", including killing him, well, that belief is what you need to regret. But I'm sure you won't.
-
Oh, I see. You don't know the definitions of the words "reprehensible" and "regret" and thus the fact that they are completely different and unrelated concepts. Thanks for clarifying.
(https://s15-us2.startpage.com/cgi-bin/serveimage?url=https:%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fstatic.foxnews.com%2Ffoxnews.com%2Fcontent%2Fuploads%2F2019%2F03%2F0%2F0%2FAmberly-Barnett.jpg%3Fve%3D1%26amp;tl%3D1&sp=f80347b049bbfe86fc837ab94d8d32d2)
If you believe that anything that could happen to the murderer of the above abducted and murdered 11-year-old girl this past weekend would be "reprehensible", including killing him, well, that belief is what you need to regret. But I'm sure you won't.
The perpetrator of the murder case above needs to be brought to justice and pay the penalty of his or her crimes under due process of the law including death if the jury decides. What is there to regret if the perpetrator gets the justice he or she deserves by the law?
-
Well, I have yet to see how a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled, drunk, unarmed, and untrained individual who walks on a limp somehow gets a deputy sheriff in a headlock in an overall life or death struggle. :shake:
How do you know he was untrained? You are making a lot of assumptions here.
And what do you think happened? The guy made the cop mad so the cop just shot him and made up some story about being attacked?
Well, the suspect in question would be far more hindered than the deputy sheriff in this case.
Another assumption. Having a belt with a bunch of tools on it means that if a cop is rolling around on the floor with the suspect the tools will also be accessible to the suspect. When it comes to that the officer is at a disadvantage in a number of ways because they have to protect 5 different tools but the suspect only has to get one.
We do know the physical characteristics and limitations of the suspect and we do know that the deputy sheriff did not call for assistance in this case. Consequently, these facts tell us that even in the worst scenario, he felt he could handle the suspect. If the deputy sheriff saw the suspect as being a drunk BJ Penn, you can bet he would have called S.W.A.T. for assistance.
Misjudging how combative, skilled, or aggressive, a suspect might be does not make this a murder or an unjustified shooting.
-
Theory on what went down.
Sheriff sees dude, not the first time, dude is drunk, never had any problems with the guy before. (why he approached within danger close distance)
Sheriff tells dude, come on man, you got to move along, you can be sitting here drinking, pour that shit out and move along...
Dude says yeah yeah yeah, pours it out and acts like he's moving along.
Sheriff turns around to walk away thinking it's all good since the dude never gave any problems before.
Dude, pissed off he had to pour out his liquor, decides he's going to jump the sheriff from behind, putting in a deep headlock (force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.)
Sheriff must make a spit second decision before passing out. He uses firearm to stop the attack.
No other evidence has been given in the case, so just as plausible speculation from any response so far.
-
Theory on what went down.
Sheriff sees dude, not the first time, dude is drunk, never had any problems with the guy before. (why he approached within danger close distance)
Sheriff tells dude, come on man, you got to move along, you can be sitting here drinking, pour that shit out and move along...
Dude says yeah yeah yeah, pours it out and acts like he's moving along.
Sheriff turns around to walk away thinking it's all good since the dude never gave any problems before.
Dude, pissed off he had to pour out his liquor, decides he's going to jump the sheriff from behind, putting in a deep headlock (force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.)
Sheriff must make a spit second decision before passing out. He uses firearm to stop the attack.
No other evidence has been given in the case, so just as plausible speculation from any response so far.
nope, the only plausible explanation is kuleana's, because he stated it like 6-8 times already in this one thread
so, obviously, it's the most plausible
to prove his point, he's going to post it at least a couple more times, making it even more plausible...
-
Theory on what went down.
Sheriff sees dude, not the first time, dude is drunk, never had any problems with the guy before. (why he approached within danger close distance)
Sheriff tells dude, come on man, you got to move along, you can be sitting here drinking, pour that shit out and move along...
I agree up to this point.
Dude says yeah yeah yeah, pours it out and acts like he's moving along.
Sheriff turns around to walk away thinking it's all good since the dude never gave any problems before.
This is where we only have the deputy sheriff's side of the story. Did the sheriff proceed as you described or, seeing that it was a 5'3", 102lbs. drunk individual, proceeded in removing the suspect in very threatening manner? Given the number of homeless in and about that area as well as everyone's frustration with them, I would not at all be surprised if the sheriff had great animosity to which manifested in his conduct to the suspect that night.
Dude, pissed off he had to pour out his liquor, decides he's going to jump the sheriff from behind, putting in a deep headlock (force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.)
This is the other point of contention. Sure, a drunk individual whether or not provoked is capable of resorting to violence. However, we are once again talking about a relatively short, light, and disabled drunk individual, who probably did not have the coordination to walk a chalk line, let alone successfully administering a headlock on a much better hand-to-hand and situational awareness trained law enforcement officer.
Sheriff must make a spit second decision before passing out. He uses firearm to stop the attack.
If the sheriff's testimony indicated he was in a well administered CHOKE HOLD, then I do agree he has only moments before passing out and must take action to defend his life. HOWEVER, he testified that he was only in a HEADLOCK administered by a short, light, and drunk suspect. Hence, I don't think he was ever in fear of passing out AND with him presumably having superior skill as to the suspect should have had a great probability of escaping that headlock without the need to resort to deadly force.
No other evidence has been given in the case, so just as plausible speculation from any response so far.
YES, although I DO AGREE that the narrative you shared is highly possible, I just don't think the use of deadly force was justified in this case given the issues I raised above.
-
nope, the only plausible explanation is kuleana's, because he stated it like 6-8 times already in this one thread
so, obviously, it's the most plausible
to prove his point, he's going to post it at least a couple more times, making it even more plausible...
Just come out and admit it already.
Your love when police go out and use deadly force resulting in fatalities is as strong as your distain for a responsible populace who always keep an eye on when such fatalities occur, thus ensuring we only have the best cops on our streets.
-
Just come out and admit it already.
Your love when police go out and use deadly force resulting in fatalities is as strong as your distain for a responsible populace who always keep an eye on when such fatalities occur, thus ensuring we only have the best cops on our streets.
why would I do that if it's not true?
you always put so much credence in your scenarios and theories, while saying that other's are false and speculation
i'm sure the DSM-5 would have a diagnosis for that...
-
why would I do that if it's not true?
Your passive-aggressive posts that include nothing but attacks on my positions without adding any new evidence are a dead giveaway.
-
A headlock could quickly become a choke or VNR quickly depending on how it's done. But how the deputy got into that situation in the first place is still troubling.
I saw another report that the guy was 120 lbs which would make him stronger but still a lightweight against a trained deputy. It's possible it could have been a small female deputy though the director said "he.". Female LE officers have tools to use at a distance but are disadvantaged in a hand to hand and ground fight.
-
A headlock could quickly become a choke or VNR quickly depending on how it's done. But how the deputy got into that situation in the first place is still troubling.
Exactly.
I am not law enforcement, but have decent situational awareness, especially when around people that I suspect could do me harm. The case involved a sheriff confronting a drunk suspect that could do him or her harm. Hence, it is highly baffling for me to see how a short, light, and disabled drunk was able to execute a headlock on a sheriff, when they know that it could potentially could happen. Getting the jump on a civilian is one thing, but on a law enforcement officer, highly unlikely.
The circumstances shared by the sheriff does not add up.
I saw another report that the guy was 120 lbs which would make him stronger but still a lightweight against a trained deputy. It's possible it could have been a small female deputy though the director said "he.". Female LE officers have tools to use at a distance but are disadvantaged in a hand to hand and ground fight.
Very true.
However, if the sheriff was of similar stature or female, it becomes more troubling as to why the sheriff did not call for back-up, if he or she thought would be at a disadvantage in this case.
-
Looks like we'll find out more about these soon. If it's a systematic problem with complacency and other problems.
Public Safety chief appears headed for a fight at Legislature to keep his job
But state Sen. Clarence Nishihara said the problems at the agency may be so “wide-ranging,” they might not be fixed by merely finding a new director.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/03/09/public-safety-chief-appears-headed-fight-legislature-keep-his-job/
-
Looks like we'll find out more about these soon. If it's a systematic problem with complacency and other problems.
Public Safety chief appears headed for a fight at Legislature to keep his job
But state Sen. Clarence Nishihara said the problems at the agency may be so “wide-ranging,” they might not be fixed by merely finding a new director.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2019/03/09/public-safety-chief-appears-headed-fight-legislature-keep-his-job/
Let's hope they succeed. :shaka:
-
I am not law enforcement, but have decent situational awareness, especially when around people that I suspect could do me harm. The case involved a sheriff confronting a drunk suspect that could do him or her harm. Hence, it is highly baffling for me to see how a short, light, and disabled drunk was able to execute a headlock on a sheriff, when they know that it could potentially could happen. Getting the jump on a civilian is one thing, but on a law enforcement officer, highly unlikely.
Let's hope they succeed. :shaka:
Perhaps you should apply with your enhanced perspective and somewhat decent situational awareness.
-
The case involved a sheriff confronting a drunk suspect that could do him or her harm. Hence, it is highly baffling for me to see how a short, light, and disabled drunk was able to execute a headlock on a sheriff, when they know that it could potentially could happen.
It is possible that the sheriff got complacent, as they say complacent kills.
But even if the sheriff got complacent that does not make it an unjustified shooting.
But in this whole case, what do you think really happened? You think this guy got pissed off at the homeless guy and basically decided to murder him and fabricate some fake story about being in a headlock?
-
But in this whole case, what do you think really happened? You think this guy got pissed off at the homeless guy and basically decided to murder him and fabricate some fake story about being in a headlock?
What I think is irrelevant.
The sheriff's claims that he had to shoot because he was in a headlock does not make sense. Being in a headlock is not the same as being in a choke hold and the sheriff was not in a choke hold by his own testimony. Hence, he was not in a life or death situation where shooting the perpetrator was the only course of action available to the sheriff.
Even if one can make the argument that the suspect could have transitioned his headlock into a choke hold; one, that is only mere speculation; and two, a presumption has to be made that the suspect had advanced grappling skills, which in all available accounts he did not.
-
FACT - A headlock (both front and side variations) can cut off the carotid.
OPINION - It does take a bit more arm strength than a good rear choke.
I will say that if one is already winded, sometimes it doesn’t take much to choke out someone. Is that was happened in the incident at the capitol? To me, just based on what was reported, does leave some questions. But I wasn’t there. Plenty of assumptions either way.
-
What I think is irrelevant.
-
What I think is irrelevant.
The sheriff's claims that he had to shoot because he was in a headlock does not make sense. Being in a headlock is not the same as being in a choke hold and the sheriff was not in a choke hold by his own testimony. Hence, he was not in a life or death situation where shooting the perpetrator was the only course of action available to the sheriff.
Even if one can make the argument that the suspect could have transitioned his headlock into a choke hold; one, that is only mere speculation; and two, a presumption has to be made that the suspect had advanced grappling skills, which in all available accounts he did not.
===========
(https://beta-static.photobucket.com/images/l348/dnrhand/thoughtpolice1_zpsjjnalz1g.jpg) (https://beta.photobucket.com/u/dnrhand/p/ca0d636b-111d-427b-ac96-b6769125b256)
-
Many on this forum continuously train and provide basic/advanced firearms training to the general 2nd Amendment community. That is a conscious choice of those who wish to be prepared for any violent encounter.
Law enforcement officers received similar, if not, outright advanced training and have options to further their training, if they so desire. Hence, the lack of updating their training should never be an excuse to resort to their firearms when such situations are not warranted. That's all.
------------------------------------------------------
What I think is irrelevant.
The sheriff's claims that he had to shoot because he was in a headlock does not make sense. Being in a headlock is not the same as being in a choke hold and the sheriff was not in a choke hold by his own testimony. Hence, he was not in a life or death situation where shooting the perpetrator was the only course of action available to the sheriff.
Even if one can make the argument that the suspect could have transitioned his headlock into a choke hold; one, that is only mere speculation; and two, a presumption has to be made that the suspect had advanced grappling skills, which in all available accounts he did not.
It is patently obvious to anyone who has any true expertise in police training and what happens in reality with ongoing officer training AND for those who have combatives training that these above statements are horse shit which makes the bolded part the only thing that is correct.
-
It is patently obvious to anyone who has any true expertise in police training and what happens in reality with ongoing officer training AND for those who have combatives training that these above statements are horse shit which makes the bolded part the only thing that is correct.
Opinions vary. I guess that it why the Public Safety Chief is currently under investigation as Zipps reported for the very same issues I stated above that you summarily dismissed with your obviously biased opinion regarding this case.
Moroever, your statement above is nothing more than a rubber stamp that has been used to justify questionable/deadly law enforcement actions of the past (i.e., Kent State Massacre (1970), the Pepper Spraying of Students in UC Davis (2011), the wholesale police brutality against the protestors of the Occupy Wall Street Movement (2011), etc.
-
It is patently obvious to anyone who has any true expertise in police training and what happens in reality with ongoing officer training AND for those who have combatives training that these above statements are horse shit which makes the bolded part the only thing that is correct.
The hammer of Thor has been raised and leveled!
and
mic drop.
-
Action always beats reaction.
-
Action always beats reaction.
I'm the last guy on this site to defend a cop, especially a union one,
but the rule I was taught is 7 meters. Any threat inside that bubble is
deadly force, if indicated. That works both ways. By their job
requirements Cops have to invade that range. So I understand why
the least little action on a subjects part will possibly result in a death.
I fear and do not trust our police. They are licensed killers. That is
the society Hawaii has chosen. Don't do stupid or they will kill you and
have a beer afterwards. OBEY!
-
What I think is irrelevant.
The sheriff's claims that he had to shoot because he was in a headlock does not make sense. Being in a headlock is not the same as being in a choke hold and the sheriff was not in a choke hold by his own testimony. Hence, he was not in a life or death situation where shooting the perpetrator was the only course of action available to the sheriff.
Even if one can make the argument that the suspect could have transitioned his headlock into a choke hold; one, that is only mere speculation; and two, a presumption has to be made that the suspect had advanced grappling skills, which in all available accounts he did not.
You are saying it doesn't make sense, so what is the alternative course of events that really happened? The headlock seems more likely than just an angry cop murdering someone and making up an excuse.
-
You are saying it doesn't make sense, so what is the alternative course of events that really happened? The headlock seems more likely than just an angry cop murdering someone and making up an excuse.
All that I am saying is that the fatality that occurred at the capitol should not have happened and alternative non-deadly force could have been employed by the sheriff.
-
All that I am saying is that the fatality that occurred at the capitol should not have happened and alternative non-deadly force could have been employed by the sheriff.
That is a pretty big assumption.
Notice that I am not saying you are wrong, only that there is not enough information to support your conclusion. It is possible the Sheriff did something legally improper but it is also possible he didn't do anything legally improper.
-
HORSE SHIT
-
Notice that I am not saying you are wrong, only that there is not enough information to support your conclusion. It is possible the Sheriff did something legally improper but it is also possible he didn't do anything legally improper.
Likewise, I never said it was not out of the possibility that the fatality was justified.
For me, I am more inclined to believe the sheriff's recollection of events if there was evidence that the suspect had either a clear physical advantage or at least comparable hand-to-hand skill over the sheriff.
From all available facts, the suspect had neither. Hence, it is hard to imagine a person trained for potential physical altercations so easily being put in a headlock when that person probably did not have the coordination to walk a chalk line due the suspect's level of intoxication.
-
New developments into the case pointing to an unjustified shooting. I originally thought that the deputy may have been in a side headlock, which could be lethal force, with the deputy drawing
and shooting into the guys back. Shooting at a downward angle would be very awkward, but still possible.
Also what could've possibly happened is the deputy squirmed out of a headlock, moved back, drew his gun, then shot him. Self defense would be questionable at that point, but worse case would be manslaughter or assault, not murder.
Also the report confirms that the guy was 5'3" and 117lbs with a possible leg disability. That's pretty lightweight to go against a trained deputy.
Police reclassify Capitol shooting as murder case
"shows that Espejo was shot at close range from a downward angle, with the entry wound located in his upper back, 12 inches below the top of his head."
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/06/29/hawaii-news/police-reclassify-capitol-shooting-as-murder-case/?HSA=fed0831094ef81e20fa8b0f3e3976250a3ef1409