2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: aletheuo137 on June 15, 2022, 05:53:44 AM
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/06/14/despite-promises-transparency-secret-ceremony-held-swear-new-hpd-chief/
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
HPD interim chief said it wasn't a secret
when you don't tell anyone about it, isn't that a secret?
-
HPD interim chief said it wasn't a secret
when you don't tell anyone about it, isn't that a secret?
===========
It's a brave new world.
Where every word is redefined to fit your desires.
No such thing as black and white anymore.
Boys will be girls and girls will be boys.
Criminals are the victims. Victims are the criminals.
-
Add that the home where his son broke into multiple times, the residents bought a gun and OC spray for protection. They said it seemed like HPD didn't want to do anything about it until pushed.
*update: Found the article:
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/06/14/waikiki-man-bought-gun-pepper-spray-after-run-ins-with-incoming-hpd-chiefs-son/?fbclid=IwAR3Y6o8-3BJ2WQTdpAloDXK73Eliz4e55AIjl2ZiKnv5GmeDiJNK_yTn3tA
-
Apparently that was going on in many places around the country since last week Public ceremonies to swear in officials were done privately to not detract from the mourning and services for the victims of multiple mass shootings.
Might not be the stated reason here, but it's not something only happening here. There are deadlines to swear in some officials based on law. Others get sworn in during a private ceremony so they can start work with a public ceremony held later.
Who really knows?
-
Another shit head at the helm of HPD….. :wave:
-
Another shit head at the helm of HPD….. :wave:
And the sun will rise tomorrow morning. Nothing new to report.... :(
-
Another shit head at the helm of HPD….. :wave:
Same old, same old.
There is no Camelot....... :(
Oh and to the Waikiki man who's residence the Chief's son broke into multiple times.......never mind the spray.
Cops don't use the spray. So why should you......
-
they announced it on social media....theres an HPD chatroom on AOL...only accesible via 56k though..and available only on Win 3.1
-
they announced it on social media....theres an HPD chatroom on AOL...only accesible via 56k though..and available only on Win 3.1
Damn it! And all this time I thought it was my Commodore 64 and my 9.6 modem…..either way I’m screwed. 🥸
-
Was everyone here planning on attending or something? You guys all disappointed you didn't get to see him raise his hand and recite some oath?
Unless someone is a governor or mayor I don't even see a swearing in ceremony as something even newsworthy.
-
You guys all disappointed you didn't get to see him raise his hand and recite some oath?
Maybe they didn't want the public to see if the "upholding the constitution" was in or not in the oath.
-
Was everyone here planning on attending or something? You guys all disappointed you didn't get to see him raise his hand and recite some oath?
Unless someone is a governor or mayor I don't even see a swearing in ceremony as something even newsworthy.
The act of taking an oath IN PUBLIC is symbolic. It signifies that the person entering office is pledging their loyalty to the PEOPLE by upholding the laws and Constitutions of the US and state of Hawaii.
For all we know now, that oath was never administered, and the chief was never formally sworn in.
I believe for most public offices, the office holder has to be sworn in to make it official. In your mind, that's just an obsolete ritual that we can do away with.
Hard to hold someone accountable for violating their oath if there's no evidence they ever took one.
-
Hard to hold someone accountable for violating their oath if there's no evidence they ever took one.
Maybe this is the plan that we uncovered. Schrodengers cat.
-
Ceremonies are usually a waste of time and money. Doing it quick and get to work. Video it if needed. Has there ever been anyone that claimed or had allegations that they never took a required oath? Usually you go to oath ceremonies to show face or gain favor from that person. Doing it like Logan did seems like better way of doing it.
-
Ceremonies are usually a waste of time and money. Doing it quick and get to work. Video it if needed. Has there ever been anyone that claimed or had allegations that they never took a required oath? Usually you go to oath ceremonies to show face or gain favor from that person. Doing it like Logan did seems like better way of doing it.
Very well put. Personally I am about business in this matter, get it done and get to work. Heck, how many taxpayer dollars are wasted on presidential inaugurations? What a waste. Sign the papers, shake hands, take a picture and start working.
I have said before that I am not into symbolism and likewise I am not really into ceremony. I skipped my college graduation.
Having the chief publicly be sworn in really doesn't accomplish anything. Has anyone ever not done something bad because they took an oath? People take oaths all the time and violate them, the oath didn't stop them from doing something bad. Furthermore, not taking an oath is not a defence of anything. Has anyone ever gotten off of a criminal conviction on some technicality that they never took an oath? You don't need someone to take an oath to hold them accountable for not doing their job the right way, you hold them accountable with training, ethics, and policies.
-
Having the chief publicly be sworn in really doesn't accomplish anything.
But it does give us options for keeping public officials in check. Let's say the the 10-round magazine limit is ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Doesn't that open the door for HiFiCo/HRA to bring legal action against all legislators that took an oath to defend the Constitution and voted for the limit? Each legislator who voted for the magazine limit violated their oath of office and should be removed.
-
I dunno. I agree that these oath ceremonies are a waste of money. Yet I believe in them. Maybe spend the money but more on a frugal basis because it is taxpayer money.
The reason I say this is because when someone willingly takes an oath, he is acknowledging that he is willing to be held to a higher standard. And will do his utmost best to meet that standard, if not exceed it.
It is also a public record that the constituents can hold the person accountable.
Again, I dunno. Maybe I am an old school dinosaur that still believes in "You have my word", Handshakes, and of being of good Character.
There hasn't been much of anything even remote to the above lately, and especially during the bidet administration.
-
I dunno. I agree that these oath ceremonies are a waste of money. Yet I believe in them. Maybe spend the money but more on a frugal basis because it is taxpayer money.
The reason I say this is because when someone willingly takes an oath, he is acknowledging that he is willing to be held to a higher standard. And will do his utmost best to meet that standard, if not exceed it.
It is also a public record that the constituents can hold the person accountable.
Again, I dunno. Maybe I am an old school dinosaur that still believes in "You have my word", Handshakes, and of being of good Character.
There hasn't been much of anything even remote to the above lately, and especially during the bidet administration.
I mean, they don't have to spend that much. No need balloons and a DJ. Just take 15 mins out of other cops time so they can attend.
Guess they knew they messed up because there will be an official ceremony now.
-
But it does give us options for keeping public officials in check. Let's say the the 10-round magazine limit is ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Doesn't that open the door for HiFiCo/HRA to bring legal action against all legislators that took an oath to defend the Constitution and voted for the limit? Each legislator who voted for the magazine limit violated their oath of office and should be removed.
HIFICO does have a lawsuit for pistol mags pending.
-
When I was on active duty, I had taken the Commissioning Oath for officers a few times. I was also required to sign NDA paperwork several times which detailed what I was required and forbidden to do regarding protecting classified information.
Apparently, just taking an oath doesn't make one legally responsible should they compromise or disclose national security secrets, be it from intentional or negligent actions.
Maybe we need a written agreement/responsibilities list for each government official to sign that not only spells out all their duties, but also the penalties should they fail to execute those duties. Within that document would of course be the "protect and defend the Constitution/s" promises the current oath of office entails.
In today's lawyer-run government, nothing short of a signed and witnessed original document can effectively make sure the officials understand what their oath involves and requires of them.
Think about it. If the US Congress has such an agreement that included you can't keep your job if you've facilitated foreign spying, Feinstein and Swalwell would have been gone years ago. I think Debbie Wasserman Schultz would be in the same boat.
Yet, they remain in office.
-
I mean, they don't have to spend that much. No need balloons and a DJ. Just take 15 mins out of other cops time so they can attend.
Guess they knew they messed up because there will be an official ceremony now.
There was always going to be an official ceremony with the press/public invited. They did a private ceremony to fulfill a procedural requirement...without the Chief swearing in, he could not legally act as the chief of police so he could address some issues right away. They didn't have time to arrange the usual public swearing in ceremony with all the pomp and circumstance with invited dignitaries, etc. The bruhaha over this was that the Star Advertiser made a bad choice of words. Originally, the headline was: New Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur ‘Joe’ Logan is sworn in secretly. When everybody got their panties in a bunch over it, SA quietly edited the title to say: New Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur ‘Joe’ Logan is sworn in privately.
-
obm is correct
the chief was not an HPD employee, so as acting chief, he was a volunteer
to officially assume the role of chief, he needed to be sworn in
this was a formality, and the official ceremony was always going to be held at a later date...
There was always going to be an official ceremony with the press/public invited. They did a private ceremony to fulfill a procedural requirement...without the Chief swearing in, he could not legally act as the chief of police so he could address some issues right away. They didn't have time to arrange the usual public swearing in ceremony with all the pomp and circumstance with invite dignitaries, etc. The bruhaha over this was that the Star Advertiser made a bad choice of words. Originally, the headline was: New Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur ‘Joe’ Logan is sworn in secretly. When everybody got their panties in a bunch over it, SA quietly edited the title to say: New Honolulu Police Department Chief Arthur ‘Joe’ Logan is sworn in privately.
-
The fact that it was also useful to avoid answering difficult questions about systemic corruption regarding special treatment of family members…well that s just coincidental.
-
But it does give us options for keeping public officials in check. Let's say the the 10-round magazine limit is ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Doesn't that open the door for HiFiCo/HRA to bring legal action against all legislators that took an oath to defend the Constitution and voted for the limit? Each legislator who voted for the magazine limit violated their oath of office and should be removed.
I would say not really because one way that constitutional cases get changed is when someone passes a new law that challenges the precedent. Case in point, Roe v Wade only got overturned because some state had a law that conflicted with it.
I don't think having taken the oath or not having taken the oath ever made a significant difference in holding a public official accountable for a decision they made. At least I cant find an instance where someone got away with something because they could not be shown to have taken an oath. The oath is really more symbolic and would (hopefully) inspire someone to maintain a certain standard.