2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: pacwire on December 22, 2023, 12:21:21 PM
-
https://www.khon2.com/local-news/hpd-investigating-shooting-in-pearlridge-area/
BTW Suspect is known. Husband Shot Wife in front of Daughter and fled. Wife took out TRO Two days Earlier.
Oh boy...here we go!
-
They were having issues and she filed for a TRO and custody battle. Shooter was suicidal as well.
-
Nothing good is going to come out of this.
The baby will be messed up for the rest of her life.
-
Suspect Found DEAD at Residence in Waipahu!
-
I just hope there is someone that can handle the problems that the baby will have.
-
Nothing good is going to come out of this.
The baby will be messed up for the rest of her life.
"The baby will be messed up for the rest of her life."
Possibly, however If they get her adopted by stable, religious, mainland people, the baby MAY have a chance.
Certainly isn't getting a good start for baby at this point.
TROs really work as does gun registration., Yeah right!
Y'all( Democrats) seem to think it is a gun or racist legal system problem, when in fact, it is your
cultures that allows/rewards bad behavior.
:grrr:
-
Evidentially the victim contacted HPD numerous times about her shithole husband threatening to kill her and they did nothing. Two days earlier she took out a TRO on his now dead ass. Proves TRO’s mean absolutely nothing. As far as I’m concerned HPD is complicit in her murder, will be exonerated of any blame and the powers that be will put the blame on gun owners.
Let’s see what all the arm chair lawyers and resident experts on here have to say about it. Gonna be interesting 🧐
-
I'd like to know if he had a CCW license. Bet he didn't.
-
I'd like to know if he had a CCW license. Bet he didn't.
I heard the guy was involved.in some bad stuff so no CCW.
-
This should be a reason why every woman should be on that CCW train.
-
someone here is going to advocate for moar redder flag laws...despite an already served TRO and firearms taken away...maybe we need a blaze orange flag law
-
someone here is going to advocate for moar redder flag laws...despite an already served TRO and firearms taken away...maybe we need a blaze orange flag law
Did they take his guns? I know I read the TRO was finalized but I didn’t read they took them.
-
Nothing on either criminal history except for the TRO and terminated domestic abuse case. So it's possible it could be a legal gun prior to the TRO. Though heard he was involved in something that led to the breakup.
She has 3 kids, an 8 year old witnessed the shooting.
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/12/23/after-series-terrifying-encounters-murder-victim-filed-tro-against-alleged-killer/
As is required in domestic restraining orders, the judge in this case did order Cachuela to surrender his firearms and sources said the police SWAT team did collect some of his weapons.
-
The article said the judge ordered Cahuela to surrender his firearms and the HPD SWAT team recovered SOME of his weapons.
I hope more information on this comes out so I can understand this. Too much speculation as to why the article mentioned it this way.
-
The article said the judge ordered Cahuela to surrender his firearms and the HPD SWAT team recovered SOME of his weapons.
I hope more information on this comes out so I can understand this. Too much speculation as to why the article mentioned it this way.
If I were to hazard a guess, it sounds like they got all the guns they could find, but he had more registered in his name.
Maybe he jerked them around by saying he sold one/some, just to have enough time to finish things with the wife?
Speculation, but it shows how easy that would be. If they knew he had more than they could find, why was he not arrested for .... something?
-
The worst part of this tragedy is the time of year. Christmas time is never going to be the same for the families, especially the kids who lost both parents.
:'(
-
If I were to hazard a guess, it sounds like they got all the guns they could find, but he had more registered in his name.
Maybe he jerked them around by saying he sold one/some, just to have enough time to finish things with the wife?
Speculation, but it shows how easy that would be. If they knew he had more than they could find, why was he not arrested for .... something?
Perhaps he wasn't home or was in hiding contemplating the murder/suicide when being served the TRO and home was searched for firearms
-
If I were to hazard a guess, it sounds like they got all the guns they could find, but he had more registered in his name.
Maybe he jerked them around by saying he sold one/some, just to have enough time to finish things with the wife?
Speculation, but it shows how easy that would be. If they knew he had more than they could find, why was he not arrested for .... something?
I spent a day with disgraced Hawaii county police chief Carvahalo( (sp?)
he was working as a temp at my job on the summit.
He was the cheat that got fired for being unethical to
his subordinates, among other things.
I asked about gun registration from his point of view.
Paraphrased, he replied,
"always register your guns, but when they ask if you have them or come to take them, claim you
lost them betting in a card game or chicken fight when you were drunk".
This was the top cop in Hawaii county for more than a few years.
Sounds better than losing them while out fishing.
:thumbsup:
-
I spent a day with disgraced Hawaii county police chief Carvahalo( (sp?)
he was working as a temp at my job on the summit.
He was the cheat that got fired for being unethical to
his subordinates, among other things.
I asked about gun registration from his point of view.
Paraphrased, he replied,
"always register your guns, but when they ask if you have them or come to take them, claim you
lost them betting in a card game or chicken fight when you were drunk".
This was the top cop in Hawaii county for more than a few years.
Sounds better than losing them while out fishing.
:thumbsup:
I'd argue that the fishing story is better for you.
Better to lose them in the water rather than lose them gambling with somebody who might not be legally allowed to have them.
And, if they were handguns, then you needed to sign a permit to acquire.
If the former chief told you that, he's a moron.
-
If I were to hazard a guess, it sounds like they got all the guns they could find, but he had more registered in his name.
Maybe he jerked them around by saying he sold one/some, just to have enough time to finish things with the wife?
Speculation, but it shows how easy that would be. If they knew he had more than they could find, why was he not arrested for .... something?
So basically not only is the law unconstitutional it’s also executed like shit.
-
So basically not only is the law unconstitutional it’s also executed like shit.
it's being executed as designed.
Basically, only the law-abiding gun owners get punished for not following the process -- the ones who would comply with a TRO and hand in all their registered guns.
Criminals who obstruct and lie to LE get away with murder .....
or at least get away with keeping guns in defiance of a court order until they commit the murder.
-
If I were to hazard a guess, it sounds like they got all the guns they could find, but he had more registered in his name.
Maybe he jerked them around by saying he sold one/some, just to have enough time to finish things with the wife?
Speculation, but it shows how easy that would be. If they knew he had more than they could find, why was he not arrested for .... something?
As I read through more comments, i realized the "something" they could have arrested him for might have been:
Obstruction -- if he lied about the location of his guns. That requires suspicion that he's lying, such as lack of evidence he lost/sold the missing gun/s,
Criminal contempt of court -- defying the court's confiscation order signed by a judge.
Prohibited person in possession of a firearm -- existing domestic abuse allegations and the TRO put him in that category. If he has a registered firearm which is unaccounted for, it ought to be assumed he still has it unless his story can be verified by contacting whoever does have it. Cops should appreciate this, since it might lead them to someone with an unregistered gun. Easy gun violation solved.
This case demonstrates what I've been saying all along about red flag laws. Just issuing an order and confiscating guns is not enough. If the individual is dangerous enough to require the person surrender their firearms, then they ought to be considered dangerous enough to lock up for a short time while their mental state is evaluated.
Leave the guns. Take the threat off the street. But, only after the respondent gets his hearing in front of a judge.
I believe if the courts and police have the time to issue a TRO and a gun seizure order, plus the time it takes to show up and take the guns, then they have sufficient time to hold an immediate hearing with the respondent before all that. It might possibly put a stop to all that if there's evidence the complainant is lying -- texts, recorded messages, emails, witnesses, etc.
In my mind, the only thing gun confiscation does is make an already angry person angrier.
-
does the TRO allow authorities to search for firearms?
-
https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-crime/hpd-investigating-shooting-in-pearlridge-area/
The initial TRO was filed Dec. 8 and on Dec. 11 officers with the Specialized Services Division served the suspect with the order.
At that time, SSD officers said they recovered all five of the suspect’s registered firearms.
-
does the TRO allow authorities to search for firearms?
Normally the TRO has to be served in person, and guns will be collected at that time. If any are missing, and there's suspicion the person is lying, then LE may need to get a separate search warrant while they sit outside.
As I said, if HPD files say 3 guns, and he only surrenders 2, that should be enough for a warrant (prohibited person with a gun) unless he shows evidence of who has it.
-
does the TRO allow authorities to search for firearms?
officers can take any guns in plain sight when serving the TRO, otherwise they will get a search warrant to search for the guns. Search warrant us easy to get with the TRO and knowledge on gun registrations.
-
https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-crime/hpd-investigating-shooting-in-pearlridge-area/
The initial TRO was filed Dec. 8 and on Dec. 11 officers with the Specialized Services Division served the suspect with the order.
At that time, SSD officers said they recovered all five of the suspect’s registered firearms.
Don't you love how the facts trickle out like molasses on a cold Winter's day?
If he turned in all his registered guns, then that proves 100% that red flag laws won't protect anyone.
Or, from an objective viewpoint, maybe we just need better laws to find out the unique motivations behind domestic abuse and how to prevent it.
-
I know long guns acquired prior to 1995(?) are not required to be registered.
But what about handguns? All I know is that as long as I can remember handguns needed to be registered.
Did he by any chance have a handgun that was "grandfathered" prior to being mandatory registered?
Or maybe he just got it illegally.
-
https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-crime/hpd-investigating-shooting-in-pearlridge-area/
The initial TRO was filed Dec. 8 and on Dec. 11 officers with the Specialized Services Division served the suspect with the order.
At that time, SSD officers said they recovered all five of the suspect's registered firearms.
Oh? The story changed now. Frome "some" to "all". Whether true or not, whatever. ::)
But it does change how HPD performed their job. If they had information as to how many weapons the man has and recovered all of them, then they did their job to the fullest extent.
Originally when the story said they recovered "some" of the man's firearms, one would think they need to do more than just go back to the precinct to tell the captain they found "some".
Common sense. ::)
If the man could not provide information or evidence that the rest of his firearms are accounted for, then in my opinion that alone would be reason to detain him to protect that woman.
Those unaccounted firearms just might be the tipping point of the man killing himself or the woman.
So, it's interesting to me that now the story changed from "some" to "all".
That woman might still be alive today to celebrate Christmas with her family.
A sad story to remind everyone that thinks the Police or a piece of paper like a TRO is going to protect them. It won't.
-
<standing in line for the ghost gun show> and moar laws
-
I heard the guy was involved.in some bad stuff so no CCW.
someone here is going to advocate for moar redder flag laws...despite an already served TRO and firearms taken away...maybe we need a blaze orange flag law
In this case if the husband was involved in some bad stuff would it be safe to assume that he should have been prohibited from having firearms? TRO's do not work for the criminally minded, hot tempered/aggressive(Bully), alcoholics, drugged or mentally disturbed. IMO HPD should have locked up this guy if he showed hostility (until he is given a personality/mental assessment) when served the TRO, being that the TRO stated that she was threatened with death.
-
Time and time again society fails to address mental illness and the result time and time again is dead people.
Is it true that the reason the mentally ill are not incarcerated in hospitals or institutions is because of their civil rights? Is this the reason we have the homeless problem we have today? A lot of the homeless refuse help.
So what about the civil rights of the victims?
-
all these solution involve the government in some way which I think is not the answer. How about empowering the victim? She got a TRO - the courts should have fast tracked her on getting a CCW...or a big dog
-
https://www.khon2.com/hawaii-crime/hpd-investigating-shooting-in-pearlridge-area/
Theresa’s family said she filed a temporary restraining order on her husband which was finalized this week and includes a mandate that he surrender any firearms.
“If the system could be fixed, that man could have been in jail and my mom wouldn’t have been killed and we would be eating breakfast over there. But no, it’s a corrupt system that’s all I know. If that can be fixed that would help our community and Hawaii,” he added.
-
Don't you love how the facts trickle out like molasses on a cold Winter's day?
If he turned in all his registered guns, then that proves 100% that red flag laws won't protect anyone.
Or, from an objective viewpoint, maybe we just need better laws to find out the unique motivations behind domestic abuse and how to prevent it.
"from an objective viewpoint, maybe we just need better laws to find out the unique motivations behind domestic abuse and how to prevent it."
There is THE problem, "better laws". Y'all cannot legislate better behavior especially when the people making those laws are all idiots.
aka Hawaii legislators.
It is a cultural thing that starts at birth and how you are emotionally formed as you grow to adulthood.
Things like "girls just want to have fun", fine, I'm not subsidizing your bad choices or your murder of your products of your "Fun".
Y'all live with it. That is not the Democrat way.
Guys should understand that with DNA tests they get to pay even if she is fu$king some other guy that is beating your kid.
Maybe commitment wil come back int fashion and kids will have two parents again. Even bad parents are better than single mothers.
I'm a hanai great uncle to two kids, one taunts the other" I know my dad's name do you know yours?" they are 6 and 8 respectively.
Democrat laws are Schiff!
I don't have a solution, but I have a first step.
Every woman that is single and wants an abortion must be sterilized.
Every single woman who has kids, is on welfare and gets pregnant gets sterilized if she wants any more welfare.
Women are the key to family stability. Don't put out if you cant get a husband to pay for the kids.
With men they need to pay dearly for unprovoked assault and need to be held responsible for their sexual escapades
You made a baby you help raise it, you want to leave that to someone else that is your decision but you will pay.
This thing where divorced women demand child support, your house and bank accounts after divorce and then gets a new boyfriend who lives in the house you paid for, stops.
If she has a boy friend he gets to help support the kids and Dad gets a 50 % break. she makes boyfriend pay.
Make it so she doesn't want a divorce just because she is tired of a boring marriage life.
Marriage is for making and raising kids. Y'all do't want to be married, don't make any kids.
We have the technology today to destroy most all of the he said, she said crap.
More laws my a$$
Full disclosure; My mother had four husbands. My step mother had two. I have two "half"
siblings and 4 step siblings.
-
"from an objective viewpoint, maybe we just need better laws to find out the unique motivations behind domestic abuse and how to prevent it."
There is THE problem, "better laws". Y'all cannot legislate better behavior especially when the people making those laws are all idiots.
aka Hawaii legislators.
It is a cultural thing that starts at birth and how you are emotionally formed as you grow to adulthood.
Things like "girls just want to have fun", fine, I'm not subsidizing your bad choices or your murder of your products of your "Fun".
Y'all live with it. That is not the Democrat way.
Guys should understand that with DNA tests they get to pay even if she is fu$king some other guy that is beating your kid.
Maybe commitment wil come back int fashion and kids will have two parents again. Even bad parents are better than single mothers.
I'm a hanai great uncle to two kids, one taunts the other" I know my dad's name do you know yours?" they are 6 and 8 respectively.
Democrat laws are Schiff!
I don't have a solution, but I have a first step.
Every woman that is single and wants an abortion must be sterilized.
Every single woman who has kids, is on welfare and gets pregnant gets sterilized if she wants any more welfare.
Women are the key to family stability. Don't put out if you cant get a husband to pay for the kids.
With men they need to pay dearly for unprovoked assault and need to be held responsible for their sexual escapades
You made a baby you help raise it, you want to leave that to someone else that is your decision but you will pay.
This thing where divorced women demand child support, your house and bank accounts after divorce and then gets a new boyfriend who lives in the house you paid for, stops.
If she has a boy friend he gets to help support the kids and Dad gets a 50 % break. she makes boyfriend pay.
Make it so she doesn't want a divorce just because she is tired of a boring marriage life.
Marriage is for making and raising kids. Y'all do't want to be married, don't make any kids.
We have the technology today to destroy most all of the he said, she said crap.
More laws my a$$
Full disclosure; My mother had four husbands. My step mother had two. I have two "half"
siblings and 4 step siblings.
(https://i.imgur.com/53ssEw5.gif)
-
In this case if the husband was involved in some bad stuff would it be safe to assume that he should have been prohibited from having firearms? TRO's do not work for the criminally minded, hot tempered/aggressive(Bully), alcoholics, drugged or mentally disturbed. IMO HPD should have locked up this guy if he showed hostility (until he is given a personality/mental assessment) when served the TRO, being that the TRO stated that she was threatened with death.
Depends on when he was involved in the bad stuff (after he acquired the guns?), and whether or not the "system" is aware of said invovlement.
If he's luck y enough to not get caught, then the background check would have come up clean.
Some 'bad stuff" isn't bad enough to deny you your 2A rights, so as i said -- it all depends.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/53ssEw5.gif)
I understand "heads"
what does "swoosh' mean to us?
-
I understand "heads"
what does "swoosh' mean to us?
I believe that’s a reference to the sound made as a concept or reference goes right over your head…
-
I believe that’s a reference to the sound made as a concept or reference goes right over your head…
(https://i.imgur.com/FCAFB2S.gif)
-
I understand "heads"
what does "swoosh' mean to us?
In this specific instance, you missed the (what i hoped was obvious) sarcasm -- a callback to a particular forum member's words in his/her previous posts.
It's not funny if you have to explain it. :geekdanc:
-
I believe that’s a reference to the sound made as a concept or reference goes right over your head…
I thought it meant "nothing but net" as in the sound a basketball makes when going thru the hoop without touching it. :wacko:
-
Would be nice if we get a bit of a respite from all these tragic events happening lately.
Just time to be with loved ones and family. Time to say "I love you" and hug them close.
Happy Holidays, everybody! :wave:
-
and here we go for moar laws...
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/12/24/residents-call-stricter-laws-memorial-grows-pearlridge-shooting-victim/
“It needs to go to the legislature,” said Mary Lichota of Moanalua. “And I think we need to have stricter laws regarding spousal abuse, or even any type of abuse from one person to another.”
“I think it’s really sad, with the waste of life first of all,” said Ernest Terukina of Aiea. “And then I think it could have been prevented if the right laws were followed and people could get the help they need on both sides.”
Residents say something must be done before Hawaii becomes unrecognizable.
“We are the Aloha state for a reason; we’re supposed to love one another, and every time it’s the state versus the people still anytime they get together,” said Guerrero. “But from that, it’s always Hawaii versus Hawaii, and it’s sad to see everybody just turn on, turn on each other, and not love each other.”
-
In this specific instance, you missed the (what i hoped was obvious) sarcasm -- a callback to a particular forum member's words in his/her previous posts.
It's not funny if you have to explain it. :geekdanc:
I missed the sarcasm, I guess. I get triggered when anyone calls for new laws.
Although I like Rocky's comment "a perfectly clean shot" through the basket.
:shaka:
-
I thought it meant "nothing but net" as in the sound a basketball makes when going thru the hoop without touching it. :wacko:
IIRC, that would be "Swish!"
:geekdanc: :thumbsup:
-
IIRC, that would be "Swish!"
:geekdanc: :thumbsup:
I've been here in Hawaii almost 24 years and I still haven't figured out all the colloquialisms.
:shaka:
-
Or, from an objective viewpoint, maybe we just need better laws to find out the unique motivations behind domestic abuse and how to prevent it.
Swoosh.
Asking about other possibilities is called objectivity, not feelings. Beliefs are irrelevant, you don't need evidence to question whether a study took into account certain variables. This is pretty basic scientific technique here.
The real question is why are you so triggered by a simple scientific question about the results?
No, that wouldn't make much sense. Unless you want to go on some technicality of a mass shooter who only manages to wound.
My argument is that mass shooters like this need to be understood for their unique motivations, backgrounds, etc. Calling them evil psychopaths doesn't do anything to that end. Putting them into the general murderer category provides very limited informational value.
You cannot make blanket statements about red flag laws in such a manner, I have pointed this out to you before. Each jurisdiction comes up with their own form of red flag laws, they are not all the same. One jurisdiction's laws could have due process while another jurisdiction might not have proper due process procedures in place.
I believe red flag laws can be constitutional. Again, it all depends on what protections are put in place by the specific jurisdiction.
Thank you for clarifying your position. So here is the key questions:
How do we stop these individuals who exhibit "red flags" but have not yet committed a crime but while still protecting their constitutional rights? It seemed like you were getting at court dates being timely. Were you implying that a red flag law gun revocation could be reasonable if the hearing is within a short time period? That is one of my key things for me, someone should get their hearing quickly, like 5 days or something
-
What can be done to prevent this?
Sounds like there was enough evidence to arrest him, and hold him without bail as he was likely to re-offend. Give him a mental evaluation and he'd likely be held for mandatory treatment.
Hopefully the treatment or just the passing time is enough to stop further aggression. If she still felt threatened, she may have to move and get a CCW.
Government failed by not holding this guy, making CCW so difficult to get, and spending money on stupid stuff when they should be funding enforcement and treatment.
-
What can be done to prevent this?
Sounds like there was enough evidence to arrest him, and hold him without bail as he was likely to re-offend. Give him a mental evaluation and he'd likely be held for mandatory treatment.
Hopefully the treatment or just the passing time is enough to stop further aggression. If she still felt threatened, she may have to move and get a CCW.
Government failed by not holding this guy, making CCW so difficult to get, and spending money on stupid stuff when they should be funding enforcement and treatment.
I'd like to see a law that gives the offender jail time equal to the amount of time it takes for someone to take the training and be issued a CCW.
Either that, or add an exception to the CCW requirements for anyone that can document a potential threat to their and/or their family's safety.
If the state wants to cause CCW applications to take 3-6 months, then the person that's threatening them needs to be locked up for 3-6 months.
This case is not the first time someone died waiting for the state's permission to buy or carry a firearm.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-awaiting-gun-permit
-
This guy was bad news from many years ago. He was always being the ref in the ring at a lot of the chicken fights and i'm extremely surprised he has no criminal record. He also into dealing illegal things.
-
I'd like to see a law that gives the offender jail time equal to the amount of time it takes for someone to take the training and be issued a CCW.
Either that, or add an exception to the CCW requirements for anyone that can document a potential threat to their and/or their family's safety.
If the state wants to cause CCW applications to take 3-6 months, then the person that's threatening them needs to be locked up for 3-6 months.
This case is not the first time someone died waiting for the state's permission to buy or carry a firearm.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/no-one-helped-her-nj-woman-murdered-by-ex-while-awaiting-gun-permit
The problem is the chief will deny all and say they arent "threats". U know how hpd works.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
I'd argue that the fishing story is better for you.
Better to lose them in the water rather than lose them gambling with somebody who might not be legally allowed to have them.
And, if they were handguns, then you needed to sign a permit to acquire.
If the former chief told you that, he's a moron.
Or say that your wife hid them from you to get you in trouble and you couldn't turn it in.
-
Or, from an objective viewpoint, maybe we just need better laws to find out the unique motivations behind domestic abuse and how to prevent it.
I am glad you cite your references. Laws don't find out things though.
-
What can be done to prevent this?
Sounds like there was enough evidence to arrest him, and hold him without bail as he was likely to re-offend. Give him a mental evaluation and he'd likely be held for mandatory treatment.
Hopefully the treatment or just the passing time is enough to stop further aggression. If she still felt threatened, she may have to move and get a CCW.
Government failed by not holding this guy, making CCW so difficult to get, and spending money on stupid stuff when they should be funding enforcement and treatment.
Thats the million dollar question. No answer is ever going to satisfy all sides and even if one side got their way, with either no guns ever or no gun restriction ever, you will never be able to stop domestic violence murders. At most you could do is put small dents in the numbers. You would probably reduce the domestic violence numbers more by addressing alcohol use more than any gun restrictions. No one ever wants to talk about restricting alcohol though. Maybe anger management counseling. Cops can show up to a DV type incident with all sorts of options from suggesting one party leave, making one party leave, arresting one (or both) parties, but counseling is not in their normal tool bag. Not unless an officer happens to be quite good at counseling people.
A lot of times TRO applications make very serious claims about historical instances but the applicant decides to go the TRO route instead of pressing criminal charges. The TRO might mention rape, attempted murder, threats, etc. but without a criminal case being made the accused wont be charged criminally.
Going for a TRO or criminal charges present their own problems though and it is impossible to tell which one, if any, will produce the better results.
If I understand the reports correctly the guy had very little on his record to justify any sort of detention. The one thing I would be interested in pursuing is, as you said, a mandatory mental health evaluation. If a TRO applicant is reporting all sorts of mental health issue type behaviors and all they do is say don't talk to the applicant or own guns then there is a missed opportunity. There are going to be some real civil rights issues though given that forcing someone into a mental health hospital is taking away their rights.
-
Duplicate post
-
Thats the million dollar question. No answer is ever going to satisfy all sides and even if one side got their way, with either no guns ever or no gun restriction ever, you will never be able to stop domestic violence murders. At most you could do is put small dents in the numbers. You would probably reduce the domestic violence numbers more by addressing alcohol use more than any gun restrictions. No one ever wants to talk about restricting alcohol though. Maybe anger management counseling. Cops can show up to a DV type incident with all sorts of options from suggesting one party leave, making one party leave, arresting one (or both) parties, but counseling is not in their normal tool bag. Not unless an officer happens to be quite good at counseling people.
A lot of times TRO applications make very serious claims about historical instances but the applicant decides to go the TRO route instead of pressing criminal charges. The TRO might mention rape, attempted murder, threats, etc. but without a criminal case being made the accused wont be charged criminally.
Going for a TRO or criminal charges present their own problems though and it is impossible to tell which one, if any, will produce the better results.
If I understand the reports correctly the guy had very little on his record to justify any sort of detention. The one thing I would be interested in pursuing is, as you said, a mandatory mental health evaluation. If a TRO applicant is reporting all sorts of mental health issue type behaviors and all they do is say don't talk to the applicant or own guns then there is a missed opportunity. There are going to be some real civil rights issues though given that forcing someone into a mental health hospital is taking away their rights.
I don't think you understand our justice system very well.
Even if the wife filed a criminal complaint against her husband, due process requires an arraignment, specified charges based on sufficient probable cause and evidence, and more than likely he'll be released with or without bail to await trial for who knows how long?
In the meantime, a TRO is the only immediate protection (and I say that knowing it's not really protection) that's available from the system.
So, even if they arrested him and tried to hold him, the system crawls at a snail's pace. The system also must be concerned with the rights of the accused -- including the right to be free on bail if the court decides he needs to maintain his employment, etc.
Often the court (judge) will issue the TRO as an immediate remedy until the trial (it's called Temporary Restraining Order for a reason). If, after the case is tried, the court decides he's still a threat, they can issue a Permanent Restraining Order. From my experience and readings, restraining orders are civil decrees from the court even though they are often issued as a result of criminal behavior. It's only when an RO is violated that it becomes a criminal issue (criminal contempt of court -- ask me how i know :geekdanc:).
Restraining orders are nothing more than trip wires that signal to the police they can now arrest him if/when he violates it. It's like a condition of release -- stay away from her, or we will lock you up.
Basically they are giving him the opportunity to continue his attack/harassment with the hope that the threat of being jailed for violating the TRO is enough to stop him.
-
Thats the million dollar question. No answer is ever going to satisfy all sides and even if one side got their way, with either no guns ever or no gun restriction ever, you will never be able to stop domestic violence murders. At most you could do is put small dents in the numbers. You would probably reduce the domestic violence numbers more by addressing alcohol use more than any gun restrictions. No one ever wants to talk about restricting alcohol though. Maybe anger management counseling. Cops can show up to a DV type incident with all sorts of options from suggesting one party leave, making one party leave, arresting one (or both) parties, but counseling is not in their normal tool bag. Not unless an officer happens to be quite good at counseling people.
A lot of times TRO applications make very serious claims about historical instances but the applicant decides to go the TRO route instead of pressing criminal charges. The TRO might mention rape, attempted murder, threats, etc. but without a criminal case being made the accused wont be charged criminally.
Going for a TRO or criminal charges present their own problems though and it is impossible to tell which one, if any, will produce the better results.
If I understand the reports correctly the guy had very little on his record to justify any sort of detention. The one thing I would be interested in pursuing is, as you said, a mandatory mental health evaluation. If a TRO applicant is reporting all sorts of mental health issue type behaviors and all they do is say don't talk to the applicant or own guns then there is a missed opportunity. There are going to be some real civil rights issues though given that forcing someone into a mental health hospital is taking away their rights.
If anti 2a orgs like MDA, ET, and Giffords were serious about gun issues, then they would pump $ into the mental evals that you mention. On call professionals ready to come on site to make a diagnoses. I rememeber the Ross store knife guy in his underwear was deemed competent after the incident and later killed someone.
Maybe what should be done is a new law:
Someone who makes an accusation gets an almost instant CCW, HPD provided firearm training, and they can bypass the PTA 2 week wait. Also added in is the other party is ordered to stay away and if they do come in contact, if they get shot by the filer, then it's on them. Also immunity from civil liability. If they need something from the petitioner, then send a friend or family member to pick it up or call HPD to assist. This way there's no confusion or excuse like they needed to get something from the home they both live in. At the same time, provide a hotel for the respondent or the petitioner. 1 should stay in a hotel.
The problem would be that if the they own the home, then now the government is removing it from them without due process. But if they ask which one wants to stay at a hotel, then it would be voluntary. But what happens if neither wants to go to the hotel? This is just a thought that took 1 min to think of, so it's not like I thought about it hard.
-
If anti 2a orgs like MDA, ET, and Giffords were serious about gun issues, then they would pump $ into the mental evals that you mention. On call professionals ready to come on site to make a diagnoses. I rememeber the Ross store knife guy in his underwear was deemed competent after the incident and later killed someone.
Maybe what should be done is a new law:
Someone who makes an accusation gets an almost instant CCW, HPD provided firearm training, and they can bypass the PTA 2 week wait. Also added in is the other party is ordered to stay away and if they do come in contact, if they get shot by the filer, then it's on them. Also immunity from civil liability. If they need something from the petitioner, then send a friend or family member to pick it up or call HPD to assist. This way there's no confusion or excuse like they needed to get something from the home they both live in. At the same time, provide a hotel for the respondent or the petitioner. 1 should stay in a hotel.
The problem would be that if the they own the home, then now the government is removing it from them without due process. But if they ask which one wants to stay at a hotel, then it would be voluntary. But what happens if neither wants to go to the hotel? This is just a thought that took 1 min to think of, so it's not like I thought about it hard.
============
some good and interesting ideas there...
Whose budget does this come out from?
-
============
some good and interesting ideas there...
Whose budget does this come out from?
If our lawmakers were serious about DV, then the states annual budget. But we all know they're not serious about DV as they voted to disarm the victims with sensitive places law. And donations/resources from MDA/ET/Brady, etc...
-
If our lawmakers were serious about DV, then the states annual budget. But we all know they're not serious about DV as they voted to disarm the victims with sensitive places law. And donations/resources from MDA/ET/Brady, etc...
=========
...and this is why I hate politics
-
If anti 2a orgs like MDA, ET, and Giffords were serious about gun issues, then they would pump $ into the mental evals that you mention. On call professionals ready to come on site to make a diagnoses. I rememeber the Ross store knife guy in his underwear was deemed competent after the incident and later killed someone.
...
The problem would be that if the they own the home, then now the government is removing it from them without due process. But if they ask which one wants to stay at a hotel, then it would be voluntary. But what happens if neither wants to go to the hotel? This is just a thought that took 1 min to think of, so it's not like I thought about it hard.
[/quote
As progressives, those groups believe the gun is at fault. The person is innocent because it wasn't their fault. Systematic inequality, patriarch, racism, etc caused them to do it. You never see progressives blame the criminal unless they're white male with money. They also don't want people incarcerated or committed. This is why they don't talk about mental health.
As far as leaving the home, it's almost always the man even if the woman doesn't own the home. There's a government safehouse for domestic violence victims, but they have to be willing to testify against the abuser and live under the rules of the safehouse. So a lot of victims decline to stay there.
-
They could've been held without bail and gotten mental health treatment. But there's a lot that needs to be fixed in the system.
9th circuit judges. Too liberal and make it too hard to prosecute, commit, and punish criminals. Half of the conservative judges are only mildly conservative. Trump has to come back and fill more seats.
Prison and Jail space - need more of it so criminals actually serve their sentences and we can prosecute more criminals and not have the revolving door. Inmates have a choice between rehab or hard labor.
Prosecutors, judges, LEOs, public defenders. Hire a lot more. Bump up their pay a lot.
Mental health/rehab - greatly increase funding for it. Hire more workers and build more centers to house people.
Crackdown on drug abuse/sellers - the addictive and mind destroying ones like ice that cause mental health problems.
Societal - Get rid of the progressive mindset. Promote good parenting, hard work, and morals. individual responsibility. Strength in adversity. Community support.
-
Murder-suicides are so common.
If it were so easy to fix, it would have been fixed already.
-
I think it's pretty obvious (except for the bleeding heart liberals with a death hold on the state) that an overhaul on the justice system is needed.
To do that we gotta drain the swamp at the State Capitol. Start at the 5th floor then work down.
Everybody there in that building as soon as elected only worries about getting elected again.
-
I think it's pretty obvious (except for the bleeding heart liberals with a death hold on the state) that an overhaul on the justice system is needed.
...
soft judges make hard criminals
-
...
soft judges make hard criminals
The end game is so they can have reasons to take the 2A away. This is their plan.
-
The end game is so they can have reasons to take the 2A away. This is their plan.
==========
I was looking at the news reports about this particular murder.
I did not see any people complaining about too many guns and how anybody can go to walmart and buy a 357 magnum.
Did I miss something?
-
==========
I was looking at the news reports about this particular murder.
I did not see any people complaining about too many guns and how anybody can go to walmart and buy a 357 magnum.
Did I miss something?
I'm surprised too that they're not blaming the gun. Maybe it's because HPD missed 1 when confiscating all guns he was supposedly to have.
-
"I'm surprised too that they're not blaming the gun. Maybe it's because HPD missed 1 when confiscating all guns he was supposedly to have."
Per HPD he ONLY had Five Firearms registered to him. Thus SSD (SWAT) collected and Confirmed they got what was registered to him.
I just hope the gun used wasn't registered to someone else (maybe a friend)....hmmm
-
I just hope the gun used wasn't registered to someone else (maybe a friend)....hmmm
Or gun was built from parts and the gun store sued under the new firearms industry liability law.
-
"I'm surprised too that they're not blaming the gun. Maybe it's because HPD missed 1 when confiscating all guns he was supposedly to have."
Per HPD he ONLY had Five Firearms registered to him. Thus SSD (SWAT) collected and Confirmed they got what was registered to him.
I just hope the gun used wasn't registered to someone else (maybe a friend)....hmmm
It would be illegal to lend a handgun to someone else. You can only lend a rifle or shotgun to someone for X days.
-
It would be illegal to lend a handgun to someone else. You can only lend a rifle or shotgun to someone for X days.
if a former chief of police says it's feasible to claim you lost your gun in a chicken fight or other gambling situation, then it's logical to assume there's the other party who WON that gun.
Maybe he was the winner that night at the "fights", and his prize was an unregistered, untraceable handgun?
-
If anti 2a orgs like MDA, ET, and Giffords were serious about gun issues, then they would pump $ into the mental evals that you mention. On call professionals ready to come on site to make a diagnoses. I rememeber the Ross store knife guy in his underwear was deemed competent after the incident and later killed someone.
Maybe what should be done is a new law:
Someone who makes an accusation gets an almost instant CCW, HPD provided firearm training, and they can bypass the PTA 2 week wait. Also added in is the other party is ordered to stay away and if they do come in contact, if they get shot by the filer, then it's on them. Also immunity from civil liability. If they need something from the petitioner, then send a friend or family member to pick it up or call HPD to assist. This way there's no confusion or excuse like they needed to get something from the home they both live in. At the same time, provide a hotel for the respondent or the petitioner. 1 should stay in a hotel.
The problem would be that if the they own the home, then now the government is removing it from them without due process. But if they ask which one wants to stay at a hotel, then it would be voluntary. But what happens if neither wants to go to the hotel? This is just a thought that took 1 min to think of, so it's not like I thought about it hard.
I think it is entirely possible that the MDA, ET, etc. are just emotional and misguided. That does not mean they aren't serious though. People seriously advocate for things all the time based on a misunderstanding or lack of understanding. I do think they are negligent in their narrow focus on firearms alone.
In a normal TRO/RO situation the respondent can call for a police escort to retrieve belongings and police go and stand by while the person gets what they need. The hotel idea is interesting, especially since a lot of DV shelters do not accept males. Making someone leave a home for even just a month does place a significant financial burden upon them. Who would pick up the tab though, taxpayers? If the home is co-owned in a marriage situation and the TRO is converted into an RO that can become very financially difficult because until a divorce judge orders the home sold the mortgage still has to be paid. Messy divorces are no joke.
I like the idea of an expedited firearm permit for someone claiming their ex is so dangerous they need a court order. It lends credibility to the process.
-
I don't think you understand our justice system very well.
Even if the wife filed a criminal complaint against her husband, due process requires an arraignment, specified charges based on sufficient probable cause and evidence, and more than likely he'll be released with or without bail to await trial for who knows how long?
In the meantime, a TRO is the only immediate protection (and I say that knowing it's not really protection) that's available from the system.
So, even if they arrested him and tried to hold him, the system crawls at a snail's pace. The system also must be concerned with the rights of the accused -- including the right to be free on bail if the court decides he needs to maintain his employment, etc.
Often the court (judge) will issue the TRO as an immediate remedy until the trial (it's called Temporary Restraining Order for a reason). If, after the case is tried, the court decides he's still a threat, they can issue a Permanent Restraining Order. From my experience and readings, restraining orders are civil decrees from the court even though they are often issued as a result of criminal behavior. It's only when an RO is violated that it becomes a criminal issue (criminal contempt of court -- ask me how i know :geekdanc:).
Restraining orders are nothing more than trip wires that signal to the police they can now arrest him if/when he violates it. It's like a condition of release -- stay away from her, or we will lock you up.
Basically they are giving him the opportunity to continue his attack/harassment with the hope that the threat of being jailed for violating the TRO is enough to stop him.
::)
If the wife filed a criminal complaint officers would go out and try to arrest the husband. Sometimes they can be conferred with the prosecutors and a warrant issuedf without an arrest but people are arrested and charged without first having an arraignment.
You are correct that temporary restraining orders, restraining orders, and protective orders are civil procedures and criminal charges only come into play when someone is accused of violating the order. This has some advantages but also some disadvantages for the petitioner.
It is in no way a perfect system to deal with this issue but there really is no such thing as a perfect answer to this issue either.
-
==========
I was looking at the news reports about this particular murder.
I did not see any people complaining about too many guns and how anybody can go to walmart and buy a 357 magnum.
Did I miss something?
I think that in this type of case the presence of the gun really made no difference, he would have killed her with whatever he could find. Sometimes the easy access to a firearm plays a role in whether a murder occurs I think but not always. Remember the killing in Kailua over a decade ago? The husband/BF beat the woman to death with a rifle or shotgun. Either it broke or jammed but it became basically a blunt instrument and it worked.