2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: ren on July 08, 2013, 07:08:16 PM
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22788188/demonstrators-support-victim-in-deedy-murder-case (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22788188/demonstrators-support-victim-in-deedy-murder-case)
Sickening. Can't we just let our judicial system play it out? Comparable to the Trayvon Martin case? The racial card? Are we that ignorant that we have to throw that card out every time there are two different races involved?
-
It is utterly disgusting and frustrating that everything has to be racial and pc. Steps backward in most recent years IMO.
-
"Liz Reez" ignorant comments erase any shred of credibility she would have had.
"For me personally I don't really care who started it, who said what, who called what names. It speaks for itself that you have an unarmed person in McDonald's, two men, one is a federal agent carrying a gun who shot and killed Kollin Elderts. For me that speaks for itself. The rest of the facts should come out but they're not really crucial to me," said Rees. "You have two men, one is a murderer with a weapon, a federal agent and he shot and killed him so what else do people really need to know."
:wtf:
(Paraphrased: I don't care what the facts or evidence say, as far as I'm concerned the federal agent is guilty and I don't need to know anything else)
-
"Liz Reez" ignorant comments erase any shred of credibility she would have had.
"For me personally I don't really care who started it, who said what, who called what names. It speaks for itself that you have an unarmed person in McDonald's, two men, one is a federal agent carrying a gun who shot and killed Kollin Elderts. For me that speaks for itself. The rest of the facts should come out but they're not really crucial to me," said Rees. "You have two men, one is a murderer with a weapon, a federal agent and he shot and killed him so what else do people really need to know."
:wtf:
(Paraphrased: I don't care what the facts or evidence say, as far as I'm concerned the federal agent is guilty and I don't need to know anything else)
I concur with you Kingkeoni. Obviously the process of the justice system is not part of Ms. Reez's argument against Mr. Deedy. Right or wrong will play out in this case and laid with whom deserves whichever...
By the way, this case has NOTHING to do with racism.
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22788188/demonstrators-support-victim-in-deedy-murder-case (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22788188/demonstrators-support-victim-in-deedy-murder-case)
Sickening. Can't we just let our judicial system play it out? Comparable to the Trayvon Martin case? The racial card? Are we that ignorant that we have to throw that card out every time there are two different races involved?
Yes ren there are people who are that stupid in this world.
-
Obviously they were both drunk. But any LEO needs to be held to a higher standard of conduct.
IMHO:
ANY LEO running around drunk in the middle of the night with a gun does not meet that higher standard of conduct.
-
Obviously they were both drunk. But any LEO needs to be held to a higher standard of conduct.
IMHO:
ANY LEO running around drunk in the middle of the night with a gun does not meet that higher standard of conduct.
HPD is required to carry off duty. That means they can never be drunk/under the influence. Just sayin.........
-
LEO are required to carry everywhere even when off duty, yet I buy to protect myself and my family but I cannot even take it out of my house to my mailbox without getting arrested?
What is wrong with this?
-
HPD is required to carry off duty. That means they can never be drunk/under the influence. Just sayin.........
HPD is not REQUIRED to carry off duty.
-
>:D
-
:closed:
-
Obviously they were both drunk. But any LEO needs to be held to a higher standard of conduct.
IMHO:
ANY LEO running around drunk in the middle of the night with a gun does not meet that higher standard of conduct.
I wouldn't say they were *obviously* both drunk. I haven't seen anything that proves that Deedy was drunk at the time, so let's see what plays out in court.
-
I love how they said that a 'white man murdered a minority',
Even though white people are the majority minority in Hawaii.
There, I fixed it for you
-
It's funny them trying to bring in the race card because in this instance, the victim is the one being accused of racism.
He allegedly called Deedy a F-in' Haole.
There's no report that Deedy replied "You stinkin' non-white guy"
Drinkin', carryin' and fightin'. Not a good combination for Deedy.
-
HPD is not REQUIRED to carry off duty.
That's odd because I have several HPD friends and they are told to (some gun guys some not).
-
That's odd because I have several HPD friends and they are told to (some gun guys some not).
Better check again. It is not required.
Being advised to and being required are two very different things.
-
Better check again. It is not required.
Being advised to and being required are two very different things.
Point taken KK.
-
Better check again. It is not required.
Being advised to and being required are two very different things.
Apparently my facebook feed can't grab that concept in re: Zimmerman... You don't need to, and "don't" do it are separate things.
-
What would the term be to describe me if I hate idiots, people lacking in common sense, courtesy, and people who just bitch because they have too much time on their hands (ala complaining about the pledge of allegiance, etc)?????????!
Because I am "rascist" against these people, whether they be white, black, green, blue, Asian, or mixed.
-
:closed:
-
>:D
-
"Hate" is a strong word. Did you know there is no word in the Hawaiian language that translates to "hate?" I can't verify that (not a native Hawaiian), but that's what I was told! :thumbsup:
Anyway, you might want to reevaluate how you react to people that irritate you. When you hate these people, more often than not, you make yourself miserable while they either don't know and/or don't care how you feel. So, hating is just a waste of time, energy, and karma! The stress this causes can also affect your health if you let it get to you.
:shaka:
How dare you ripoff and then poorly paraphrase Master Yoda.
"Fear leads to anger,anger leads to hate,hate leads to suffering,suffering leads to the Dark Side."
- Master Yoda ...
Hahahahaha
-
"Hate" is a strong word. Did you know there is no word in the Hawaiian language that translates to "hate?" I can't verify that (not a native Hawaiian), but that's what I was told! :thumbsup:
Anyway, you might want to reevaluate how you react to people that irritate you. When you hate these people, more often than not, you make yourself miserable while they either don't know and/or don't care how you feel. So, hating is just a waste of time, energy, and karma! The stress this causes can also affect your health if you let it get to you.
If you're looking for a label, I'd say you're "HUMAN." The trick is to be bigger than the people that make you feel this way. You might also want to keep an open mind. Sometimes their arguments actually make sense if you step back and look at things from their point of view. It may not change your mind, but empathy and understanding goes a long way toward constructive dialogue and problem solving.
:shaka:
How dare you ripoff and then poorly paraphrase Master Yoda.
"Fear leads to anger,anger leads to hate,hate leads to suffering,suffering leads to the Dark Side."
- Master Yoda ...
Hahahahaha
-
The word "hate" etc. is found in the Bible many times.
Probably one of the most used is in Ecclesiastes 3:8
A time for loving;
A time for hating;
A time for war;
A time for peace.
-
:closed:
-
The word “hate” is a strong word.
The point here is that just because the word “hate” is not used or mentioned in a language doesn’t mean that it is not used.
The use of the word “hate” does not put you in the dark side.
I also got the impression that because the word “hate” is not in the Hawaiian language it must be because Hawaiians didn’t know what “hate” is, we all aloha etc.. I disagree.
I used the Bible because to many it is a scared book, to me too BTW, and if it is mentioned there, then there is a time and a place.
What we must be aware of is the misuse of the term and emotion of “hate.”
-
Yoda is wrong. Hate does not always lead to suffering.
In my book, it is okay to "hate" injustice and evil.
However, prolonged "hating" is probably not good to your health (stress).
I love that book and song that 1422LR references by the way. See below:
http://youtu.be/ehf94vNBOWU
-
I HATE when a thread gets off topic.
:stopjack:
:rofl:
-
Haha yes I resemble that remark. Sorry, folks!
-
Ok so you cant drink and drive cause then youd be inpaired and could hurt or kill someone. But what about drinking and carrying a firearm? wasnt deedy under the infuence and armed?
-
"Hate" is a strong word. Did you know there is no word in the Hawaiian language that translates to "hate?" I can't verify that (not a native Hawaiian), but that's what I was told! :thumbsup:
Anyway, you might want to reevaluate how you react to people that irritate you. When you hate these people, more often than not, you make yourself miserable while they either don't know and/or don't care how you feel. So, hating is just a waste of time, energy, and karma! The stress this causes can also affect your health if you let it get to you.
If you're looking for a label, I'd say you're "HUMAN." The trick is to be bigger than the people that make you feel this way. You might also want to keep an open mind. Sometimes their arguments actually make sense if you step back and look at things from their point of view. It may not change your mind, but empathy and understanding goes a long way toward constructive dialogue and problem solving.
:shaka:
Moosed, on the whole I can't disagree with your statement, well written to boot. I dont hate them on a regular basis to the point where it affects me, maybe despise is the correct word. I've only been paying attention to what's going on in this country in the last few years and I am quite apalled at what I see. Not sure what more I can do in addition to what I'm already doing, and even that seems like its a losing battle. I'm not one to easily give up nor will I quit, it's just frustrating.
Back to topic, this is the worst state for the Deedy trial to happen in. To compare it to the Zimmerman case is ridiculous. Like the Rodney King story, I'm sure the mass public was not shown the entire story......
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22788188/demonstrators-support-victim-in-deedy-murder-case (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22788188/demonstrators-support-victim-in-deedy-murder-case)
Sickening. Can't we just let our judicial system play it out? Comparable to the Trayvon Martin case? The racial card? Are we that ignorant that we have to throw that card out every time there are two different races involved?
Its not ignorance that leads people to make race an issue, its the fanatics. Specifically these World Can't Wait nutjobs. They're are the same folks who a few years back implied our US service members were "baby killers". So dollars to doughnuts, it was Ms. Rees and friends who made the "racist system" sign. Just a bunch of rabble rousers looking to start something.
I don't think for the majority of people it a racial issue. Local vs. Mainland? Sure, but thats kind of expected no matter where you go.
-
Hawaii news now got the video of what happened inside of McDonalds up on their website.
Get it and post it before it gets taken down!!!!
-
Ok so you cant drink and drive cause then youd be inpaired and could hurt or kill someone. But what about drinking and carrying a firearm? wasnt deedy under the infuence and armed?
That has not been established.
I don't know if there was a test performed to determine alcohol in his system.
If there was, it will no doubt be introduced into evidence during the course of the trial.
-
That has not been established.
I don't know if there was a test performed to determine alcohol in his system.
If there was, it will no doubt be introduced into evidence during the course of the trial.
I thought he was never tested from what I recall but could be wrong. I think he admitted to having a drink during the day but that's all I heard, which doesn't prove he was intoxicated at the time of the incident, but maybe they did a test at some point. I'm sure they will introduce it like you said, if one exists.
-
I thought he was never tested from what I recall but could be wrong. I think he admitted to having a drink during the day but that's all I heard, which doesn't prove he was intoxicated at the time of the incident, but maybe they did a test at some point. I'm sure they will introduce it like you said, if one exists.
smartly, he declined said test.
-
My initial post was that of cynicism of the public - it just seems that the local media spins the perspective around and in my opinion interject a sense of "local boy was innocently shot by a white federal agent". Now that images from the surveillance video are out it appears that the aggressor was the now deceased. I saw no point in the prosecution allowing a friend of the deceased offer testimony of them partying to include marijuana use. That type of activity seems to be the norm here and doesn't raise any flags.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong... is Elderts attacking of Deedy the same as someone attacking a LEO?
-
Correct me if I'm wrong... is Elderts attacking of Deedy the same as someone attacking a LEO?
Yes.
-
My initial post was that of cynicism of the public - it just seems that the local media spins the perspective around and in my opinion interject a sense of "local boy was innocently shot by a white federal agent". Now that images from the surveillance video are out it appears that the aggressor was the now deceased. I saw no point in the prosecution allowing a friend of the deceased offer testimony of them partying to include marijuana use. That type of activity seems to be the norm here and doesn't raise any flags.
Some of this came out in the Zimmerman trial, but many pathologists are begining to say that the effects of today's marijuana is not the same of marijuana in the past. It's no longer the "let's chill, eat whitecastle burgers" kind of drug in many instances. This comes from the way it is grown and manufactured.
-
Just watched the video footage on HawaiiNewsNow. Man, there's just nothing good coming out of this incident -- drunken brawling escalating like to this. This is why I don't like going to Waikiki, especially at night.
Not saying that it applies to Deedy's situation but a lesson I see from this incident is that those with firearms should really not get involved with alcohol and drugs.
If one is drunk or on drugs, keep the firearm locked away and especially avoid going to dumb places like Waikiki at night where dumb "monkey dances" can happen.
-
Yes.
Hmm ... attacking a LEO = not a good idea.
-
all we can do is hope for a fair trial.....
aloha
-branz
-
>:D
-
I think that the issues involved in this case would have resounding effects on the hope of ever having CCW for citizens in Hawaii. This case outlines an example of not granting more loose CCW permissions in Hawaii.
-
:closed:
-
On the contrary. This was not a case of a civilian carrying concealed and involved in a shooting. This was a DOS agent with training, authority, and (I assume) his issued weapon. I don't see how this has any impact on the CCW issue at all.
Maybe there will be FEWER deaths like this because people wanting to start a fight will think twice if there's a chance the other party is armed.
It works that way every other place CCW is actually implemented.
I don't agree. The argument can be that while even a trained federal agent, he still escalated and shot an unarmed person. I'm trying to look at the issue from the viewpoint of a person against the 2A. Most people that I've come across bring up this particular issue, that here in Hawaii we resolve with our fists and not guns. Key issues in this case are alcohol, emotional state and environment. How many bars do we have on this island alone? If we can't trust a federal agent with all this additional training can we trust a CCW holding citizen to not escalate? All these points can be strengthened IF Deedy loses this case.
-
Like Ren, I was actually thinking... If a LEO could be drunk and carrying a firearm (not sure if he was), what if a drunk Elderts was armed with a firearm?
Oh well, sorry... We can "what if" this to no end. Forget I asked... I don't think I'll like the answer.
If both were drunk, got into a stupid monkey dance and just had fists, they'd both probably be going home with someone or both just getting a beat down.
-
Like Ren, I was actually thinking... If a LEO could be drunk and carrying a firearm (not sure if he was), what if a drunk Elderts was armed with a firearm?
Oh well, sorry... We can "what if" this to no end. Forget I asked... I don't think I'll like the answer.
If both were drunk, got into a stupid monkey dance and just had fists, they'd both probably be going home with someone or both just getting a beat down.
I don't understand the persistent desire that people here seem to have to protect and preserve the time-honored monkey dances. My tagline about being a fluffy white bunny is a reference to a past thread where a supposedly pro-gun type kept saying that we shouldn't have concealed carry in Hawaii because tourists might not understand that locals just want to put a few lumps on their heads and end up shooting said local. Apparently beating up tourists is just good, clean fun and nobody should get hurt over it? (Except the tourist, of course.) What should be our bigger concern: protecting guys who like to get drunk and/or high and raise hell, or protecting the right of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to carry meaningful defensive tools?
-
I don't agree. The argument can be that while even a trained federal agent, he still escalated and shot an unarmed person. I'm trying to look at the issue from the viewpoint of a person against the 2A. Most people that I've come across bring up this particular issue, that here in Hawaii we resolve with our fists and not guns. Key issues in this case are alcohol, emotional state and environment. How many bars do we have on this island alone? If we can't trust a federal agent with all this additional training can we trust a CCW holding citizen to not escalate? All these points can be strengthened IF Deedy loses this case.
Unfortunately I think you're right; this is exactly how the average low-information Hawaii voter is going to see it.
-
I don't understand the persistent desire that people here seem to have to protect and preserve the time-honored monkey dances. My tagline about being a fluffy white bunny is a reference to a past thread where a supposedly pro-gun type kept saying that we shouldn't have concealed carry in Hawaii because tourists might not understand that locals just want to put a few lumps on their heads and end up shooting said local. Apparently beating up tourists is just good, clean fun and nobody should get hurt over it? (Except the tourist, of course.) What should be our bigger concern: protecting guys who like to get drunk and/or high and raise hell, or protecting the right of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to carry meaningful defensive tools?
I see that type of sentiment amongst locals who don't care about the 2A. There are locals who have that pack mentality and they realize that an equalizer to that is a citizen with a gun - so of course they will always argue that a gun is not needed because it will be undeniably a threat to their ego and resulting behavior. This is just one hypothesis that is not proven scientifically but observed through casual observation.
This case is more than just a perceived race or .gov vs. the locals it can have resounding effects on self defense. In spite of the video, I would say it was justified. I hope that the jurors are not swayed by public opinion or perception of irrelevant issues such as race or minority.
-
Thinking about Deedy's defense, I think he may be screwed.
1. By claiming self defense, he is admitting in court that he killed Elderts. Now he has to make a case why he was justified.
2. By the standards that we Hawaii civilians would be judged in Hawaii, did Deedy feel his life was in danger that it warranted lethal force? By the standards that we civilians would be judged, why did he have a gun in the first place?
3. So the only real chance Deedy has is by establishing his LEO status and seeing what the LEO code (?) says about justification for his actions.
First of all, Deedy had better not be drunk! If he was drunk at the time, even if he is LEO, he would not have been fit for duty and should not have been acting cop at that time.
Elderts attacking a LEO was a very bad move. Since there was a struggle for the gun, then Deedy could say that he had no choice.
-
Thinking about Deedy's defense, I think he may be screwed.
1. By claiming self defense, he is admitting in court that he killed Elderts. Now he has to make a case why he was justified.
2. By the standards that we Hawaii civilians would be judged in Hawaii, did Deedy feel his life was in danger that it warranted lethal force? By the standards that we civilians would be judged, why did he have a gun in the first place?
3. So the only real chance Deedy has is by establishing his LEO status and seeing what the LEO code (?) says about justification for his actions.
First of all, Deedy had better not be drunk! If he was drunk at the time, even if he is LEO, he would not have been fit for duty and should not have been acting cop at that time.
Elderts attacking a LEO was a very bad move. Since there was a struggle for the gun, then Deedy could say that he had no choice.
1: He shot the guy in the middle of a crowded McDonald's. I don't think the Shaggy "Wasn't Me" line was going to work, so self defense is pretty much all that's left anyway.
2: This is the pivotal question of the case, although luckily for Deedy the video makes it pretty clear that he was unable to retreat "in perfect safety", so that idiotic portion of the statute shouldn't bite him. He had a gun because he's an LEO with arrest powers, and legally entitled to do so. He had a gun in case someone in McDonald's tried to kill him; turns out it was a prudent idea.
3: I could be wrong on this, but LEO rules for use of deadly force are pretty much the same as civilians. I think the big differences are in the amount of immunity from civil suits they're afforded. Someone with more knowledge than me could chime in.
-
I don't understand the persistent desire that people here seem to have to protect and preserve the time-honored monkey dances. My tagline about being a fluffy white bunny is a reference to a past thread where a supposedly pro-gun type kept saying that we shouldn't have concealed carry in Hawaii because tourists might not understand that locals just want to put a few lumps on their heads and end up shooting said local. Apparently beating up tourists is just good, clean fun and nobody should get hurt over it? (Except the tourist, of course.) What should be our bigger concern: protecting guys who like to get drunk and/or high and raise hell, or protecting the right of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to carry meaningful defensive tools?
I'm not defending monkey dances but acknowledge that people do engage in them for many social reasons. Most monkey dances are not mortal kombats and when two people engage in them, they usually are more for establishing social dominance (alpha males vs beta males) than for taking another person's life. These monkey dances get dangerous though when you bring in weapons (or multiple friends) into the mix.
I do not know what was said in that escalation, but perhaps Elderts was attempting to engage Deedy in some kind of stupid monkey dance. Deedy probably did not see it that way and fell back on his LEO training of shooting an attacker.
-
I'm not defending monkey dances but acknowledge that people do engage in them for many social reasons. Most monkey dances are not mortal kombats and when two people engage in them, they usually are more for establishing social dominance (alpha males vs beta males) than for taking another person's life. These monkey dances get dangerous though when you bring in weapons (or multiple friends) into the mix.
I do not know what was said in that escalation, but perhaps Elderts was attempting to engage Deedy in some kind of stupid monkey dance. Deedy probably did not see it that way and fell back on his LEO training of shooting an attacker.
Lol, I just think Hawaii residents are capable of evolving past the point of establishing social dominance through beefing. I do agree that adding legal concealed carry to the mix makes monkey dances much more dangerous--but that's the whole point.
-
Are on duty LEO in Hawaii required to submit to a drug and alcohol test following a similar encounter?
-
Some of this came out in the Zimmerman trial, but many pathologists are begining to say that the effects of today's marijuana is not the same of marijuana in the past. It's no longer the "let's chill, eat whitecastle burgers" kind of drug in many instances. This comes from the way it is grown and manufactured.
Dang interesting comment Chris!!! Look how adulterated cigs are for example and those are supposed to be controlled substances.
-
Lol, I just think Hawaii residents are capable of evolving past the point of establishing social dominance through beefing. I do agree that adding legal concealed carry to the mix makes monkey dances much more dangerous--but that's the whole point.
I think monkey dances used to be less dangerous as people back then were probably more averse to taking someone's life.
I don't have a link to the actual study, but back before the WWII era (?), the US Army found that their soldiers at war were purposely missing their enemies because they didn't want to take another person's life. The US Army realized that they had a problem, so they had to institute a system that desensitizes the soldiers and take away the internal blocks that made soldiers hesitate in shooting the enemy.
Unfortunately, this same desensitization techniques that the US Army used on the soldiers are now also being used on our kids both through violent imagery on TV or with violent computer games. Since this has been happening for many generation, I believe we have several generations of kids and young adults now that have little or no inhibition in taking someone's life.
I don't want to paint too broad a stroke but some of these guys are probably serving as soldiers and LEOs now. I can understand why for soldiers as soldiers are meant for offense. But LEOs are meant for defense and for keeping the peace. Kinda concerning when a LEO's first thought (and not the last option) to a situation is to shoot the suspect instead of talking to them first. Maybe this is not true so much in Hawaii, but perhaps it explains the 100+ bullet holes on the two ladies blue truck mistaken by LAPD for Dorner's truck.
One thing for sure, this desensitization makes our criminals more dangerous.
When the internal blocks against taking someone's life are removed from kids and young adults these days, doesn't that create a more dangerous society?
[edit] just so you know I am not making this up, here is an article on this written by retired US Army Lt Col Dave Grossman titled "Trained to Kill": http://www.killology.com/art_trained_methods.htm
-
"Nothing good ever happens after ___ o'clock"
Wow, lots of fail going on in the afterhours video. Other guy in shorts was getting knocked down and then it all happens.
-
>:D
-
>:D
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22808676/day-3-christopher-deedy-murder-trial?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9079578 (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22808676/day-3-christopher-deedy-murder-trial?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9079578)
-
I think monkey dances used to be less dangerous as people back then were probably more averse to taking someone's life.
I don't have a link to the actual study, but back before the WWII era (?), the US Army found that their soldiers at war were purposely missing their enemies because they didn't want to take another person's life. The US Army realized that they had a problem, so they had to institute a system that desensitizes the soldiers and take away the internal blocks that made soldiers hesitate in shooting the enemy.
Unfortunately, this same desensitization techniques that the US Army used on the soldiers are now also being used on our kids both through violent imagery on TV or with violent computer games. Since this has been happening for many generation, I believe we have several generations of kids and young adults now that have little or no inhibition in taking someone's life.
I don't want to paint too broad a stroke but some of these guys are probably serving as soldiers and LEOs now. I can understand why for soldiers as soldiers are meant for offense. But LEOs are meant for defense and for keeping the peace. Kinda concerning when a LEO's first thought (and not the last option) to a situation is to shoot the suspect instead of talking to them first. Maybe this is not true so much in Hawaii, but perhaps it explains the 100+ bullet holes on the two ladies blue truck mistaken by LAPD for Dorner's truck.
One thing for sure, this desensitization makes our criminals more dangerous.
When the internal blocks against taking someone's life are removed from kids and young adults these days, doesn't that create a more dangerous society?
[edit] just so you know I am not making this up, here is an article on this written by retired US Army Lt Col Dave Grossman titled "Trained to Kill": http://www.killology.com/art_trained_methods.htm (http://www.killology.com/art_trained_methods.htm)
You're right about this.
-
Evolve? AIN'T NOBODY GOT TIME FO DAT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFEoMO0pc7k)
Love me some Sweet Brown!
-
Video quality is doo doo, but it has been released.
http://www.khon2.com/2013/07/10/prosecutors-show-surveillance-video-in-deedy-murder-trial/ (http://www.khon2.com/2013/07/10/prosecutors-show-surveillance-video-in-deedy-murder-trial/)
-
The video with the other angle shows something that wasn't on the first video.. where Deedy goes up to the sitting Elderts and "talks" with him.
Again, not sure what was said that night at that McDonalds but the moment 2 people decide to engage in a stupid "monkey dance", one can no longer really be saying that they were acting in self defense.
Did Deedy identify himself as a LEO to Elderts? What would a LEO have said?
In the use of deadly force, one should show that there were no other options for avoiding, escaping or de-escalating the situation. If Deedy was involved in escalating the situation, then self defense argument is a no go. If he was drunk, then his judgment would be impaired and not fit for duty.
Like mnpfamily, I also would like to know what is SOP for the aftermath of investigating officers involved in a fatal shooting. Drug test? Alcohol test? If an off-duty HPD officer was in Deedy's place, what kind of process would he have had to undergo?
[edit] woohoo! 1000th post! ;D
-
I watched the video a few times, but it looks like after the "first round" deedy is on the ground and elders is walking away.
I assume something more was said, which is perhaps why elders returned, which played out in round "2", the counter situation and deedy reaching for his gun.
My assumption, not saying its right or wrong, just what I think happened is deedy caught cracks, keep running his mouth and elders was gonna give him more cracks.
I've seen it before, one monkey loses the dance, but keeps running their mouth, and catches more cracks, in the second and third round.
-
It seems to me that Deedy was the one that instigated the fight when he confronted a sitting down Elderts. Then when both men were standing instead of trying to descalate the situation and walk away from Elderts when he had the opertunity he tried to give Elderts a little kick which lead to Elderts taking him down.I'm sure if Elderts wanted to he could of ground and pounded Deedy right there but he got up and walked away and like what bass monkey said Deedy probably started running his mouth more which lead to the tragic ending.
-
That's exactly what it looks like.
Elderts is talking with/possibly harassing the guy next to him at the counter while ordering.
Deedy goes to guy that was next to Elderts and talks to him.
Deedy then approaches Elderts ( while his girlfirend is trying to stop him ) while Elderts is just sitting at his table and says something. Hoping to be knight in shining armor/intimidate Elderts.
Most likely offensive as Elderts gets up. Fightin' words.
Monkey dance ensues, more fightin' words are said and Elderts drops Deedy.
In the local spirit of up and up, Elderts steps off.
Deedy gets up and runs his mouth again, which locally, moke mentality, requires a round 2.
Round 2 ends tragically.
Not really self defense.
-
Yeah, I don't think self defense will fly. But because his attorney has claimed "self defense", he is automatically admitting guilt. However, he will have a hard time defending and justifying his use of force since he seemed to have had several opportunities to walk away or diffuse the situation. Worse for him if he actually escalated the situation.
His only other recourse now then is about being a LEO. My question then is this.. If it was a local off-duty LEO in his place, what would the local off-duty LEO have done in that situation? What would the SOP be for reviewing the incident and would a local LEO be justified in the shooting?
-
My question then is this.. If it was a local off-duty LEO in his place, what would the local off-duty LEO have done in that situation? What would the SOP be for reviewing the incident and would a local LEO be justified in the shooting?
If it was a local off duty police officer, the videos would have never been made public, an "internal" investigation would be done.
Then a HPD rep would hold a press conference claiming that the shooting is justified.
Don't you remember a similar situation occurred recently in waimanalo where an unarmed guy "resisted" and was beat to death.
What happened to the officer that killed that guy?
-
Good point, KK. Goooood point.
The Waimanalo guy was the guy who was standing next to a stolen vehicle and got hog-tied by HPD?
This one? The one that didn't suffer any "assaultive" injuries?
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20130604_Investigation_started_into_incident_that_leaves_man_unresponsive.html?id=210196521 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20130604_Investigation_started_into_incident_that_leaves_man_unresponsive.html?id=210196521)
-
Good point, KK. Goooood point.
The Waimanalo guy was the guy who was standing next to a stolen vehicle and got hog-tied by HPD?
Yup.
In my opinion, if Deedy identified himself as a LEO, he walks.
I've personally witnessed off duty LEO's beat the shit out of other people at bars or clubs.
None of them were ever arrested, charged or convicted of anything.
I'm not saying if its right or wrong, just stating what I have first hand knowledge of.
-
I don't know man Angle 2 to me looks like Deedy was trying to de-escalate the fight by the garbage can (they pounding on dark shorts guy) then Elderts knocks him to the ground and returns to garbage can fight. Deedy gets up and again intervenes when the monkey dance truly begins and bang bang bang. The original fight never stopped and ended up out the door too.
Skinny jeans hipster at the counter in the very beginning key witness. I can guess the words exchanged already but all will become public eventually.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
-
I'm not sure.. to me, de-escalating means calming both persons down or saying something like "c'mon man. let's go."
Things like "oh yeah? you like beef?" or something like "are you sure you want to get shot?" isn't de-escalation.
I'm not really sure what was said by both at that night. What is important right now is what Deedy said, since Elderts is already dead.
-
I'm not sure.. to me, de-escalating means calming both persons down or saying something like "c'mon man. let's go."
Things like "oh yeah? you like beef?" or something like "are you sure you want to get shot?" isn't de-escalation.
I'm not really sure what was said by both at that night. What is important right now is what Deedy said, since Elderts is already dead.
From a professional stand point, "Do you want to get shot?" Is certainly de-escalation. Officers will threaten the use of force to get an individual to back down, normally this is done with tasers / oc etc. by the time a gun comes into play it's probably SHTF lol. It's pretty similar to the "Stop or I will shoot." That's really all that is being said.
-
Thanks for clarifying Chris. I suppose we really should wait to hear more about what transpired that night since there is no audio in the video footage.
I admit I was superimposing my own dialogue in that silent movie.
For all we know, they could be arguing about who gets the upstairs River Street special door prize or perhaps there was a gay lover's quarrel among the three. :shrug:
:popcorn:
-
1) someone said racism got nothing to do with this. BS! Local haole hating is by definition racism, and it is pervasively culturally acceptable; just as that towards southern Christians is, evidenced by the rampant ubiquitous use of redneck, trailer-trash, etc, in mainland language. Everyone in HI knows this, locals and ESPECIALLY haole! Just know, that regardless of the facts - if I can borrow that Liz idiot's sentiment - if a white guy was in an altercation with a black LEO and witnesses stated he called the LEO an f'ing n'ggah, there would be no trial - prosecution would not have brought charges. Racism towards blacks is unacceptable; that towards whites (mainland) and haole (HI) is acceptable, and decidedly explicable and justified - thanks libs!
2) for the record, Deedy was devoid of good judgement - drunk OR sober - for approaching Elderts. By that, he absolutely helped precipitate the confrontation, but he did not initiate the violence; HI self defense laws state that initiating violence will disallow you self defense protections, but approaching Elderts was not initiating violence.
3) Now.....If a uniformed or off-duty HPD officer approached Elderts, he likely would have chilled out; that's just how it is. Either of those LEO's would most likely have commanded compliance from Elderts. But even if Deedy identified himself as a federal agent, I would not have expected Elderts to respond with any thought process other than....'who gives a shit! You're not a cop; you got no business telling me shit! This ain't a crime scene; there's no investigation going on; who are you to tell me anything!' That's just reality; a drunk troublemaker should not be expected to comply with other than HPD - I wouldn't expect that if I was a federal LEO!
4) assuming Deedy would be intuitive enough to know a drunk troublemaking local (he was warned about us LOCALS!) would not take kindly to a mainland haole telling him to chill, Deedy would have known Elderts would have done nothing but not let himself look like a punk, and therefore respond with aggression. By this, Deedy put himself in a situation wherein he would have been 'justified' in using his firearm in self defense. That's bad judgement!
Same as with a private CC citizen. Even if a guy is harassing other people, why would I try to tell him to leave people alone knowing full well he would react to me with aggression, thus putting my self in a position to use my firearm!? I wouldn't, and Deedy should have been expected to be just as wise.
5) so was it legal self defense? Yes. Did Deedy unnecessarily put himself in a position to use his firearm? Yes. Bad judgement? Yes, but likely not innocently; maybe just a little bit of that tough guy LEO thing going on....I think so.
-
:closed:
-
Sorry Moosed, I didn't realize that by voicing an opinion like everyone else, and by rhetorically observing how differently prosecutors react to similar cases depending on the race of those involved, was equivalent to asserting there shouldn't be a trial.
-
Tell the jury to go home, and tell Deedy he's free to go. Hucklebuck has just solved the case! No need for forensics, witnesses, or evidence.
That sure saved us alot of time and tax dollars!! Thanks!! :shaka:
:popcorn:
:stopjack:
-
The video with the other angle shows something that wasn't on the first video.. where Deedy goes up to the sitting Elderts and "talks" with him.
Again, not sure what was said that night at that McDonalds but the moment 2 people decide to engage in a stupid "monkey dance", one can no longer really be saying that they were acting in self defense.
Did Deedy identify himself as a LEO to Elderts? What would a LEO have said?
In the use of deadly force, one should show that there were no other options for avoiding, escaping or de-escalating the situation. If Deedy was involved in escalating the situation, then self defense argument is a no go. If he was drunk, then his judgment would be impaired and not fit for duty.
Like mnpfamily, I also would like to know what is SOP for the aftermath of investigating officers involved in a fatal shooting. Drug test? Alcohol test? If an off-duty HPD officer was in Deedy's place, what kind of process would he have had to undergo?
[edit] woohoo! 1000th post! ;D
Good points Jl808 and ones that apply to private citizens, however we need to remember that as a LEO, they can do things that we cannot as private citizens. If this was a private citizen with a CCW he'd be in trouble because he is contributory to the altercation.........in other words why not just walk away and call the police/LEO.
In Deedy's case he can and does act as a LEO and therefore may not be able to walk away.
This said, without sound it's really difficult to determine what was happening and eye witnesses are notoriously inaccurate on what happens. IMHO there's usually my side/his side and the truth usually lies somewhere in between those two extremes.
-
Good point, KK. Goooood point.
The Waimanalo guy was the guy who was standing next to a stolen vehicle and got hog-tied by HPD?
This one? The one that didn't suffer any "assaultive" injuries?
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20130604_Investigation_started_into_incident_that_leaves_man_unresponsive.html?id=210196521 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20130604_Investigation_started_into_incident_that_leaves_man_unresponsive.html?id=210196521)
Couple of things.
1. No assaultive injuries was further clarified by the Medical Examiner to mean that the wounds were consistent with restraint type force (I guess as opposed to puching/kicking/etc. a guy).
2. See link below. Per this story some of his injuries could have been from an altercation prior to the involvement of police. Not saying the police did or didn't kick the crap out of this guy, but just saying the case isn't so cut and dried as we might be led to believe.
http://www.khon2.com/2013/06/12/attorney-says-third-party-involved-in-kaneohe-mans-death/ (http://www.khon2.com/2013/06/12/attorney-says-third-party-involved-in-kaneohe-mans-death/)
-
Like everyone else? Not me. I prefer to base my opinion on substantiated facts, something we rarely get in the media now. So far, we're getting just enough to tease the public viewing audience so they tune in for the next episode.
I agree, we need to hear the whole story.
It'll be interesting to hear what law Elderts was breaking that required LEO intervention. Other than being a dick. He was sitting at a table when approached.
He didn't appear violent in the video when Deedy approached him. While his girlfriend was trying to pull Deedy away.
Why not tell him to get his ass on the ground and put his hands behind his back. credentials and gun out, until HPD arrives if he was breaking the law ?
Did he tell anyone to call 911 after being assaulted and knocked on his ass ?
It's posible it was self-defense on the part of Elderts after Deedy fired shots that missed and Elderts charged him. He didn't hit him until the third shot by all accounts.
What would the members here do if shots were fired at them from close range ? LEO or not. ?
Hopefully we hear from Shawn Medeiros, the people behind the counter and the guy who was being harassed.
-
What would the members here do if shots were fired at them from close range ? LEO or not. ?
Neo stops bullets (HD-720p) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guVAeFs5XwE#ws)
I usually just keep on being awesome 8)
ok, sorry...
:stopjack:
-
If he had alcohol in his system, he should not have been carrying a firearm, and should not have been on-duty or acting in that capacity. If he did not have alcohol in his system, he should've taken the test.
The allegations that fights will escalate to someone getting shot, especially when the possibility that alcohol consumption by the person carrying the firearm cannot be ruled out, is one of the reasons often cited by those who are opposed to concealed carry. As one who is in favor of concealed carry rights, I can think of several instances where a properly trained citizen carrying a concealed firearm may have been able to favorably change the outcome of a violent encounter, even right here in Hawaii, however this one incident, in my opinion plays right into the hands of those opposed to concealed carry, perhaps even more than the Zimmerman case.
-
I agree, we need to hear the whole story. +1
It'll be interesting to hear what law Elderts was breaking that required LEO intervention. Other than being a dick. He was sitting at a table when approached.
Often times just being a dick will illicit LEO intervention
It's posible it was self-defense on the part of Elderts after Deedy fired shots that missed and Elderts charged him. He didn't hit him until the third shot by all accounts.
I'm calling B.S. on this one. Nobody runs back at someone after they've been shot at, it's not human nature.
What would the members here do if shots were fired at them from close range ? LEO or not. ?
Take cover or get the hell out. Certainly not run unarmed back at the guy firing at me.
-
Typical blame shifting.
You should listen to your own advice.
This thread has nothing to do with me, it's about your snobbish condescending remarks that you post.
But I understand how it hurts your feelings to hear it so you lash out.
I forgive you.
Well said, Kingkeoni!
-
>:D
-
:stopjack:
-
Well so much for my key witness, skinny jeans hipster. Says he had 3 shots & a pitcher and didn't remember anything. Believe it or not.
-
Well so much for my key witness, skinny jeans hipster. Says he had 3 shots & a pitcher and didn't remember anything. Believe it or not.
So Deedy confronted shot and killed Elderts for some one who was drunk, didn't ask for help, didn't feel threatened and didn't remember anything. And people wonder why there is a stigma for "haoles" from the mainland that get into everyone's business. What a waist of a life
-
And nuttin fo nuttin.....but what about braddah? Da security guard who look like he was waiting fo da hele-on, leaning on the soda machine while haole n kolohe scrap....exactly why did they hire him?
-
So Deedy confronted shot and killed Elderts for some one who was drunk, didn't ask for help, didn't feel threatened and didn't remember anything. And people wonder why there is a stigma for "haoles" from the mainland that get into everyone's business. What a waist of a life
No I didn't mean that. Only that he was a witness. Hipster was sitting down during the action, the other guy was getting pounded over by the garbage can. That was who Deedy was trying to protect?
-
Neo stops bullets (HD-720p) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guVAeFs5XwE#ws)
I usually just keep on being awesome 8)
ok, sorry...
:stopjack:
Neo stops bullets (HD-720p) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guVAeFs5XwE#ws)
Don't mean to derail this thread but don't those bullets look like hard cast without gas checks? Didn't know Agent Smith and his entourage were reloaders. Changes my whole perspective on the movie. No, really.
-
I watched the surveillance video.
1-While Elderts was ordering food, Deedy stood up and was watching him.
2-Elderts sat down and was waiting for his order. BY HIMSELF.
3- Then Deedy approached Elderts and initiated contact.
The key here is that Elderts was not bothering anybody at the moment that Deedy approached him.
According to what I see in the video, Elderts did nothing to justify LEO intervention.
One thing that bothers me is that Deedy reaches behind his right hip at the outset of his contact.
He might have been reaching for his LEO badge, but you all should watch it for yourself.
The video just reinforces my opinion that I stated earlier that Deedy was not adhering to that "higher standard of conduct".
-
If he had alcohol in his system, he should not have been carrying a firearm, and should not have been on-duty or acting in that capacity. If he did not have alcohol in his system, he should've taken the test.
The allegations that fights will escalate to someone getting shot, especially when the possibility that alcohol consumption by the person carrying the firearm cannot be ruled out, is one of the reasons often cited by those who are opposed to concealed carry. As one who is in favor of concealed carry rights, I can think of several instances where a properly trained citizen carrying a concealed firearm may have been able to favorably change the outcome of a violent encounter, even right here in Hawaii, however this one incident, in my opinion plays right into the hands of those opposed to concealed carry, perhaps even more than the Zimmerman case.
There needs to be a distinction between a private citizen with CCW and and LEO carrying. Not the same thing.
A private citizen can walk away and LEO may not be able to walk away. Again video is bad, there's no audio, and eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate so we don't know for sure what was said and when it was said.
-
I don't know if any of you are watching the trial but so far it looks like they're railroading Deedy.
-
Where can we watch it at ? I'm following it in the paper but they don't give a lot of info.
In response to your prior post KK:
I agree, we need to hear the whole story. +1
It'll be interesting to hear what law Elderts was breaking that required LEO intervention. Other than being a dick. He was sitting at a table when approached.
Often times just being a dick will illicit LEO intervention
From the video looks like his being a dick had subsided. Even hipster jeans guy said he didn't feel threatened and didn't need help.
It's posible it was self-defense on the part of Elderts after Deedy fired shots that missed and Elderts charged him. He didn't hit him until the third shot by all accounts.
I'm calling B.S. on this one. Nobody runs back at someone after they've been shot at, it's not human nature.
Shots from 2 feet You don't have to run back at anyone, just reach out to get the muzzle away from you. ( not that it's that easy)
Looks like Elderts reached for Deedy's hand when pulled his pistol. Maybe that's why he missed high twice.
And Deedy had already allegedly told Elderts he would shoot him. It's possible Elderts actually thought he would once he pulled his gun.
What would the members here do if shots were fired at them from close range ? LEO or not. ?
Take cover or get the hell out. Certainly not run unarmed back at the guy firing at me.
Not much cover or places to run at 2 feet away. Can't out run a bullet. Serpentine. Serpentine.
Did Deedy Identify himself as LEO ? Big question. Hope we find out.
Did he call for back up from local PD after he was cracked. Sure hope so, but no indication of such. Things may have happened too fast.
Is he being railroaded. Of course he is, it's only the prosecution's case up to this point.
Let's see what the defense has to say.
And hope Deedy gets a fair trial.
P.S.
Ku, love that Matrix vid. That's what I would do. 8)
-
I don't know if any of you are watching the trial but so far it looks like they're railroading Deedy.
Yep.....and what's breathtaking is how the prosecution uses the race card AGAINST DEEDY! The mental gymnastics is breathtaking: saying 'f'ing haole' does not make ELDERTS racist, but deedy being legitimately advised of such racism, makes HIM racist!
-
>:D
-
Here's what I don't understand....
If Deedy is "LEO", then we should look at his actions to the standards that we would expect of a LEO. If he has LEO powers on duty and off duty 24 hours, he should be fit for duty 24 hours too. That's what you would expect of a LEO right? Someone going bar hopping and drunk (was he?) should not be acting LEO that night.
Where was his LEO ID? What is involved in identifying yourself as a LEO? If some tourist in shorts and shirt came up to me and said he was arresting me, I wouldn't believe him unless he looked the part and showed some ID. Wouldn't you have to show your badge?
What was the SOP for reviewing a LEO use of deadly force? Did he undergo the same process? If he was acting as a LEO that night, he should have gone through such a process. If not, he was not a LEO that night unless someone didn't do their job right.
Of course, this is all up to the court and jury.
-
Yep.....and what's breathtaking is how the prosecution uses the race card AGAINST DEEDY! The mental gymnastics is breathtaking: saying 'f'ing haole' does not make ELDERTS racist, but deedy being legitimately advised of such racism, makes HIM racist!
Everything I've read indicates that's Elderts was the racist/prejudiced one and nothing has indicated Deedy was. Just that he was warned about Hawaii's ingrained prejudice.
What about Finkelstein's, the other federal agent advising Deedy of Hawaii's prejudice against fed agents and mainlanders, testimony that he cautioned Deedy to stay away from certain places at night due to this and Deedy replied that he would be armed.
Of course we're just getting piecemeal info.
Remember a few years back, when the 'white' sheriff was shot by the local guy, who had an illegal firearm? I find it interesting that case never garnered this much local publicity, nor did I see any of the people 'demanding justice' when a when the white guy was shot. It's evident that there is extreme prejudice, as well as underlying racial issues, in regards to deedy's case.
The guy who shot the Deputy Sheriff with the illegally obtained firearm was sentenced to 95 years minimum term ( if my math's correct) , as terms on all counts were to run consecutively.
We won't see him again.
-
"Finkelstein is Einhorn, Einhorn is Finkelstein"
-
If Deedy is "LEO", then we should look at his actions to the standards that we would expect of a LEO. If he has LEO powers on duty and off duty 24 hours, he should be fit for duty 24 hours too. That's junk imo. How would that even be possible? You don't lose your powers every time you crack a Heineken. Even in the Navy, we are "on duty" and people drink then too. On Canadian warships they have beer limits per day.
No, you should not have to be fit for duty 24 hours a day.[/b]That's what you would expect of a LEO right? Maybe that's what you expect, but I would wholeheartedly disagree.
Someone going bar hopping and drunk (was he? For Deedy's sake, they don't know, as he was smart enough to refuse all testing. ) should not be acting LEO that night. Do you really think cops don't drink? Come on man - that is such a dreamed up thought. They drink all the time. Do they get shitfaced? We hope not. But most of them are still probably not far away from a gun. Just because your drinking, doesn't mean you stop being a LEO. Let's say you are coming from zanza bar and you witness a rape, are you saying don't intervene because you had a few mai tais?
-
Yes you're right. At some point though, one becomes unfit for duty if judgment becomes impaired. Isn't that why they say not to mix alcohol and firearms? Being a LEO doesn't make one immune from intoxicants.
As for the Navy, isn't that why alcohol got replaced with coffee and monster drink?
Whether cops drink or not isn't really the question. The question is, does the fact they do make it right? No, it doesn't.
Cops and other public figures are supposed to be upheld to a higher standard. It's about up keeping the public trust that they swore an oath to when they chose to serve.
-
I agree, we need to hear the whole story.
It'll be interesting to hear what law Elderts was breaking that required LEO intervention. Other than being a dick. He was sitting at a table when approached.
He didn't appear violent in the video when Deedy approached him. While his girlfriend was trying to pull Deedy away.
Why not tell him to get his ass on the ground and put his hands behind his back. credentials and gun out, until HPD arrives if he was breaking the law ?
Did he tell anyone to call 911 after being assaulted and knocked on his ass ? ...........
One could make a case for;
1. Terroristic threatening
2. Drunk and disorderly
3. Failure to comply (if Deedy identified himself)
if LEOs want to detain/question you there are a lot of things that they can bring up. Don't mistake this for someone actually being charged, but it could get you handcuffed, arrested, etc.
-
There needs to be a distinction between a private citizen with CCW and and LEO carrying. Not the same thing.
A private citizen can walk away and LEO may not be able to walk away. Again video is bad, there's no audio, and eyewitnesses are notoriously inaccurate so we don't know for sure what was said and when it was said.
GZire, thanks for pointing that out, I did lose sight of the fact that a private citizen could have walked away from the incident whereas an LEO actually may have a "duty to act". While I agree there needs to be a distinction between citizen CCW and LEO carrying off duty, I would like to think the same general guidelines regarding firearm safety would apply, such as drinking/partying while carrying a firearm is generally not a real good idea. I would like to think that because an LEO may have a legal "duty to act" this would in some ways be even more important if the individual is an LEO. I'm not saying off-duty LEOs shouldn't drink, just wondering what their procedures are regarding carrying firearms in that situation. Problem is, there may not be any BAC results to prove one way or another as he allegedly refused the test. If he wasn't impaired, why not submit to the test?
-
If he wasn't impaired, why not submit to the test?
Because he has a constitutional right to not incriminate himself? Let's say he did have one - of those nine drinks. Would that sufficiently impair him? I would say the answer to that depends on your bartender. However, even if he took it and blew like .04 - people wil still ruffle their feathers.
When an individual is in trouble, we never, ever, want to assist the other side. You can say what you want, but until you start pulling yourself over for hitting 56 on the freeway - and send in a $100 check to the State -- I just don't see where a normal person would ever want to help the other side punish them. This applies to DUI, speeding, fraud, murder - whatever crime you want to think of. Put yourselves in their shoes. Would you want to go to prison?
-
Yes you're right. At some point though, one becomes unfit for duty if judgment becomes impaired. Isn't that why they say not to mix alcohol and firearms? Being a LEO doesn't make one immune from intoxicants.
As for the Navy, isn't that why alcohol got replaced with coffee and monster drink?
Whether cops drink or not isn't really the question. The question is, does the fact they do make it right? No, it doesn't.
Cops and other public figures are supposed to be upheld to a higher standard. It's about up keeping the public trust that they swore an oath to when they chose to serve.
I'll put another argument forth. If an LEO is expected to be fit 24 hours a day then that means they must never sleep correct?
Just like statistics, politicians, and lawyers...........it's all about how things are spun to the crowd. Typically the weak minded are swayed easily..................[those aren't the droids you are looking for]
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4025/4436542724_a2224484fa.jpg)
-
Because he has a constitutional right to not incriminate himself? Let's say he did have one - of those nine drinks. Would that sufficiently impair him? I would say the answer to that depends on your bartender. However, even if he took it and blew like .04 - people wil still ruffle their feathers.
When an individual is in trouble, we never, ever, want to assist the other side. You can say what you want, but until you start pulling yourself over for hitting 56 on the freeway - and send in a $100 check to the State -- I just don't see where a normal person would ever want to help the other side punish them. This applies to DUI, speeding, fraud, murder - whatever crime you want to think of. Put yourselves in their shoes. Would you want to go to prison?
I see your point, and will agree that refusing the test probably was in his best interest if he had been drinking. The thing is, should he have been carrying if he had been drinking? There's more to this situation that bothers me, but like most of us, the only info I have to form a judgment is what we get from the media.
-
One could make a case for;
1. Terroristic threatening
2. Drunk and disorderly
3. Failure to comply (if Deedy identified himself)
if LEOs want to detain/question you there are a lot of things that they can bring up. Don't mistake this for someone actually being charged, but it could get you handcuffed, arrested, etc.
1. Witness ( skinny jeans hipster ) says he didn't feel threatened and didn't ask for help. If it was terrostic threatening, arrest should have been made right there. No complainant though.
2. How disorderly can you be siting at a table ? And if he was deemed drunk and disorderly, arrest should have been made right there. Heck, should have been made before he sat down.
3. Failure to comply with what. Did Deedy thell him Shut the F Up and he didn't listen ? We don't see any ID come out at that point in the video. Although he could have ID'd himself. Who would believe a guy who just tells you he's a "special agent".
Handcuffed. Yup. Arrested. Yup. Called out to beef and Shot ?
Deedy never detained him, it appears he provoked him. No reports of him calling for HPD, who's on every block in Waikiki. Could have stepped out the door and literally yeld for HPD. ( Maybe not literally but you get the picture. )
Heck, as far as I know HPD can hold you for 48 hours without charges. ( I could be wrong though and you could possibly sue them for wrongful detainment )
Can't wait for the defense to present their case. This thread will get interesting. :shaka:
-
I'll put another argument forth. If an LEO is expected to be fit 24 hours a day then that means they must never sleep correct?
Yes I agree with you... It is an absurd expectation.
And you just made a point that it is absurd to expect a LEO to be fit for duty 24x7... especially if one had been drinking.
-
Because he has a constitutional right to not incriminate himself? Let's say he did have one - of those nine drinks. Would that sufficiently impair him? I would say the answer to that depends on your bartender. However, even if he took it and blew like .04 - people wil still ruffle their feathers.
When an individual is in trouble, we never, ever, want to assist the other side. You can say what you want, but until you start pulling yourself over for hitting 56 on the freeway - and send in a $100 check to the State -- I just don't see where a normal person would ever want to help the other side punish them. This applies to DUI, speeding, fraud, murder - whatever crime you want to think of. Put yourselves in their shoes. Would you want to go to prison?
Hawaii has a law that can require a mandatory blood test for alcohol/drugs in a fatal car accident but not in a fatal shooting.
It would be interesting if someone invoked their 5th amendment right in fatal car crash with suspected negligent homicide.
-
Double post.
-
Hawaii has a law that can require a mandatory blood test for alcohol/drugs in a fatal car accident but not in a fatal shooting.
It would be interesting if someone invoked their 5th amendment right in fatal car crash with suspected negligent homicide.
I could see a similar law for individuals involved in a suspected homicide / murder etc. It's currently not the case though; also, driving is a privilege - so you consent to some things off the bat.
Could they institute a "you will be blood tested if you are suspected of using your firearm in a defensive or offensive manner." I think they could get away with it.
-
Hawaii has a law that can require a mandatory blood test for alcohol/drugs in a fatal car accident but not in a fatal shooting.
It would be interesting if someone invoked their 5th amendment right in fatal car crash with suspected negligent homicide.
I was wondering about that, but is it mandatory in the sense that they can take a blood sample even if you refuse to provide? Or is it like refusing to submit to a BAC after a DUI arrest where you basically foreit your license for a period of time?
-
I was wondering about that, but is it mandatory in the sense that they can take a blood sample even if you refuse to provide? Or is it like refusing to submit to a BAC after a DUI arrest where you basically foreit your license for a period of time?
It could be done by force. Some departments have a chair.
Wyoming blood draw 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0qXiCejVbM#)
-
Forget hipster dude he was sitting down after ordering and no part of the physical altercation. There was some words that's why everybody crowded around there but he sitting down the whole time until ran to hide behind the counter. His reaction after the shoots is chilling, the horror of what just happen. I think b.s. he doesn't remember what happened but it is what it is.
But who is the guy in the black top, blue shorts that was fighting with Elderts by the garbage can??? There's the key. What predicated that!? At 4:14 in the first video segment Elderts got him around neck (good position to deliver a knee btw) that when all this goes down and Deedy physically intervenes and is knocked to the ground. Shit goes completely sideways from there. Black top blue shorts guy walks in at 2:57 on video part 2, who dat?
Does this suck a@@ badly yes! If Deedy was acting in police powers he should've showed his dang badge to begin with, called HPD whatever. There was plenty chances to de-escalate by talking everybody down, hell they were smiling at the counter looks like it to me although probably at the expense of hipster.
This fkg sucks all around.
-
As you said: Play stupid games, get stupid prizes.
This totally sucks for the CCW Cause, no matter how we slice it. >:(
If a trained federal agent does ....... what would a civilian do.......
No matter how you slice it, Deedy didn't save anybody's life and nobody was being attacked until he stepped into it. ( IMO )
I know. LEO.
When's the last time an off-duty HPD ( who'd probably been drinking ) shot a guy for being a drunken ass. As KK said, they just beat the shit out of you. (without repercussion)
This fkg sucks all around.
+1
-
1. Witness ( skinny jeans hipster ) says he didn't feel threatened and didn't ask for help. If it was terrostic threatening, arrest should have been made right there. No complainant though.
2. How disorderly can you be siting at a table ? And if he was deemed drunk and disorderly, arrest should have been made right there. Heck, should have been made before he sat down.
3. Failure to comply with what. Did Deedy thell him Shut the F Up and he didn't listen ? We don't see any ID come out at that point in the video. Although he could have ID'd himself. Who would believe a guy who just tells you he's a "special agent".
Handcuffed. Yup. Arrested. Yup. Called out to beef and Shot ?
Deedy never detained him, it appears he provoked him. No reports of him calling for HPD, who's on every block in Waikiki. Could have stepped out the door and literally yeld for HPD. ( Maybe not literally but you get the picture. )
Heck, as far as I know HPD can hold you for 48 hours without charges. ( I could be wrong though and you could possibly sue them for wrongful detainment )
Can't wait for the defense to present their case. This thread will get interesting. :shaka:
You obviously have never been harassed by a cop. After that come back and tell us that have what a cop can and cannot do.
-
Yes I agree with you... It is an absurd expectation.
And you just made a point that it is absurd to expect a LEO to be fit for duty 24x7... especially if one had been drinking.
My point with this is sleep deprivation is a form of torture and at the very least it has a direct and measurable affect on your abilities, both mentally and physically. Some guys can operate and operate with little to no affect due to alcohol, but some guys get severely affected when they don't get adequate rest. I'm of the opinion that you sleep deprive some police and it's better than one beer?
Whatever the case is with alcohol/sleep deprivation the real issue at hand is;
"Did Deedy have sufficient reason to fear for his life, of great bodily injury, etc.?"
Anything beyond this simple question is smoke and mirrors.
-
Hawaii has a law that can require a mandatory blood test for alcohol/drugs in a fatal car accident but not in a fatal shooting.
It would be interesting if someone invoked their 5th amendment right in fatal car crash with suspected negligent homicide.
What is the result of non compliance with the testing? Isn't it you lose your license?
I think if a drunk guy would give up his license or go to prison, he's going to give up his license.
-
"Did Deedy have sufficient reason to fear for his life, of great bodily injury, etc.?"
Anything beyond this simple question is smoke and mirrors.
I disagree. With Deedy claiming self defense, he has already done the prosecutor's job by admitting that he has killed somebody.
The question is, "was he justified in his use of deadly force?" and will the jury buy it. That is the case that Deedy's defense attorney needs to make. If someone picks a fight with someone, gets beat up and gets scared for his life, he is not justified in the use of deadly force, because in that case, he would be the bad guy. In Deedy's case, the video doesn't seem to support that he had no other options regarding shooting Elderts.
It seems his only other card is the LEO card. But even that seems kinda iffy. The other question is: "was Deedy acting in the way a LEO would act in that situation?"
I agree that there seems to be nothing good that will come out of this for CCW's case. In this instance, the only thing that could come out of this is that the LEO guy is in the wrong. Would a CCW'd Elderts have made this outcome better? Thinking about this whole case makes me mad... Firearms and alcohol really does not mix.
I didn't watch the trial today but bringing a racism discussion into this is kinda sad to hear. I don't think bringing the racism thing into this will bring about justice / a fair trial for Deedy but will only muddy the discussion, make this into a circus, bring out the prejudices of people and further ethnic/racial tensions.
At the very least, I hope that everyone can stay mature and objective about this and learn from the mistakes that people made that night.
I am curious to hear what Deedy's defense will say.
-
.
-
penalty is the same whether you test positive or you do not allow test
only difference is, if you take the test, they can PROVE you were drunk
therefore, i was always told to refuse the test if you think you will fail
What is the result of non compliance with the testing? Isn't it you lose your license?
I think if a drunk guy would give up his license or go to prison, he's going to give up his license.
-
" Nobody runs back at someone after they've been shot at, it's not human
nature."
you served in the French army?
-
" Nobody runs back at someone after they've been shot at, it's not human
nature."
you served in the French army?
I'm talking about the civilian sector son.
I know where I've been and what I've done.
-
That's why I stopped watching this: the prosecution's arguments make no sense.
Remember a few years back, when the 'white' sheriff was shot by the local guy, who had an illegal firearm? I find it interesting that case never garnered this much local publicity, nor did I see any of the people 'demanding justice' when a when the white guy was shot. It's evident that there is extreme prejudice, as well as underlying racial issues, in regards to deedy's case.
P.S. There are already individuals on social media networks claiming that 'deedy will receive justice, one way or another'; wonder if this is going to be Hawaii's Zimmerman trial that may launch 'riots' :rofl:
The sheriff from the mainland? if that one, yeah I remember that. I also remember wanting to vomit when local news ran video of kealoha giving praise and thanks for the fact that an off duty mainland LEO was carrying his firearm....all while being rabidly opposed to civilian CC! And I don't know brah, but I would keep off the streets when the verdict is read if Deedy is acquitted!
-
ATTENTION.......ATTENTION.....
I want to plead all white haole in Hawaii all white Hispanics in Florida.....please....PLEASE.....NO RIOTING....please don't rob, loot, pillage, murder, rape, or burn your neighborhood homes and businesses down if Deedy and Zimmerman are convicted! NOT that I'm subliminally suggesting they DO so.....and NOT that I'm trying to coerce the juries into rendering an acquittal for fear of what WHITES and white hispanics WOULD do that if they ARE found guilty..................and let me just say.....that Deedy could have been my brother.....no no....i mean....Zimmerman could have been my cousin....well....you get the point....
-
>:D
-
IF DEEDY GETS CONVICTED IT WILL BE A SAD DAY FOR LAWR ENFORCEMENT. It'll be "free for all off" for off duty lawr enforcement. I hope he gets set free. He( "the DOA guy") picked on the wrong guy at the wrong time and got his a$$ kilt. The bully got what he deserved. Too many times I've seen locals do the same to lawr enforcement. Time to stop. They deserve our respect and honor. Any dis-agreements?
-
Thanks for that reminder, pastordennis.
First, I am always grateful to and truly respect the people of Honolulu PD and (from my own personal interactions with them) think they are some of the best police force in the US. I count myself fortunate that we have the police force we have. I can see why mainland PD like to recruit police from Hawaii.
I'm not sure if mainland PDs are the same caliber as our Honolulu PD. Even then, I do respect the position, and think that even with the shitty work they have to do, PDs in general do the best they can with what they have, human imperfections and all.
As for Deedy, I pray that the trial is fair and hope that the truth, and maybe even forgiveness and healing prevails for all those involved and affected. (Yes, one can hope.)
-
You obviously have never been harassed by a cop. After that come back and tell us that have what a cop can and cannot do.
I never said can and cannot do, I implied should/would do.
When is the last time you got harassed by a cop in Hawaii (HPD) ? Last couple times I did ( not necessarily harassed but straightened out ) it was yes sir, no sir and thank you sir. Otherwise I would have got my ass kicked or arrested...
But not shot.
What is the result of non compliance with the testing? Isn't it you lose your license?
I think if a drunk guy would give up his license or go to prison, he's going to give up his license.
Hawaii State law allows them to forcefully take a blood test from you if a death occurs in the car accident. It's not your choice. We're not talking about DUI. It's negligent homicide.
-
Hawaii State law allows them to forcefully take a blood test from you if a death occurs in the accident. It's not your choice. This is not DUI. It's negligent homicide.
Thats because everyone gives implied consent when obtaining a drivers license. They just do it anytime there is an injury/fatality so they have evidence for what they'll charge you with. But legally they can forcibly take a sample anytime someone is in custody whether someone gets hurt or not.
-
Thats because everyone gives implied consent when obtaining a drivers license. They just do it anytime there is an injury/fatality so they have evidence for what they'll charge you with. But legally they can forcibly take a sample anytime someone is in custody whether someone gets hurt or not.
O/T but related to this, did you read about the guy (have to check which state) refused the test, was strapped down by hospital staff then catherized for urine by the officer? Matter of fact there was a lot of mishandling going on. cough.
Got it - Oregon:
http://www.infowars.com/report-bicyclist-flees-country-after-oregon-police-force-catheterization/ (http://www.infowars.com/report-bicyclist-flees-country-after-oregon-police-force-catheterization/)
-
When is the last time you got harassed by a cop in Hawaii (HPD) ? Last couple times I did ( not necessarily harassed but straightened out ) it was yes sir, no sir and thank you sir. Otherwise I would have got my ass kicked or arrested...
I've had an officer try to break into my vehicle at a checkpoint. He called me racial slurs, was cursing and yelling, and tried to pry my window / door open. It was an interesting experience.
-
But who is the guy in the black top, blue shorts that was fighting with Elderts by the garbage can??? There's the key. What predicated that!? At 4:14 in the first video segment Elderts got him around neck (good position to deliver a knee btw) that when all this goes down and Deedy physically intervenes and is knocked to the ground. Shit goes completely sideways from there. Black top blue shorts guy walks in at 2:57 on video part 2, who dat?
That's another Agent if I recall.
-
I've had an officer try to break into my vehicle at a checkpoint. He called me racial slurs, was cursing and yelling, and tried to pry my window / door open. It was an interesting experience.
What did you do to piss him off like that and how did you react ?
I'm seriously curious and, less seriously, Why didn't he just pull you over and detain you for 48 hours and put a catheter in you ?
you're lucky you weren't shot.
Are we straying off topic ? :stopjack:
-
That's another Agent if I recall.
There's the fight that brought it on then. I wish Deedy didn't pull his firearm then we'd be joking about these 2 keystone cops getting beat up. I just don't see a life or death struggle like Zimmerman had.
-
I'm talking about the civilian sector son.
I know where I've been and what I've done.
Oh my bad I thought 'human nature' referred to all humans not just civilian humans lol.
It was just a joke braddah
-
What did you do to piss him off like that and how did you react ?
I'm seriously curious and, less seriously, Why didn't he just pull you over and detain you for 48 hours and put a catheter in you ?
you're lucky you weren't shot.
Are we straying off topic ? :stopjack:
It was at a DUI Checkpoint.
What lead to this was I had rolled my window down 1" and did absolutely nothing (and I mean, nothing... no talking, no moving, nothing. I just sat back with registration etc. in hand and rest my head lol). . I let him know when he was done wasting time trying to talk to me, I will give him my license and registration. I didn't react (Other then immediately dialing an attorney friend) and getting the iphone on record.
Hawaii doesn't have as much of a watered down 4th amendment as other states (it's actually quite strong), so he needs to be able to articulate the reason for asking me out of the vehicle. In other states, 'officer safety' is the reason to get you out of the car.
-
Here's a Hawaii News Now article with an analysis by an agent who was involved in three shootings:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22830885/former-federal-agent-analyzes-deedy-video (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22830885/former-federal-agent-analyzes-deedy-video)
-
Good commentary by Agent Aiu. Thanks for posting the link, surfmaster.
-
Bottom line is he shouldn't have got involved, and by the other agent telling him about that whole locals don't like haoles he left that conversation already prejudice.
-
Bottom line is he shouldn't have got involved, and by the other agent telling him about that whole locals don't like haoles he left that conversation already prejudice.
Hopefully the jury is more objective than this.
-
Hahaha yea
-
"Man, I don't even have an opinion!"
-- Marvin's last words
http://youtu.be/LBBni_-tMNs (http://youtu.be/LBBni_-tMNs)
-
Moosed,
Your back !
Of course you have an opinion.
Apparently I, or someone here, offended you. ( since you deleted all your posts in this thread )
Don't take your ball and go home. Opinions are what make this forum go around. :shaka:
-
Moosed,
Your back !
Of course you have an opinion.
Apparently I, or someone here, offended you. ( since you deleted all your posts in this thread )
Don't take your ball and go home. Opinions are what make this forum go around. :shaka:
Reading others' comments to and about me, it would appear my communication style comes off as "arrogant and snobbish". I decided it's better to not waste everyone's time being the lightning rod for a couple of members who think personal attacks and piling on are okay here..
Thanks for the invite, but I have better things in my life going on than getting sucked into a mud slinging contest.
It only takes a couple of bad apples to ruin the day for everyone else. Better that I just sit quietly and prevent the off-topic personal insults.
Mahalo! :shaka:
-
>:D
-
Aye sus ... the only problem I personally don't like about this is he was warned by his colleague and imo as a professional in what he does he should've think twice about the situation. He left his hotel knowingly about how "some" locals can be so he was already looking for a "fuck haole" alternation. It's like any place you go in the USA you'll hear people warn you about going to certain places in certain states. What was he expecting that wee hours in the morning, as law enformance he know what he was getting his self into alot of us been to Vegas, LA, NY etc there or in Hawaii it's the same thing people out at that time are either drunk , partying or trying to get some pussy. In deedys case he was trying to get some pussy and wanted to play hero n look good. Even superman put away his cape sometimes, I'm not saying deedy was right or wrong but as a professional he knew the consequences of being out that late and he even was warned.
-
Aye sus ... the only problem I personally don't like about this is he was warned by his colleague and imo as a professional in what he does he should've think twice about the situation. He left his hotel knowingly about how "some" locals can be so he was already looking for a "fuck haole" alternation. It's like any place you go in the USA you'll hear people warn you about going to certain places in certain states. What was he expecting that wee hours in the morning, as law enformance he know what he was getting his self into alot of us been to Vegas, LA, NY etc there or in Hawaii it's the same thing people out at that time are either drunk , partying or trying to get some pussy. In deedys case he was trying to get some pussy and wanted to play hero n look good. Even superman put away his cape sometimes, I'm not saying deedy was right or wrong but as a professional he knew the consequences of being out that late and he even was warned.
:wacko: :wtf:
-
:wacko: :wtf:
That's my opinion bakla hhahaha everybody like be critics of every post hahahahaha
-
>:D
-
That's my opinion bakla hhahaha everybody like be critics of every post hahahahaha
No need for names around here troll.
-
I am speaking as both a 'local' and someone who has been overseas when I say that there is an obvious ego problem here in Hawaii. I never really 'fit in' with my peers, which is why I never really adopted that attitude of 'what bra, like beef?!' just to prove a point, or establish dominance over another individual. I'm happy I did, because there were numerous occasions, while on the mainland and overseas, where that kind of attitude could have resulted in me being killed.
The problem here is that because many people who have never experienced life, specifically violence, outside of Hawaii, they will never expect how people may defend themselves, nor will they ever understand why individuals may escalate to higher levels of force to do so; i.e. presentation/application of deadly force. There is a predisposed mentality that beat someone up and that's that. But speaking from experience, its really not like that anywhere else in the country. Sure, you have fights and what not; but from my experiences, I have learned to expect the worst possible outcome, which is why I always opt to deescalate a situation and be the bigger man at the expense of my pride, unless my life or the lives of my loved ones are on the line.
I can tell you that working as an MP, I was extremely confident with my deescalation techniques and only had to escalate to higher levels of force on a few occasions because of my approach and attitude when dealing with perps or persons of interest. However, I can also tell you that my partner, a 5'1, 115# woman, had to escalate to presentation of deadly force on several occasions, in the same type of scenarios, because many of the individuals she interacted with thought they could intimidate/overpower her because of her size, and she honestly felt she was in danger.
Case in point : Ego/pride + underestimating how someone (who honestly fears for their life) will react = recipe for disaster.
I honestly feel that Elderts, regardless of if he or Deedy was wrong, should have deescalated or avoided the situation. But from my experience amongst my peers, deescalation is definitely not something encouraged within our local society.
Finally.....beautifully said!
I can't tell you how many times I've thought to my self, "man, if he did that where I come from he'd get killed". The whole 'save face' or 'don't let someone make you look like a punk' culture is what causes virtually all black-on-black murder in ghettos in the mainland, and the 'what brah, like beef?' MO in Hawaii is the local analogue. That's what got Elderts killed - and I'm not drawing any conclusions about Deedy's guilt or innocence - I'm just sayin.....
-
.....BTW, might want to tone down the language. No need for obscene words to prove your point. :shaka:
Q.....two things:
1) is it against forum rules to use obscenities when they are not directed towards a user? I mean everybody writes "f'ing haole" and its ok; but in a context, if someone writes "fucking haole", that's offensive? I'm politely asking seriously; I'm not being a wise guy here.
Secondly, in a similar vein, if someone is just expressing themselves with obscenities but not towards anyone - just to convey emotion - is that a violation of forum rules? Again, I ask cause I feel that if someone is not being abusive - if the language is either a quote or a tool to convey emotion - then isn't it protected forum speech?
:shaka:
-
>:D
-
Not sure about the obscenity rules, but the way that guy was talking was just ridiculous about Deedy's motives; most people here deliver their arguments in a well mannered fashion, so I suspect that dude was a troll.
I hear ya
-
The overall lesson I'm getting from the past few days is that if LEO, "state department", or neighborhood watch comes up to you and starts escalating it's in their best interest to leave a corpse.
-
The overall lesson I'm getting from the past few days is that if LEO, "state department", or neighborhood watch comes up to you and starts escalating it's in their best interest to leave a corpse.
Quit being a Richard.
-
Got some sand in your vagina lips cause someone else has a different opinion?
-
Got some sand in your vagina lips cause someone else has a different opinion?
Oh now you want to talk shit.
Your opinion is always a contrary opinion.
You're welcome to any opinion you want but you know you're just trolling on this site.
I wouldn't be surprised if you don't own any guns and voted for Obama both times.
As far as sand in any lips, the only pussy here is you sweetie.
-
You know you're only here because you want a support group to agree with what your saying besides lots of evidence to the contrary, and I'm guessing that's why my persistence bothers you so much.
The right and left will try to make this whole thing out to be about race, but it's not. It's about armed thugs walking around with badges or otherwise who have been murdering people and getting away with it with increasing frequency. People here are talking about armed revolutions to win back the constitution one one side of their mouth and then supporting the gestapo tactics of an increasingly militarized police force on the other. The new Republican slogan should be "You can have it Both ways!"
-
I see a lot of references to this Deedy guy being "LEO". Admit being on another island I have not watched in minute detail the whole charade. Waikiki late at night was always a place I avoided like any inner-city hellhole so no sense of what it is like there at 0200.
Has it ever been clearly defined/explained just what this "State Department" security thing is, what training (vs. a typical cop), what legal authority (beyond citizen's arrest) he had? Was he truly a trained LEO or a glorified security guard?
I suppose it still baffles me why he was carrying at all if he was not doing active protection detail work at the time.
Know I am late to the party, sorry for the interruption, but these questions bother me whenever I read about this case.
-
You know you're only here because you want a support group to agree with what your saying besides lots of evidence to the contrary, and I'm guessing that's why my persistence bothers you so much.
The right and left will try to make this whole thing out to be about race, but it's not. It's about armed thugs walking around with badges or otherwise who have been murdering people and getting away with it with increasing frequency. People here are talking about armed revolutions to win back the constitution one one side of their mouth and then supporting the gestapo tactics of an increasingly militarized police force on the other. The new Republican slogan should be "You can have it Both ways!"
First off I really don't give a shit if anyone or everyone agrees with anything I say.
Second, I agree with you that there are more than a few "armed thugs" with badges hurting and even murdering innocent people.
The difference is that you want to lump every bad cop in with Zimmerman and every other case you've ever heard of.
The reality is Trayvon Martin was a punk.
The world has forgotten the hundreds of thousands of times a 17 year old punk or punks went out and robbed, assaulted, raped and murdered innocent people.
Trayvon tried to be a thug and got killed by an armed citizen.
-
It's possible. I didn't know the kid. But until Zim escalated and created an confrontation he was a "thug" buying candy and minding his own business.
-
>:D
-
It's possible. I didn't know the kid. But until Zim escalated and created an confrontation he was a "thug" buying candy and minding his own business.
There is NO PROOF Zim escalated the situation. Just as there is no proof as to who attacked whom first.
Since the state can't prove any of that (and by extension, neither can you), you should stop using assumptions and untruths to support your side of the argument.
If there was evidence Zim started the fight, then self-defense would have been thrown out as a strategy. You can't start an altercation and then plea self-defense.
Just my opinion, of course ...
-
It's a good thing the jury was more intelligent and actually considered the evidence.
You had him convicted before the trial.
The simpletons that listen to the MSM and are influenced by propaganda already had Zimmerman convicted.
The Justice system is set up so intelligent people are allowed to weigh evidence and testimony and make a decision based on that.
-
Deedy on the other hand...
Let the evidence and justice system do its job, and we'll see.
-
First off I really don't give a shit if anyone or everyone agrees with anything I say.
Second, I agree with you that there are more than a few "armed thugs" with badges hurting and even murdering innocent people.
The difference is that you want to lump every bad cop in with Zimmerman and every other case you've ever heard of.
The reality is Trayvon Martin was a punk.
The world has forgotten the hundreds of thousands of times a 17 year old punk or punks went out and robbed, assaulted, raped and murdered innocent people.
Trayvon tried to be a thug and got killed by an armed citizen.
Exactly. trayvon's loss was tragic for his parents but HE decided to go after Zimmerman; HE attacked Zimmerman; HE was in control of the outcome of that situation; regardless of what happened before that and whether he was a saint or a rotten kid; whether he would have invented a cure for cancer or been a drug dealer; whether Zimmerman was a white racist or a mixed race unbiased watch guy - it is irrelevant. at that particular moment in time HE - travon - was the aggressor and the legally armed Zimmerman had the right to defend himself. That's it! Same with Deedy; I've said it dozens of times; dickbag, chip-on-the-shoulder elitist LEO; bad judgement initiator of the escalation; whatever....Elderts was in control if the outcome and his decision to be a tough guy got himself killed.
-
I see a lot of references to this Deedy guy being "LEO". Admit being on another island I have not watched in minute detail the whole charade. Waikiki late at night was always a place I avoided like any inner-city hellhole so no sense of what it is like there at 0200.
Has it ever been clearly defined/explained just what this "State Department" security thing is, what training (vs. a typical cop), what legal authority (beyond citizen's arrest) he had? Was he truly a trained LEO or a glorified security guard?
I suppose it still baffles me why he was carrying at all if he was not doing active protection detail work at the time.
Know I am late to the party, sorry for the interruption, but these questions bother me whenever I read about this case.
DOS Agents are generally diplomatic security. Think of them like secret service, but for foreign dignitaries, embassies, and front line security etc.. They are law enforcement; they are highly trained individuals (DSS certification is no joke). They really do take the creme's of the crop for that line of work.
-
The first escalation is physical presence. The second is verbal commands. Zim was escalating the hell out of the situation once he decided to go chasing people around in the dark and telling them what to do.
-
The first escalation is physical presence. The second is verbal commands. Zim was escalating the hell out of the situation once he decided to go chasing people around in the dark
Hmm, a "chase", eh?
Musta missed that. Getting out of your car for a better look is now a "chase"?
telling them what to do.
"Telling them what to do, eh? Care to expand on WTH you are talking about? I guess a major part of the confrontation was missing all this time, but you are privy to it?
-
Hmm, a "chase", eh?
Musta missed that. Getting out of your car for a better look is now a "chase"?
"Telling them what to do, eh? Care to expand on WTH you are talking about? I guess a major part of the confrontation was missing all this time, but you are privy to it?
You're having trouble understanding him cause when a troll speaks with his head stuck up his ass the words get garbled.
-
The first escalation is physical presence. The second is verbal commands. Zim was escalating the hell out of the situation once he decided to go chasing people around in the dark and telling them what to do.
Based on the testimony by the 911 operator, the people (person) who were there, and the evidence, nothing you just typed is true.
http://youtu.be/Xn74wA4qGpA (http://youtu.be/Xn74wA4qGpA)
-
You're having trouble understanding him cause when a troll speaks with his head stuck up his ass the words get garbled.
Then I suggest you should pull your head out of your ass and read the 911 transcript again.
-
:stopjack:
The Deedy confrontation looks like the same thing. Some dude walking up to a group of guys and telling them what to do. If he walks the message is pretty clear. You want to kill someone? Go up and try to pick a fight with them and shoot 'em in self defense. Doesn't matter if you're drunk and off-duty or a wannabe cop on creeper patrol. If there's no one around it makes it even easier because you can always say they started it after the fact.
www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-did-the-fbi-kill-an-unarmed-friend-of-tamerlan-tsarnev (http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/why-did-the-fbi-kill-an-unarmed-friend-of-tamerlan-tsarnev)
It's encouraging a whole new generation of Gestapo tactics based on self-defense. People are serving life sentences for shoplifting, but for some reason leaving a trail of bodies behind allows murderers to walk free.
-
>:D
-
Lol you nuts q. No forget deedy planted a knife and had his 'witnesses' claim elderts threatened him with that knife
-
Whaaat? R u serious? I didn't hear that. Must have missed it
Damn.
Lol you nuts q. No forget deedy planted a knife and had his 'witnesses' claim elderts threatened him with that knife
-
>:D
-
Then I suggest you should pull your head out of your ass and read the 911 transcript again.
For those interested in the complete 911 transcript and not just what the liberal media edit and released to the public.
http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html)
To each person his own opinion but its important to get as much info as possible before drawing a guilty or not guilty conclusion from what the magical color box in the living room tells you. Martin was not the innocent kid the media made him out to be. Is it sad that someone lost their life? Yes. Did Zimmerman deserve to go to prison for life? No one but Zimmerman and Martin know what really went down. But we cant condemn a man with "what ifs", from the evidence and complete transcript the jury made the logical choice. The Deedy case IMO is less clear with the possibilities of him being intoxicated or not, and the video without audio is also hard to draw a conclusion from. Is it wrong to go around instigating and firing in self defense? I think so, but as the saying goes "It takes two to tango."
-
that doesn't change the fact that the situation could easily have been deescalated by both parties, but more so by Elderts. It takes a bigger man to attempt to calm the situation down or simply leave. Instead, he chose rather to puff up his chest and play bad ass, which ended up escalating the situation and resulting in his death.
I don't agree. Elderts had fists. Mr. Deeds was carrying a gun. That makes every fight he gets into a gun fight. When someone is ready to deploy lethal force they should be held to a higher standard. If the immediate issue is not important enough to kill or die for, then don't push it. You call 911 when someone is pissing on your garden gnome, but you don't call S&W unless they are kicking down your door.
-
>:D
-
Q, don't get too worked up by hvybarrels.
In his time on this forum he has established.
A) He's a troll.
B) He has disdain for law enforcement, military and authority.
C) He has never served his country.
D) He has never been employed as a LEO under any circumstance.
E) He is a bleeding heart liberal.
He purposely tries to push people to react to his off the wall ASSumptions and misstatements.
The reality though is that no one knows him. He never shows his face at any functions, I don't even think he owns a firearm.
He's simply a pimple on an ass that won't go away.
-
Q, don't get too worked up by hvybarrels.
In his time on this forum he has established.
A) He's a troll.
B) He has disdain for law enforcement, military and authority.
C) He has never served his country.
D) He has never been employed as a LEO under any circumstance.
E) He is a bleeding heart liberal.
He purposely tries to push people to react to his off the wall ASSumptions and misstatements.
The reality though is that no one knows him. He never shows his face at any functions, I don't even think he owns a firearm.
He's simply a pimple on an ass that won't go away.
Some of his better quotes I remember:
"Right wing is inherently racist"
"Florida is a backwards racist-ass state run by a bunch of corrupt neo-nazi politicos and half of the cops pigs are actively involved in the KKK. "
Looking back, seems he has sanitized some of his posts.............
-
Lets not forget the gems:
"People are serving life sentences for shoplifting, but for some reason leaving a trail of bodies behind allows murderers to walk free" or the intentional "Mr. Deeds" movie reference.
After the first response to this genius I stopped cause I realized he was not only a troll, but a
DOOOOOCCHE A BAAHHAAAAAAGUH!!!
If you pay attention how he pieces together his words you'll see it's absolutely clear that English is not his native tongue either, so he may not even be located in Hawaii or the USA.
Ignore him - if he is a he - and he'll get bored and go away.
-
>:D
-
Police, witness testify on Day 5 of Deedy trial:
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/police-witness-testify-on-day-5-of-deedy-trial/-/8905354/20991868/-/tfqivqz/-/index.html?absolute=true
-
I disagree. With Deedy claiming self defense, he has already done the prosecutor's job by admitting that he has killed somebody.
The question is, "was he justified in his use of deadly force?" and will the jury buy it. That is the case that Deedy's defense attorney needs to make. If someone picks a fight with someone, gets beat up and gets scared for his life, he is not justified in the use of deadly force, because in that case, he would be the bad guy. In Deedy's case, the video doesn't seem to support that he had no other options regarding shooting Elderts.............
Deedy admitting to shooting/killing Elderts, there was already enough evidence/eye witnesses to establish that. That is not an issue.
With what you are referring to here is what's known as being "contributary" to the situation. In the case of Hawaii there is no "stand your ground" law so there is no fall back on that. In Hawaii the "contrubutary" issue is Deedy not just immediately backing off. So I do understand your point, but I will again offer up that Deedy is a Federal officer and as such he is (possibly) going to be subject to a different set of rules than a normal citizen. We are allowed (encouraged) as normal citizens to leave, whereas a LEO may not have such a luxury. Leaving could get these guys into more trouble than staying to address a situation.
See HRS 703-304(5) below which is the contributary section you are referring to above.
..............It seems his only other card is the LEO card. But even that seems kinda iffy. The other question is: "was Deedy acting in the way a LEO would act in that situation?"
I agree that there seems to be nothing good that will come out of this for CCW's case. In this instance, the only thing that could come out of this is that the LEO guy is in the wrong. Would a CCW'd Elderts have made this outcome better?...............
HRS 703-304 covers where deadly force may/may not be used. You will notice that even if an arrest is unlawful Elderts would not be legally allowed to employ deadly force against Deedy if as acting as a LEO (and he identified himself as such).
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm)
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action.
(4) The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
(a) To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or
.........Firearms and alcohol really does not mix.
I didn't watch the trial today but bringing a racism discussion into this is kinda sad to hear. I don't think bringing the racism thing into this will bring about justice / a fair trial for Deedy but will only muddy the discussion, make this into a circus, bring out the prejudices of people and further ethnic/racial tensions.
At the very least, I hope that everyone can stay mature and objective about this and learn from the mistakes that people made that night.
I am curious to hear what Deedy's defense will say.
I understand your point about alcohol and firearms not mixing, however it is not a realistic situation.
There are a lot of times where someone may be partaking in an alcoholic beverage and it does not affect their ability to reason or their motor skills. This is why there is a BAC threshold for driving a vehicle, so a 0 tolerance with alcohol and firearms IMHO is not a realistic argument. I agree it's something to strive for, but there will always be a time where there is a justification to operate a firearm when having an alcoholic beverage.
-
Q.....two things:
1) is it against forum rules to use obscenities when they are not directed towards a user? I mean everybody writes "f'ing haole" and its ok; but in a context, if someone writes "fucking haole", that's offensive? I'm politely asking seriously; I'm not being a wise guy here.
Secondly, in a similar vein, if someone is just expressing themselves with obscenities but not towards anyone - just to convey emotion - is that a violation of forum rules? Again, I ask cause I feel that if someone is not being abusive - if the language is either a quote or a tool to convey emotion - then isn't it protected forum speech?
:shaka:
This isn't a forum of a public entity (such as HPD).
If 2A doesn't want certain talk on his forum, he can ask anyone to leave. If they don't like it tough doo doo, you get banned.
-
There is NO PROOF Zim escalated the situation. Just as there is no proof as to who attacked whom first.
Since the state can't prove any of that (and by extension, neither can you), you should stop using assumptions and untruths to support your side of the argument.
If there was evidence Zim started the fight, then self-defense would have been thrown out as a strategy. You can't start an altercation and then plea self-defense.
Just my opinion, of course ...
Well spoken, concise, logical..............we have no use for you here!!!
-
I don't agree. Elderts had fists. Mr. Deeds was carrying a gun. That makes every fight he gets into a gun fight. When someone is ready to deploy lethal force they should be held to a higher standard. If the immediate issue is not important enough to kill or die for, then don't push it. You call 911 when someone is pissing on your garden gnome, but you don't call S&W unless they are kicking down your door.
I think you need to understand that fists are enough. Ned Nakoa. Either a couple of punches and a kick to the head, or a single punch depending on who you believe. In any case a guy trying to help died in 2009 and not one "weapon" was used other than fists.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10268601 (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10268601)
-
No matter how big you are, how strong you are, how well you are trained someone out there will be better than you.... or luckier. I would not take that chance. Once being on that shit end of the stick, and im am NOT big, strong, or that well versed in hand to hand, so I would not let that happen to me again. I was lucky once, maybe not so lucky next time. Anything can happen, and you might end up dead.
-
Of course, I understand. I was just wondering of it is generally acceptable to use profanity if it is a quote or to express emotion - neither of which is abusive language; I think that is the case.
This isn't a forum of a public entity (such as HPD).
If 2A doesn't want certain talk on his forum, he can ask anyone to leave. If they don't like it tough doo doo, you get banned.
-
Police, witness testify on Day 5 of Deedy trial:
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/police-witness-testify-on-day-5-of-deedy-trial/-/8905354/20991868/-/tfqivqz/-/index.html?absolute=true (http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/police-witness-testify-on-day-5-of-deedy-trial/-/8905354/20991868/-/tfqivqz/-/index.html?absolute=true)
I know your folks issue with hvybarrels, but in this case he sort of has a point ( if you weed through everything he's said) . at this point, looks like Deedy picked a fight.
It does appear he told Elderts something like " you wanna get shot ? " or something like "I'll shoot you. "
Wouldn't you first tell the guy "you're gonna be arrested" or "i"ll arrest you "
Of course info is very piecemeal at this point.
I don't care if Deedy planted an AA-12 on Elderts; that doesn't change the fact that the situation could easily have been deescalated by both parties, but more so by Elderts. It takes a bigger man to attempt to calm the situation down or simply leave. Instead, he chose rather to puff up his chest and play bad ass, which ended up escalating the situation and resulting in his death.
to say Eldertts should have been the bigger man is absurd in my opinion. The bigger man should have been the college educated, well-trained, firearm carrying special agent. To say the Moke should have deescalated the situation is a stretch.
Until Deedy approaches Elderts, it looks like the situation was already deescalated. This is consistent with the testimony from skinny jeans hipster dude.
Again, piecemeal. Can't wait for the rest of the trial and the defense to be presented.
And hell no, I'm not a troll. bought and sold firearms to and from members of this forum and attended 2 of the last 3 functions. :D ( No one's accused me but I thought I'd throw that in )
Welcome back Moosed ! Good to have you ! :shaka:
And to everyone, Zimmerman has his own thread.
-
I don't care if Deedy planted an AA-12 on Elderts
Please accept my apologies kind sir. I thought your opinion was biased. I can see from this statement that you are completely unbiased. also it was silly of me to think that someone planting evidence and coordinating with witnesses to give false reports to le might think that they were guilty of a crime.
-
>:D
-
both men, including and specifically Elderts, could have simply walked away, and chose not to.
Still not getting this one.
at this point, looks like Deedy picked a fight.
It does appear he told Elderts something like " you wanna get shot ? " or something like "I'll shoot you. "
Wouldn't you first tell the guy "you're gonna be arrested" or "i"ll arrest you "
to say Eldertts should have been the bigger man is absurd in my opinion. The bigger man should have been the college educated, well-trained, firearm carrying special agent. To say the Moke should have deescalated the situation is a stretch.
Until Deedy approaches Elderts, it looks like the situation was already deescalated. This is consistent with the testimony from skinny jeans hipster dude.
Footnote: See contents of prior post.
-
Lol at you pretending to care about facts. How bout this you tell me the sources that you found that aren't 'legit' enough for you so I don't have to waste my time with those. Have you followed this case from the beginning?
While you're at it please take the time to respond to aieahound.
-
>:D
-
>:D
-
Damn you referred to me in a very rude manner.
Where's deedy when I need him?
Mr deedy if you're out there can you please defend my honor and kick this man down then shoot him if he approaches you instead of immediately deescalating?
-
While you're at it please take the time to respond to aieahound.
:sleeping:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:geekdanc:
-
With what you are referring to here is what's known as being "contributary" to the situation. In the case of Hawaii there is no "stand your ground" law so there is no fall back on that. In Hawaii the "contrubutary" issue is Deedy not just immediately backing off. So I do understand your point, but I will again offer up that Deedy is a Federal officer and as such he is (possibly) going to be subject to a different set of rules than a normal citizen. We are allowed (encouraged) as normal citizens to leave, whereas a LEO may not have such a luxury. Leaving could get these guys into more trouble than staying to address a situation.
See HRS 703-304(5) below which is the contributary section you are referring to above.
HRS 703-304 covers where deadly force may/may not be used. You will notice that even if an arrest is unlawful Elderts would not be legally allowed to employ deadly force against Deedy if as acting as a LEO (and he identified himself as such).
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm (http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm)
I agree especially about the LEO rules part. This case is somewhat different from a regular self defense as someone attacking a LEO is a big no-no. That video where Agent Aki examined the video was helpful in helping me understand the situation. Attacking a LEO = big FAIL on Elderts part. If he was sober and not high on narcotics, perhaps he would have had better sense than to pick a fight with a LEO.
I understand your point about alcohol and firearms not mixing, however it is not a realistic situation.
There are a lot of times where someone may be partaking in an alcoholic beverage and it does not affect their ability to reason or their motor skills. This is why there is a BAC threshold for driving a vehicle, so a 0 tolerance with alcohol and firearms IMHO is not a realistic argument. I agree it's something to strive for, but there will always be a time where there is a justification to operate a firearm when having an alcoholic beverage.
Yes, it is not realistic, but just because many people do it doesn't make a wrong thing right.
Yes, I'm sure there are many instances where someone who has drunk some alcohol, still manages to drive home safely without getting in an accident.
However, If someone alcohol level is over a certain limit, they become a menace to others if they decide to drive a motor vehicle. A LEO who has alcohol over the limit should probably not drive, right? Should they be operating a firearm also or even be trying to enforce the peace? Perhaps yes under certain instances, depending on the severity of a situation.
That witness testimony about Elderts saying "to just shoot him" is kinda nagging at me. From the video, it seems like the situation may have been de-escalated until Deedy went over and talked to Elderts. What exactly did Deedy say and how did he say it? Was Elderts threatening someone and making a public disturbance and Deedy wanted to go over and straighten him out?
Perhaps Elderts was still mouthing off while sitting at the chair? I wonder what he was saying? Could he have been insulting Deedy's wife? Could Deedy have gotten pissed off because of a racist comment that Elderts said?
Seriously, I hope Deedy did everything right and he did not have a failure in judgement that night. I would want nothing more than to hear that Deedy was justified in his shooting and did not cause an escalation and making the situation become more dangerous.
But the drinking and shooting someone bothers me... especially by a LEO.
At this point, without additional evidence, i can only guess. Deedy might be the only one knows what was said that night.
-
Good points Jl. More to think about.
This piece meal media crud is a pain.
Can't wait to see how they report the defense interpretation of the video, as that's the only hard evidence.
-
>:D
-
>:D
-
Guys, I'm gonna just watch and see what happens next here. I think this incident has FAIL written all over it.
I just have a hard time seeing right now how this helps bring CCW to Hawaii. I am starting to see chatter on the social networks that guns (not idiots) causes deaths.
Elderts - he could have made the outcome of this better. MAJOR FAIL.
Deedy -- well, he is on trial now. I hope that the evidence shows that he is in the right. :shaka: If not, MAJOR :'(
The only other good thing that can come out of this is.. what lessons can we learn?
-
you rang?
Sounds like someone needs a big mac. :rofl: :shake: :crazy:
-
No matter how big you are, how strong you are, how well you are trained someone out there will be better than you.... or luckier. I would not take that chance. Once being on that shit end of the stick, and im am NOT big, strong, or that well versed in hand to hand, so I would not let that happen to me again. I was lucky once, maybe not so lucky next time. Anything can happen, and you might end up dead.
Agreed, through personal experience, as well as many videos etc. that are out there, one punch and people can fall back hit there head and be paralyzed or in a coma. That is why I shake my head when I hear people say fight it out. Being born and raised here in the islands we have a culture of fighting not found many other places on the mainland, however once you grow up you realize you have family, work, life that is much more important than throwing hands to prove who is tougher. It is worse in the mainland because it is almost always never one on one either. I am not willing to risk my life, health or safety nor that of my loved ones. I will be willing to do anything within my power to get safely home, if someone threatens violence I view that as a threat on my life. So many people have this romanticized idea of fighting whether from tv, movies etc. There are many things that can change your life forever from these altercations, just remember that legally, physically, and personally.
-
Ho brah, no take sides ah?! Bumbye we go meet Mcdonalds and scrap li'dat!
BTW, its cool; I'm local, so I can say that. No need to call me a racist.
Take sides ? with who, myself ?
No worries except for the part that you claim I called you a racist ?
Not getting that either.
Footnote: See my prior posts
( Then again, I might not have caught the joke. :( )
Still waiting for an articulated response.
to your theory of the HIgh school educated moke mentality guy should have been more responsible than the college educated, highly trained, firearm carrying special agent of the State Dapartment for de-escalating the situation.
Which appeared de-escalated until the College educated, highly trained, firearm carrying special agent interjected himself.
( with consideration for the points Jl808 brought up )
both men, including and specifically Elderts, could have simply walked away, and chose not to.
The posts go back farther than that but I couldn't figure out how to quote them. :oops:
-
Ho - it looked like Deedy flashed his badge at a seated Elderts? Hard to tell the vid went so fast on the news! Then followed with AuYang's comments on Elderts saying what you gonna' do shoot me?
Yah, we not in the court room getting the whole story. Let it play out we find out.
-
You might be waiting a while for an articulated response. First they call you a troll while simultaneously trolling you because when you start to point out the holes and inconsistencies in their logic they resort to every available tactic to avoid the issues. When they start calling you names and attacking your character you know you are winning.
-
You might be waiting a while for an articulated response. First they call you a troll while simultaneously trolling you because when you start to point out the holes and inconsistencies in their logic they resort to every available tactic to avoid the issues. When they start calling you names and attacking your character you know you are winning.
-
Hvybarrels.
No offense, but you're not helping me.
Come to the functions, and we can do this is in a "civil manner" loud as crap, full of emotion, hug and go home. :shaka:
-
>:D
-
>:D
-
two witnesses one a police officer and another a military personnel trying to break up the altercation testified that Deedy's eyes were red and glassy and he had the smell of alcohol on his breath seems to show evidence that he was not making the right or professional decision when confronting Elderts and Medeiros. But with no blood alcohol test from hpd it might not hold up in court.I'm not taking sides but it seems to me like Deedy was a man with a gun on a power trip set out to get one of the local "racist" that he was warn about.
-
Q, don't get too worked up by hvybarrels.
In his time on this forum he has established.
A) He's a troll.
B) He has disdain for law enforcement, military and authority.
C) He has never served his country.
D) He has never been employed as a LEO under any circumstance.
E) He is a bleeding heart liberal.
He purposely tries to push people to react to his off the wall ASSumptions and misstatements.
The reality though is that no one knows him. He never shows his face at any functions, I don't even think he owns a firearm.
He's simply a pimple on an ass that won't go away.
a. you've been trolling me for some time now
b. that's funny cause my friends might disagree, but I probably sounds like you talking about your 'black friends' right about now
c. there are lots of ways to serve, and the expansion of empire is actively destroying 'my country' from the inside out
c. so what?
d. you mean I believe racism is a festering sore in this country and I witness it's effects every day? guilty
I say things that make you so uncomfortable that you have to attack me personally because deep down you know your position has so many contradictions that render it indefensible. Some people do know me, and I might be inclined to show up if people like you weren't so openly hostile to those with a difference of opinion. I do own firearms, but I'm not a fanatic and actually refused to buy anything during the last panic because it seemed a little disgusting to celebrate the death of a bunch of kids by lining up to buy the very same model of weapon that was used to mow them down, plus it was obvious a lot of panic buyers would be selling their stuff dirt cheap once the market flooded and prices dropped. I'm still upset at the ammo hoarders for driving prices so high, but again thanks for flooding the market.
No, I'm not going away. Firearm ownership is something I care about enough to not leave in the hands of racist reactionaries reciting right wing propaganda. You should thank me for being here because I make you all look a little less crazy, especially right now given the events and circumstances currently playing out.
-
:sleeping:
-
my point exactly. you got nothin'
-
my point exactly. you got nothin'
Bro, you're a punk antagonist.
I could sit here all day and night going back and forth with you but every post you type further proves my point.
If you'd like to meet face to face and discuss this further, let me know.
-
What say we just get this over with?
-
What say we just get this over with?
If that ruler is all he needs, he's already lost.
-
Bro, you're a punk antagonist.
I could sit here all day and night going back and forth with you but every post you type further proves my point.
If you'd like to meet face to face and discuss this further, let me know.
Moke Mentality ?
( of Course I'm stirring things up )
Next function's going to be a blast !
Can I order a Macsak ?
Wait, that doesn't sound right ? ( go back in the posts )
No no no aiea....I was just break in your brawls buddy. Didn't mean for it to sound offensive :shaka:
P.S.
Q, It's all good ! :shaka: Consider my Brawls broken. :D
Can't wait for the defense to present their case.
-
Let's keep this thread on track please.
-
Agreed, through personal experience, as well as many videos etc. that are out there, one punch and people can fall back hit there head and be paralyzed or in a coma. That is why I shake my head when I hear people say fight it out. Being born and raised here in the islands we have a culture of fighting not found many other places on the mainland, however once you grow up you realize you have family, work, life that is much more important than throwing hands to prove who is tougher. It is worse in the mainland because it is almost always never one on one either. I am not willing to risk my life, health or safety nor that of my loved ones. I will be willing to do anything within my power to get safely home, if someone threatens violence I view that as a threat on my life. So many people have this romanticized idea of fighting whether from tv, movies etc. There are many things that can change your life forever from these altercations, just remember that legally, physically, and personally.
I am glad someone other than myself is aware of this.
This point I've tried to make to HB but he seems to be ignoring it. HB if you care to listen about this, you should. I have personally been on a site where a guy wacked his head from falling down (17 inches to be exact) and he had his plugged pulled. Really sad story, but he lost brain function and he was gone. Medical attention was there inside of 30 seconds, ambulance inside of maybe 2 minutes, but he never survived.
If you don't believe someone can die from just falling and hitting their head, you can take my personal word for it.
-
People don't understand - you swing at someone, they would most likely be justified that you would do serious bodily harm, and they could indeed escalate force -- all the way to lethal force if necessary. And, more importantly, that necessity is their decision and their feeling. If I show my weapon, and you still move forward, or continue to swing, you are demonstrating that you have no regard for your own safety, and it's a reflection of what you may be trying to do to me.
-
Great point. Elderts definitely continued to move forward. And threat of bodily harm to Deedy appeared real and imminent.
Looked like Elderts was kicking his trained ass !
Does it matter if the armed party instigated the conflict and was probably drunk, by witness accounts ? ( prosecution witnesses though. haven't heard defense )
Serious question as I'm now thinking it doesn't. Justified use of deadly force doesn't appear to depend on who instigated what or what frame of mind they were in.
So long as the threat of great bodily harm was real and imminent.
This would be bad for CCW though.
If I'm carrying a gun, I can pick whatever fight I like and once I feel the threat of great bodily harm, I'm justified to shoot.
of course Deedy was LEO though.
Although we still haven't determined what crime Elderts was committing that required LEO intervention and not arrest/detainment.
-
>:D
-
Does it matter if the armed party instigated the conflict and was probably drunk, by witness accounts?
Him being some sort of LEO, he should be held to a far higher standard, just like all those cops out there that seem to get off with a slap on the wrist for things that would land us peons in prison for life.
Everything about this stinks of ego on both sides, and if this Deedy was such a cream of the crop cop, he should have been far above this sort of high school bravado.
My biggest issue is just why was he carrying while out partying? He sure as hell was not on duty. Maybe it's just me, but drunk cops with firearms bothers me no end. They have issues sober.
-
>:D
-
Great point. Elderts definitely continued to move forward. And threat of bodily harm to Deedy appeared real and imminent.
Looked like Elderts was kicking his trained ass !
Does it matter if the armed party instigated the conflict and was probably drunk, by witness accounts ? ( prosecution witnesses though. haven't heard defense )
That would depend. How was it instigated? Just because someone is yelling at you, talking shit, isn't justification to swing at someone. If he [deedy] thought there was a problem, he has every right, just like any other person to say something about it. Now if it's a nose-to-nose kind of threat, then yeah it would most likely matter. Drunk doesn't (or shouldn't come into play) until it's established that he was intoxicated. Smelling like alcohol =/= drunk. (could have just had some, had some spilled, been around it etc.). He also have had of consumed sufficient quantity to be over the limit.
People forget - even if I came up to you talking shit, that's no justification to attack.
Serious question as I'm now thinking it doesn't. Justified use of deadly force doesn't appear to depend on who instigated what or what frame of mind they were in.
So long as the threat of great bodily harm was real and imminent.
This would be bad for CCW though.
If I'm carrying a gun, I can pick whatever fight I like and once I feel the threat of great bodily harm, I'm justified to shoot.
This is nothing more than bullshit (the way you mean it, but it could also be true legally). You cannot just "pick" a fight. Now, by pick a fight I mean going and starting a fight i.e. "Hey, F-u! *swing*" /get ass kicked -- *bang*. That would mean you go to jail. That is not self-defense, nor would it get you off of a trial. Now, that said, let's say we fight, I lose or something, and I try to run away. You continue to follow me, after I have tried to flee and have retreated, you could certainly get shot and the other individual could claim self-defense.
-
I think this may be the monkey wrench in Deedy's argument. If he provoked the situation by threatening Elderts with physical harm or death, then he was not within the confines of Hawaii state law to use deadly force to protect himself.
Not sure what you mean here. It is reported that Deedy questioned elderts, in a telling kind of way, "Do you want to get shot?" (Or whatever). I'm going to bet that the statement came after the altercation began heating up, and wasn't like "Hi, I'm Deedy - do you want me to shoot you?" I mean, who does that, even if they are drunk? Doesn't seem like what anyone would say lol. Now, that's not saying these witnesses didn't hear what they heard, but sometimes peoples timelines (especially on a fast incident) can be slightly skewed.
What seems more plausible is that the situation escalated, and at a point Elderts may have been going after him and then it was said. But, again, he actually could have been standing there just saying, I'm going to shoot you.
-
This continues to be an irrelevant argument.
Personally, I feel ALL people should be held to a higher standard and held accountable for their own actions.
"ALL" people are not authorized to use deadly force, cops by being armed and minions of the state, are.
You cannot say if a cop shoots you that it will be handled in the same way as if a private citizen did. Well, you can say it, but you know it will be a vastly different procedure and likely outcome.
-
"ALL" people are not authorized to use deadly force, cops by being armed and minions of the state, are.
You cannot say if a cop shoots you that it will be handled in the same way as if a private citizen did. Well, you can say it, but you know it will be a vastly different procedure and likely outcome.
Anyone can respond with lethal for in a self-defense situation.
-
Anyone can respond with lethal for in a self-defense situation.
A LEO it seems can simply claim "I felt threatened" and likely will be exonerated for blowing you away.
Please do not tell me that will work for the peasants. From all I have read, you better have a rock solid line of events leading up to that. Heck, even in a home invasion, one wrong bit of evidence or missing justifying event will land you in prison.
-
A LEO it seems can simply claim "I felt threatened" and likely will be exonerated for blowing you away.
Please do not tell me that will work for the peasants. From all I have read, you better have a rock solid line of events leading up to that. Heck, even in a home invasion, one wrong bit of evidence or missing justifying event will land you in prison.
Re: LEO -- Please cite your sources. If your (anyone) being attacked, and you have a reasonable fear of serious injury or bodily harm (or one of the other statutory provisions), then you may respond with equal or greater force up to, and including, the use of deadly force. LEO's would actually be held to a greater standard, because they have escalation of force protocols to follow. They also have other tools available to deal with the individual.
Re Home Invasion: Again, please cite your sources. Even Hawaii has a Castle doctrine for life and limb - some places even go so far as to cover property. I'm not going to waste a lot of time looking for it, so please be kind enough to show us some examples of someone here or some where else using deadly force during a home invasion when it was justified - and then went to prison.
-
From Funtimes, 1:42 pm. ( sorry I can't quote edited quotes )
"
That would depend. How was it instigated? Just because someone is yelling at you, talking shit, isn't justification to swing at someone.
This is nothing more than bullshit (the way you mean it, but it could also be true legally). You cannot just "pick" a fight. Now, by pick a fight I mean going and starting a fight i.e. "Hey, F-u! *swing*" /get ass kicked -- *bang*. That would mean you go to jail. "
Picking a fight doesn't mean swinging first. It means provoking the other party into swinging first or enter into the monkey dance. The way I understand it.
So long as you don't swing you can apparently talk all the shit you want while carrying.
When the other guy swings.....BANG !
Not Guilty.
The way I meant it was purely legally.
Re Home Invasion: Again, please cite your sources. Even Hawaii has a Castle doctrine for life and limb -
If I'm not mistaken, we have a weak castle doctrine as HRA testified to shoot down the stronger version introduced this past legislative session.
( I testified for it to pass )
Perp needs to be committing a Class A or B felony or actively inflicting bodily harm to invoke Castle doctrine in HI. The current law is very confusing and diluted.
-
FYI: More witness testimony.
KHON2 - Arresting officer testify (Naki testimony, somewhat of a repeat of the last one)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxiwfXpTgsw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxiwfXpTgsw)
KITV4 - 2 witnesses detail events that led to Waikiki fatal shooting (bystanders AuYoung and Alexander Byrd)
2 witnesses detail events that led to Waikiki fatal shooting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycqtj2SIzwU#ws)
-
>:D
-
Great point. Elderts definitely continued to move forward. And threat of bodily harm to Deedy appeared real and imminent.
Looked like Elderts was kicking his trained ass !
Possibly, but then again Deedy is reaching for/protecting his firearm. He is literally fighting with one arm behind his back.
Does it matter if the armed party instigated the conflict and was probably drunk, by witness accounts ? ( prosecution witnesses though. haven't heard defense )
Yes and no. Read HRS703-304, you will see where you can/cannot use deadly force and why if you are contributary to the situation you may not be protected from prosecution. Also I keep stating this over and over, but if Deedy identified himself as a LEO, then the same rules don't always apply to standard citizens. Read the HRS, it's very informative.
Serious question as I'm now thinking it doesn't. Justified use of deadly force doesn't appear to depend on who instigated what or what frame of mind they were in.
So long as the threat of great bodily harm was real and imminent.
If you are a private citizen in the State of Hawaii, it absolutely depends on who instigated the conflict. Read HRS703-304 as stated above.
This would be bad for CCW though.
If I'm carrying a gun, I can pick whatever fight I like and once I feel the threat of great bodily harm, I'm justified to shoot.
of course Deedy was LEO though.
Although we still haven't determined what crime Elderts was committing that required LEO intervention and not arrest/detainment.
Answers above in bolded italics.
-
>:D
-
Funtimes- re: moving forward = no care for safety.
Krav maga
Glad to see my buddy q's recent posts have been focused on legit facts (you know those things that he is 100% biased toward) and not one bit of speculation on his part
/sarcasm lol
-
Actually, ALL people ARE allowed to use deadly force, if it is within the confines and definitions of the law.
Let me rephrase since it came out obviously wrong:
Police are the only ones authorized to carry firearms for ready lethal force. Seems you and Chris are trying to wrap up what is only allowable for a private citizen (by my understanding of the law) to do within their place of sojourn/business. Who else has ready access and the legal right to use them wherever they may find themselves, and have the full protection of the law.
If there is any way someone not a LEO can use a firearm to protect themselves from serious harm outside the home it is a well kept secret. We are not talking about knives or baseball bats.
-
>:D
-
If I'm not mistaken, we have a weak castle doctrine as HRA testified to shoot down the stronger version introduced this past legislative session.
( I testified for it to pass )
Perp needs to be committing a Class A or B felony or actively inflicting bodily harm to invoke Castle doctrine in HI. The current law is very confusing and diluted.
What bill in the 2013 legislative session, relating to the "Castle Doctrine" did the HRA testify against? Or am I reading your statement incorrectly?
The current "Castle Doctrine" law does not require that someone be committing a Class A or B felony, only that the home owner/occupant believe that someone is about to commit one.
You stated you testified this year for a stronger Castle Doctrine bill, just curious, did you testify for the bill that was enacted into law for the protections we enjoy now? And while I agree our "Castle Doctrine" laws could be stronger and provide the homeowner/occupant greater protections (such as a presumption of life threatening behavior by just being in your house unauthorized...) what we have now is better than we had before.
-
>:D
-
Regardless of if they are LEO or not, they are still fall under the jurisdiction of the law. The law doesn't specify that 'in order to defend yourself, you must do so within your home', nor does it specify how or what a person may defend themselves with or that the law only pertains to a private citizens.
You are being willfully obtuse and ignoring what I am saying about the use of firearms by private citizens.
No Problem, this sort of crap bores me, have at it with the rest of the gang.
-
I was just teasing but I guess you never catch :(
I appreciate that you put some time into your response. Sadly your assumptions were totally wrong lol sorry you wasted your time typing that out.
Perhaps you should rethink some of your assumptions about the case too...
-
>:D
-
Picking a fight doesn't mean swinging first. It means provoking the other party into swinging first or enter into the monkey dance. The way I understand it.
So long as you don't swing you can apparently talk all the shit you want while carrying.
When the other guy swings.....BANG !
Not Guilty.
The way I meant it was purely legally.
I think you are *really* reaching here - and pushing things to some far limits. What gives you the right to assault the other individual, even if they are talking shit? At what point do you think you can act upon unprotected speech and invade the liberties of another person? You are more than free to call the police. You are more than free to file a harassment case. You can get a TRO -- or.. you could... wait for it.....
wait for it....
Walk Away like a real man.
People say things to me, way more than someone would have said something to Elderts. I don't care what came out of deedy's mouth, I'm pretty sure I have heard it or had it said to me.
-
Someone threatened your life or worse and you walked away/called cops funtimes? Damn
-
I agree Fun. ( with your last post )
Deedy should have walked away like a real man. :thumbsup:
Heck, looked like KK called out HB last night for talking shit. ( I have no affiliation with HB, just sayin' )
And sounds like you support my position.
If you're legally carrying you can talk as much shit as you like until the other guy swings/attacks then...
Wait for it....
Bang.
Legal.
From a purely legal standpoint. And I agree it coould be legal. And I'm not passing judgement, it is what it is.
( except maybe for HRS703-304 as GZire pointed out. Wonder what instigated means legally)
( Hey I support CCW and the Constitution)
What bill in the 2013 legislative session, relating to the "Castle Doctrine" did the HRA testify against? Or am I reading your statement incorrectly?
The current "Castle Doctrine" law does not require that someone be committing a Class A or B felony, only that the home owner/occupant believe that someone is about to commit one.
You stated you testified this year for a stronger Castle Doctrine bill, just curious, did you testify for the bill that was enacted into law for the protections we enjoy now? And while I agree our "Castle Doctrine" laws could be stronger and provide the homeowner/occupant greater protections (such as a presumption of life threatening behavior by just being in your house unauthorized...) what we have now is better than we had before.
http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=6791.0 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=6791.0)
You read it correctly.
No I didn't testify on the 2010 law. I wasn't involved in 2A then. :(
:stopjack:
Before I get scolded by 2A again.
-
Heck, looked like KK called out HB last night for talking shit. ( I have no affiliation with HB, just sayin' )
I didn't "call out" anyone.
I've found in my experience that people don't act the same way in person that they do online.
I've met a few members here that didn't like or agree with me.
After meeting them, they changed their attitude and demeanor.
We resolved any differences.
I'm friendly like that. :D
-
Roger that KK.
That's why I'd like to meet you. :D
Volunteer to plan the August Pau Hana ? :shaka:
You're right, it is different when you actually know the folks.
-
After meeting them, they changed their attitude and demeanor.
Chee! :shaka:
-
Someone threatened your life or worse and you walked away/called cops funtimes? Damn
I've had my life threatened on numerous occasions. I have called the police on even more occasions. I have had escorts to doors; I have had officers help me apprehend individuals as well. Let me tell you stories about the "little haole that could."!
-
.
-
.
-
Wow. In the civilian world I've had my life threatened once or twice but I never felt it was a legit threat. So all that proof isn't enough for a ccw here huh? Sad
-
Some more videos from KITV4
KITV4 Deedy murder trial day six, part one (Alexander Byrd)
http://youtu.be/J2xH919-pos
KITV4 Deedy murder trial day six, part two (Alexander Byrd)
http://youtu.be/P92MoFPd0Ao
-
Wow. In the civilian world I've had my life threatened once or twice but I never felt it was a legit threat. So all that proof isn't enough for a ccw here huh? Sad
Yep. As a process server / bail bondsman, they don't see how going after felons who skip trial or sentencing, delivering TRO extensions, serving clients with divorce papers, being around peoples property at night, carrying large sums of cash, or any that other really fun stuff (dogs!) has an increased need. Yet - the bank can protect their money with guns.
-
KITV4 Deedy murder trial day six, part two (Alexander Byrd)
http://youtu.be/P92MoFPd0Ao (http://youtu.be/P92MoFPd0Ao)
If Byrd is credible I think Deedy is screwed.
-
Yeah, if Byrd is correct and Deedy shot first before Elderts took a swing, that really makes a HUGE difference. Maybe he think he's Judge Dredd?
Additionally, Byrd's testimony makes Deedy seem like an angry drunk with a badge.
-
If Byrd is credible I think Deedy is screwed.
Apparently he gave an entirely different account of the events that night to the police.
-
If Elderts was indeed told by Deedy that he was LEO but fought hi anyways leading to the first fall, and then subsequently also rushing Deedy, grabbing his weapon arm, which at that point even that other LEO told all of Hawaii said deadly force was appropriate, then we are going to see another Z-type justified decision.
I think.
-
Byrd testified for a l full day over a 2 day period. We're just seeing 2 minutes.
Based on the newspaper account, Byrd admitted he didn't see the whole Deedy/Elderts encounter and didn't see Deedy show credentials, but couldn't say he didn't miss it.
Elderts dropped Deedy before he pulled his gun, so he certainly didn't shoot Elderts before he took a swing. He pulled his gun on the second go round.
It's like Fun keeps saying ( and some others ). Was he in fear for his life or serious bodily harm when the shots were fired ?
Sounds like Elderts was on him.
Also sounds like KKs "french army" theory that no one goes toward a gunman when shots are fired is out the window. ;D ( Just causing trouble in good fun )
Witness testifies that Elderts was trying to control Deedy's hands/wrists after first shot fired.
Deeedy cetainly could have felt that he was trying to be overpowered and have his gun taken away. ( and possibly shoved up his ass. Am I allowed to say ass ? )
Which Elderts was probably trying to do to save his own life as shots already fired. To get the gun away, not necessarily, but possibly, to shove it up Deedy's ass,
Was Deedy drunk ? No intoxication tests but so far a lot of prosecution circumstantial evidence witnesses, including HPD.
Defense will probably have their own witnesses saying Deedy had one beer. ( Deedy's friends )
Did he act in a reasonable manner ?
defense blocking all witness opinions of was it reasonable/necessary to pull out a gun as witnesses are not experts.
They're trying to get their own expert to testify about this.
Legally and assholey this is 2 different discussions.
-
i noticed he refers to elderts by his first name
is he a friend?
Apparently he gave an entirely different account of the events that night to the police.
-
Wow ! good catch Mac.
-
yes i heard Byrd say "Collin" and "Deedy" also.
:popcorn:
-
we dentites are very detail oriented
http://2ahawaii.com/Smileys/extended/tongue.gif (http://2ahawaii.com/Smileys/extended/tongue.gif)
Wow ! good catch Mac.
-
jl is very detail oriented too
http://2ahawaii.com/Smileys/extended/wink.gif (http://2ahawaii.com/Smileys/extended/wink.gif)
yes i heard Byrd say "Collin" and "Deedy" also.
:popcorn:
-
KHON2 video - Former Marine describes threat made before deadly shooting
http://youtu.be/fNdIUOWZ83I
KHON2's report seem to suggest that Deedy pulled out his gun after falling on the ground. Now I am confused.
KITV - shot then swing
KHON - swing then shot
Bad media reporting by KITV4 or KHON2? Both stations were both listening to the same witness testimony, right?
-
Apparently he gave an entirely different account of the events that night to the police.
I saw that. Prosecution witness. Defense will try to discredit him.
-
I wish I had those stories...
All I have are the 'mistook the white Hawaiian guy for a haole' stories. :(
Good to know I'm not the only one... It's especially entertaining when the person calling me a haole' isn't even Hawaiian.
Back to topic, I think the defense is going to have an easy time discrediting Byrd off the what has come forth so far.
-
.
-
Last mistake was that bow tie. :rofl:
I thought that was his first mistake... :rofl:
-
Damn fun. Guess that kinda stuff comes with the territory ah?
Q: you know if the marine was for deedy you'd be all over his nuts lol. Prob call anyone who didn't side with/believe him anti patriotic/military and post all kinda support the troops stuff :shaka:
-
does anyone else think that the first problem in this whole case was deedy's co-worker explaining to him that f'in haole was the same as the n-word?
if it wasn't for that advice, deedy probably would not have been carrying, and he wouldn't have over-reacted so much to elderts
I thought that was his first mistake... :rofl:
-
I don't know about y'all, but it seems to me that a big problem is what it actually looks like. Two guys who had been drinking got into a fight, one apparently was legally carrying a firearm, got knocked on his behind, and decided to use his firearm to to even the odds. Seems to be exactly what all the antis said would happen if the "may issue" CCW in Hi is changed to reflect what many of us want.. The fact that it was a LEO doesn't exactly help the matter. If he was cream of the crop, what's going to happen if "regular" people are allowed to carry?
Yes, I realize that as an LEO he may have had a duty to act, but the State Dept. must have guidelines regarding carrying a firearm while out drinking.
-
Not taking any sides but my observations thus far:
Assumption: Deedy will not be proved to be legal intoxicated (no sobriety test or BAT), therefore the case hinges on whether the use of deadly forced was justified as a private citizen claiming self-defense.
On March 11 Deedy's lawyers withdrew the request to dismiss the case on the basis that he was acting as a federal agent at the time of the incident and said the killing was in self-defense. Therefore, he was not acting in a law enforcement capacity but as a private citizen claiming self-defense. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding and I've read it from multiple sources...private citizen and not acting in a law enforcement capacity. That makes a big difference. He is also being charged with felonious use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
LEOs may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in self-defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for LEOs are different from those for citizens. However, Deedy was not acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time of the incident.
If he was prosecuted for murder or manslaughter as a LEO (which he is not), he would be able to claim as a defense that he complied with the statutory standard for using deadly force. Once this defense has been properly raised at trial, the state would have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. To meet the initial burden of proof to establish this defense the state must present sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational juror as to whether the officer's use of deadly force was justified. The jury must first determine whether the defendant honestly believed that the use of deadly force was necessary in the circumstances. If the jury determines that the defendant in fact had believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, the jury must make a further determination as to whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable LEO in the defendant's circumstances.
BTW...a DSS special agent stationed in the United States, who is not otherwise in any way legally disqualified from carrying a firearm, is authorized to carry approved firearms on and off duty in accordance with U.S. Department of State Deadly Force and Firearms Policy, approved by U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. on November 29, 2011. Just in case anyone wondered.
-
here's the thing
he's claiming to be able to carry since he's an LEO, but when he shoots someone, he's a civilian?
who cannot be carrying at mickey d's
these two claims do not match up
Not taking any sides but my observations thus far:
Assumption: Deedy will not be proved to be legal intoxicated (no sobriety test or BAT), therefore the case hinges on whether the use of deadly forced was justified as a private citizen claiming self-defense.
On March 11 Deedy's lawyers withdrew the request to dismiss the case on the basis that he was acting as a federal agent at the time of the incident and said the killing was in self-defense. Therefore, he was not acting in a law enforcement capacity but as a private citizen claiming self-defense. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding and I've read it from multiple sources...private citizen and not acting in a law enforcement capacity. That makes a big difference. He is also being charged with felonious use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
LEOs may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in self-defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for LEOs are different from those for citizens. However, Deedy was not acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time of the incident.
If he was prosecuted for murder or manslaughter as a LEO (which he is not), he would be able to claim as a defense that he complied with the statutory standard for using deadly force. Once this defense has been properly raised at trial, the state would have to disprove it beyond a reasonable doubt in order to get a conviction. To meet the initial burden of proof to establish this defense the state must present sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of a rational juror as to whether the officer's use of deadly force was justified. The jury must first determine whether the defendant honestly believed that the use of deadly force was necessary in the circumstances. If the jury determines that the defendant in fact had believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, the jury must make a further determination as to whether that belief was reasonable, from the perspective of a reasonable LEO in the defendant's circumstances.
BTW...a DSS special agent stationed in the United States, who is not otherwise in any way legally disqualified from carrying a firearm, is authorized to carry approved firearms on and off duty in accordance with U.S. Department of State Deadly Force and Firearms Policy, approved by U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. on November 29, 2011. Just in case anyone wondered.
-
here's the thing
he's claiming to be able to carry since he's an LEO, but when he shoots someone, he's a civilian?
who cannot be carrying at mickey d's
these two claims do not match up
I believe him carrying, which he clearly is authorized by DSS policy but in this incidence, he is not acting in a law enforcement capacity (he tried to use that defense initially) because he is not enforcing a law, but rather a private citizen in a beef. He can carry his firearm no matter what but the situation dictates what capacity he is acting in.
BTW...my father is retired LEO and he never left home without a firearm.
-
.
-
.
-
KITV4 Crime specialist takes stand in Deedy trial
http://youtu.be/5pZoEXFwoIM (http://youtu.be/5pZoEXFwoIM)
-
My 2 cents on this case.
A) It takes 2 to tango.
I believe that Deedy should have shown greater self control than to get involved in a minor altercation.
I believe he got involved too early. There was no physical violence yet, that I saw, that required LEO intervention.
Furthermore I believe that Deedy is cocky. I believe he had/has a little chip on his shoulder because of his position.
As far as Elderts is concerned, I believe he is/was a punk. He looks like a punk, he acted like a punk and it seems
he was looking for trouble that night.
His body language toward the skinny haole was aggressive and even without sound in the video it's obvious he was harassing that guy.
He just picked the wrong guy to false crack that night.
B) Either one could have deescalated the situation that night.
I'm a local boy. Born and raised here. I completely understand beating the shit out of some punk who desperately deserves it.
Hawaii is a great place to "lick haoles" because there is no CCW. As I was growing up, it was a common thing to go to Waikiki
looking for fights with haoles and popolos. It was as much a part of local culture as shave ice.
Elderts was determined to scrap as soon as Deedy opened his mouth.
Deedy had the opportunity to walk away on more than one occasion. His body language in the video was an aggressive body language.
He kicked off his slippers before any blows were thrown which tells me that he was ready and determined to fight before any blows were thrown.
I don't know who was right or wrong here.
As far as I'm concerned, let the judicial system do its thing.
While it may not be perfect, I honestly believe its the best answer to situations like this.
-
what about the use of less than lethal options?
I can see the logic if you are faced with immenent life threatening danger, you need to have lethal force.
but what about using things like a tazer, mace/pepper spray, etc. especially with an unarmed assailant.
I am no expert in LEO protocol, but arent they trained to use these as well?
-
does anyone else think that the first problem in this whole case was deedy's co-worker explaining to him that f'in haole was the same as the n-word?
if it wasn't for that advice, deedy probably would not have been carrying, and he wouldn't have over-reacted so much to elderts
I would have to disagree with this. I think Deedy is carrying regardless. Over reaction or not we really don't know since we weren't there. Video is choppy, sound is non existent, witnesses are all saying different things, it's just chaos..........pretty much on par with what one would think.
Different people view/take things differently. I've done quite a few accident investigations on my projects and usually the things people say about what they thought happened differ. The major points may/may not be the same, but the little stuff usually is different.
FWIW we say Deedy may be over-reacting, but again we weren't there. As some point out LEO's are trained to go over and above to de-escalate situations as one means of addressing people. Two examples.
1). One friend (HPD) used to serve warrants a lot. One time he tells me of this guy (not armed as far as they knew) not cooperating. Two guys him (about 5'-8"/170 and his partner 6'+/250+) and his partner. His partner couldn't handle the guy physically in a scuffle, but as soon as my friend stuck the muzzle of his service pistol on the guys head........instant cooperation.
2). Another guy (Sherrifs) was telling us how when you talk to people and they don't cooperate, they bump things up. So in the case of a person talking back, they go command voice, they raise the volume of their voice, and they may start adding in things like "Do what I say m-effer NOW!!!"
So do we know if Deedy was doing this? Nope and neither do the others there.
Just got to let things play out and see what happens.
-
what about the use of less than lethal options?
I can see the logic if you are faced with immenent life threatening danger, you need to have lethal force.
but what about using things like a tazer, mace/pepper spray, etc. especially with an unarmed assailant.
I am no expert in LEO protocol, but arent they trained to use these as well?
Pepper spray/mace no good. The point at which these guys were rolling around and Elderts may allegedly have been reaching for Deedy's pistol...........nope way beyond less lethal.
Straight up front would it be a good idea? I don't know maybe, but then again some people really don't get affected by pepper spray and it may have completely escalated the situation instead of calming it down.
Tough for us to say because we weren't there. Even if we were, for certain all of us here would disagree on what should have been done............there wouldn't be one concensus.
-
what about the use of less than lethal options?
I can see the logic if you are faced with immenent life threatening danger, you need to have lethal force.
but what about using things like a tazer, mace/pepper spray, etc. especially with an unarmed assailant.
I am no expert in LEO protocol, but arent they trained to use these as well?
Does he have bat slippers that had all this inside of it?
-
Good points guys. Next time there is a pissing match, someone should just bring out a less than lethal tactical ruler or two as suggested earlier.
-
Does he have bat slippers that had all this inside of it?
apparently his bat slippers could only fit a handgun.
maybe if he put on some pants he would have a place to put it.
like i said, i'm not an expert. and I'm sure you know more than me about personal defense and CCW.
but maybe if people also carry less than lethal option along with their CCW, they would have another option before going to the lethal one.
you could hit them with the tazer or pepper spray at a distance, then if necessary go to the gun.
but if the distance is already closed or is already escalated then you would have to go to the final option.
-
Does he have bat slippers that had all this inside of it?
apparently his bat slippers could only fit a handgun.
maybe if he put on some pants he would have a place to put it.
The EDC Song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gje6DganwAM#)
-
apparently his bat slippers could only fit a handgun.
maybe if he put on some pants he would have a place to put it.
like i said, i'm not an expert. and I'm sure you know more than me about personal defense and CCW.
but maybe if people also carry less than lethal option along with their CCW, they would have another option before going to the lethal one.
you could hit them with the tazer or pepper spray at a distance, then if necessary go to the gun.
but if the distance is already closed or is already escalated then you would have to go to the final option.
FYI taser is illegal in Hawaii. Pepper spray be aware there are different types. More aerosol the type the more chance you can have it blow back in your face given certain conditions.
-
i won't argue for less than lethal anymore
since it doesn't matter in this case
but i still believe in less than lethal for other options.
-
apparently his bat slippers could only fit a handgun.
maybe if he put on some pants he would have a place to put it.
like i said, i'm not an expert. and I'm sure you know more than me about personal defense and CCW.
but maybe if people also carry less than lethal option along with their CCW, they would have another option before going to the lethal one.
you could hit them with the tazer or pepper spray at a distance, then if necessary go to the gun.
but if the distance is already closed or is already escalated then you would have to go to the final option.
It's really hard to train on the use of that stuff, not to mention carrying it without looking suspicious. That would be really hard to do here. I mean deedy's clothes are not all that far off from what most of wear on a daily basis. The point for many people, is CCW is discrete.
-
I don't know about y'all, but it seems to me that a big problem is what it actually looks like. Two guys who had been drinking got into a fight, one apparently was legally carrying a firearm, got knocked on his behind, and decided to use his firearm to to even the odds. Seems to be exactly what all the antis said would happen if the "may issue" CCW in Hi is changed to reflect what many of us want.. The fact that it was a LEO doesn't exactly help the matter. If he was cream of the crop, what's going to happen if "regular" people are allowed to carry?
Yes, I realize that as an LEO he may have had a duty to act, but the State Dept. must have guidelines regarding carrying a firearm while out drinking.
I agree with this
-
i won't argue for less than lethal anymore
since it doesn't matter in this case
but i still believe in less than lethal for other options.
One other thing to think about, is how hard it is to train with less lethal....
Think about that for a bit!
-
One other thing to think about, is how hard it is to train with less lethal....
Think about that for a bit!
that is true.
-
in Hawaii we dont have CCW for non LEO.
thats why i brought up the subject of less than lethal.
-
That is why I got my ccw in Washington: to protect myself from liberal hippies
Damn. Did you get ccw to protect against butterflys n dandelions too?
Lol jj. I'm gonna try to stop now I promise
-
So deedys buddy testified today right?
-
KITV: Retired police sergeant testifies in Deedy trial (Sgt Shreiner)
Retired police sergeant testifies in Deedy trial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlhoSdwsXjs#ws)
-
" Nobody runs back at someone after they've been shot at, it's not human
nature."
you served in the French army?
Given the situation in the Deedy case with the close distance? I believe MOST, regardless of training or background, probably would fight for their life or at least try to. And that is not about being a hero, but basic survival instinct.
:stopjack:
I honestly think people who want and support having real CCW in Hawaii should be careful not to hitch their wagons to this one.
-
.
-
.
-
Looks like HPD bungled the investigation pretty good...never secured the crime scene, let witnesses leave without questioning, and never performed a field sobriety test or blood alcohol test. Three points...Deedy was authorized to carry a concealed firearm IAW U.S. Department of State Deadly Force and Firearms Policy and H.R. 218. However, he cannot carry a concealed firearm while under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance.
Authorization to carry a concealed firearm:
1) U.S. Department of State Deadly Force and Firearms Policy (relevant section):
A. A DSS special agent stationed in the United States, who is not otherwise in any way legally disqualified from carrying a firearm, is authorized to carry approved firearms on and off duty.
2) H.R. 218 allows “qualified” LEOs to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of state or local laws, with certain exceptions. Codified at 18 U.S.C. Sections 926B.
The question becomes can he carry and consume alcohol off duty? The answer is yes. An off duty LEO can moderately consume alcohol while conceal carrying, meaning not under the influence, unless agency policy prohibits it, which is not the case with Deedy.
H.R. 218 has been challenged in court multiple times and it has been upheld in every case. Imagine if a LEO wanted to enjoy a glass of wine with his dinner at a restaurant but he wasn’t authorized to moderately consume alcohol while he conceal carried? Then imagine to comply with policy, he left his firearm at home and then a felony was committed right in front of him at the restaurant and he couldn't intervene.
That is why moderate consumption is authorized in most departments/agencies. When you read some of the cases, it’s obvious why the majority of agencies and police departments allow moderate consumption while off duty and carrying. Key word is moderate. “The moderate use of alcohol is generally accepted in our society and is legal in most jurisdictions. The moderate social usage of alcohol is generally known to have little significant relationship to a person’s ability to perform effectively and it has no apparent effect upon the Service’s ability to effectively conduct its responsibilities.”
However, 18 USC § 926B clearly states a “qualified” law enforcement officer cannot be under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance.
18 USC § 926B - Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
(c) As used in this section, the term “qualified law enforcement officer” means an employee of a governmental agency who—
(5) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and
(6) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.
Under the influence at a minimal is legally impaired, which must be measured by a blood alcohol test. That is why without a blood alcohol test, who is to definitively conclude Deedy was in fact legally under the influence. That is why I believe they will not be able to prove Deedy was legal under the influence, therefore the case will hinge on whether the use of deadly forced was justified as a private citizen claiming self-defense, since he was not acting in a law enforcement capacity at the time of the incident.
-
.
-
Another for instance related to off duty LEO being able to moderately consume alcohol. Imagine if an off duty LEO was not able to carry and he wanted a beer with some buddies at the local sports bar and a convicted felon that he personally sent to prison for 15 years was recently released, seen him at the bar, and wanted to take revenge by beating him to a pulp or whatever. Without his firearm, it's all over.
-
This is exactly the argument for CCWs.
A federal agent murdered a citizen of this state in cold blood.
This was a preventable tragedy. Had a person been carrying he could have killed Deedy before he murdered Elderts.
I do hope that this Fed is convicted to the full extent of the law to send a message to D.C. that government tyranny will not be tolerated.
Ruby Ridge was not that long ago friends.This case is a reminder of that.
-
Here's what I don't understand....
If Deedy is "LEO", then we should look at his actions to the standards that we would expect of a LEO. If he has LEO powers on duty and off duty 24 hours, he should be fit for duty 24 hours too. That's what you would expect of a LEO right? Someone going bar hopping and drunk (was he?) should not be acting LEO that night.
Where was his LEO ID? What is involved in identifying yourself as a LEO? If some tourist in shorts and shirt came up to me and said he was arresting me, I wouldn't believe him unless he looked the part and showed some ID. Wouldn't you have to show your badge?
What was the SOP for reviewing a LEO use of deadly force? Did he undergo the same process? If he was acting as a LEO that night, he should have gone through such a process. If not, he was not a LEO that night unless someone didn't do their job right.
Of course, this is all up to the court and jury.
Bringing up an old subject, but I thought it would be interesting as I saw this little tidbit in today's news:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22877086/honolulu-police-union-defends-pay-differential (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22877086/honolulu-police-union-defends-pay-differential)
...............being expected to carry a firearm 24 hours a day...................
.............officers must confront danger even when they're off-duty................
-
Deedy's friend, Adam Gutowski testified that Elderts "said something along the lines of, 'You have a gun?' or 'You're not the only one with a gun,' or something along those lines. I heard something about a gun". That kinda plants a seed with the jury that possibly Elderts told Deedy he had a gun.
More on the alcohol stuff…Gutowski testified that Deedy had ordered about five beers over several hours from China Town clubs before going to McDonalds. That doesn't prove that Deedy was drunk...he could have not finished or not even drank all of them, or ordered for someone else, and it was also over a period of several hours. Deedy has already admitted he drank alcohol earlier in the evening but said he was not intoxicated at the time of the incident. HPD should have pursued a warrant to get a blood alcohol test but they didn’t, so in the absence of a blood alcohol test, I believe the alcohol angle will be irrelevant in this case.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22903261/day-9-deedys-friend-testifies-about-bar-hopping-on-night-elderts-was-shot (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22903261/day-9-deedys-friend-testifies-about-bar-hopping-on-night-elderts-was-shot)
-
Day 11 testimonies by McDonalds cashier and by medical examiner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pMqsWCA73k
-
.
-
So she claims to have witnessed everything but she was the person that called 911 and said Christopher Deedy ran away when he was right there administering first aid until HPD arrived.
-
Here are more bits and pieces to this trial
Khon: Medical examiner and cashier testimony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54jMO8D8SZ4
Kitv: cashier testimony
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3msZ4-vlro
I just noticed that the prosecutor uses "Collin" and "Deedy" when she talks to the witness. Perhaps it explains why the witnesses also use "Collin" and "Deedy" in the videos.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
-
So she claims to have witnessed everything but she was the person that called 911 and said Christopher Deedy ran away when he was right there administering first aid until HPD arrived.
She sounds like she got freaked out / traumatized by Deedy pulling the gun. Probably something she didn't expect would happen that night.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk 2
-
A drunk coke head got shot for thinking he could punch someone w/out repercussions, and the the expected outcome occurred. Without a blood alcohol test to verify whether or not Deedy was drunk, random McDonald's employee's 'expert' opinions are useless. I predict an acquittal.
-
KITV Day 12: Shane medeiros takes the stand
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MikxF77cQG0
-
KITV Day 12: Shane medeiros takes the stand
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MikxF77cQG0 (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MikxF77cQG0)
The news clips so far only shows the prosecution questioning their witnesses.
At the end of this video though, the news caster says that the defense questioned the cashier and she said that she really couldn't tell who smelled like alcohol and that Elderts was beating up Deedy before shots were fired.
-
.
-
Medeiros testimony is going to hurt the case.
He said "we told him to pay for our food, when he looked at us we told him 'what the fuck you looking at' but he knew we were just kidding"
-
Medeiros testimony is going to hurt the case.
He said "we told him to pay for our food, when he looked at us we told him 'what the fuck you looking at' but he knew we were just kidding"
Ic. So they tried to strong arm rob him.
-
Here's more writeup on this testimony:
KITV: Friend of man killed by federal agent says misunderstanding led to deadly shooting:
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/shane-medeiros-says-christopher-deedy-mistook-joking-around-as-harassment/-/8905354/21174312/-/974304z/-/index.html
-
.
-
does anyone else think that the first problem in this whole case was deedy's co-worker explaining to him that f'in haole was the same as the n-word?
if it wasn't for that advice, deedy probably would not have been carrying, and he wouldn't have over-reacted so much to elderts
Macsac, I see what you mean here.
Deedy overheard Elderts', Medeiros' and Perrine's drunken banter at the McDonalds counter and probably got offended enough to want to intervene.
The briefing by Deedy's co-worker that "f'kin haole" was the same as calling a black guy the n-word, plus the "hey I'm local too" conversation probably got mis-interpreted by Deedy as truly racist and made him want to give the local punk an educational beatdown. If you know locals, we all have "insults" for all our various races but this is done in fun.
There are two things I think here:
1. For Deedy's trial - Deedy probably is going to get acquitted since shooting Elderts as a result of an escalated fight would be justifiable homicide, especially since Deedy is a LEO. Elderts attacking him and the ensuing struggle for Deedy's gun = Deedy was getting his ass kicked and he probably had to use his gun to save his butt.
2. For Deedy's career - Deedy showed poor judgment as a security detail that night and his supervisors should probably review if he should continue serving in this capacity.
A. Even if the prosecution has no evidence of his intoxication and only has witness testimonies, he was under the influence enough that night resulting in his bad judgment.
If he says he wasn't intoxicated, it's even worse for him... Poor judgment while sober.
B. He intervened when he didn't need to and was party to instigating a fight with Elderts.
C. If he thought something needed LEO intervention, he failed to control the situation, failed to de-escalate, got his ass kicked, and made a non-dangerous situation dangerous and endangering other bystanders.
D. As a visitor and a security detail for an event, it is bad policy to go out getting drunk, picking a fight with and killing a local. Bad press for the event. Since he is "highly trained", he should have known better and should have shown more restraint.
Anyway, I would be concerned if Deedy was allowed to continue serving as a security detail after this trail is over. Especially not after seeing his poor judgement and being able to get away with murder because he was a power tripping drunk LEO. As a regular citizen, I wound not want him to go to prison but I would not want him to continue having that LEO power also.
If I may add another observation... this trial is hitting a nerve with so many people here locally. If you've lived in Hawaii long enough, you know how locals feel about short-lived mainlanders, those that come here being all "hot stuff", find out they cannot make it and end up leaving the locals holding the bag. This stuff has deep roots and has a historical imprint on the local psyche. Note: I am not talking about race here but learned experience from past behavior, disappointments or broken promises.
-
.
-
Great post, jl
I am on a trip and only have iPhone access, so I will post a longer reply later
Macsac, I see what you mean here.
Deedy overheard Elderts', Medeiros' and Perrine's drunken banter at the McDonalds counter and probably got offended enough to want to intervene.
The briefing by Deedy's co-worker that "f'kin haole" was the same as calling a black guy the n-word, plus the "hey I'm local too" conversation probably got mis-interpreted by Deedy as truly racist and made him want to give the local punk an educational beatdown. If you know locals, we all have "insults" for all our various races but this is done in fun.
There are two things I think here:
1. For Deedy's trial - Deedy probably is going to get acquitted since shooting Elderts as a result of an escalated fight would be justifiable homicide, especially since Deedy is a LEO. Elderts attacking him and the ensuing struggle for Deedy's gun = Deedy was getting his ass kicked and he probably had to use his gun to save his butt.
2. For Deedy's career - Deedy showed poor judgment as a security detail that night and his supervisors should probably review if he should continue serving in this capacity.
A. Even if the prosecution has no evidence of his intoxication and only has witness testimonies, he was under the influence enough that night resulting in his bad judgment.
If he says he wasn't intoxicated, it's even worse for him... Poor judgment while sober.
B. He intervened when he didn't need to and was party to instigating a fight with Elderts.
C. If he thought something needed LEO intervention, he failed to control the situation, failed to de-escalate, got his ass kicked, and made a non-dangerous situation dangerous and endangering other bystanders.
D. As a visitor and a security detail for an event, it is bad policy to go out getting drunk, picking a fight with and killing a local. Bad press for the event. Since he is "highly trained", he should have known better and should have shown more restraint.
Anyway, I would be concerned if Deedy was allowed to continue serving as a security detail after this trail is over. Especially not after seeing his poor judgement and being able to get away with murder because he was a power tripping drunk LEO. As a regular citizen, I wound not want him to go to prison but I would not want him to continue having that LEO power also.
If I may add another observation... this trial is hitting a nerve with so many people here locally. If you've lived in Hawaii long enough, you know how locals feel about short-lived mainlanders, those that come here being all "hot stuff", find out they cannot make it and end up leaving the locals holding the bag. This stuff has deep roots and has a historical imprint on the local psyche. Note: I am not talking about race here but learned experience from past behavior, disappointments or broken promises.
-
Either he is done, or he is never coming back to Hawaii.
Either way, this will be forgotten in a matter of months; wouldn't be surprised if it was a distant memory in a few weeks.
The mob is fickle.
Truth.
-
Either he is done, or he is never coming back to Hawaii.
Either way, this will be forgotten in a matter of months; wouldn't be surprised if it was a distant memory in a few weeks.
The mob is fickle.
Forgotten until the clamor for CCW comes up again Then, they'll bring up "remember the beef at McDonalds where the guy had a gun?" Doesn't matter that the guy with the gun wasn't from here, or that he supposedly was acting as an LEO, it'll be "see, that's what going happen if we allow people to carry guns here", followed by the inevitable, "I tol' you". Fickle is a nice way to put it, biased and one-sided may be more accurate. Either way though, as happens all too often here, the poor judgement of a few make things hard for the rest. Or perhaps I should say, makes it easier for those making the rules to make things harder for the rest.
-
Based on the facts so far, looks like Deedy will probably get justice with a Not Guilty verdict.
If the jury is impartial and follows the letter of the law.
If they can establish that he identified himself as LEO, although I'm not sure that's really relevant.
However, as mnp said, it's a day of injustice for CCW in Hawaii due to one man's poor judgement. ( I added the last part. )
Deedy will, for a lasting while, be the poster boy for the anti-establishment, who, anytime a move is made for support for CCW, will show up at the capitol with posters and t-shirts with pictures of poor innnocent Kollin Elderts. ( the hopped up on drugs, picking on innocent strangers, thug )
IMO
-
I truly hope Deedy gets acquitted of all charges. After all, it was Elderts and his friend, Medeiros, that started the entire melee. If they had not been harassing Perrine while ordering food at the McDonald's counter, it would not have prompted Deedy to get involved to help. And, it doesn't matter if Perrine felt threatened or not, Deedy, as a law enforcement officer, can intervene because Deedy felt trouble was brewing. Deedy was trying to de-escalate the situation, which sometimes requires the need to use verbal "force."
The moment of truth occurred when Deedy was creating space was his arm and telling Elderts to back off because he was armed. Elderts didn't care and continued to move toward and attack Deedy. This was Eldert's fatal mistake. Elderts should have stopped and left the building. After all, if a law enforcement officer announces that he's armed and notifies you he may shoot, why continue to show aggression that may get you shot? Elderts should have saw the signs and heeded Deedy's warnings. Did Eldert;'s think he was bulletproof? I guess alcohol, cocaine and weed can make people think they have a big "S" on their chest.
Better yet, Elderts and his friend should have stopped harassing caucasions or people in general. They should try to get their kicks or show their manhood in other ways that do not involve the potential for violence--because there's always someone faster, stronger or better than you.
This time, Elderts bad behavior caught up with him and he paid the ultimate price. Deedy should not have to pay for Eldert's anti-social behavior. Deedy should be acquitted.
-
I truly hope Deedy gets acquitted of all charges. After all, it was Elderts and his friend, Medeiros, that started the entire melee. If they had not been harassing Perrine while ordering food at the McDonald's counter, it would not have prompted Deedy to get involved to help. And, it doesn't matter if Perrine felt threatened or not, Deedy, as a law enforcement officer, can intervene because Deedy felt trouble was brewing. Deedy was trying to de-escalate the situation, which sometimes requires the need to use verbal "force."
The moment of truth occurred when Deedy was creating space was his arm and telling Elderts to back off because he was armed. Elderts didn't care and continued to move toward and attack Deedy. This was Eldert's fatal mistake. Elderts should have stopped and left the building. After all, if a law enforcement officer announces that he's armed and notifies you he may shoot, why continue to show aggression that may get you shot? Elderts should have saw the signs and heeded Deedy's warnings. Did Eldert;'s think he was bulletproof? I guess alcohol, cocaine and weed can make people think they have a big "S" on their chest.
Better yet, Elderts and his friend should have stopped harassing caucasions or people in general. They should try to get their kicks or show their manhood in other ways that do not involve the potential for violence--because there's always someone faster, stronger or better than you.
This time, Elderts bad behavior caught up with him and he paid the ultimate price. Deedy should not have to pay for Eldert's anti-social behavior. Deedy should be acquitted.
The only reason this is even an issue is because a mainland LEO was involved.
If this was an off duty HPD officer, and all the facts were exactly the same, it would be an open and shut case.
-
.
-
Why do you guys think there's never, that I recall, been an incident like this one involving off-duty HPD ?
The only one I could find was Tenari Maafala in 1998 at Mayor Wright, but the other guy fired a gun at him first.
You think it was just drunk moke-mentality locals ( not implying all locals have a moke-mentality, just the punks ) going after a mainland haole ?
But they would never challenge an HPD officer ? ( who come in all shapes and sizes and even from the mainland )
It's very possible. If so, kudos to HPD, they get R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Makes me wonder if Deedy ever clearly identifield himself as LEO and showed credentials.
Like I said, if someone says I'm a special agent, it would be like, who ? James Bond ? unless they showed credentials.
It's a serious question. Deedy was in town for like less than a week and he ends up shooting a guy off-duty. .
HPD hasn't done it in 15 years. And can't find an incident before that. Certainly not involving an unarmed man.
-
:popcorn:
-
Edit: reply was to Moosed's last post about an officer on duty who shot the guy in the front yard of a Kalihi Valley home who had a stake.
And he used large bold letters, so I responded in kind.
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20130308_HPD_responding_to_shooting_in_Kalihi_Valley.html?id=196523841 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20130308_HPD_responding_to_shooting_in_Kalihi_Valley.html?id=196523841)
Original post:
Was he off duty ?
I should lower my voice.
No need to yell. ;D
-
Why do you guys think there's never, that I recall, been an incident like this one involving off-duty HPD ?
The only one I could find was Tenari Maafala in 1998 at Mayor Wright, but the other guy fired a gun at him first.
You think it was just drunk moke-mentality locals ( not implying all locals have a moke-mentality, just the punks ) going after a mainland haole ?
But they would never challenge an HPD officer ? ( who come in all shapes and sizes and even from the mainland )
It's very possible. If so, kudos to HPD, they get R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
Makes me wonder if Deedy ever clearly identifield himself as LEO and showed credentials.
Like I said, if someone says I'm a special agent, it would be like, who ? James Bond ? unless they showed credentials.
It's a serious question. Deedy was in town for like less than a week and he ends up shooting a guy off-duty. .
HPD hasn't done it in 15 years. And can't find an incident before that. Certainly not involving an unarmed man.
Not sure the exact date, but i think it may have been after the Mayor Wright incident. 7-11 Makaha, off-duty HPD involved. According to media reports (yes I know how (un)reliable they are, the circumstances were a lot different, but still involved off-duty HPD and an unarmed local. Didn't kill the guy, shot him a couple times in the ass though. In my opinion, this was a totally different scenario.
In the McDonalds instance, seems like drunk moke, drunk-carrying LEO scenario.
-
Deedy should be acquitted. Elderts and his friend are typical of your local moronic punks that go out looking for trouble, and they got it. What I find hilarious is the idiots here that are trying to compare this case to the Zimmerman/Martin fiasco - complete w/ Justice for Collin signs. ::) The one commonality between the two is you have a drugged up punk who wants to act all gangster and then gets shot for thinking he can just punch a complete stranger for - in his so-called mind - dissin' him. Like others have written, this is an issue because you have a white guy (haole) and a dead local. If Deedy was HPD, this would've been over and settled years ago. I was born and raised here so I know all about the local attitudes towards mainlanders, and let's be honest here: Hawaii has long tolerated a quasi-racist attitude toward Caucasians. If you replaced the word haole w/ black/African American and treated them the way whites are treated here, we'd have race pimps like Sharpton and Jackson screaming about how Hawaii was the Dixie of the Pacific.
-
Not sure the exact date, but i think it may have been after the Mayor Wright incident. 7-11 Makaha, off-duty HPD involved. According to media reports (yes I know how (un)reliable they are, the circumstances were a lot different, but still involved off-duty HPD and an unarmed local. Didn't kill the guy, shot him a couple times in the ass though. In my opinion, this was a totally different scenario.
In the McDonalds instance, seems like drunk moke, drunk-carrying LEO scenario.
Actually, I should not have named the Mayor Wright housing specifically, as I'm not sure if that was the one, but it was one of the Kalihi Housing areas.
Also, according to the media reports, the off-duty involved in the Makaha incident feared for his life and reportedly felt he was in danger of losing consciousness.
-
Actually, I should not have named the Mayor Wright housing specifically, as I'm not sure if that was the one, but it was one of the Kalihi Housing areas.
Also, according to the media reports, the off-duty involved in the Makaha incident feared for his life and reportedly felt he was in danger of losing consciousness.
That's the perfect example for CCW need.
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Mar/31/ln/hawaii903310337.html (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Mar/31/ln/hawaii903310337.html)
Off-duty cop buys coffee, gets in vehicle, and punk starts punching him through window. ( considering media reports are accurate. )
My brother was at the Waimanalo Jack-in-the-Box drive-thru and was punched through his open window, just for the guy to realize he knew my brother and apologized.
Punched because he was a haole and the guy was having a bad day. ( We're local haole. He knew the guy from high school )
the Dixie of the Pacific. ( in reverse )
That goes on our quote list with:
- Ham Sammy reliability ( AK-47 )
- Crazy Joe's double barrel of justice
Regarding the incident noted above with the off-duty HPD. Sure enough, no hoo-haw about it. Though he didn't kill the guy.
Edit:
But I still love Hawaii, the local culture and wouldn't live anywhere elsewhere. ( so long as I have a choice )
-
Not sure the exact date, but i think it may have been after the Mayor Wright incident. 7-11 Makaha, off-duty HPD involved. According to media reports (yes I know how (un)reliable they are, the circumstances were a lot different, but still involved off-duty HPD and an unarmed local. Didn't kill the guy, shot him a couple times in the ass though. In my opinion, this was a totally different scenario.
In the McDonalds instance, seems like drunk moke, drunk-carrying LEO scenario.
Here's the link to the Makaha one:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10092264 (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=10092264)
Report is crafted rather well. 100% the perps fault.
-
That goes on our quote list with:
And what exactly did I write that you disagree with? If blacks were treated in same manner that whites are treated here, you can bet morons like Sharpton, etal. would be comparing us to a southern state mentality, i.e., a Dixie of the Pacific.
Just replace the word haole with n*gger and you can see how there's a double standard w/ the quasi-racist attitudes many have here for whites.
-
Disagree ?
I agree 100 %.
That's why it goes on our quote list. :shaka:
(actually the quote list is just mine, but's it's classic lines that have been posted )
Edit:
With one exception to your last post. Haole is not deregatory. IMO. It's what goes in front of the word Haole.
I identify myself as local haole. If it were F***in Haole that would be the same as the N-word.
I take no offense to one of the "Uncles" calling me "Eh, Haole boy"
Ah, I miss the old days, when we could call people Haole, Portagee, Pake, Sole, Yobo, Flip, Kanak, Nipponese ( Nippon is the japanese word for Japan ) and nobody would get upset.
Anyone remember: " K-I-K-U...KIKU Nippongo Tedubidesu" before the Kikaida TV shows. Channel 13.
I digress.
I still agree with you Kev.
:stopjack:
-
There are dozens of instances involving off duty and on duty LEO's in Hawaii which never get reported or get reported inaccurately.
The local attitude toward Haoles is because the haole lied to them, stole their land, raped their women then made laws so they couldn't do the same. (See: Massey case)
Till today, many haoles have snobby condescending, elitist attitudes toward locals.
There is a very valid reason for racial tension.
-
(actually the quote list is just mine, but's it's classic lines that have been posted )
My bad. But when I'm lumped in with the moronic spew of Biden, I take it as being on the same level of his idiocy. I see you just thought it was a funny observation and not meant as a slight.
-
There are dozens of instances involving off duty and on duty LEO's in Hawaii which never get reported or get reported inaccurately.
The local attitude toward Haoles is because the haole lied to them, stole their land, raped their women then made laws so they couldn't do the same. (See: Massey case)
Till today, many haoles have snobby condescending, elitist attitudes toward locals.
There is a very valid reason for racial tension.
Stereotyping is never accurate, nor is it anything other than an excuse for hating someone because you haven't gotten to know them as an individual.
I suppose every local displays every single stereotypical "local Hawaiian" attribute Haoles believe about them?
-
My bad. But when I'm lumped in with the moronic spew of Biden, I take it as being on the same level of his idiocy. I see you just thought it was a funny observation and not meant as a slight.
Sorry Kev,
Misunderstanding.
Crazy Joes double barrel of justice is a slight at Joe, not you. I just love that saying. So it's a classic quote.
Just go get crazy joe's double barrel of justice. and shoot 2 shots off the balcony. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
If you want the link to Ham sammy reliability, let me know. That's a classic also.
But I digress.
The local attitude toward Haoles is because the haole lied to them, stole their land, raped their women then made laws so they couldn't do the same. (See: Massey case)
Till today, many haoles have snobby condescending, elitist attitudes toward locals.
There is a very valid reason for racial tension.
Sounds like Sharpton, Jackson, etc. . Pissed off about what happened 100+ years ago.
Valid ? Lumping all haoles into one pot and picking on a race because of it's race ? King, I expected more from you. :D
I got plenty local friends who accept me for who I am. Where is the love ?
:stopjack:
-
A "haole boy" hit my parked car today. If I were anyone else it may have turned out pretty ugly. But know what, he was totally polite and responsible and the damage minor. Young kid sent off to the middle of the Pacific answering the call of Uncle Sam gets in fender bender - I ain't gonna' give him a hard time.
Was a good dark o'clock SHTF drill for me but that's another story.
-
But I digress.
Sounds like Sharpton, Jackson, etc. . Pissed off about what happened 100+ years ago.
Valid ? Lumping all haoles into one pot and picking on a race because of it's race ? King, I expected more from you. :D
I got plenty local friends who accept me for who I am. Where is the love ?
Being Caucasian doesn't make someone a bad person, but there are people that have their pink nose stuck up in the air and believe that they're better than someone simply because of the color of their skin.
My friends come in every color.
If someone is nice, respectful and fun, I tend to get along with them.
People that think they're better than someone else because of the color of their skin can bury their head in the sand for all I care.
-
Being Caucasian doesn't make someone a bad person, but there are people that have their pink nose stuck up in the air and believe that they're better than someone simply because of the color of their skin.
Neuvaeu Rich Transplants ? ( how do you spell nueveau ? Just wait 'til Kakaako gets developed. )
Punahou graduates ? ( Oh maybe that's just pot smokin' future presidents )
Just kiddin'.
I hear you.
It's an attitude, not a race.
But that doesn't excuse:
There is a very valid reason for racial tension.
There's no valid reason for racial tension. But there may be a reason for people tension. >:(
-
There are dozens of instances involving off duty and on duty LEO's in Hawaii which never get reported or get reported inaccurately.
The local attitude toward Haoles is because the haole lied to them, stole their land, raped their women then made laws so they couldn't do the same. (See: Massey case)
Till today, many haoles have snobby condescending, elitist attitudes toward locals.
There is a very valid reason for racial tension.
I'm with KK. Just because we haven't heard of anything or don't remember doesn't mean there aren't cases where off duty LEOs in the state have pulled firearms on/shot at others.
-
Pulled firearms on...no shots fired.
One thing. Situation diffused.
Shot at others. whole different ballgame.
Hit someone, whole 'nother ballgame all together.
Heck, they reported on the guy shot in the ass.
I'll check with my LEO friends. But that one is tough to swallow, wiithout specifics.
We've got LEO members on this forum. Is this correct ?
I'm happy to eat crow.
-
Original post:
Was he off duty ?
I should lower my voice.
No need to yell. ;D
Yes...on March 11 Deedy's lawyers withdrew the request to dismiss the case on the basis that he was acting as a federal agent at the time of the incident and said the killing was in self-defense. Therefore, he was not acting in a law enforcement capacity but as a private citizen claiming self-defense.
For starters, if he was claiming the law enforcement defense (which he is not), he would have two immediate issues, among others. IAW DS Deadly Force and Firearms Policy:
1) Special Agents must clearly identify himself or herself verbally to the subject when acting in a law enforcement capacity. They must also show proper credentials unless to do so puts the agent or others at greater risk. There are exceptions to this requirement but none apply to this situation.
2) If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the special agent shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.
I didn't see any witness testifying that these actions occurred.
Shooting in a public place with several innocent bystanders is also a no-no unless there is absolutely no other options and the agent reasonably believes his life or others is at great risk, thereby justifying the use of deadly force in a public place. Agents have the duty to assess whether their use of deadly force creates a danger to the public that outweighs the likely benefit of that use of force (i.e., collateral damage). Of course this is a moot point since he is not claiming the law enforcement defense, not to mention subjective.
-
And what exactly did I write that you disagree with? If blacks were treated in same manner that whites are treated here, you can bet morons like Sharpton, etal. would be comparing us to a southern state mentality, i.e., a Dixie of the Pacific.
Just replace the word haole with n*gger and you can see how there's a double standard w/ the quasi-racist attitudes many have here for whites.
That's what I said way back in the beginning of this thread; haole - when not used as a descriptive term - used by locals that resent or full on F'ING HATE haole - is the HI analogue for redneck; cracka; white-boy; trailer-trash; etc. it is purely racist; hateful; etc., but it is tolerated and even accepted by other locals; it is considered justifiable and understandable considering what the missionaries did to Hawaiians (along with complicit royalty....oops).
This is perfectly analogous to the racism and racist terms used towards whites, and more so towards southern whites; it is considered justifiable; acceptable; understandable, considering the history of the south resisting abolition and desegregation. It's the same thing!
And as Kevlar points out, the double standard is breathtaking. Just try using a non racist, non pejorative, but slightly politically incorrect term for a black dude down here, and you will see people squirm like they just saw someone put a handful of cockroaches in their mouth. But someone says f'ing haole, and the others in the room smirk in solidarity.
And for the record, the analogy continues with this:
teen and 20's mainland blacks - and immigrant blacks (remember NY Long Island railroad murderer Colin furgeson?) - who have at every stage of their lives had nothing but opportunity and people bending over backwards to right the wrongs of the past for them, continue to hate whites because they learn to from friends, family, politicians, and charlatans like sharpton . Similarly, young locals of all ethnicities learn to hate haole from friends, family, and politicians who perpetuate their economic misery and Balkanize HI.
But all this while in reality, both groups know nothing but favoritism, reparations-by-default, and opportunity; unlike the hell and rape of their very existence that was experience by the older generation of their respective groups.
And LOOK!!! Elderts using f'ing haole gets yawns by all media - who insist you have to understand its not a racial slurr - just as the media went on a blitz trying to explain how 'creepy ass cracka' was not a racial slurr - recall the cicero-like testimony of the Zimmerman trial defense's star witness!
-
That's what I said way back in the beginning of this thread; haole - when not used as a descriptive term - used by locals that resent or full on F'ING HATE haole - is the HI analogue for redneck; cracka; white-boy; trailer-trash; etc. it is purely racist; hateful; etc., but it is tolerated and even accepted by other locals; it is considered justifiable and understandable considering what the missionaries did to Hawaiians (along with complicit royalty....oops).
This is perfectly analogous to the racism and racist terms used towards whites, and more so towards southern whites; it is considered justifiable; acceptable; understandable, considering the history of the south resisting abolition and desegregation. It's the same thing!
And as Kevlar points out, the double standard is breathtaking. Just try using a non racist, non pejorative, but slightly politically incorrect term for a black dude down here, and you will see people squirm like they just saw someone put a handful of cockroaches in their mouth. But someone says f'ing haole, and the others in the room smirk in solidarity.
And for the record, the analogy continues with this:
teen and 20's mainland blacks - and immigrant blacks (remember NY Long Island railroad murderer Colin furgeson?) - who have at every stage of their lives had nothing but opportunity and people bending over backwards to right the wrongs of the past for them, continue to hate whites because they learn to from friends, family, politicians, and charlatans like sharpton . Similarly, young locals of all ethnicities learn to hate haole from friends, family, and politicians who perpetuate their economic misery and Balkanize HI.
But all this while in reality, both groups know nothing but favoritism, reparations-by-default, and opportunity; unlike the hell and rape of their very existence that was experience by the older generation of their respective groups.
And LOOK!!! Elderts using f'ing haole gets yawns by all media - who insist you have to understand its not a racial slurr - just as the media went on a blitz trying to explain how 'creepy ass cracka' was not a racial slurr - recall the cicero-like testimony of the Zimmerman trial defense's star witness!
You said a mouthful, brother! :thumbsup:
-
You said a mouthful, brother! :thumbsup:
Not exactly pithy!
Lol
:shaka:
-
Yes...on March 11 Deedy's lawyers withdrew the request to dismiss the case on the basis that he was acting as a federal agent at the time of the incident and said the killing was in self-defense. Therefore, he was not acting in a law enforcement capacity but as a private citizen claiming self-defense.
For starters, if he was claiming the law enforcement defense (which he is not), he would have two immediate issues, among others. IAW DS Deadly Force and Firearms Policy:
1) Special Agents must clearly identify himself or herself verbally to the subject when acting in a law enforcement capacity. They must also show proper credentials unless to do so puts the agent or others at greater risk. There are exceptions to this requirement but none apply to this situation.
2) If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the special agent shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.
I didn't see any witness testifying that these actions occurred.
Shooting in a public place with several innocent bystanders is also a no-no unless there is absolutely no other options and the agent reasonably believes his life or others is at great risk, thereby justifying the use of deadly force in a public place. Agents have the duty to assess whether their use of deadly force creates a danger to the public that outweighs the likely benefit of that use of force (i.e., collateral damage). Of course this is a moot point since he is not claiming the law enforcement defense, not to mention subjective.
Bunk,
It appears you deleted part of my edited at 5:23 pm post in your 6:34 pm post. .
My "was he off duty" comment had nothing to do with Deedy.
It was a response to a post by Moosed in response to a prior post by me.
It was regarding shootings by off duty HPD.
-
Bunk,
It appears you deleted part of my edited at 5:23 pm post in your 6:34 pm post. .
My "was he off duty" comment had nothing to do with Deedy.
It was a response to a post by Moosed in response to a prior post by me.
It was regarding shootings by off duty HPD.
Oops sorry. :shaka:
Still applicable to the topic tough....just not your comment. I see some still mentioning the LEO defense, which he is not using. When not on-duty, a LEO has the same limited rights as any other citizen when it comes to personal responsibility and behavior. He or she can place a person under citizen's arrest until an on-duty police officer arrives, but many agencies/departments discourage off-duty LEOs from actively participating in such an arrest unless the situation is life-threatening, and for obvious reasons, most notably liability. The key factor in such an action is proper identification. An off-duty LEO who instigates a fight or commits an illegal act (not saying Deedy did) has no more rights or legal protections than any other private citizen.
-
Bunk,
It appears you deleted part of my edited at 5:23 pm post in your 6:34 pm post. .
My "was he off duty" comment had nothing to do with Deedy.
It was a response to a post by Moosed in response to a prior post by me.
It was regarding shootings by off duty HPD.
I did that just to mess up the flow of the thread!
Like it smooth as a lazy river to start with, huh? :rofl: :stopjack:
-
Nuttin for nuttin, but I have to point out that even though i think everyone in this thread has agreed that if deedy was an off duty local hpd LEO the media and public would not blink if kealoha said the shooting was justified and the story disappeared.......i must give one more salient example of 'proof' that this story IS a story cause Deedy is haole:
recall that 100% of the media the vast public didnt even stop chewing their breakfast the next morning after learning multiple HPD officers murdered a haole veteran even though he was boxed in; with no where to go; gave no indication he had or was reaching for a weapon; and could easily have been subdued by mace, tasers, and the hoard of cops that were on scene.
Just imagine if that happened in LA and the cops were white and Gordon was black; what the national media would have done! And just imagine if that were again LA or Vegas and all the cops were white and Gordon was a local boy - the local media shit storm would have been violent and endless.
-
If this is the one your speaking of, he wasn't a veteran, he was active duty. Not that it matters.
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/HPD-explains-Waikiki-shooting-in-detail/-/8905354/18147194/-/jhcf9t/-/index.html (http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/HPD-explains-Waikiki-shooting-in-detail/-/8905354/18147194/-/jhcf9t/-/index.html)
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/20591137/police-reportedly-shoot-man-who-attempted-to (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/20591137/police-reportedly-shoot-man-who-attempted-to)
By witness accounts ( not officers ) he was boxed in but actively ramming HPD vehicles trying to get away.
They would have shot him whether he was local or not.
Just like the guy at Waikele KFC. Who was local.
IMO the story is the story because Deedy was off duty, drinking, and killed an unarmed man.
-
IMO the story is the story because Deedy was off duty, drinking, and killed an unarmed man.
+1. I agree with this. If he wasn't drunk and wasn't party to starting the fight (takes 2 to tango), it would only get 7 mins on the news and be done with.
This case is more about people in authority possibly abusing their position or using it irresponsibly resulting in homicide. It would be concerning if the evidence shows it as such, regardless of Deedy's race.
The whole race discussion came about because of the testimony by Deedy's co-worker about his briefing to Deedy about the locals. Deedy was probably ignorant about the local culture and reacted to things in a hostile way.
-
If this is the one your speaking of, he wasn't a veteran, he was active duty. Not that it matters.
Yeah, I know he was active. Wrong choice of word. And yes, they would have shot him if he was local. My point was how multiple cops murdered a haole soldier and not a peep about whether it was justified from the media or public. If it was white cops on a black, woulda been covered like Rodney king. That was my point. And it is golden.
And sorry my friend, he was actively ramming them? Come on man. He was boxed in "ramming" patrol cars that were a foot or two away from him when they opened up on him. There was no friggin where for him to go. He couldnt have gotten away. Not armed. Not reaching for anything. There was NO F'ING REASON for them to kill him. All the cops who fired were so close they could have soaked him in spray and tased him. Dont you get it? there was no threat. There was no reason for them to kill him. It was murder. Period. And cops always get away with 'discretionary action' that would land a civi in jail for murder. Un f'ing real. That story still makes me wanna vomit.
There are tons of active/retired Leo/military on this forum and for that I can't believe there wasn't a thread explosion from the military guys on this.
And the point is, multiple hpd cops murder and unarmed non threat haole - yawn.
One off duty haole leo kills a local in SD - come the four horseman. Sickening
-
I think CCW would help to calm the local punks from starting trouble. You ain't gonna try and mob somebody if he "might" have a gun
real bad guys already CCW anyway
-
+1. I agree with this. If he wasn't drunk and wasn't party to starting the fight (takes 2 to tango), it would only get 7 mins on the news and be done with.
This case is more about people in authority possibly abusing their position or using it irresponsibly resulting in homicide. It would be concerning if the evidence shows it as such, regardless of Deedy's race.
The whole race discussion came about because of the testimony by Deedy's co-worker about his briefing to Deedy about the locals. Deedy was probably ignorant about the local culture and reacted to things in a hostile way.
My man.....if this was about "people in authority possibly abusing their position or using it irresponsibly resulting in homicide" then why wasnt there outrage when Gordon got murdered by multiple cops?
That's why I brought up that case. That discrepancy suggests you're not correct. People are outraged by power abuse when its the "oppressed" victimized by the oppressor "powerful" white man - as far as how lib propagandists indoctrinate the masses - There is never outrage when the "oppressed" victimize the "oppressor"
And you say race became an issue cause of "the testimony by Deedy's co-worker about his briefing to Deedy about the locals"? Not exactly true....race ALSO became an issue when we learned elderts called him an f'ing haole.
But think of the irony of the prosecution citing Deedy's colleagues warning: Deedy's colleague accurately warns him of unequivocal truth about locals' racism towards haole; testimony documents elderts DID call him f'ing haole, yet the prosecution and media keep harping on his colleagues warning implying that it altered how Deedy reacted to Elderts. That it made him the racist. They don't say that but for the love of god that is PRECISELY what they are implying. So we know locals dislike haole to varying degrees, Elderts calls Deedy f'ing haole, but the media and prosecution imply Deedy was racist. Breathtaking lib madness.
Look, without knowing Deedy personally and without having been there that night, I can opine that Deedy was/is a power tripping elitist fed LEO cause he contributed to the escalation which put him in the position to legally defend himself with his firearm. An off duty HPD flashing a badge and identifying himself - haole or local - would have commanded compliance. There's no evidence Deedy identified what he was nor showed credentials, but even if he did, he would have been stupid to expect compliance. Non local off duty fed LEO in any locale would never expect the same compliance a local off duty LEO would expect. I'm not LE and I know that. Deedy should've known that.
Summary: Deedy did everything wrong that night from partying while carrying, to engaging Elderts rather than ignoring him or walking away especially after being warned about locals' hostility towards haole.........and Elderts was a typical drunk/drugged tough guy punk who started the violence and payed for his actions. And make no mistake; Elderts would've mutilated Deedy if Deedy didn't shoot him.
-
Interesting read...first I seen this sworn declaration from Deedy’s attorney dated June 26, 2012. Apologize if it has been posted already...I couldn't find it. Read through it and in his sworn statement he claims Deedy did properly identify himself as a LEO, showed him his credentials and badge, attempted to use a non-lethal defensive technique, and initiated further verbal commands to stop the attack prior to discharging his firearm, plus rendered aid after the incident. He further states that because Elderts knew Deedy was a federal LEO (by virtue of verbal declaration and ID), that he was violating 18 U.S.C. § 111, assaulting, resisting, or impeding [a federal officer].
So the question I wonder is why his attorney (same guy) withdrew the LEO defense on March 11, 2013? Notice in this sworn statement, he paints Deedy’s actions as "textbook" procedure IAW DS DSS and DOJ Policy but watching the trial videos and listening to witness testimony, it doesn’t jive or at least I haven’t seen anything yet to fully corroborate this sworn statement. So the obvious question to me is why did Deedy and his attorney withdraw this defense if the chain of events did in fact occur as described in the sworn statement? Seems like if it really did occur this way that would be a solid defense.
I also tend to believe the Department of State is not providing financial assistance since they are seeking donations for his defense and I don't see any presence of DS lawyers. Further supports the withdrawal of the LEO defense...not on-duty but off-duty conduct. If he actually did use the LEO defense (claiming on-duty), I believe the DS would be on the hook for all aspects, so I wonder where they stand with their employee. Maybe they are washing their hands on this one and will deal with him (should he not go to jail) via their own internal disciplinary process when the dust settles, and possibly terminate him.
http://www.deedysupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Brook-Hart-memo-26-34.pdf (http://www.deedysupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Brook-Hart-memo-26-34.pdf)
-
And the point is, multiple hpd cops murder and unarmed non threat haole - yawn.
The point is, don't try to ram your way out when HPD, or any PD, has you boxed in. Regardless what race you are.
Summary: Deedy did everything wrong that night from partying while carrying, to engaging Elderts rather than ignoring him or walking away especially after being warned about locals' hostility towards haole.........and Elderts was a typical drunk/drugged tough guy punk who started the violence and payed for his actions.
I don't agree with a lot of what you said in your prior posts...
But this one is it in a nutshell. :thumbsup:
-
My man.....if this was about "people in authority possibly abusing their position or using it irresponsibly resulting in homicide" then why wasnt there outrage when Gordon got murdered by multiple cops?
That's why I brought up that case. That discrepancy suggests you're not correct. People are outraged by power abuse when its the "oppressed" victimized by the oppressor "powerful" white man - as far as how lib propagandists indoctrinate the masses - There is never outrage when the "oppressed" victimize the "oppressor"
That incident with the truck in Waikiki was pretty sad. I was wondering if they ever did find out what happened to him. I was thinking that the driver of that truck might have been having a PTSD episode and needed help? All I heard is that he was way over the legal alcohol limit but have not heard anything about it in the news afterwards.
And you say race became an issue cause of "the testimony by Deedy's co-worker about his briefing to Deedy about the locals"? Not exactly true....race ALSO became an issue when we learned elderts called him an f'ing haole.
I didn't say anything about Elderts because he is already dead and is no longer able to answer for his misdeeds. I'm sure if he were alive, he would probably be going to jail now. However, the trial is only about whether Deedy is justified in his shooting of Elderts or not.
But think of the irony of the prosecution citing Deedy's colleagues warning: Deedy's colleague accurately warns him of unequivocal truth about locals' racism towards haole; testimony documents elderts DID call him f'ing haole, yet the prosecution and media keep harping on his colleagues warning implying that it altered how Deedy reacted to Elderts. That it made him the racist. They don't say that but for the love of god that is PRECISELY what they are implying. So we know locals dislike haole to varying degrees, Elderts calls Deedy f'ing haole, but the media and prosecution imply Deedy was racist. Breathtaking lib madness.
I agree with you that the media is inconsistent with what they choose to cover.
Look, without knowing Deedy personally and without having been there that night, I can opine that Deedy was/is a power tripping elitist fed LEO cause he contributed to the escalation which put him in the position to legally defend himself with his firearm. An off duty HPD flashing a badge and identifying himself - haole or local - would have commanded compliance. There's no evidence Deedy identified what he was nor showed credentials, but even if he did, he would have been stupid to expect compliance. Non local off duty fed LEO in any locale would never expect the same compliance a local off duty LEO would expect. I'm not LE and I know that. Deedy should've known that.
Summary: Deedy did everything wrong that night from partying while carrying, to engaging Elderts rather than ignoring him or walking away especially after being warned about locals' hostility towards haole.........and Elderts was a typical drunk/drugged tough guy punk who started the violence and payed for his actions. And make no mistake; Elderts would've mutilated Deedy if Deedy didn't shoot him.
+1
-
I think CCW would help to calm the local punks from starting trouble. You ain't gonna try and mob somebody if he "might" have a gun
real bad guys already CCW anyway
Something to be said here. Having been a F...ng Haole all my life. Local born and raised.
The Blallah mentality is alive and well. CCW would help.
-
I don't agree with that.
That in my opinion is a trigger happy person just looking for an excuse to kill someone.
Too many times you see some criminal try to speed off and a LEO in a vehicle or on foot claims "attempted murder" because they happened to be near the criminals escape route.
Don't get me wrong, I do not by any means agree with the actions of criminals, nor do I empathize with them.
I believe they should be stopped, apprehended, arrested and charged for whatever they do wrong but too many people are "legally" killed every year for whatever reason.
+1
KK, your post writes something I've been thinking about.
Defensive firearm training often teaches to shoot someone until they stop, not necessarily to kill. A lot of repetitive defensive firearm training and soon, this action becomes automatic without much thinking involved.
Yes, a lot of an individual's decision on how to handle a dangerous situation really depends on an individuals' values, intelligence, confidence, expertise, experiences, culture, family background, mindset, and training. However, I do worry that most defensive firearm training place too much focus on shooting quickly and repeatedly until threats are stopped (dead?) without developing other skills such as being situationally aware, avoiding dangerous places, deescalating a dangerous situation, developing a strong command voice, hand to hand combat skills, and yes, even going to church and valuing human life.
If the only thing a person is trained in is in the use of a hammer, all problems start to look like nails. How many gun guys (including LEOs) think about NOT shooting someone right away unless they really are left with no choice?
I pray I never have to find myself or my family in a self-defense situation where I have to shoot someone. Don't get me wrong, I take my role of protecting myself and my family very seriously. But if I had a bead on a burglar / attacker and have the situation in control, I would want to do what I can to avoid having to shoot someone and get them bound up for police to question and apprehend instead. Someone stealing and driving away with my car does not deserve the death penalty and unless I felt I or my family was in mortal danger, I would probably not want to be shooting them even if lets say I had my firearm with me. On the other hand, if they were driving at me or my family and there was no other way to save me or my family, that would be another story.
Depending on the danger level of a situation, those with firearms should do all they can to avoid taking the life of someone unless that other person was in the act of killing another person. Shooting a drunk person that was lost wandering into the wrong apartment late at night would be quite different from shooting a jack-the-ripper type serial killer (wolf) that was intent on doing harm to their next victim.
At the very least, realize that no matter how rotten a person is, he/she is a soul whom Jesus had died for and one would not want to send them to hell if there was a chance that extra time on earth might lead them to redemption and save their own soul.
-
Was Deedy in the truck, or did he shoot the truck driver?
You guys lost me on Kalakaua somewhere!!
:stopjack:
-
.
-
Back to topic on deedy. No more posts about the base guy, we are straying.
:stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack: :stopjack:
-
No more stupid shit about the guy in a car. It's not relevant to this case, at least in the manner it's currently being discussed. Please focus more on the trial and the motives behind, and less griping about some other incident or what could / should have happened in said incident.
I have now wasted 15 minutes of my time cleaning up posts, removing excessive comments unrelated to this thread, and also finished banging my head against the wall. :stopjack: :crazy:
-
No more stupid shit about the guy in a car. It's not relevant to this case, at least in the manner it's currently being discussed. Please focus more on the trial and the motives behind, and less griping about some other incident or what could / should have happened in said incident.
I have now wasted 15 minutes of my time cleaning up posts, removing excessive comments unrelated to this thread, and also finished banging my head against the wall. :stopjack: :crazy:
Forums are about open discussion, not about censorship.
-
The only reason this is even an issue is because a mainland LEO was involved.
If this was an off duty HPD officer, and all the facts were exactly the same, it would be an open and shut case.
Yup!
"Eh this guy is linking me, no can back down now.". Stupid mentality. No one wins in a fight. No one. The Zimmerman trial proved that.
-
Yup!
"Eh this guy is linking me, no can back down now.". Stupid mentality. No one wins in a fight. No one. The Zimmerman trial proved that.
I say again, the Blallah mentality. One Haole no can diss me, especially one mainland Haole, In front my friends???
lose face, but Garuda is right. :(
-
I say again, the Blallah mentality. One Haole no can diss me, especially one mainland Haole, In front my friends???
lose face, but Garuda is right. :(
Off topic but...
Just a FYI, IMO your posts are starting to come off like you are stereotyping all locals. I'm not going to act like that mentality doesn't exist, but you are also using a derogatory description referring to locals. I'm local and have no issues with haole's, if I did I would have issues being in the service. With that said, what you are talking about is a two way street. When I'm around my haole military friends and there are others that don't know me, they come off quite stand-offish/snobbish and I hear them say things like "who brought the local guy" or "what's that guy doing here". Attitudes change when they find out who I am, but what I am referring to is a predetermined assessment from haole's that all locals act like that or don't like haole's. I would love to hear how exactly CCW will help with this local mentality too. If you don't actually have friends or know people personally who act like that in public, you might not understand that some of those guys are out there to start a fight regardless of race. I think some of it stems from the feeling that they are feared by others, even among peers.
-
Off topic but...
Just a FYI, IMO your posts are starting to come off like you are stereotyping all locals. I'm not going to act like that mentality doesn't exist, but you are also using a derogatory description referring to locals. I'm local and have no issues with haole's, if I did I would have issues being in the service. With that said, what you are talking about is a two way street. When I'm around my haole military friends and there are others that don't know me, they come off quite stand-offish/snobbish and I hear them say things like "who brought the local guy" or "what's that guy doing here". Attitudes change when they find out who I am, but what I am referring to is a predetermined assessment from haole's that all locals act like that or don't like haole's. I would love to hear how exactly CCW will help with this local mentality too. If you don't actually have friends or know people personally who act like that in public, you might not understand that some of those guys are out there to start a fight regardless of race. I think some of it stems from the feeling that they are feared by others, even among peers.
Well said, judging a book by its cover is the problem. I think a lot of the issue stems from the fact that a lot of Hawaii people (not all) are amiable. The culture tends to to be more team based, be humble, don't draw attention to yourself. Throw in mainland mentality where "you should do this because I have this many years experience" or because I said so, without ever trying to get to know those around you, or "this job is beneath me mentality." See it all the time, and those like that never last more than a year or two in the company.
I think that's why the stereotype remains, judging a book by its cover, and the select few assholes who perpetuate the haole stereotype.
In other news, someone here just proved the last part of your post. Those type of people perpetuate the other side of the stereotype.
-
I would feel threatened if I could understand your moke-anese.
^This is why people like Deedy conceal carry.
We should send Walangkatapat to testify at the trial. Guaranteed Deedy gets acquitted.
"We the jury, find my Deedy innocent of all charges based on the testimony of that angry little Filipino."
-
Forums are also about organized information and guided discussion, not a train wreck of mixed topics filled with irrelevant information. You can post about it, just make a new thread.
A train wreck of mixed topics and irrelevant info? What a few of us were arguing was a single lucid subject; a relevant offshoot to the Deedy topic. Summarily deleting our threads was impolite and punitive - THAT is censorship. Knowing our posts were heartfelt and had much thought put into them, you could have respectfully moved the them to a new topic so we and or others could have pursued it - THAT would have been moderation.
-
A train wreck of mixed topics and irrelevant info? What a few of us were arguing was a single lucid subject; a relevant offshoot to the Deedy topic. Summarily deleting our threads was impolite and punitive - THAT is censorship. Knowing our posts were heartfelt and had much thought put into them, you could have respectfully moved the them to a new topic so we and or others could have pursued it - THAT would have been moderation.
Start new topics if it is off topic from this particular one yourselves. Stay on topic and don't get too heated with the posts and your posts won't get deleted. It is what it is. Next off topic post get this thread locked.
-
Off topic but...
Just a FYI, IMO your posts are starting to come off like you are stereotyping all locals. I'm not going to act like that mentality doesn't exist, but you are also using a derogatory description referring to locals. I'm local and have no issues with haole's, if I did I would have issues being in the service. With that said, what you are talking about is a two way street. When I'm around my haole military friends and there are others that don't know me, they come off quite stand-offish/snobbish and I hear them say things like "who brought the local guy" or "what's that guy doing here". Attitudes change when they find out who I am, but what I am referring to is a predetermined assessment from haole's that all locals act like that or don't like haole's. I would love to hear how exactly CCW will help with this local mentality too. If you don't actually have friends or know people personally who act like that in public, you might not understand that some of those guys are out there to start a fight regardless of race. I think some of it stems from the feeling that they are feared by others, even among peers.
Imku and all the others on the forum, at the risk of Heavies locking the thread, I apologize for the perception that I was stereotyping, not my intent, and for the use of a racially charged descriptive. My last couple of posts were perhaps not as well thought out as they should have been. It will not happen again.
-
So is it just me or is it that just as the Defense starts to present its case the media coverage seemingly has disappeared? Why no coverage now?
-
So is it just me or is it that just as the Defense starts to present its case the media coverage seemingly has disappeared? Why no coverage now?
Hart said he'll begin presenting Deedy's defense Wednesday.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22972089/day-14-prosecutor-questions-final-witness-in-deedy-murder-trial (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22972089/day-14-prosecutor-questions-final-witness-in-deedy-murder-trial)
-
Thanks moosed, I knew it was think week. I had assumed it was to start on Monday as I thought the Prosection had rested already.
-
Eh Moosed, Lower your voice. No need to yell.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ( JK )
And thanks for the update. :shaka:
I didn't realize it was Wednesday either.
-
Eh Moosed, Lower your voice. No need to yell.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: ( JK )
And thanks for the update. :shaka:
I didn't realize it was Wednesday either.
You should brush up on your N'etiquette rules:
http://www.networketiquette.net/core_rules_do_not_use_all_caps.html (http://www.networketiquette.net/core_rules_do_not_use_all_caps.html)
ALL CAPS is considered YELLING. Using font styles to add emphasis, better organize your writing, and dress up correspondence is all perfectly appropriate.
It's a common misconception, so I WON'T YELL AT YOU!! >:D
-
You should brush up on your N'etiquette rules:
http://www.networketiquette.net/core_rules_do_not_use_all_caps.html (http://www.networketiquette.net/core_rules_do_not_use_all_caps.html)
ALL CAPS is considered YELLING. Using font styles to add emphasis, better organize your writing, and dress up correspondence is all perfectly appropriate.
It's a common misconception, so I WON'T YELL AT YOU!! >:D
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
My bad for not having my N'etiquette up to date. :shaka: I'll brush up.
Mods,
This is technically on point and a friendly exchange in jest.
Don't lock the post. :worship:
The defense is just about to begin.
-
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
My bad for not having my N'etiquette up to date. :shaka: I'll brush up.
Mods,
This is technically on point and a friendly exchange in jest.
Don't lock the post. :worship:
The defense is just about to begin.
Glad I could be of service!! :stopjack:
-
Aieahound has been serviced by moosed...............interesting.....................
-
This should be interesting. I wonder who they will be calling on their behalf.
-
KITV: Key witness questioned by Deedy's attorneys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCQQQF_vhkE
-
.
-
Aieahound has been serviced by moosed...............interesting.....................
Take it easy !
Those words could get you into trouble in a McDonalds ! :rofl: :rofl: :
P.S.
More on-point playful banter and Gzire was just servicing me.
Damn, I'm on a roll :thumbsup:
Haven't been serviced this much since college. :crazy:
This should be interesting. I wonder who they will be calling on their behalf.
+1
The plot thickens with the presentation of Deedy's defense.
-
Yup....deedy got this in the bag.
Think Deedy will have to testify on his own behalf to explain the video. ?
-
KITV: Day 14 of the Christopher Deedy trial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLt7aW3-cq0
-
Some Day 15 testimony from Jessica West...Deedy's friend.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22981324/day-15-deedy-defense-presses-detective-on-which-shot-hit-elderts (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22981324/day-15-deedy-defense-presses-detective-on-which-shot-hit-elderts)
-
Thanks Bunker. Here's one more report about West's testimony
Kitv: Day 15 Federal agent's friend testifies to witnessing a 'beating'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQI-Q-nHAqE
-
I saw Deedy this morning! Just told him good luck.
-
Medeiros looks like a lying scumbag. Video never lies, but scumbags like Medeiros do.
Let's see: two drunk troublemakers, one with a previous arrest, and the other with marijuana, alcohol, and cocaine in his system versus a LEO who showed his badge (per the video). Hmmm. Yeah, just acquit the man and end this farce.
-
KITV: New accounts emerge in Christopher Deedy trial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WDbk_eadu8
Testimony by defense witness (the security guard that night at McDonalds).
-
Thanks Jl. Keep the videos coming :shaka:
-
I would think it would matter more when the first shot was fired than the fatal shot.
So far the witness picture of Elderts and Medeiros is not a pretty one.
-
I would think it would matter more when the first shot was fired than the fatal shot.
So far the witness picture of Elderts and Medeiros is not a pretty one.
I don't think it makes a difference, like that other expert interview stated, the moment Elderts put his hand on Deedy's weapon arm it was all over.
-
I believe the defense is trying to establish that Christopher Deedy fired only enough bullets to stop the attack and did not keep shooting after Elderts was hit.
"Only enough force necessary to stop the attack"
-
More on Jessica West's testimony...
KHON2: Friend told special agent 'Let's just go' before shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fegmBaLoG0U
-
I believe the defense is trying to establish that Christopher Deedy fired only enough bullets to stop the attack and did not keep shooting after Elderts was hit.
"Only enough force necessary to stop the attack"
Got it.
-
Surveillance video shown during Deedy’s trial is inconclusive and witness testimony has been contradictory.
No one can say for sure what words were exchanged between Elderts and Deedy after the special agent approached the Kailua man’s table inside the restaurant. Did Deedy threaten to shoot Elderts in the face after watching him pick on another customer? Or was Elderts egging on the special agent by calling him a haole and telling him to mind his own business? Both scenarios have been alleged.
There also hasn’t been any convincing evidence so far to prove that Deedy told Elderts he was a law enforcement officer. Some witnesses say he identified himself but others are certain he didn’t. Take into account that alcohol was involved — it was 2:30 a.m. on a Saturday in Waikiki after all — and any certainty seems to fade away.
And then there’s the kick. Did Deedy strike first with a front-kick to Elderts which then resulted in retaliation, as the prosecution said? Or was it a defensive maneuver used to keep an aggressive Elderts at bay, as the defense contends?
Landsberg said all of these are important questions for the jury to consider when deciding whether Deedy acted in self-defense.
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2013/08/02/19623-at-what-point-is-killing-another-man-considered-self-defense-in-hawaii/ (http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2013/08/02/19623-at-what-point-is-killing-another-man-considered-self-defense-in-hawaii/)
-
The states case is falling apart. I had a feeling there was more to this than what our "news media" was saying. I pray Deedy walks. Scott free.
-
Ok here is another video about the trial
KITV: Five witnesses take the stand in Deedy trial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9v7IkgUqoo&
-
Interesting, Christopher Deedy is expected to take the stand.
-
Good to see
-
Interesting, Christopher Deedy is expected to take the stand.
interesting indeed
-
I was thinking he would and hope he does to walk us through the video.
"This is where I showed my ID/Credentials"
" This is where I got into a defensive position/arm extended and told him I'm LEO / to back up / whatever command was given"
" This is where I felt in danger, pulled my weapon and he went after it"
Etc......
The more we see it the video pretty much shows all these things, but only he and Elderts know what was said and what the exact sequence of events was.
That Nurse seemed to be very credible witness re: his appearing sober.
-
LIVE!!! Tune in now.
KITV: Deedy takes the stand.
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/live-deedy-takes-the-stand/-/8905354/21354354/-/o2v6psz/-/index.html (http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/live-deedy-takes-the-stand/-/8905354/21354354/-/o2v6psz/-/index.html)
-
I'm curious. Nobody reported they smelled alcohol on Deedy until after the altercation was over.
Could Eldert's blood, which was all over Deedy, have accounted for the smell of alcohol? Maybe stomach contents were expelled?
I'm simply wondering if the alcohol could have transferred to Deedy from Elderts and given off the smell some reported noticing?
-
audio sucks... i can hardly hear anything even with my speakers at full. Need to plug in an external speaker.
At 11:10am, the defense attorney is interviewing Deedy about his training.
At 11:21am, Deedy is talking about his training on detecting pre-assault indicators, maintaining a tactical advantage, different levels of / escalating use of force.
At 11:27am, Deedy is being asked about "engaging in fights" and his simulated training on this at FLETC Georgia.
At 11:30am, Deedy is talking about his training at the State Department's Diplomatic Security Training Center in 2009.
At 11:49am, Deedy is talking about the different places he served and his protective detail function.
At 12:00pm, looks like they went on lunch break.
-
They are reconvening now at 1:15pm.
Deedy is talking about his APEC assignment, about his flight over and about fighting jet lag by staying hydrated.
At 1:30pm, Deedy is talking about taking a converted limo / taxi with 2 other agents, checking in the hotel, and about getting in contact with Adam Gutawski.
At 1:36pm, Deedy talked about being surprised seeing a shooting range in Waikiki, and was asked by Agent Ben if he was carrying his gun. Ben told him that Waikiki was dangerous at night.
At 1:40pm, Deedy talked about attending an all-hands DSA meeting and texting with Adam about going to First Friday. The meeting was about an hour sometime about 8pm. After showering and changing, he left to meet Adam.
At 1:42pm, defense attorney asked Deedy to elaborate whether he was on-duty or off-duty. He said he was on-call. He was going to meet Adam at a pub under the Monarch hotel. He left his Sig in the hotel safe and brought his Glock with him at around 8:30.
The KITV feed is crapping out on me at this point so I am missing a bunch of his testimony.
At 1:46pm, Deedy talked about meeting with Adam at the pub. He recalls drinking less than half of the drink Adam had for him. He also met Jessica West who was Adam's girlfriend. This was about 9pm. They were gonna leave for dinner. They took a stop at a convenience store picking up some water before getting dropped off in Chinatown. They ate at Maria Bonitas on Hotel street where Adam bought dinner (burrito). No alcohol was consumed.
They went next door to watch karaoke where Deedy ordered Adam, Jessica and him a round of drinks. He had a beer for himself.
Deedy described rowdy behavior by 2 karaoke singers and left. He said he didn't stay long and only drank 1/2 of his beer because they didn't like the karaoke place. Stayed there for 10 minutes.
They went to Bar 35 but it was too crowded. They went to Bamboo 2, and was able to get a table there. He went to the restroom because he wasn't feeling too well. Adam had ordered a round of drinks for the table. Beer for him and Adam. He said he didn't touch it and drank only club soda because he wasn't feeling too good. They decided to leave because the bar was too crowded. They said they left about 11:30pm. Took a taxi back to Waikiki.
Went to Mr. McGills' on Lewers St and stayed in McGills for about an hour. They all drank alcohol. He drank a beer. Adam was catching up with Deedy. Jess was talking with the DJ. They were talking about eating chicken McNuggets. This was a little after midnight. They walked to another bar (Coconut Willies) and Deedy opened up another tab for everyone a little after 1pm. Deedy ordered a Bud Light for himself then they went to the dance floor.
At 1:58pm, Deedy got introduced to some of Adam or Jessica's friends on the dance floor. After finishing the Bud Light, he ordered another round for the group. In total, he drank about 2 beers at Willies. He said he changed his beer because he saw a different beer he liked. Jessica asked if she could order a few more drinks for her friends (chardonnay, white wine, etc). He doesn't recall who drank those.
Jessica got Deedy a NewCastle beer but he gave the beer away because he already had 1 beer in his hand. He said he had roughly (more or less) 4 beers that night between 8:45pm to 2:15am. He says he keeps track of how much he drinks because he makes it a habit of drinking responsibly. He said he keeps himself to a maximum of 4 beers especially if he may have to drive or carry a firearm.
At 2:04pm, Deedy talked about wanting to see Jessica and Adam's friends at Nashville. Deedy wanted to get food so he would walk with them to Nashville. During the walk, Jessica and Deedy were talking about marriage and noticed that Adam was no longer in front of them. They had just passed McDonalds and Jessica said that Adam must have gone to McDonalds.
At 2:06pm, defense showed the video. Deedy goes over the front steps video.
Video timestamp starts at 2:23:10
2:24:15 1st camera angle (front steps). Deedy and Jessica in the video walking into McDonalds. Jessica says she doesn't want to go to McDonalds.
2:24:21 2nd camera angle (cashier) . Deedy and Jessica enters McDonalds. Adam wearing a black shirt and white cap ordering at the counter. They joked about Adam getting his nuggets.
2:26:24 3rd camera angle (kuhio). Deedy and Jessica sitting in the booth. Adam on the left and has his arms raised. Deedy doesn't notice what was going on.
2:27:12 2nd camera angle. Deedy and Jessica still in the booth at the left side of the screen. Adam by the cashier. Several people at the counter ordering stuff.
2:30:41 3rd camera angle. Deedy and Jessica still sitting at booth. Adam walking towards the booth. He doesn't recall if Adam is carrying his food and assumes that Adam is waiting for his food.
At 2:22pm, the court takes a recess.
-
.
-
At 2:44pm, Deedy's testimony resumes.
Video timestamp resumes:
2:34:04 angle 2 (cashier): Deedy says he is pointing at something at the counter
2:34:30 angle 2: Deedy says thank you to the cashier and goes back to the table.
2:36:17 angle 2: Deedy points out that Shane Maderos and Collin Elderts walk in to the cashier.
2:38:30 angle 3 (kuhio): Deedy still sitting with Jessica
2:38:39 angle 3: Deedy had a clear and unobstructed view of the cashier. There was nothing blocking his line of sight to the cashier.
At 2:49pm, Deedy points on the floor plan which booth he was sitting in. He is approximately about 15 feet from the counter.
Video timestamp resumes:
2:38:49 angle 2: 3rd person (Perrine in black shirt, jeans, backpack) at the counter. Deedy did not notice that person.
2:39:12 angle 3: Deedy mentioned noticing a commotion at the counter. Perinne turning to Elderts and saying something like "hey, just leave me alone." Deedy explains that it makes him wonder what is going on.
He said he noticed they were loud and continued to be loud. Elderts laughing hysterically, slapping of the counter, etc. When he heard Perrine saying "hey, just leave me alone", it made him wonder what was going on.
2:39:27 angle 3: Deedy stood up and turned to watch what was going on. Deedy further explained what he saw and heard.
2:40:02 angle 3: He wasn't really sure what was going on. He heard Perrine say "hey just stop". Deedy said that Elderts started waving at the security guard and laughing at her. "Shows a complete lack of disrespect or disregard for authority."
2:40:10 angle 2: Elderts seated at table. Deedy observing Elderts and Perrine. Perrine said "hey just stop" to Elderts. Perrine and Elderts were looking at each other while seated. Deedy said he noticed Elderts said to Perrine like "what's your problem? want beef?" Deedy said he knows what that means and started walking over to Elderts.
2:40:16 angle 2: Deedy approaches Elderts. He walked up to Elderts and Elderts turned towards Deedy. Elderts said "What?" (2:40:17)
2:40:18 angle 3: Deedy says "what's going on?" Deedy's hands were still in his sides. Deedy explained that he heard hostile and threatening language. Elderts said to Perrine: "What the F is your problem? you want beef?"
2:40:24 angle 3: Deedy's not sure if Elderts responded to Deedy's statement "what's going on?". Deedy heard Medeiros talking to Perrine and he turned to look at them.
2:40:24 angle 2: Heard Medeiros saying to Perrine "Why the f are you still staring at us? Do you have a problem?" Heard more threatening language and he asked Perrine: "Are you okay?" Perrine did not respond and was staring into space. Medeiros turned to Deedy: "No its not okay. This guy is staring us down. We have a problem with that."
2:40:27 angle 2: Deedy facing Medeiros and stepped away from Elderts to talk to Medeiros.
At 3:15pm, Deedy explains his training that when one intervenes during an assault, it is already too late. At that point, there was no assault yet.
Video timestamp:
2:40:27 angle 2: Security guard Rosalina Soriano addressing Deedy and Medeiros. And said "hey we don't need any trouble here." Deedy did not respond to her. Deedy said to Medeiros: "Yeah she's right. There isn't any trouble here."
2:40:39 angle 2: Alexander Byrd at center of screen (black vest, white T-shirt, jeans, baseball cap). He said "Hey just let it go, there's no need for a problem here." addressed to the group. Byrd continued talking to Medeiros.
2:40:45 angle 2: Deedy heard Elderts say something to Deedy. Deedy turned around from Medeiros and Byrd and was now in front of Elderts table. "Hey fking haole, you like beef too?"
At 3:19 pm, Deedy explained that he heard the word beef and haole. He heard of "haole" before from a Hawaiian co-worker 2 weeks before. His co-worker (Will Nakaiaole) mentioned something angry like "fking haole". Deedy asked, "what?" Wil said, "Don't worry about it. When somebody says "fking haole" to you, it's not a good thing."
Video timestamp:
2:40:45 angle 3: When Deedy heard Elderts, Deedy turned and said to Elderts "Nobody here wants to fight." Elderts said: "We'll fuck you up". Deedy said that the situation has escalated.
2:40:51 angle 3: Deedy explained that at that point, he needed to present force. He had not yet identified himself as a LEO. Deedy was pulling out his wallet from his back pocket.
2:40:53 angle 3: Jessica walked up the center isle and approached behind Deedy to the left. Deedy said he had his credentials on his hand.
Deedy showed Exhibit 7: State Department issued badges. Deedy explained that while he was pulling out his wallet, he said "I'm a cop. If you assault me or anyone else here, you will be arrested."
After IDing himself to Elderts with the badge, Elderts said "You won't arrest me. You got a gun? You gonna shoot me?" Deedy said it was not what he expected or hoped for.
Video timestamp:
2:41:00: Jessica West was behind Deedy. Medeiros was to Deedy's left.
Deedy said that Elderts said "You won't arrest me. You got a gun? You gonna fking shoot me?"
Deedy explained that with his training, someone responding in a hostile way after IDing themselves, it is a hostile situation. He's not really sure why Elderts responded that way. He said that he tried to step back and create some space.
When asked by the defense attorney, Deedy testified that he never said "I'm gonna shoot you." Deedy also said he never said "You're gonna get shot in the face."
Deedy said that Elderts continued saying something similar to: "You gonna shoot me? Go ahead, shoot me!"
Deedy said he was still trying to figure out what Elderts is trying to do, intent, etc. Elderts was still seated and his hands were still visible.
Jessica said something like "let's just go." Deedy pulled Jessica to the side because she was between him and Elderts.
2:41:06: When Elderts gets up, Deedy said that the situation changed. Deedy said he was still processing what was going on because Elderts response was unexpected. He thought that he has IDd himself, this is escalating, there has to be other officers here. Security guard touches Deedy's arm and said "I'm calling the police." He wasn't looking at her and wasn't sure if she was directly speaking to Deedy or not. He thought "great, police are coming."
2:41:19 angle 2: Byrd steps in and stops Elderts from progressing. He said Elderts was in an aggressive position, right hand on waist. Prosecution objects. Elderts points to Deedy and says "go ahead and shoot." He said he saw Elderts touch his waistband (pre-assault indicator). When Bryd stepped in, Deedy leaned to the side because he could not see Elderts hand anymore.
At 3:44pm, prosecution asks Deedy why he didn't exit the door at that time. Deedy believes he has the authority to intervene if he sees a violent act about to be committed. He believed that to simply run was irresponsible. He said that as a LEO, it would be very irresponsible for him to walk away at this point for something he has taken responsibility for. Police would get there in 2-3 minutes. He didn't leave through the door. He still has not made a full assessment of what is going on.
Deedy explains about "pre-assault" indicators that when someone uses more and more of these, it is likely that the assault is more likely to happen. If you do something after the assault has already happened, it is too late.
At 3:47pm, the court takes a 10 minute break.
-
I was thinking he would and hope he does to walk us through the video.
"This is where I showed my ID/Credentials"
" This is where I got into a defensive position/arm extended and told him I'm LEO / to back up / whatever command was given"
" This is where I felt in danger, pulled my weapon and he went after it"
Etc......
The more we see it the video pretty much shows all these things, but only he and Elderts know what was said and what the exact sequence of events was.
That Nurse seemed to be very credible witness re: his appearing sober.
She triaged both Deedy and his friend....very capable and no BS nurse....she actually called me the day after the event to talk about it. Says Deedy was the epitome of a gentleman, despite the circumstances. Just saying....
-
At 4:00pm, testimony resumes.
Video timestamp:
2:41:27 angle 2 (cashier): Deedy explains that if someone has a weapon, they will check it. When Elderts touched his waistband the 2nd time, Deedy's reaction was to reach for his gun.
2:41:19: Elderts touched his waist. A tap. Then Elderts changed his posture and came at Deedy. Elderts moving towards Deedy.
2:41:24: Elderts right next to Byrd. When Deedy reached for his gun, Elderts stopped in his tracks. Jessica was in front of Deedy. He was trying to process Elderts response to his badging.
2:41:26: Elderts a few feet from Deedy.
2:41:26: Deedy stepped offline to change his positioning so Elderts cannot come at him.
2:41:27: Deedy explains Elderts' position. Elderts hands on his side with nothing in them. He reassessed and believed there was no deadly force situation. Deedy does not remember what Elderts was saying except that he was saying the same thing. "Go ahead, shoot me, shoot me." Medeiros standing. Medeiros was not the focus of Deedy at this point. Deedy's focus was entirely on Elderts because he was a threat. Elderts was about 6 feet away.
At 4:14pm, Deedy explains the 21ft principle. It's possible for someone with a knife to close the gap within 21 feet before someone is able to pull the firearm.
Video timestamp:
2:41:xx: Elderts started saying something else after Deedy reached for his gun. "Oh so you got a gun? If you're gonna shoot me, you got to shoot me first."
Deedy now re-assessing the situation again. Deedy explains that Elderts was testing the officer now that he knew he was an officer and has a gun.
Deedy explains predatory behavior. It was a calm before the storm. Elderts had a "thousand yard stare". Immediate situation before an assault. Deedy deployed himself defensively.
2:41:36 angle 2: Deedy explains how long it takes to draw a firearm. Drawing the firearm is already a 3-step action. Deedy explains that a kick is meant to create distance. This is when he was launching a kick at Elderts. Elderts was going straight at Deedy in the process of an assault.
2:41:35 angle 3: Elderts is coming at Deedy. Byrd is trying to restrain Elderts.
2:41:36 Deedy's right foot kick hit Elderts left thigh. Elderts countered Deedy's front kick, grabbing Deedy's heel and pull it up. Elderts wasn't able to maintain hold of Deedy's heel but he was able to get Deedy's slipper.
Deedy doesn't believe that the mark on Elderts' left shin was from his kick. The kick created space.
2:41:42 Deedy stepped back.
Deedy explains that Elderts escalation from 0 to 60 in such a short time was not typical. It was more of an assaultive, mentally unstable behavior, something that someone under the influence or narcotics or mentally unstable would do.
At 4:35 pm, the court adjourned for the day. Testimony resumes at 9am tomorrow.
-
Thank you for that commentary. Super awesome for those who couldn't watch the video. Personal thanks from me!
-
You're welcome! It took a while but It was worth saving the testimony here for others to read. We could all learn something from it and it would help clarify for those wanting a fair trial / justice for Deedy and Elderts what happened that night.
-
Thanks a lot for the play by play...was the prosecution able to discredit any of that or haven't they gotten that far? Looks like he didn't do anything wrong! Honestly, I haven't followed this to much...
-
can anyone confirm the part about touching your belt before you attack?
i know people who CCW sometimes reflexively touch their weapon when standing up or getting out of a car
Thank you for that commentary. Super awesome for those who couldn't watch the video. Personal thanks from me!
-
can anyone confirm the part about touching your belt before you attack?
i know people who CCW sometimes reflexively touch their weapon when standing up or getting out of a car
Go.watch some YouTube fight videos. Seems kinda normal to pull up your pants or tighten your belt.
On the ccw comment, I guess your "reflexes" kick in and you react how you train. Just taking a stab here cause I'm not too familiar
-
Awesome play by play. Thank you.
-
.
-
It was all defense asking the questions. Prosecution has not had a chance to cross examine. Defense witness is not yet done and probably resumes tomorrow.
Regarding the touching of the belt, Deedy explained that if someone was carrying a weapon, they will unconsciously touch it to make sure it is still there. According to Deedy, it is a re-assurance and a "confidence builder" that one does during a situation.
The prosecution objected to part of this testimony (about Elderts touching his waistband) although I didn't understand it very well.
-
probably objected to the fact that it was conjecture
defense should need to provide expert testimony or evidence that deedy received training re:this "tell"
It was all defense asking the questions. Prosecution has not had a chance to cross examine. Defense witness is not yet done and probably resumes tomorrow.
Regarding the touching of the belt, Deedy explained that if someone was carrying a weapon, they will unconsciously touch it to make sure it is still there. According to Deedy, it is a re-assurance and a "confidence builder" that one does during a situation.
The prosecution objected to part of this testimony (about Elderts touching his waistband) although I didn't understand it very well.
-
Thanks Jl,
That was a freakin' awesome recap.
:shaka:
-
What still seems odd to me is why the Supremacy Clause motion was withdrawn if everything occurred as Deedy and his lawyer claim. Must be some legal reason behind it, I'm assuming but I'm no lawyer.
"Hart argued that the case against his client should be dismissed based on the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Hart believes this provision protects his client from prosecution because he was acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer when he killed 23-year-old Kollin Elderts. Hart said the Supremacy Clause is different from a claim of self defense or justifiable use of force that is sometimes raised as a defense during trial. He said the reason it’s in place is to protect an officer from having to “run the gauntlet of standing trial”.
He also noted that it’s within a judge’s job description to make a ruling on a supremacy clause motion because it can act as “a substantial safeguard against frivolous or vindictive charges against federal officers.” Issues that are constitutional in nature, such as the application of the Supremacy Clause immunity defense for a federal agent, are, by their very nature, questions of law within a judge’s domain,” Hart said".
The Supremacy Clause motion was filed in May. Ahn redacted large swaths of the document and sealed its exhibits. Hart ended up withdrawing this motion.
-
What still seems odd to me is why the Supremacy Clause motion was withdrawn if everything occurred as Deedy and his lawyer claim. Must be some legal reason behind it, I'm assuming but I'm no lawyer.
"Hart argued that the case against his client should be dismissed based on the Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. Hart believes this provision protects his client from prosecution because he was acting in his official capacity as a law enforcement officer when he killed 23-year-old Kollin Elderts. Hart said the Supremacy Clause is different from a claim of self defense or justifiable use of force that is sometimes raised as a defense during trial. He said the reason it’s in place is to protect an officer from having to “run the gauntlet of standing trial”.
He also noted that it’s within a judge’s job description to make a ruling on a supremacy clause motion because it can act as “a substantial safeguard against frivolous or vindictive charges against federal officers.” Issues that are constitutional in nature, such as the application of the Supremacy Clause immunity defense for a federal agent, are, by their very nature, questions of law within a judge’s domain,” Hart said".
The Supremacy Clause motion was filed in May. Ahn redacted large swaths of the document and sealed its exhibits. Hart ended up withdrawing this motion.
They have other motions pending CA9 I believe.
-
I know if you try and touch me, I react a certain way from a martial arts stand point; (unless you're a beautiful woman) don't see how this can be any different from someone with CCW training.
That's why we train, so when bad things happen, we can react accordingly. :thumbsup:
-
They have other motions pending CA9 I believe.
I'm a real layman here...what is CA9?
-
Thanks Jl,
That was a freakin' awesome recap.
:shaka:
+1
From what I did see today, it appeared Deedy was caught completely off guard when Elderts didn't back down to the "I'm a cop" talk, and then things took a turn for the worst. That's provided Deedy did identify himself and show his credentials as he says he did. Hard to tell from the videos I seen but I didn't see all of them either.
-
.
-
I'm a real layman here...what is CA9?
that would be "Court of Appeals 9th circuit" or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
-
http://www.tacticalintelligence.net/blog/pre-assaultive-indicators.htm (http://www.tacticalintelligence.net/blog/pre-assaultive-indicators.htm)
Before a physical attack occurs, the aggressor typically threatens an attack by displaying what is known as “pre-assualt indicators”. These are involuntary physiological “tells” that project from a person when they are in fight or flight mode. While the following list is not all-inclusive it includes the primary indicators you should be aware of.
...
Thousand Yard Stare: This is the opposite of focused attention. Here the person isn’t so much focusing on you but looking through you. What this tells you is that he is mentally shutting down and is ready to go on aggressive autopilot. Gain some distance, fast.
-
Found this great video on pre assault indicators.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBoYhgz0hes
-
Thanks for the updates.
Appreciate it. :shaka:
-
that would be "Court of Appeals 9th circuit" or the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Got it...thx.
-
I was curious what a thousand-yard stare looks like:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand-yard_stare (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand-yard_stare)
http://imgur.com/ZYYujMl (http://imgur.com/ZYYujMl)
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/09/sept11.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/09/sept11.html)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300251/Syrian-boy-soldier-thousand-yard-stare-Sad-image-child-aged-SEVEN-gun.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2300251/Syrian-boy-soldier-thousand-yard-stare-Sad-image-child-aged-SEVEN-gun.html)
-
Deedy testimony day 2 - LIVE feed.
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/live-deedy-takes-the-stand/-/8905354/21354354/-/o2v6psz/-/index.html (http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/live-deedy-takes-the-stand/-/8905354/21354354/-/o2v6psz/-/index.html)
They haven't started yet but probably soon.
-
At 9:19am, Start of day 2 testimony:
Deedy testimony of video timestamp:
2:41:42 cam 2 (cashier): Gutawski (wearing the hat)
2:41:54 cam 2: After kick, Elderts got more enraged and tries to come in. Other people (Byrd, a girl, and Gutawski) tried to hold Elderts back. Deedy wasn't sure what Jessica was doing as he was focused on Elderts. Adam said "hey cool it, cool it." as Elderts was coming at Deedy
2:42:00 cam 2: Elderts put his hand on Adam's chest. Elderts grabbed Adam and hit him on his temple.
2:41:54: When Adam got hit, he stumbled back and hit the door frame. Prosecution objects but barely audible.
2:41:53: Deedy looking at Adam Gutawski (black) and Elderts (plaid shirt). After their contact, they were holding to each other. Elderts hit Adam on head.
2:41:54: Adam stumbled back to the door area. Adam's body stopped when he hit the door frame area of the glass door.
2:41:59: Adam stumbled forward and Shane Medeiros and rush to make contact with Adam. Like a tackle. Deedy was watching.
2:42:09: Deedy stepped forward and was attacked by Elderts. Deedy was looking at Adam and did not see Elderts. He got hit hard and fast like a spear tackle. He got driven to the air, landed on the floor and hit his head.
2:42:00: His feet were in the air. His training told him that being on the floor was the worst position for an officer to be on. His training taught that when on the floor, rise as soon as possible, get your weapon and issue commands.
2:42:00: He was struggling to get on his feet. He looked towards the door. Adam was on the floor getting kicked by Elderts and Medeiros. He saw kicks landing and blood on the left side of Adam. He had to do something to stop this.
He rose to his feet, both hands in front of him and said "Stop, I'll shoot." Elderts turned towards Deedy and approached him. Deedy drew his weapon and put his left palm forward. He said "Freeze", completed the draw, held his gun as he was moving away. Elderts continued moving forward. Then they stood there. Everything was silent. Before Adam was hit, everything was chaotic. At that moment, everything was silent and it looked like they were standing there for a long time. Elderts looked at him and started going for his gun.
2:42:05: Elderts was approaching Deedy as Deedy moved away and offline to the left.
2:42:06: Elderts has reached Deedy, Deedy's hands against his chest. He was almost completed drawing his gun from his holster.
"Everything was happening very quickly. But it seemed like the longest period of the night."
2:42:08: "This was after I had drawn my weapon and fired it. I cannot tell what Mr. Elderts was doing."
At 9:38am, Deedy demonstrated the close quarters draw with an assailant in the room. point shooting. Establish grip on weapon, pull up, pivot,
2:42:07: At this timestamp, pivot was not quite complete yet.
Training teaches that as soon as your arm is level in a close quarter draw, you can take your shot.
2:42:08 cam 3 (kuhio ave): After the shot had been fired, this was after Elderts completed reach for gun and grabbed Deedy's wrist.
Elderts was holding to Deedy's wrist and pulling it towards him.
Defense asked: "Why did you not use any other options at this point."
Deedy said that Elderts had already assaulted Deedy twice at this point. Dark blood on Adam Gutawski's head. Deedy needed to stop the assault on Gutawski. Knowing they intended to cause more harm, he had to use a level of force necessary to stop the situation. Deedy did not have any other level of force to stop the deadly force being used against himself and against Gutawski. They were kicking Adam on the head, which can result in serious bodily harm. As he rose, he saw deadly force being used on Adam. And as they turned to him, the way Elderts countered his kick and took him to the ground, and based on what Elderts said ("oh you have a gun, you'll need it, you'll need to shoot me first."). Deedy with his assessment of the situation, being an injured officer alone, having had issued a warning, he had to use his gun. He hoped and prayed that Elderts would stop but he didn't.
It was after this period that the first shot had been fired. We are trained that if an assailant reaches for your weapon, whether it is in your hands or on your holster, that is a deadly force situation. Fire your gun.
Deedy doesn't believe he hit Elderts with the first shot.
2:42:08: Pointed out Shane Medeiros, Jessica West and Adam Gutawski. Elderts was moving to Deedy's right.
When you fired the firearm, where did you come to know where the bullet went? Objection by prosecution.
Deedy explains that he had moved offline to create a tactical advantage and to move away from the other individuals. He took the shot right where Elderts was as Elderts was moving to the right and there was nobody behind him.
2:42:09: They were in silence. He fired the gun, as he fired, Elderts was moving to his left. His reach was able to contact Deedy's wrist and drove Deedy past the cashiers towards the area where the high chairs were. Deedy was keeping the gun close to his body per his training. As Elderts drove Deedy back, he drove him to the ground and got on top of him. Elderts left hand was grasping Deedy's wrist.
At 9:58am, Deedy points on the floor plan where he landed prone with his feet in the direction of Diamond Head. Deedy hit his head when he landed. Elderts was sitting on top of Deedy and delivering blows to his head.
At 10:00am, court takes a break.
-
At 10:21am, testimony resumes.
Video timelapse:
2:42:09: Deedy driven to the ground, Elderts on top of Deedy on a mounted position. His left arm still on Deedy's wrist. With the right arm, started punching Deedy on the face.
Deedy was trying to pull his gun to a position to take a shot. Elderts hands came off Deedy's wrist. Deedy took 2 shots.
Elderts started punching him again. On the 2nd shot, Elderts hand was on the rear of Deedy's slide as it was cocking.
"It was so vivid in my mind." "I know it was just seconds, but to me, it seemed like minutes or hours. After the 2nd shot, he stopped punching and just fell on top of me."
At 10:28am, defense attorney shows Exhibit 658, a photograph of the high chair area. Deedy said that the photograph is not exactly as it was. The toy display was moved over more towards the high chair area. An officer moved the toy display.
Video timelapse:
2:42:22 angle 4: Deedy points out position of toy display.
2:42:04: toy display was in a different position.
At 10:32am, Deedy demonstrates how he falls backward. He was falling hard, legs in air. completely prone on ground. firearm was more to the right. left hand was raised above trying to grab Elderts to control him. Deedy was trying to keep his head off the ground because getting blows to the head on the ground increases the damage. As this was happening, Elderts was hitting Deedy on his face. He's not sure where on the face. Elderts was within Deedy's guard, not a full mount.
Elderts was swinging back and forth delivering right hand blows at his face on a guarded mount position. As soon as Elderts took his hand off Deedy's wrist, Deedy took a shot, then at the second shot, Elderts had his hand on the gun. After the second shot, he stopped and just came down on me. "As soon as he stopped, I just laid down completely and closed my eyes."
Video timelapse:
2:42:11 cam 3 (kuhio): Elderts is slightly horizontal, slightly downward. this is before the 2nd shot. Elderts legs are completely vertical, body slightly backwards.
2:42:12: Elderts shirt is rising and exposing skin, arm is raised.
2:42:23: Deedy's right green shirt, right arm, trying to extract himself from underneath Elderts. Trying to push up Elderts and slide out.
2:42:36: Deedy not sure what he is doing. Sees Jessica West in side isle walking towards Deedy. doesn't recall what Gutawski and Keene (pink shirt) were doing.
"After I closed my eyes, I felt all the tension and stress, it felt like an adrenaline dump. I stayed there with my eyes closed and it felt like a really long time. I looked up and saw the ceiling, and realized that I was alive."
2:43:30 cam 2 (cashier): Deedy was standing up from under Elderts, interacting with a few people, then walking over to his slippers and putting them on.
"I don't know how to describe the feeling I had. I just rememebered walking, seeing my sandals on the floor, walking over to it then putting them on. Then I snapped out of it and realized that my job here is not yet done. I had to do my best and revive the person I just shot. I saw Mr Elderts on the ground in a pool of blood."
Judge lectures defense attorney in not leading his own witness. Ask "What would you do?" instead of "Did you go over there and performing aid as per your training?"
Deedy describes performing aid according to his training.
Video timestamp:
2:43:31: Deedy is still standing and leaning over Elderts.
2:44:34: Deedy was rendering aid and told people around him to call 911 and call police. Tore open Elderts shirt. Flipped him over to feel for an exit wound. He tried to expose chest by ripping undershirt.
Shows phone video taken by a witness. He had pulled out his knife to cut open the undershirt. He wanted to expose the wound. He fired 2 shots, he knew that 1 had hit him but not sure if 2 had hit him. He was having difficulty tearing open his white T-Shirt. He asked Mr Keene to help tear open his white t-shirt. Deedy pulled out his knife to cut open the center of the white t-shirt. Knife from his back left pocket. He began cutting, but he wasn't able to cut the chest. In the process of trying to cut the shirt, he realized that he had fully opened his chest and saw one wound. He put down his knife at about 28 seconds in through the video. He stopped trying to use his knife,
Judge lectures the defense attorney again about leading the witness.
At 11:04, they continue showing the video and police arrives at the scene.
At 1:15 sec: Deedy applies direct pressure into the wound. MARCH (Massive Hemmorraging, Airway,
Massive Hemmorraging is the most important. You have to stop the heavy bleeding because it will cause the person to expire. Officer Naki approached him and Elderts, leaned down and asked "Where is the shot." Deedy said "right here underneath my hands." Then Officer Naki stepped away from Deedy. Officer walks to the counter and asks for rags. Officer starts to assists Deedy in applying pressure to stop the bleeding. Then Officer Naki moves away, so Deedy puts pressure back in the wound again. Officer Naki starts to check for vitals. Deedy said that Elderts was still breathing at that point. Officer Naki does not respond and starts walking around without acknowledging Deedy. Deedy said he was a cop but Officer Naki was doing other things and was not acknowledging Deedy.
At 3:05 sec: Deedy bent over to check Eldert's breathing to see if he was breathing. He still was. Deedy describes that training is to speak to the person and sometimes maybe even hit them to try to keep the person from going unconscious. Deedy was attempting to speak to Elderts: "Breath, breath" "Stay with me". He didn't try to hit Elderts because his hands were on the wound. Deedy wasn't sure what Officer Naki was doing. He doesnt know where Naki went.
At 3:24 sec: Deedy continued to hold pressure on the wound, try and shake him and continue to speak to Elderts. "Breath breath, stay with me". Elderts was breathing but wasn't responsive. A person was leaning over (Dexter Davis) to the right, stood and asked Officer Naki and Deedy if he could do something to assist. He didn't do anything to assist because he didn't get any instructions. Deedy was focused on what he was doing and said "uh, no."
Officer Naki was emptying Elderts pockets. Officer Naki moves the toy stand. Deedy said that he was primarily focused on rendering aid to Elderts. As soon as he snapped back up after getting his slippers, he purely focused on rendering aid. He was back to his training, adrenaline kicked in, and wasn't sure where Naki was or what Naki was doing. At this point the EMT arrived. EMT took over the care of Elderts. They put a chest seal on Elderts and the male spoke to Deedy. The male EMT started asking Deedy questions. Are you an officer, do you have training, etc. The EMT started giving Deedy instructions, and at that point, Deedy stood up and walked away.
Deedy stood up from being next to Elderts, walked over to his sandals. I don't know why, I was still in my dazed feeling. After an officer is in a deadly force situation, they may do something that makes no sense. Prosecution objects.
As Deedy was walking to his sandals, Officer Naki touched him and asked him to come with him and began to do a standard patdown and gave him a standard patdown language. "Do you have any weapons? etc."
At 5:43 sec: Deedy testified that there were a number of witnesses there. They were still there. Deedy thought it was strange that Officer Naki didn't know the witnesses were there. He had minimal interactions with him. Deedy told Naki that he was an officer but Naki didn't respond. When Deedy was rendering aid, Officer Naki allowed Deedy to continue working with Elderts.
In response to the patdown question, when Deedy told Naki that it was on his back. Officer Naki said "What is?" Deedy said: "My pistol". Then Naki took his pistol and proceeded to handcuffed him. At 6:04 sec, Deedy complied with Naki.
Judge interrupts defense attorney again about leading the witness.
Video timelapse:
2:51:00 angle 2 (cashier): Deedy stands up after aiding Elderts. He walks towards the door where his slippers were.
2:51:28: Deedy tells Officer Naki where his pistol was and that he had shot elderts. Naki takes off pistol from holster, puts it on counter, then puts handcuffs on Deedy.
Pistol on movable trash counter area. Naki continued to search Deedy. Asked if Deedy had any other weapons. Deedy said yes, and motioned with his head to where the knife was lying at. Deedy points out on the floor plan where the knife was lying at.
(Missed some parts here.)
Officers sat Deedy down.
Video timelapse:
2:52:46: Officers in front of Deedy were watching Deedy during the search. Deedy saw other officers (Sgt Shriner, Officer Aiu, Officer Naki to Deedy's left). Deedy saw the security officer and Mr. Maish taking a phone video, seated at the table behind the group of officers. Maish was on the same table the Perrine was sitting in that night.
2:54:23: Deedy not sure what was happening.
2:54:30: Officers turning deedy around, telling him that they are taking him to the side dining area, push away the side table that had all of Deedy's items (gun, credentials, money clip, etc).
Deedy was turned and walking towards side dining area.
Prosecution attorney kept objecting to defense attorney asking Deedy if he saw his belongings. Defense attorney gets permission to approach the bench.
At 11:56am, the court breaks for lunch. Testimony resumes at 1:30pm.
-
[8/12/2013 update] Partial transcript of Day 2 PM Deedy testimony. Deedy testimony resumes.
video timestamp:
2:54:40 view 4 (side overflow dining view): Deedy partially visible at left of video.
2:54:41: Deedy sitting down on seat. said he sat there about 1/2 hour area but stood from seat from time to time.
2:54:56: Officer Naki asked Deedy some questions. Deedy gave Naki his biodata info (name, dob, address, employer) limited to this as he is trained. He is trained that he will be detained and should only give biodata info and nothing more until an agency representative is available. Said that he works for the US Department of State as a special agent.
3:07:29: Deedy still sitting and approached by Officer Aiu.
3:08:43: Deedy stood per Aiu's instructions to take pictures of Deedy. Aiu is off the camera. Aiu took photos of Deedy at different distances. Took pictures of whole body perspective and directly in front of face.
3:09:23: Sgt Shriner next to counter where Deedys items were, Officer Aiu next to Deedy. Deedy mentioned he had other side interactions with the officers, requesting being able to contact his agency. Officers told him he will be going to the hospital first due to his injury. Prior to this, his hands were bagged, then they left and went to the hospital. Deedy was at the side dining area for about 1/2 hour.
Deedy walked with officers out of entrance, to a cruiser parked in front and went to Queens MC.
Deedy recalls hearing the officer asking another officer on the radio if Deedy was being charged for a crime yet. And the response that he was being arrested for murder.
Deedy describes how he felt: "It felt like a ton of bricks fell on my chest. After being in a fight for my life, now I am being charged with murder, it was not a good place."
After arriving, Officer Osaka took him inside QMC ER. He saw Adam Gutawski as soon as he entered. Adam walked by Deedy and said something like "Are you okay?" Adam said something like "that guy got me." The officer told him to stop talking and moved Adam on. Deedy was seen by a nurse after, the nurse that testified a couple of days ago. Took Deedys biodata, checked his vitals and asked him a series of questions.
She was asking questions while checking his vitals. He was trying to wrap his head around what was going on. Trying to compose himself and be cooperative. Not giving any info about what happened. He didn't want to give any info because he was trained not to give any info about a use of force incident after being in one. You may not recall everything right away, you may give inaccurate info, your mind may need time to process everything after. He was trained not to give anything or submit to any tests until an agency representative was there.
After being seen by the nurse, the evidence technician began taking info from him. She had a form and was asking biodata and other questions "what were your hobbies?" "how many shots did you fire that night?" He refused to answer that it wasn't necessary and it wasn't biodata. Why don't you just tell me what it is. He said "running and biking". When she asked about the shots,
He was told to remove his clothing. The paper bags were removed. He removed his clothing and was asked to remove his underwear. "Was this totally necessary that I do this at this moment?" Female technician said yes. From his experience, it was not standard practice as she was a female. Standard practice was that a male officer would be there instead and he would be provided clothes to wear. They didn't provide him anything to wear so he did as she ordered and he stood there naked. First he got scrubs for his bottom half, then later got a paper suit to wear before he left. He asked if he could use the restroom and if he could was his hands and face because he was covered in blood. And freaking out about what he just went through. He was covered in blood -- hands, feet, clothes.
The evidence technician took photographs. When he finished, the officer let him use the restroom, relieved himself, washed his hands and face, then went to the police station where he was booked. Took his wedding ring. Prior to going to PD, they removed most of his personal belongings at MCDonalds. Deedy mentioned about the religious pendant he wore which was removed at McDonalds. Clothing and watch removed at hospital. Gave his wedding ring prior to arriving at the police station.
They verified his biodata info, fingerprint, mugshot, then sat down. Turned on the intoxilizer then handed the tube. Intoxilizer to measure blood alcohol content. He didn't want to submit to anything other than medical treatment. "I cannot submit to any tests or make any statements until I have an agent representative or legal counsel with me."
Phone call sign "your phonecalls are being recorded". He wanted to talk to his wife, but they don't have a landline. Called his father to instruct him to call his wife, to inform one of his agent friends and immediately call Command Center and have them contact HPD about him. He was then taken to his cell.
He stayed in his cell for an undetermined number of time. No clocks. Lights are always on at night. Before this, he recalls being brought to another area of the cell block where a technician was taking more evidence including nail scrapings. Another evidence specialist didn't take any tests but just chatted with him.
At this point, the KITV video kept pausing and buffering so I missed a big chunk of the testimony including the end of defense witness and the beginning of prosecution witness:
- Interactions with technician and being returned to his cell.
- Taken to their office, "hey would you like to make a statement while you're with us?" "Yes, I would like to make a statement. Has my agency been in contact?"
- end of defense witness.
- beginning of prosecution witness.
- something about Deedy's Dec 2009 purchases, department policies.
- taking a break and video going offline.
Prosecution witness:
- Deedy testified that he doesn't know how much his companions drank. He didn't know how much Adam or Jessica drank. Deedy confirmed he drank 4 drinks, and about his self-imposed limitation to 4 drinks in the event he is carrying his firearm or driving.
- Prosecution talked about expert witness testimony that being under the influence can diminish one's ability to process information, hand eye coordination, and judgement. "yes, that's what he said."
- Asked about carrying a gun and drinking, whether it is a violation. "If I'm on duty, that's correct."
- Did you hear Gutawski joking with the cashier? Did I hear them? I saw them joking with them.
- I saw him interacting with other customers, yes.
- Did you see Adam acting goofy? "Yes, that is Adam's usual demeanor. He is a really goofy guy."
- "I did not see when he went into McDonalds. We walked past McDonalds, realized that he wasn't with us. Gave him a minute to see if he would come back out."
At about 2:15pm, they watched the video again - view 2 (cashier) starting at video timestamp 2:36:07.
Format is: Prosecution asks, Deedy answers.
2:38:31: You heard Elderts while he was at the counter? He had a loud voice. I wasn't sure exactly what he was doing. I don't recall hearing Shane Medeiros voice while they were at the counter. There was a conversation going on at the counter. Elderts was the loudest. I didn't hear what everyone said, I could see that they were talking. He could not hear what the cashier was saying.
I could hear the voices of all the group. I could not make out the individual voices except for Mr Elderts, he was the loudest. I did hear a female voice.
Did you notice them when they first walked in? Yes, I first noticed them when they were walking up the isle. Until this point in time (2:38:31), no crime has been committed, correct? I don't believe so.
Watching video of Elderts talking with Perrine at the counter.
2:39:34: Have you heard Elderts having a verbal exchange with Perrine, right? I did.
Described by cashier as joking, correct? I heard her testimony. Well I heard him say something like "leave me alone."
Was it before or after this frame that Perrine said "cut it out."? I don't know at what point. They were already interacting. I saw Perrine turn to Elderts and say "hey just leave me alone."
2:40:07: Elderts had gone to sit down at the table. Perrine is on his way. Jessica west is leaving by the front door? I don't see her in the frame but I thnk she's over there.
Adam is by the trash bin doing something in preparation to leaving. At this time, you, Adam and Jessica were getting ready to go to Nashville. After you heard Perrine tell Elderts to stop, he stopped didn't he? No ma'am. He kept on with Mr Perrine on the counter? After he said it, Mr Elderts turned from the counter. Right about here, is where Mr. Elderts directed something to Mr. Perrine.
Mr Elderts said something like "what's your fking problem? you want beef?" He used the word beef? Yes, I know the word "beef".
And Mr Perrine ignored Mr Elderts correct? He turned away.
And he didn't say anything to Mr Elderts? No, he didn't.
Did he say anything to anybody after that? I did not hear him say anything after that.
You testified that he seemed out of it after that, correct? Yes ma'am.
So basically, he wasn't being bothered by anything after that as far as you could see? No ma'am that's not correct.
After this, what was he bothered by? When I saw him at the counter and heard him ask to be left alone, and then I saw Mr Elderts again turn to Mr Perrine and say something, I saw that Mr Perrine didn't respond. And to me it looked intentional. Like he was purposely not trying to respond. Prosecution claims that answer is speculation.
After you heard Elderts say to Mr. Perrine, you want beef. I don't recall exactly. "Do you want beef, something like that."
After that conversation, Mr Perrine had no further interaction with Mr Elderts that you saw, correct? That is correct.
2:40:13: Deedy walking towards Elderts' table. Deedy had previously stood up and took notice.
At this time, no crime had been committed, correct? That is correct.
The only thing that you head from Mr. Elderts was a verbal remark to Mr. Perrine, correct? What I heard was an aggressive verbal threat.
And Mr. Perrine's reaction to that aggressive verbal threat was to look away? I don't know what was in his mind, but he immediately turned away and looked the other direction.
But he did not engage Mr Elderts, correct? That is correct.
And Mr. Elderts did not continue to engage Mr. Perrine, did he? He wasn't saying anything, but he was engaging him.
Mr. Elderts was engaging him? That is correct.
By the time, you got up and was walking over, no crime had been committed? No crime had been committed at this point.
And at this time, Shane Mederios was still at the counter, correct? That is correct.
And did you hear Medeiros, engaging in any way with Mr. Perrine. I don't believe so.
2:40:23 front dining view: Were you saying anything to Mr. Elderts? I can see where Mr. Elderts was turned from Mr. Perrine previously, and I am looking at his direction. This is about when I was speaking to him.
Adam Gutawski was waving goodbye to somebody and was on his way out.
What are you saying to Mr. Elderts? I walked up to Mr. Elderts and said, "What's going on here?"
Elderts and Deedy did not know each other at this point.
At this point, Elderts had done nothing illegal? I don't believe was breaking any law.
At this time, it appeared that Elderts was ignoring Perrine, correct? It appeared to me that Perrine was trying hard to ignore him.
You heard Perrine's testimony that it was no big deal, what was happening between him and Mr. Elderts correct? I heard all of Mr. Perrine's testimony. And he also said he doesn't remember any of the interaction, except being called a haole.
But he remembers not being bothered by it correct? That's his recollection in his testimony.
And that he could handle the situation by himself. I believe he said that yes.
And in fact, that was what he was doing sitting there ignoring Mr. Elderts, correct? I don't believe so.
So you went up to this person that you didn't know and ask him what was happening, correct? That is correct.
And Kollin's response to you was what? I don't know what his response to me or if he responded to me at that moment.
2:48:27: At this point in time, you have turned your back on Kollin Elderts, correct? And since you turned your back on him, you no longer consider him a threat? No, that's not correct.
Would you consider him to be threatening at that time? He had not threatened me.
And your direction is to Mederios. Correct. That is because of what he was saying to Mr. Perrine? Yes that's correct.
And what did you say to Shane Medeiros? In response to Medeiros, I first said something to Mr. Perrine, And I said "Are you okay?"
And you received no response? I received a response from Mr. Medeiros. I asked a question, and immediately received a response from Mr. Medeiros.
And, you received no response from Mr. Perrine? If he responded, I did not hear it.
You said Mr. Medeiros said something back to you in response. And you continued a conversation with Medeiros? That is correct.
2:40:31: This is when Ms. Soriano comes up to you and Medeiros in front of Medeiros' table. She's telling you "don't make trouble. if you're gonna make trouble, leave." is that correct? Yes, she said something like that.
You said Shane Medeiros and Collin Elderts ignored her correct? I don't recall in my testimony of their response to her.
But your response was to ignore her, correct? I don't believe we said ... we weren't ignoring her. I turned to Medeiros and said "She's right. There's no need to cause problems here." or something along that line. I did not respond to her.
You didn't turn to Ms Soriano and say "don't worry, I can handle it, I'm a police officer."? No I didn't.
At this point, you hadn't told anybody that you were a police officer? No I hadn't.
So you didn't reassure her that you didn't want to make trouble? I did not say anything to her.
2:40:40: Alexander Byrd has come to intervene. He was trying to calm things down? Yes, that's correct.
You were trying before then? Yes.
You were not successful in doing so? Actually, I was under the impression that Mr. Medeiros was going to let things go.
When you were talking to him or after Mr. Byrd intervened? After the security guard approached us, and I said something else, and mr byrd said something similar, based on his physical expression, Mr. Medeiros did not look angry. Yes, I believe he was listening to us and was gonna let things go.
So he was calming down? I believe so.
2:40:48: At this point, Mr. Medeiros has turned away with Mr. Byrd? Mr Medeiros has walked away from where he was standing, and Mr. Medeiros was turned away.
Medeiros has turned away with Mr Byrd? Now you are speaking with Mr. Elderts.
At the time Medeiros has turned away from interacting with Mr. Perrine, no crime has been committed, is that correct? That's correct.
While Mr. Byrd and Mr. Medeiros turned away, you turned back to Mr. Elderts? I believe I had turned prior to them turning away.
And the reason that you turned back to address Mr. Elderts, was because he said something to you? Yes, that's correct.
2:40:49: Mr. Elderts is seated and his hands are on the table. And you are talking to him? Yes Ma'am.
And Jessica West has come back to McDonalds. At this point in time, has any crime been committed? No ma'am.
2:40:53: Deedy was saying that you had identified yourself to Kollin Elderts? Yes ma'am.
Jessica West standing immediately to your left? No ma'am. She is standing behind me to my left.
She has a view to Mr. Elderts? Yes ma'am.
2:40:54 cashier view: This is when you said you were identifying yourself to Elderts? Showing your credentials? I meant my badge, not my credentials.
Jessica West, you say she was standing behind you? Are you saying she was not touching the table? How much closer to the table were you than she was? Not much. She might have been about a foot behind me to my left.
But there is nothing obstructing her vision between you and Kollin Elderts? I don't believe so.
And there is nothing obstructing her vision between you and her correct? No ma'am.
And you said that at this time, you were showing your creds because your use of force needed to be escalated, correct? Yes, based on his threats to me, I need to escalate my level of force.
And those threats were what? I believe, directly before this, "I'll fuck you up."
And Collin Elderts "I'll fuck you up" threat were directed to you, correct? And to nobody else? His aggression was directed solely to you? Yes, it was directly at me.
And you decided that you needed to up your show of force, correct? Yes, I needed to assert my command presence and identify myself.
When Jessica West came back into McDonalds, didn't she tell you "let's go?"? I was interacting with Mr. Elderts. I did not hear her say anything.
At this point in time, you knew that Jessica had returned from outside McDonalds? I knew that she was standing next to me, yes.
And you knew that she had gone out? I did not know that she had gone outside. I was watching the interaction and was not watching what she was doing.
At this point in time, you could have just walked out with Jessica and not put anyone in danger, correct? I believe that there was still a threat to Mr. Perrine.
The reason that you said yesterday that you needed to escalate the level of force, was because of the threat to you, correct? Yes, that is correct.
And Mr. Elderts, was directing his attention solely at you, correct? Yes, that is correct.
And Mr. Perrine was not paying attention to anyone, correct? At this point, I could not see what Mr. Perrine was doing.
But after you saw him look away, he did not seem engaged with anyone, correct? No he looked away from Mr. Elderts, and when Mr. Perrine looked away, he looked at the counter... towards Mr. Medeiros. And then Mr. Medeiros turned and addressed him (Mr. Perrine).
But at this time, Mr. Medeiros has already stopped paying attention at Mr. Perrine because of Mr. Byrd's intervention. Defense objects.
Mr. Medeiros had no further interaction with Mr. Perrine after Mr. Byrd took him off, correct? I did not see any. I was interacting with mr. Elderts.
And the only interaction you had with Mr. Elderts was on Kollin Elderts? Prosecution objects.
After Mr. Medeiros turned his attention away from Mr. Perrine, the only person that Kollin Elderts was focused on was you, correct? Defense objects.
The only person that Kollin Elderts interacted was you, correct? Yes, that is correct.
So, Mr. Elderts had told you what? He said "I'll fuck you up!"
And did you think that was a federal crime? At that time, I did not. I had not identified myself.
And at that time, he told you "I'll fuck you up", his attention was directed at you, correct? Yes, he directed that statement and threat to me.
[The rest of the prosecution witness testimony continued here...]
http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=9629.msg98858#msg98858 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=9629.msg98858#msg98858)
-
Deedy is being cross examined by the prosecution.
-
What still seems odd to me is why the Supremacy Clause motion was withdrawn if everything occurred as Deedy and his lawyer claim. Must be some legal reason behind it, I'm assuming but I'm no lawyer.
My uneducated guess it has something to do with Deedy drinking within 6 hours of the altercation. Irrelevant if he was impaired or not, just that he had drank alcohol.
-
.
-
Regardless of if he was drinking 6 hours before or 6 minutes before, they didn't give him a test, so he has it in the bag regardless, even though the evidence continues to prove his case.
Looks like the angry mokes are going to riot. Like KK said, that guy was a punk ass and now everyone trying to tarnish Deedy's image and reputation are eating their words, because the evidence continues to prove his innocence. I've lost a lot of friends over this and the Zimmerman case, but the fact remains that a punk got served a form of justice for trying to flex his ego, and all his punk ass friends and those like them will have to live with it and take it as a learning experience to not FCK with people.
Q in one of the links Deedy confirms Prosecutor questioning about drinking. It was stated that the State Dept does not allow drinking withing 6 hours of being on duty. If he's acting in a capacity as a State Dept/Federal LEO I'd argue that it was against regs be he drunk or not. Proving he was impaired does not come into play, he would be violating rules.
Now as a private citizen allowed to carry under Fed LEO guidlines, he does not have such a requirement.
Much as we like to think we know a lot, we are not connected to this case. I think Hart dropped this for a reason...........a very good reason. Hart is a good attorney although probably not very well versed in firearms related subjects with Federal agents.
-
Q in one of the links Deedy confirms Prosecutor questioning about drinking. It was stated that the State Dept does not allow drinking withing 6 hours of being on duty. If he's acting in a capacity as a State Dept/Federal LEO I'd argue that it was against regs be he drunk or not. Proving he was impaired does not come into play, he would be violating rules.
Now as a private citizen allowed to carry under Fed LEO guidlines, he does not have such a requirement.
Much as we like to think we know a lot, we are not connected to this case. I think Hart dropped this for a reason...........a very good reason. Hart is a good attorney although probably not very well versed in firearms related subjects with Federal agents.
Yeah but is it "duty" or duty? I mean, in the Navy, I couldn't drink six hours prior to duty -but we were still on duty when we were drinking? (I hope that makes sense).
-
Yeah but is it "duty" or duty? I mean, in the Navy, I couldn't drink six hours prior to duty -but we were still on duty when we were drinking? (I hope that makes sense).
"At 1:42pm, defense attorney asked Deedy to elaborate whether he was on-duty or off-duty. He said he was on-call. He was going to meet Adam at a pub under the Monarch hotel. He left his Sig in the hotel safe and brought his Glock with him at around 8:30."
"On-call" to me always meant, "You have to be just as sober/available as on duty."
-
Agree. On call = stand by ready for action. Whether LEO or doctor or flight attendant or whatever.
You can't be ready if you are not sober.
-
Agree. On call = stand by ready for action. Whether LEO or doctor or flight attendant or whatever.
You can't be ready if you are not sober.
Now you understand why he didn't submit to a sobriety test. :thumbsup:
-
Now you understand why he didn't submit to a sobriety test. :thumbsup:
Yup
-
"At 1:42pm, defense attorney asked Deedy to elaborate whether he was on-duty or off-duty. He said he was on-call. He was going to meet Adam at a pub under the Monarch hotel. He left his Sig in the hotel safe and brought his Glock with him at around 8:30."
"On-call" to me always meant, "You have to be just as sober/available as on duty."
Yes. But SWAT teams are "On call" - and so are guys like the corpsman (i.e. can't get underway without him). I'm not sure if that is in the same context, it may be though. It could also be a jargon issue.
Does DOS refer to their watches and work days as "duty days"? Does the standard DOS guy refer to it as on-call when they are just not at work? (I don't know these answers, but it would help if I did).
-
Just to be sure, school me this: he could refuse to submit as part of 4th Amendment, correct? Secure in our persons?
(technically and constitutionally speaking)
-
Just to be sure, school me this: he could refuse to submit as part of 4th Amendment, correct? Secure in our persons?
(technically and constitutionally speaking)
First rule when you are the prime suspect or person of interest in an investigation: NEVER volunteer information or provide evidence. Ask for a lawyer, and wait quietly until he arrives.
Never ceases to amaze me how so many people fall for the lie: if you have nothing to hide, you should cooperate fully with an investigation. & the reverse: by not cooperating, you are admitting guilt.
Right to not incriminate yourself is there for a good reason. Using it is not an admission of guilt in any form.
-
[First part of Deedy's 8/7/2013 afternoon testimony written up here: http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=9629.msg98662#msg98662 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=9629.msg98662#msg98662) The rest is continued below:]
Format is prosecution asks, Deedy answers.
By the time Jessica West came back into McDonalds, you could have left McDonalds without any danger to you or Jessica West, correct? Defense objects.
By the time we see you and Jessica West here, rather than show your creds, you and Jessica West could have left McDonalds in complete safety correct? That would only be speculation. He just made a threatend to hurt me. If I tried to walk to his right or his left, I would not know what he would have done?
He was seated at that time, right? Yes, that's correct.
And his hands were on the table? Yes, the table that was a barrier in between us.
Would you characterize his positure at this time as aggressive? No.
What about his posture would you characterize as aggressive? His tone. His threatening language.
What about posture? Posture is a term that refers to how someone is holding themselves. Whether it's standing or seating, he was threatening me, his arms were on the table, and he was aggressively leaning towards me and had anger in his face.
You knew he was not carrying a weapon in his hands at that time? I did not see a weapon in his hands.
Did you feel threatened at that time? Yes I did.
Did you tell Jessica West that maybe it would be better if she left because you were feeling threatened? No I didn't.
Did you feel that Elderts might harm other people at that point in time? No, not at that moment in time. No, I take that back. Yes. I believe there was a threat against Mr. Perrine.
So... you feel at this moment, Kollin Elderts was threatening you and Mr. Perrine? At this moment, he was directly threatening me. Because of me responding to his threats to Mr. Perrine. There was nothing that indicated that Mr. Elderts aggression to Mr. Perrine had subsided. It was now directed at me. He never told me for instance, "no I'm no longer upset at Mr. Perrine."
It just seems though that he was directing his aggression at you, correct? Yes, that's correct.
2:41:00: Where is Ms. West's attention at this point in time? She is standing to my left, she is turning here towards myself and towards the security guard.
And at this time, Adam Gutawski has returned, correct? Yes, I can see him right there.
And you remember seeing him at that time? No I don't recall.
Do you remember Adam telling you "what's going on?" No I don't.
Do you remember him telling you "let's go?" No, I don't.
Do you remember Jessica West telling you at this point "let's go?" No I don't.
2:41:03 view 2 (cashier): Mr Gutawski to your left. Yes, I believe so.
Jessica West can be seen in this frame, right? No I can't see her.
Do you remember her being immediately in front or on your right side? I don't remember this exact point in time. I remember at one point that Jessica was standing to my left. And at one point, I became alarmed and moved her to my right. I don't know where she is at this point.
You became alarmed? About what? Based on Mr. Elderts reaction to me.
(KITV feed lost sound due to technical issues occurring with the audio. Increasing whirring sound then silence. It became a silent movie at this point of the testimony until the end of the prosecution witness. A good 20-30 minutes of video with no audio. The rest of the afternoon session after the break had no audio either.)
-----------------------
Here are some news coverage about yesterday's (August 7) testimony.
KITV: Deedy shares his memory of the fatal shooting
Deedy shares his memory of the fatal shooting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvPXhQgugEQ#ws)
KITV: Federal agent describes shooting in his own words.
Federal agent describes shooting in his own words (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_B0RWfcc_Q#ws)
KITV: Deedy talks about moment he learned he was being arrested
Deedy talks about moment he learned he was being arrested (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhqarULZ8cY#ws)
KITV: Prosecutors question Deedy
Prosecutors question Deedy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7Is6Nip75U#ws)
KITV: Deedy testifies in court
Deedy testifies in court (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slfOjlulr_4#ws)
KITV: Day 19 of Christopher Deedy's trial
Day 19 of Christopher Deedy's trial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQatPSVaC_4#ws)
KITV: Last 30 minutes of Deedy's testimony on Wed.
Last 30 minutes of Deedy's testimony on Wed. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4RgEiSEmOE#ws)
KHON2: Nurse: Deedy did not appear drunk the morning of shooting
Nurse: Deedy did not appear drunk the morning of shooting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cSlZ-W0qeEo#)
KHON2: Special agent accused of murder takes the stand
Special agent accused of murder takes the stand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3Ro2fPmSa8#)
-
First rule when you are the prime suspect or person of interest in an investigation: NEVER volunteer information or provide evidence. Ask for a lawyer, and wait quietly until he arrives.
Never ceases to amaze me how so many people fall for the lie: if you have nothing to hide, you should cooperate fully with an investigation. & the reverse: by not cooperating, you are admitting guilt.
Right to not incriminate yourself is there for a good reason. Using it is not an admission of guilt in any form.
Using it, without verbally stating you are using it, is an admission of guilt.
-
Using it, without verbally stating you are using it, is an admission of guilt.
How?
-
.
-
Live KITV feed of trial here:
http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/live-deedy-takes-the-stand/-/8905354/21354354/-/o2v6psz/-/index.html (http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/live-deedy-takes-the-stand/-/8905354/21354354/-/o2v6psz/-/index.html)
-
Yeah but is it "duty" or duty? I mean, in the Navy, I couldn't drink six hours prior to duty -but we were still on duty when we were drinking? (I hope that makes sense).
Keep in mind your audience. The audience is not the person with firearms training and years of experience safely handling firearm meaning us. The audience is the jury.
Doesn't need to make sense, it just means that the jury has to vote your way (in this case for the Prosection). Never mind that Hawaii police are expected to carry as well as such means that 100% of the police in the state should never ever drink any type of alcohol, take any other regulated pain medication, etc.
http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/43189d81709c418aadd5a31194744c3e/HI--HPD-Contract (http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/43189d81709c418aadd5a31194744c3e/HI--HPD-Contract)
-
How?
Thank your conservative justices. You must verbally invoke your right to remain silent. This is a recent case out of SCOTUS.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak)
-
Right to not incriminate yourself is there for a good reason. Using it is not an admission of guilt in any form.
Using it, without verbally stating you are using it, is an admission of guilt.
How?
If I'm not mistaken, that was a messed up Supreme Court decision this year.
You have the right to remain silent, but must state you are asserting you're 5th amendment right specifically for it not to used against you.
Edit:
Yeah, what Fun said. He just types faster.
-
First rule when you are the prime suspect or person of interest in an investigation: NEVER volunteer information or provide evidence. Ask for a lawyer, and wait quietly until he arrives.
Never ceases to amaze me how so many people fall for the lie: if you have nothing to hide, you should cooperate fully with an investigation. & the reverse: by not cooperating, you are admitting guilt.
Right to not incriminate yourself is there for a good reason. Using it is not an admission of guilt in any form.
Yup. Prosecutor's job is to get convictions and defense to get acquittals/dismissals. The lawyers can care less if people are innocent or guilty. It shouldn't be that way, but there are plenty of unscrupulous lawyers who don't care about the people they defend or are trying to convict.
-
At 9:15am, Deedy takes the stand.
[sorry, I missed a lot below because how fast they were talking. I caught bits and pieces of the conversation below but it is not complete.]
Deedy is being question by prosecution about being disciplined for violating any laws.
Firearms policy - State Department policy for special agents. #5c. The following activities specifically prohibited while armed. Consumption of any alcoholic beverages while armed.
#7, #8 carrying any firearm, ammunition not approved by department.
Deedy's reply:
Deedy pointed out #7 and #8, he would not be allowed to go hunting or buy a shotgun by this policy. It is not possible to apply one without applying the others.
Deedy and prosecution discuss what it means to be "While on duty" and prohibitions against it. Defense objects "argumentative".
Special agent Goldust (?) was the person designated to talk about Department policy. Goldust admits that while on duty, this policy applies. Deedy says that he recalls Goldust say this policy does not apply while off duty.
Bureau of Diplomatic Security falls under DSS. Prosecutor talks about Secret Service training, Deedy says he didn't receive Secret Service training.
Prosecutor talks about job of protection: "Goal is to get them out of a situation." Deedy says there are many different situations, he doesn't believe that it is his primary objective.
Prosecutor says that the goal is to not engage in any conflict. Deedy disagrees. Deedy talks about "get off the X", and about different agents responsibilities. Some agents would remove the dignitary, others would be assigned to remove the threat.
Deedy does not recall being in a protective detail where he is the sole agent in an operation. Deedy differentiates being the sole agent with a dignitary but he says there is always backup available somewhere nearby, never by himself alone.
Prior to Elderts incident, he has been in deadly force situation but he has never fired his gun at anybody. He says he was not on-duty that night.
Prosecution asks him if he had his cellphone, and asks why he didn't respond that way. Deedy explains that he chose to respond immediately because of what he saw was happening.
Deedy explains that Elderts got angry when he showed his credentials and when he said he would get arrested.
Prosecution and Deedy talk about Jessica West's testimony about him pulling out his credentials. Deedy said she didn't see the front of his wallet but she testified that he pulled something out (wallet). They discuss whether other witnesses testified seeing this or not. Shane Medeiros, Jessica West, Kollin Elderts, Alexander Byrd.
Prosecution said that Deedy did not observe any crime being committed. "At the counter, no." "I had not observed any federal crime."
When Mr. Elderts said that to Mr. Perrine, "I do not believe there was a crime being committed at that point."
"You continued to engage the unarmed Mr. Elderts." "I did not know he was unarmed."
"Did your actions seem to aggravate the situation?" "My actions seemed to aggravate Mr. Elderts. No I did not escalate the situation."
"Did you hear Jessica West tell you "let's just go"?" Deedy vividly recalls Jessica saying "do something" when something was happening and later said something to him like "let's just go."
"When Jessica West said "do something.", did you interpret that to mean, "do something to Mr. Elderts"? To shoot Mr Elderts? "No I didn't, I interpretted that to mean, do something to stop the situation."
Prosecution asks Deedy whether he determined that Elderts was intoxicated at the counter. Did you escalate the situation?
"I did not escalate the situation, I escalated my response." "No, my response did not de-escalate the situation."
Prosecutor and Deedy talk about "danger". Deedy's action did nothing to de-escalate the situation. "That is correct."
video timelapse:
2:41:36: Deedy kicking Elderts. First physical contact between Deedy and Elderts. Prosecution talks about Deedy's training. Prosecution talks about Mr. Ariano testimony about the type of kick. Keep it low so whoever is kicking cannot grab your kick. "He was in very quickly so he caught it high." "So you missed your mark with this kick." "He came in really quick so it did not miss the mark." "We are trained that a counter to a kick is to grab the leg." "The fact that Collin was able to grab your misplaced kick, indicated to you that he had training?" "I did not conclude that he had training, but I considered that he may."
2:41:50: Jessica West directly in front of Deedy. What is she saying to you? "I don't know exactly what she was saying, but it was around this time that she said "do something." I don't recall Jessica West ever pushing me."
2:41:51 "Yes I stepped back. Jessica is turned toward the direction of the ADA door"
2:41:53: Collin Elderts arms raised towards Gutawski.
After the attack where I had defended with the kick, he had not touched me.
2:41:54: Elderts punched Gutawski. Other people testified that Elderts did not punch him but pushed him to the door. Defense objects.
Mr. Byrd and Mr. Joe standing by machine.
What is Jessica West doing? I don't know what she is doing but I remember in this timeframe, she is saying "do something."
2:41:56: Shane Medeiros has already made contact with Gutawski. Saw Medeiros rush at Gutawski.
Prosecution and Deedy were discussing their interpretation of what was happening here between Gutawski, Medeiros and Elderts.
"I don't know what Jessica was trying to do. I was focused on Medeiros and Gutawski."
2:42:00: This is the frame I was going to the ground when Elderts tackled me. Spear tackle. I don't know exactly what he did, he was very fast. I don't know if he punched me. I remember him making contact with me and me hitting the floor. Deedy describes a spear tackle.
"I am bound to the law." "Are you obligated to follow the law of the state you are in?" "There are State laws that do not apply to me. For instance, carrying of firearms."
"When I am acting as a law enforcement officer, I am obligated to follow my training and federal laws."
"Do you currently know the Hawaii laws of self defense?" "At the time of xxx, I know the federal laws, I do not know what Hawaii statutes are."
2:42:03: "Elderts did not attack you while you were on the ground correct?" "I don't believe so."
You have been trained to use intermediate as well as deadly force correct?
He gathered himself, move into position, clench his fist, and move into striking me. We were trained that you don't allow someone to strike you. First physical assault.
As I was on the ground trying to raise my feet, I saw they kicking Adam Gutawski. Adam Gutawski was raising his hands and the kicks were getting through and hitting his head. I saw them both kick Adam Gutawski. I saw a flurry of kicks and I saw the kicks hitting the face.
At 10:13am, court takes a recess.
-
Regardless of if he was drinking 6 hours before or 6 minutes before, they didn't give him a test, so he has it in the bag regardless, even though the evidence continues to prove his case.
Looks like the angry mokes are going to riot. Like KK said, that guy was a punk ass and now everyone trying to tarnish Deedy's image and reputation are eating their words, because the evidence continues to prove his innocence. I've lost a lot of friends over this and the Zimmerman case, but the fact remains that a punk got served a form of justice for trying to flex his ego, and all his punk ass friends and those like them will have to live with it and take it as a learning experience to not FCK with people.
Agreed. All these punks, thats what happens when keeping it real goes wrong........
-
At 10:30am testimony resumes.
They are recalling other people's testimonies.
2:42:08 "Deedy got Elderts attention away from Medeiros and fired his gun." Defense objected to the compounded nature of question.
Deedy said between this frame, Deedy said "stop I'll shoot." And Elderts walked towards Deedy. Slow and deliberate movement towards Deedy. Deedy was in the process of drawing his gun. Close quarters draw. He completed the draw.
2:42:07 view 4 ("fine dining" angle. Fine dining in McDonalds?). Visible Deedy's gun drawing but not yet completed. Gun has not yet been fired.
2:42:08: shot has already been fired.
2:42:06: "I did not see a weapon in his hands." I had said "Freeze". I had said Freeze before I drew my gun.
2:42:08: I was in fear for Adam's life. I was in fear for my life. As a law enforcement officer, this is the moment I dreaded in my career. But I made an oath to serve and protect."
"You intended to kill Mr. Deedy, correct?" "I intended to stop the threat."
"You are trained to kill the threat?" "We are trained to shoot center mass to stop the threat."
"You are not taught to maim the threat?" "We are taught to stop the threat, knowing that it may kill someone, we are not shooting to maim or injure."
"You were concerned for Adam's life at this point?" "That was one of the reason why I escalated to use Deadly force." "Would you have been justified to shoot Mr Medeiros at this point?" "I had said to stop. I was focused at Elderts at this point."
"You would have been justified in shooting Mr. Medeiros at this point?" Defense objects.
"Did it ever occur to you to go over and pull off one of the people that were on Mr. Gutawski?" "That would not have been a safe option for me or Mr. Gutawski." "Yes I did."
"Did it occur to you that Jessica West was involved? Between the two of them (Jessica and Keene), they were able to pull Medeiros off Gutawski."
"Did West or Keene receive any injury from their involvement?" "No." "Did Mr Gutawski receive any serious injury?" "My actions prevented him from receiving serious bodily injury or death."
"After you fired the first shot at Elderts, he moved close to you?" "As I fired the shot, Mr. Elderts was moving to his left then came around as the same direction as the cashier counter."
2:42:09: We moved parallel to the cashier counter. His left arm was on my wrist. It's not the close quarter draw position anymore. He drove me to the ground.
2:42:12: "I did not know he (Byrd) was behind the toy display"
2:42:18: Deedy says he doesn't recall how many punches Elderts was throwing at him. He recalls Elderts punching him when he was on the ground.
After the 2 shots:
"In the midst of coming for a punch, it wasn't a complete punch, he came down on me. I was trying to keep my head off the ground while he was punching me. When I took the last shots, I was able to get myself upwards a bit. Not really seated. Trying to raise my head, shoulders and cheat off the ground. Like trying to do a crunch except with my legs flat on the ground."
"I remember my head hitting what I thought was the ground. It may have been the high chairs." "I can't be certain. I didn't see my head hit."
"You shot to kill Mr Elderts?" "I meant to stop his assault on me. I knew those shots may kill him."
"One of those 2 other shots missed him, correct?" Deedy explained that he was taught to look beyond the target and it was clear.
"Your third shot jammed correct?" "The casing did not clear."
"The casing was not stove-piped, correct?" "Yes, correct."
2:43:26: Deedy talked about training to rendering aid to someone who has been shot. Prosecution talked about him not rendering aid immediately. In rendering this aid, you were not taught to immediately check for vital signs? No I did not. That was after I established that there was 1 gunshot wound.
1:07 sec: Description of Officer Naki's description of suspect. "I wasn't listening to the dispatch. I heard now. "All I've got is a male running down Hawaiian Ave with a white t-shirt.""
1:14 sec: When Officer Naki was there with you and Elderts body, did you identify yourself as a police officer? Yes I did. I recalled the first thing he asked me was where the shot was. When he came back, I reported to him my findings, that he was still breathing and that there was blood flows. I told him that I was a cop. Those were my exact words. He did not respond. Yes, I expected a response. He was right next to me. Did it cross your mind that he did not hear you. No that did not cross my mind.
1:54 sec: This was after I identified I was a cop.
Were you still in a daze? Daze wasn't the right word. I kicked into training mode. I was focused on keeping mr elderts alive.
5:43 sec: This was when Naki put his hand on me.
5:49 sec: This is when I told him that it was on my hip. He said "what is?" "My pistol." "What do you mean "my pistol"?"
5:57 sec: Shocked / alarm reaction by Naki. This was right after I said "I was the one who shot him."
At first he removed my pistol then he handcuffed me.
Did he tell you you were under arrest for murder.
When Sgt Shreiner asked me that question, all my belonging has been pulled out and were on the countertop.
We were trained to give information for the purposes of medical treatment but not to give any other information than necessary.
For the data that you gave them, you did not give any inaccurate information correct? When they were asking me about, I was feeling the effects of a traumatic injury. I was fighting for my life, I believed I had just killed a man, There were a number of questions that I had said no to, even though I should have said yes if I had been paying attention.
I declined to take that test unless I had agency representative present, unless it was required. So your refusal was not anything to do with you refusing to give your blood alcohol level? No ma'am.
No i didn't, I did not believe that there was a crime.
You realize that you have to comply with local law enforcement?
I wanted to make a statement with counsel present.
In our training, we are taught that after a force of use situation, you may not remember everything completely and you need to gather yourself completely, so you can report the incident as completely as possible.
Many what witnesses say after a report may not be completely accurate. The mind cannot remember everything that happens. The mind will try to do if they see A and C, will try to fill in the blanks with B. Very often, witness statements may not be completely valid.
(missed some things here about an agent's toolset. about being objective and reasonable, and knowing what the officer knew at that time, it was the correct action at that time. you cannot judge the officer's action with information known later.)
You never considered leaving? When I stood up and saw adam being kicked in the face, I could have run. I knew I could have ran but I could not do that and assure his safety. Yes, I considered it as an option but I could not consider it feasible. I was continuously assessing the situation. I did not believe it would be safe even for me to leave. I did not believe I could have gotten out safely without sustaining injury to myself.
"Whether or not you considered going to calling the police, going over to mr perrine and sitting with him?" "This is not a yes-or-no answer."
From prosecution question:"That's true... If I did not have a gun, I could not have fired at Mr. Elderts."
At 11:30am, court takes recess.
-
WTF is that about the prosecution suggesting why Deedy did not go over and sit with Mr. Gutawski while they wait for police? :wacko:
Another thought... did it occur to anyone that perhaps no one was able to hear Deedy clearly say some of those things he said he said? Loud music in McDonalds? Possible slurring if intoxicated? Low volume of voice? Deafness? Too many hyperfocused people? Officer Naki didn't seem to hear what Deedy said. Perhaps the other people did not either. ???
-
.
-
At 1:30pm, testimony resumes.
"Elderts crime was an attack against a federal officer. His first physical attack was when I kicked him. My foot reached him before his fist could reach me. It was the first federal felony that was committed."
"Before you made contact with Elderts, there was no crime being committed, correct?" "I could not answer that in the affirmative or negative."
"You had no authority correct?" "I had authority per federal." "I do not need to witness a crime before I respond as a federal officer."
"No crime had been committed for which you had authority to act, is that correct?" "I had authority." "I do not know as far as Hawaii statutes, if any crime had been committed."
"What crime had been committed?" "Verbal threats against myself and Mr. Perrine."
"You don't know, do you?" "No I do not know Hawaii law."
At 1:35pm, attorneys approach the bench LONG PAUSE.
Wayne Fernandez takes the stand. Retired Police LT at HPD.
On May 9, 2008, did you have interaction with Elderts? Yes. Was there a large crowd yelling at each other in the parking lot? Yes. When arrested, Elderts struck? Yes. When taken to the police station, he was calm.
He was convicted of disorderly conduct.
At 1:47pm, coverage is lost / switches back to traffic cam.
-
Thank your conservative justices. You must verbally invoke your right to remain silent. This is a recent case out of SCOTUS.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2013/0617/Supreme-Court-For-right-to-remain-silent-a-suspect-must-speak)
This makes no sense!
(1) the 5th A protects you against self-incrimination (right not to testify against oneself), Once Mirandized, you have the RIGHT to remain silent. Nothing about "You have the right to remain silent ONLY IF you invoke the 5th. Otherwise you're guilty for being silent."
(2) You can't invoke the 5th unless you can be charged with a crime (plea deals for immunity are intended for this very purpose). Unless you see yourself being interrogated or investigated, you have no grounds to plea the 5th (no charges being filed against you as far as you can see).
(3) Since "Anything you say can & WILL be used against you in court", and now we find out "the 5th won't protect you if you choose not to speak to interrogators unless you say 'I PLEA THE 5th'", this creates a situation where every person, innocent or guilty MUST ALWAYS invoke their right to counsel BEFORE SAYING A WORD.
"Officer, I intend to cooperate fully with your investigation. However, I feel it is in my best interest that I call my lawyer before answering any questions."
I'm having reminder cards printed for all my friends and family .....
-
This makes no sense!
(1) the 5th A protects you against self-incrimination (right not to testify against oneself), Once Mirandized, you have the RIGHT to remain silent. Nothing about "You have the right to remain silent ONLY IF you invoke the 5th. Otherwise you're guilty for being silent."
(2) You can't invoke the 5th unless you can be charged with a crime (plea deals for immunity are intended for this very purpose). Unless you see yourself being interrogated or investigated, you have no grounds to plea the 5th (no charges being filed against you as far as you can see).
(3) Since "Anything you say can & WILL be used against you in court", and now we find out "the 5th won't protect you if you choose not to speak to interrogators unless you say 'I PLEA THE 5th'", this creates a situation where every person, innocent or guilty MUST ALWAYS invoke their right to counsel BEFORE SAYING A WORD.
"Officer, I intend to cooperate fully with your investigation. However, I feel it is in my best interest that I call my lawyer before answering any questions."
I'm having reminder cards printed for all my friends and family .....
Miranda is another case that most people don't understand either. Just because you are arrested doesn't mean you get Miranda rights. If I have enough evidence against you, I can let you talk all day. Also, just because I can't use it as evidence, doesn't mean I can't use it to counter your statements later.
-
The Defense has rested their case. Now it will be up to the jury. I hope the right decision is made based on whatever the jury feels the evidence shows them.
-
so should we start a separate thread for predictions on the outcome?
The Defense has rested their case. Now it will be up to the jury. I hope the right decision is made based on whatever the jury feels the evidence shows them.
-
Keep it here imo!
-
ok
my prediction
innocent
bleeding hearts hold an illegal march through downtown and waikiki shouting "justice for kollin" and "justice for trayvon"
minor scuffles between local marchers and tourists in waikiki, but no outright rioting or vandalism
Keep it here imo!
-
Would it be really illegal? Are we allowed to march to express 1A? I honestly do not know.
-
Would it be really illegal? Are we allowed to march to express 1A? I honestly do not know.
Time, manner, place regulations limit parading; that said, you can walk around the sidewalks all day long. To impede traffic though, you need a parade permit or face arrest. (That said, there are exemptions too for "spontaneous speech and protests)
-
.
-
I'd like to see if all the dumb asses threatening to riot and beat up 'non-hawaiians' will actually do so.
I'm still flying my American flag up high, so they can suck a fat one.
It's Hawaii..........it's all talk. The mokes gonna false crack just as many/little people as before, this case won't make a lick of difference.
-
At 1:30pm, testimony resumes.
"Elderts crime was an attack against a federal officer. His first physical attack was when I kicked him. My foot reached him before his fist could reach me. It was the first federal felony that was committed."
"Before you made contact with Elderts, there was no crime being committed, correct?" "I could not answer that in the affirmative or negative."
[color=black]"What crime had been committed?" "Verbal threats against myself and Mr. Perrine." [/color]
"You don't know, do you?" "No I do not know Hawaii law.".
So Deedy threw the first blow and he was not blind sided by a punch from Elderts?? Also, if it is crime for a person to be kicked by a Federal Officer then that is a good law to know... That is crazy!!!
Was Deedy trying to arrests Elderts for the Federal crime of verbal threats???
Lastly, did members of Deedy's department testify on his behalf especially to corroborate his training and that he was warranted to intervene.
Sorry haven't been keeping up with the trial but instead reading the notes. Don't think he 'intended' to murder thus will probably be found innocent but I don't think he followed the policy of his department either thus if no one came to testify on his behalf from the department that would be a big negative for his future career IMO.
Agreed. All these punks, thats what happens when keeping it real goes wrong........
Also, was Elderts being a punk. In the videos I saw Deedy was hovering over him when he was seated and Deedy female friend appeared to be trying to hold Deedy back. Takes two to tango. And the one who throws the first blow is usually the one who actually instigates physical violence. Local mentality, u punch first brah... Most times no blows thrown and go separate ways. Once a blow is thrown then game on. If he wasn't LEO but instead this was a conceal carry state I don't think his actions would go in his favor.
Even as an LEO he may have been acting beyond the scope of his duty.
But like I said, if I was on the jury I don't think Deedy is guilty of murder. Bad choices, yes... Shouldn't be in LEO anymore. Probably
-
Usually when someone goes from trying to stop their friend from fighting to trying to stop the other guy from fighting their friend, it's because their friend is drunk and/or belligerent. Jus imho
-
Much as we like to think we know a lot, we are not connected to this case
Qft I try my best to look at this from a neutral ground since day 1. Silly how some people jus jump in 100% biased not knowing much about the case mostly basing their opinion on their personal feelings. Sad. Alot of true colors coming out here imho. members from both 'sides' gained and lost alot of respect from me
-
I hope Deedy walks. Elderts was just another bully with a chip on his shoulder. I have had contact with sooooo many like Elderts. Facts seem to prove Deedy "justified".Just my 2 cents.
-
.
-
You Da man Q.
-
Were both of them drunk? What if both of them were thugs and as some say punk asses?
After Elderts was finished playing with the customer, he went and sat down.
The event ended.
Targeted customer might have knowingly perceived that Elderts was drunk.
Did he not testify that he did not see Elderts as a threat? Thus the event ended.
The event ended, it was over, kaput.
Why then did Deedy proceed to confront Elderts who was considered as a
non-threat
to original targeted customer?
The savage beast had calmed down, why prude and poke and awaken his hostilities?
Did Deedy also have a chip on his shoulders?
He did not have to confront Elderts at this point in time,
the threat level had ended and business was back to normal,
But I can fight dragons, and I have a gun, (and am I drunk?) and
MY
hostilities are elevated.
Do you want me to shoot you in the face?
And there you have it, an escalation of drunken illogic and stubborn machismo, humanity.
I am not saying that I am correct, just a different perspective; I am just saying that
business was back to normal,
the threat that was previously there was now not, the threat level ended.
-
Were both of them drunk? What if both of them were thugs and as some say punk asses?
After Elderts was finished playing with the customer, he went and sat down.
The event ended.
Targeted customer might have knowingly perceived that Elderts was drunk.
Did he not testify that he did not see Elderts as a threat? Thus the event ended.
The event ended, it was over, kaput.
Why then did Deedy proceed to confront Elderts who was considered as a
non-threat
to original targeted customer?
The savage beast had calmed down, why prude and poke and awaken his hostilities?
Did Deedy also have a chip on his shoulders?
He did not have to confront Elderts at this point in time,
the threat level had ended and business was back to normal,
But I can fight dragons, and I have a gun, (and am I drunk?) and
MY
hostilities are elevated.
Do you want me to shoot you in the face?
And there you have it, an escalation of drunken illogic and stubborn machismo, humanity.
I am not saying that I am correct, just a different perspective; I am just saying that
business was back to normal,
the threat that was previously there was now not, the threat level ended.
Based on what evidence? The witness (targeted customer) was so drunk or disinterested, he testified not seeing the scuffle at all when it started. He was then shown the McD security video where the scuffle started directly in front of his table in the direction he was facing! No credibility.
No evidence Deedy was drunk. He admitted to having 4 beers between 8-ish and 2-ish. That's 6 hours ... plenty of time for anyone to detox and not be drunk. Without a BAC test, where is your evidence to the contrary?
Chip on his shoulder? Again, where is the evidence of that? Deedy's demeanor and testimony in court was not that of a person with that attitude. Even the cops, security person, and other people that interacted and treated him afterward said he seemed calm and in control, not amped up agitated like you want to describe.
Hind sight is 20/20. Could every single person in that restaurant have done something different and maybe avoid the eventual outcome? Maybe yes. Maybe no.
Eldert's was no angel, had an arrest record, hit a cop once, and was doing drugs and alcohol that night. That is in evidence.
Maybe it's Eldert's parents fault for raising a punk. Deedy just had the misfortune of winding up at that particular McD's at that particular time. Deedy did nothing wrong. He reacted to Elderts. Elderts was the punk trying to mess with the people he encountered that night. He had a chip on his shoulder against haoles. He had no respect for law enforcement.
He won't do that again...
-
.
-
Based on what evidence? The witness (targeted customer) was so drunk or disinterested, he testified not seeing the scuffle at all when it started. He was then shown the McD security video where the scuffle started directly in front of his table in the direction he was facing! No credibility.
No evidence Deedy was drunk. He admitted to having 4 beers between 8-ish and 2-ish. That's 6 hours ... plenty of time for anyone to detox and not be drunk. Without a BAC test, where is your evidence to the contrary?
Chip on his shoulder? Again, where is the evidence of that? Deedy's demeanor and testimony in court was not that of a person with that attitude. Even the cops, security person, and other people that interacted and treated him afterward said he seemed calm and in control, not amped up agitated like you want to describe.
Hind sight is 20/20. Could every single person in that restaurant have done something different and maybe avoid the eventual outcome? Maybe yes. Maybe no.
Eldert's was no angel, had an arrest record, hit a cop once, and was doing drugs and alcohol that night. That is in evidence.
Maybe it's Eldert's parents fault for raising a punk. Deedy just had the misfortune of winding up at that particular McD's at that particular time. Deedy did nothing wrong. He reacted to Elderts. Elderts was the punk trying to mess with the people he encountered that night. He had a chip on his shoulder against haoles. He had no respect for law enforcement.
He won't do that again...
The 1st confrontation had ended.
Elderts went and sat down.
Ended. It ended.
No one really knows how much Deedy drank except him and his friends and they are not talking.
The fact and evidence is that Deedy drank and had a gun.
The threat level ended.
Moments later an intoxicated Deedy confronted Elderts,
when he did not have to do
and took the law into his own hands.
Just because you are the LEO, why take the law into your own hands when everything is currently normal?
If he felt like that there might be an escalation of violence, call the police, the guys that are on duty and sober.
He opened up a can of worms. The conspiracy theory guys can tear this apart even if they have no evidence.
Deedy probably will be acquitted, but the evidence is insufficient. The BAC was never taken, why?
And that is the big question, was it by design or really a mistake? There is room for a cover up, and that my friend is the worms.
-
Just because Elderts had a bad record, is this death justice?
This is sort of "off topic" but hear me out,
Many years ago a few boys raped and killed a young female in Puna.
Investigators placed the blame mostly on the one boy who had a very bad record.
He was found guilty and is currently in jail.
DNA samples taken at the crime scene and on the victim
did not match any of the accused.
Did not match, but they were found guilty anyway.
People said, because of his record, justice is served.
I thought DNA was the ultimate in evidence?
His bad record blinded the jury and over came the DNA evidence.
As in Deedy's case, just because Elderts had a bad record, his death doesn't mean that justice is served.
Evidence is insufficient.
-
Just because Elderts had a bad record, is this death justice?
This is sort of "of topic" but hear me out,
Many years ago a few boys raped and killed a young female in Puna.
Investigators placed the blame mostly on the one boy who had a very bad record.
He was found guilty and is currently in jail.
DNA samples taken at the crime scene and on the victim
did not match any of the accused.
Did not match, but they were found guilty anyway.
People said, because of his record, justice is served.
I thought DNA was the ultimate in evidence.
His bad record blinded the jury and over came the DNA evidence.
As in Deedy's case, just because Elderts had a bad record, his death doesn't mean that justice is served.
Evidence is insufficient.
Death may not have been the proper 'justice', for Elderts. However, the evidence, as presented to the public,and thus far in court, IMHO, makes for an acquittal for Deedy.
-
Death may not have been the proper 'justice', for Elderts. However, the evidence, as presented to the public,and thus far in court, IMHO, makes for an acquittal for Deedy.
I agree.
-
please provide evidence to support the fact that Deedy was "intoxicated"
from your post"
"Moments later an intoxicated Deedy confronted Elderts,"
I agree.
-
I think it's funny that certain people take deedy word because he is 'leo' therefore wouldnt lie... BUT for some reason when some of hawaiis own leo give statements (looked drunk/intoxicated) they completely dismiss it. Wonder why the double standard. Hmmmm
-
I think it's funny that certain people take deedy word because he is 'leo' therefore wouldnt lie... BUT for some reason when some of hawaiis own leo give statements (looked drunk/intoxicated) they completely dismiss it. Wonder why the double standard. Hmmmm
I haven't looked at it, and I wonder if the FBI or anyone has any studies on the rate of misconduct for Federal vs. large state agencies. It might be interesting to look at. I will say, and I know for a fact, that the entrance standards for Federal LEO's far exceed any municipality or state agency that I have seen. That could lead to many people taking the word or at least finding the federal agency / agents slightly more credible. It's not to say they don't do stupid things, or lie, but it might seem like they get caught less or covered up better?
-
please provide evidence to support the fact that Deedy was "intoxicated"
from your post"
"Moments later an intoxicated Deedy confronted Elderts,"
Also for Darmok and Jalad
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22933849/day-12-mcdonalds-workers-memory-questioned-in-deedy-murder-trial (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22933849/day-12-mcdonalds-workers-memory-questioned-in-deedy-murder-trial)
Day 12: Shane Medeiros testifies in Deedy murder trial
Medeiros says Elderts didn't harass customer Michael Perrine at the food counter, despite many accounts of their exchange becoming racially charged.
"Perrine says 'I live in Hawaii too.' Kollin says 'That's cool.' He made it clear that he was joking. He made it clear," Medeiros said.
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/574445/Witness-didn-t-feel-threatened-before-shooting.html?nav=5031 (http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/574445/Witness-didn-t-feel-threatened-before-shooting.html?nav=5031)
Witness didn’t feel threatened before shooting
HONOLULU (AP) - A man who defense attorneys claim was the target of bullying that led to a deadly confrontation between a federal agent and another man testified that he didn't feel threatened during the incident at a Waikiki fast-food restaurant.
Perrine testified that he had been drinking before going to the restaurant in the early hours of Nov. 5, 2011. He said he doesn't remember much about the encounter but did recall hearing Elderts use the word "haole," which means white person, but just shrugged it off.
"I don't feel like it was that threatening of a situation," Perrine said, according to KHON-TV.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22845173/day-5-officer-says-deedy-looked-drunk-on-night-of-shooting (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22845173/day-5-officer-says-deedy-looked-drunk-on-night-of-shooting)
Day 5: Officer says Deedy looked drunk on night of shooting
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22856249/day-6-eyewitness-says-deedys-friends-inflamed-situation (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22856249/day-6-eyewitness-says-deedys-friends-inflamed-situation)
Day 6: Eyewitness says Deedy threatened to shoot Elderts in the face
He said
Christopher Deedy appeared intoxicated
and was addressing Kollin Elderts with "drunken ramblings."
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial)
Day 8: Supervising police officer explains why Deedy not checked for alcohol
"I could smell a strong odor of what appeared to be alcoholic beverages on his breath. He was semi-unsteady on his feet," he said.
Comment: What’s this?
"I describe it as an 'Oh, no!' moment because it was a law enforcement officer," Schreiner said.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23060337/day-18-christopher-deedy-expected-to-testify (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23060337/day-18-christopher-deedy-expected-to-testify)
Day 18: Deedy takes stand; says Elderts was the aggressor
While on the stand, Deedy also disputed the prosecutor's argument that he was drunk that night. He said he did party with friends, and he drank four beers over a number of hours, which is the limit he always sets for himself.
Comment: His friend said he had 5.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22890272/could-cops-have-tested-deedys-sobriety (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22890272/could-cops-have-tested-deedys-sobriety)
Could cops have tested Deedy's sobriety?
Police who arrested Deedy and the evidence specialist who photographed him have testified that
he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes and slurred his words.
"The natural question is, 'Well, how do we know if he was truly intoxicated?' And if he was drinking, at what level was he at?" Tonaki said.
"Just by smelling somebody's breath you can't tell if they had one drink or ten drinks," Bakke said.
State public defender Jack Tonaki said police could have and maybe should have gotten that warrant.
"It's not a real complicated process. They just have to apprise the judge of the circumstances and why they feel they have probable cause to seek out the warrant," he said.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intoxicate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intoxicate)
in•tox•i•cat•edin•tox•i•cat•ing
Definition of INTOXICATE
1
: poison
2
a : to excite or stupefy by alcohol or a drug especially to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished
b : to excite or elate to the point of enthusiasm or frenzy
We will never know if Deedy was legally by definition intoxicated because a BAC and blood test was never taken.
A question is why did Deedy confront Elderts without calling for police 1st? Was he intoxicated where his mental control was markedly diminished as by definition?
Did he think he could handle the situation all by himself knowing that it could turn violent, a sign that his mental capacity might be diminished?
He also was facing the possibility of more than one drunk individual yet he did not consider calling for police or back-up. Was this also a sign of diminished mental capacity?
We will never know.
One thing we do know for certain is that LEO’s are human.
They drink alcohol.
They get drunk.
Some of them do get corrupted.
Was this the case here? We will never know.
-
A question is why did Deedy confront Elderts without calling for police 1st? Uh, he is law enforcement.
Was he intoxicated where his mental control was markedly diminished as by definition?
How did you arrive at this conclusion? Because someone didn't do what YOU might have done they are intoxicated or diminished?
Did he think he could handle the situation all by himself knowing that it could turn violent, a sign that his mental capacity might be diminished?
I would say that 99% of the time when a LEO shows someone a badge and tells them to stop what they're doing, they comply.
Maybe Elderts was the one with a diminished mental capacity to not understand that punching a LEO might end badly for him.
He also was facing the possibility of more than one drunk individual yet he did not consider calling for police or back-up.
Yet again, he is a LEO, how do you think HPD would react to a mainland LEO calling them and asking for backup?
Was this also a sign of diminished mental capacity?
So basically anyone that doesn't follow your prescribed Monday morning quarterback plays must be diminished mentally?
He reacted/responded to an incident that transpired in a matter of a few short minutes.
Anytime anyone loses a life it is a sad day, but to make a blanket statement that Christopher Deedy was diminished because he didn't do what you think he should have done is not the correct way of thinking. It's easy for us to take sides and armchair quarterback every confrontation after the fact but when you're in the middle of it, you're forced to make decisions very quickly.
We will never know.
One thing we do know for certain is that LEO’s are human.
They drink alcohol.
They get drunk.
Some of them do get corrupted.
Was this the case here? We will never know.
-
exactly
"We will never know if Deedy was legally by definition intoxicated because a BAC and blood test was never taken."
which is different from your previous statement
"Moments later an intoxicated Deedy confronted Elderts,"
Also for Darmok and Jalad
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22933849/day-12-mcdonalds-workers-memory-questioned-in-deedy-murder-trial (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22933849/day-12-mcdonalds-workers-memory-questioned-in-deedy-murder-trial)
Day 12: Shane Medeiros testifies in Deedy murder trial
Medeiros says Elderts didn't harass customer Michael Perrine at the food counter, despite many accounts of their exchange becoming racially charged.
"Perrine says 'I live in Hawaii too.' Kollin says 'That's cool.' He made it clear that he was joking. He made it clear," Medeiros said.
http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/574445/Witness-didn-t-feel-threatened-before-shooting.html?nav=5031 (http://www.mauinews.com/page/content.detail/id/574445/Witness-didn-t-feel-threatened-before-shooting.html?nav=5031)
Witness didn’t feel threatened before shooting
HONOLULU (AP) - A man who defense attorneys claim was the target of bullying that led to a deadly confrontation between a federal agent and another man testified that he didn't feel threatened during the incident at a Waikiki fast-food restaurant.
Perrine testified that he had been drinking before going to the restaurant in the early hours of Nov. 5, 2011. He said he doesn't remember much about the encounter but did recall hearing Elderts use the word "haole," which means white person, but just shrugged it off.
"I don't feel like it was that threatening of a situation," Perrine said, according to KHON-TV.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22845173/day-5-officer-says-deedy-looked-drunk-on-night-of-shooting (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22845173/day-5-officer-says-deedy-looked-drunk-on-night-of-shooting)
Day 5: Officer says Deedy looked drunk on night of shooting
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22856249/day-6-eyewitness-says-deedys-friends-inflamed-situation (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22856249/day-6-eyewitness-says-deedys-friends-inflamed-situation)
Day 6: Eyewitness says Deedy threatened to shoot Elderts in the face
He said
Christopher Deedy appeared intoxicated
and was addressing Kollin Elderts with "drunken ramblings."
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial)
Day 8: Supervising police officer explains why Deedy not checked for alcohol
"I could smell a strong odor of what appeared to be alcoholic beverages on his breath. He was semi-unsteady on his feet," he said.
Comment: What’s this?
"I describe it as an 'Oh, no!' moment because it was a law enforcement officer," Schreiner said.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23060337/day-18-christopher-deedy-expected-to-testify (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23060337/day-18-christopher-deedy-expected-to-testify)
Day 18: Deedy takes stand; says Elderts was the aggressor
While on the stand, Deedy also disputed the prosecutor's argument that he was drunk that night. He said he did party with friends, and he drank four beers over a number of hours, which is the limit he always sets for himself.
Comment: His friend said he had 5.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22890272/could-cops-have-tested-deedys-sobriety (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22890272/could-cops-have-tested-deedys-sobriety)
Could cops have tested Deedy's sobriety?
Police who arrested Deedy and the evidence specialist who photographed him have testified that
he smelled of alcohol, had glassy eyes and slurred his words.
"The natural question is, 'Well, how do we know if he was truly intoxicated?' And if he was drinking, at what level was he at?" Tonaki said.
"Just by smelling somebody's breath you can't tell if they had one drink or ten drinks," Bakke said.
State public defender Jack Tonaki said police could have and maybe should have gotten that warrant.
"It's not a real complicated process. They just have to apprise the judge of the circumstances and why they feel they have probable cause to seek out the warrant," he said.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intoxicate (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intoxicate)
in•tox•i•cat•edin•tox•i•cat•ing
Definition of INTOXICATE
1
: poison
2
a : to excite or stupefy by alcohol or a drug especially to the point where physical and mental control is markedly diminished
b : to excite or elate to the point of enthusiasm or frenzy
We will never know if Deedy was legally by definition intoxicated because a BAC and blood test was never taken.
A question is why did Deedy confront Elderts without calling for police 1st? Was he intoxicated where his mental control was markedly diminished as by definition?
Did he think he could handle the situation all by himself knowing that it could turn violent, a sign that his mental capacity might be diminished?
He also was facing the possibility of more than one drunk individual yet he did not consider calling for police or back-up. Was this also a sign of diminished mental capacity?
We will never know.
One thing we do know for certain is that LEO’s are human.
They drink alcohol.
They get drunk.
Some of them do get corrupted.
Was this the case here? We will never know.
-
King,
How many times have you seen a police call for back-up? Even for routine episodes. Every time I get stopped for a traffic violation, after a few minutes sometimes 2 or more arrive.
This guy was not even on duty, intoxicated and did not consider back up while confronting multiple possible assailants? How much show up for a fight. I see a whole squad.
If you drank and even slightly intoxicated, you call back up, you don't go in alone especially when not on duty.
-
I think it's funny that certain people take deedy word because he is 'leo' therefore wouldnt lie... BUT for some reason when some of hawaiis own leo give statements (looked drunk/intoxicated) they completely dismiss it. Wonder why the double standard. Hmmmm
After reading the excellent transcripts supplied here by Jl808, I am truly astounded no one has remarked at Deedy's total recall of everything. I call BS, and months of careful coaching on just what to say. Out of curiosity, were those security tapes available to the defense team?
This is a guy out getting blasted with his friends, and after butting into something none of his business (and possibly having a chip on his shoulder after his buddy clued him in on the locals' attitude) and has it go south on him. From reading the testimony, Deedy started the incident. From other cases I have read years ago, the self defense killing justification does not extend to because you were losing a fight you started. I still think the badge waving and Federal this, Federal that crap is just that. This clown was out on the town, not on a protective detail.
What next, one of these off duty clowns cuts in front of you, you object, touch him, and he claims justification in wasting you? I get that impression from a few posters here.
-
I haven't looked at it, and I wonder if the FBI or anyone has any studies on the rate of misconduct for Federal vs. large state agencies. It might be interesting to look at. I will say, and I know for a fact, that the entrance standards for Federal LEO's far exceed any municipality or state agency that I have seen. That could lead to many people taking the word or at least finding the federal agency / agents slightly more credible. It's not to say they don't do stupid things, or lie, but it might seem like they get caught less or covered up better?
good point. In this situation I don't really see why hpd would lie but if deedy did it would be to his advantage. The thing that bothers me is It's really obvious that certain posters would back deedy to the death no matter what based on 99.9% their personal experience with punks and .1% on the actual case. They talk crap about every single witness who helps elderts side and champion every witness that helps deedy.... I hate punks as much as the next guy but to act like someone deserves to die just cause you think they're a punk based on 2nd hand accounts of what they did/said? Lol
-
exactly
"We will never know if Deedy was legally by definition intoxicated because a BAC and blood test was never taken."
which is different from your previous statement
"Moments later an intoxicated Deedy confronted Elderts,"
The police said he was intoxicated, by most accounts he was.
But we will never know. Where is the test results that would say for certainty? It was never taken.
Was this a cover up? You know it happens. By not taking the test, that is essentially destroying the evidence.
-
next
this statement is also not true
"No one really knows how much Deedy drank except him and his friends and they are not talking."
deedy and his friends testified under oath how much they drank
exactly
"We will never know if Deedy was legally by definition intoxicated because a BAC and blood test was never taken."
which is different from your previous statement
"Moments later an intoxicated Deedy confronted Elderts,"
-
After reading the excellent transcripts supplied here by Jl808, I am truly astounded no one has remarked at Deedy's total recall of everything. I call BS, and months of careful coaching on just what to say. Out of curiosity, were those security tapes available to the defense team?
This is a guy out getting blasted with his friends, and after butting into something none of his business (and possibly having a chip on his shoulder after his buddy clued him in on the locals' attitude) and has it go south on him. From reading the testimony, Deedy started the incident. From other cases I have read years ago, the self defense killing justification does not extend to because you were losing a fight you started. I still think the badge waving and Federal this, Federal that crap is just that. This clown was out on the town, not on a protective detail.
What next, one of these off duty clowns cuts in front of you, you object, touch him, and he claims justification in wasting you? I get that impression from a few posters here.
Plus it seems his department is distancing themselves from him during his trial by not providing 'expert witnesses for his defense' thus a sign that they did not agree with his actions and or he broke company policy.
Who did the defense call as witnesses??? I only heard of Deedy and the retired HPD Officer. Anyone else???
Also, if he was not intoxicated or did not think he would have blown over the limit then why did he refuse to take the breath test when he was being 'booked'??? Seems like a strange thing to refuse if it would help in your defense down the road
-
next
this statement is also not true
"No one really knows how much Deedy drank except him and his friends and they are not talking."
deedy and his friends testified under oath how much they drank
Judge I drank 12 in 3 hrs, and I was not drunk. Sound aok?
-
exactly
"We will never know if Deedy was legally by definition intoxicated because a BAC and blood test was never taken."
which is different from your previous statement
"Moments later an intoxicated Deedy confronted Elderts,"
By that reasoning we don't know if the guy elderts was accused of bullying was drunk/high/completely sober either since there's no 'proof' (test)
We also don't know if elderts was actually bullying or just joking around... No 'proof' (audio tape)
I guess we should assume deedy didn't show n tell that he was a leo since video doesn't show him showing his credentials?
Guess we could sum it up as elderts who had drugs and alcohol in his system talked to a guy. Sat down. Was confronted. Was hit with a kick and was shot dead? That's what I got from the video n tox report (only solid proof)
-
I do not like evil, that is why I cannot wait for Jesus to return.
The truth will be revealed in everything and in everyone.
I love the police force, but you all know that corruption sometimes happen.
Did it happen here, we don't know, but the door seems to be open.
-
this struck me as odd too
no one testified as to what type of training deedy received and confirmed that his actions were correct protocol
i find it hard to believe i (and kevin) thought of that and the defense didn't
Plus it seems his department is distancing themselves from him during his trial by not providing 'expert witnesses for his defense' thus a sign that they did not agree with his actions and or he broke company policy.
-
No one deserved to die that night.
I for one am not backing Deedy in this case, but the simple fact remains: if someone identifies themselves as law enforcement and you react with violence you take your life in your own hands.
Kollin Elderts did it and paid the ultimate price.
The 95 year old man did it and paid the ultimate price.
The military kid did it ( in his truck in Waikiki) and paid the ultimate price.
I am a local boy, born and raised here and to be honest, i love to scrap more than most, but...
If you do it with a law enforcement officer, you put your life at risk.
-
Only person that testified that deedy identified himself as leo was deedy himself. Nobody else seen or heard anything like that (not directed at you keons. Jus using this opportunity to point that out)
-
.
-
this struck me as odd too
no one testified as to what type of training deedy received and confirmed that his actions were correct protocol
i find it hard to believe i (and kevin) thought of that and the defense didn't
Plus it seems his department is distancing themselves from him during his trial by not providing 'expert witnesses for his defense' thus a sign that they did not agree with his actions and or he broke company policy.
Department of State is not providing for his defense, as I don't think he will be able to claim working on the job. On duty / on call etc. is not the same as being actively engaged in a work detail. In the same manner / circumstance, I think the city and county would likely not provide legal counsel to an officer either.
Experts can be costly though, and the prosecutions witnesses basically said hitting a cop could get you killed. Even if he didn't show his badge, throwing someone on the ground, punching and kicking them is enough to justify lethal force.
As far as the drinking, he seemed pretty damn collected even in the video. To me, HPD's responses sounded like a D.U.I. police report. The same stuff over and over. (it never really changes). At the same time, I have seen them say people were drunk - when they were not, or exaggerate the smells and symptoms when someone is blowing like a .081 / .082. I've seen guys, routinely, come to work "drunk" and be able to fully function and handle themselves in a intricate and determined manner. In fact, I would consider quite a few people that work in the military as functioning alcoholics. I don't think .08 is really the end all be all, like many other things it varies on individuals. Also, 4-5 hours and 4-5 drinks is not too much for out in town, especially if you are having beer. I kind of think the alcohol thing may be a red herring. Although it may have been a factor in leading to the altercation, it wasn't the determining factor of when deadly force is authorized.
-
.
-
I do not like evil, that is why I cannot wait for Jesus to return.
The truth will be revealed in everything and in everyone.
I love the police force, but you all know that corruption sometimes happen.
Did it happen here, we don't know, but the door seems to be open.
Is there corruption? Yes. Always, it is part of the human condition.
Is there corruption in this case? I don't see it. In fact I don't understand why you would say that. Deedy has been charged with Murder 2 which is beyond what most people would think which is Manslaughter. Local guys are trying Deedy and the Fed is staying out of it. How is this corrupt? If anything it's the exact opposite. The case remains in local court and not Federal as was asked by the Defense earlier. If this was HPD you can bet that the officer would have been cleared and be back at his job already.
We have to trust that the system works in this case and that the jury, which has sat and listened to all the testimony and viewed all the presented evidence, will make a decision in line with what the law affords.
-
Not to speak for 1422LR, but I wonder if he is talking about to what extent the lying is on both sides.
Because of conflicting witness testimonies, it is either:
(1) that some testifiers are lying (knowingly lying in court, making things up, poor choice of words, poor recollection)
(2) prosecution / defense attorneys did not ask the right questions (ex. asking "did you say 'I'm gonna shoot you in the face?'" vs. asking "did you say anything about using your firearm?") or
(3) parties involved did not hear each other / communicate clearly that night.
I guess at this point, we will never know the complete truth until judgment day when all will be revealed.
-
The security guard at the McDonald's testified that Elderts and Medeiros were harassing Perrine and that it was more than just regular joking. Medeiros said he and Elderts were just joking with Perrine. I tend to believe the security guard because she's an unbiased witness, not Medeiros.
Deedy noticed things were getting heated and decided to intervene. It doesn't matter that Perrine didn't feel threatened. What matters is Deedy felt Perrine was threatened so he approached Elderts by showing his badge and telling him to stop bullying Perrine. As a law enforcement officer, Deedy has a duty to do this and to protect his friend who was being assaulted by Elderts and Medeiros.
The moment of truth occurs when Deedy warns Elderts that Deedy is a law enforcement officer, is armed and will shoot to stop Elderts. Like a fool, Elderts chose to ignore this threat. He paid the ultimate price that night for not stopping is belligerent behavior. As the saying goes, stupid as stupid does.
-
Question for those who know:
Did Deedy have any limitation on his getting involved because no federal crime was being committed and he didn't have jurisdiction.
We talk about him being LEO, but he's actually federal LEO, not just any LEO.
He said in his testimony that the federal crime being committed was assault on a federal officer.
This occurred when he kicked Elderts, as he admittedly struck first. ( Sounds a little like when the guys face hit my hand he assaulted me )
Just curious if the prosecutor could bring this up in closing.
-
Question for those who know:
Did Deedy have any limitation on his getting involved because no federal crime was being committed and he didn't have jurisdiction.
We talk about him being LEO, but he's actually federal LEO, not just any LEO.
He said in his testimony that the federal crime being committed was assault on a federal officer.
This occurred when he kicked Elderts, as he admittedly struck first. ( Sounds a little like when the guys face hit my hand he assaulted me )
Just curious if the prosecutor could bring this up in closing.
There are some federal laws that cover discriminatory harassment. Intervening for the public good doesn't require a law either. If you see someone doing something stupid, or unsafe, you can certainly tell them to stop. I don't *need* authority to do that, but it sure does help if I have a badge.
If you get into federal laws, there are so many ways they can hammer you it's not even funny. Also, some federal agents do enforce State laws (base police are a great example).
Just quick random thing would be, his threats could have been affecting interstate commerce as any purchase does so.
-
I don't have time to find it right now, but most states have a statute giving powers to the feds. Might be an idea to take a look at it and see if Hawaii has one - many of them authorize for arrest and detention of misdemeanor and felony offenses of state law.
-
I noticed a few members here who have assumed the role of cheerleaders for the defendant. Some messages seem to rejoice at the death of Mr. Elderts.
I think it would be wise to tone down the cheers for Mr. Deedy. Here is why I say this:
1- If the case for Deedy's actions were obvious, there would not be a long drawn out trial.
2- If it was that simple why are there 26 pages of comments on this forum?
3- Hawaii is a small place. There are almost 2000 members on this forum and an unknown number of lurkers.
It is almost 100% guaranteed there are blood relatives to Mr. Elderts enrolled here as members. I am pretty sure those cheering at the death of Mr. Elderts are making an unknown number of enemies.
Let me relate this story:
When I moved into my house 26 years ago, I had a good neighbor. About 10 years later, my Mom came to visit and went to church with that neighbor one Sunday. When she came back to the house she said, "Did you know that (the next door neighbor) is your not so distant cousin?"
The point is that living here in the islands, you need to be careful about how you conduct yourself. The world is a really small place, especially on an island.
(No....I am not related to Elderts)
-
^^^I agree with you on most points. I will also say this however. This is not a long drawn out case.
The long drawn out case will be when Elderts family sues Deedy in civil court.
-
I don't have time to find it right now, but most states have a statute giving powers to the feds. Might be an idea to take a look at it and see if Hawaii has one - many of them authorize for arrest and detention of misdemeanor and felony offenses of state law.
This Deedy character has testified that he did not know Hawaii laws. So much for using this excuse for butting into things.
-
This Deedy character has testified that he did not know Hawaii laws. So much for using this excuse for butting into things.
What part of you don't need a law for the public good didn't you understand? If an officer feels there a hazard to another individuals safety - they don't need to be able to quote the state statute. They are already covered!
I also don't need "jurisdiction" to say something to you. Elderts was not stopped, detained, or placed under arrest by a Federal Agent - therefore, Deedy didn't even need to know any State laws or regulations.
-
Is there corruption in this case? I don't see it. In fact I don't understand why you would say that. .
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial)
Day 8: Supervising police officer explains why Deedy not checked for alcohol
"I could smell a strong odor of what appeared to be alcoholic beverages on his breath. He was semi-unsteady on his feet," he said.
Comment: What’s this?
"I describe it as an 'Oh, no!' moment because it was a law enforcement officer," Schreiner said.
* This "oh, no" moment raises a red flag for me. Why? Because is this now a "code of silence" moment? It could also be absolutely nothing, but you got to cover and uncover all the bases.
After this event the BAC and blood test was never taken. If Deedy was indeed drunk this test would say, and now because it was not taken, the evidence is destroyed.
I am not accusing anyone, but if those bases were covered, it would be easier for everyone involved.
-
What part of you don't need a law for the public good didn't you understand? If an officer feels there a hazard to another individuals safety - they don't need to be able to quote the state statute. They are already covered!
I understand what you are saying just fine. You think that any cop from anywhere, sober or not, should be able to inject themselves into a situation. If they end up killing someone because things do not go their way, no problemo, "They are already covered!"
You have far more faith in the motives and personalities of cops than I do.
-
If you're arrested, be smart like Deedy and do not consent to a blood test. You don't have to and you don't want anything else used against you.
However, if you have a Hawaii driver's license and get into a car accident and you're asked to submit a blood test, you need to do so because you signed the contract saying you agree to do this if asked by a law enforcement officer.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial)
Day 8: Supervising police officer explains why Deedy not checked for alcohol
"I could smell a strong odor of what appeared to be alcoholic beverages on his breath. He was semi-unsteady on his feet," he said.
Comment: What’s this?
"I describe it as an 'Oh, no!' moment because it was a law enforcement officer," Schreiner said.
* This "oh, no" moment raises a red flag for me. Why? Because is this now a "code of silence" moment? It could also be absolutely nothing, but you got to cover and uncover all the bases.
After this event the BAC and blood test was never taken. If Deedy was indeed drunk this test would say, and now because it was not taken, the evidence is destroyed.
I am not accusing anyone, but if those bases were covered, it would be easier for everyone involved.
-
The moment of truth occurs when Deedy warns Elderts that Deedy is a law enforcement officer
I don't believe that moment happened
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/22878314/day-8-supervising-police-officer-testifies-at-deedy-trial)
Day 8: Supervising police officer explains why Deedy not checked for alcohol
"I could smell a strong odor of what appeared to be alcoholic beverages on his breath. He was semi-unsteady on his feet," he said.
Comment: What’s this?
"I describe it as an 'Oh, no!' moment because it was a law enforcement officer," Schreiner said.
* This "oh, no" moment raises a red flag for me. Why? Because is this now a "code of silence" moment? It could also be absolutely nothing, but you got to cover and uncover all the bases.
After this event the BAC and blood test was never taken. If Deedy was indeed drunk this test would say, and now because it was not taken, the evidence is destroyed.
I am not accusing anyone, but if those bases were covered, it would be easier for everyone involved.
I seriously doubt conspiracy. I'd much more think it's incompetence than anything else.
For the record Deedy did not submit to a BAC test, nor was he required to. I will again say legally drunk has nothing to do with this, it's about being impaired and/or complying with State Dept protocol. If there is anything conspiracy related it would be that the HPD guys are all saying Deedy smelled of alcohol and looked glassy eyed, yet the medical examiner put none of that in the report.
I'm not saying either Deedy/Elderts is right, more like they were both wrong to some extent.
What you have to be careful of is looking at items that only bolster your point of view at the expense of others.
This is a very polarizing case here. I think we would all agree to it, however I would hope that if I was ever charged with something this serious the people of the jury would look at cold hard facts and evidence, not supposition or gut feelings.
-
I noticed a few members here who have assumed the role of cheerleaders for the defendant. Some messages seem to rejoice at the death of Mr. Elderts.
I think it would be wise to tone down the cheers for Mr. Deedy. Here is why I say this:
1- If the case for Deedy's actions were obvious, there would not be a long drawn out trial.
2- If it was that simple why are there 26 pages of comments on this forum?
3- Hawaii is a small place. There are almost 2000 members on this forum and an unknown number of lurkers.
It is almost 100% guaranteed there are blood relatives to Mr. Elderts enrolled here as members. I am pretty sure those cheering at the death of Mr. Elderts are making an unknown number of enemies.
Let me relate this story:
When I moved into my house 26 years ago, I had a good neighbor. About 10 years later, my Mom came to visit and went to church with that neighbor one Sunday. When she came back to the house she said, "Did you know that (the next door neighbor) is your not so distant cousin?"
The point is that living here in the islands, you need to be careful about how you conduct yourself. The world is a really small place, especially on an island.
(No....I am not related to Elderts)
Good post oldfart. Seems that some members think that u deserve to die if your being a "punk". I'm sure a lot of us were punks at some early point in our lives. Being raised in the island and having that up and up just scrap mentality doesn't help, but it doesn't mean your a really bad person or a criminal. As time goes by you mature and start to realize that this behavior is not needed and I'm getting to old for this shit.. I'm not saying Elderts action were right or Deedys actions were wrong but it's sad that it ended with a death of a young man
-
For the record Deedy did not submit to a BAC test, nor was he required to.
State public defender Jack Tonaki said police could have and maybe should have gotten that warrant.
"It's not a real complicated process. They just have to apprise the judge of the circumstances and why they feel they have probable cause to seek out the warrant," he said.
Hawaii law states that in DUI cases implied consent kicks in. A driver can refuse a breathalyzer test but not a blood test.
(Here’s the kicker)
But Deedy wasn't driving.
I will again say legally drunk has nothing to do with this, it's about being impaired and/or complying with State Dept protocol.
If you are legally drunk will you not then be impaired? By being impaired is it suffice to say that your mental capacities are diminished? And by diminished will you be making unwise decisions? As in taking the law into your own hands when no crime has yet been committed? By not calling police back-up? By not informing the security guard that was present?
If there is anything conspiracy related it would be that the HPD guys are all saying Deedy smelled of alcohol and looked glassy eyed, yet the medical examiner put none of that in the report.
And not getting that warrant that they so needed to get those BAC and blood test.
I'm not saying either Deedy/Elderts is right, more like they were both wrong to some extent.
I agree.
What you have to be careful of is looking at items that only bolster your point of view at the expense of others.
I am usually quoting what I read and get from the news. I post all the links.
I would hope that if I was ever charged with something this serious the people of the jury would look at cold hard facts and evidence, not supposition or gut feelings.
Are all the facts in? Where is the police report? Where is the BAC report? Where is the blood test? The Elderts side should be pissed.
-
State public defender Jack Tonaki said police could have and maybe should have gotten that warrant.
"It's not a real complicated process. They just have to apprise the judge of the circumstances and why they feel they have probable cause to seek out the warrant," he said.
Hawaii law states that in DUI cases implied consent kicks in. A driver can refuse a breathalyzer test but not a blood test.
Yes I was aware of this. The Prosecutor for some reason chose not to pursue this. Again I don't view this as a conspiracy, I view this as incompetence. They can always get the warrant, take the test, and not use at a later date, but if they forgo the test there is no going back.
If you are legally drunk will you not then be impaired? By being impaired is it suffice to say that your mental capacities are diminished? And by diminished will you be making unwise decisions? As in taking the law into your own hands when no crime has yet been committed? By not calling police back-up? By not informing the security guard that was present?
I do not agree that if you are legally drunk, then you are impaired. I will also argue that just becuase you are not legally drunk it does not mean that you aren't impaired. You can still be arrested for driving when impaired. You fail the field sobriety and there are no other mitigating circumstances such as hurt ankle, injury, existing condition, you bet you're getting arrested.
As far as making poor decisions.........this is dicey. Poor decisions happen when not impaired and good decisions may happen if you are impaired. Whatever the case may be the Prosecutor messed things up and we'll never know if Deedy was legally drunk or what his BAC level was at the time of the incident.
Calling for police backup..........I think this needed to happen at the outset, not once things started to go south. Then again we don't know what Deedy has experienced. Maybe he's been in this situation before and diffused it. Very difficult to say if we are not directly involved.
Informing the security guard.........I'm not sure what he was supposed to inform her of. Again call the police? Dunno, I think that Deedy did feel he could diffuse the situation. It was definitely a miscalculation, but we don't know if he wouldn't have made the exact same decisions if he had 0 drinks.
And not getting that warrant that they so needed to get those BAC and blood test.
Keep in mind this is the Prosecutors office not HPD. Prosecutor decides to charge or not.
What you have to be careful of is looking at items that only bolster your point of view at the expense of others.
I am usually quoting what I read and get from the news. I post all the links.
I understand what you are saying. Still people can consciously/unconsciously cherry pick things that bolster their opinions. If you've heard of the saying "a self fulfilling prophecy," or "perception becomes reality,"............same thing. Because people see or believe things it becomes fact in their minds. Some people don't stop to realize that different parties may have agendas or pre-conceived ideas that guide how they view things.
I would hope that if I was ever charged with something this serious the people of the jury would look at cold hard facts and evidence, not supposition or gut feelings.
Are all the facts in? Where is the police report? Where is the BAC report? Where is the blood test? The Elderts side should be pissed.
All the facts - who knows. We weren't there and even if we were it's conceivable not all the facts were addressed. Some facts may be left out (by both sides) as they feel it could damage their case. Keep in mind the way our system of justice works both sides do their best to either prove innocence or guilt. Some sides are better than others so the verdicts may not reflect what should happen from a moral stance, but ethically it's viewed as correct/right.
Police report - once this verdict is in, I'm sure the media can request a report under the Sunshine act to get a copy.
BAC report/blood test - why are you asking for one when you know it wasn't taken for Deedy? If you are referring to Elderts' blood, then again with the police report that can be requested, however I doubt the medical examiner would lie about the cocaine, pot, and alcohol reportedly in Elderts' system.
Elderts side should be PO'd - I agree, they should be. There should have been things that the LEOs/Prosecutor should have done. We'll see if the family sues the City in addition to Deedy. I'm quite sure some lawyer will talk the family into pursuing a civil case.
-
More fuel for the fire:
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/the-tragic-killing-of-kollin-elderts-by-christopher-deedy-echoes-trayvon-martin-case/ (http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/the-tragic-killing-of-kollin-elderts-by-christopher-deedy-echoes-trayvon-martin-case/)
The concluding paragraphs of this article will cause you even more consternation, regardless of how you feel about the trial, per se.
-
"harada-stone"
looks like he may have hyphenated his wife's name
bleeding heart lib lawyer from kamuela on the big island
looks like he's written for the big island newspapers too
More fuel for the fire:
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/the-tragic-killing-of-kollin-elderts-by-christopher-deedy-echoes-trayvon-martin-case/ (http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/the-tragic-killing-of-kollin-elderts-by-christopher-deedy-echoes-trayvon-martin-case/)
The concluding paragraphs of this article will cause you even more consternation, regardless of how you feel about the trial, per se.
-
I finally finished a semi-transcription of my recording of Deedy's Day 2 testimony here. This was when Deedy as a defense witness ends and as a prosecution witness begins.
Because of the 20,000 character limit to a post, I had to split the transcript to 2 posts.
Deedy Testimony Day 2 8/7/2013 afternoon testimony
Part 1: http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=9629.msg98662#msg98662 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=9629.msg98662#msg98662)
Part 2: http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=9629.msg98858#msg98858 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=9629.msg98858#msg98858)
The KITV feed lost audio after a while. To get what was said the rest of that afternoon, check this video from KITV:
KITV: Last 30 minutes of Deedy's testimony on Wed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4RgEiSEmOE#ws (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4RgEiSEmOE#ws)
-
Oops wrong thread. Delete!
-
Judge ruled today that manslaughter will not be an available charge. It's murder 2 or bust.
This changes my prediction strongly to not guilty - we can only see now. I was thinking of the MS went forward, that he would catch that one.
-
Judge ruled today that manslaughter will not be an available charge. It's murder 2 or bust.
This changes my prediction strongly to not guilty - we can only see now. I was thinking of the MS went forward, that he would catch that one.
That was kind of a smooth strategy by the defense.
Deedy clearly stated he intended to shoot Elderts to stop the threat ( i.e. kill him ) so no evidence for manslaughter ( recklessly causing a death ) was presented.
It wasn't reckless, it was intentional.
I predict not guilty of Murder 2. ( I thought Manslaughter might be applied also. )
-
So stupid, I still can't believe the Prosecutors charged with Murder 2 anyway when it should have been Manslaughter charges. Decision same as before, not guilty.
Still to remain if the Fed fires him.
-
Deedy trial closing arguments LIVE
http://cds1.yospace.com/access/lsg?lsId=hearst01-stream4
-
Deedy is gonna skate on this one. It would supprise the hell out of me if they charged him with the second degree charge but i wouldn't count on it. Civil charges in the wait.
-
Hard part with civil action is you roll the dice.
Deedy would need to be 51% or more liable for the situation. ( Comparative/Contributory Negligence )
I think it's 51, might be 50.
If plaintiff loses, defendant can file to re-coup attorney fees and costs, which can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If the Eldert's camp looses, they could technically be out hundreds of thousands of dollars, in addition to their own attorney fees.
Civil court is like gambling. What are the odds.
-
.
-
Hard part with civil action is you roll the dice.
Deedy would need to be 51% or more liable for the situation. ( Comparative/Contributory Negligence )
I think it's 51, might be 50.
If plaintiff loses, defendant can file to re-coup attorney fees and costs, which can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If the Eldert's camp looses, they could technically be out hundreds of thousands of dollars, in addition to their own attorney fees.
Civil court is like gambling. What are the odds.
Odds are excellent.
For the firms.
-
Hard part with civil action is you roll the dice.
Deedy would need to be 51% or more liable for the situation. ( Comparative/Contributory Negligence )
I think it's 51, might be 50.
If plaintiff loses, defendant can file to re-coup attorney fees and costs, which can be hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If the Eldert's camp looses, they could technically be out hundreds of thousands of dollars, in addition to their own attorney fees.
Civil court is like gambling. What are the odds.
GZ is no lawyer, but I thought that you do not need to be majority responsible to be on the hook for $$$$.
IMHO I think there are plenty of unscrupulous lawyers who have already approached the Elderts' family about filing civil charges.
-
KITV: Closing arguments end in Deedy trial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au_isj1HAys
-
GZ is no lawyer, but I thought that you do not need to be majority responsible to be on the hook for $$$$.
IMHO I think there are plenty of unscrupulous lawyers who have already approached the Elderts' family about filing civil charges.
Looked it up. Hawaii is a modified comparative negligence state. Need to be 51% at fault for other party to recover in tort action.
Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31
-
^^^Intesting.
-
Just a case of wrong place, wrong time
-
A lot is being said back and forth about Deedy's state of mind during this altercation. Most notably his BAC at the time this was committed.
The crime was committed that much we do know. Does it really matter if he was drunk or not when this occurred?
To me it seems almost a worse crime if he was completely sober because the video clearly shows that he instigated this affair and didn't handle the situation in what many would construe as standard protocol.
The fact that Futa is making this a focal point to her case annoys me. Just like she made a big deal of whether or not Elderts had a weapon in which it was clearly reported from the getgo he did not. The other agent called to the stands indicated that off duty agents are not allowed to consume alcohol to the point of impairment while carrying a piece. There was no way she was going to prove this so why continue on with it? Clearly he handled the situation as you would expect from someone from the mainland...or more specifically crime-riddled Washington DC. Not Hawaii.Her whole case is full of holes and if Deedy walks, I think her job should be at stake here.
No denying this kid was no angel and probably deserved a beating. But this was a needless death and I definitely blame Deedy for it.
-
Kinda older video but interesting comment about how prosecution handled (bungled?) Deedy's testimony / cross examination.
KHON: Former prosecutor breaks own Deedy's testimony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ4Z43ST4Vg&sns=em
-
Clearly he handled the situation as you would expect from someone from the mainland...or more specifically crime-riddled Washington DC.
What are you implying here?
-
What are you implying here?
Well its my opinion but I really think what we had here was a clash of cultures really. HIndsight is 20/20 but if you try and look at it from each parties perspective, here in hawaii we normally handle things with our fists. you do it and its over with.
over there especially in DC, the murder capital of the USA, things are handled differently. Im not vouching for Deedy in any way because if he had done it Elderts way, Im sure he wouldve walked away with a black eye or maybe a broken nose at worse. He chose to handle it in a way he thought was necessary and that was shoot because he thought was in grave danger. whether or not alchohol played a part in this is moot.
But whens the last time you read about a fist fight where one man laid dead afterwards here? you dont because it doesnt happen.
This whole stand your ground grave danger bullshit stance is just that. Its a crutch.
Deedy needs to pay for his actions. He killed a man unnecessarily.
-
But whens the last time you read about a fist fight where one man laid dead afterwards here? you dont because it doesnt happen.
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're ignorant.
It happens more than you think.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/19059833/tevita-aholelei-who-killed-man-with-one-punch-sentenced (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/19059833/tevita-aholelei-who-killed-man-with-one-punch-sentenced)
http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/179573551.html?id=179573551 (http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/179573551.html?id=179573551)
http://damontucker.com/2011/12/05/bar-fight-leads-to-death-of-big-island-man/ (http://damontucker.com/2011/12/05/bar-fight-leads-to-death-of-big-island-man/)
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/09/15/news/story06.html (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/09/15/news/story06.html)
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2001/10/10/news/story9.html (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2001/10/10/news/story9.html)
-
.
-
over there especially in DC, the murder capital of the USA, things are handled differently.
First point, get your facts straight. DC isn't the "murder capital of the USA." It ranks 14th in the list of per capita murders of cities having over 250,000 people in them.
Second point, it makes absolutely no difference if Deedy were born in D.C., Florida, or Hawaii. He was a trained Security Agent for the Department of State. That was his job. He wasn't a thug on the DC streets using his gun to settle arguments.
Why don't people spend a minute on the Internet learning about the person instead of forming an opinion based on biases, assumptions, and hearsay? Would it matter that Deedy didn't grow up in D.C.? He moved there in 2006 (see the passage highlighted below)...
While Chris Deedy was growing up, Chris’ family moved frequently, giving him an interest in travel and international relations. Originally from Worcester, Massachusetts, they moved to Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, for his father’s employment. The company also took them to live in Tokyo, Japan, for five years, before moving back to Pennsylvania and ultimately home to the Worcester area in 1997.
Attending St. John’s Catholic High School in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, from which he graduated in 2002, Chris excelled in academics and was active in numerous extracurricular activities. He played lacrosse, served in student government, was active in campus ministry, and frequently volunteered to help the community with the Ryken Service Club. He also worked throughout high school, employed to do apartment maintenance and groundskeeping year round, while also teaching snowboarding during the winter.
Chris then attended Tulane University on a partial academic scholarship, where he studied economics, political economy, and history. At Tulane, Chris was an orientation coordinator for new students and continued his volunteerism in community service. At the beginning of his senior year, Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and forced many, including Chris, to evacuate. Afterwards, Chris assisted with the rebuilding efforts, volunteered to help complete tax returns for low income families with the IRS Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program, and helped to revitalize public schools in the area.
After receiving his Bachelor’s degree in Economics, Chris moved to Washington, DC, in 2006, where he worked as an industry analyst for the U.S. Department of Labor. He continued to volunteer, becoming a Project Coordinator at DC Cares and working at the DC Central kitchen. He also continued his education and passion for international studies, taking courses at The Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and learning Arabic through DC Internationals. Soon after moving to DC, Chris also met Stephanie, his future wife, while playing in an office softball league.
In 2009, Chris joined the U.S. Department of State’s Diplomatic Security Service, the law enforcement arm of the Foreign Service. Chris’ professional goal was to work in law enforcement to help protect innocent people. Driven by his love of travel and international relations and his personal sense of duty to serve, the Diplomatic Security Service was a perfect fit for Chris. Basic training for DSS was rigorous and thorough, covering a wide span of applicable topics and law enforcement officer training.
After graduation from the Basic Special Agent Course, Chris began working as a Special Agent in the Washington Field Office. There, he conducted passport and visa fraud investigations, including several joint investigations with local police departments and other federal agencies. Dedicated to his investigations, Chris received an award from the Maryland U.S. Attorney’s Office as a lead investigator in a multi-person identity document fraud scheme. He also served on numerous protective details for visiting foreign dignitaries, as well as on a two-month temporary assignment to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s protective detail. In 2010 Chris earned an agency Extra Mile Award for continuous service with limited rest through harsh conditions, and received personal letters of gratitude from several foreign ministers.
In February 2010 and March 2011 Chris volunteered for temporary tours of duty in Baghdad, Iraq and Benghazi, Libya. In both instances, Chris’s duties included serving on personal protection teams, escorting U.S. diplomats into high risk areas to ensure their safety and well-being. Libya in particular was a difficult mission. During that time, Chris and his colleagues were there without diplomatic status in an active war zone, with limited access to food, sleep, and communication. Afterwards, he received letters of gratitude from the new Libyan government and U.S. Special Envoy Christopher Stevens (later named Ambassador and killed in the 9/11/12 terrorist attacks) and the Department of State gave Chris a Meritorious Honor Award for his “dedication and professionalism displayed in support of the protection operations for the designated U.S. Special Representative to the Libyan Transitional National Council, John C. Stevens, and the attached Department of State/U. S. Agency for International Development officers that accompanied him to Benghazi, Libya.”
Directly following his deployment to Iraq, Chris married Stephanie in February, 2011. Three weeks later, Chris was unexpectedly deployed to Libya. After the Libya deployment, Chris again volunteered to serve as part of the Asian Pacific Economic Conference in Hawaii. It was during this temporary duty assignment that Chris was attacked and compelled to use deadly force.
-
Fine Ill concede those points and stand corrected.
But I would really like someone here to engage and enlighten me as to why Futa is making alcohol one of the main points of her argument when she cant even prove if he was actually impaired. Same exact incident occurs but With alcohol theres negligence, but w/o alcohol we have what? intent? Seems to me that it helps her case more if the guy just had a few drinks and was sober at the time no?
-
Fine Ill concede those points and leave it as a brash young rookie with a gun going overboard on a savage.
But I would really like someone here to engage and enlighten me as to why Futa is making alcohol one of the main points of her argument when she cant even prove if he was actually impaired. Same exact incident occurs but With alcohol theres negligence, but w/o alcohol we have what? intent? Seems to me that it helps her case more if the guy just had a few drinks and was sober at the time no?
Between you and me...
The prosecutor is a blooming idiot.
She's presented a weak, circumstantial case and effectively lost even before the verdict.
I'm not taking sides in this post. All I'm saying is based on her case, Deedy will probably walk away a free man.
-
i've been developing this thought since the closing argument
and KK's post this morning finally cemented my thinking
does anyone have a roster of the lawyers in the prosecutor's office
i looked this morning and only saw a picture of kaneshiro and his chief deputy
is Ms Futa a junior or senior prosecutor?
she seems like a weak choice for such a high profile case
not very assertive or well spoken
does not have much courtroom presence
and she blinks like 80-90 times a minute
makes her seem nervous, like she is unsure or lying
how come the prosecutor is not taking a more active role in the case?
no grandstanding in the courtroom or in front of the media
for an elected official, he has not taken any of the spotlight
is it incompetence by the lead prosecutor, or is keith kaneshiro trying to distance himself from a case he knows he's gonna lose?
Between you and me...
The prosecutor is a blooming idiot.
She's presented a weak, circumstantial case and effectively lost even before the verdict.
I'm not taking sides in this post. All I'm saying is based on her case, Deedy will probably walk away a free man.
-
i've been developing this thought since the closing argument
and KK's post this morning finally cemented my thinking
does anyone have a roster of the lawyers in the prosecutor's office
i looked this morning and only saw a picture of kaneshiro and his chief deputy
is Ms Futa a junior or senior prosecutor?
she seems like a weak choice for such a high profile case
not very assertive or well spoken
does not have much courtroom presence
and she blinks like 80-90 times a minute
makes her seem nervous, like she is unsure or lying
how come the prosecutor is not taking a more active role in the case?
no grandstanding in the courtroom or in front of the media
for an elected official, he has not taken any of the spotlight
is it incompetence by the lead prosecutor, or is keith kaneshiro trying to distance himself from a case he knows he's gonna lose?
So I guess my question would be, do you think that this is exactly what the prosecutor wanted? You know, "Look, we tried him in a court of law and he was found innocent"...
I don't know, just thinking out loud.
-
So I guess my question would be, do you think that this is exactly what the prosecutor wanted? You know, "Look, we tried him in a court of law and he was found innocent"...
I don't know, just thinking out loud.
Exactly what I thought about the Trayvon Martin prosecution team
-
conspiracy talk? what would prosecutions impetus be something like that? im not following.
-
conspiracy talk? what would prosecutions impetus be something like that? im not following.
Probably why they charging with murder instead of manslaughter
-
no, not a conspiracy
the prosecutor is serving two masters
justice and the electorate
they have to be "tough on crime" to get re-elected
so sometimes they have to take on cases that they may not be able to prove due to public pressure
if they lose the case, then they chalk it up to "a jury of their peers"
conspiracy talk? what would prosecutions impetus be something like that? im not following.
-
conspiracy talk? what would prosecutions impetus be something like that? im not following.
Sometimes it just looks good. If you look at something like Hawaii news now, I think it is split pretty 50-50 with people cheering or condemning the prosecution. That could be good for someones re-election... just saying.
-
Sometimes it just looks good. If you look at something like Hawaii news now, I think it is split pretty 50-50 with people cheering or condemning the prosecution. That could be good for someones re-election... just saying.
thanks for that!
-
no, not a conspiracy
the prosecutor is serving two masters
justice and the electorate
they have to be "tough on crime" to get re-elected
so sometimes they have to take on cases that they may not be able to prove due to public pressure
if they lose the case, then they chalk it up to "a jury of their peers"
sorry...meant to thank you...good to know.
-
Probably why they charging with murder instead of manslaughter
Makes sense. That explains the no request for manslaughter charge that caught everyone by surprise.
-
This case is very political. Look at what happened right here on this forum. This discussion thread is sort of a shrunk down microcosm of what the general electorate at large would probably be thinking and debating.
So, as a result, it cannot be anything BUT political, and thus there are going to be lots of stakeholders looking at this very carefully and anxiously.
It might even be political all the way up to the Federal perspective, in terms of Federal viz a viz. State, Federal viz a Viz Municipal, etc.
-
conspiracy talk? what would prosecutions impetus be something like that? im not following.
Sorry! This is slightly off, but I just thought of a really good and true example. Let's take OVUII (a.k.a. DUI) charges. The state will not plead out these DUI's to lesser charges for anyone. They from what I can see try every single one of them. It's a very ineffective policy, and wastes significant resources all around. Most (and I say this truthfully, and likely in the range of 60-70%) of their cases they lose for Rule 48 violations (failure to prosecute within a set guidelines of 6 months of charged time). They may make appearances in cases like 5-6 times (or more) to get to this point. Can you think of how much it costs to have a public defender there, prosecutor, bailiff, judge, reporters, court costs, utilities... etc. etc... When, if it's offense 1-2 the people are going to just get a fine and their license taken?
If you are losing most of your cases, it seems like a better policy to get *something* from almost all of them instead. Make them pay up front the fines (no collections!) or something you know? I'm not here to be 'light' on DUI guys etc., but they are not winning anyways. Instead, they are blowing LOTS of OUR money on this crap! I would fine the dude, put the machine in his car, and reduce the charge to something easy (that the individual would go for).
Oh, and the reason they won't plead it out is because Kaneshiro developed some policies (for political reasons) to be "hard" on drunk drivers. To do otherwise would rally the MADD team....
-
yup
manslaughter gives the jury an "out"
they can convict of something, but not murder
keeps the public happy that "justice" was served
i thought that the martin case was going to come up manslaughter, but i was wrong
Makes sense. That explains the no request for manslaughter charge that caught everyone by surprise.
-
i have heard from many of my patients that are former prosecutors that kaneshiro is not a smart man, and is also a terrible administrator
most of the really good people in the office have left in the past few years
HPD employees have told me the same thing
all my patients who are in the know told me to vote for kaneshiro's opponent in the last election
unfortunately, he lost
Sorry! This is slightly off, but I just thought of a really good and true example. Let's take OVUII (a.k.a. DUI) charges. The state will not plead out these DUI's to lesser charges for anyone. They from what I can see try every single one of them. It's a very ineffective policy, and wastes significant resources all around. Most (and I say this truthfully, and likely in the range of 60-70%) of their cases they lose for Rule 48 violations (failure to prosecute within a set guidelines of 6 months of charged time). They may make appearances in cases like 5-6 times (or more) to get to this point. Can you think of how much it costs to have a public defender there, prosecutor, bailiff, judge, reporters, court costs, utilities... etc. etc... When, if it's offense 1-2 the people are going to just get a fine and their license taken?
If you are losing most of your cases, it seems like a better policy to get *something* from almost all of them instead. Make them pay up front the fines (no collections!) or something you know? I'm not here to be 'light' on DUI guys etc., but they are not winning anyways. Instead, they are blowing LOTS of OUR money on this crap! I would fine the dude, put the machine in his car, and reduce the charge to something easy (that the individual would go for).
Oh, and the reason they won't plead it out is because Kaneshiro developed some policies (for political reasons) to be "hard" on drunk drivers. To do otherwise would rally the MADD team....
-
yup
manslaughter gives the jury an "out"
they can convict of something, but not murder
keeps the public happy that "justice" was served
i thought that the martin case was going to come up manslaughter, but i was wrong
murder 2nd plus manslaugher as insurance. strangely he was found not guilty for both.
-
"What If Deedy Didn’t Pack A Gun?"
http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun (http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun)
-
"What If Deedy Didn’t Pack A Gun?"
http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun (http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun)
Every study I’ve seen shows that if somebody has a gun he’s more likely to use it to kill somebody in a confrontation than in cases of unarmed people. Why get beat up if you can shoot your opponent?
Really? Can anyone tell me what I missed in this statement?
If I have a gun, I'm more likely to shoot somebody than if I don't have a gun ...
Well, big, fat DUH!!
Did you know that people alive today are at higher risk of dying than any other group? :rofl:
-
"What If Deedy Didn’t Pack A Gun?"
http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun (http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun)
That's what I was afraid of - that this case isn't going to help CCW or any 2A issues here at all. If any pro CCW argument arises, the anti gunners will use this case against having ordinary citizens carrying concealed. They will paint a wild west scenario despite CCW in 38 other states. They don't trust anyone with a gun but they will trust the govt. with them. Govt. welfare extends beyond EBT cards and the like - sheeple will give their rights to the govt. for a little sense of security. Personal security for most folk is calling 911 and waiting for someone else to respond.
-
Most folks live by the principle that because they are a good person or whatever, bad things only happen to other people. So by restricting others' rights, they themselves won't eventually suffer because it won't apply to themselves.
-
"What If Deedy Didn’t Pack A Gun?"
http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun (http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun)
The fact a fed gunned down a unarmed man is direct evidence the citizenryb should be allowed to carry firearms.
If someone had been armed that night then what was effectively a execution by a federal agent could have been prevented.
-
"What If Deedy Didn’t Pack A Gun?"
http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun (http://www.midweek.com/what-if-deedy-didnt-pack-a-gun)
The fact a fed gunned down a unarmed man is direct evidence the citizenryb should be allowed to carry firearms.
If someone had been armed that night then what was effectively a execution by a federal agent could have been prevented.
This is a horrible argument.
Whether or not Christopher Deedy was right or wrong, drawing guns on law enforcement officers is not an answer to anything.
-
No one is above the law even a government official. If a fed is about to commit murder you have every right in the world to draw on him.
That is literally the reason we have a second amendment.
-
First off, I am not here to defend anyone and I did not read the whole thread. Mostly everyone here knows the generic stigma/types of attitudes both parties represent. One is most likely as perceived as the cocky know it all from the mainland. While the other is most likely the young cocky local boy who grew up hating haoles from the mainland. Whatever the case, I say the Deedy walks. Deedy was not out to kill someone. It was not previously planned. IMO a concealed carry weapon is available to both/all parties during the initial scuffle. As with most local scuffles, friends like to jump in and help friends. But once the gun was made present, the local boys said DUCK FAT and watched. Now if it was possible to get a lesser charge like manslaughter then I say Deedy would get that instead. Since it is murder and being judged by his peers, I say Deedy skips away doing the Hawaiian shuffle to a plane and goes home a free man.
Could the night or morning ended differently, hell yes. But too many scenarios/could've/would've decisions to think about life's choices. We only get one at that time.
-
No one is above the law even a government official. If a fed is about to commit murder you have every right in the world to draw on him.
That is literally the reason we have a second amendment.
Maybe you should educate yourself about what the word murder means.
I strongly agree that the second amendment is all about protecting your life and the lives of your family.
Strongly agree that the second amendment also serves to protect the general populace against government tyranny.
If however, you believe that the right to carry a gun makes you judge, jury and executioner in the world, then you are EXACTLY the kind of person that has no business owning or carrying a gun.
If you seriously believe that drawing down in a law enforcement officer because you see him draw a gun (because in your mind you believe he is a out to commit murder) you are not only guilty of horrible judgement, you're delusional.
Explain to me exactly how that course of action will end well for you.
Scenario A) Police officer is on an undercover operation staking out an international drug dealer...
Said officer sees the opportunity to draw his weapon and apprehend the drug dealer.
Wolfwood, the self appointed judge and jury of the world decides that this police officer is about to "commit murder"
Wolfwood decides to draw his gun and hand out some wolf justice and prevent this murder.
What would happen:
A) Police officer would get in a shoot out with wolfwood, one or both are killed.
B) Wolfwood would be shot in the head by the other officers that haven't revealed themselves yet.
C) Drug dealer gets away and wolfwood gets arrested and charged with multiple felonies.
D) wolfwood is the hero and walks away scot free.
-
Well its my opinion but I really think what we had here was a clash of cultures really. HIndsight is 20/20 but if you try and look at it from each parties perspective, here in hawaii we normally handle things with our fists. you do it and its over with.
over there especially in DC, the murder capital of the USA, things are handled differently. Im not vouching for Deedy in any way because if he had done it Elderts way, Im sure he wouldve walked away with a black eye or maybe a broken nose at worse. He chose to handle it in a way he thought was necessary and that was shoot because he thought was in grave danger. whether or not alchohol played a part in this is moot.
But whens the last time you read about a fist fight where one man laid dead afterwards here? you dont because it doesnt happen.
This whole stand your ground grave danger bullshit stance is just that. Its a crutch.
Deedy needs to pay for his actions. He killed a man unnecessarily.
OK I have to humbly disagree on several counts here.
Culture clash - definitely. If he's from DC (not saying he is), then yes I can see his reaction being from that type of environment. I will say you can add Detriot and Chicago to that list. I'm not so sure DC is the murder capital of the US anymore.
Now onto the other stuff...........we normally handle with our fists? In certain cases, but we have our fair share of knife and firearms attacks. If you look at the news just this past week we have several knifings and shootings in Makiki/Kalihi/etc. I think maybe in my day it was more fists, but not now.
Fist fights don't lead to death? Again disagree:
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/05/20/news/story03.html (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/05/20/news/story03.html)
Court documents state that one of two males "punched and kicked Nakoa until he laid on the ground motionless."
..........or if you talk to other people it was 1 or 2 blows. In any case not a whole lot.
Another person with Hawaii ties, bar fight gone wrong. No weapons other than hands & feet.:
http://www.surfline.com/surf-news/san-diego-pro-surfer-dies-after-barfight-rip-emery-kauanui_9487/ (http://www.surfline.com/surf-news/san-diego-pro-surfer-dies-after-barfight-rip-emery-kauanui_9487/)
These are just two examples. There are others. Yes it may not be common for people to die, but they do. Also I will remind you the justification for use of deadly force isn't restricted to death. If you are in fear of great bodily injury it's enough also. So with that regards this incident also, IMHO, would qualify for use of deadly force:
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Dec/03/br/br6137940582.html (http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Dec/03/br/br6137940582.html)
He hit each of them twice, breaking Dawn Dussell's nose and knocking her unconscious. Andrew Dussell, who was also kicked by the younger Pa'akaula, suffered facial fractures and a concussion.
Now I don't necessarily agree/disagree with the actions Deedy took, however I will say this is a very convoluted case. It's not necessarily crystal clear.
-
interesting that the jury is taking their time
did they have friday off?
are they sequestered?
Now I don't necessarily agree/disagree with the actions Deedy took, however I will say this is a very convoluted case. It's not necessarily crystal clear.
[/quote]
-
Fine Ill concede those points and stand corrected.
But I would really like someone here to engage and enlighten me as to why Futa is making alcohol one of the main points of her argument when she cant even prove if he was actually impaired. Same exact incident occurs but With alcohol theres negligence, but w/o alcohol we have what? intent? Seems to me that it helps her case more if the guy just had a few drinks and was sober at the time no?
IMHO I believe what she is trying to do is sow seeds of doubt about Deedy's judgement in this incident. What she is saying is if he had 0 alcohol this would have been different because X would have happened, or he would have done Y.
The trouble is no one ever got factual evidence of Deedy's BAC. No one got a warrant to have a blood draw.
yup
manslaughter gives the jury an "out"
they can convict of something, but not murder
keeps the public happy that "justice" was served
i thought that the martin case was going to come up manslaughter, but i was wrong
I disagree. I think the Zimmerman case is clearly self defense. Zimmerman never confronted Martin in fact there was a 4 minute period where Zimmerman had no idea where Martin was before Martin re-initiated contact by assaulting Zimmerman. Add to this that Zimmerman was put to the ground with no means of escape...........self defense.
The Deedy case is much much murkier despite there being (choppy) video and eye witness testimony.
-
interesting that the jury is taking their time
did they have friday off?
are they sequestered?
Friday off, not sequestered.
-
mahalo
hopefully jury comes back today with verdict
Friday off, not sequestered.
-
bb
Maybe you should educate yourself about what the word murder means.
I strongly agree that the second amendment is all about protecting your life and the lives of your family.
Strongly agree that the second amendment also serves to protect the general populace against government tyranny.
If however, you believe that the right to carry a gun makes you judge, jury and executioner in the world, then you are EXACTLY the kind of person that has no business owning or carrying a gun.
If you seriously believe that drawing down in a law enforcement officer because you see him draw a gun (because in your mind you believe he is a out to commit murder) you are not only guilty of horrible judgement, you're delusional.
Explain to me exactly how that course of action will end well for you.
Scenario A) Police officer is on an undercover operation staking out an international drug dealer...
Said officer sees the opportunity to draw his weapon and apprehend the drug dealer.
Wolfwood, the self appointed judge and jury of the world decides that this police officer is about to "commit murder"
Wolfwood decides to draw his gun and hand out some wolf justice and prevent this murder.
What would happen:
A) Police officer would get in a shoot out with wolfwood, one or both are killed.
B) Wolfwood would be shot in the head by the other officers that haven't revealed themselves yet.
C) Drug dealer gets away and wolfwood gets arrested and charged with multiple felonies.
D) wolfwood is the hero and walks away scot free.
I'm actually a attorney licensed in both HI and CA and have had a hand in litigating all three Second Amendment cases stemming from Hawaii so I am fairly sure I know what murder means.
If you see a government agent engaged in a crime against a U.S. citizen then you must take action.
Do you think in 1946 the men at the Battle of Athens asked themselves whether they would be incarcerated for defending their community against the government?
Do you think Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris asked themselves about the consequences when the defended the Weaver home from the ATF?
I could go on but history is riddled with examples of people standing up against the government because it was the right thing to do.
And it has worked. In Athens Georgia the people went back to democratic elections.
Due to the sacrifices of patriots at Ruby Ridge and Waco the Federal Government was forced to change its policy and stopped using armed raids as their go to tactic. Rather in the next standoff they negotiated and no lives were lost on either side.
Deedy needs to be sent to jail for the rest of his life so the Sovereign States can remind the Federal Government that it will not allow its jack booted thugs to come and murder its citizens.
-
bb
I'm actually a attorney licensed in both HI and CA and have had a hand in litigating all three Second Amendment cases stemming from Hawaii so I am fairly sure I know what murder means.
Since you're an attorney then I'm fairly sure you understand that murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another person without justification or excuse.
If Deedy had no justification or excuse, he would already be convicted.
Due to the sacrifices of patriots at Ruby Ridge and Waco the Federal Government was forced to change its policy and stopped using armed raids as their go to tactic. Rather in the next standoff they negotiated and no lives were lost on either side.
murder its citizens.
So am I to understand that you believe that David Koresh and his band of wackos are, in your mind, patriots? :wtf:
Deedy needs to be sent to jail for the rest of his life so the Sovereign States can remind the Federal Government that it will not allow its jack booted thugs to come and murder its citizens.
I do believe that Deedy should have executed better judgement, but he didn't murder anyone.
Either you haven't seen the video tapes of the incident or you're seriously delusional in saying that Deedy murdered Elderts.
-
I actually haven't seen the videos. Do you have a link? I live on the mainland nowadays. My partner Rick Holcomb does all the courtroom appearances.
-
I actually haven't seen the videos. Do you have a link? I live on the mainland nowadays. My partner Rick Holcomb does all the courtroom appearances.
This thread you are posting in is 31 pages long. All the video links and other information, including some transcripts by one of our members, is contained herein.
:geekdanc:
-
...............Due to the sacrifices of patriots at Ruby Ridge and Waco the Federal Government was forced to change its policy and stopped using armed raids as their go to tactic. Rather in the next standoff they negotiated and no lives were lost on either side.
Deedy needs to be sent to jail for the rest of his life so the Sovereign States can remind the Federal Government that it will not allow its jack booted thugs to come and murder its citizens.
Holy smokes...............the Branch Davidians at Waco were patriots? I think your time would be best served investigating what kind of nut job Koresh was and what kind of heinous acts he carried out.
I'm disappointed an attorney would speak out with such determination without first gathering facts.
-
Holy smokes...............the Branch Davidians at Waco were patriots? I think your time would be best served investigating what kind of nut job Koresh was and what kind of heinous acts he carried out.
I'm disappointed an attorney would speak out with such determination without first gathering facts.
Yes, but not surprised, given that the vast majority in Congress are also lawyers! >:D >:D >:D
-
I actually haven't seen the videos. Do you have a link? I live on the mainland nowadays. My partner Rick Holcomb does all the courtroom appearances.
You really should do your dillegence before typing your thoughts. #dissapointed. :-\
Based on your statement, I will also take the next logical step and say that you: didn't read this forum, didn't listen to testimony, didn't read any of the filings, are unaware of training and guidelines for those carrying firearms, do not follow closely developments in self-defense laws or cases, and have limited experience with the policies and procedures of carrying a firearm.
The last statement of your paragraph shows total disregard and disdain for the judicial process, and it blows my mind how you are simply advocating for the destruction of a potentially innocent mans life.
-
If the ATF wanted to arrest David Koresh they would have simply arrested him while out in town. Instead they raided the complex and the Davidians simply defended their land. There is no dispositive evidence they even were engaged in unlawful activity. The only ones guilty of a crime are the ATF for using smoke grenades and negligently lighting the whole complex on fire with smoke grenades which resulted in the deaths of many innocent children. Being a nutjob i.e. practicing your religion is protected by something called the First Amendment. While there are allegations Koresh engaged in underage sex, these were never substantiated. The ATF also tried to make the claim that a machine gun was burned in the fire as evidence the raid was proper. How could a wood fire melt a machine gun to that extend?
Every Davidian that died is a martyr who helped end a horrible shoot first investigate later policy by the Federal Government.
-
If the ATF wanted to arrest David Koresh they would have simply arrested him while out in town. Instead they raided the complex and the Davidians simply defended their land. There is no dispositive evidence they even were engaged in unlawful activity. The only ones guilty of a crime are the ATF for using smoke grenades and negligently lighting the whole complex on fire with smoke grenades which resulted in the deaths of many innocent children. Being a nutjob i.e. practicing your religion is protected by something called the First Amendment. While there are allegations Koresh engaged in underage sex, these were never substantiated. The ATF also tried to make the claim that a machine gun was burned in the fire as evidence the raid was proper. How could a wood fire melt a machine gun to that extend?
Every Davidian that died is a martyr who helped end a horrible shoot first investigate later policy by the Federal Government.
That standoff lasted 51 days. In that time, all Koresh had to do was surrender peacefully. Instead, he and his brainwashed followers decided this was their "Armageddon" or "Apocalypse". They thought this was their chance to go to heaven, fighting for their beliefs. This is the problem with anyone with deep religious beliefs bent on violence: there is no way to rationally convince them what they are doing is wrong, legally or morally.
The ATF had legal warrants when the raid started. If Koresh had surrendered, he would have had his day in court. Instead of proving to the world he was the victim, he kept the standoff going. This was no different than Jonestown, in my opinion. A wack-job leader causing the mass suicide of a bunch of brainwashed followers who believed more in the leader than the teachings of the Bible he pretended to preach. After nearly 3 months, at what point do you think the gov't should walk away in defeat? Once the Dividians killed the 4 agents in the initial raid, there was no way any of them were going to surrender peacefully...especially not after a 51 day stand-off.
The raid that ended the stand-off was a tragic loss of innocent life, but based on the circumstances, I personally believe there was more risk of the desperate mass suicide of 100% of the people (ala Jonestown), versus the chance a good number would be saved in a raid.
In all, 76 Branch Davidians died[9] and nine survived the fire on April 19 (five others had been killed in the initial ATF raid and buried on the grounds, one had been killed by ATF after the raid, and 35 had left during the FBI standoff)
An independent investigation by two experts from the University of Maryland's Department of Fire Protection Engineering concluded that the compound residents had sufficient time to escape the fire, if they had so desired.
Autopsy records also indicate that at least 20 Branch Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14. Three-year-old Dayland Gent was stabbed in the chest. The medical examiner who performed the autopsies believed these deaths were mercy killings by Branch Davidians trapped in the fire with no escape. The expert retained by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel concluded that many of the gunshot wounds "support self-destruction either by overt suicide, consensual execution (suicide by proxy), or less likely, forced execution."
-
If the ATF wanted to arrest David Koresh they would have simply arrested him while out in town. Instead they raided the complex and the Davidians simply defended their land. There is no dispositive evidence they even were engaged in unlawful activity. The only ones guilty of a crime are the ATF for using smoke grenades and negligently lighting the whole complex on fire with smoke grenades which resulted in the deaths of many innocent children. Being a nutjob i.e. practicing your religion is protected by something called the First Amendment. While there are allegations Koresh engaged in underage sex, these were never substantiated. The ATF also tried to make the claim that a machine gun was burned in the fire as evidence the raid was proper. How could a wood fire melt a machine gun to that extend?
Every Davidian that died is a martyr who helped end a horrible shoot first investigate later policy by the Federal Government.
Again your fact checking is flawed and incomplete.
If the smoke grenades were what started the fires, then how did the fires start nearly simulaneously in several areas of the compound? Also if so, why were those areas found to have accelerants and such accelerants found on the clothing of other (cult) members?
As far as not abusing the girls/children/women......just one of many stories from people who were there and were witness.:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/14/waco.koresh.believers/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/04/14/waco.koresh.believers/index.html)
Doyle says his daughter started having sex with Koresh when she was 14. Koresh fathered at least 13 children with sect followers and engaged in sexual acts with underage Davidian girls, according to the Justice Department, numerous affidavits of Davidians and interviews CNN conducted with survivors. Watch a video Koresh recorded of himself with his children inside the compound during the siege.
Davidian Kiri Jewel testified during 1995 congressional hearings on the siege that Koresh slept in a bed with women and children, and she believed that he had impregnated a 14-year-old. Koresh, she said, often talked about how the young girls at the compound pleased him sexually. Jewel described in graphic detail how Koresh sexually assaulted her. She testified that she wasn't afraid of getting pregnant; she was too young, she explained. She'd not even started menstruating yet.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/koresh-led-his-cult-children-to-death-led-his-children-to-death-1569755.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/koresh-led-his-cult-children-to-death-led-his-children-to-death-1569755.html)
David Koresh told members of his Branch Davidian cult - including 12 children identified by DNA genetic fingerprinting to have been fathered by him - to prepare for death before the inferno that destroyed the cult ranch at Waco, Texas, an inquest in Manchester into the deaths of 23 Britons was told yesterday..............
...........Fifty adults and 25 children died in the inferno following a second raid by federal agents. The inquest was told that DNA genetic fingerprint tests on the victims had identified at least 12 children who perished as having been fathered by Koresh with different women.
The sad thing is these people think this is OK. Parents willing to give up their children to false prophets.
In any case you will maintain your viewpoint regardless of whatever is placed in front of you. That's your Right, I just don't happen to agree with it.
-
This is why you need to be well versed in the Bible.
You need to be well versed so that you are not fooled by "wolves in sheep clothing."
Koresh was doing adultery and no one seemed to object. Also doing fornication.
Where were the other leaders?
Sadly this kind of things are still happening today.
-
This is why you need to be well versed in the Bible.
You need to be well versed so that you are not fooled by "wolves in sheep clothing."
Koresh was doing adultery and no one seemed to object. Also doing fornication.
Where were the other leaders?
Sadly this kind of things are still happening today.
Cults only work with one Alpha Male.
-
Personally, I reserve judgement on what actually happened at all these places because the facts are not completely in, and there is ambiguous information. It is nice to decide either way but I just don't think objectively we can do that.
Regarding them being patriots, I can see what wolfwood is getting at but I think the definition of a patriot is someone who takes action specifically for the betterment of the country and/or his/her peers. I don't feel these cult guys did that. Their main objective was not to make America better (e.g., I would argue that wolfwood is more of a patriot than Koresh, as he seems to be actively engaged in the legal battles to secure 2A for fellow citizens), but to run their own cult camps the way they like. They may be expressing their 1A and 2A for freedom of faith, speech, arms, etc. but they are not actively engaged in defending them. Depending on what you think you can say they are martyrs or victims of happenstance, but they are not patriots. If Koresh said to America, guys I am going to test the 1A and 2A by doing this, and you will see what happens. Then that might be different but just because he got shot up, doesn't pass muster.
I think the point that wolfwood raised is an interesting one, but I also agree the scenario outlined by KK is very valid (the officer arresting the drug dealer). It is not cut and dried. For example, what if we saw a Nazi about to shoot dead some Jewish children, and we were a German citizen (the Jewish children are also German citizens BTW). Maybe children is too obvious an example. Maybe if the Nazi was going to execute someone for simply muttering something negative about Hitler in public. What then? Not so clear cut.
-
There is no evidence of mass suicide. What happened is the ATF is all there wisdom tried to smoke out the Davidians with smoke grenades which are rather hot immediately after deployment.
This caused a fire that caused the death of the Davidians not some mass suicide theory that was concocted by the government to cover up the fact their negligence caused the death of innocent women and children.
The raid was unnecessary just like the killing of Elderts.
every single person from Janet Reno on down should have been charged with involuntary manslaughter for their actions.
The government knew that the Dravidians would have held out just like the Weavers so they got desperate and used smoke grenades when they should have known better.
As to the accelerants they hit a mutiple areas where they stored gasoline when firing many smoke grenades. It should come as no surprise that this would be found. Remember the government also made the claim that their was something that problay was machine gun that was so badly melted that it could not be ascertain to have been one. Metal metled that bad in a wood fire?
-
Astoundingly, the Judge didn't give the jury the option of Manslaughter.
Talking about the Deedy trial.
:stopjack:
Is the jury back yet ?
Side note: The Randy Weaver/Ruby Ridge situation is tragic and F-ed up !
Damnit ! I went back off track. ;D
-
Anyway, as I mentioned before, I am sure this Deedy trial is mega-political.
-
There is no evidence of mass suicide.
Autopsy records also indicate that at least 20 Branch Davidians were shot, including five children under the age of 14. Three-year-old Dayland Gent was stabbed in the chest. The medical examiner who performed the autopsies believed these deaths were mercy killings by Branch Davidians trapped in the fire with no escape. The expert retained by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel concluded that many of the gunshot wounds "support self-destruction either by overt suicide, consensual execution (suicide by proxy), or less likely, forced execution."
I propose as a lawyer, you would have to agree the official findings of the autopies would be considered evidence. If you choose to challenge those findings, and the conclusions based on the evidence, then you would have to have evidence to the contrary or at the very least a credible expert who shares your contrary opinion.
And your opposing evidence is ??
(hint: conspiracy theories and anti-government accusations are not evidence, no matter how passionately you believe them)
-
Anyway, as I mentioned before, I am sure this Deedy trial is mega-political.
We'll pretty much know for sure if there's a mistrial / hung jury and they don't try him again.
Think there will be a hung jury ?
Can we start a Waco thread ?
-
Hey what happens with a hung jury?
Does the jury HAVE to come back with a verdict, for the accused to be immune via Double Jeopardy?
Surely there is a deadline for the verdict?
-
Hey what happens with a hung jury?
Does the jury HAVE to come back with a verdict, for the accused to be immune via Double Jeopardy?
Surely there is a deadline for the verdict?
Hung jury does not imply guilt noR innocence, just no consensus reached on verdict. In criminal trials, at least the one I was on the jury, verdict must me unanimous. I don't believe there is a time limit.
There are a number of options for hung jury. The court may declare a mistrial and may retry the case.
-
Yup. No unanimous verdict = Hung Jury = Mistrial.
The State could opt to try him again.
No deadline on when they need to return a verdict.
They would just need to conclude that they cannot come to a unanimous verdict.
Unless I'm completely wrong.
To quote William Hung:
"I have no professional training "
Yeah, what drck said ;D He types faster and more to the point.
There are a number of options for hung jury. The court may declare a mistrial and may retry the case.
Could the judge declare him innocent due to lack of evidence.
I would think she would have done this after the prosecution rested it's case based on the defenses motion to dismiss.
She won't do that in a case of this magnitude IMO.
What are the other options? If anyone knows offhand.
-
Topic for Waco related stuff is posted. Any further posts on that topic should be here: http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=10508.0 (http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=10508.0)
-
One of the problems for a new trial is funding... The state has lots of money against one man and his family.
-
One of the problems for a new trial is funding... The state has lots of money against one man and his family.
It's sort of the same with large corporations that bet you won't sue them for stealing your idea, etc.
In fact corporations pay this game of legal attrition against each other too, especially with smaller companies / individuals.
-
It's sort of the same with large corporations that bet you won't sue them for stealing your idea, etc.
In fact corporations pay this game of legal attrition against each other too, especially with smaller companies / individuals.
It's what got MDY Industries vs. Blizzard Entertainment in a copyright case. So yeah. I see it often in smaller criminal matters (like DUI). Luckily. our gun case attorney has appealed a few of his DUI cases and set some case law that prohibits the State from making this a practice.
-
Hey what actually happens with precedent?
Is it just like "Oh, so in that case, they decided XYZ so I should consider deciding this way also" or what? Laws are not laws until they are drafted up and then passed, right? Seems like two separate processes?
For instance, with this Deedy trial, whatever happens will be precedent. So, how does that affect the future?
-
Funtimes chime in.
But precedent is only set at the appellate level. ( if the case is appealed and a higher court makes a ruling )
So this case won't set any precedents.
-
the defense should ALWAYS make a motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence at the end of the trial
it would have to be pretty be obvious for the judge to rule this, but the defense has to try
Could the judge declare him innocent due to lack of evidence.
I would think she would have done this after the prosecution rested it's case based on the defenses motion to dismiss.
She won't do that in a case of this magnitude IMO.
What are the other options? If anyone knows offhand.
-
One of the problems for a new trial is funding... The state has lots of money against one man and his family.
Another problem with a retrial: tainted jury pool. May not be able to retry in this venue due to the overwhelming media coverage of the first trail. Most people will have followed the testimonies and formed an opinion. Would be difficult to find 12 totally unbiased jurors at this stage, I think.
-
Another problem with a retrial: tainted jury pool. May not be able to retry in this venue due to the overwhelming media coverage of the first trail. Most people will have followed the testimonies and formed an opinion. Would be difficult to find 12 totally unbiased jurors at this stage, I think.
Trial goes out of Hawaii that is definitely a not guilty verdict lol.
-
ALOHA BOYS I AM BACK!!!! I promise not to be a pain in the butt like the last time...
I agree with most of you that this is a hung jury.
-
Deedy ......not guilty. I'm sticking to my original conclusion.
-
ALOHA BOYS I AM BACK!!!! I promise not to be a pain in the butt like the last time...
I agree with most of you that this is a hung jury.
What was your last forum name?
-
Legal analysts say in a case with so much evidence and testimony it's a good sign there hasn't been a quick verdict in the Christopher Deedy murder trial.
The case was spread out over five weeks so the fact jurors haven't made up their minds after two and a half days of deliberation is understandable. Attorneys say it shows jurors are going over the facts. However if deliberation goes longer than a week it could mean there is disagreement over guilt or innocence.
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23201189/deedy-jury-taking-time-is-good-analysts-say (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23201189/deedy-jury-taking-time-is-good-analysts-say)
-
can someone clearup something for me?
lot is being said about deedy's status at the time...off duty, on duty, on call....
does anyone know for certain which one he was? i have a friend who's bent on deedy being on call and therefore on duty. everything Ive read says he's offduty and in fact Deedy's lawyer argued a statute saying Off duty agents are allowed to consume alcohol as long as not impaired.
thanks
-
can someone clearup something for me?
lot is being said about deedy's status at the time...off duty, on duty, on call....
does anyone know for certain which one he was? i have a friend who's bent on deedy being on call and therefore on duty. everything Ive read says he's offduty and in fact Deedy's lawyer argued a statute saying Off duty agents are allowed to consume alcohol as long as not impaired.
thanks
I'm pretty sure he testified he was on call. Also no one can prove he was impaired.
One thing to note, as Chris posted, is that you don't need a badge to tell someone to "knock off what they doing" it just kinda helps. Aunties and grandmas do it all the time, and people listen when they do.
-
Rumor has it......4 guilty, 8 not guilty. 4 guilty....... not written in stone, not "dug in". As of Wed. 8/21/13.
-
I hope Deedy walks.
-
Rumor has it......4 guilty, 8 not guilty. 4 guilty....... not written in stone, not "dug in". As of Wed. 8/21/13.
If that's true, then I think this will be a hung jury.
-
Jury on break till Mon. We shall see.
-
Damn sucks to be them. they were prob hoping for overtime lol /sarcasm
-
The jury has reached a verdict....
-
streaming now... Hope it's not a hung jury.
-
so whats the verdict? hung jury?
-
(http://i944.photobucket.com/albums/ad287/Doug_Moose/23261467_BG2_zps96b490cd.jpg) (http://s944.photobucket.com/user/Doug_Moose/media/23261467_BG2_zps96b490cd.jpg.html)
-
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23261467/breaking-judge-declares-mistrial-in-christopher-deedy-murder-case-story-at-hawaiinewsnowcom (http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/23261467/breaking-judge-declares-mistrial-in-christopher-deedy-murder-case-story-at-hawaiinewsnowcom)
-
Mistrial? Are they going to try him again?
-
Hes probably on a plane getting the fuck outta here and hoping he never has to come back
-
Mistrial? Are they going to try him again?
Totally up to the DA (and, of course, whether Obama and Sharpton threaten riots and marches!). :crazy:
-
Totally up to the DA (and, of course, whether Obama and Sharpton threaten riots and marches!). :crazy:
It would be stupid for the DA to retry this.
-
It would be stupid for the DA to retry this.
How so?
-
jury pool contaminated?
How so?
-
If there is a retrial, one of the first things I would try to do as the defense attorney would be to get a change of venue. Don't know if its possible, but there is no way he will get a fair trail in Hawaii the second time around.
-
According to the news, the prosecution still wants to retry the case next year. The defense has filed a motion that allows the judge to dismiss the case with prejudice if enough elements of the trial warrant it. For instance, if 10 of 12 jurors voted not guilty, there is not much chance another jury will be able to reach a unanimous decision.
-
UPDATE FROM TODAY'S NEWS:
City Prosecutor Keith Kaneshiro said this afternoon that his office will retry State Department special agent Christopher Deedy on a murder charge and will not push for the manslaughter option.
Tune in again around May 2014.
I know some defense lawyers are already looking at vacation properties here .... :crazy:
-
.
-
A response from someone who knows deedy is guilty because they grew up with elderts.
And can someone translate what the FCK the guy at the bottom is trying to say?!
To the author of that commentary:
(http://i944.photobucket.com/albums/ad287/Doug_Moose/judge_drugs_zps413bf875.jpg) (http://s944.photobucket.com/user/Doug_Moose/media/judge_drugs_zps413bf875.jpg.html)
-
How so?
Unless the Prosection brings something different to the case they can expect the same results + a waste of taxpayer money. The majority of the jurors were for acquittal so the Prosection has to persuade 8/12 jurors to change their minds whereas the Defense has to sway 4/12 jurors in order to get their client an acquittal.
-
A response from someone who knows deedy is guilty because they grew up with elderts.
And can someone translate what the FCK the guy at the bottom is trying to say?!
Apparently this guy wasn't paying attention to the trial because there were plenty of witnesses.