From todays paper


 

Police shootings prompt questions
Criminology experts criticize how HPD has handled recent officer-involved fatalities


[url=http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140914__Police_shootings_prompt_questions.html?id=275042421]http://www.staradvertiser.com/newspremium/20140914__Police_shootings_prompt_questions.html?id=275042421[/url]
 
 
 
Edited:  Sorry can't cut and paste the entire paid subscription article.

Your link is whack

Yep, trying to figure it out.

Found the article on the star advertiser website but I don't have a subscription so I cannot read it...........  How about you paste the text into this thread.

Found the article on the star advertiser website but I don't have a subscription so I cannot read it...........  How about you paste the text into this thread.

Thanks, even that was a pain in the ass, but it's up now.

From Dorothy Goldsborough, who teaches criminology at the UH-Manoa and Chaminade University:

"She blames easy access to guns, including for people with criminal intent."

So what exactly does she blame "easy access to guns" for with law-abiding citizens? She could just be honest and say "No guns for anyone... except those who work for the government monopoly of violence". A gun prohibitionist being honest? I guess not.

From Dorothy Goldsborough, who teaches criminology at the UH-Manoa and Chaminade University:

So what exactly does she blame "easy access to guns" for with law-abiding citizens? She could just be honest and say "No guns for anyone... except those who work for the government monopoly of violence". A gun prohibitionist being honest? I guess not.

She means that EVERY gun owner is to blame as to why officers must wear bullet proof vests. She reminds me of

where every mutant is a threat

From Dorothy Goldsborough, who teaches criminology at the UH-Manoa and Chaminade University:

So what exactly does she blame "easy access to guns" for with law-abiding citizens? She could just be honest and say "No guns for anyone... except those who work for the government monopoly of violence". A gun prohibitionist being honest? I guess not.

Anybody who lives in Hawaii and thinks residents have "easy access to guns" has obviously never purchased a new gun!!

"Easy" needs to be defined.  Of course, that would require facts from someone more experienced than an academic who has never purchased a firearm.

Although I do believe that police brutality and excessive force are real things, I think that people generally are extremely hard on the officers who have had to use firearms in the line of duty. The officers get just a few split seconds to make a decision while these journalist gets months of evidence and questions and investigating to come to their conclusions. I think that the media needs to be a little more sensitive to the fact that these officers are going through some things as well after killing a person while working. I highly doubt any of these officers woke up that morning thinking "I can't wait to kill a 51 year old drunk man." Just my $.02.

HPD officers have found a way to manipulate someone trying to drive away in the minds of the public by calling it "attempted murder"

Every time anyone drives off, some officer claims he was in fear of his life and justifies having to kill the driver.

It's about time an external investigation is being conducted.

Chief. Kealoha has proven that he doesn't care about the facts and will simply back up any HPD officer that murders anyone else in Hawaii.

HPD is in serious need of a major personnel overhaul.

A wise man once said " A fish stinks from the head first"

Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...

Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).

Chief. Kealoha has proven that he doesn't care about the facts and will simply back up any HPD officer that murders anyone else in Hawaii.

HPD is in serious need of a major personnel overhaul.

A wise man once said " A fish stinks from the head first"

This is why I disfavor the Chief law enforcement officer not being elected.  If we don't like what is going on, they should be replaceable by the people's choice.

Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...

There's an app for that

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.konami.DASH.frogger_IGA&hl=en

Lol... I can't wait to see the training event where we try dodging moving vehicles...

Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).

I wonder if the reason why people try to drive away is because they're afraid of getting shot?

But you're definitely right. People, stop trying to drive away when a police officer stops you. (the officer will say that you were driving at him, and kill you so you can't say otherwise)

These liberals even want the police to be disarmed and banned from self-defense.  Every citizen has a RIGHT to be able to defend themselves and loved ones from harm from any violence perpetrated against them.  Call it God given, Natural, or whatever; common sense dictates the person has this right. Not to mention it is in our BILL OF RIGHTS.  Police's job is to address people who may have violent intention either knowingly or not.  They must react to protect others and themselves in a moment’s notice.  Investigations need to be conducted and open, YES.  However, throwing the police UNDER THE BUS (the only persons allowed carrying a firearm for defense and protection, in this asinine state), is not such a good idea, is it?  Who are you going to call to protect you, WHEN YOU ARE NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO PROCTECT YOURSELF? 

Pro tip: don't drive your car at law enforcement (or other persons).

You seem to have missed where KK clearly wrote this:

"Every time anyone drives off, some officer claims he was in fear of his life and justifies having to kill the driver."

Must have missed where the cops were terrified about cars speeding at them.  They seem rather excitable, prone to shoot for the slightest reason.

Disarming them might not be such a bad notion, since now they have pretty much a license to shoot and get away with it?

This kind of thing used to be quite rare. 20-30 years ago you didn't hear about police officers shooting drunk, uncooperative drivers. I'm not saying it didn't happen, just that it was far from the norm.

I seem to remember that back then, they would use their police cruisers to block in and immobilize the vehicle before getting out of the car to arrest the driver. This seems like a better alternative than waltzing your narrow ass in front of a 2 ton mass of metal, capable of squashing you like a bug, and demanding the driver get out of the vehicle based on his respect for the law. Criminals will rarely show such respect, and LEO's should know that.

Those of you espousing that the officers only have "split seconds" to make a decision are correct. That doesn't automatically mean the decision they made was right. That's precisely the reason their actions need to be questioned.

Some will say "You have no right to second guess the officers decision, you weren't there and don't know the circumstances" BS. We have every right, and in fact an obligation to do so. These people work FOR us and their actions therefore reflect upon us. This shouldn't simply be left to the police department and their "experts" as they have a vested interest in an outcome favoring them.

This doesn't mean we're "throwing them under the bus" but the fact remains, they shouldn't be thinking that simply shooting someone because they haven't cooperated is the first or only option.

They need to be better than that.

Yup, I'm convinced that every cop is itching to kill someone just for kicks.  Who wouldn't want to get suspended, blasted all over the news, get their family humiliated, get death threats, face termination, end up in jail with criminals he put there, live with the death of another person on their hands for life, have their kids catch sh*t at school, get sued etc..............The benefits are endless.............................
 

While I'd agree that being in front or to the rear of a chronic in a car is just plain stupid, the side of that car can turn into the front/rear in a split second when that chronic cranks the wheel and pounds it.  To think that any cop, or any (normal)person for that matter WANT's to use deadly force and subject themselves to all that comes with that decision is rediculous!

I don't think anyone here, myself included, thinks police officers are "itching to shoot someone".

The problem that is pointed out in the article, and the point I'm trying to make is that it seems as if LEO's are putting themselves in situations where if anything goes wrong the only viable alternative seems to be to shoot the citizen. Whether this is a product of faulty training or just poor decision making on the part of the officer is what we need to find out. Their job is a difficult one, they don't know what to expect when they walk up on a vehicle and precisely because of this, they need to be thinking several moves ahead. Their training should prepare them for this, if it's not, we need to make some corrections.

The last two guys that were shot were surely no great loss to humanity and certainly not worth the life of an officer. What about the next time? We're seeing an exponential increase in the number of cases where police are using excessive force across the nation, not to mention flat out abuse of power. This needs to be brought under control before it becomes the expected response.

Otherwise we'll need to get used to living in a police state.