I keep seeing police are highly trained in hand to hand...  I'm not a police trainer or expert, I do believe they are trained, however, probably a little more than basic tactics and practical use.  Just like their firearms training and quals.  I doubt they frequently practice or train it, unless they are really into it on a personal level.

No, I can not replicate what the stress every police officer is facing, but my response is SO WHAT?
stress is a very big factor in decision making. There is no lab to replicate that exact stressor.

That kind of stress comes with the job, if you can't handle the stress and pressure of being a police officer, professional athlete, medical surgeon, etc,, you have no business being in that profession.  I am not a medical doctor because I can't handle that kind of pressure they face; however, those who choose those professions knew what they potentially getting into, so no sympathy here.


You call me naïve; well your statement above is completely naïve.  If the suspect obeyed the law in the first place, that person would not be a suspect, now would they?  Hence, did you expect someone who is breaking the law will somehow obey police commands?
I didn't say you were naive. Like I stated he would'nt be a suspect and this tragedy would have been avoided if he was not drunk or vacated the premises. Verbal commands are part of the process of usage of force.

That is correct and law enforcement as well as civilians should pay heed to this rule.  Having said that, are you saying all police officers should draw their firearms and be prepared to fire every time they approach someone just in case they might have a concealed knife?

It is clear through all your posts of your innate disdain for law enforcement. You have no sympathy for law enforcement officers. If one were killed in the line of duty you would not place as much analysis in the officer's death. Your lack of sympathy for anyone taking a high-risk job that you would not partake in is very sad. I'm not defending the LEO's actions. I was not there. I was comfortably at home.I'm sure that LEO has to regrettably live with that tragic decision. To assume that LEOs are out there to murder innocent people is blatantly naive and faithless. This wasn't Sierra Leone or Rwanda.

But you go on with your sense of security and comfort while others help provide that blanket for you.

That suspect was a 5'3", 102 lbs. disabled unarmed individual, with no prior convictions of assault or battery, who sometimes walked with a limp and cognitively incapacitated due to alcohol.

The deputy sheriff was not armed with a taser, but had pepper spray and a baton.  Yes, he might have exposed himself with the pepper spray, but so would the intoxicated suspect as well.  At least there would not be any lost of life.

That may be true, if that drunk was B.J. Penn, but the suspect physically and cognitively was no match for the trained armed deputy sheriff in-question, which is furthermore surprising how that suspect could get the jump and headlock secured on him in the first place.

Well, with the latest corruption scandals HPD and the Prosecutor's Office are mutually facing; it is hard for anyone to blindly trust their judgements on the two cases referenced above when there were no civilian eye-witnesses or video footage to corroborate the claims of the law enforcement officers involved.

I am 6'  220 lbs and I was choked out in judo by a teammate who was about that height and maybe 125lbs so the size doesn't mean as much as you suggest. Secondly, even if he knew the individuals record (probably didn't) officers aren't required to check background records before choosing an appropriate level of force. Pointing out the individual didn't have a violent record is monday morning quarterbacking.

Well, I have yet to see how a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled, drunk, unarmed, and untrained individual who walks on a limp somehow gets a deputy sheriff in a headlock in an overall life or death struggle.      


I realize he didn't have a taser, I was just mentioning the common less lethal options. Pepper spray on both of them doesn't really help the officer, it just makes them both hindered somewhat.

Well, the suspect in question would be far more hindered than the deputy sheriff in this case.


An officer doesn't know whether an individual is well trained in martial arts so you cannot really use that to judge the officer afterwards. Do you know what condition the sheriff was in? The attacker might have been small but the sheriff might have also been overweight. You can't interject a bunch of facts not knowable to the officer at the time into the officers decision. Thats like accusing a cop of murder because the realistic gun pointed at him was discovered later to be a toy. You can only use what the officer knew at the time.

We do know the physical characteristics and limitations of the suspect and we do know that the deputy sheriff did not call for assistance in this case.  Consequently, these facts tell us that even in the worst scenario, he felt he could handle the suspect.  If the deputy sheriff saw the suspect as being a drunk BJ Penn, you can bet he would have called S.W.A.T. for assistance.


I don't see why. Just because Kealoha was involved in some drug ring doesn't mean they are going to go frame you or me just because.

The Kealoha case shows how corruption in HPD in not limited to officers who work the streets, but can be on the higher echelons of leadership as well.  As for Kaneshiro, we see that it is not out of the realm of the prosecutor's office to protect HPD for any questionable wrongdoings.

Guy who stabbed hpd was killed by occc trying to escape.

"Why did they have to shoot? No more guns in prison for him to use".

"Why wasnt less lethel used?"

"Why didnt occc officer use hand to hand?"

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Taking any human life is reprehensible.
     

Really? I hope you are not serious, but suspect you are.

Here is the example I gave in my testimony re HB1541, the so-called "Hawaii Gun Violence Prevention Center", that would be funded at least in part by taxpayers to produce more (fraudulent) "research" to "prove" that more of our rights needs to be infringed. It centers on the propaganda term "gun violence" as an obvious pejorative that ignores all the far more frequent uses of firearms for self-defense that actually enhance public safety, and thus don't need to be "prevented". If you judge the action taken by the father in the following hypothetical (but similar to known real-life examples) instance as "reprehensible", I pity anyone who may ever find themselves to be dependent upon you for their safety.

* * * * *

First, and not without great significance, is the fact that “gun violence” is nothing more than a propaganda term, designed to deceive the uninformed. All of the claimed “statistics” the authors of this bill list as justifications are fabricated upon deliberate statistical manipulations, including confounding and conflating highly dissimilar events.

Let me give you an example of “gun violence” and how it has been “computed” by the authors of this bill to supposedly justify taxpayers of Hawaii spending money to generate “evidence” to further curtail their rights. Suppose a father in one part of his home, armed with a handgun in a holster, hears what he considers an unusual noise coming from another distant part of the house. He goes to investigate and determines that the sound is coming from the bedroom of his 10 and 7-year-old daughters. He opens the closed door of the room to see his 10-year-old daughter bound, gagged, raped, and murdered by knife wounds, while his 7-year-old daughter, also bound and gagged lies next to her on the bed, with a large man standing over her, still holding a knife. The father yells “Stop!”, at which point the man turns toward the 7-year-old girl and brings the knife up as if to attack her, the father then fires the gun at the rapist murderer and stops the attack, killing him and saving his second daughter.

Now, is that “gun violence” that needs “preventing” according to the authors of this bill? They seem to think so. It certainly is violence that included the use of a firearm. Do we want to prevent such an instance of “gun violence”?

[Previously]: Taking any human life is reprehensible.

In the following hypothetical situation you described, I WOULD HAVE and EXPECT any reasonable human parent to respond similarly under those conditions.

However, in the aftermath during the ensuing police investigation, I WOULD HAVE NO REMORSE in the steps I took to respond to the criminal actions being committed, but I WOULD STILL REGRET the fact I had to take a human life to do what had to be done.
 

Oh, I see. You don't know the definitions of the words "reprehensible" and "regret" and thus the fact that they are completely different and unrelated concepts. Thanks for clarifying.



If you believe that anything that could happen to the murderer of the above abducted and murdered 11-year-old girl this past weekend would be "reprehensible", including killing him, well, that belief is what you need to regret. But I'm sure you won't.

Well, I have yet to see how a 5'3" 102 lbs. disabled, drunk, unarmed, and untrained individual who walks on a limp somehow gets a deputy sheriff in a headlock in an overall life or death struggle.     

Well, the suspect in question would be far more hindered than the deputy sheriff in this case.

We do know the physical characteristics and limitations of the suspect and we do know that the deputy sheriff did not call for assistance in this case.  Consequently, these facts tell us that even in the worst scenario, he felt he could handle the suspect.  If the deputy sheriff saw the suspect as being a drunk BJ Penn, you can bet he would have called S.W.A.T. for assistance.

Theory on what went down.



Sheriff sees dude, not the first time, dude is drunk, never had any problems with the guy before.  (why he approached within danger close distance)

Sheriff tells dude, come on man, you got to move along, you can be sitting here drinking, pour that shit out and move along... 

Dude says yeah yeah yeah, pours it out and acts like he's moving along.

Sheriff turns around to walk away thinking it's all good since the dude never gave any problems before.

Dude, pissed off he had to pour out his liquor, decides he's going to jump the sheriff from behind, putting in a deep headlock (force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.)

Sheriff must make a spit second decision before passing out.  He uses firearm to stop the attack.



No  other evidence has been given in the case, so  just as plausible speculation from any response so far.

Theory on what went down.



Sheriff sees dude, not the first time, dude is drunk, never had any problems with the guy before.  (why he approached within danger close distance)

Sheriff tells dude, come on man, you got to move along, you can be sitting here drinking, pour that shit out and move along... 

I agree up to this point.


Dude says yeah yeah yeah, pours it out and acts like he's moving along.

Sheriff turns around to walk away thinking it's all good since the dude never gave any problems before.

This is where we only have the deputy sheriff's side of the story.  Did the sheriff proceed as you described or, seeing that it was a 5'3", 102lbs. drunk individual, proceeded in removing the suspect in very threatening manner?  Given the number of homeless in and about that area as well as everyone's frustration with them, I would not at all be surprised if the sheriff had great animosity to which manifested in his conduct to the suspect that night.


Dude, pissed off he had to pour out his liquor, decides he's going to jump the sheriff from behind, putting in a deep headlock (force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.)

This is the other point of contention.  Sure, a drunk individual whether or not provoked is capable of resorting to violence.  However, we are once again talking about a relatively short, light, and disabled drunk individual, who probably did not have the coordination to walk a chalk line, let alone successfully administering a headlock on a much better hand-to-hand and situational awareness trained law enforcement officer.


Sheriff must make a spit second decision before passing out.  He uses firearm to stop the attack.

If the sheriff's testimony indicated he was in a well administered CHOKE HOLD, then I do agree he has only moments before passing out and must take action to defend his life.  HOWEVER, he testified that he was only in a HEADLOCK administered by a short, light, and drunk suspect.  Hence, I don't think he was ever in fear of passing out AND with him presumably having superior skill as to the suspect should have had a great probability of escaping that headlock without the need to resort to deadly force.


No  other evidence has been given in the case, so  just as plausible speculation from any response so far.

YES, although I DO AGREE that the narrative you shared is highly possible, I just don't think the use of deadly force was justified in this case given the issues I raised above.

nope, the only plausible explanation is kuleana's, because he stated it like 6-8 times already in this one thread
so, obviously, it's the most plausible
to prove his point, he's going to post it at least a couple more times, making it even more plausible...

Just come out and admit it already.

Your love when police go out and use deadly force resulting in fatalities is as strong as your distain for a responsible populace who always keep an eye on when such fatalities occur, thus ensuring we only have the best cops on our streets.

why would I do that if it's not true?

Your passive-aggressive posts that include nothing but attacks on my positions without adding any new evidence are a dead giveaway.