Where did you hear this?  I watch channels like Lack Luster and Audit the Audit and they never mentioned this, but instead stress the importance of recording for yourself.

it's a long held concept in trials. 

If someone like Bernie Madoff has a team of 10 people show up at his offices and start shredding documents after he learns he's about to be arrested, the jury is going to be instructed that, even though the alleged evidence was destroyed, it can be inferred through the defendant's actions that the shredded documents were incriminating without any evidence to prove such.

It's "common sense" that someone who destroys evidence is doing so to cover their ass.  If the evidence were favorable to their case, they would have every reason to preserve it.

Now that there have been documented cases of departments "losing" footage from body cams, and in some departments on a routine basis, it's obvious the coincidence of that with a formal complaint infers a deliberate cover-up, and as such can be interpreted by a jury to be evidence against whoever is being accused (might not even be the wearer, but someone the wearer's camera recorded).

This paper explores the remedies courts can and should apply when entire videos, or portions of recordings, are missing.

In summary:

Where video is missing altogether, an
inference that the video could contain information favorable to the
defense should be drawn. This contrasts with spoliation doctrine,
which often requires a showing of bad faith before imposing the
adverse inference that a party destroyed or failed to preserve
evidence because it was favorable to the other party.

https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/311/

Having such rules will motivate leadership in departments to protect and manage camera footage, or else risk a case falling apart because the absence of that evidence will be held against the prosecution.

Of course, it's up to the jury to make that connection with the facts.  Not many juries will be sympathetic to a department that "loses" evidence critical to proving a case against them.

I can't name a specific case where that's happened off the top of my head re: body cam footage, but if I have time later, i can search -- or wait for you to find some.   

I can't name a specific case where that's happened off the top of my head re: body cam footage, but if I have time later, i can search -- or wait for you to find some.   

No need. I was just curious.

Tucked in his pant/pockets before arriving.

But I was replying to your   

"What if the gun was placed on him? 
Cops would never do this right? "

Had the option of carrying 1 of 2  firearms legally, yet chose to carry in violation of the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).
 

will you address this in a future revision of your book?

lul

will you address this in a future revision of your book?

Had the option of carrying 1 of 2  firearms legally, yet chose to carry in violation of the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).

will you address this in a future revision of your book?

    What is there to address ?
It was a statement of fact.
    He unnecessarily  violated the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).
Not saying the law is just or not, just that he had the right to CC under the law  and chose not to.
"IMHO, he was an idiot."

Had the option of carrying 1 of 2  firearms legally, yet chose to carry in violation of the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).

    What is there to address ?
It was a statement of fact.
    He unnecessarily  violated the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).
Not saying the law is just or not, just that he had the right to CC under the law  and chose not to.
"IMHO, he was an idiot."

Perhaps he and his wife (son, husband, roommate, father, etc.) have at least one model of identical CC firearms, and he accidentally picked up the wrong one as he was leaving the residence in a hurry?

if he's like some people here, he could have multiple 1911s with very similar finishes and grips.  I could see grabbing the wrong one if not paying close attention.  Or maybe if he was carrying at home on his property, then forgot to swap out the gun in his holster for the one he should have had in public.

I'm sure the defense will find a plausible reason why he never intended to break the law. Why would he break it?  He's got 2 weapons he can carry legally.  Make no sense that he would opt for a third pistol.

Then they would raise the unconstitutional law challenge.

Correct me if I'm wrong but:

HRS134-9 isnt serial # specific. So regardless, he has a valid CCW permit and under the current HRS he can carry any handgun.  It's the chiefs rules that state the serial # and qual has to be done by that gun.  So is the chiefs rules law?  If I am correct, then at most, the chief can deny this person their CCW later or revoke the current ones.  But he wouldn't lose his 2A right in HI as this isn't a felony or misdemeanor.

Let's see how the Prosecutors office/ AG want to play this one. 

"(b)  The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:

     (1)  Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner;"

It's up for interpretation.  But it may provide enough reasonable doubt in a criminal trial.  Basically he was proficient in the use of the handgun he was carrying.

Had the option of carrying 1 of 2  firearms legally, yet chose to carry in violation of the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).

    What is there to address ?
It was a statement of fact.
    He unnecessarily  violated the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).
Not saying the law is just or not, just that he had the right to CC under the law  and chose not to.
"IMHO, he was an idiot."

Yup. Might be our lucky day.
They charge him and the trial and then appeals begin.
Law over-turned.
It’ll only take about 15 years.

Had the option of carrying 1 of 2  firearms legally, yet chose to carry in violation of the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).

    What is there to address ?
It was a statement of fact.
    He unnecessarily  violated the law (regardless of constitutionality of the law).
Not saying the law is just or not, just that he had the right to CC under the law  and chose not to.
"IMHO, he was an idiot."

that would make a great case study for your book, You could spice it up by incorporating ChatGPT.

The authorizing language in the current law says:

“(b) The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:
     (1)  Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner…”

Since it says “be qualified to use THE firearm” and not “be qualified to use A firearm,” it’s entirely possible they’ll interpret it to mean one particular firearm…

We’ll see what happens.

The authorizing language in the current law says:

“(b) The chief of police of each county shall adopt procedures to require that any person granted a license to carry a concealed weapon on the person shall:
     (1)  Be qualified to use the firearm in a safe manner…”

Since it says “be qualified to use THE firearm” and not “be qualified to use A firearm,” it’s entirely possible they’ll interpret it to mean one particular firearm…

We’ll see what happens.

I think you were looking at an old sb1230. that verbage is struck out on the latest CD1. either way he doesnt violate that section, he qualified on "the" firearm and was issued a LTC for "the" firearm.

the issue I think lies with section 134-A  Carrying or possessing a firearm in certain locations and premises prohibited, and 134-B  Duty to maintain possession of license while carrying a firearm; duty to disclose.

the issue I think lies with section 134-A  Carrying or possessing a firearm in certain locations and premises prohibited, and 134-B  Duty to maintain possession of license while carrying a firearm; duty to disclose.

This is why I mentioned we shall see how the state wants to pursue this.  If someone is in an ambulance, it's probably serious enough as one was called.  Would the person be able to disclose they were armed?  Disclosing wasn't brought up in hearing, but being taken to the hospital while armed was.

I think you were looking at an old sb1230. that verbage is struck out on the latest CD1. either way he doesnt violate that section, he qualified on "the" firearm and was issued a LTC for "the" firearm.

the issue I think lies with section 134-A  Carrying or possessing a firearm in certain locations and premises prohibited, and 134-B  Duty to maintain possession of license while carrying a firearm; duty to disclose.

You’re right, I was looking at an older version.  They do make it confusing to find the law as enacted…

In the final version it reads:
“ (d) To be eligible to receive a license to carry a concealed or unconcealed pistol or revolver on the licensee's person, the applicant shall:
…
(4) Have completed a course of training as described in subsection (c) and be certified as qualified to use the firearm or firearms for which the license to carry will be issued in a safe manner;”

As I understand the situation, he was carrying a firearm for which he hadn’t been issued a license to carry.  I’m saying it’s reasonable to believe that the state will say, the way the law is written, that carrying a firearm that isn’t specifically listed on an LTC issued to you is a violation of the law.

You’re right, I was looking at an older version.  They do make it confusing to find the law as enacted…

In the final version it reads:
“ (d) To be eligible to receive a license to carry a concealed or unconcealed pistol or revolver on the licensee's person, the applicant shall:
…
(4) Have completed a course of training as described in subsection (c) and be certified as qualified to use the firearm or firearms for which the license to carry will be issued in a safe manner;”

As I understand the situation, he was carrying a firearm for which he hadn’t been issued a license to carry.  I’m saying it’s reasonable to believe that the state will say, the way the law is written, that carrying a firearm that isn’t specifically listed on an LTC issued to you is a violation of the law.

c)] (b)  Any person who violates [section]:

     (1)  Section 134-2, 134-4, 134-10, [or] 134-13(c), or 134-15 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor[.  Any person who violates section];

     (2)  Section 134-3(a) or 134-9(q) shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor; or

     (3)  Section 134-3(b) shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and the firearm shall be confiscated as contraband and disposed of, if the firearm is not registered within five days of the person receiving notice of the violation."


I only found penalty for 134-9(q) which is carrying more than one firearm. so even if he is in violation of the sections you list, theres no penalty for it listed. I think the fact that he was carrying a firearm for which he didnt have a LTC(allegedly), means that it is just a simple case of ainokea carry, and isnt a violation of 134-9.

c)] (b)  Any person who violates [section]:

     (1)  Section 134-2, 134-4, 134-10, [or] 134-13(c), or 134-15 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor[.  Any person who violates section];

     (2)  Section 134-3(a) or 134-9(q) shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor; or

     (3)  Section 134-3(b) shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor and the firearm shall be confiscated as contraband and disposed of, if the firearm is not registered within five days of the person receiving notice of the violation."


I only found penalty for 134-9(q) which is carrying more than one firearm. so even if he is in violation of the sections you list, theres no penalty for it listed. I think the fact that he was carrying a firearm for which he didnt have a LTC(allegedly), means that it is just a simple case of ainokea carry, and isnt a violation of 134-9.

If 134-9 means you have to have an LTC for the specific firearm, and you carry one you don’t have a LTC for, looks to me like that would be a 134-25 violation (class B felony).   

Almost as bad as the guy arrested when his flight diverted to a different state and he was arrested for having a gun illegal in that state when he tried to check his bag back on for the continuing leg.

Almost as bad as the guy arrested when his flight diverted to a different state and he was arrested for having a gun illegal in that state when he tried to check his bag back on for the continuing leg.

NY airport does this.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk