In the Waianae shooting case, why was the self defense shooter detained so long?

He had no serious past convictions besides some traffic violations and his weapon was legally obtained and registered.

What made honolulu's finest want to detain him for close to 2 days?

Not at all.

Why not? Red flag laws do it.

In the Waianae shooting case, why was the self defense shooter detained so long?

He had no serious past convictions besides some traffic violations and his weapon was legally obtained and registered.

What made honolulu's finest want to detain him for close to 2 days?

Takes HPD a bit to figure stuff out and give it to the prosecutors office. Then they knit pick trying to get him on something. We saw what Alm did with the Skykap cops.

Another way to see it is if there's an active shooter incident in a building.  Police arrive and see a person walk out of the building with a firearm.  When confronted, the person wants to leave and doesn't want to stay around to answer questions.

Do police let them go or arrest them?

Remember an arrest is preventing someone from leaving against their will.  Even for a minute.

It won't matter what the guy leaving the building says or doesn't say unless he shows a badge -- and then it's just a maybe.  He's going to be detained as a suspect based on reasonable articulable suspicion -- that being a man with a gun leaving an active shooting situation.  Reasonable suspicion leads to probable cause, which is all any Cop needs to make an arrest.  in that case, the best decision is to say nothing at all.

Once the police verify he was not the shooter through witness accounts, video, forensics (gun powder residue tests, fingerprints, ...) and ballistics, they will release him.  Until they get the answers they need, he's still a suspect under investigation based on the observable facts.

In the Waianae shooting case, why was the self defense shooter detained so long?

He had no serious past convictions besides some traffic violations and his weapon was legally obtained and registered.

What made honolulu's finest want to detain him for close to 2 days?

Police can hold an arrestee for up to 48 hours before they have to charge them or release them pending further investigation, or release them no charge. I haven't seen it reported how long they held him before releasing him but in a big complicated case like that with 4 dead, two shooters on opposite sides, dozens of witnesses, a big crime scene, search warrants, etc. it is going to take a while before the detectives have a good understanding of what went down and can present it to the prosecutor for a decision. Cops can't hold someone the whole 48 hours just to spite them, the full detention has to be justifiable.

Past convictions are irrelevant most of the time when it comes to deciding how long to hold an individual. As far as the weapon being legal that is insignificant to whether the shooting was justified.

Why not? Red flag laws do it.

Different mechanism, not a good analogy.

Different mechanism, not a good analogy.

By different mechanism, you mean constitutional versus unconstitutional.

By different mechanism, you mean constitutional versus unconstitutional.

Swoosh.

Lets start with criminal vs civil. Different purposes, different standards of proof, different processes, etc.

Police can hold an arrestee for up to 48 hours before they have to charge them or release them pending further investigation, or release them no charge. I haven't seen it reported how long they held him before releasing him but in a big complicated case like that with 4 dead, two shooters on opposite sides, dozens of witnesses, a big crime scene, search warrants, etc. it is going to take a while before the detectives have a good understanding of what went down and can present it to the prosecutor for a decision. Cops can't hold someone the whole 48 hours just to spite them, the full detention has to be justifiable.

Past convictions are irrelevant most of the time when it comes to deciding how long to hold an individual. As far as the weapon being legal that is insignificant to whether the shooting was justified.

But why, in this case, was he detained so long?  He wouldn't be a flight risk, would he?  He wouldn't seek retaliation, would he?  I'm sure his firearm was taken away from him.  Couldn't he be released on his own recognizance?  It's not like he's a full blown criminal with past convictions.

So I learned the cops can't hold a person more than 48 hours without charging him with something.  You also stated that the full detention must be justifiable.

What would that be?  Even an idiot like me could see he shot Silva to stop him from killing people and destroying his personal property.

But why, in this case, was he detained so long?  He wouldn't be a flight risk, would he?  He wouldn't seek retaliation, would he?  I'm sure his firearm was taken away from him.  Couldn't he be released on his own recognizance?  It's not like he's a full blown criminal with past convictions.

So I learned the cops can't hold a person more than 48 hours without charging him with something.  You also stated that the full detention must be justifiable.

What would that be?  Even an idiot like me could see he shot Silva to stop him from killing people and destroying his personal property.

The real reason is the courts have given police and prosecutors the 48 hour limit, and they will use it all.  They have nothing to lose by holding them for the entire 48 hour limit.  They have a lot to lose if the person is released early and commits a murder or flees.   

The real reason is the courts have given police and prosecutors the 48 hour limit, and they will use it all.  They have nothing to lose by holding them for the entire 48 hour limit.  They have a lot to lose if the person is released early and commits a murder or flees.

Oh well.  It is what it is, I guess.  No wonder the real criminals get the revolving door.  Jails too full with law abiding citizens.......

But why, in this case, was he detained so long?  He wouldn't be a flight risk, would he?  He wouldn't seek retaliation, would he?  I'm sure his firearm was taken away from him.  Couldn't he be released on his own recognizance?  It's not like he's a full blown criminal with past convictions.

So I learned the cops can't hold a person more than 48 hours without charging him with something.  You also stated that the full detention must be justifiable.

What would that be?  Even an idiot like me could see he shot Silva to stop him from killing people and destroying his personal property.

You gotta be able to articulate the situation well in court.

Let’s just say, hypothetically, that Silva was walking back to his property after the shooting.

If Carnate ran after him and shot him in the back, that’s gonna be hard to articulate in court as self-defense. That’s more retribution than self-defense. If he can articulate that he still perceived a threat and he shot Silva to prevent further death and injury, then the shooting is good.

Swoosh.

Lets start with criminal vs civil. Different purposes, different standards of proof, different processes, etc.

The topic is "Is an arrest always mandatory?"  That's criminal -- period.  When are you going to be arrested under civil law?  Why are you dragging this into civil law?   

Maybe you can explain how civil laws are allowed to violate the Constitutional Rights of individuals, whereas criminal laws are not?

Let me help by saying civil liberties don't change if the bad actor is the government.  That includes anyone elected to or employed by Federal, state or local government.

When a police department is sued for violation of civil rights, such as someone being arrested for video recording in public areas, its an obviously civil matter.

The standards for violating one's constitutionally protected rights don't change -- civil or criminal. 

I'll look forward to your well-sourced, case-supported arguments to the contrary.

Different mechanism, not a good analogy.

Only to u.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

“…initial beat cop is going to gather that you shot the other person intentionally or knowingly and that is enough to arrest for murder because the murder statute just says if you intentionally or knowingly kill someone...”

Unable to safely retreat, my intent was to stop the actions of the person or persons causing bodily harm to myself or others and not to kill or murder. So intentionally or knowingly I haven’t committed murder. The result of my action may or may not be a death, but I still only intentionally acted to stop the threat(s).

The topic is "Is an arrest always mandatory?"  That's criminal -- period.  When are you going to be arrested under civil law?  Why are you dragging this into civil law?   

Maybe you should go back and read CMO's post which I was answering. Go emoji him if you are that concerned with staying on topic (oh the irony)

Unable to safely retreat, my intent was to stop the actions of the person or persons causing bodily harm to myself or others and not to kill or murder. So intentionally or knowingly I haven’t committed murder. The result of my action may or may not be a death, but I still only intentionally acted to stop the threat(s).

That usually isn't easy to determine immediately which is why it takes time for the police and prosecutors to understand that the lawful use of lethal force was satisfied.

But why, in this case, was he detained so long?  He wouldn't be a flight risk, would he?  He wouldn't seek retaliation, would he?  I'm sure his firearm was taken away from him.  Couldn't he be released on his own recognizance?  It's not like he's a full blown criminal with past convictions.

So I learned the cops can't hold a person more than 48 hours without charging him with something.  You also stated that the full detention must be justifiable.

What would that be?  Even an idiot like me could see he shot Silva to stop him from killing people and destroying his personal property.

Would he be a flight risk? If he had just committed an unjustifiable murder then he would be a flight risk. He may also seek retaliation as well. However, neither of those two things have anything to do with his detention. If the charges were accepted then it could go into setting his bail higher but those two things are not factors in his initial detention.

I still have not seen how long he was detained before he was released but lets say it was close to the max of 48 hours for the sake of the discussion. If he was intoxicated by alcohol or some drug (legal or illegal) then the detective is already going to have to wait 12-24 hours to try and interview him. Also to give him a chance to rest after an event that would likely drain him physically and mentally it is good for the detective to wait. Then an interview could easily take a couple hours and that interview is going to open up other things that need to be investigated such as alibis that need to be interviewed. Then a polygraph might be administered.

On top of just those issues with the arrested person is all the other things that would need to get done before the detective would present the case to the prosecutors. Witness statements, additional witness statements, photos, hours of surveillance video, evidence processing, search warrants, communicate with the judge, paperwork, etc. The detective isn't going to make the call on a homicide case, they are going to take all the information they can gather and have the prosecutor review it and the prosecutor is going to determine whether there is enough to justify charging him with a crime.

You ask why not just release him early based off the initial assessment of the case, this would create problems if he ended up not having a justified self defense case.
Imagine you are a cop and show up to my home because I shot and killed someone in my yard. I tell you that this guy was breaking into my house and then came at me with a knife when I confronted him. You take my information down and let me leave because afterall, I was on my property and it looks like a clear case of self defense, innocent people shouldn't be stuck in jail just for defending themselves. So you have my info and I leave the scene. 12 hours later you find a neighbor's surveillance video that shows it wasn't a justified shooting but actually a murder. By that time I have already jumped on a plane and left the state/country.

Now if it were much more simple case then it would be much more possible to release someone quickly. If you were a cop and found me writing graffiti on a stop sign then the case would be very simple, take me to the station, book me, and set my bail. If you held me for 48 hours even if it only took you 2 hours then you would be opening up yourself to a lawsuit. With a homicide investigation they are using that full 48 hours in most cases except for short bits of sleep.

Maybe you should go back and read CMO's post which I was answering. Go emoji him if you are that concerned with staying on topic (oh the irony)

What a sensitive snowflake!

If you know his post is off-topic, then you should have let him know, not reply with ore off-topic posts. 

A more mature person would simply tell him YOURSELF to return to the topic and not continue his hijack. 

Instead, you got your panties in a bunch because you got called out on it.

boo hoo....   

Maybe you should go back and read CMO's post which I was answering. Go emoji him if you are that concerned with staying on topic (oh the irony)

SWOOOOSSSHHH X2.  Here's a hint, violating someones rights can be done both on the criminal and civil level.