In the latest report of an HPD officer being arrested, Police Chief Kealoha revealed some interesting statistics; 5 officers are being investigated for major crimes with 17 more being investigated by the prosecutors office.

Following disclosure of Rapozo's arrest, Kealoha said five officers in a 2,000-member force are being investigated for alleged major crimes.

Kealoha added that "cases involving an additional 17 officers are with the prosecutor's office."

This leads to my point: Why is Law Enforcement the only ones trustworthy enough to carry guns?

I think that most people feel that LEOs are some magical type of being that know better than all of us and are able to do no wrong. I would love to think that were the case, but like all of us, LEOs are just human and make mistakes like all of us. Some are corrupt, some steal, some beat on prostitutes.

I don't want anybody to feel like I am against the men and women that make up our various law enforcement agencies. I am not. They are great people that serve a great purpose and do a job that many others would not like to do.

This is all to say that LEOs shouldn't be the only ones allowed to carry.

As Chief K said, LEO are held to a "higher standard", they are, But, in many cases, espcially here in Hawaii, when convicted, they seem to get off or get lighter sentances just because they are LEO and life for them would be short in prison......

I have met  LEOs, including Gold Badge carrying federal agents with badge heavy "attitude", where because they have "the Badge" they are above the law.

So sad

Hawaii's law enforcement coalition pointedly ignores/over looks the data colleted by states that have "shall issue" CCW.  The data is overwhelmingly in favour of the CCW permittees as clearly being a cut Above the rest of the general population (and some police departments) where firearms safety and being law abiding is concerned.  These states were mandated to keep careful records to prove/disprove safeness of CCW permittees.  Many who were against CCW in their state(s) publically apologized for being wrong on their judgement of the CCW permittee. 

In many states, some LEO's owe their life to CCW permittees who stopped and "backed up" officers in danger of being killed.  Criminals Know LEO have a line they can't cross as far as being shot is concerned.  They also know that a private citizen backing up a LEO doesn't have that "line" and will shoot .  It has been shown numerous times that if a private citizen stops and saves a LEO, they usually get called Heroes by that Dept for saving the officer's life.  Any Ooops in the shooting is usually overlooked.

Hawaii is too liberal and left a state to accept the idea that it's citizens are trustworthy. Even if by a miracle we pass a more reasonable CCW law here, all it would take is one mishap by a citizen and you'd politicians and people demanding a complete ban on CCW.

Yes, police officers are people just like the rest of us. We all make mistakes but when a police officer is involved in a shooting there is less of an impact than if a citizen were to do so. An entire police force can't have their weapons confiscated because of a accidental shooting.

I'm not saying us as citizens shouldn't be allowed to have weapons at the ready, I've been looking at my own attempt to get a CCW but I know my chances are nil.

LEOs have what is called SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Research that. This is the reason why LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do.

LEOs CCW because they work for the State. Because the State wants to maintain the ability to KILL anyone at any given time.

For these reasons they appear to be magical.

LEOs have what is called SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Research that. This is the reason why LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do.

LEOs CCW because they work for the State. Because the State wants to maintain the ability to KILL anyone at any given time.

For these reasons they appear to be magical.

I have family who are police officers and I plan on joining the force as well and never did I get the sense of being "magical". Yes some local cops have an attitude but so do cops elsewhere. Let's face it, no one is going respect the officer who speaks soft and nice to the guy beating on his wife or meth-heads.

Cliche as it sounds I still believe most officers never want to draw their weapon on anyone, much less take a life. They are trained to do so but as a last resort to protect the community as well as themselves. No disrespect but your reply is just the kind of thing that makes gun owners look bad.

Hawaii is too liberal and left a state to accept the idea that it's citizens are trustworthy. Even if by a miracle we pass a more reasonable CCW law here, all it would take is one mishap by a citizen and you'd politicians and people demanding a complete ban on CCW.

The recent  shooting of the man in Waianae is a prime example of the sometimes silly expectations of self protection and protection of others.  In the report a woman complains that the police should have 'shot him in the arm or something'.
 
That statement of the woman, and others IIRC in the Staradvertiser report (sorry couldn't find that one), dumbfounded me.  Prime example of how the public is so uninformed and ignorant of the right to self protection.  Good job HPD. If someone came after me or my family with a machete I'd shoot 'em dead too.

Quote from: tonsofguns on September 17, 2010, 08:54:27 PM

LEOs have what is called SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Research that. This is the reason why LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do.

LEOs CCW because they work for the State. Because the State wants to maintain the ability to KILL anyone at any given time.

For these reasons they appear to be magical.

I have family who are police officers and I plan on joining the force as well and never did I get the sense of being "magical". Yes some local cops have an attitude but so do cops elsewhere. Let's face it, no one is going respect the officer who speaks soft and nice to the guy beating on his wife or meth-heads.

Cliche as it sounds I still believe most officers never want to draw their weapon on anyone, much less take a life. They are trained to do so but as a last resort to protect the community as well as themselves. No disrespect but your reply is just the kind of thing that makes gun owners look bad.

I think you misread my response. And the OP. Please go back and do these two things. Mahalo.

LEOs have what is called SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. Research that. This is the reason why LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do.

 

What world do you live in? Do you even WATCH the news? I mean seriously, cops get put on trial on a regular basis for JUSTIFIED actions, not to mention when they go off the reservation.

The State wants to maintain the ability to KILL anyone at any given time.

Are you serious? It's rejects like you that give the rest of us a REALLY bad name. Leave your anarchist BS at the door or GTFO.

- Alex

So you have nothing to debate me with, just name calling. Ok, are you then saying that sovereign immunity doesn't exist? Are you saying that those covered under sovereign immunity are aware of that fact?

You have provided no facts to oppose anything I said. You only argument is that I am an anarchist, from a different world, and I should GTFO.

tonsofguns, I think it is the way you said it and not having much of an explanation behind it. Maybe if you can explain what you meant better, we can understand.

To everyone, let's try and be civil and not give more fodder to the antis.

I was alittle blunt, but if anyone wants more info on that, don't take my word for it, do your own legwork. I was merely answering your question of why some people seem magical.

This is just My Opinion but...
 
  I believe the law Makers are worried that if all the "locals" stated carrying guns everywhere that the turists would get scared and stop coming.  I may be way off but a uniformed, badged, armed LEO is a comfort to must, but all kinds of "common" people with guns would just be scary to alot of foriegners!  Do any of you agree or disagree?

I didn't think of that angle and now that you brought it up, I'm sure it has a lot to do with it. One of the advertisements for coming here mention the safety of Honolulu. With tourism being a major part of the economy, the higher ups are scared that loosening of restrictions will hurt that safety rating. It won't.

So you have nothing to debate me with, just name calling. Ok, are you then saying that sovereign immunity doesn't exist? Are you saying that those covered under sovereign immunity are aware of that fact?

You have provided no facts to oppose anything I said. You only argument is that I am an anarchist, from a different world, and I should GTFO.

I don't generally debate with people who clearly have a bone to pick with "The Man." In my experience, it is utterly worthless...much like debating with anti-gun types. If you HONESTLY believe that the reason that LEOs are authorized by the state to carry a weapon concealed while off-duty is to KILL people, then I am forced to not only question your life experiences, but also the veracity of your character. Furthermore, as YOU are the one whois making such outlandish claims, the burden of proof lies with YOU to provide evidence to support your claim. "Usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed." (1)

With that being said...

Sovereign Immunity is defined as "A doctrine precluding the institution of a suit against the sovereign [government] without its consent." (2)

The Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute (3) tells us that "Generally, the idea that the sovereign or government is immune from   lawsuits or other legal actions except when it consents to them.   Historically, this was an absolute doctrinal position that held Federal,   state, and local governments immune from tort liability arising from the activities of government. These days, the application   of sovereign immunity is much less clear-cut, as different governments   have waived liability in differing degrees under differing   circumstances." (Emphasis mine)

What this means is that the GOVERNMENT (or state) has traditionally been exempt from lawsuits which come as a result of the activities of said government (and, most likely, it's entities). However, as far as I know, NO WHERE does any U.S. Code exempt the PERSON from liability for their actions. On the contrary (and as I alluded to earlier) Law Enforcement Officers are often held to a HIGHER standard in a criminal and civil courts, thus they are often forced to pay damages and/or restitution to "victims" (some are legitimate, some are not) of their actions. Furthermore, the officer's city or state is often held liable for the actions of the officer, as countless lawsuits demonstrate.

To counter your point that "LEOs don't worry about JACKSHIT when the bust your ass, anyone elses ass, or anything else they do," I will refer you to Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) (4)

"The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials   performing discretionary functions from liability for damages "insofar   as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or   constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." (Emphasis mine)

Clearly, LEOs do have to worry about their actions.

I refuse to spend hours pulling up the thousands of case files on this stuff, but I will provide a recent example of both a Law Enforcement Officer being sued as well as the State. I'm sure anyone willing to research the topic further will be able to find as many other case studies as they feel is sufficient.

From The Sherwood Voice, 9 September 2010 (5)

"Rodney Burrell of Sherwood sued officers Vernon Blocker and Scott   McFarland for, according to his formal complaint, 'unreasonable seizure   in violation of his rights.'

The case was heard in the U.S. District Court by District Judge William Wilson.

Blocker and McFarland have together been charged $190,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, to be paid to Burrell."

From the Charleston Gazette (6):

"Matthew Leavitt, a former police officer in Montgomery who is now in   federal prison, harassed and beat Twan and Lauren Reynolds, a mixed-race   couple, back in September 2008, after they stopped at a 7-Eleven in   Montgomery.    In December 2009, the couple settled a lawsuit against the city for   $500,000. Leavitt previously worked as a police officer in Cedar Grove,   Madison, Smithers, Mount Hope and Gauley Bridge."

(1) Michalos, Alex. 1969. Principles of Logic. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall. p 370
(2) http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm
(3) http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/sovereign_immunity
(4) http://supreme.justia.com/us/457/800/case.html
(5) http://www.nlrtimes.com/articles/2010/09/10/sherwood_voice/local_news/nws03.txt
(6) http://sundaygazettemail.com/Opinion/Editorials/201009120295

P.S.: Please forgive my laziness in not properly formatting my references...I believe the links should be sufficient.

- Alex

This is just My Opinion but...
 
  I believe the law Makers are worried that if all the "locals" stated carrying guns everywhere that the turists would get scared and stop coming.  I may be way off but a uniformed, badged, armed LEO is a comfort to must, but all kinds of "common" people with guns would just be scary to alot of foriegners!  Do any of you agree or disagree?

I am sure that this plays some role in their decision...how large of a role, I have no idea. However, there are many states which allow only concealed carry in public (e.g., Florida); I see no reason why Hawaii couldn't follow this route. The vast majority of tourists would be completely oblivious to the fact that there are people carrying concealed around them (just like they are oblivious to it in their home state). I can see how the state would be concerned about a bunch of people open carrying in Waikiki, that COULD potentially scare away some tourists (but I doubt it), but if everyone is carrying concealed, there would be no change in what tourists see from day-to-day.

- Alex

Nice rebuttal Alex. Very in-depth and informative.

I know for a fact that LEOs are always considered "on duty" and that is why they are always carrying. If that was even a question.

Nice indeed, informative and proved my point. You actually did all the research for us. Except you forgot to cut and paste all those court cases and articles where officers violate others constitutional rights, over step their legal boundaries, and commit crimes themselves for which punishment is abated due to sovereign immunity. If you would please post all those articles now I'm sure we would all enjoy that.

And yes, I know its shameful for a gun owner to say this, but guns are made for killing, and the State requires officers and others to carry them. Didn't always use to, but times ha ve changed. Sugar coat that any way you see fit.

tonsofguns, I think you are blowing it out of proportion. Many times officers can have immunity, but it is not absolute, and if they are in direct violation of a right, they can have none. Findlaw has a good article on dealing with police misconduct. While it may be difficult to prove an officer violated civil rights, it is not impossible.

A good, recent example of this is the BART officer's shooting of Oscar Grant. Not only were there civil damages brought, but also criminal.

I'm sorry to hear you say that guns are made for killing. For most police officers, the gun is a tool to maintain the upper hand (mentally) and most officers will never have to use it. Just look at how many tazerings (tazings?) are happening now instead of shootings. They don't want to shoot people. That is just outlandish.

Nice indeed, informative and proved my point. You actually did all the research for us. Except you forgot to cut and paste all those court cases and articles where officers violate others constitutional rights, over step their legal boundaries, and commit crimes themselves for which punishment is abated due to sovereign immunity. If you would please post all those articles now I'm sure we would all enjoy that.

And yes, I know its shameful for a gun owner to say this, but guns are made for killing, and the State requires officers and others to carry them. Didn't always use to, but times ha ve changed. Sugar coat that any way you see fit.

This will be my last post on the subject, because as I said earlier, debating with people like you is an absolute waste of time. First, how exactly did my post prove your point? I clearly demonstrated (using cases that have ended in the last month) that LEOs and the state can be held liable for their actions if they do not act accordingly. If sovereign immunity applied to LEOs, then CLEARLY the two cases that I posted could not have happened (does the term legal precedent mean anything to you?). This is completely contrary to your statement that LEOs can violate the public's rights without penalty. The police (and the state) are routinely held accountable when they act out of line, anyone that watches the news with any sort of regularity knows this.

Regarding your statement about guns, LEOs carry them off-duty because, as 2aHawaii already stated, they are ALWAYS on duty. If they see a crime being committed (particularly a crime that involves serious offenses against a person), then they are going to do what they need to in order to stop it. Yes guns CAN be used to kill people, however the fact of the matter is that the people who commit crimes generally have (illegally owned) guns, and bringing a knife (or expandable baton, or OC spray) to a gunfight is foolhardy. Furthermore, according to the San Diego County DA (1), just over half (56%) of Officer Involved Shootings in San Diego between 1996 and 2006 ended in death; not quite the blood bath that one would expect when the state wants to kill people . You stated as a matter of FACT, not opinion, that the state allows LEOs to carry off-duty because they (the state) wants to be able to kill people. I'm waiving a massive BS flag on that one.

By the way, you are still using the fallacy of appealing to ignorance. YOU still hold the burden of proof to defend YOUR claim, not me. You were the one calling for "facts" earlier; I provided them, and now you are saying that I didn't post the proper facts to defend YOUR portion of the argument...sorry, but that's not how debates work.

Lastly, I know that you own a store in the local area, which one is it? I would like to know so that I can be sure to take my business elsewhere.

Edit to add: I forgot the reference:
(1) http://www.sdcda.org/office/ois_review_rpt.pdf

- Alex

Yea I'm over it.  Back to the archives for this thread.