Original post:
Was he off duty ?

I should lower my voice.
No need to yell. 

Yes...on March 11 Deedy's lawyers withdrew the request to dismiss the case on the basis that he was acting as a federal agent at the time of the incident and said the killing was in self-defense. Therefore, he was not acting in a law enforcement capacity but as a private citizen claiming self-defense.

For starters, if he was claiming the law enforcement defense (which he is not), he would have two immediate issues, among others. IAW DS Deadly Force and Firearms Policy:
1) Special Agents must clearly identify himself or herself verbally to the subject when acting in a law enforcement capacity. They must also show proper credentials unless to do so puts the agent or others at greater risk. There are exceptions to this requirement but none apply to this situation.
2) If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the special agent shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.

I didn't see any witness testifying that these actions occurred.

Shooting in a public place with several innocent bystanders is also a no-no unless there is absolutely no other options and the agent reasonably believes his life or others is at great risk, thereby justifying the use of deadly force in a public place. Agents have the duty to assess whether their use of  deadly force creates a danger to the public that outweighs the likely benefit of that use of force (i.e., collateral damage).  Of course this is a moot point since he is not claiming the law enforcement defense, not to mention subjective.

And what exactly did I write that you disagree with? If blacks were treated in same manner that whites are treated here, you can bet morons like Sharpton, etal. would be comparing us to a southern state mentality, i.e., a Dixie of the Pacific.

Just replace the word haole with n*gger and you can see how there's a double standard w/ the quasi-racist attitudes many have here for whites.

That's what I said way back in the beginning of this thread; haole - when not used as a descriptive term - used by locals that resent or full on F'ING HATE haole - is the HI analogue for redneck; cracka; white-boy; trailer-trash; etc.  it is purely racist; hateful; etc., but it is tolerated and even accepted by other locals; it is considered justifiable and understandable considering what the missionaries did to Hawaiians (along with complicit royalty....oops).

This is perfectly analogous to the racism and racist terms used towards whites, and more so towards southern whites; it is considered justifiable; acceptable; understandable, considering the history of the south resisting abolition and desegregation. It's the same thing! 

And as Kevlar points out, the double standard is breathtaking. Just try using a non racist, non pejorative, but slightly politically incorrect term for a black dude down here, and you will see people squirm like they just saw someone put a handful of cockroaches in their mouth. But someone says f'ing haole, and the others in the room smirk in solidarity.

And for the record, the analogy continues with this: 

teen and 20's mainland blacks - and immigrant blacks (remember NY Long Island railroad murderer Colin furgeson?) - who have at every stage of their lives had nothing but opportunity and people bending over backwards to right the wrongs of the past for them, continue to hate whites because they learn to from friends, family, politicians, and charlatans like sharpton . Similarly, young locals of all ethnicities learn to hate haole from friends, family, and politicians who perpetuate their economic misery and Balkanize HI. 

But all this while in reality, both groups know nothing but favoritism, reparations-by-default, and opportunity; unlike the hell and rape of their very existence that was experience by the older generation of their respective groups.

And LOOK!!!  Elderts using f'ing haole gets yawns by all media - who insist you have to understand its not a racial slurr - just as the media went on a blitz trying to explain how 'creepy ass cracka' was not a racial slurr - recall the cicero-like testimony of the Zimmerman trial defense's star witness!

That's what I said way back in the beginning of this thread; haole - when not used as a descriptive term - used by locals that resent or full on F'ING HATE haole - is the HI analogue for redneck; cracka; white-boy; trailer-trash; etc.  it is purely racist; hateful; etc., but it is tolerated and even accepted by other locals; it is considered justifiable and understandable considering what the missionaries did to Hawaiians (along with complicit royalty....oops).

This is perfectly analogous to the racism and racist terms used towards whites, and more so towards southern whites; it is considered justifiable; acceptable; understandable, considering the history of the south resisting abolition and desegregation. It's the same thing! 

And as Kevlar points out, the double standard is breathtaking. Just try using a non racist, non pejorative, but slightly politically incorrect term for a black dude down here, and you will see people squirm like they just saw someone put a handful of cockroaches in their mouth. But someone says f'ing haole, and the others in the room smirk in solidarity.

And for the record, the analogy continues with this: 

teen and 20's mainland blacks - and immigrant blacks (remember NY Long Island railroad murderer Colin furgeson?) - who have at every stage of their lives had nothing but opportunity and people bending over backwards to right the wrongs of the past for them, continue to hate whites because they learn to from friends, family, politicians, and charlatans like sharpton . Similarly, young locals of all ethnicities learn to hate haole from friends, family, and politicians who perpetuate their economic misery and Balkanize HI. 

But all this while in reality, both groups know nothing but favoritism, reparations-by-default, and opportunity; unlike the hell and rape of their very existence that was experience by the older generation of their respective groups.

And LOOK!!!  Elderts using f'ing haole gets yawns by all media - who insist you have to understand its not a racial slurr - just as the media went on a blitz trying to explain how 'creepy ass cracka' was not a racial slurr - recall the cicero-like testimony of the Zimmerman trial defense's star witness!

You said a mouthful, brother!   

You said a mouthful, brother!   

Not exactly pithy!
Lol

Yes...on March 11 Deedy's lawyers withdrew the request to dismiss the case on the basis that he was acting as a federal agent at the time of the incident and said the killing was in self-defense. Therefore, he was not acting in a law enforcement capacity but as a private citizen claiming self-defense.

For starters, if he was claiming the law enforcement defense (which he is not), he would have two immediate issues, among others. IAW DS Deadly Force and Firearms Policy:
1) Special Agents must clearly identify himself or herself verbally to the subject when acting in a law enforcement capacity. They must also show proper credentials unless to do so puts the agent or others at greater risk. There are exceptions to this requirement but none apply to this situation.
2) If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the special agent shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.

I didn't see any witness testifying that these actions occurred.

Shooting in a public place with several innocent bystanders is also a no-no unless there is absolutely no other options and the agent reasonably believes his life or others is at great risk, thereby justifying the use of deadly force in a public place. Agents have the duty to assess whether their use of  deadly force creates a danger to the public that outweighs the likely benefit of that use of force (i.e., collateral damage).  Of course this is a moot point since he is not claiming the law enforcement defense, not to mention subjective.

Bunk,

It appears you deleted part of my edited at 5:23 pm post in your 6:34 pm post. .

My "was he off duty" comment had nothing to do with Deedy.
It was a response to a post by Moosed in response to a prior post by me.
It was regarding shootings by off duty HPD. 

Bunk,

It appears you deleted part of my edited at 5:23 pm post in your 6:34 pm post. .

My "was he off duty" comment had nothing to do with Deedy.
It was a response to a post by Moosed in response to a prior post by me.
It was regarding shootings by off duty HPD.

Oops sorry.
Still applicable to the topic tough....just not your comment. I see some still mentioning the LEO defense, which he is not using. When not on-duty, a LEO has the same limited rights as any other citizen when it comes to personal responsibility and behavior. He or she can place a person under citizen's arrest until an on-duty police officer arrives, but many agencies/departments discourage off-duty LEOs from actively participating in such an arrest unless the situation is life-threatening, and for obvious reasons, most notably liability. The key factor in such an action is proper identification. An off-duty LEO who instigates a fight or commits an illegal act (not saying Deedy did) has no more rights or legal protections than any other private citizen.

Bunk,

It appears you deleted part of my edited at 5:23 pm post in your 6:34 pm post. .

My "was he off duty" comment had nothing to do with Deedy.
It was a response to a post by Moosed in response to a prior post by me.
It was regarding shootings by off duty HPD.

I did that just to mess up the flow of the thread!

Like it smooth as a lazy river to start with, huh?      

Nuttin for nuttin, but I have to point out that even though i think everyone in this thread has agreed that if deedy was an off duty local hpd LEO the media and public would not blink if kealoha said the shooting was justified and the story disappeared.......i must give one more salient example of 'proof' that this story IS a story cause Deedy is haole:

recall that 100% of the media the vast public didnt even stop chewing their breakfast the next morning after learning multiple HPD officers murdered a haole veteran even though he was boxed in; with no where to go; gave no indication he had or was reaching for a weapon; and could easily have been subdued by mace, tasers, and the hoard of cops that were on scene.

Just imagine if that happened in LA and the cops were white and Gordon was black; what the national media would have done!  And just imagine if that were again LA or Vegas and all the cops were white and Gordon was a local boy - the local media shit storm would have been violent and endless. 

If this is the one your speaking of, he wasn't a veteran, he was active duty. Not that it matters.

http://www.kitv.com/news/hawaii/HPD-explains-Waikiki-shooting-in-detail/-/8905354/18147194/-/jhcf9t/-/index.html

http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/story/20591137/police-reportedly-shoot-man-who-attempted-to

By witness accounts ( not officers ) he was boxed in but actively ramming HPD vehicles trying to get away.

They would have shot him whether he was local or not.
Just like the guy at Waikele KFC.  Who was local.

IMO the story is the story because Deedy was off duty, drinking, and killed an unarmed man.

IMO the story is the story because Deedy was off duty, drinking, and killed an unarmed man.

+1. I agree with this. If he wasn't drunk and wasn't party to starting the fight (takes 2 to tango), it would only get 7 mins on the news and be done with.

This case is more about people in authority possibly abusing their position or using it irresponsibly resulting in homicide. It would be concerning if the evidence shows it as such, regardless of Deedy's race.

The whole race discussion came about because of the testimony by Deedy's co-worker about his briefing to Deedy about the locals.  Deedy was probably ignorant about the local culture and reacted to things in a hostile way.

If this is the one your speaking of, he wasn't a veteran, he was active duty. Not that it matters.

Yeah, I know he was active. Wrong choice of word. And yes, they would have shot him if he was local. My point was how multiple cops murdered a haole soldier and not a peep about whether it was justified from the media or public. If it was white cops on a black, woulda been covered like Rodney king. That was my point. And it is golden.

And sorry my friend, he was actively ramming them? Come on man. He was boxed in "ramming" patrol cars that were a foot or two away from him when they opened up on him. There was no friggin where for him to go. He couldnt have gotten away. Not armed. Not reaching for anything. There was NO F'ING REASON for them to kill him. All the cops who fired were so close they could have soaked him in spray and tased him. Dont you get it?  there was no threat. There was no reason for them to kill him. It was murder. Period.  And cops always get away with 'discretionary action' that would land a civi in jail for murder. Un f'ing real. That story still makes me wanna vomit.

There are tons of active/retired Leo/military on this forum and for that I can't believe there wasn't a thread explosion from the military guys on this. 

And the point is, multiple hpd cops murder and unarmed non threat haole - yawn.
One off duty haole leo kills a local in SD - come the four horseman. Sickening

I think CCW would help to calm the local punks from starting trouble. You ain't gonna try and mob somebody if he "might" have a gun

real bad guys already CCW anyway

+1. I agree with this. If he wasn't drunk and wasn't party to starting the fight (takes 2 to tango), it would only get 7 mins on the news and be done with.

This case is more about people in authority possibly abusing their position or using it irresponsibly resulting in homicide. It would be concerning if the evidence shows it as such, regardless of Deedy's race.

The whole race discussion came about because of the testimony by Deedy's co-worker about his briefing to Deedy about the locals.  Deedy was probably ignorant about the local culture and reacted to things in a hostile way.

My man.....if this was about "people in authority possibly abusing their position or using it irresponsibly resulting in homicide" then why wasnt there outrage when Gordon got murdered by multiple cops? 

That's why I brought up that case. That discrepancy suggests you're not correct. People are outraged by power abuse when its the "oppressed" victimized by the oppressor "powerful" white man - as far as how lib propagandists indoctrinate the masses - There is never outrage when the "oppressed" victimize the "oppressor"

And you say race became an issue cause of "the testimony by Deedy's co-worker about his briefing to Deedy about the locals"?  Not exactly true....race ALSO became an issue when we learned elderts called him an f'ing haole.

But think of the irony of the prosecution citing Deedy's colleagues warning: Deedy's colleague accurately warns him of unequivocal truth about locals' racism towards haole; testimony documents elderts DID call him f'ing haole, yet the prosecution and media keep harping on his colleagues warning implying that it altered how Deedy reacted to Elderts. That it made him the racist. They don't say that but for the love of god that is PRECISELY what they are implying. So we know locals dislike haole to varying degrees, Elderts calls Deedy f'ing haole, but the media and prosecution imply  Deedy was racist. Breathtaking lib madness.

Look, without knowing Deedy personally and without having been there that night, I can opine that Deedy was/is a power tripping elitist fed LEO cause he contributed to the escalation which put him in the position to legally defend himself with his firearm. An off duty HPD flashing a badge and identifying himself - haole or local - would have commanded compliance. There's no evidence Deedy identified what he was nor showed credentials, but even if he did, he would have been stupid to expect compliance.  Non local off duty fed LEO in any locale would never expect the same compliance a local off duty LEO would expect. I'm not LE and I know that. Deedy should've known that.

Summary: Deedy did everything wrong that night from partying while carrying, to engaging Elderts rather than ignoring him or walking away especially after being warned about locals' hostility towards haole.........and Elderts was a typical drunk/drugged tough guy punk who started the violence and payed for his actions. And make no mistake; Elderts would've mutilated Deedy if Deedy didn't shoot him.

Interesting read...first I seen this sworn declaration from Deedy’s attorney dated June 26, 2012. Apologize if it has been posted already...I couldn't find it. Read through it and in his sworn statement he claims Deedy did properly identify himself as a LEO, showed him his credentials and badge, attempted to use a non-lethal defensive technique, and initiated further verbal commands to stop the attack prior to discharging his firearm, plus rendered aid after the incident. He further states that because Elderts knew Deedy was a federal LEO (by virtue of verbal declaration and ID), that he was violating 18 U.S.C. § 111, assaulting, resisting, or impeding [a federal officer].

So the question I wonder is why his attorney (same guy) withdrew the LEO defense on March 11, 2013? Notice in this sworn statement, he paints Deedy’s actions as "textbook" procedure IAW DS DSS and DOJ Policy but watching the trial videos and listening to witness testimony, it doesn’t jive or at least I haven’t seen anything yet to fully corroborate this sworn statement. So the obvious question to me is why did Deedy and his attorney withdraw this defense if the chain of events did in fact occur as described in the sworn statement? Seems like if it really did occur this way that would be a solid defense.

I also tend to believe the Department of State is not providing financial assistance since they are seeking donations for his defense and I don't see any presence of DS lawyers. Further supports the withdrawal of the LEO defense...not on-duty but off-duty conduct. If he actually did use the LEO defense (claiming on-duty), I believe the DS would be on the hook for all aspects, so I wonder where they stand with their employee. Maybe they are washing their hands on this one and will deal with him (should he not go to jail) via their own internal disciplinary process when the dust settles, and possibly terminate him.

http://www.deedysupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Brook-Hart-memo-26-34.pdf

And the point is, multiple hpd cops murder and unarmed non threat haole - yawn.

The point is, don't try to ram your way out when HPD, or any PD, has you boxed in. Regardless what race you are.

Summary: Deedy did everything wrong that night from partying while carrying, to engaging Elderts rather than ignoring him or walking away especially after being warned about locals' hostility towards haole.........and Elderts was a typical drunk/drugged tough guy punk who started the violence and payed for his actions.

I don't agree with a lot of what you said in your prior posts...
But this one is it in a nutshell. 

My man.....if this was about "people in authority possibly abusing their position or using it irresponsibly resulting in homicide" then why wasnt there outrage when Gordon got murdered by multiple cops? 

That's why I brought up that case. That discrepancy suggests you're not correct. People are outraged by power abuse when its the "oppressed" victimized by the oppressor "powerful" white man - as far as how lib propagandists indoctrinate the masses - There is never outrage when the "oppressed" victimize the "oppressor"

That incident with the truck in Waikiki was pretty sad.  I was wondering if they ever did find out what happened to him.  I was thinking that the driver of that truck might have been having a PTSD episode and needed help?  All I heard is that he was way over the legal alcohol limit but have not heard anything about it in the news afterwards.

And you say race became an issue cause of "the testimony by Deedy's co-worker about his briefing to Deedy about the locals"?  Not exactly true....race ALSO became an issue when we learned elderts called him an f'ing haole.

I didn't say anything about Elderts because he is already dead and is no longer able to answer for his misdeeds.  I'm sure if he were alive, he would probably be going to jail now.  However, the trial is only about whether Deedy is justified in his shooting of Elderts or not.

But think of the irony of the prosecution citing Deedy's colleagues warning: Deedy's colleague accurately warns him of unequivocal truth about locals' racism towards haole; testimony documents elderts DID call him f'ing haole, yet the prosecution and media keep harping on his colleagues warning implying that it altered how Deedy reacted to Elderts. That it made him the racist. They don't say that but for the love of god that is PRECISELY what they are implying. So we know locals dislike haole to varying degrees, Elderts calls Deedy f'ing haole, but the media and prosecution imply  Deedy was racist. Breathtaking lib madness.

I agree with you that the media is inconsistent with what they choose to cover.

Look, without knowing Deedy personally and without having been there that night, I can opine that Deedy was/is a power tripping elitist fed LEO cause he contributed to the escalation which put him in the position to legally defend himself with his firearm. An off duty HPD flashing a badge and identifying himself - haole or local - would have commanded compliance. There's no evidence Deedy identified what he was nor showed credentials, but even if he did, he would have been stupid to expect compliance.  Non local off duty fed LEO in any locale would never expect the same compliance a local off duty LEO would expect. I'm not LE and I know that. Deedy should've known that.

Summary: Deedy did everything wrong that night from partying while carrying, to engaging Elderts rather than ignoring him or walking away especially after being warned about locals' hostility towards haole.........and Elderts was a typical drunk/drugged tough guy punk who started the violence and payed for his actions. And make no mistake; Elderts would've mutilated Deedy if Deedy didn't shoot him.

+1

I think CCW would help to calm the local punks from starting trouble. You ain't gonna try and mob somebody if he "might" have a gun

real bad guys already CCW anyway

Something to be said here. Having been a F...ng Haole all my life. Local born and raised.
The Blallah mentality is alive and well. CCW would help.

I don't agree with that.

That in my opinion is a trigger happy person just looking for an excuse to kill someone.

Too many times you see some criminal try to speed off and a LEO in a vehicle or on foot claims "attempted murder" because they happened to be near the criminals escape route.

Don't get me wrong, I do not by any means agree with the actions of criminals, nor do I empathize with them.

I believe they should be stopped, apprehended, arrested and charged for whatever they do wrong but too many people are "legally" killed every year for whatever reason.

+1 

KK, your post writes something I've been thinking about. 

Defensive firearm training often teaches to shoot someone until they stop, not necessarily to kill.  A lot of repetitive defensive firearm training and soon, this action becomes automatic without much thinking involved.

Yes, a lot of an individual's decision on how to handle a dangerous situation really depends on an individuals' values, intelligence, confidence, expertise, experiences, culture, family background, mindset, and training.  However,  I do worry that most defensive firearm training place too much focus on shooting quickly and repeatedly until threats are stopped (dead?) without developing other skills such as being situationally aware, avoiding dangerous places, deescalating a dangerous situation, developing a strong command voice, hand to hand combat skills, and yes, even going to church and valuing human life.   

If the only thing a person is trained in is in the use of a hammer, all problems start to look like nails.  How many gun guys (including LEOs) think about NOT shooting someone right away unless they really are left with no choice?

I pray I never have to find myself or my family in a self-defense situation where I have to shoot someone.  Don't get me wrong, I take my role of protecting myself and my family very seriously.  But if I had a bead on a burglar / attacker and have the situation in control, I would want to do what I can to avoid having to shoot someone and get them bound up for police to question and apprehend instead.  Someone stealing and driving away with my car does not deserve the death penalty and unless I felt I or my family was in mortal danger, I would probably not want to be shooting them even if lets say I had my firearm with me.  On the other hand, if they were driving at me or my family and there was no other way to save me or my family, that would be another story. 

Depending on the danger level of a situation, those with firearms should do all they can to avoid taking the life of someone unless that other person was in the act of killing another person.  Shooting a drunk person that was lost wandering into the wrong apartment late at night would be quite different from shooting a jack-the-ripper type serial killer (wolf) that was intent on doing harm to their next victim.

At the very least, realize that no matter how rotten a person is, he/she is a soul whom Jesus had died for and one would not want to send them to hell if there was a chance that extra time on earth might lead them to redemption and save their own soul.

Was Deedy in the truck, or did he shoot the truck driver?

You guys lost me on Kalakaua somewhere!!

 

.