Just watched the video footage on HawaiiNewsNow.  Man, there's just nothing good coming out of this incident -- drunken brawling escalating like to this. This is why I don't like going to Waikiki, especially at night.

Not saying that it applies to Deedy's situation but a lesson I see from this incident is that those with firearms should really not get involved with alcohol and drugs. 

If one is drunk or on drugs, keep the firearm locked away and especially avoid going to dumb places like Waikiki at night where dumb "monkey dances" can happen.

Yes.

Hmm ... attacking a LEO = not a good idea.

all we can do is hope for a fair trial.....

aloha
-branz

 

I think that the issues involved in this case would have resounding effects on the hope of ever having CCW for citizens in Hawaii. This case outlines an example of not granting more loose CCW permissions in Hawaii.

 

On the contrary.  This was not a case of a civilian carrying concealed and involved in a shooting. This was a DOS agent with training, authority, and (I assume) his issued weapon.  I don't see how this has any impact on the CCW issue at all. 

Maybe there will be FEWER deaths like this because people wanting to start a fight will think twice if there's a chance the other party is armed. 

It works that way every other place CCW is actually implemented.

I don't agree. The argument can be that while even a trained federal agent, he still escalated and shot an unarmed person. I'm trying to look at the issue from the viewpoint of a person against the 2A. Most people that I've come across bring up this particular issue, that here in Hawaii we resolve with our fists and not guns. Key issues in this case are alcohol, emotional state and environment. How many bars do we have on this island alone? If we can't trust a federal agent with all this additional training can we trust a CCW holding citizen to not escalate? All these points can be strengthened IF Deedy loses this case.

Like Ren, I was actually thinking... If a LEO could be drunk and carrying a firearm (not sure if he was), what if a drunk Elderts was armed with a firearm?

Oh well, sorry... We can "what if" this to no end. Forget I asked... I don't think I'll like the answer.

If both were drunk, got into a stupid monkey dance and just had fists, they'd both probably be going home with someone or both just getting a beat down.

Like Ren, I was actually thinking... If a LEO could be drunk and carrying a firearm (not sure if he was), what if a drunk Elderts was armed with a firearm?

Oh well, sorry... We can "what if" this to no end. Forget I asked... I don't think I'll like the answer.

If both were drunk, got into a stupid monkey dance and just had fists, they'd both probably be going home with someone or both just getting a beat down.

I don't understand the persistent desire that people here seem to have to protect and preserve the time-honored monkey dances.  My tagline about being a fluffy white bunny is a reference to a past thread where a supposedly pro-gun type kept saying that we shouldn't have concealed carry in Hawaii because tourists might not understand that locals just want to put a few lumps on their heads and end up shooting said local.  Apparently beating up tourists is just good, clean fun and nobody should get hurt over it?  (Except the tourist, of course.)  What should be our bigger concern: protecting guys who like to get drunk and/or high and raise hell, or protecting the right of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to carry meaningful defensive tools?

I don't agree. The argument can be that while even a trained federal agent, he still escalated and shot an unarmed person. I'm trying to look at the issue from the viewpoint of a person against the 2A. Most people that I've come across bring up this particular issue, that here in Hawaii we resolve with our fists and not guns. Key issues in this case are alcohol, emotional state and environment. How many bars do we have on this island alone? If we can't trust a federal agent with all this additional training can we trust a CCW holding citizen to not escalate? All these points can be strengthened IF Deedy loses this case.

Unfortunately I think you're right; this is exactly how the average low-information Hawaii voter is going to see it.

I don't understand the persistent desire that people here seem to have to protect and preserve the time-honored monkey dances.  My tagline about being a fluffy white bunny is a reference to a past thread where a supposedly pro-gun type kept saying that we shouldn't have concealed carry in Hawaii because tourists might not understand that locals just want to put a few lumps on their heads and end up shooting said local.  Apparently beating up tourists is just good, clean fun and nobody should get hurt over it?  (Except the tourist, of course.)  What should be our bigger concern: protecting guys who like to get drunk and/or high and raise hell, or protecting the right of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to carry meaningful defensive tools?

I see that type of sentiment amongst locals who don't care about the 2A. There are locals who have that pack mentality and they realize that an equalizer to that is a citizen with a gun - so of course they will always argue that a gun is not needed because it will be undeniably a threat to their ego and resulting behavior. This is just one hypothesis that is not proven scientifically but observed through casual observation.
This case is more than just a perceived race or .gov vs. the locals it can have resounding effects on self defense. In spite of the video, I would say it was justified. I hope that the jurors are not swayed by public opinion or perception of irrelevant issues such as race or minority.

Thinking about Deedy's defense, I think he may be screwed.

1. By claiming self defense, he is admitting in court that he killed Elderts. Now he has to make a case why he was justified.

2. By the standards that we Hawaii civilians would be judged in Hawaii, did Deedy feel his life was in danger that it warranted lethal force?  By the standards that we civilians would be judged, why did he have a gun in the first place?

3. So the only real chance Deedy has is by establishing his LEO status and seeing what the LEO code (?) says about justification for his actions.

First of all, Deedy had better not be drunk!  If he was drunk at the time, even if he is LEO, he would not have been fit for duty and should not have been acting cop at that time.

Elderts attacking a LEO was a very bad move. Since there was a struggle for the gun, then Deedy could say that he had no choice.

Thinking about Deedy's defense, I think he may be screwed.

1. By claiming self defense, he is admitting in court that he killed Elderts. Now he has to make a case why he was justified.

2. By the standards that we Hawaii civilians would be judged in Hawaii, did Deedy feel his life was in danger that it warranted lethal force?  By the standards that we civilians would be judged, why did he have a gun in the first place?

3. So the only real chance Deedy has is by establishing his LEO status and seeing what the LEO code (?) says about justification for his actions.

First of all, Deedy had better not be drunk!  If he was drunk at the time, even if he is LEO, he would not have been fit for duty and should not have been acting cop at that time.

Elderts attacking a LEO was a very bad move. Since there was a struggle for the gun, then Deedy could say that he had no choice.

1: He shot the guy in the middle of a crowded McDonald's.  I don't think the Shaggy "Wasn't Me" line was going to work, so self defense is pretty much all that's left anyway. 
2: This is the pivotal question of the case, although luckily for Deedy the video makes it pretty clear that he was unable to retreat "in perfect safety", so that idiotic portion of the statute shouldn't bite him.  He had a gun because he's an LEO with arrest powers, and legally entitled to do so.  He had a gun in case someone in McDonald's tried to kill him; turns out it was a prudent idea.
3: I could be wrong on this, but LEO rules for use of deadly force are pretty much the same as civilians.  I think the big differences are in the amount of immunity from civil suits they're afforded.  Someone with more knowledge than me could chime in.

I don't understand the persistent desire that people here seem to have to protect and preserve the time-honored monkey dances.  My tagline about being a fluffy white bunny is a reference to a past thread where a supposedly pro-gun type kept saying that we shouldn't have concealed carry in Hawaii because tourists might not understand that locals just want to put a few lumps on their heads and end up shooting said local.  Apparently beating up tourists is just good, clean fun and nobody should get hurt over it?  (Except the tourist, of course.)  What should be our bigger concern: protecting guys who like to get drunk and/or high and raise hell, or protecting the right of peaceful, law-abiding citizens to carry meaningful defensive tools?

I'm not defending monkey dances but acknowledge that people do engage in them for many social reasons. Most monkey dances are not mortal kombats and when two people engage in them, they usually are more for establishing social dominance (alpha males vs beta males) than for taking another person's life. These monkey dances get dangerous though when you bring in weapons (or multiple friends) into the mix.

I do not know what was said in that escalation, but perhaps Elderts was attempting to engage Deedy in some kind of stupid monkey dance.  Deedy probably did not see it that way and fell back on his LEO training of shooting an attacker.

I'm not defending monkey dances but acknowledge that people do engage in them for many social reasons. Most monkey dances are not mortal kombats and when two people engage in them, they usually are more for establishing social dominance (alpha males vs beta males) than for taking another person's life. These monkey dances get dangerous though when you bring in weapons (or multiple friends) into the mix.

I do not know what was said in that escalation, but perhaps Elderts was attempting to engage Deedy in some kind of stupid monkey dance.  Deedy probably did not see it that way and fell back on his LEO training of shooting an attacker.

Lol, I just think Hawaii residents are capable of evolving past the point of establishing social dominance through beefing.  I do agree that adding legal concealed carry to the mix makes monkey dances much more dangerous--but that's the whole point.

Are on duty LEO in Hawaii required to submit to a drug and alcohol test following a similar encounter? 

Some of this came out in the Zimmerman trial, but many pathologists are begining to say that the effects of today's marijuana is not the same of marijuana in the past.  It's no longer the "let's chill, eat whitecastle burgers" kind of drug in many instances.  This comes from the way it is grown and manufactured. 

Dang interesting comment Chris!!!  Look how adulterated cigs are for example and those are supposed to be controlled substances.   

Lol, I just think Hawaii residents are capable of evolving past the point of establishing social dominance through beefing.  I do agree that adding legal concealed carry to the mix makes monkey dances much more dangerous--but that's the whole point.

I think monkey dances used to be less dangerous as people back then were probably more averse to taking someone's life.

I don't have a link to the actual study, but back before the WWII era (?), the US Army found that their soldiers at war were purposely missing their enemies because they didn't want to take another person's life. The US Army realized that they had a problem, so they had to institute a system that desensitizes the soldiers and take away the internal blocks that made soldiers hesitate in shooting the enemy.

Unfortunately, this same desensitization techniques that the US Army used on the soldiers are now also being used on our kids both through violent imagery on TV or with violent computer games. Since this has been happening for many generation, I believe we have several generations of kids and young adults now that have little or no inhibition in taking someone's life. 

I don't want to paint too broad a stroke but some of these guys are probably serving as soldiers and LEOs now.  I can understand why for soldiers as soldiers are meant for offense.  But LEOs are meant for defense and for keeping the peace.  Kinda concerning when a LEO's first thought (and not the last option) to a situation is to shoot the suspect instead of talking to them first.  Maybe this is not true so much in Hawaii, but perhaps it explains the 100+ bullet holes on the two ladies blue truck mistaken by LAPD for Dorner's truck.

One thing for sure, this desensitization makes our criminals more dangerous.

When the internal blocks against taking someone's life are removed from kids and young adults these days, doesn't that create a more dangerous society?

[edit] just so you know I am not making this up, here is an article on this written by retired US Army Lt Col Dave Grossman titled "Trained to Kill": http://www.killology.com/art_trained_methods.htm

"Nothing good ever happens after ___ o'clock"

Wow, lots of fail going on in the afterhours video.  Other guy in shorts was getting knocked down and then it all happens.