With what you are referring to here is what's known as being "contributary" to the situation. In the case of Hawaii there is no "stand your ground" law so there is no fall back on that. In Hawaii the "contrubutary" issue is Deedy not just immediately backing off. So I do understand your point, but I will again offer up that Deedy is a Federal officer and as such he is (possibly) going to be subject to a different set of rules than a normal citizen. We are allowed (encouraged) as normal citizens to leave, whereas a LEO may not have such a luxury. Leaving could get these guys into more trouble than staying to address a situation.
See HRS 703-304(5) below which is the contributary section you are referring to above.
HRS 703-304 covers where deadly force may/may not be used. You will notice that even if an arrest is unlawful Elderts would not be legally allowed to employ deadly force against Deedy if as acting as a LEO (and he identified himself as such).
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm
I agree especially about the LEO rules part. This case is somewhat different from a regular self defense as someone attacking a LEO is a big no-no. That video where Agent Aki examined the video was helpful in helping me understand the situation. Attacking a LEO = big FAIL on Elderts part. If he was sober and not high on narcotics, perhaps he would have had better sense than to pick a fight with a LEO.
I understand your point about alcohol and firearms not mixing, however it is not a realistic situation.
There are a lot of times where someone may be partaking in an alcoholic beverage and it does not affect their ability to reason or their motor skills. This is why there is a BAC threshold for driving a vehicle, so a 0 tolerance with alcohol and firearms IMHO is not a realistic argument. I agree it's something to strive for, but there will always be a time where there is a justification to operate a firearm when having an alcoholic beverage.
Yes, it is not realistic, but just because many people do it doesn't make a wrong thing right.
Yes, I'm sure there are many instances where someone who has drunk some alcohol, still manages to drive home safely without getting in an accident.
However, If someone alcohol level is over a certain limit, they become a menace to others if they decide to drive a motor vehicle. A LEO who has alcohol over the limit should probably not drive, right? Should they be operating a firearm also or even be trying to enforce the peace? Perhaps yes under certain instances, depending on the severity of a situation.
That witness testimony about Elderts saying "to just shoot him" is kinda nagging at me. From the video, it seems like the situation may have been de-escalated until Deedy went over and talked to Elderts. What exactly did Deedy say and how did he say it? Was Elderts threatening someone and making a public disturbance and Deedy wanted to go over and straighten him out?
Perhaps Elderts was still mouthing off while sitting at the chair? I wonder what he was saying? Could he have been insulting Deedy's wife? Could Deedy have gotten pissed off because of a racist comment that Elderts said?
Seriously, I hope Deedy did everything right and he did not have a failure in judgement that night. I would want nothing more than to hear that Deedy was justified in his shooting and did not cause an escalation and making the situation become more dangerous.
But the drinking and shooting someone bothers me... especially by a LEO.
At this point, without additional evidence, i can only guess. Deedy might be the only one knows what was said that night.