How corrupt are HPD and prosecutors in Hawaii? (home, compensation)

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well, you trigger me to get creative here. However unlikely: one party or other does something other party perceives dangerous and threatening. Angry, both pull over. Older guy threatens and challenges with weapon [not visible on video … and perhaps not brandished but] … younger guy determines best action is to end threat, which he does.

Now, most you readers may assume older guy was finished before beating stopped. I’ll skip personal stories, but … Depending on a person’s past experience (combat, assault victim, loss of loved one to violence), some will make sure the threat cannot resume (i.e.: the defeated rise up and re-attack with weapon). If my fiction were true in this case, far as my experience goes, the older guy is lucky to have survived.

I doubt my fiction is the reality. Much more likely the younger guy is a hot head who could use anger management. But there’s no audio, and video doesn’t show clearly all angles.

Best to suspend judgement until investigation charges - or clears. Then read the explanations.

Thing is we aren't commenting in a vacuum. Apart from the video footage of the incident (where I argue it's pretty clear that the older guy didn't have any weapons on his person and, thus, this goes against him being such a threat where the young guy had to pummel him vice restrain him . . . heck, it's not like the older guy was putting up some big fight that the younger guy had to resort to brute force to stop), the cops arrested younger guy on the scene. Older guy isn't arrested. If older guy had a weapon, I'd wager that he likely would have been arrested, too, at the very least. There is self defense, but such a concept also relies on proportionality.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Well, you trigger me to get creative here. However unlikely: one party or other does something other party perceives dangerous and threatening. Angry, both pull over. Older guy threatens and challenges with weapon [not visible on video … and perhaps not brandished but] … younger guy determines best action is to end threat, which he does.

Now, most you readers may assume older guy was finished before beating stopped. I’ll skip personal stories, but … Depending on a person’s past experience (combat, assault victim, loss of loved one to violence), some will make sure the threat cannot resume (i.e.: the defeated rise up and re-attack with weapon). If my fiction were true in this case, far as my experience goes, the older guy is lucky to have survived.

I doubt my fiction is the reality. Much more likely the younger guy is a hot head who could use anger management. But there’s no audio, and video doesn’t show clearly all angles.

Best to suspend judgement until investigation charges - or clears. Then read the explanations. “Overkill” is not an easy measurement to ponder in heat of moment threat.

All things that could be answered by being charged and put on trial. Otherwise all we can do is speculate.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Thing is we aren't commenting in a vacuum. Apart from the video footage of the incident (where I argue it's pretty clear that the older guy didn't have any weapons on his person and, thus, this goes against him being such a threat where the young guy had to pummel him vice restrain him . . . heck, it's not like the older guy was putting up some big fight that the younger guy had to resort to brute force to stop), the cops arrested younger guy on the scene. Older guy isn't arrested. If older guy had a weapon, I'd wager that he likely would have been arrested, too, at the very least. There is self defense, but such a concept also relies on proportionality.

Originally Posted by whtviper1

All things that could be answered by being charged and put on trial. Otherwise all we can do is speculate.

Heh. Speculate away. And that is my position on this: speculation is both pointless and inappropriate.

I offered a fiction, not a speculation. I’ll add to rebut your speculation: officers on the scene failed to execute an appropriate survey of events and circumstances. Another: older guy didn’t have a weapon but said he did … younger guy took no chances … have we ever read accounts where police have shot someone they wrongly perceived as having a weapon?

Etc.

You. We. Don’t. Know.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I offered a fiction, not a speculation. I’ll add to rebut your speculation: officers on the scene failed to execute an appropriate survey of events and circumstances. Another: older guy didn’t have a weapon but said he did … younger guy took no chances …

Officers were not on the scene.

I can also state as a matter of Honolulu police policy:

1) You cannot claim self defense if you are the aggressor.

2) If you deliberately put your self in a position that a reasonable person thinks that will provoke trouble - you cannot claim self defense.

3) You must take steps to walk away from a confrontation - or in this case, drive away. The person who committed the assault deliberately came out of his car to confront the victim.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

Officers were not on the scene.

I can also state as a matter of Honolulu police policy:

1) You cannot claim self defense if you are the aggressor.

2) If you deliberately put your self in a position that a reasonable person thinks that will provoke trouble - you cannot claim self defense.

3) You must take steps to walk away from a confrontation - or in this case, drive away. The person who committed the assault deliberately came out of his car to confront the victim.

Officers were called to respond. What I am saying is: maybe they didn’t do a good job of responding … so, you don’t know if a weapon was involved.

And you weren’t there to know what the young guy was responding to. A weapon brandished before video? Verbally suggested?

Obviously both parties shouldn’t have stopped and escalated. Likely they both were mutually instigating and threatening. Devil is in the details. And the one detail most obvious is: no one posting in this thread was there at all, let alone beginning to end.

“I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened.” - Mark Twain

This is starting to remind me of the Central Park Five

[movedintime]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Officers were called to respond. What I am saying is: maybe they didn’t do a good job of responding … so, you don’t know if a weapon was involved.

And you weren’t there to know what the young guy was responding to. A weapon brandished before video? Verbally suggested?

Obviously both parties shouldn’t have stopped and escalated. Likely they both were mutually instigating and threatening. Devil is in the details. And the one detail most obvious is: no one posting in this thread was there at all, let alone beginning to end.

“I am an old man and have known a great many troubles, but most of them never happened.” - Mark Twain

This is starting to remind me of the Central Park Five

B. S. - There is clear VIDEO !

just love stirring the pot eh ?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by movedintime

B. S. - There is clear VIDEO !

just love stirring the pot eh ?

The video is not particularly clear at all … it is also distant and from one angle only. You apparently don’t have any experience in these kinds of investigations and what it takes to prove things in court.

Anyway, I’m not the one stirring any pot here. I’m the one pointing out that pot-stirring is speculative accusations at this point. Clearly anathema to the concept of “innocent until proven guilty.” I haven’t defended the younger guy one bit either.

[movedintime]

They released the attacker and not charging him = corruption, as per title of thread.
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't even come into play.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

And you weren’t there to know what the young guy was responding to. A weapon brandished before video? Verbally suggested?

If someone brandished a weapon to me before the video - I would not drive around the car - park - get out of the car and confront the person whether or not I thought I could take the 70 year with my fists or if I had a weapon myself - I'd just keep driving - and mutter to myself, another crazy local. I hope for humanity sakes others would do the same.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

If someone brandished a weapon to me before the video - I would not drive around the car - park - get out of the car and confront the person whether or not I thought I could take the 70 year with my fists or if I had a weapon myself - I'd just keep driving - and mutter to myself, another crazy local. I hope for humanity sakes others would do the same.

Sure. Any sensible person with a modicum of self control would do as you suggest appropriate.

My only point is that jumping to conclusions before investigations are thoroughly completed … is bad exercise.