How corrupt are HPD and prosecutors in Hawaii? (assault, privacy)

[Arktikos]

Originally Posted by traveler105

..Elderly guy did not even fight back. .

It's difficult to see. It looks like the men exchanged shoves, quickly leading to punches. Old man appears to have got in one failed punch. Like I said before, they're both fools. Talk stink to someone through car windows and then get out for a confrontation is asking for trouble. He found it.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by traveler105

> Aikau’s attorney, Eric Seitz, said the fight occurred after his client accidentally cut off Togiai on the road.

> “It should not have happened and he’s very sorry. And we certainly want to meet with the family and do what’s necessary to make amends,” said Seitz.

> But the victim’s family said that if prosecutors don’t file charges, they plan to file a civil lawsuit against Aikau.

Let's hope they follow through with a civil lawsuit and the feds look into prosecutors as well. It's been almost a week, I don't think prosecutors will file charges.

Nasty precedent is being set up here, no charges filed for the guy who struck elderly unarmed guy ~8 times. Elderly guy did not even fight back. If the Aikau guy acted in self-defense as his lawyer Seitz claims, let him prove it in the courtroom?

If the Aikau guy had done this rage beating on the mainland, chances are, he would have been promptly put down by most drivers, many with concealed or open carry. But he knows damn well that he has a free pass in HI.

A source would have been nice: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/0...ial-treatment/

I hope that a civil lawsuit is filed against Aikau regardless of whether criminal charges are ultimately filed. Aikau's response was completely disproportionate to any "threat" that he faced. The video makes that much clear.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

. A source would have been nice: https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2022/0...ial-treatment/

I hope that a civil lawsuit is filed against Aikau regardless of whether criminal charges are ultimately filed. Aikau's response was completely disproportionate to any "threat" that he faced. The video makes that much clear.

As much as I am a firm believer in ‘wait until all facts are in and full story developed’ … I am tempted to agree with the “disproportionate” snapshot.

On the other hand, I remain curious as to the full triggering that set him off. Though I don’t particularly suspect the ‘victim’ seriously asked for the beating, I won’t be surprised if it comes out he was “disproportionate’ in verbal threats initially himself.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

As much as I am a firm believer in ‘wait until all facts are in and full story developed’ … I am tempted to agree with the “disproportionate” snapshot.

On the other hand, I remain curious as to the full triggering that set him off. Though I don’t particularly suspect the ‘victim’ seriously asked for the beating, I won’t be surprised if it comes out he was “disproportionate’ in verbal threats initially himself.

I’m with you on the wait and see approach as a general matter, too. In this case, however, I felt comfortable with my earlier statements and positions based on the video. I figured that if the old guy was the aggressor and threatening the young guy with a weapon or the such, that a responsible prosecutor would have filed charges against him.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

I hope that a civil lawsuit is filed against Aikau regardless of whether criminal charges are ultimately filed. Aikau's response was completely disproportionate to any "threat" that he faced. The video makes that much clear.

Unless the victim went to the hospital and has sizable medical bills not covered by insurance (which I haven't read) I don't see damages or a case - and a civil case also won't happen unless Aikau has money. People get beat up all the time - but it usually doesn't rise to a court case - you have to have damages. Your day in court is supposed to be when the assailant is criminally charged - not so much a civil case if you didn't go to the hospital.

With that said - it has been crickets in the media regarding this case since initially reported and it seems no charges will be filed....

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

Unless the victim went to the hospital and has sizable medical bills not covered by insurance (which I haven't read) I don't see damages or a case - and a civil case also won't happen unless Aikau has money. People get beat up all the time - but it usually doesn't rise to a court case - you have to have damages. Your day in court is supposed to be when the assailant is criminally charged - not so much a civil case if you didn't go to the hospital.

With that said - it has been crickets in the media regarding this case since initially reported and it seems no charges will be filed....

Keep in mind that damages can be for pain and suffering/infliction of emotional distress, which Hawaii allows but caps at $375k. Even if Aikau doesn't have any money, I'd still file a suit against him and make him file for bankruptcy.

[whtviper1]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Keep in mind that damages can be for pain and suffering/infliction of emotional distress, which Hawaii allows but caps at $375k. Even if Aikau doesn't have any money, I'd still file a suit against him and make him file for bankruptcy.

Pain and suffering is difficult to prove if you didn't go to the hospital (and have subsequent visits to a doctor). Emotional distress is even more difficult to prove unless he is going to therapy - and the therapy bills that go with it.

If Aikau doesn't have a sizable bank account - lawyers won't take it on contingency and the victim could be out of pocket a lot of money in attorney fees just for a hope of a win (which seems a longshot to me) with little or no monetary windfall.

Now if the victim got a broken nose - went to the emergency room - lost a tooth - going to weekly therapy - you sue. Otherwise - it isn't a winnable case.

[prospectheightsresident]

Originally Posted by whtviper1

Pain and suffering is difficult to prove if you didn't go to the hospital (and have subsequent visits to a doctor). Emotional distress is even more difficult to prove unless he is going to therapy - and the therapy bills that go with it.

If Aikau doesn't have a sizable bank account - lawyers won't take it on contingency and the victim could be out of pocket a lot of money in attorney fees just for a hope of a win (which seems a longshot to me) with little or no monetary windfall.

Now if the victim got a broken nose - went to the emergency room - lost a tooth - going to weekly therapy - you sue. Otherwise - it isn't a winnable case.

What you write on infliction of emotional distress is not supported by Hawaii case law as issued by the Hawaii Supreme Court. Before I dive into some of the details, I would like to note that, from what I am finding, emotional distress is the same as pain and suffering under Hawaii law, though not every jurisdiction breaks things down this way.

While I'd imagine that medical bills or testimony from a therapist would only help ones intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) case, they are complete unnecessary and I have yet to come across a case where such information was determinative for an awarding of IIED damages (admittedly, my search wasn't the most extensive, but I surveyed a handful of cases).

Consider this case as an example, where the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld a jury's awarding of damages for IIED. In the case, the jury only considered the following facts when deciding to award damages for IIED:

The Dixons argue that emotional distress damages are not sustainable because Lee has failed to prove that she suffered a physical injury; however, Lee also asserted a claim for IIED, which does not require proof of physical injury. The elements of IIED are: "(1) that the act allegedly causing harm was intentional; (2) that the act was unreasonable [or outrageous]; and (3) that the actor should have recognized that the act was likely to result in illness." Marshall v. University of Hawaii, 9 Haw. App. 21, 38, 821 P.2d 937, 947 (1991) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).

The terms "unreasonable" and "outrageous" have been used interchangeably and have been construed to mean "without just cause or excuse and beyond all bounds of decency." Chedester v. Stecker, 64 Haw. 464, 468, 643 P.2d 532, 535 (1982).

As previously discussed, we believe that there was substantial evidence that the Dixons intentionally interfered with the settlement agreement. We also believe, based on our review of the record, that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that Lee suffered emotional distress. With respect to the Dixons' conduct, the jury was presented with the following evidence: (1) Pearson-Dixon's letter to Lee (a) informing Lee that the Dixons now owned half of her home, (b) cautioning Lee to continue paying the mortgage or risk foreclosure, (c) instructing Lee not to commit waste, and (d) suggesting that Lee lower her selling price in order to accomplish a faster sale. The evidence also established that Aiu had related to Dixon that Aiu wished to leave Lee because she had changed since having been diagnosed with breast cancer and undergoing chemotherapy and that Aiu found it unbearable to live with her. Based on such evidence, and on the present record, it was reasonable for the jury to have found that the Dixons' conduct was "outrageous" and that such conduct "was likely to result in illness." Id.

https://casetext.com/case/lee-v-aiu

In this case, the Hawaii Supreme Court upheld a jury's awarding of damages for IIED essentially for the "distress" that followed the breaking of a contract. I dare say that based on the standard for awarding such, there is a darn good argument to be made for IIED in this case. And as you see above, it isn't even a requirement to show that someone suffered IIED. No, a jury would be justified in awarding IIED damages if they believe that someone is "likely to result in illness."

Considering that Hawaii has capped IIED damages at $375k for decades now, I'd also wager that there are quite a few cases brought under the relevant statute that don't come close to the amount and it wouldn't shock me if many poorer plaintiffs self represented or received minimum assistance from legal aid societies, etc.

This brings me to the point of whether Aikau has a sizable bank account. From my perspective, while what you wrote makes sense for people thinking rationally for purely financial reasons, many lawsuits are not rationale from a financial sense; and I take it that this family isn't ultimately after money as they said that they will file a civil suit only if the decision to not seek criminal charges is not reversed. Still, whether rationale or not, I proceed under the assumption that the family is willing to put their money where their mouth is; this isn't just me stating what I'd do out of context, but rather based in large part on the family's public statement.

[traveler105]

Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident

Still, whether rationale or not, I proceed under the assumption that the family is willing to put their money where their mouth is; this isn't just me stating what I'd do out of context, but rather based in large part on the family's public statement.

It's a big stretch. Elderly guy has at least two daughters, can anyone check what they say online? One daughter's name is Katarina Fonua. I have zero social media accounts.

[Grassyknoll]

Originally Posted by traveler105

It's a big stretch. Elderly guy has at least two daughters, can anyone check what they say online? One daughter's name is Katarina Fonua. I have zero social media accounts.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100072239905382

Not much to see and nothing posted about the incident.