I just watched the footage Dave Corrigan of Big Island Video News captured regarding the Damon Tucker case and now I’m really irritated. I realize that Tucker’s are allegations, but I just saw my own evidence — based on Corrigan’s video — of police ignorance regarding First Amendment rights. Up until now, I was going to let this story play out before I offered a commentary like this. But Corrigan captured footage of police showing up in the Luquin’s parking lot the other day to re-issue Tucker a citation for obstructing government operations — I have no idea why another citation needed to be delivered — must have been some inaccuracies in the initial citation? But, anyway, as Corrigan’s video rolls on Tucker interacting with Officer Veincent from his car, a fancy Dodge Charger, Veincent, that is, I believe, the officer’s name embroidered into the uniform, tells Tucker to tell Corrigan to stop videoing! Is this not the crux of the greater issue here?! Corrigan has a right to video! He is in a public place. That nice-looking Dodge Charger sedan is subsidized by us taxpayers, hello? The video is rolling on Luquin’s property, which, last I checked was open to the public for business! The police obviously, just by that interaction alone, are in great need of some media education. Henry Tavares, the assistant police chief who is talking to us media types about the Tucker incident, has released a statement assuring us that police are educated about the public’s right to videotape and take photographs of police doing police business.
You decide for yourself when you see Corrigan’s footage. Clearly, if I were Corrigan or Tucker or Barbara Lively, Puna Councilman Fred Blas’ assistant who was also present for the Tucker-police officer interaction the other day, I would have been nervous. If I were alone, I might have been intimidated enough to stop filming. Bless Corrigan’s heart for carrying on and showing us through his footage that there is more to this Tucker story than a sorry-ass blogger who was slammed down by a police officer and charged with obstructing government operations.
Let’s start the media education 101 in Puna, and let’s have every single one of our street-based police officers sign up for the class. I’ll volunteer to teach the class! Either that, or they can sign up for the UH-Hilo Media Symposium Oct. 1 and learn from the other media types around the island or across the state. Let me assure you, we do have media types on the island. Some of us follow a Code of Ethics, some of us do not, some of us have found blogging as a tool to practice our craft on an island with dwindling traditional journalism options. Email me at newswoman@mac.com for details about the October symposium.
August 10th, 2011 at 6:11 pm
This really does come across as the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. I would love to see Henry Tavares’ response after being shown that video.
Tom
August 10th, 2011 at 6:50 pm
Police Abuse in Pahoa August 2011 -
A Police Officer is a public servant, who is hired by the people for the people to protect and serve, the question is, who are they protecting and who are they serving? Are they protecting the Elite or the public? Why is this “motto” not finished with the word “public?” the motto should read “To Protect and Serve the Public.” We grant the Police with certain powers to protect and serve us (the Public), to keep us safe from harm and to provide a secure country from those who disobey. However, the power we have granted our Police Officers does not include breaking the law and disregarding our U.S. Constitutional rights as Americans.
The Police in Pahoa regarding the Damon Tucker abuse case were clearly stepping outside the scope of the law, and entered the scope of criminal misconduct and illegal activity. I agree that the Police Force of Pahoa need to be educated on the First Amendment Rights of the U. S. Constitution. In any public or private area with permission, may video tape, take pictures, record audio and may even draw pictures to record as proof the actions of any event. This is all legal as long as doing so does not interfere with the duty of our Police Officers investigation.
Need we be reminded of such tyrannical actions that reflect the Hitler police state “Gestapo” of Nazi Germany? As a resident of Pahoa Hawaii, this case brings shame to our Police Force and great Island we call home.
I find it disturbing that the Police Officers had the audacity to take offense of being filmed, yet we the public are filmed 24hrs a day with hundreds if not thousands of Police cameras, not to mention the camera’s on every corner that also film us without our permission. It is clear that our Police Officers need to understand something we learn as kids which is The Golden Rule, “do unto others as you would have done unto you,” or perhaps “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander!”
Damon Tucker clearly deserves to be compensated for his abuse by our incompetent Police Officers. This even has clearly shaped and altered his perception of what Police stand for. Is this the message we want to communicate with our public in society? They are sending a clear message that no one better video tape their actions or else you will get beat down, and I for one think this type of mentality is shameful and a poor example to send our youth who will be shaping our future to come.
I think the Police Department and the county of Pahoa owes this man a huge warm apology, and personally I would like to see him compensated financially without wasting more tax payers money on court, which is more red tape! As a citizen of Pahoa I would like to personally apologize for the actions and misconduct of our Police Officers to you, Mr. Damon Tucker.
Aloha! Peace, Love & Wisdom
Christopher Lord
August 10th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Sworn police officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and federal, state and local laws. Further, they are subject to same. In Katz v. United States, (389 U.S. 347), Mr. Katz claimed that filmed evidence of him (on a public street and used against him at trial) was inadmissible because he did not grant permission to be filmed. The US Supreme Court disagreed, stating that audio and visual recording are Constitutionally protected in public locations, and no one can have any “expectation of privacy” such places.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0389_0347_ZS.html
August 10th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I thought the part where they put his camera and cell phone in a hat and ran over it with the car in an attempt to ruin the equipment is incredible…it wasn’t enough to throw him to the ground, rough him up but also smash his personal items? shows the complete disregard for the citizens’ rights.
August 10th, 2011 at 10:14 pm
[...] Tiffany Edwards Hunt ***Commentary*** Police Are In Need Of Media Education [...]
August 11th, 2011 at 3:58 am
YOU MUST GET A LAWYER!!!!
And after seeing this video – I would say you are up to around 3 Mil plus in potential settlement.
Remember the video of the Sergeant at Arms beating the protester objecting to a prayer being said in Honolulu?
The police ENFORCE the law – they do not make it.
GET A LAWYER. Make these obviously ignorant police deal solely with a lawyer who can and will properly put them in their place.
The issue of a second citation – and in the manner depicted in the Big Island Video News video – in my opinion boarders on police harassment in addition to the original charge Damon clearly has.
“There is no point in it.” The opinion of a tax paid police officer driving a tax paid subsidized vehicle.
Too bad it has nothing to do with the law, or enforcement thereof.
SUE, SUE, SUE!
August 11th, 2011 at 7:03 am
The root cause of such behavior by the police is not lack of media education. It’s much more basic, something most of us learned back in kindergarten: treating people with respect.
Sure, in certain situations the police must use force, that’s a given. I don’t know Damon personally but find it hard to imagine he did anything to warrant the police response he got. (I might be wrong but I doubt it.) Based on personal experience combined with numerous media reports on police behavior across the state, I find it much more plausible that the police stepped out of line. Of course we need to confirm before drawing conclusions.
If we MUST do the media training, here’s the logic we should adhere to: Today any schmuck with a computer can start a blog. (I’m one of those schmucks.) Likewise, any schmuck with a camera or cell phone can take a picture/video and post it on a blog. Hence, by logical extension, it’s time for the police to treat EVERYONE like they are “part of the media”–I assume that means WITH RESPECT. That would work for me, as long as everyone (not just “the media-badge holders”) gets the respect they deserve as law-abiding citizens.
Hopefully Damon’s unfortunate brush with the law will move us to a better place. We have to keep the spotlight on this.
August 11th, 2011 at 10:02 am
I can’t believe another officer told Dave to stop filming.
Don’t they “get it”? Apparently not.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:21 pm
It might help those who are concerned about this incident to review the applicable law on the subject:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0711/HRS_0711-1102.htm
While any and all laws are subject to judicial interpretation, this one gives a great deal of discretion to the police.
August 11th, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Please use the following link to read what Hawaii Revised Statutes has to say about “failure to disperse,”
the law which seems most appropriate to this incident:
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0711/HRS_0711-1102.htm
August 11th, 2011 at 1:35 pm
Unless Damon is sextuplets I fail to see how failure to disperse could apply. He was across the street from the disturbance, and there was only one of him. Plus the laws Rick posted links to are not the offense he was actually charged with.
If cops don’t want to be filmed doing their jobs, they should find a job where they are not working in public, or for the public. As public servants they are working for US, and that gives citizens the right to film or photograph them while they do their jobs. If Damon had been trying to film from right in the middle of things the charge would be justifiable, but from across the street is a huge stretch!
August 11th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
“Obstructing government operations” does seem like a stretch: (www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch701-0853/HRSsec.710-1010).
August 11th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
The message is: Cops rule in a police state. This may be hard to get used to, loss of constitutional rights and all, but the sooner we recognize this unfortunate turn of events, the sooner we will be able to take effective counter measures. In the future I suggest that citizen-journalists use camouflaged equipment with real time upload. The purpose is to get the footage; not to get busted. Check out the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo to see how a tech-savvy person uses stealth to her ultimate advantage.
August 11th, 2011 at 4:12 pm
“Disperse” and “Stop filming” aren’t the same thing.
Also, while a photographer could obstruct government operations by standing in the wrong place, the only thing the act of filming can obstruct is the desire to operate in secrecy without public accountability.
August 11th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
I have watched the video and for some reason I must be seeing a different one than you people are.Damon said the officer asked Corrigan to stop the video.I have turned the volume up as loud as it will go and I can’t hear those words come from the police officer’s mouth!!
What happened to the officer’s 1ST amendment rights.He is allowed to ask for someone to stop doing anything he doesn’t like.He has the same rights as anyone else.He may have been having a bad hair day or the car was dirty and didn’t want to end up on a video.
It never went past that point.The officer didn’t jump out of the car and smash the camera or try to arrest anyone.
The video shows him interacting with Damon in a civil manner.
Are you trying to tell me the press has the right to stick a camera in my face and I don’t have the right to ask them not to do it!!!
August 11th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Aloha Rick – I can not speak for everyone, but I think that most completely understand the laws of obeying a Police Officer and I think most understand the meaning of “disperse.” Your comment seems to be trying to convert attention to one small grain of sand, when we all clearly see the whole beach! We are very aware of these laws to “disperse,” and if that’s the basis for the defense, it’s a very weak one. I understand that our Police Officers have a difficult job, thus the reason for their high salaries. I do not like to assume, but I am going to go out on a limb here and guess you are with Law Enforcement in some capacity or another. I have family members who are Police Officers and Sheriffs, and this type of abuse reflects badly on all officers of Law Enforcement. I have good friends who are with the force and as a Professor of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu, I have taught and have had several Police and Sheriff as students, so I understand the stress level and complexities of their job, however, this does not give an excuse to perform the job outside of the law and ignore moral and civil code. How can we get to the facts of this case, when the Police destroyed the evidence, or in Police terms, tampered with evidence, which was a knowingly illegal actions on the officers part that were involved. For the Police Department to put up any kind of defense in this matter show they are not willing to acknowledge the fundamental basic humanity rights of the people of America. I am requesting the Pahoa Police Department to issue a full public apology to Damon Tucker and wrap this public embarrassment up as quickly as possible. I believe the Police officers involved should personally apologize as well, and hopefully they will realize their actions reflect on the whole department as well as every department in the nation.
Concerned Pahoa Citizen
Christopher Lord
August 11th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
in addition to getting a lawyer, I guess he could go to the Police Commission…they are a paper tiger, but I would think the more things put on the record about police misconduct the better…
August 11th, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I’m sorry that Damon got roughed up. The problem is that I cannot except his sole version of the story without a single bit of corroborating evidence or witness statements. There is no argument that he was was taken down. The question remains open as to why. Was he just photographing, or in the way of a chaotic and potentially dangerous law enforcement action? If anyone wants to film police misconduct, why would they not train themselves to do it more discreetly?
Would Damon stretch the truth to get recognition, sympathy, or blog hits? Well it’s been done before by people less narcissistic. I’m still waiting to hear the whole story before making a judgment. If it’s proven that the Officers acted inappropriately I will be the first to demand justice. In the meantime I hope he heels up and starts to feel better.
I agree with Obie in that I only saw Damon repeating a request from the Officer in the video.
August 11th, 2011 at 5:41 pm
Remember why Judge de Silva resigned from police commission — because they were incapable or unwilling (incompetent?) to do the oversight job the charter set out.
I suspect dealing with commission would be a delay and futile.
August 11th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
I hope he doesn’t get marked by these corrupt law officers in the streets now. I think they just served him more papers terrifying him and all it was, was the case number. I’ve never heard of the police serving citizens with documentation of case numbers in the streets. Are these rogue cops? Do they have any inclination of aloha? Do they help or make the situation worse? Without Mr. Tucker there to film this, we all wouldn’t know where the corrupt cops are. I think all citizens should file complaints. It’s only a matter of time when cops will think having no aloha for their constituents is part of their jobs. It looks like they already do and the poor guy is still getting harassed by them.
August 11th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Ahhh…yes
Now here is the police’s loophole:
The Hawaii Police Department recognizes that the media and the public have every right to photograph police activity in a public place from a safe distance.”
“Safe distance” what dose that mean would the 7 – 11 be OK, how about Cash & Carry, what is safe and for who will it be safe? If you were on the roof of the building where the incident was taking place would that be safe, or dose safe mean far enough away so as not to be able to take any pictures?
August 11th, 2011 at 9:22 pm
Obie, Greg,
I agree that you don’t hear the police officer request the filming to be stopped, but you do hear Damon pass on the request *within earshot of the officer*. There’s no way the officer couldn’t have heard that so strongly suspect that really was the request he made unless Damon was blatantly lying in front of the cop and the camera. I don’t think that’s likely.
And Obie, yes, the officer might well ask for the video to be stopped but given the situation he has no right to enforce that – what if you were asked by a cop to pull down your pants and expose yourself in public? Your argument is he has a first amendment right to do that.
Other than that, yes, everything seemed to be very civil and I see no harassment in the video, but I’d be very surprised if the cop didn’t know the background behind this story and am surprised that there was a request for filming to be stopped.
Tom
August 11th, 2011 at 9:41 pm
Thankfully we have the right to hash all this out.
Greg, God knows I see your point, and Obie, I see your point too:
”
I have watched the video and for some reason I must be seeing a different one than you people are.Damon said the officer asked Corrigan to stop the video.I have turned the volume up as loud as it will go and I can’t hear those words come from the police officer’s mouth!!
What happened to the officer’s 1ST amendment rights.He is allowed to ask for someone to stop doing anything he doesn’t like.He has the same rights as anyone else.He may have been having a bad hair day or the car was dirty and didn’t want to end up on a video.
It never went past that point.The officer didn’t jump out of the car and smash the camera or try to arrest anyone.
The video shows him interacting with Damon in a civil manner.
Are you trying to tell me the press has the right to stick a camera in my face and I don’t have the right to ask them not to do it!!!
The officer has every right to express discomfort about being filmed.
I think that is where I prefer to analyze all this.
The officer in being an officer needs media education training.
As do administrators. As do council members.
Media is a quickly shifting, what it is it, force.
It is this, it is Facebook, it is YouTube.
You have the Damon Tucker types who are filming the bar fights.*
*I’d also like to hash our the bar fight.
1. Luquin’s has surveillance, so we might be able to see something from beginning to end
2. I’m understanding police were already outside when the bar fight went outside and into the middle of the street, emphasis on middle. Damon Tucker was already outside.
This was a reported violent fight, I’ve heard one girl put a beer bottle in another’s face. is this true? Was Damon Tucker filming the beer bottle in the face or the police coming from their positions or what?
If police were there, I wonder why.
This morning I learned there was a birthday party involving a prominent MMA kumu. Was that why police were outside if in fact they were already outside?
I’ve been told police were already outside when the bar fight came outside.
Back to the filming,
On one hand you have the camera-phone filming of the bar fight.
On the other hand, you have Dave Corrigan filming a news story involving a blogger alleging police brutality.
Has anyone seen Dave Corrigan’s camera. This is the quintessential television camera. There is no mistaking his business.
Yes, a police officer has a right to express discomfort being filmed.
But there is an expectation he will be filmed when he is doing his job. Do you know there are police cars with mounted cameras to record traffic stops?
I just don’t see it any other way than police need media education training.
That’s my observation thus far.
August 11th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
Again, I have to agree with Tiffany, and not just because we have been friends for a long time.
Yes, I have some experience in law enforcement. But I also have more experience in civil rights and constitutional law. Unfortunately in a situation like this both are relevant, but not the end of the story.
While a person with a camera may have a First Amendment right to film a public event, so also have the police the power to control a potentially dangerous situation. So where is the balance in this? Ultimately in the judicial system, but that does not prevent a person from being arrested but only after the fact may find the arrest justified or not justified. The most practical approach is to obey the police officer and then publish or post the event and file a complaint with the appropriate agency or authority if you feel the officer acted illegally or in violation of ones civil rights. It is never a good idea to challenge a police officer’s orders at the time. Do it later in a more appropriate forum.
August 11th, 2011 at 11:31 pm
“1. Luquin’s has surveillance, so we might be able to see something from beginning to end”
Wow… Mahalo for stating this!
I will be asking to view this! Here I was disappointed the weed and seed cameras may not have caught anything and now I hear this!!!!
Need I remind folks about 710.1010 HRS
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0710/HRS_0710-1010.htm
Which specifically states this law does not apply to:
“The obstruction, impairment, or hindrance of the making of an arrest”
Now I ask the question… was I videotaping an event that lead to an arrest (yes)… Should I have been arrested for this offense no matter where my camera or I was at this time according to this law?
Was I obstructing… or videotaping a possible law being broken?
Go ahead comment ahead!
Some folks may say I was obstructing by using my camera… was I? That’s the big question.
Just by having a camera in your hand and videotaping…. are you really that threat that makes you the ass to be taken down?
Furthermore… was it worth me getting treated the way I was for the actions I undertook?
August 12th, 2011 at 5:28 am
By federal law constitional law has been supended at 100 miles from all land borders of the ENTIRE US. When police departments hire ex military, who’s training is to supress civilans or in their faiure to comply use lethal force. We are now droping into a police state where your rights are dying by a thousand cuts. Very few are looking after our well being. The media and movies have feed us pap and the education system has dumbed us down. Good Luck, you’ve been setup, (this is by design). GD
August 12th, 2011 at 5:51 am
If I felt that I was living in a “police state”, I would choose to stay home and protect my family rather than wander the mean streets of Pahoa during an after hours brawl. But then again; even if I didn’t feel we were in a “Police State” I would choose to be home with my family instead of mired in a public Bar riot. Choices. I did most of my rioting when I was young and single.
August 12th, 2011 at 7:56 am
Tiff you mentioned the need for the police to get media education training…which indeed seems necessary…but, do you think some of that goes back to the “aloha” training they were supposed to receive earlier this year? I am sure there are parts of media education that would need to be covered specifically, but, throwing the camera to the ground and running it over with a car, seems excessive in any situation.
Whether is it how the police treated the census worker, or Mr Tucker, or other citizens of this county, it seems that they are getting more arrogant, more violent and so on.
I hope this event will shine the light of truth on the police department, and that real changes take place.
August 12th, 2011 at 8:30 am
Regarding the second summons issued to Damon, maybe some of the more law-oriented folks out there could weigh in on whether a privately owned parking lot (in this case Luquin’s, where Dave was videotaping) that is often open to the public constitutes a public place. It certainly is not publicly owned like a street or most sidewalks.
And I can’t help but think that the original matter probably hinges on how far away from the fracas Damon was when he was taping. Up close or from a distance? What say you Damon?
August 12th, 2011 at 8:32 am
And Greg, “most”?
August 12th, 2011 at 8:53 am
Greg, said “choose to be home with my family instead of mired in a public Bar riot”.
These words reminded me of myself saying almost the exact same words on hunterbishop.com around 3 years ago regarding the behavior of a certain former Mayor’s Executive Assistant who was a Mayoral candidate who went on to get elected. hmmm….
August 12th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
This has been a very healthy and informative discussion. Mahalo to Tiffany for creating and moderating it.
As regards the filming/arrest incident, only Damon
is in a position to attempt to have it resolved. In
legalese, only Damon has “standing.” We all are in a position, however, to criticize, complain, ask for new policies regarding police practices and behavior, etc., but that must be done through the political, not the legal, system. And we all can try to prevent the kind of behavior that brought the police to the scene in the first place.
August 12th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
I went to Luquins and was told the cameras have not been working for quite some time.
August 12th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
Can Not Hear Police Officer -
I am astonished that people are even discussing the fact of whether or not the Police Officer said to stop filming. Just because no one can hear him, does not mean he did not ask to have them stop filming. First of all, it’s obvious he did, thus the reason Damon relayed the police officers request, which is why we did not see the Police Officer deny the Damon’s repeating his request to the camera man. We should also get a statement from the Officer to confirm this, then everyone can stop assuming and stick to the obvious facts! Anyone that can not hear the Police Officer is irrelevant to the obvious fact that he did request to stop and this is why the department has not denied it or disputed the fact, so lets move on.
I also would like to point out that some people seem to be letting their personal view of Damon shape their opinion on this case. The fact that someone knows him personally is nothing but a bias opinion and this is exactly why many cases can not be tried fairly within the county of the offense because people allow personal opinion to out weigh the facts. If you are his friend, your on his side regardless of the fats just as one who does not like him automatically lets their personal opinion shape and form the outcome. I am shocked to see some comments that actually call him names and such. This is absolutely uncalled for and is completely out of moral line of how we issue justice in America. This type of attitude suggests that if you are not popular and not well liked in the community your liberties and freedom are suspended and perhaps a good beat down is well deserved. I find this type of mentality disturbing at most. This falls right in line with racial profiling which is another cave man mentality to say the least. I do not know him personally so I have a non-bias opinion so my outside view is more valid than those who known him. And like I said, I have family in Law Enforcement, so I am not against the force at all, in fact I support them 100%. A grave injustice has been done, and remember that Damon is someone’s child, or perhaps someone’s father or brother, he is a human who did absolutely nothing to deserve to be beaten like a rag doll. Just think for one moment if that was you, or your perhaps your child or brother, how would you feel then?
Aloha!
Christopher Lord
August 12th, 2011 at 1:38 pm
I am confused. There were two events which were televised/photographed: the original one that Demon recorded, and the later one where the officer delivered a revised document to Damon. In addition, I do not think anybody is justifying the beating but rather what led up to it (Damon’s not heeding the police telling him to stop filming). An officer may use force under very limited circumstances, and this was not one of them. But when you fail to obey an officer, no matter how wrong he or she may be, the consequence may be the unreasonable and illegal use of force. Unfortunately, Damon may have to file a civil lawsuit against the officer and the department to get any redress.
August 12th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
James, I think Billy has grown and learned since his incident. I can only hope Damon will as well.
A good metaphor is offered by the great American philosopher Roger Miller:
“Don’t roller skate in a buffalo herd”. (which I understand as; if you don’t want to be caught up in a drunken brawl, stay home with the wife and kids)
I’m not condemning Damon by any means; I feel for the guy. But I’m also not going to condemn our police unless presented with EVIDENCE of wrongdoing. They have a tough job and the question remains unanswered; Was Damon just shooting, or was he in the way, and refusing orders to leave the area? Without a supporting witness, it comes down to “he said/she said” and there is no case. Evidence or witness please.
August 12th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
Understood about “wrongdoing” and am eager to hear the other side(s) to the story. Nevertheless, the types of injuries Damon received due to police behavior are way excessive when not inflicted in self defense — the police do not claim he was resisting arrest or assaulting an officer. Excessive. Period.
As for ‘why’ Damon was there instead of at home: he was covering the concert for his blog. Not at all what I would wan to do, but nothing compared to head butting someone.
August 12th, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Speaking as the president of the Big Island Press Club (and not on behalf of the board or in the capacity of my current day job), I have these thoughts:
The public has a right to know what happened the night Damon Tucker got injured, and the statement from Assistant Chief Tavares is terribly inadequate and lacking in details. I want to know exactly how Damon was “interfering with a police officer while he was trying to do his job” and what constitutes a “safe distance” for photographing police activity. These matters need to be addressed immediately and the Hawaii Police Department should not hide behind the excuse of an indefinite “active investigation” to avoid commenting on this incident.
August 12th, 2011 at 9:39 pm
Aloha
I thunk that Hugh Clark’s reference to Judge DeSilva’s quitting the police commission because it is a joke that is only a whitewash agency is appropriate. I’m glad some reporters have memories. Dave Smith should know better.
The police commission fired their only investigator about 6 years ago. Now only the police investigate the police. You can see how effective that is. When was the last case decided against the police?
Our mayor is part of the problem too. He and his cronies are exempt from enforcement. Billy campaigned for mayor and for others while on county time and pay. Why should the police follow laws? Our mayor never has.
Some police kill pedestrians with impunity (while their press people impeach the victim with scurrilous statements) and act as lords and masters of our island. Why shoould they follow the laws? Also someone reported that the police are sworn to uphold county laws. I spoke to the police chief about swearing to uphold the County Charter and laws along with State and Fed laws. He only laughed at me and said they would never do that.
a hui hou
Bob Jacobson
August 12th, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Dave Smith – not a legal person myself, but the following link might be useful:
http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm
and from that page:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
“Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations. Whether you
need permission from property owners
to take photographs while on their
premises depends on the circumstances.
In most places, you may reasonably
assume that taking photographs
is allowed and that you do not
need explicit permission. However,
this is a judgment call and you should
request permission when the circumstances
suggest that the owner is likely
to object. In any case, when a property
owner tells you not to take photographs
while on the premises, you are
legally obligated to honor the request.”
It’s an interesting read and sorry of the formatting is screwed up in this comment.
Tom
August 12th, 2011 at 11:10 pm
…and the spelling.
August 13th, 2011 at 4:55 am
Peter S entry of police response matches my opinion — wholly inadequate
August 13th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
Alex Jones has heard of this case already. This is happening all over the U.S. One lady is being sued by the police officer she took video of beating someone. We are in a police state and in some places it is worse than others. We need to stop and think about how is was when we were kids. We were told the Russians tell kids to rat on their own parents. Same here now. Do you realize that Hitler’s SS relied on public input to do their jobs. i.e. telling on your neighbors if they are doing something ‘illegal’. We are told to tell if we ‘think’ someone is against the gov’t. when it is our right to question it. I am surprised they have not shut down all foodstands at farmer’s markets and such as dangerous to your health. Now there is also a bill to make you get a drivers license to drive your own tractor on your own farm. All of this falls under the same roof. Personal freedoms are being smashed and no one seems to want to see it. The searches at the airports are just the start. The tsa wants to search you going into malls too. all I can say is ‘baa,baa’.
we are all sheep and deserve it all if we don’t say something. I will get slammed for saying this probably but Tiff at least has a place where I can say it. Thanks.
August 13th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
@ Bob Jacobson I am glad to see that the people of Kau voting you out off office hasn’t taken away your BLOWHARD ways. Way to play to the lowest common denominator and to make claims that can neither be proven nor disproven. BLOWHARD!
Bob said “I spoke to the police chief about swearing to uphold the County Charter and laws along with State and Fed laws. He only laughed at me and said they would never do that.”
sure even if we believe he thought that way, why would he say it to you?
August 14th, 2011 at 12:08 am
I think I saw a comment on this site a little while ago that when the number of comments reaches 40 then all the useful info has already been posted and there’s nothing left other than the silly stuff we’re now seeing. I might be not be recalling the comment precisely or the number of posts, but it was a fair statement.
To back that up, many online forums such as usenet refer to Godwin’s law which basically says that the longer a discussion goes on the more likely Hitler and nazis will be mentioned, and we’re now at that point.
Hopefully there will be some updates soon on Damon’s case and eventually we’ll hear the other side of the story.
Tom
August 14th, 2011 at 3:13 am
Did you tell them about the responses from the interview with our staff?
August 14th, 2011 at 3:22 am
I mean Damon. You came here for interviews with my staff and when you were given their talks, I no see them on your blog. I thought you were neutral in your opinion.
August 14th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Aloha, PVC, Damon has another blog… I’d be glad to talk with your staff and find out what happened last Friday night.
Mahalo,
Tiffany
938-8592
August 14th, 2011 at 10:22 pm
PVC – Maybe I don’t exactly understand what you’re saying, but how could Damon be neutral in this? This is about an incident that involved him.
August 14th, 2011 at 10:25 pm
Hi Tom,
You might want to check the latest thread to be posted. That might lend some clarity regarding PVC’s comment.
August 14th, 2011 at 10:47 pm
Thanks, Tiff, will do.
August 14th, 2011 at 10:58 pm
Tiffany,
If you’re referring to
http://www.bigislandchronicle.com/2011/08/14/letters-%E2%80%94-pahoa-village-club-is-a-safe-place-to-hang-out/
I don’t see how it clarifies anything. In fact it makes things even more muddled.
Tom
August 14th, 2011 at 11:43 pm
PS. The police report published on Tucker’s blog states 13:30 (1:30) with pm being ticked. That makes no sense at all unless the police really mean 1:30am (which would be 01:30) – maybe that’s why another citation was issued – to correct the time. No matter, Donnie’s post, the one I reference above, refers to a time before or after the incident but not the time when the incident happened according to the police. Allegedly.
Tom
August 15th, 2011 at 8:32 am
Bob Jacobson, exactly what is it that I should know better about?
August 18th, 2011 at 1:03 am
[...] These police officers are not above the law. In addition, this incident is an obvious example that HCPD officers lack media savvy. David Corrigan, of Big Island Video News, was asked by the police officer to stop filming when he [...]
February 2nd, 2012 at 6:08 pm
[...] Tiffany Edwards Hunt ***Commentary*** Police Are In Need Of Media Education [...]