(Media release) — A Kona man has been charged with five offenses after carrying a loaded shotgun on a public highway in Kealakekua.
At 8 a.m. Tuesday (January 1) a motorist reported seeing a local male in a red hooded sweatshirt carrying what appeared to be a rifle while walking on the side of Mamalahoa Highway (Highway 11) in the area of Hale Ki?i Street in Kealakekua.
Responding officers located a man fitting that description and holding what appeared to be a rifle. When the officers approached him, the suspect fled into brush area behind Pualani Terrace. The officers located and arrested 39-year-old Ioster Henly of Kailua-Kona and recovered a loaded shotgun. Police recovered an additional 16 rounds of shotgun ammunition on Henly’s person. He was taken to the Kona police cellblock while detectives from the Area II Criminal Investigations Section continued the investigation.
At 4:30 p.m. Wednesday (January 2), detectives charged Henly with possessing a loaded firearm on a public highway, place to keep loaded firearm, place to keep ammunition, registration mandatory and permit to acquire. His bail was set at $13,000. He remained at the cellblock until his initial court hearing Thursday (January 3).
(Submitted by Hawaii Police Department via Nixle.)
January 3rd, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Again, here we see – bail set at 13K
All he needs is $1,300.00 in cash and he’s back out on the streets again.
Proper bail would have been 1 Million.
Proper sentence, if found guilty, a prison sentence that would make him around 75 years old when released.
Getting rid of guns does not stop the lunatics.
Putting them behind bars will.
And then again, let’s really define the true “danger to the community” here.
January 3rd, 2013 at 1:45 pm
The report indicates there was no violence. The police showed up and the suspect ran away and hid.
You want to charge $1,000,000 bail for that?
Perhaps a mental exam to check if he is mentally competent to own a deadly weapon is called for. I mean who walks down the highway with a loaded shotgun? Even if this was an open carry state, which it is not, the weapon MUST be unloaded.
I have no doubt the police seized the weapon, and will not return it, since [ I think ] one of the charges is a felony.
Just be thankful there was no violence. Situation resolved peacefully.
Don’t be in such a rush to lock up non violent offenders and throw away the key. Sometimes even lost & damaged souls can be salvaged.
Safety! Safety! Safety! Peace is a good thing.
January 3rd, 2013 at 3:53 pm
Yes I do.
I don’t care about no violence.
You do not walk down the street with a loaded shotgun.
Period.
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:15 pm
And ex-Kona councilman Tyler asserts Hawaii gun laws are too strict!
January 3rd, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Prosecutors [assistant district attorneys] usually charge for the actual crime they believe was committed, based on actual evidence.
$1,000,000 bail would be ridiculous for a non violent offense.
Looks like the police and DA is handling this appropriately so far.
Have a peaceful and prosperous New Year everyone!
January 3rd, 2013 at 5:27 pm
In light of the recent mass shootings, I think the public might be in the mood to view the act of illegally carrying a loaded shotgun pretty seriously.
Maybe the legislature should reconsider and crack down on acts that are just a step away from horrendous violence that can never be undone.
A mental exam, yes, I think they should perform one before releasing him. But will they?
January 3rd, 2013 at 5:50 pm
Vampire, Do we wait until he shoots someone before we become concerned? Having the loaded weapon and spare shells while on the road is ILLEGAL the same as it he was in a Mall or any other public place. I think more concern will come depending on his priors, if he has any. Also, he did RUN from the police.
I do think bail is too low. But, a million would be too high. If he is out on parole or bail, he should remain in jail without bail.
My opinions.
Kim
January 3rd, 2013 at 5:58 pm
Wow, cracking down because of a step away. Scary that people would even consider this. This “minority report” type of thinking in my mind only gives more reason for people to want to own weapons.
January 3rd, 2013 at 6:10 pm
What if this was just an axis deer hunter that had a traffic warrant out for his arrest and didn’t want to get busted?
@Ken, lot’s of hunters in Hawaii carry around guns on public roads.
I’ve seen hunters on the side of Saddle Road w/ their guns out.
January 3rd, 2013 at 6:14 pm
Hilo35,
Only talking about acts that are already criminal. There is nothing Minority Report about it. The guys is on the highway with a loaded shotgun and ammo. He’s not at home in his castle with his legal guns being rousted because of what he “might” do.
He already crossed the line, so he is not a step away from crime; he’s over the threshold. The next step on the continuum, firing the gun, is one no one wants to see, do we?
The law against carrying in public might deter rational people, but it means nothing to psychotic people who are going to commit suicide by cop or their own hand. Shouldn’t we be able to take preventive measures if we are lucky enough to have one of those stopped before it goes south?
I don’t think that someone who does this should be back on the street until they have been fully evaluated as to their mental process to see whether they are likely to start shooting people.
Bail isn’t so much the issue; the higher bail is really just a way of keeping the person off the streets. Maybe there should be no bail pending an evaluation as to why this person behaved so bizarrely.
January 3rd, 2013 at 7:30 pm
if he was in a position of protecting himself or trying to protect another would this still be a crime. Up until he ran shouldn’t he have been assumed innocent.
You argue against yourself when you say we need to crack down yet no law can keep bad people from doing these things. Cracking down only gives a greater advantage to the bad.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:02 pm
There is no mental examination that can determine if a person will use a gun to commit a crime at some future date or as you put it: “whether they are likely to start shooting people.”
Recognized mental diseases can be diagnosed and treated by a professional.
By the way if he was driving an automobile with a loaded weapon the auto would be subject to forfeiture.
Honest accurate police reports, and sensible prosecutors who do not overcharge suspects are crucial to a functional justice system. It is my belief that the important issue is that police do not embellish their reports and ADAs do not overcharge based on whether they do or not not like the suspect, or because of what happened on the mainland or Hilo. or due to media gun ban frenzy.
January 3rd, 2013 at 8:54 pm
All good comments here but I agree with Vampire if the suspect had a prior record for a felony or any crime of violence he would have been charged with the separate crime of ownership prohibited. At the same time past history is not a great prediction tool of future conduct. Most murder defendants have no prior criminal records at the time they commit the homicide. Inspite of gun laws, many feral pig hunters carry loaded firearms along roadways. There are always a lot of circumstances that are unknowable until after a charge has been made.
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:03 pm
While my suggestion of 1 million in bail may seem harsh, and specifically to Damon, ANY hunter who has been properly trained in the sport and truly knows how to hunt, NEVER walks down the street with a loaded shotgun and then dashes into the bushes when the cops come!
One only needs to look at the record of the guy who shot the two cops and then his own spineless self when we consistently hand slap these absolute idiots!
Banning guns is not the answer. Punishment to the extreme when an idiot handles a gun like an idiot is.
Again, ANY person calling themself a “hunter” who walks down an open street with a loaded shotgun and runs into the bushes when the cops come – is only an idiot. In that case, the animal he was hunting is smarter than the hunter!
January 3rd, 2013 at 9:07 pm
>>> You argue against yourself when you say we need to crack down yet no law can keep bad people from doing these things. Cracking down only gives a greater advantage to the bad.
I didn’t say that. I pointed out that deterrence can work with people in rational states who are fit to weigh the consequences of breaking laws, but some people don’t care about consequences.
In fact, the law keeps more people in check than not.
>>> There is no mental examination that can determine if a person will use a gun to commit a crime at some future date or as you put it: “whether they are likely to start shooting people.”
I’m not saying anything about this particular person as I don’t know what his story is. But hypothetically, a mental examination should reveal whether a person has had a psychotic break, and it should be able to turn up red flags, if it is well done. I’m not saying I have some faith in mental exams as crystal balls.
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:36 pm
Has anyone read up on the individual acquited for that “stabbing” at Honoli’i? Yes – the guy with the hawaiian weapon. No criminal record – acquitted and now on conditional release – now that’s a real travesty!!! Criminals seem to have court appointed attorneys/mental exams that we are paying for and getting away with murder or in his case a felony assault.
January 4th, 2013 at 12:15 am
Acquittal by reason of mental disease, is not the same thing as a simple acquittal. You do have a criminal history that disqualifies the person from legally possessing a firearm for example. If acquitted by reason of mental disease, conditional release, somewhat like probation, can last foralife. My personal disgust with the system is that too many so called mental health experts cannot distinguish methanphetamine induced psychotic symptoms from the real Thing. The so-called expert will opine that the defendant’s symptoms are not drug induced because the defendant told me he does not do drugs. Then, After the defendant is acquitted by reason of insanity the same experts will come back and say he no longer needs hospitalization or conditional release with mandatory medication because we were wrong. His real problem was methamphetamine. No Meth, symptoms gone.
January 4th, 2013 at 7:25 am
And that makes it all better for the victim(s) past and present!
January 4th, 2013 at 11:04 am
“In fact, the law keeps more people in check than not.”
A rational person doesn’t need a law to keep them in check, they wouldn’t be crazy enough to walk around the highway with a loaded shotgun unless for a good reason.
Let’s face it, when the government is involved the quality of that product will be low including enforcement of these laws. As the quality of life goes down due to increases in taxes and or prices, crime will only go up.
The security provided by government is not distributed equally and people have the right to protect themselves. When people shout out we need stricter laws they don’t realize that it would only give an advantage to the bad guys
January 4th, 2013 at 3:33 pm
The state of human knowledge is such that psychology/psychiatry are soft sciences. Even the best psychiatrist cannot predict who will act violently and who won’t. Even if there’s no missed Chrystal Meth diagnosis, dangerous people are often released because when taking their meds in a supervised setting they begin to act like “normal” folks, or at least close enough to convince a doctor and maybe a judge that they’re not dangerous. We could put away anyone who acts odd, but it would be very foolish to give the government that power.
January 4th, 2013 at 5:09 pm
It is very unfortunate that society does not choose to pay law enforcement officers on a commission scale and raise the amounts of the monetary penalties, forfeitures, and bails (which should be at least double for lawyers, law enforcement, and lawmakers). This would allow employment of many officers as well as increase funds for the courts, etc.
In turn citizens will be better protected, criminals will be paying more of “their share”.
January 4th, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Aloha Mr. Damerville
had the individual not loaded the gun and had not run — would it be legal to walk and carry a fire arm [ in a case perhaps??] and also carry ammo along a road in Hawaii??
January 4th, 2013 at 5:33 pm
I wanted to point out that in none of the recent gun violence on the big island were “assault rifles” or “High capacity magazines” used.
As to the issue of paying police on commission, that is ridiculous. An unethical person could frame a lot of people for crimes they did not commit and cash in big time.
As to lawyers getting paid double… err.. bad idea or in other words: fluc lawyers! If someone wants to start a thread on why lawyers suck, I have about 1,000,000 reasons to enter.
January 4th, 2013 at 5:33 pm
There are communities in the South that do that. They are called speed traps or worse. You only have to experience that system once to know that is not the kind of system that you would want for your community.
January 4th, 2013 at 5:49 pm
Free legal advice:
I am not a lawyer! There are already enough of them! So this is free:
If the shotgun was in a legal carry case, the police would have no right to search to check if it was loaded. If he ran and it was in a case, they STILL would need a warrant to search the case. They would have to detain him and call a judge for a warrant to search him.
Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, who was also US attorney general and the chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials [of the Nazis] explained that “any lawyer worth his salt would not let his client talk to the police” based on the rules of evidence.
The Miranda warning states that “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law” but what it should say is that “anything you say to the police that might prove you innocent CAN NOT be entered into evidence at all in a court of law because it is hearsay.”
Therefore it can never help you legally to talk to the police because of the rules of evidence.
When police show up, be respectful, be polite, DO NOT CONSENT to any search and respectfully assert your right to SILENCE and a counsel.
But Konagold … and this is directed at YOU, if the police detect the odor of marijuana on your person, they automatically have the right to search you.
The EASIEST QUESTION a lawyer will ever get is “The police are here what should I tell them?”
Answer: NOTHING! NOTHING!
Invoke your rights and remain silent.
Here is a lawyer explaining this in detail to a law school classroom of students.
January 4th, 2013 at 6:07 pm
My last comment was for Naaupono
Regarding the unloaded firearm and ammunition in a rigid gun case. It would be lawful to carry it while walking alongside the roadway provided you are coming from and going to certain places say between place of purchase and your home, between place of business and home, between home of business and a hunting place where hunting with firearms is permitted and you better have a hunting license, between home or business and a gun repair shop or a qualified gun Range. The beach is not a shooting range and unfortunately Hawaii does not have enough legitimate shooting ranges. I grew up with guns and am very sympatheti to second amendment rights. To me a system that acknowledges the right to own a gun but then effectively bars you from becoming proficient in using it is not right or very smart. Hawaii has probably the most restrictive gun laws that may pass constitutional scrutiny. I say “may” because our concealed. firearm permit laws as written would pass but applied by authorities with the discretion to issue a permit or not probably will not pass constitutional muster. Discretion can be abused by blanket refusal to issue permits. That is where our law will likely be successfully challenged at some point. And remember we had our own Uyesugi. He could easily have killed more than he did
Personally, I am in favor of an assault firearm ban but do it right this time. Do not grandfather in existing owners
but pay them for their weapon.
January 4th, 2013 at 6:21 pm
“provided you are coming from and going to certain places say between place of purchase and your home, between place of business and home, between home of business and a hunting place where hunting with firearms is permitted and you better have a hunting license, between home or business and a gun repair shop or a qualified gun Range. ”
Hey Rick, if the suspect remained SILENT, there is NO way to prove where the suspect was going in the future.
Even you just point in a direction and say that way, well unless there is a legal destination for a firearm in that direction, you just admitted to a crime! Heck if you remain silent, the police can’t even prove there is anything in the case.
REMAIN SILENT! Request COUNSEL!
Keep Face Closed!
Don’t tell POLICE “your side of it”
You can ask “Can I go now?” “Am I under arrest?”
That’s it!
January 4th, 2013 at 6:43 pm
For Vamplre: That is generally good advice but there are many exceptions important exceptions. “All generalities are false including this one” but you imperil your liberty when you ignore a generality without educated deliberation. There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that it by itself is not a good reason to invoke Miranda. For example if a police officer testified that you admitted in your recorded statement that you shot the victim under the completeness rule your attorney would be allowed to draw out from the officer himself or the recorded statement itself that you also said you acted in self defense
It is not always wrong to speak to a cop but it does come with substantial risks. See My Cousin Vinnie. “Never Lie to a Cop.” For many that is a difficult rule to follow and the easy one is just say nothing
The reality is if you invoke your rights, you will remain a suspect until the police prove someone else did it. Justice Jackson’s generality was equally false. What he probably meant was every attorney worth his salt who wants to protect his ass from malpractice suits will tell suspects to say nothing. The records are full of competent lawyers who allowed their client suspects to speak with the police and were subsequently cleared of being a suspect. I have done it myself.
January 4th, 2013 at 6:58 pm
Vampire, I have proven place to keep crimes as described above where the defendant said nothing. Invoking Miranda makes the case more difficult not Impossible.
January 4th, 2013 at 7:06 pm
The jails are full of people who would have walked but were convicted because they talked to police.
All I can say is watch the video I linked above. I know it’s 48 minutes long but it is worth it. It is funny at points and entertaining.
Several other specific cases are cited.
Being a suspect is much better than being a convict.
January 4th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
Is there any evidence that banning assault rifles stops bad people from obtaining them? If not then why would a ban be necessary.
January 4th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
There is plenty of evidence that banning civilians from possessing automatic weapons is successful. Can someone who is determined enough with enough cash still acquire one. Yep but the price is astronomical because of the risk. Treat semiautomatic assault rifles and their large load detachable clips the same way. Can a black ops Guy with. lots of money still get one? Sure. Can the deli cook in Colorado get one?Probably not unless he starts charging a hundred bucks per sandwichor is successful in breaking into an armory. Success is not a 100 percent or nothing proposition.
January 4th, 2013 at 8:07 pm
Defining success is very subjective. Without 100% someone will always be at risk. Relying on the government to protect us is very optimistic, people with connections will always get the better end of the deal. As long as bad people are able to get these weapons then banning them is a bad idea. If everyone is banned from having including the government then this would be a starting point in the conversation.
January 4th, 2013 at 8:12 pm
With regard to the 2nd amendment, Americans voted with their feet and their money. Right After Obama made his Gun ban announcement, American’s walked to the nearest gun store or online dealer and bought every semi auto rifle and high capacity mag the could find. THERE ARE NONE LEFT TO BUY! Gun store are out and manufacturer’s are buried in orders. People bought three years worth of normal gun sale volume in FOUR DAYS!
Picking up an “assault weapon” does not instantly imbue citizens with the desire to commit an evil act. They can be fun to shoot legally at a range. That’s all.
The amount of crimes committed with assault weapons is a tiny tiny faction of a percentage of the majority of murders. Preventing law abiding citizens from obtaining AR or AK platforms does no good because only the criminals will have them in that case.
The truth is Bolt action rifles are FAR FAR more powerful and deadly and at much greater ranges.
President John Kennedy was shot with a cheap Italian bolt action rifle.
The ballistic coefficient of most bolt action rifle rounds and the energy of the larger bullets they fire AND the Supersonic maximum range is FAR FAR superior to the AR and AK platforms people want to ban because they look scary. The best thing about an AK rifle is the historical significance of it and that you can literally throw a couple handfuls of dirt directly into the receiver and it will still fire.
Really semi auto AK platforms ought to be classified as a collectible curio gun item and not assault weapons.
Modern assault weapons are Bullpup design and a criminal can’t even afford them. You have to be so dang rich to afford a bullpup design, there would be no motivation to commit any crime in the first place.
As to Rick’s suggest of collecting everyone’s legally owned guns, NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!
And by the way if the police ever knock on your door and demand you give them your guns, remain silent, ask for council, and don’t consent to searches. They will need a warrant. Tell them to come back with one.
When I went to Israel when I was thirteen, our tour bus was traveling down the road when a man with an Uzi machine gun was hitching a ride. The tour guide said to stop and pick him up. It would have been suspicious if he didn’t have a gun, since by law, military service is compulsory. Guy just wanted a ride home. And there is no such thing as a civilian version of a military rifle since EVERYONE is in the military.
So no civilian version of the best rifle in the world for the USA which is in my humble opinion, the “Tavor” Israeli rifle. I would have to move to Israel and join the army to to fire one. Dang!
It would be nice if ranges were allowed to have these real assault weapons to rent to Americans just at the range to shoot targets for the sporting fun of it.
But, that never gonna happen either.
The funny thing is when Obama said on national news that he wanted to ban high capacity clips! Go right ahead on. Ban all the clips you want. 99% of modern guns use magazines not clips.
I prefer a tax deduction for gun safes so children to not gain access to guns they should not have access to. Gun safes are expensive. A tax deduction would help.
Gold Bless the USA and the Bill of Rights!
January 4th, 2013 at 8:17 pm
Lunacy is not a freedom argument that is very persuasive. Under your analysis. Civilians should have automatic weapons and tactical nuclear weapons. Sorry, but you lost this audience. goodnight.
January 4th, 2013 at 8:33 pm
No, the argument would be no one has it including government. It is not lunacy, democide is the number one killer in the 20th century, look it up.
January 4th, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Ever notice that politicians that want gun ban legislation keep stating they want to ban “high capacity clips?”
If a person that doesn’t know the difference between a clip and a magazine, perhaps he or she needs to admit that he or she is not qualified and knowledgeable enough about gun design to impose restrictive legislation upon citizens that know much more about gun design.
January 5th, 2013 at 8:20 am
BAN SNOW CONES! BAN SHAVED ICE!
A ban of each of these items would have the same affect on gun violence in the US, since murders with these weapons that design are statistically insignificant.
I am really tired of people that know next to nothing about gun design, ballistic coefficients, Supersonic ranges of the different weapons, or much of anything about firearms trying to overturn the 2nd amendment.
When you say a law is “effective” because it takes away the right to own a certain class of weapon law abiding Americans can own, and you can show that there are less of those weapons on the streets, you ignore that the law is INEFFECTIVE at reducing gun violence at all!
In America, what is the percentage of people killed with “assault weapons.” 0.0001%
On CNN someone actually claimed an AK 47 or an AR 15 was a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Nobody was brave enough to correct this person.
Some people just need a safety installed on their mouth.
Where do they find these idiots?
January 5th, 2013 at 8:49 am
I support the second amendment; The right to possess a six foot long, 10 pound weapon, that fires a single ball inaccurately, at a rate of a two shots a minute (in the hands of a trained marksman).
I’m thinking that’s what our Founding Fathers had in mind when they drafted this amendment.
January 5th, 2013 at 9:06 am
How about they let people fire the cannons on the old battleships in mothballs at Pearl harbor for an exorbitant fee!
There is a fun way to pay off the national debt. Charge two hundred thousand a shot for letting civilians pull the trigger on the Mighty Mo!
Of course the guns would be aimed safely at a floating paper target on the water, and supervised by the navy and national parks.
Fire in the hole!
Would be a great tourist attraction! Ah well I am sure it is politically incorrect to imply that firing the 18 inch guns of a WW II battleship would be even just a little bit of fun.
January 5th, 2013 at 9:25 am
Vampire …. they’d be lining up! Along with my husband, Son-In-Law, Grandson and ME! Come to think of it, my Brother and Brother-In-Law and Nephew would come to visit and stand in line with us!
Think the Enviromentalist would block it ….. unless we could make it enviromentally friendly. Fish Food Shell.
Will you be joining us at the Mighty Mo? Love this thought!
Kim
January 5th, 2013 at 9:27 am
OK, maybe not at that price, but a girl can dream!
January 5th, 2013 at 9:29 am
I know we are straying off topic but Dang!
I guess us poor people will have settle for you tube videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOnwwWJk7U0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj-15O-BTDw
January 5th, 2013 at 9:40 am
Banning guns or types of guns or clips or magazines is never going to be the true answer. We don’t need any more “Wars on —- FILL IN THE BLANK”
We don’t see a call to ban automobiles or booze – and yet 13,000 Americans die every year solely due to drunk driving.
I guess you could compare an assault rifle to a car that you can buy with a 750 horsepower engine. And yet no call to ban that!
What I am left so very perplexed is the 17 prior convictions the guy who shot the two cops had.
Quite frankly, that is the issue – LOUD AND CLEAR!
I am in 100% support of the 2nd amendment. But, with that comes the responsibility to act responsible. This guy acted like an idiot. As such, he should be punished to the extreme – as well as having his second amendment rights revoked for life.
January 5th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
If acting like an idiot carried a lengthy prison term, we’d need a lot more jails.
January 5th, 2013 at 7:31 pm
Vampire:
‘I wanted to point out that in none of the recent gun violence on the big island were “assault rifles” or “High capacity magazines” used.’
And it’s worth pointing out that high capacity magazines are illegal here. Coincidence, I’m sure.
January 5th, 2013 at 8:07 pm
@John
That’s true. But consider if you will that if Hawaii had a 3 strikes and your out law, heck, let’s make it 15 strikes and your out, there would not have been two cops shot last week.
There is the problem.
January 5th, 2013 at 8:57 pm
I applaud mr damerville.
Folks reading your post are getting great value.
If you are so inclined:
would you speak more to your earlier post:
“There are so many exceptions to the hearsay rule that it by itself is not a good reason to invoke Miranda.”
What is the role of the Miranda?
January 5th, 2013 at 11:04 pm
The idea behind the Miranda decision was to create a bright line test concerning the eliciting of confessions from suspects. If law enforcement violates Miranda requirements the confession is not admissible at trial and the fruits , with certain exceptions, Is not admissible either. The Miranda decision resulted from frustration with the earlier totality of the circumstances test and the reluctance of some trial judges and state some appellate judges to rein in rogue cops. The appellate reporters from the 40s and 50s are full of opinions saying things like we do not think that beating the defendant with a rubber caused him to make an involuntary confession under the totality of the circumstances. Embarrassing to say
the least..
Three strike laws are no panacea and in my opinion create lazy cops and lazy prosecutors. Mandatory sentencing is an important check on legislators who do not want prisons in their backyard. Mandatory sentences require them to either build prisons here or ship prisoners to the mainland at extraordinary expense or you guessed it get rid of mandatory sentences. What is happening now? But if mandatory sentences are too onerous they can cause innocent defendants to plead guilty to avoid a harsh mandatory sentence and dissuades the innocent from exercising their right to a trial. Fewer trials means less experienced prosecutors and defense attorneys less participation by the public as jurors and less confidence by the public in the system.
January 5th, 2013 at 11:23 pm
Regarding 750 horsepower cars: if the govt continues to increase mileage per gallon of gas requirements there comes a point when you can no longer buy a 750 horsepower car because no one will be able to legally build them. A 750 horsepower solar car? A 750 horsepower hydrogen car?
If I had a medical marijuana permit I might be able to imagine one.
Regarding firings from the Missouri. We used the Iowa during Vietnam. watching her guns send a load weighing as much as a VW 20 miles is indeed impressive and would do wonders for tourism but the required environmental impact statement would take so long to complete my grandchild probably would not live long enough to see it.
January 5th, 2013 at 11:26 pm
should have said rubber hose.
January 5th, 2013 at 11:36 pm
WATCH THE LAW CLASS VIDEO LINKED ABOVE!
In my humble opinion, and with all due respect, Mr. Damerville is handing out VERY bad advice. If you do not use your fifth amendment rights, you lose them.
The police will let you talk for hours because their job is to collect evidence against you.
It’s not MIRANDA people have the right to invoke. It is your Fifth amendment rights. Miranda is a warning NOT TO DO what Mr. Damerville is telling you to consider doing i.e. talk to police. The Fifth amendment is there to protect innocent citizens from being ensnared by circumstance. Invoking your right does not mean you are guilty. Do you really think you can talk to police for four hours and not say SOMETHING the DA can use against you in court? Sheer Fantasy!
Really Mr Damerville, why are you giving out such bad advice to people? It’s TERRIBLE advice.
The bill of rights are there for an important reason.
P.S. Where can I get a permit to buy one of those battleships! I mean those 16 inch guns are not banned in the gun law, or at least they qualify as a historical curio & relic. How I am going to come up with the cash for a 2,500 pound 16 inch projectiles is beyond me though.
January 5th, 2013 at 11:40 pm
Battleship black powder loads: By the way, those are not combat loads the Navy was firing in those videos. A real combat load would use two or three times more powder. That is just the “tourist demonstration” loads they are firing.
January 6th, 2013 at 5:42 am
@Damerville
What is the need for the Medical Marijuana reference with respect to imagining a 750 horsepower car?
Perhaps maybe you should get with the times.
You can by a 2013 Ford Mustang with 650 horsepower. Right at Orchid Isle if you want!
Since you want to stoop to cheap shots, I wonder how many of the 17 convictions the cop shooter has your name on them?
I don’t need any mind altering drug, be it legal, or illegal, to imagine 17 convictions of anybody and yet the guy is on the street.
And is 31 years old.
Clearly a lot of people in your former occupation failed miserably here.
Perhaps maybe even you!
January 6th, 2013 at 8:42 am
Vampire, I did not say that invoking your 5th Amendment rights is not a good idea. I said all generalities are false including this one. There will be times when taking general advice is the wrong course of action. Generalities have value but it is limited.
Ken, Medical marijuana is obviously an important issue to you. I see humor in a lot of issues. That one is not sacrosanct to me. Sorry.
Regarding Keaka Martin and 17 convictions: Newspapers are in the selling business. Martin is presumed innocent. 27 years ago in Titusville Florida I represented Michael Gainey. The newspapers reported that that he stabbed a man to death with 11 stab wounds (true), That he confessed (technically true) and he was charged with murder 1 punishable by death (true). The jury found him not guilty of any crime.
The article I recall reading about Martin said no prior felony conviction. The newspapers report even traffic crimes and contempt of court crimes crimes when counting convictions. Be careful about numbers.
Did I ever prosecute him? Hard to say. I prosecuted thousands. But you can go to Hoohiki and ekokua and check.
January 6th, 2013 at 9:50 am
@Damerville
You are right. He is presumed innocent. On what will be his 18th conviction.
As for your Michael Gainey story – sounds to me like you did a bad job prosecuting for the outcome to be the jury found him innocent.
I will tell you what is sacrosanct to me – that our tax payer paid Police, prosecuting attorneys and judges earn their pay and do their jobs.
For the guy to have 17 convictions, it seems to me the Police did their jobs.
It also seems to me the rest failed.
And now two cops are shot because of it.
Seems to me that the only thing sacrosanct to you was your tax payer paid payroll check, and now retirement check.
January 6th, 2013 at 10:20 am
Ken, I did not prosecute Michael Gainey. I was his public defender.
January 6th, 2013 at 10:26 am
@Damerville
My applogies.
I see you let a murderer get off free then.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1985-10-20/news/0340020184_1_gainey-cocoa-beach-marvin
Seems to me that you are the criminals best friend no matter what role you play!
January 6th, 2013 at 10:46 am
He killed a man in self defense. His victim had numerous prior assault convictions. The victim broke a woman’s nose 4 different times. But hey your personal animosity towards me suggests that you are Kenny Slaughter. Have a good day.
January 6th, 2013 at 10:52 am
Mr. Damerville;
Thanks for commenting here. Your Mana’o is appreciated. The criminal justice system is certainly flawed, but would be a lot worse if it were populated with bitter and vengeful people on either side.
January 6th, 2013 at 11:29 am
Can someone here explain to me how judges get their positions here in Hawaii, and how judges can be removed from the bench if the citizens don’t believe they are serving the public appropriately? I’ve been a voter here through a number of election cycles and I have no memory of a judge ever being on the ballot. Are all judges appointed, and if so by whom?
My mother was a county judge and had to run for election many times, in other places I’ve lived all judges from county level up to the state supreme court ran for election as well, but unless I just missed it somehow I don’t recall ever seeing a judge run for office here. Can someone enlighten me?
I am not trying to derail this thread, when one reads the outrage expressed about how people with multiple convictions are running loose to do more crimes it is clear that many people are concerned about the sentences being handed down by our judges. This made me realize I don’t understand how Hawaii’s justice system is organized.
Mahalo for any insights from knowledgeable parties.
January 6th, 2013 at 1:52 pm
In Hawaii all judges are appointed off of lists created by the judicial qualifications committee (or commission I forget which at the moment). District court judges are appointed by the chief justice of the state supreme court for a period of six years. Circuit judges are appointed by the governor. Some say this system takes politics out
of it. Others say it merely moves the politics behind closed doors. At the end of the six or ten year term the sitting judge can apply to the jqc for retentipn for another six or ten year term and that decision is made by the jqc. And some very good judges have not been retained. Choose your poison. Personally I prefer politics in the open but others would counter that “open politics” is an oxymoron.
The cynics say that the difference between a federal judge and a state judge is one is a friend of the president and the other is a friend of the governor.. No system is perfect. I have known great elected judges and a few real stinkers. The same is true of appointed judges.
January 6th, 2013 at 2:40 pm
So does that mean that the only way citizens can have a voice in our judges is through impeachment or protesting to the JQC? I know my mother was an excellent judge, but she really hated the elections process. On the other hand, it did hold her accountable to the community she served. Who appoints the mysterious JQC and do they take public input? For example, could a community that feels a judge isn’t dealing severely enough with violent offenders, or repeat drunk drivers, get organized and have any impact on retention of a specific judge? Or request that qualified people be considered who have stated positions on sentencing for certain crimes?
I don’t think the judges who keep releasing the same violent bad guys again and again, even when they re-offend while on probation, or awaiting trial for other crimes, would be so casual about it if they had to run for election. On the other hand, the mainland is now starting to see big money spent in judges races, and after the obscene amounts of money we saw spent by off island groups in the last Mayoral and county councilor races it could just turn into big money just buying the judge they want.
January 6th, 2013 at 4:54 pm
To CSGray: The official title of the organization is the Judicial Selection Commission (JQC is a Florida term, lesson learned – donot watch football and write at the same time.) The constitution sets out who appoints the 9 members, as best I recollect 2 are appointed by the Governor, two by the speaker of the house, two by the president of the senate, two by the bar, and 1 by the Chief Justice. Only 4 members of the commission can be lawyers. You can always complain about a judge by going up on the website and making a complaint.
Judges are human beings and are sensitive to criticism even though they cannot ethically respond. As a prosecutor, I do not believe that I ever directly criticized a judge although many have. Making sure that members of the public and the media are present at changes of pleas and at sentencings is usually the best way to make sure that public sentencings are truly public.
I know that large numbers of the public think that violent criminals get a slap on the wrist and non violent offenders get slammed. That is simply not true.
First, just because a person gets caught committing a non-violent offense, does not mean that he or she is not violent. Patrick Garcia’s only prior offense was forgery before he bludgeoned Thelma Teves to death. Remember, Al Capone went to prison for a non violent offense, tax evasion. I advocated for many years that we put out news releases on every criminal conviction – not because I am a publicity hound but because the public has a right to know. There have been times when the description of the crime and sentencing do not seem to match. That is usually because the available admissible evidence is weak and the prosecutor makes the hard decision of taking something rather than losing everything. Blame the prosecutor, the police, the uncooperative witnesses, sometimes the uncooperative victim, it is usually not the judge.
I think the judges we have now are good ones working in difficult circumstances. We have only two circuit judges in Hawaii County. The same number we have had for more than 30 years.Look at the growth in the Puna District in the last 30 years. I would not take that job at double the salary they are paid now.Too many hours, with too much criticism for things that they are powerless to change. Talk to your Mom, she would know.
January 6th, 2013 at 5:34 pm
I meant to say two in East Hawaii.
January 7th, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Rick said:
Supply & demand folks.
“Can someone who is determined enough with enough cash still acquire one? Yep but the price is astronomical because of the risk.”
Then Rick mentioned the word “Clips” again… but since I addressed that previously, I just wanted to point out that in MOST of Africa, you can trade a CHICKEN for an AK 47.
Somalian Pirates would make more money selling their AK 47 to Americans given the current gun buying frenzy and lack of domestic supply, instead of trying capture merchant ships. I think they would have to be rebuilt with some American made parts to make them legal to buy or sell.
Supply & demand folks.
HISTORICAL INFORMATION: The following is historical background on the last CLIP fed machine guns. Nowadays, collector and curio items:
I do think way back in WWII there was a Japanese clip fed machine gun.
Here it is!
http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/sa/pic-detail.asp?smallarms_id=370&sCurrentPic=pic1
First produced in 1922, this machine gun was designed to use the same rifle clips the rest of a rifle squad used so they wouldn’t have to carry a different type of ammo for the machine gun. Unfortunately for the Japanese, Clip feeding a machine gun just doesn’t work very well, so most later designs used magazines or linked belt ammo instead of clips. They remained in service until the end of WW II because of Japan’s decimated industrial base could not produce newer designs.
Here is another clip machine gun: “The Woodpecker” Type 92 Shiki Kikanju; 150 round “CLIP”; 1932 design
http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/sa/pic-detail.asp?smallarms_id=379&sCurrentPic=pic1
150 round “CLIP”
So you can see the last CLIP fed machine guns were from WW II. Finally the Japanese upgraded to a type 99 magazine fed machine gun.
TYPE 99 >
http://www.militaryfactory.com/imageviewer/sa/pic-detail.asp?smallarms_id=372&sCurrentPic=pic1
I HOPE THIS HAS BEEN HELPFUL EXPLAINING THE HISTORY OF CLIPS AND MAGAZINE FED WEAPONS.
January 7th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Helpful on clips but not much else. After public attention was focused on the Somali pirate problem, their job prospects got worse than a new lawyers which is pretty grim. The cost of an AK-47 in Africa has about as much to do with assault rifles in the U.S. as the cost of tea in China has to do with the cost of a latte at Starbucks in the United States – Some relevance but not worth talking about.
January 8th, 2013 at 4:33 am
The disparity of AK-47 prices in Somalia v. USA was striking, and entirely due to Americans CRYSTAL CLEAR desire to have the right to own weapons like the AK and AR platform. In Somalia, where food is scarce, a chicken is more valuable.
It struck me funny that a company that rebuilds rifles with some US parts to make them legal in the USA like IO Ordinance could send a boat load full of chickens to Somalia, trade them for AK 47s, and make a few million dollars.
By the way I saw a “Gunny” Lee Emery “Locked and Loaded” video on that heavy Japanese machine gun and it was hard to feed, and you needed four people to move it, because it weighed 142 pounds compared to the marines squad machine gun weapon which weight only 42 pounds. Also the “Woodpecker” had a slow rate of fire. In other words, it was a bad gun design.
But if you are not into military history or gun design, I can understand why this information might not be of interest to you.
Have a great day!