(Media release) — Police have charged a 55-year-old Hilo man for the murder and related offenses in connection with a shooting that occurred in the Hilo Bayfront area late last year.
At 4:05 p.m. Thursday (February 7), after conferring with prosecutors, detectives from the Area I Criminal Investigations Section charged Mark Anthony Whyne, who has no permanent address, with second-degree murder, use of a firearm in commission of a separate felony, three counts of place to keep a loaded firearm, and place to keep ammunition.
On Dec. 29, 2012., police received a number of calls of possible gunshots heard in the area of Mo?oheau Park in Hilo. Responding officers discovered the victim, identified as Faatetai Fiu of Hilo, with apparent gunshot wounds.
Whyne is being held without bail. He is scheduled to make his initial court appearance Friday (February 8).
(Submitted by Hawaii Police Department via Nixle.)
February 8th, 2013 at 2:35 am
Our Big Island militias do not seem “well regulated.”
February 8th, 2013 at 11:37 am
Yes, no doubt Whyne was a legal gun owner who would have been deterred by stricter gun control laws.
February 8th, 2013 at 4:45 pm
One would think that life’s priorities would make having an address other than “no permanent address” BEFORE one would invest in owning a gun.
One should also ask how one could even buy a gun with “no permanent address.”
And now, his new permanent address is complements of the taxpayer.
You and me.
February 9th, 2013 at 7:00 am
Ken, you are assuming a lot. What makes you believe that the accused had no permanent address at the time that he acquired his firearm permits?
February 9th, 2013 at 7:38 am
@Damerville
I am so happy you have retired.
Your response is why, in my opinion, you were a pitiful prosecutor, who had zero care or concern for any victim.
February 9th, 2013 at 8:12 am
Ken,seriously, what makes you believe that the accused had no permanent address at the time that he acquired his firearm permits?
Your opinion of Mr. Damerville has no merit and is not responsive to his question to you.
February 9th, 2013 at 8:40 am
@Rich
If he was a lawful citizen with a permanent address when he purchased his gun(s) he would know that living in a car automatically makes him in violation of the law he swore to uphold upon initial application.
“The possession of all firearms and ammunition is restricted to the possessor’s place of business, residence, or sojourn, but it is lawful to carry firearms and ammunition in an enclosed container three or other suitable container from the place of purchase to the purchaser’s home, place of business, or place of sojourn, or between these places when moving, or between these places and a place of repair or a target range.”
“It is unlawful to possess or carry a loaded firearm on any public highway without a permit to carry.”
Unless we now consider a motor vehicle and a “fanny pack” as a lawful place of residence (sojourn) as well as an “enclosed container.”
February 9th, 2013 at 9:13 am
Ken, you still have not answered the question. What the accused knew or didn’t know after the fact doesn’t change the question.
February 9th, 2013 at 9:44 am
I believe I have answered the question, as well as point out the fallacy of gun registration laws.
I do not understand your statement about what the “accused knew or did not know after the fact” unless you are asserting that ignorance of the law is an acceptable excuse.
February 9th, 2013 at 11:10 am
Ken, my statement was in reference to your assertion that “if he was a lawful citizen with a permanent address when he purchased his gun(s) he would know…..”
February 9th, 2013 at 12:10 pm
Ken, life throws curve balls at eveyone. Has this accused been going through a divorce recently? The cost of housing in this state is so high that when a judge says husband remove yourself from the marital home, a lot of men suddenly necome “homeless”. I used to run around Kapiolani Park in Honolulu every morning about 5:30 am. The number of men living out of their cars was depressing. If your car, out of necessity becomes your home, then a person who keeps an unloaded firearm in his car has an interesting constitutional argument. Just do not jump to conclusions.
February 9th, 2013 at 1:40 pm
@Damerville
I am quite aware of the curves life throws people.
This is not an argument of keeping an unloaded firearm in one’s car.
It about keeping a LOADED firearm on one’s person and one’s car. Which, for whatever reason, has becomes this gentleman’s house as well.
As well as following the law, regardless of the curves life throws one.
I think the current state of recent violent events is the direct result of decades of prosecutorial thought processes as what it is you clearly possess.
February 9th, 2013 at 2:03 pm
your dislike of me is duly noted. And I am glad to hear that my retirement is apparently as pleasing to you as it is to me. Ad hominem arguments always please the person making them: but they seldom impress anyone.
February 9th, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Nothing pleases me about this event.
Nor do I feel I have made an ad hominem argument.
I am not singling you out as to the prosecutorial thought process that justifies just about every form of law infractions on the “curves life has thrown” the defendant.
Even if, as you allege, he became homeless thru one or more of life’s curves, then, as a responsible gun owner, he had a choice to make to properly and legally deal with his guns and ammunitions.
The guy was arrested with a loaded gun in his “fanny pack” and a loaded gun in his car. Which happens to be his place of residence. That was his choice. Even if the reasons he got there were not his.
His guns were more important to him than his residency or the laws.
It was AFTER some form of forensic testing that led to his arrest for the alleged murder of Faatetai Fiu.
I could also ask the question that if he was homeless and living in his car, was he on public assistance?
Admittedly, that is jumping to conclusions, but I wonder how he can afford to hire a lawyer to defend himself, but can’t put a roof over his head?
And then felt it was OK to carry a fully loaded 9mm pistol in his “fanny pack” and a fully loaded 22 in his car.
Using your logic, one could argue, that if “life’s curves” had thrown this guy so many foul balls, was he really in the mental frame of mind to even be near a gun?
February 9th, 2013 at 2:35 pm
This seems to have strayed some but I will join in. If Hawaii’s gun laws are too strict, as some have suggested, how did this fellow qualify for two permits? Who did the due diligence? Was it a pro forma or marred background check. Seems to me the police commission should review and/or investigate.
I have not sat in court much since I retired but I did for 3l years regularly and must say based on my knowledge of the state bar, I rate Ricky Roy as among the highest and best prosecutors and state attorney deputies to have practiced here. Always prepared, serious about his case and dedicated to the public interest. I need not agree with him at all times to have respect.
As for Rich Peterson, he is dedicated in his civil work, has won major cases against big-time people and acts with compassion for justice — sometimes without fee.
Folks are entitled to opinions but I resent foolishness based on untruthful assumptions.
February 9th, 2013 at 3:36 pm
Ken, I am not certain but I believe he has a court appointed lawyer because the public defender having represented the victim many times, could not etically represent Mr. Whyne. That by itself should cause one to withhold judgment on Mr. Whyne as to the murder charge until the facts are presented at trial. Mr. Whyne has no prior convictions.
February 9th, 2013 at 4:17 pm
Stanton is his lawyer. Court appointed or not.
I now see we begin to ride the typical road where in the victim was to blame.
See prior posts with respect to my opinion of your prosecutorial thought processes.
February 9th, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Lawyers are trained to look at all sides of every issue. The term “victim” and the truth are not settled by an arrest or by a charge. That is what trials are for.
February 9th, 2013 at 6:10 pm
Victim as it relates to this case and this case alone is a dead man. The defendant as it relates to this case and this case alone is a homeless man who lives in a car and had a loaded 9mm gun in his “fanny pack” and another loaded 22 in his car/home.
As it relates to this case and this case alone, any prior criminal matters of the victim, as I have referenced above is totally irrelevant.
Unless you are discussing the Hawaii criminal justice system – and specifically the criminal justice system here on this Island. Then, I see your point, as that form of prosecutorial thought process had prevailed here for decades.
In the oft chance that this death was in some form of self-defense, then, as a responsible twice permitted gun owner, he should have stepped forward immediately.
I wonder how many times this guy, along with his “fanny pack,” was in public places like Wal-Mart, at the Hot Ponds or some other public area where large crowds would be.
Oh – damn – there I go – jumping to conclusions again!
February 9th, 2013 at 8:55 pm
@Damerville…
Arguing w/ anonymous folks is like knocking your head against a wall.
Ken chooses to be anonymous yet throws folks under the bus under an anonymous pseudonym.
Most of us that understand folks that hide behind pseudonyms are hiding from the truth and are just spewing their views at times.
Ken…. bozo was a clown… but at least he had a known identity.
Nothing against you “Ken”… I just don’t like your BS approach to trying to throw folks under the bus w/ a fake name.
February 9th, 2013 at 9:09 pm
@Damon
Again, you post a response of total irrelevance.
You get an A plus at doing that.
I see you are incapable of understanding that a man is dead and another is charged with his murder.
Under some very questionable facts and motives.
And all you can come up with is this type of juvenile response.
So typical.
Like nailing Jell-O to a wall.
February 10th, 2013 at 1:12 am
Ken is a troll. Don’t feed the troll.
February 10th, 2013 at 6:27 am
How is “Ken” a troll, but “Vampire” is not?
I can understand your viewpoint to a certain extent, being the gun-nut whack job you are, and now someone killed someone with a gun.
Under some very questionable circumstances.
But speaking on the topic of using anonymous screen names, how does “Ken” differ from “Vampire?”
February 10th, 2013 at 7:59 am
You all know how I feel about pseudonyms…
I get pretty exasperated, particularly when you guys start fighting…
I read through all the comments, and sometimes I find myself having to just erase to clear out my inbox because my real life is too busy and too stressful to get caught up in the contrived blog comment conflict.
So, this morning, as I have taken a few moments to try and understand the de-evolution of comments on this thread, I am compelled to speak up and try to bring the conversation back to center.
If someone lawfully owns a gun, and then loses their home, are they supposed to turn in their guns? In some states, “place to keep” is the gun rack in the rear window of your truck!
I am not one of those people who advocates people’s guns being taken away because other people are afraid of the power of a gun.
This story is very interesting because, let’s think about the facts as we know them: the victim in this case was actually in a domestic with his partner and the partner actually dropped the victim off at Bayfront. What did Whyne observe? What brought Whyne and the victim together? We can only speculate.
But the question, with so many people losing their homes, is where really is the lawful place to keep your gun? What if your car is your home, and you feel like you are being threatened with your life and are compelled to protect yourself?
What if you live in a tent or under a tarp? Where should you keep your gun?
February 10th, 2013 at 9:35 am
“being the gun-nut whack job you are”- Ken
No reply other than THAT is trolling to get a response.
Ken trolls everyone here all the time to get a rise out of people so just don’t respond to Ken at all in my opinion.
February 10th, 2013 at 9:51 am
… So answer my questions then…
February 10th, 2013 at 10:16 am
My answer to YOUR question Tiffany is to explain that MY family did NOT have the right to defend their lives until Germany invaded Russia, and the Poles held captive inside Russia’s Siberian Gulags were let out to fight the Nazis and formed the Polish 2nd corps.
The problem now is that after 200 plus years of American FREEDOM and RIGHTS, most Americans do not understand what is like to NOT have the right to defend their own life, because they have never NOT had that right and be forced to helplessly watch their families and friends murdered en mass, and methodically exterminated.
Like the song says, “You don’t no what you got ’till it’s gone”
Living out of a car in a down economy does not annul your right to defend your life with a gun.
Felony convictions will.
Wherever your abode is, that is home, be it ever so humble.
February 10th, 2013 at 10:19 am
Makes sense to me.
As for my general philosophy about guns:
Like money, I don’t see guns as the root of all evil.
We see examples of people killing with their hands.
A gun is far more efficient if you are in a threatening situation.
It seems really cold to think that, but if someone is going to come at me trying to rape or kill me, I would have no problem squeezing that trigger.
Also, I eat meat, so I often think that if I had no other option, I could pull the trigger on a furry animal.
The pigs destroy the driveway, and I envision pulling the trigger and smoking them up for supper.
My only trepidation with guns is them not being put away properly and a curious child coming across one.
I used to fear their power. But having taken a gun training/safety course, I feel much more confident with guns.
February 10th, 2013 at 9:32 pm
@Tiffany
I think the law is pretty clear.
Regardless of his housing situation, be it a physical residence or a vehicle, the law specifically states how a gun is to be transported.
I did post the law above in one of my other posts.
It must be unloaded, and in an enclosed container while being transported. Further, the law specifically states – “It is unlawful to possess or carry a loaded firearm on any public highway without a permit to carry.”
He did not have a permit to carry. As such, when he was arrested, he was carrying a concealed weapon.
“Fully” loaded.
In his “fanny pack.” And another fully loaded gun in his car.
Think about that for a minute.
Being homeless has nothing to do with that form of stupidity.
While I can understand forced homelessness, and I appreciate the second amendment, but he failed to follow the law with respect to the handling of his guns. Period.
As for the murder charge and the reasons for it – we will have to wait and see.
February 12th, 2013 at 10:31 am
We don’t know enough facts about the situation at all. I’m from Kona and I know Hilo. You can’t hate on this guy just because he had a loaded gun in his car that he sleeps in. Honestly, if I got kicked out of my home and lived in my car, in Hilo, I would be sleeping with a loaded gun for MY safety. Who knows what could have happened, I’m not trying to defend this guy for killing another human being, but lets get some facts before making such strong statements. Do you think this guy just got out of his car at and decided to randomly shoot some guy? Doubt it, something must have happened for him to do it. Who cares if he had a loaded gun in a fanny pack, he wasn’t going around targeting little children. He was probably wanting to protect himself from all those hilo Hoodlums.
February 12th, 2013 at 4:18 pm
So then Brad, you have no problem with ANYBODY caring a concealed loaded weapon.
Says a lot about how you view the law.
February 12th, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Right to bear arms buddy! It’s our given right as an American! Your ridiculous and have to much time on your hands. Go knit a sweater or something.
February 12th, 2013 at 6:46 pm
You have no argument with me with respect to the right to bear arms.
You do however realize that caring a concealed weapon here in Hawaii is illegal unless you have a concealed carry permit issued only by the Chief of Police.
So, while I agree with you on the right to bear arms, I see you could care less about the laws of a civil society.
Makes one wonder what other laws you could give a shit about too?
February 12th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
Your funny
February 12th, 2013 at 8:18 pm
None of this is funny.
February 12th, 2013 at 9:04 pm
You got that right Tiffany.