Tuesday, July 29, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 82 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Police fatally shoot Waipahu man at his home

By Sarah Zoellick

LAST UPDATED: 01:09 a.m. HST, Dec 15, 2013

Honolulu police, responding to a dropped 3:10 a.m. 911 call, fatally shot a 43-year-old man in the back yard of his home in Waipahu on Saturday.

Police Chief Louis Kealoha said arriving officers saw the man with a 12-foot metal pole with a six-inch blade attached to it threatening a family member in the back of the home at 94-962 Hiapo Street.

"The male, who witnesses say suffers from a mental disorder, had threatened a family member with the long blade," Kealoha said. "The male refused the officers' repeated orders to put the long blade down. Instead the male began advancing toward the officers while making cutting motions.

"One of the officers deployed his electric gun but it was ineffective, and the male continued his advance, A second officer fired multiple shots fatally striking the male several times."

The dead man's youngest brother, who declined to give his name, said his brother called police for help, but officers responded with "excessive" force.

He said his brother did suffer from mental illness, but said it was under control and he did not have a history of violence.

The youngest brother lives in Kapolei and was not at his family's Waipahu home during the shooting. He said another brother and their parents were home at the time of the shooting.

Police used a Tazer on his brother and then shot him five times, he said. He was not sure exactly why his brother called police.

Kealoha said four Honolulu Police Department officers have been placed on administrative leave and criminal and administrative investigations have been opened following the incident.

Police Maj. Richard Robinson said responding officers knew that there had been a previous call to the residence in November, at which time the man shot Saturday morning was voluntarily transported to the hospital. He also said a family member at the scene told responding officers that the man had a mental disorder.

"Every scene we try to do everything we can to protect everyone's safety," Robinson said. "This situation developed very rapidly, it's a relatively small, enclosed space (back there), and as the chief had stated, the male was armed with a 12-foot long steel pole with a six-inch sharpened blade on the end of it."

Robinson said the weapon the man was using is similar to devices used to pick mangoes, but with the blade facing straight forward instead of sideways.

The officers who responded work out of the Pearl City station and have been placed on administrative leave, which is standard procedure in a shooting.

An officer with 19 years of experience fired the Tazer, and an officer with five years of experience was the only officer who fired his gun, police said. The two other responding officers have 20 and 13 years with the department.

Paramedics said the man was dead when they arrived, according to an Emergency Medical Services report.

The man had no prior criminal history, police said.

More From The Star-Advertiser

Police fire fatal shots after alleged threats

 Print   Email   Comment | View 82 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

You must be subscribed to participate in discussions
By participating in online discussions you acknowledge that you have agreed to the TERMS OF SERVICE. An insightful discussion of ideas and viewpoints is encouraged, but comments must be civil and in good taste, with no personal attacks. Because only subscribers are allowed to comment, we have your personal information and are able to contact you. If your comments are inappropriate, you may receive a warning, and if you persist with such comments you may be banned from posting. To report comments that you believe do not follow our guidelines, email commentfeedback@staradvertiser.com.
Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.
CriticalReader wrote:
Gun control. please.
on December 14,2013 | 07:41AM
DeltaDag wrote:
Don't feed the troll.
on December 14,2013 | 08:42AM
pcman wrote:
IRT Critical on gun control. There are two lessons in this story. He who has the gun is in control. If you want to die, harass a cop.
on December 14,2013 | 10:29AM
peanutgallery wrote:
HPD shoots more often than most. We need to hire better folks, or train them much better. No reason to kill this guy. None at all.
on December 14,2013 | 03:04PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Whatever happened to firing a warning shot before you shoot someone? It's hard to believe Police were still in any danger after tazing him, maybe it didn't stop him in his tracks but it had to have some effect on him. After being tased and facing 4 against 1 they're still shooting him? Poor decision by officer that fired the shots, interesting that he was the least experienced of the officers that responded to the call.
on December 14,2013 | 05:03PM
Charliegrunt wrote:
Let HPD complete its Use of Force investigation rather than pre-judging. You'd be surprised how many people who think they know and understand the situation can pass a "Shoot/No Shoot" test.
on December 14,2013 | 07:59PM
kekelaward wrote:
Good idea. Everything will be OK if only criminals have guns.
on December 14,2013 | 12:01PM
Anonymous wrote:
For Honolulu's trigger happy cops. They must have one of the highest per capita rate for killings by police officers.
on December 14,2013 | 12:44PM
You are not even close dude! Amazing the drivel you post.
on December 14,2013 | 12:52PM
peanutgallery wrote:
"Firing multiple shots hitting him several times" We need to get these officers some much better training. They have gotten out of control.
on December 14,2013 | 03:07PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
on December 14,2013 | 03:41PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
For police officers? *scratches head*
on December 14,2013 | 03:41PM
daniwitz13 wrote:
What part of NOT shooting the general public don't the Police understand? Their Guns are NOT meant to defend themselves but to save themselves at a price they have to pay for. Pity
on December 14,2013 | 08:48AM
kahu808 wrote:
Relatives were the ones who called for police. They now say the police were excessive. They could have dealt with him by themselves. Deadly force is not the first option. The police used a Tazer first but even Tazers aren't 100% effective against everyone. The police did not shoot the general public, they were dealing with a specific threat. We should all wait for the details to come out before passing judgement.
on December 14,2013 | 09:44AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
I agree with this. If you call for police assistance, I'm not sure how they'd react to civilians trying to tell them how to do their jobs. It's why they go to the academy, after all. It's also why incidents like this are reviewed by a panel of police officers...because they understand the procedures as taught. The general public has no idea.
on December 14,2013 | 03:43PM
Grimbold wrote:
Yea! lLt the insane and criminals rule the island. Disarm the police and feed them to the criminals. This would create a society daniwitz13 would like to live in.
on December 14,2013 | 10:55AM
Waterman2 wrote:
This gotta be a story, the victim shot in his own back yard at 3:18 am . Was this officer in uniform ?
on December 14,2013 | 09:05AM
Nevadan wrote:
Shot five times? In his own home?
on December 14,2013 | 01:20PM
niimi wrote:
Society is really turned upside down when most people criticize the police. Then the small article is released in the paper days later inside page 9 telling the "victim" had a rap sheet of 6 prior arrests, 3 imprisonments, history of violence, some lady making the news coming out saying, "so and so was one good boy he not going hurt nobody at tree ay em he was just making some 'little' bit commotion ladat."
on December 14,2013 | 09:32AM
eoe wrote:
Usually when you call the police you don't expect to be killed by them, typically that is the way it works. But you are right, people should wait until the full story comes out.
on December 14,2013 | 09:51AM
50skane wrote:
If this guy was mentally ill then could have been calling the police for a number of reasons, but that still would not justify him being armed with something dangerous and threatening others or the police with serious bodily harm. I am assuming that is what happened because I still have faith that the police would only use deadly force when threatened by deadly force. Like you said, wait for the whole story to come out.
on December 14,2013 | 12:11PM
That IS the problem-TOO many people ASSUME! Wait for the full story.
on December 14,2013 | 12:54PM
billygoat wrote:
Niimi - you hit the nail on the head - now watch the family come out on the news saying "he was a really good boy, trying to straighten out his life and finally found God."
on December 14,2013 | 11:03AM
iwanaknow wrote:
He was a good person but just quit taking his meds that's all.
on December 14,2013 | 11:24AM
niimi wrote:
Kind of like when that person who I opine to been a bakarear was speeding excessively on that street in Barbers Point and crashed into the fence and kills himself. Family members say he was good boy. Then they sue the state for insufficient signage on the road. HELLO? The speed limit there is 35 or 25 mph. The guy was going like 80 when he hit that blocked off road. if he was going the speed limit or even near it he would be alive today. That's why the world is upside-down now.
on December 14,2013 | 09:35AM
eoe wrote:
The world feels right-side up to me.
on December 14,2013 | 09:49AM
Grimbold wrote:
May be you are upside down. Police never killed anybody for fun. Anyone who acts aggressive against police order should be shot. Good riddance I say.
on December 14,2013 | 10:59AM
eoe wrote:
Define aggressive.
on December 14,2013 | 11:16AM
Grimbold wrote:
Not follow orders to stop and remove a weapon and move with the weapon in hand towards an officer.
on December 14,2013 | 04:14PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Wow .... you had better hope you or any member of your family never suffers from mental illness and has a run in with police. You'd be sorry you said that. Killing him should have been the last option exercised, after being tasered, I doubt anyone was in danger of being hurt by him.
on December 14,2013 | 04:55PM
SteveToo wrote:
I agree. And also long for the days when the cops could say "stop or I'll shoot" when people run away from them.
on December 14,2013 | 04:56PM
Anonymous wrote:
Not if you live in Australia.
on December 14,2013 | 12:48PM
He was tazered and shot 5 times. How many police officers were there? Did this man have a weapon? If he was mad with a weapon, I can see why they had shot him, but if he was unarmed and several police officers couldn't subdue him, then the police officers need more self-defense training.
on December 14,2013 | 09:46AM
Ronin006 wrote:
Did this man have a weapon? Read the story. He had a 12-foot metal pole with a six-inch blade attached to it. Is that not a weapon? If I am armed with a pistol and someone comes at me with such a weapon, you can bet your life he will get shot, at least once. Better him dead than me. It appears to me the police acted appropriately.
on December 14,2013 | 03:37PM
SteveToo wrote:
Yes he had a weapon. Can't you read? He had a long pole w/a blade attached to the end of it.
on December 14,2013 | 04:57PM
wn wrote:
Let's wait for the details.
on December 14,2013 | 09:55AM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
None of the details have emerged, so any conclusions need to be triple-checked before release. Condolences to the man and his family.
on December 14,2013 | 09:59AM
kk808 wrote:
Agree; sometimes I don't know which is worse, the incident itself or inappropriate comments.
on December 14,2013 | 10:16AM
cojef wrote:
On the other hand it discloses how misguided people really are. The opinions expressed indicate in most instances the lack knowledge of the particulars of the situation. News articles relating to matters like in this situation at best are not clear and precise enough to enable one to express a cogent pronouncement.
on December 14,2013 | 02:20PM
HonoluluHawaii wrote:
An incident of this sort happened recently: Christopher Deedy.
on December 14,2013 | 06:23PM
wahine wrote:
Although no one can pass judgement in this case without knowing the facts, there are a few sayings that are part of HPD's motto… "Shoot then ask questions later" "Above the law!"
on December 14,2013 | 10:04AM
kekelaward wrote:
Not as good as the Transformer cops.... "To Harass and Imprison".
on December 14,2013 | 12:02PM
islandsun wrote:
Toxicology tests? ICE?
on December 14,2013 | 10:56AM
50skane wrote:
Everybody jumping to conclusions because the news didn't mention that the guy was possibly armed with something dangerous. This is the first breaking story..more info will come out later..don't be so fast to judge the police until the whole story comes out. Unless of course you are a cop hater to begin with then nothing they do will be justified in your eyes.
on December 14,2013 | 12:07PM
SteveToo wrote:
The news mentioned "Police Chief Louis Kealoha said arriving officers saw the man with a 12-foot metal pole with a six-inch blade attached to it threatening a family member".
on December 14,2013 | 04:59PM
entrkn wrote:
This smells
on December 14,2013 | 12:51PM
st1d wrote:
lots of comments from people who were not there and are not informed. not unlike obama, after admitting that he did not know any facts of the case, proclaiming that cops acted "stupidly", or nancy pelose with her "must pass the bill first, then we can read it to see what's in it."
on December 14,2013 | 01:35PM
truelies wrote:
hey numbnuts stop trying to show your mentality by saying it was electronic gun, it was tasers that the public is aware of, simple!!!!
on December 14,2013 | 02:42PM
ryan02 wrote:
Five shots to kill him seems excessive to me. I'm not saying police don't have a right to shoot to stop a threat, I think they do. But not all threats are equal. If someone is firing a gun at the cops, they might not have time to wait and see if their own first shot or two is effective. But a guy with a mango picker? Did they REALLY need to fire all five shots and ensure the man was dead in order to protect themselves? Seems to me that one or two shots might have sufficed. You know, enough to stop him from walking towards them with his mango picker (which is really different from a suspect firing gun shots at the police).
on December 14,2013 | 03:14PM
bumba wrote:
They'll keep firing until the threat is mitigated, period. If you advance on a cop with a straight blade on the end of a 12 foot pole, expect to get capped, period. Good job, HPD.
on December 14,2013 | 03:25PM
Nevadan wrote:
Let's hope the same thing does not happen to your family
on December 14,2013 | 06:18PM
bumba wrote:
I pray that it doesn't, but that has nothing to do with what happened. The guy posed a real threat to the officer and the officer killed him. Good job, HPD.
on December 15,2013 | 03:36AM
st1d wrote:
when used in an attack, a pole with a blade attached at one end is called a pike. a pike is classified as a weapon. advance on a police officer with a weapon such as a pike and you will be met with force, or deadly force as in this incident.

for the bipolar population, it's an extreme example of the need to stay on medication. refuse a couple of doses and the resultant manic behavior can be misinterpreted as aggressively dangerous by others who may or may not be aware of your mental challenge.

condolences to the family. condolences to the police involved.

on December 14,2013 | 04:00PM
Grimbold wrote:
Seems there are a lot of bipolar commentators who always love to condemn the police.
on December 14,2013 | 04:17PM
SteveToo wrote:
The population would be better off it bipolar people were on their meds and locked up to boot.
on December 14,2013 | 05:01PM
AndrewWalden wrote:
A New Moral Treatment: Humane institutionalization can help the mentally ill and protect society http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/9759/A-New-Moral-Treatment-Humane-institutionalization-can-help-the-mentally-ill-and-protect-society.aspx
on December 14,2013 | 03:47PM
Mythman wrote:
Shoot him once in the leg or foot not five times in the chest.
on December 14,2013 | 03:52PM
makiki123 wrote:
Yeah...someone coming at you with a weapon and you're going to be good enough to shoot someone in the foot or leg? You aim for the biggest target and that is the torso. If someone broke into your house and grabbed a kitchen knife and advanced toward you, would you be able to just shoot him/her in the leg or foot only? Then after you shot the person in the foot or leg would that be enough to stop the person to advance on you or would this anger the person even more and more determined to hurt you?
on December 14,2013 | 04:12PM
Nevadan wrote:
You would sing a different song, if the person shot was a member of your family.
on December 15,2013 | 03:59AM
residenttaxpayer wrote:
Too bad the officers didn't use less lethal bean bag rounds to incapacitate the subject....might have avoided deadly force....
on December 14,2013 | 03:56PM
tigerwarrior wrote:
Perhaps this is one scenario where they could make use of the 18,000 units of bean bag ammunition they stockpiled for APEC.
on December 14,2013 | 04:41PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
I'm sure the Police will say it's justified because he had tree pruner in his hands but to me, it sounds like excessive force was used. Assuming the tazer really didn't stop him at all, and that's really hard to believe, I would think shooting him once in the leg or foot would have been sufficient to stop him. Shooting to kill is excessive if he had yet to actually hurt anyone.
on December 14,2013 | 04:47PM
SteveToo wrote:
devices used to pick mangoes have a wire cup with hooks to pull the mangos loose. They don't have blades of any kind.
on December 14,2013 | 04:53PM
makiki123 wrote:
Who said it was a mango picker? People also have poles with blades on it to trims their tall trees.
on December 14,2013 | 07:25PM
entrkn wrote:
If this happened on Maui, I would be inclined to call it police homicide.
on December 14,2013 | 05:52PM
RandolphW wrote:
The reason police draw their guns is to stop someone. Period. They are not drawn to warn someone to stop. The decision is made to shoot at the time the gun is drawn. There isn't any other way to "cut the cake". Whether or not the decision to stop the man "dead in his tracks" by drawing the gun and shooting it is another issue. How imperative was it to immediately stop the man with the homemade weapon, which certainly could have inflicted damage to someone..............family members or HPD?
on December 14,2013 | 05:58PM
Nevadan wrote:
Let's hope the same thing does not happen to your family
on December 14,2013 | 06:19PM
pj737 wrote:
Scary west side
on December 14,2013 | 06:28PM
40black wrote:
good job HPD!!
on December 14,2013 | 07:23PM
RKC808 wrote:
Hey everyone. We do not know the full story of what happened. Until you are in a life or death situation, don't judge our Hawaii's Finest. When you need "HELP" who do you call? HPD right? Their job is to protect the public from harm. It doesn't matter if the ones in harms way are family members. They have a job to serve and protect. To serve and protect all of us.
on December 14,2013 | 07:30PM
paradiddle wrote:
If someone was coming at me with a long pole with a knife attached to it while making cutting motions and in a relatively small enclosed space, I would take whatever action to stop a perceived threat. If I could retreat, I would. If I could take effective non-lethal action, I would. What I would NOT do is to portray a common misconception that it is easy to "shoot to wound". Once a determination/decision is made that lethal action is necessary, I would aim and shoot at center mass and continue to shoot until the threat has been neutralized. That said, lets wait for all available information to be released before making any judgments or assumptions.
on December 14,2013 | 07:49PM
RKC808 wrote:
Paradiddle: Well said fellow drummer
on December 14,2013 | 08:14PM
FLIPTOP2 wrote:
Officers from Pearl City??? Not a good history that police department. I know from personal experience of being on a jury where an arrested person was in a special holding cell, with full on monitoring cams, and "somehow" started a fire in the cell. This after being stripped search. City was suing the person for damages to the cell. Jury found the police at fault. Two months later all kinds of prisoner abuse was documented resulting in a number of PC PD's "finest" were fired and/or reassigned. Again, PC PD doesn't have a good track record.
on December 14,2013 | 08:43PM
HAJAA1 wrote:
Good job HPD. Wipe out all threats to society.
on December 14,2013 | 11:14PM
HAJAA1 wrote:
Apparently the word ID IOT gets your comment sent for approval. How lame is this paper? Must be many ID IOTS making these decisions at SA.
on December 14,2013 | 11:17PM
hikine wrote:
If the cops let him go into the streets and the dude kills someone or a family member with the dangerous instrument the cops will be to blame. Having mental illness doesn't mean they shouldn't do anything to him. It's the action of the person that results in either life or death.
on December 15,2013 | 12:55AM
false wrote:
"Honolulu police, responding to a dropped 3:10 a.m. 911 call, fatally shot a 43-year-old man in the back yard of his home in Waipahu on Saturday." Here's the deal: although big brother has jurisdiction over public violence, this was a private matter that may have been kept private, has the officers stayed away. Officers are trained to look away first (tell me if I am wrong on this), and not interfere. This is a case where violence expanded rapidly. Were the officers right to get the situation under control? Yes. Were they allowed to display deadly force? Yes. Were they justified to shoot, then get answers? Seems there is some disconnect here, just as in he Deedy case.
on December 15,2013 | 01:32AM
f8ldzz wrote:
You gotta love the armchair quarterbacks all judging against the officer, when they were not the one in his shoes... Once the facts got out that a "knife" - which is considered a deadly weapon - was used, and the suspect was REPEATEDLY instructed to put the weapon down, use of deadly force is warranted. Now, the conundrum is that how can someone "suffering from mental illness" understand the situation when the officer orders to drop what he's holding? Again, "mental illness" rears it's ugly head - i.e. Newtown, Columbine, etc. Currently, the officer is uninjured, and the person with "mental illness" is deceased. Had it been reversed - officer deceased / badly injured and person with "mental illness" survived, how would you feel? Would the comments be of the same nature? I'd prefer the earlier than the latter scenario, period. And don't be arguing it's a private matter; once 911 was dialed, it involves the police, period, whether you like it or not. Someone in the public felt threatened enough to dial 911, it is of a serious nature; if it isn't, the caller goes to jail - serious enough of a matter now...?
on December 15,2013 | 04:05AM
bumba wrote:
on December 15,2013 | 04:14AM
HOSSANA wrote:
Great comment. Thank you.
on December 15,2013 | 06:02AM
shazam wrote:
Very biased article. The only so called witness quoted in this story wasn't even present during the incident. Total heresay!
on December 15,2013 | 05:01AM
HOSSANA wrote:
Get your facts straight and don't make generalizations!!!
on December 15,2013 | 06:00AM
Breaking News
Political Radar
`Values,’ too

Political Radar

Wassup Wit Dat!
Bettah Not Lose It

Political Radar
`My side’

Political Radar
‘He reminds me of me’

Bionic Reporter
Needing a new knee

Warrior Beat
Monday musings

Small Talk
Burning money