Monday, July 28, 2014         

 Print   Email   Comment | View 3 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Man arrested for allegedly threatening trio in Waipahu

By Star-Advertiser staff

LAST UPDATED: 09:12 a.m. HST, May 27, 2013

A 28-year-old man is in police custody after he allegedly threatened three people during a fight Sunday night.

Police said the incident began as a fight between the suspect and a 26-year-old woman in a Waipahu home. The suspect left the home and then returned just before 11 p.m. and threatened the victim and two other people — a 26-year-old man and a 49-year-old woman, police said. The suspect fled and was arrested just after midnight a few blocks away from the Waipahu home.

He was arrested on suspicion of first-degree terroristic threatening.

 Print   Email   Comment | View 3 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.
allie wrote:
dangerous west side
on May 27,2013 | 09:09AM
daniwitz13 wrote:
The Law on threatening is a farce. It is NOT a Crime to go somewhere, shake one's fist and say "words" that are free speech. It should NOT be unlawful to give someone a piece of one's mind for whatever reason there is a cause to. It's called Free Speech and EXPRESSION. it is in the Constitution. There is no distinction between good or bad speech and expression. It has been ruled even the disgusting is Constitutional. So why this Stupid Law? Pity.
on May 27,2013 | 10:16AM
Pareidolic wrote:
"There is no distinction between good or bad speech and expression." Any speech intended to intimidate or signal an impending violent act is considered "bad" and as such they are not protected by the Constitution. That's not in the Consitution? So what? In the end it's up the Supreme court to decide (cf. Virigina v Black).
on May 27,2013 | 11:59AM
Breaking News