Quantcast
  

Thursday, April 24, 2014         

BREAKING NEWS


 Print   Email   Comment | View 170 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Deedy had alcohol on breath, police officer testifies

By Ken Kobayashi

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 08:01 p.m. HST, Jul 17, 2013


A Honolulu police officer testified this morning that State Department special agent Christopher Deedy said he had a gun and had shot a 23-year-old Kailua man laying in a pool of blood at the McDonald's Kuhio Avenue restaurant early Nov. 5, 2011.

Officer Sterling Naki, the first officer at the fatal shooting scene, told the Circuit Court jury that Deedy was applying first aid to Kollin Elderts, trying to stop the bleeding from the fatal gunshot wound to the chest.

Naki said he could smell alcohol on Deedy's breath and said the agent had glassy red eyes and some of his speech was slurred.

The officer said he handcuffed and arrested Deedy after the agent said he shot Elderts.

Naki testified in the fifth day of trial for Deedy, who is charged with second-degree murder and a related firearm charge.

The prosecution is alleging that Deedy was fueled by inexperience and alcohol when he shot Elderts without justification. Deedy is maintaining he fired in self-defense to ward off a drunken Elderts who attacked him and tried to grab the gun.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 170 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(170)
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:
you smelled it on his breath? What kind of amateur detective are you? That proves nothing in court. I smell alcohol on the breath of every man I run into on the bus! Geesh..I hope we did not give any raises to these dudes. What an embarrassment to honolulu
on July 15,2013 | 01:35PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
But the HPD officer can only testify to what he observed. He observed a person with alcohol on his breath, blood-shot eyes and slurring his words. As a witness he cannot draw any conclusion from his observations, that is the jury's job and I suspect that in asking the HPD officer these questions the Prosecutor was trying to draw an inference that Mr. Deedy was intoxicated. . Secondly he was only the first officer on scene, not necessarily the officer in charge of the scene. He basically took Deedy into custody and secured the area and what he did beyond that was not disclosed. His observations may very well be the only information he can add to the trial.
on July 15,2013 | 01:53PM
allie wrote:
agree but why no breath or blood test?
on July 15,2013 | 02:39PM
Mypualani wrote:
Because in the state of Hawaii you can only be compelled to give a breath test/ Blood test when there is a car accident with a death involved. That is why people try to run when under the influence then come back later to turn themselves in. Deedy refused because he knew he could, and could not be compelled to give in to the test.
on July 15,2013 | 02:47PM
false wrote:
Thanks for putting that question to rest. Many keep asking.
on July 15,2013 | 03:04PM
Mypualani wrote:
You are very welcome False
on July 15,2013 | 03:17PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Actually it's the Implied Consent Law that can only be used in DUI cases. There does not have to be an accident or vehicular death ,just probable cause to stop for DUI. On criminal cases, the cops have to get a warrant to draw blood.
on July 15,2013 | 04:59PM
Mypualani wrote:
@ Nanakuliboss you are correct because I have a drivers license it is implied that I will give a BAC or loose my drivers license. If I am stopped for DUI . Been there done that. Also there is a limit for how much alcohol one consumes thus legal limit. But in this case there was no car involved, getting a warrant for his BAC would have been well nuts. I guess that is why HPD officer asked him to do it voluntarily, Deedy refused because he knew he could.
on July 15,2013 | 06:50PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
BS. You cannot refuse if they get a warrant, which HPD should have if they were not incompetent or thought that it was important. They easily could have gotten his blood but choose not to pursue it. I have no idea where you would get that you can refuse in a DUI manslaughter case but not a murder investigation.
on July 15,2013 | 03:22PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
But why would they need to determine whether he was drunk or not? Being drunk does not excuse you from any crime. All they needed to do was prove that he was drinking...if he was, then he was prohibited from carrying a firearm.
on July 15,2013 | 03:41PM
false wrote:
Point is an HPD observed the presence of alcohol breath, slurred speech and glassy eyes. Also here was Deedy who started a fight while packing a gun and settled it in his own way. So he can pay the price.
on July 15,2013 | 04:12PM
MKN wrote:
@false: Zimmerman more than likely started the confrontation between him and Trayvon Martin and they found Zimmerman innocent with even less evidence than this case has now. It seems pretty clear that Elderts rushed at Deedy before the shots were fired which probably justifies Deedys actions since Deedy appeared to be defending himself at that point. As for the alcohol breath thing, I could have one beer and have alcohol breath. It doesn't mean that I am impared. If HPD was smart, they would have gotten a warrant and had Deedy's alcohol level checked.
on July 15,2013 | 04:31PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Actually, it is not illegal. It is illegal to be impaired and carrying a gun. In the eyes of the law, there is a difference.
on July 15,2013 | 04:31PM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
@kailua, law aside, he was prohibited in his capacity as a government agent from carrying his gun if he was drinking any amount.
on July 15,2013 | 07:39PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "You cannot refuse if they get a warrant, which HPD should have if they were not incompetent or thought that it was important."

Please don't call our HPD incompetent. If you recall, they were the ones called to the scene and disamed Deedy. It wasn't our HPD officers who choose to ignore State Dept policy and carry a concealed gun for a night of bar hopping.

It also wasn't HPD who picked a fight, and it wasn't HPD who kicked a stranger in the chest and it wasn't HPD who brandished his weapon, later drew it out of concealment, shot up a McDonalds and killed an unarmed man who a minute before was sitting peacefully waiting for a hamburger.

There was plenty of irresponsibility and incompetence that night, but it all happened before HPD arrived on the scene to disarm and arrest Mr Deedy.


on July 15,2013 | 04:09PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Please. It's clear you have a dislike for Deedy and like to ignore the issue actually being discussed. The issue is that HPD saw that he was drinking but did not think that he was impaired to the point where it would become an issue. They could have gotten a warrant and forced a blood draw but choose not to. In my opinion, if you're investigating a murder and the prosecution is trying to prove alcohol was an issue, then don't you think it's kind of a big deal to have a BAC? And if you want to talk irresponsibility, Elderts choose to get coked out and wasted. That's so responsible right?
on July 15,2013 | 04:35PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "Please. It's clear you have a dislike for Deedy and like to ignore the issue actually being discussed. "

You know, this is kind of sad, and I probably shouldn't tell you this, but until the trial started, I had an open mind about the whole thing, and I really didn't have strong opinion either way. I started reading about it here and then reviewed the comments. It was your sheer obnoxiousness and arrogance that caused me to look closer at the video tape and the testimony of HPD and Federal officers.

I believe it was you who pointed me to the deedysupport website and it's disgustingly self serving version of events not supported by the video. Things like :

"Chris responded and tried to diffuse the situation. He identified himself to the men as a federal agent and he and his friend were subsequently attacked by the men."

Yet the video shows Deedy approaching and initiating conversation and then kicking Elderts while Elderts was sitting peaceful waiting for a sack of burgers.

Aside from his own deplorable judgement, you are the biggest enemy that Deedy has right now. Why don't you insult HPD and locals a little more and then do that thing where you gloat that Deedy will "be back at his six figure salary job" in no time.

Deedy's choice to bring his gun along for a night of drinking and bar hopping is indefensible and his actions captured on video tape do not support his version of events.


on July 15,2013 | 04:53PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "Elderts choose to get coked out and wasted. That's so responsible right?"

On a scale of 1-10 where 10 is violating your own department's firearm policy and bringing a Glock along for a night of drinking, bar hopping, and then brandishing the weapon in a crowded McDonalds, shooting it up and killing some guy sitting who 60 seconds before was was sitting with his friends waiting for his burgers... I'd say that doing cocaine and drinking to excess is maybe a 2.

And while a BAC of 0.12 is too high to operate a motor vehicle, it isn't exactly "wasted" either.


on July 15,2013 | 05:00PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
@kalaheo, so are you actually going to discuss the issue of how HPD fumbled or just plain ignored Deedy's alcohol consumption? If he really was drunk, then why did HPD determine that he didn't need to take a forced test by getting a warrant? You can say whatever you want about the video, I don't care because neither of our opinions matter. However, every time I post something you ignore the issue being discussed and go on a rant about Deedy. I never pointed you to the website, and you have no more knowledge than the rest of us concerning if he identified himself or not. All we have is a grainy video.
on July 15,2013 | 05:08PM
Mypualani wrote:
Kalaheo right you are.
on July 15,2013 | 05:31PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: @kalaheo, so are you actually going to discuss the issue of how HPD fumbled or just plain ignored Deedy's alcohol consumption?

I replied to you, but the posting software put it at the bottom of the page. It might fix it later. Sometimes that happens.


on July 15,2013 | 09:26PM
2NDC wrote:
Warrant? It would take way too long to get a warrant. The alcohol would have metabolized in the time it would take to get the warrant issued.
on July 15,2013 | 04:24PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
No it wouldn't. There is always a judge on call for major crimes.
on July 15,2013 | 04:36PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Right 2NDC, Deedy made the decision to refuse the blood testing. He's smarter then that and knows it could hurt his case. Taking everyone's statement, evidence, processing the scene would take a minimum of 8 hrs. Trying to get a warrant for the blood test would take a minimum of 12 hrs. Judges just don't sign anything that comes down the pike. Experienced officers observations play a big role in the demeanor of the suspected murderer.
on July 15,2013 | 05:11PM
Mypualani wrote:
I guess Deedy was in front of the cop drinking Alcohol. Puhleese. They observed his actions and what he smelled like. They could not compel Deedy to to a blood test, this is why he refused and that right there is just as telling as him taking the test. Kailua your arrogance is outstanding, you think you are so much smarter then everyone. NOT! My bachelors. Is in criminal justice so give it a rest, the compactly in which I use my degree happens to be in juvenile justice/ substance abuse. So get real and get white.
on July 15,2013 | 06:05PM
Mypualani wrote:
Kailua read the post I stated that blood/ breath test is taken when a car is involved in a death, why do you think that every time there is a death in a car accident test are done on the driver. Get it right and no act dumb. I never stated that in a DUI you can refuse dimwit. Can you read and comprehend ? I stated that in the past there were those who would run after causing a vehicle death, then turning themselves in after the said substance is no longer an issue. Another thing the Hawaii Revised Statutes ( you know Hawaii laws?) in this case by the time Deedy was charged with murder it was too late for the test. He wasn't charged right away look it up Nailz. By this time the Alcohol is burned up. Ask me how I know I dare you.
on July 15,2013 | 05:43PM
droid wrote:
Yeah, tell me what judge issues a warrant at 1 in the morning. Deedy would have been completely sober by the time they got the warrant. Please get a clue.
on July 15,2013 | 10:40PM
aomohoa wrote:
I had no idea. Interesting fact.
on July 15,2013 | 04:13PM
2NDC wrote:
All it takes is an hour or so, and the alcohol would have metabolized to a point where the blood test would be inconclusive. For this reason, motorists are required to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test. This preserves any alcohol evidence in the event of a traffic incident involving alcohol.
on July 15,2013 | 04:43PM
Mypualani wrote:
Thank you
on July 15,2013 | 05:58PM
mutsrus wrote:
hey allie, why is the officer a amateur detective if he stated the fact that he smelled alcohol on Deedy? Of course a better term the officer could have used was the odor of an intoxicating beverage on his breath. Deedy had the right to refuse a blood or breath test. Being under the influence of an intoxicating beverage is not a crime thus no search warrant would be issued upon application for one.
on July 15,2013 | 03:21PM
Mypualani wrote:
Deedy was arrested and not charged till what two days later? Correct me if I am wrong. This agent actually thought he would just slip away from all this with his immunity poor guy, rude awakening Hawaii is not a third world country, where you can do what ever you like and then walk away. And the Locals here are not all stupid either, especially Judge Ahn. She knew what Hart was setting up when he wanted the video released before the jury could even be picked.
on July 15,2013 | 06:59PM
TLehel wrote:
Allie, you act so smug about everything. These guys smell like alcohol, these guys are always staring at me, these guys, these guys, these guys. . . ..get over yourself. I'm sure I wouldn't double take if I saw you, cause if your looks didn't deter me your smug stench would.
on July 15,2013 | 03:27PM
aomohoa wrote:
Allie is more than likely not even who she/he says they are. from I have been told allie is nothing but a paid blogger to get things stirred up and the conversation going. Certainly not an Mandan princess that just seems narcissistic.
on July 15,2013 | 04:16PM
turbolink wrote:
As allie points out, it takes alcohol to get mento stair at him/her on the bus.
on July 15,2013 | 04:25PM
poipoo wrote:
I think you meant 'stare' but in this case it probably doesn't matter.
on July 16,2013 | 01:07AM
gobows wrote:
I dont think he's a detective.
on July 15,2013 | 04:07PM
mikethenovice wrote:
Don't smell my pork and beans on the bus. It's embarrassing.
on July 15,2013 | 05:42PM
pcman wrote:
IRT alcohol, the only important thing is that Deedy went out drinking with his weapon, normally a 'no-no,' by any fed, state and city gun regulations. Another question is if the State Dept allows agents to carry weapons off duty and away from the designated duty station. A big question is 'why was Deedy threatened by Elderts while Deedy's friend was not threatened. Finally, does Honolulu allow feds to carry concealed weapons off duty? Does the same rule apply to military personnel? Why one and not the other?
on July 15,2013 | 09:09PM
bully106 wrote:
we've all seen the guy who is jet-lagged from a long flight from the east coast and has a few drinks on the town until past midnite. he's just more loopy from exhaustion than booze, which doesn't help. if he AND the victim were thinking clearly i'm sure things would have not ended so tragically.
on July 15,2013 | 01:51PM
LadyNinja wrote:
I don't know how to digest this one. Generally, officers of the law stick together, why is there a misconception? It is well documented that Deedy was drinking, what about Elderts? Why is the state of Hawaii trying to make a mockery of our federal justice system? So because Elderts was shot to death, there are so many mitigating circumstances, taking it one day at a time would prove most beneficial to absorbing all of the so called "witnesses". Elderts played a part in this fiasco too,not to forget that folks. Just because he was shot to death does not necessarily mean that Deedy is guilty. I pray for both families to find peace.
on July 15,2013 | 01:51PM
Mypualani wrote:
Elderts is not on trial, Deedy is. I don't know what misconception you are referring to. The officer smelled alcohol on the agents breath and reported to his slurred speech, The witness can only testify to what he observed when he came on the scene. I saw the video and Elderts was sitting down while the other supposed victim was sitting down, there was nothing "excegent" going on. Until Agent Deedy went over and asked another drunk guy if he wanted to get shot. No one is saying Kollin is innocent of anything or didn't play a role but to what extent, did this young man deserve to die?
on July 15,2013 | 02:24PM
RandyC73 wrote:
You're right, I thought these agents were trained to defuse these type of things without any getting hurt. So why didn't he use his hand to hand combat training! I guess he figured the gun was easier to use!
on July 15,2013 | 09:41PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Digest it this way ninja. The smell of alcohol on Deedys breath means, he was drinking. The fact that he had a bar tab, means he was drinking, the fact that people heard him slurring his speech, means he was drinking. Okay let's say alcohol impaired. Now Deedy was trained to shoot to kill, but was he trained to render aid. Really? I would want a drunk performing CPR on a person with a "sucking" wound.
on July 15,2013 | 02:32PM
Mypualani wrote:
Nanakuli thank you very much, couldn't have said it better myself without getting ugly... I am very ugly at times when it comes to expressing myself. That is why I need to be very careful.
on July 15,2013 | 02:49PM
MKN wrote:
@NanakuliBoss: Actually, all law enforcement officers are trained to provide CPR, but yah I agree that I wouldn't want someone drunk doing that to me. Not that any of us would have a choice in the matter. LOL!
on July 15,2013 | 04:20PM
Mypualani wrote:
MKN good one.
on July 15,2013 | 04:25PM
steveoctober wrote:
Civil matter - the family could sue for the incompetence of CPR given due to the alcohol consumption. But anyway, if Deedy is guilty he will be destitute for a lifetime so the family wont collect a cent.
on July 15,2013 | 05:13PM
Usagi336 wrote:
Deeper pocketed fish yet to fry. State department for one. Michael Green will find a way to empty a few of those pockets.
on July 15,2013 | 07:00PM
Mypualani wrote:
Maybe or Maybe not, you forgot to add that a judge says that Deedy' s home owners insurance has to pay for his defense I civil court oh and Deedy's employer is in the lawsuit also. I could be wrong but maybe that is why he is still employed with the agency. He cannot however carry a gun. Oh and his agency is not helping Deedy in his defense so that should tell you something. Go to his support site. It's not too late to donate.
on July 15,2013 | 07:04PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Yes,CPR I understand, rendering aid for a gun shot wound is NOT a CPR call. Unless you want to pump all the blood out of the victim.
on July 15,2013 | 05:15PM
Mypualani wrote:
My job requires me to have first aid and CPR training every year to be certified. Nanakuli thanks for correcting me on the DUI thing but how ever when there is a death involving an accident 9 time out of ten there's a test, with the DUI you loose your drivers license automatically for refusing. Yup getting Deedy's BAC would have been a help.here.
on July 15,2013 | 06:16PM
sak wrote:
If the only person available to perform CPR or help to stop blood loss is drunk, I'll take the drunk instead of no one. And there is a "Good Samaritan Law", or something like that that protects someone who is only trying to give aid from liabilities, such as pulling someone out of a burning car or home, etc., "I Think!"
on July 15,2013 | 06:44PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
After hearing the witness in mcdonalds deny that he needed any assistance dealing with eldert's, I think Deedy might be screwed.
on July 15,2013 | 02:13PM
HawaiiCheeseBall wrote:
Hard to say. The defense could say he checked in on the guy and he said he did not need help so Deedy was going to walk away until Elders, mad that Deedy interfered in the situation came after Deedty.
on July 15,2013 | 02:39PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Is that what happened? Recorded by the surveillance camera? Or, is that a lie?
on July 15,2013 | 02:54PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
I'd say that is a theory that is NOT supported by the video evidence.
on July 15,2013 | 04:11PM
MKN wrote:
I hate to say it, but there was enough video evidence to support a self defense justification by Deedy since Elderts clearly rushed at Deedy before the gun went off and appeared to be going after Deedy's gun. 9 out of 10 times, that would be justification for self defense. Especially since Deedy was a law enforcement officer.
on July 15,2013 | 04:23PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
MKN wrote: "Especially since Deedy was a law enforcement officer."

Maybe you can tell me what law Deedy was enforcing that night when he approached Elderts, kicked him, ran around his friend who was trying to restrain him and then drew his gun and shot him.

I consider myself a very pro-law enforcement, and I hate to see a guy like Deedy give them a black eye.


on July 15,2013 | 05:05PM
Mypualani wrote:
Right on let's hope the prosecution brings this point up. What was Elderts being arrested for?
on July 15,2013 | 06:17PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
MKN, the video shows a calm Elderts sitting waiting for his order. Deedy is shown over him talking down on him. This continues till Deedys friends restraints Deedy. Deedy works around his friends and kicks Elderts. Wrong move as Elderts quickly dispatch Drunk Deedy to the floor.Elderts goes to pull Deedys cohorts off his friend.Deedy continues an aggressive motion, Elderts comes at him again, the drunk pulls a gun and shoots Elderts.
on July 15,2013 | 05:21PM
Mypualani wrote:
That's what I saw.
on July 15,2013 | 06:18PM
sailfish1 wrote:
Maybe Elderts said something to Deedy at that point. Do surveillance cameras record voices?
on July 15,2013 | 07:13PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
sailfish1 wrote: "Maybe Elderts said something to Deedy at that point. Do surveillance cameras record voices?"

1) This one didn't record voices. But there are an ample number of witnesses.

2) What could Elberts have said that would have justified pulling out a concealed weapon and shooting him in the chest?


on July 15,2013 | 08:17PM
2NDC wrote:
Yeah, the drunk guy really knew what was going on. Drunk people say a lot of things. He may not have felt like he needed assistance. Doesn't mean he was right.
on July 15,2013 | 02:46PM
Mypualani wrote:
Or wrong ? The video is out, Elderts didn't even come to the alleged victims personal space, so how unsafe is that? Besides there is going to be a witness who will testify about the words that were exchanged between Perrine and Eldertd, this will explain why Perinee didn't feel threatened at the time of his encounter with Elderts.
on July 15,2013 | 02:55PM
2NDC wrote:
No audio on the video. For all we know Elderts was threatening to kill Perrine. Let's not forget that Elderts WAS intoxicated at the time of the incident.
on July 15,2013 | 04:29PM
8082062424 wrote:
The cashier will be the one to fill in the blanks. i would like to know why when Deedy was ordering she grab her shirt and covered her nose .Did he small that bad? i know i can not stand the smell of someone who been drinking and they stink of it
on July 15,2013 | 05:12PM
Mypualani wrote:
Maybe he farted.
on July 15,2013 | 06:19PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
2ndc, hello, Perrine testified last week. He said he did not feel threatened. Then you say Perrine was so drunk he didn't remember being threatened? Maybe he was so drunk, what he thought was the H word, was actually a local boy say "Howdy", partner.
on July 15,2013 | 05:27PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Hawaii doesn't have a stand your ground law like florida, shooting an unarmed person, even an a**hole asking for it will likely lead to jail. Maybe not murder, but
on July 15,2013 | 02:19PM
aomohoa wrote:
We all know what happened in Florida.
on July 15,2013 | 04:20PM
TKHawaii wrote:
It is not about alcohol or slurred speech or male ego, it is about guns. Take away the guns and you take away the deaths. Guns in the hands of kids and those who are unstable means there is someone waiting in the wings to get killed. If you do not have enough brain power to get out of a fight situation and you have a gun...guess what. you use it.
on July 15,2013 | 02:19PM
Mypualani wrote:
TK Your point is well taken.
on July 15,2013 | 02:29PM
allie wrote:
agree and I said the same at the time.
on July 15,2013 | 02:40PM
aomohoa wrote:
You love to take credit for any good comment someones makes as your own. Funny how it never seems credible when it comes from you. LOL Maybe if you were so arrogant and narcissistic.
on July 15,2013 | 04:22PM
2NDC wrote:
I agree. Let's take away all the guns. No guns for law enforcement officers, no more guns for citizens. Hmm, lemme think now, that would only leave a bunch of criminals with guns. We all know how well criminals follow laws and rules. :-(
on July 15,2013 | 02:48PM
Mypualani wrote:
Eh nobody said that, what's your trip? So what ? Where does it say in his post that he wanted to disarm everything and everybody? Get a grip Cuz.
on July 15,2013 | 03:01PM
Jonas wrote:
re-read it. that's sure what it sounded like.he said.
on July 15,2013 | 11:28PM
poipoo wrote:
I concur: He said it.
on July 16,2013 | 01:11AM
GooglyMoogly wrote:
If that idiotic conclusion is where you ended up after hearing "Take away the guns", then you REALLY shouldn't own a gun.

As much as people want to make it so, this case isn't about gun control. The defendant used a firearm issued to him by the government, so no gun control law would've kept it out of his hands. It's about his judgement, and "poor" doesn't even begin to describe it.


on July 15,2013 | 03:49PM
LanaUlulani wrote:


What an assisine statement.

Guns happen to help some women ward off rapists. Women are outmassed and outpowered by men. Guns are AN equalizer. It's people like YOU who enable RAPISTS to rape us by trying to disarm us innocents. Auwe!


on July 15,2013 | 02:55PM
Mypualani wrote:
I know you not posting to me! Because I said point taken, no mean I agree I am able sometimes to respect others points of view. Police should be armed, they keep order in our society they are human. Our military is armed as for citizens being armed I agree but though a thorough and legal permitted way. Hell I have a permit. But if I can get away I will. Bu if in extreme danger I have no problem shooting a criminal trying to do harm. Which the whole point in this case. Was the victim trying to do harm, in the beginning no. But after Deedy went to get himself some cracks conks and lumps, he decided ahhh I'll just shoot this racist Hawaiian, I can because I am the law. I am immune from any and everything. Yeah so he thought. Deedy still can't believe that he is being prosecuted for what he thinks is perfectly okay, I know because it is there on his support website. He thinks he is right and claims to be coming to the aid of a McDonalds customer, maybe he was. But the video tells a different story from his and so will the witnesses.
on July 15,2013 | 03:14PM
MKN wrote:
@Mypualani: While Deedy may have been responsible for provoking Elderts, Elderts was clearly attacking Deedy when the shooting started. All I can say is he won't be convicted of Murder 2. If anything, he might get manslaughter or worst case get off totally scott free like Zimmerman. The video evidence provides enough doubt in the state's case for Murder 2 because he was being rushed by the victim and it appeared that Elderts was going after Deedy's gun. Ultimately, we will find out the verdict soon enough.
on July 15,2013 | 04:10PM
Mypualani wrote:
MKN Your point is well taken, I keep leaving that part out when I comment. And I just focus on the beginning of the video. I am biased I admit this, not being sarcastic at all here. If I want others to take my comments I should be willing to be respectful of others. At this point I am waiting for all theses involved to give their testimony under oath.
on July 15,2013 | 04:32PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
I agree. The problem is people seem to be ignoring that Elderts choose to attack a second time. It becomes very hard for the state to prove a murder 2 charge. Elderts is the aggressor in the second fight and it looks like he went for the gun.
on July 15,2013 | 04:46PM
hapaguy wrote:
That's your interpretation. To me, and others, it looks like Elderts is defending himself as Deedy was approaching Elderts, who was helping Medeiros by the side door, and not the other way around.....
on July 15,2013 | 05:08PM
Mypualani wrote:
I am biased but that is what it looks like to me too. Maybe I am wrong I was not there. But there are witnesses who were there, that will testify. I'll wait.
on July 15,2013 | 06:28PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
There was a " second" fight? You mean a break in the original conflict? Deedy put a gun up between himself and Elderts. Unlike Zimmermans case, we had great video.
on July 15,2013 | 05:32PM
GorillaSmith wrote:
As Forrest Gump might say, "assisine" is as "assisine" does.
on July 15,2013 | 04:14PM
2NDC wrote:
Exactly why our Forefathers created the 2nd Amendment. I am a HUGE supporter and proponent of the people's Right to bear arms. I sure wish more women would become proficient with firearms and petition the government so they are able to carry them for self protection.
on July 15,2013 | 04:45PM
Mypualani wrote:
. Get your point, I believe in the right to bear arms responsibly yeah that's the ticket. How bout those people who start off right in the head and then end up in mental illness like say dementia. BOOM ke'ia.
on July 15,2013 | 06:32PM
Jonas wrote:
Sorry TK - have to disagree on that one. Criminals will always be able to get guns. Take away guns, and you take them away from - for the most part - law abiding citizens. Of course, that doesn't have much to do with this trial though...
on July 15,2013 | 11:27PM
Mypualani wrote:
This is just the start...other witnesses coming forward with interesting testimony , one will testify about what Elderts said to Perrine.and she wasn't drunk and didn't know Elderts or Deedy, going be nuts.
on July 15,2013 | 02:41PM
false wrote:
But was he drunk? Another officers testified earlier that his eyes were not red nor glassy. If he guilty he goes down. If the jury finds him innocent well, he walks. Waiting for all the facts.
on July 15,2013 | 03:03PM
Mypualani wrote:
Same here. And it will get interesting big time. I promise you.
on July 15,2013 | 03:19PM
Grimbold wrote:
Hawaii's problem is that there are too many guys that try to work out with their brutal fists any disagreement or perceived slight . All you need is to stare at a lowlife moke and he will say: What? in a threatening tone. For Starting a physical fight there should be heavier penalties, if it can be clearly determined. Of course Deedy acted the goat and he will not get away unscathed.
on July 15,2013 | 03:28PM
bodysurf_ah wrote:
Simple solution for weaklings like u and ur buddy from Kailua, don't stare.
on July 15,2013 | 03:41PM
Mypualani wrote:
Oh my goodness
on July 15,2013 | 05:25PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Right,lol.
on July 15,2013 | 05:34PM
sailfish1 wrote:
bodysurf & Nanakuli - here we have some examples of wannabe tough troublemakers we have in Hawaii. These kinds of Hawaii "wannabe locals" have some kind of inferiority complex (most likely lack of intelligence) and always have chips on their shoulders.
on July 15,2013 | 07:26PM
8082062424 wrote:
why would you go and starer some one down. that just asking for a response .Every action has a reaction
on July 15,2013 | 03:52PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Grimbold just admitted that he stared "at a lowlife moke" ...and got a punch in return. Blaming the "moke" ....."for starting a physical fight".
on July 15,2013 | 04:20PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
The state will have to prove that he was impaired. It's not against the law (it is against policy) to consume and carry. It'll be interesting to see how the jury factors this into the decision.
on July 15,2013 | 03:29PM
hapaguy wrote:
Well Kraised I am glad to see that you are finally admitting that it is against State Dept. Policy to drink and carry but you really need to give it a rest with the "it's not illegal" b.s. All the Prosecution has to do to convince the jury that he was impaired is bring enough witnesses to testify that he reaked, he slurred his speech, etc....
on July 15,2013 | 04:04PM
MKN wrote:
@hapaguy: Even if Deedy was drunk, the most they could charge him with is carrying a firearm while intoxicated. That's not what the charge against Deedy is though. It's Murder 2 and the video evidence alone looks like Deedy was defending himself in that last sequence where Elderts charged at Deedy and may have attempted to take away his gun. Deedy might lose his job, but more than likely he won't spend much time (if at all) in jail.
on July 15,2013 | 04:37PM
hapaguy wrote:
MKN I was responding to Kraised's insistence that they can't prove he was impaired. Yes Deedy is charged with "Second Degree Murder" which the Prosecutor only need convince the jury that Deedy killed Elderts WITHOUT premeditation but was acting with "malice aforethought" in intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another person in the shooting death of Elderts. Its been reported that Deedy repeatedly stated that he was going to shoot Elderts PRIOR to the scuffle breaking out. Sounds like malice aforethought to me. We'll see what the witnesses say. Also, Deedy is also charged with "Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Separate Felony"
on July 15,2013 | 05:05PM
Mypualani wrote:
Ohnay. That is not good
on July 15,2013 | 06:34PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Let's stick to the facts. Has a witness testified to actually saying that or are you going off of new reporting?
on July 16,2013 | 01:53AM
pridon wrote:
Based upon recent history, Deedy was probably at a massage parlor for a little action prior to the event. Seems thier MO when on the road.
on July 15,2013 | 05:02PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "The state will have to prove that he was impaired."

Honestly, I don't think it matters if he was impaired. He knowingly violated policy by choosing to drink alcohol while carrying a concealed weapon. It sounds like he was using poor judgement before the night ever started.

He choose to start and argument with a stranger who was sitting peacefully waiting for his sack of burgers. He choose to escalate the violence by kicking him in the chest. He choose to brandish a firearm in a crowded restaurant. He choose push and shoot an unarmed man with who he had approached and then picked a fight.

If anyone should be claiming that Deedy was drunk that night, it should be the defense. "Reduced faculties" might be a defense for his inexcusably poor judgement that night. I'd hate to think he made those decisions sober.


on July 15,2013 | 04:20PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
His impairment is a key factor for the prosecution. If they cannot prove he was impaired to the point where it affected his judgement then they will have a very hard time proving murder or even manslaughter.
on July 15,2013 | 04:42PM
hapaguy wrote:
So wrong. They don't have to prove he was impaired and its not a key factor in their case. They only have to prove he had "malice aforethought" in intentionally or knowingly causing the death of another person in the shooting death. The prosecution is going to bring forth witnesses that will testify that Deedy was telling Elderts that he was going to shoot him. If the witnesses do indeed testify to that, Deedy is screwed....
on July 15,2013 | 05:16PM
Mypualani wrote:
Very much so.
on July 15,2013 | 06:36PM
Jonas wrote:
Yes, but the hard part may be proving it "beyond a reasonable doubt."
on July 15,2013 | 11:33PM
poipoo wrote:
Saying chill or I'll shoot isn't the same as chill or I'll kill you.
on July 16,2013 | 01:14AM
Kailuaraised wrote:
And how do you suppose they prove that beyond a reasonable doubt? If Deedy wanted to shoot him, don't you think he could have just shot Elderts much sooner?
on July 16,2013 | 01:54AM
pridon wrote:
Yea, we have to pay HPD officers not to consume and carry according to the new pay agreement. But how do they polcie it?
on July 15,2013 | 05:00PM
Rickyboy wrote:
What was Deedy doing when he was supposedly giving first aid ?. Rememember watching a movie were the assailant allegedly giving aid when witnesses were watching but actually was strangling the victim. Not saying that was the case but ..?
on July 15,2013 | 03:36PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
You cannot be serious.
on July 15,2013 | 04:42PM
Mypualani wrote:
Oh my God !
on July 15,2013 | 10:58PM
cojef wrote:
Will the charges be amended at the last minute to manslaugther just like in the Zimmerman case?
on July 15,2013 | 03:50PM
MKN wrote:
Good question. Not sure about that one. If the state prosecution was smart, they would have included that possibility just to get something to stick. If not, I think they screwed up big time like what happened in the Zimmerman trial.
on July 15,2013 | 04:12PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
I think if the state of Florida pushed for manslaughter they might have had a chance at a conviction. Instead they tried to pile on murder and back door a manslaughter conviction to the jury.
on July 15,2013 | 05:13PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
People, keep Zimmeman out of this. This is not even close.
on July 15,2013 | 05:38PM
entrkn wrote:
If the defense doesn't go after that testimony and that cop, their license to practice law in Hawaii should be revoked, and if that judge allows that testimony he should be disbarred also.
on July 15,2013 | 04:07PM
Mypualani wrote:
HUH!
on July 15,2013 | 05:24PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
It's not illegal. You must be impaired for it to be illegal. It is prohibited by his agency but in the eyes of the law, drinking and carrying if you're not impaired is legal.
on July 15,2013 | 04:32PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "It's not illegal. You must be impaired for it to be illegal. It is prohibited by his agency but in the eyes of the law, drinking and carrying if you're not impaired is legal."

Well then, I guess it's a good thing that Deedy isn't charged with carrying a concealed weapon while drunk. He's charged with murder.


on July 15,2013 | 07:13PM
2NDC wrote:
I find it very interesting that despite Deedy violating State Department "Policy", he's still employed by them. One would think (or at least hope) that the State Department would have conducted a thorough investigation (like most LE agencies when deadly force is used). Had the investigation turned up facts that Deedy violated any laws, I would hope that the State Department would have terminated him. It appears that only the Kangaroo Court of Hawaii and local LE believes that Deedy committed a crime, hence the trial. Bottom line is Deedy is gonna walk. Did he violate policy? Possibly. Did he do anything illegal? Highly unlikely. Elderts was a bully who picked on the wrong dude. I see it on an all too frequent basis. Some local thug gets juiced up (Elderts was smoking pot as well), then the thug decides they're gonna act up in an attempt to show off to their friends. Most times the visitor gets the short end of the stick, and gets beat up or worse by the thug. This time the visitor was armed. When the locals (Elderts friends were coming and blocking avenues of escape for Deedy) came for this visitor and wanted to "teach him a lesson", the locals were "schooled" instead of the "haole". Sad that Elderts had to die, but fortunate that no innocents were harmed.
on July 15,2013 | 04:39PM
2NDC wrote:
Deedy violated State Department "policy". He didn't break any laws. State Department hasn't found a reason to terminate him. I'm sure the jury will find him innocent and he will walk.
on July 15,2013 | 04:46PM
Wahiawamauka wrote:
Maybe. But I will laugh my behind off if he is convicted. He was drinking while carrying his weapon and HE CHOSE to get into the altercation. And when it escalated to a fight between two men, he had to shoot the guy.
on July 15,2013 | 05:02PM
pauliboy wrote:
Drunk Person Firearms = Accidental Death
on July 15,2013 | 04:59PM
Skyler wrote:
Funny how the "plus" sign doesn't work on here, eh.
on July 15,2013 | 10:22PM
gobows wrote:
IF.....IF the JURY believes Deedy was intoxicated or even slightly impaired due to drinking......AND he shot and killed Elderts WHATS the worst can happen to him according to the LAWS? its not MURDER.....he didnt go out packing his gun with the intention of killing or shooting someone....
on July 15,2013 | 05:13PM
Wahiawamauka wrote:
You are right, That would be 1st degree murder.
on July 15,2013 | 05:20PM
2NDC wrote:
Problem is that he's charged with 2nd Degree murder. He's gonna walk.
on July 15,2013 | 06:44PM
Skyler wrote:
You can drink one drink & have alcohol on your breath. Didn't he just get off a plane from the mainland earlier, too? Might explain even more as far as 'glassy eyes & some slurred speech' goes. If he had been drunk - wouldn't all his speech be slurred?
on July 15,2013 | 05:16PM
gobows wrote:
lawyers can talk their way out of 'glassy eyes' and "slurred speech". he was just in a fight.....he just shot and killed someone....there's no telling what adrenaline does to one's body in that situation. lawyers....thats what they get paid for.
on July 15,2013 | 05:40PM
Wahiawamauka wrote:
Gobows. I believe he is being tried for 2nd degree murder.
on July 15,2013 | 05:21PM
gobows wrote:
thanks for clarifying for me
on July 15,2013 | 05:41PM
eknu wrote:
you had 3 federal agents were the other 2 agents armed if not why not didn't see anyone else pull their weapon it looked like the female agent who was trying to stop deedy got into a scuffle with two other persons but did not pull out her weapon if she was under attack she could have used it but she showed restraint also they are federal agents protecting nobody at that time why the need for a weapon they do carry phones and should know how to dial 9-1-1 and when did hawaii become baghdad also the victim was sitting down if they felt violence was going down hpd could have got there before the victim finished his meal
on July 15,2013 | 05:22PM
mikethenovice wrote:
The cops might be smelling his own breath? We have the tools and the technology today to test for alcohol.
on July 15,2013 | 05:41PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
mikethenovice wrote: "The cops might be smelling his own breath? We have the tools and the technology today to test for alcohol."

That is grossly unfair to the HPD who arrived first on the scene. There is ample evidence that Deedy was drinking that night, including his own lawyer who said so in court.

The problem wasn't with tools or technology, it was with Deedy refusing to consent to a blood test or breathalyzer.


on July 15,2013 | 08:24PM
WarriorMojo wrote:
Let's try to keep some things straight here. Deedy's BAC has nothing to do with the main charges against him. Murder 2 is knowingly or intentionally causing a death. Manslaughter is recklessly causing a death. The fact that an accused may be intoxicated is not an element of or a defense to either charge. On the other hand Deedy's BAC does have something to do with his claim of self-defense and whether he acted reasonably under the circumstances. ALL evidence as to the reasonableness of his actions is therefore relevant, including his BAC. Since he refused BAC testing, there is no available record of his BAC. The direct observations of witnesses, including investigating officers, are therefore relevant and admissible on that point. Getting a warrant? That requires judicial consent, Such consent will NOT be given unless it can be justified by the evidence presented to the judge in connection with the request. Such evidence is pretty much always in the form of sworn WRITTEN statements from police. Those statements take TIME to type and formalize. It also takes TIME to have the statement reviewed by the judge before a warrant can be issued. Then, when you finally get the warrant, all the defense has to do is argue that the delay in getting the test means that it is not an accurate measure of what the BAC was at the time in question. Contrast this to getting a warrant to search a car or a house, which can be, impounded, locked down or preserved while the warrant is obtained. And God forbid you have an error in one of the sworn statements. That's pure ammo for the defense. So, why take two or more officers off the investigation to get a warrant for a blood draw when it is more important to complete the investigation?
on July 15,2013 | 05:43PM
WarriorMojo wrote:
Well, that had been broken down into nice little paragraphs....
on July 15,2013 | 05:46PM
Skyler wrote:
There's this thing called < br > very handy indeed for making nice little paragraphs.

Good post, btw.
on July 15,2013 | 10:24PM
hapaguy wrote:
Great post WarriorMojo.....
on July 15,2013 | 05:53PM
Mypualani wrote:
Good points, unlike other posters who think HPD can just whip out a warrant for a BAC . Thank you
on July 15,2013 | 06:44PM
gobows wrote:
Sounds like manslaughter at the most, or reckless endangerment at the least.
on July 15,2013 | 05:49PM
Mypualani wrote:
It happens. Believe me. I said Howdy to a friend she thought I said the forbidden H word. This when throw me off, I had to explain to her that is not what I said. The sick part is she isn't even Caucasian.
on July 15,2013 | 06:24PM
hanalei395 wrote:
And why is it now a "forbidden H word"? It's been around ever since Capt. Cook stumbled onto the Hawaiian Islands. It's in the Hawaiian dictionary, it means Caucasian, and it could mean a term of endearment.
on July 15,2013 | 07:06PM
Skyler wrote:
Actually... If you go by popular etymology, there's more to it than that. Plus, it could be any foreigner, not just a white one.

"A common popular etymology claim is that the word is derived from hāʻole, literally meaning "no breath". Some Hawaiians[who?] say that because foreigners did not know or use the honi, a Polynesian greeting by touching nose-to-nose and inhaling or essentially sharing each other's breaths, and so the foreigners were described as "breathless." The implication is not only that foreigners are aloof and ignorant of local ways, but also literally have no spirit or life within."
on July 15,2013 | 10:31PM
hanalei395 wrote:
It once meant any foreigner, but after the arrival of more immigrants of different races, it now means Anglo Caucasian.
on July 15,2013 | 11:04PM
Mypualani wrote:
Wow! I didn't know that thing about the no life and no spirt thing. Just that when the first meeting took place, each persons greeting was different. I cannot imagine how Cook felt when some big dark kanaka tried to greet him. Thank you skyler , I learned something.
on July 15,2013 | 11:06PM
Anonymous wrote:
One drunken, high punk crossed paths with another drunken punk. It happens all the time in Waikiki. Just that this time, one of the punks had a gun. Neither guy was/is an angel.
on July 15,2013 | 07:00PM
Kapaho wrote:
From the video, it appears that there were a lot of eye witnesses including three or four McDonad's workers. Looks like there was a security person there also. Their testimony should be better than the video that is really choppy. Both Elderts and Deedy were drunk, Elderts also high on drugs. With the way the Zimmerman trail ended, I wouldn't be surprised if Deedy is found not guilty
on July 15,2013 | 07:14PM
hikine wrote:
The question is did Elderts also smelled of alcohol. Who initiated the confrontation? Of course friends will side with friends but I admit Deedy used excessive force.
on July 15,2013 | 07:18PM
roxeee wrote:
was this the only thing covered in court today? i hope we don't have to hear one witness per day.
on July 15,2013 | 07:29PM
kainalu wrote:
That HPD did not test Deedy for alcohol could be the difference in this case, and would be an injustice if he in fact was under the influence and armed.
on July 15,2013 | 07:34PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "so are you actually going to discuss the issue of how HPD fumbled or just plain ignored Deedy's alcohol consumption? If he really was drunk, then why did HPD determine that he didn't need to take a forced test by getting a warrant? "

Here's the thing. I don't think it matters if Deedy was drunk or not. If he had been drinking tequila all night, and stumbled into a some terrorist plot and neutralized the attack taking out a johadist or two, I would be here crowing that it didn't matter how much he drank, he showed excellent judgement and did the right thing.

Obviously, that's not what happened. No one has charged Deedy with carrying a concealed weapon while drunk. He is accused of murder and his behavior before and after the event will be scrutinized.

Before the event, he brazenly and premediatatedly choose to ignore State Dept policy regarding drinking while carrying.

During the event, he instigated an argument with a seated stranger, brandished his weapon, dealt him a potentially lethal kick to the chest and seconds later, drew his pistol and shot Elderts. When cooler heads in his party tried to drag him away, he went around them to get back to antagonizing Elderts.

After the event, he refused to cooperate with the investigation, gave a narrative that disagrees with the video evidence and refused to allow his blood alcohol level to be checked. (please stop accusing the HPD of incompetence for not getting a warrant. As you probably know, it's not as simple as they make it look on tv and the time lag involved in getting a warrant invalidates the information and wastes everyone's time)

So again, it doesn't matter to me if he was drunk or not. He showed terrible judgement in picking a fight with a stranger in a crowded restaurant. Every time he had an opportunity to dial it down, he amped it up instead. Likewise, I don't care what Elderts said to Deedy to make him act so rashly and irresponsibly.


on July 15,2013 | 08:09PM
DA_HANDSOME_CHINAMAN wrote:
WELL, if Deedy didn't have a gun, then Elderts wouldn't have tried to grab it. AM I RIGHT OR AM I WRONG. Deedy was slurring all over the place. I don't think Deedy is going to escape dis one.
on July 15,2013 | 08:30PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
I saw this on the Star-Advertiser earlier.

It shows an untrained convenient store clerk in a situation similar to the one Deedy found himself in.

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/ap/pennsylvania/clerk-thwarts-robber-armed-with-bb-gun/v6cPG/

The store clerk was far more restrained.


on July 15,2013 | 08:46PM
eyoshida wrote:
Interesting all the similarities of this trial to the Zimmerman one. Going by the Zimmerman verdict where the jury only took into account that he was in fear of his life and not how the situation started, I think that Deedy may get a not guilty. Personally, I think they both were wrong, but Deedy carrying a gun while under the influence was neglience.
on July 15,2013 | 08:58PM
Mypualani wrote:
Well the jury was six Caucasian women, one of me signed a book deal hours after the verdict. So what do you expect? The prosecution sucked too. The judge gave her instructions to the jury but left out one little thing with the so called stand your ground law.
on July 15,2013 | 11:15PM
RandyC73 wrote:
Taking his gun along for protection because what his friend said about locals and go drinking and shoot a man in self defense because Elderts was drunk and was going for his gun! I still don't understand how Elderts knew Deedy gun was behind Deedy's back! Why do I feel Deedy intercated the hole thing!
on July 15,2013 | 09:26PM
poipoo wrote:
What does 'intercated' mean?
on July 16,2013 | 01:21AM
bumbye wrote:
Is that the only thing that happened today at the trial. Come on and pick up the pace!
on July 15,2013 | 10:03PM
localgirl2 wrote:
Since when did smelling alcohol make you a murderer? I hope that this doesn't turn into a Zimmerman type case. Seems that NBC (?) changed the words around and played it on the morning shows for a week after the shooting. It was played correctly today on a radio show , the doctored part, and then the correct part. The MEDIA is the group who is responsible for inciting all of this anger amongst Martin's supporters. Do they ever show the later and older Martin, not the young youth...what about the tatooed Martin who had been in trouble at school etc. Watch out to see if Deedy gets a fair trial.
on July 15,2013 | 10:18PM
poipoo wrote:
I wondered about the media consistently showing a 12 yr old kid instead of a 17 yr old.
on July 16,2013 | 01:24AM
IN OTHER NEWS
Blogs
Political Radar
Phased in

Political Radar
Palolo v. Pauoa

Political Radar
Palolo v. Pauoa

Career Changers
Must Sea TV

Political Radar
HB 1700 — Day 4

Political Radar
Pass

Warrior Beat
Hammer time