Quantcast
  

Wednesday, April 23, 2014         

CHRISTOPHER DEEDY MURDER TRIAL


 Print   Email   Comment | View 175 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

Defendant's breath went untested, ex-detective says of federal agent

By Ken Kobayashi

POSTED:
LAST UPDATED: 05:23 p.m. HST, Jul 31, 2013


A retired Honolulu police detective testified Tuesday that police didn't obtain a blood alcohol reading from State Department special agent Christopher Deedy because he refused to take a breath test.

Theodore Coons said that by the time he learned of the refusal some nine hours after the 2011 fatal shooting in Waikiki, it was too late to get a search warrant to test Deedy and get an accurate reading.

He testified that it would have taken another three to five hours to obtain a search warrant. After 14 hours the test wouldn't be reliable, he said. "You could even be sober," Coons said.

Coons, one of the two primary detectives investigating the case, also testified that the second of three gunshots fired by Deedy killed Kollin Elderts.

The defense has maintained that the third and final shot fired by Deedy killed Elderts as he was on top of the agent and grabbing the gun.

Coons is the final witness for the city prosecutor's case in Deedy's trial on a charge of murdering Elderts the early morning of Nov. 5, 2011, at the McDonald's restaurant on Kuhio Avenue.

Coons, who retired last year, retakes the stand today for cross-examination.

The defense is scheduled to open its case later in the day by calling its first witness, Jessica West, the girlfriend of Deedy's friend Adam Gutow­ski.

WHAT’S NEXT

State Department special agent Christopher Deedy is scheduled to open his defense today with its first witness, Jessica West, girlfriend of his friend Adam Gutowski. The prosecution is expected to rest its case earlier in the day with the completion of the testimony from its final witness, retired Honolulu Police Detective Theodore Coons.

The defense case is expected to span about two weeks.

Deedy's attorney Brook Hart said prior to the trial that Deedy is "highly likely" to testify, but the defense would reserve making a final decision until the prosection rests its case.

Deedy, 29, who was here to provide security at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference, is charged with murdering Elderts, 23, of Kailua.

The prosecution contends that Deedy was inexperienced in the job and fueled by alcohol in being armed while drinking at five Chinatown and Waikiki bars before ending up at McDonald's and shooting the unarmed Elderts.

Deedy had been an agent for about two years prior to the shooting.

Gutowski and West were with Deedy at the bars and McDonald's.

Deedy's defense is that he drank beer but wasn't drunk when he went to McDonald's and relied on his training as a federal law enforcement officer to defuse an escalating and dangerous situation that started with a drunken Elderts bullying a customer.

The defense contends that Deedy identified himself and showed his badge, which angered Elderts, who attacked him.

The degree to which Deedy was influenced by alcohol has become a key issue, with police and McDonald's customers testifying Deedy was drunk or appeared to be drunk.

But an emergency room doctor who examined Deedy that early morning said the agent did not appear to be intoxicated.

On the 14th day of the trial, Coons testified that arrestees in felony cases are routinely processed and given breath tests for alcohol.

He said Deedy refused to take the test.

Coons distinguished felony arrestees from drivers suspected of drunken driving, who are required to take the alcohol breath tests.

He said he could have gotten a search warrant that would have enabled police to get a blood sample for alcohol testing.

But Coons testified he was involved in the investigation at the McDonald's scene and interviewing witnesses. It wasn't until he returned to the police station nine hours after the shooting that he learned about Deedy's refusal, Coons said.

Coons also testified that Deedy fired three shots, two of which hit the restaurant's walls.

He said the first and third shots hit the walls and that the second was the fatal shot.

Coons said his investigation relied on the McDonald's surveillance video. He said the gunshot residue on Elderts and the downward direction of the bullet through Elderts' chest suggested it wasn't a point-blank shot.

He also said Deedy's shirt was covered with Elderts' blood.

"It's an awful lot of blood to have just been generated from the last shot," he testified.






 Print   Email   Comment | View 175 Comments   Most Popular   Save   Post   Retweet

COMMENTS
(175)
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.
Mythman wrote:
How much blood is an "awful lot"? In comparison to what?
on July 31,2013 | 02:59AM
hanalei395 wrote:
This is one time where Deedy can be called a "ha ole" without his supporters being whacked out of shape. "Ha ole" ...... without breath.
on July 31,2013 | 07:18AM
Shh wrote:
seriously! I guess to it being the last shot with a lot of blood.
on July 31,2013 | 10:51AM
allie wrote:
more racism?
on July 31,2013 | 01:44PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Whacked out and stupid allie, doesn't get it. .... Lolo'ole ....without brains.
on July 31,2013 | 02:15PM
lynnh wrote:
Sir, the more you speak, the more clear it becomes you are a clear cut racist.
on July 31,2013 | 08:22PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Except for this Deedy supporter, and too stupid to know what's going on, this one is being whacked out of shape.
on July 31,2013 | 09:22PM
lynnh wrote:
It means foreign or non-Polynesian. You "without breath" is incorrect and you would know it if you looked it up in a proper Hawaiian dictionary and not Wikipedia. Get a clue about your own culture. And, by the way, why would SA block the word if it wasn't deemed or seen as derogatory?
on July 31,2013 | 08:21PM
kolohepalu wrote:
because it offends dimwits that don't know what it means (like you)
on July 31,2013 | 09:27PM
hanalei395 wrote:
Ue .....Lolo kukae.
on July 31,2013 | 09:36PM
mikethenovice wrote:
Looks like another fish will get away by a lack of due process.
on July 31,2013 | 05:29PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Why is a detective who wasn't on scene even bringing up his intoxication? We al know that he refuse to be tested. The police on scene didn't pusue it any further. He also suggestit wasn't a point blank shot but that there was a lot of blood on his shirt? It'll be interestin to see what Hart does with this.
on July 31,2013 | 03:37AM
8082062424 wrote:
one thing he point out is after time goes by you do not get a accurate reading .which says by the time the ER doctor saw him he could have slobbered up some
on July 31,2013 | 05:51AM
soundofreason wrote:
Regardless, it's not illegal to have alcohol in your system at any level when you're not driving. He wasn't driving.
on July 31,2013 | 06:34AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
But is is unquestionably against the policy of the US State Dept. No alcohol while arm or with 6 hours of being armed.
on July 31,2013 | 06:38AM
Mypualani wrote:
Well Deedy is special he can drink alcohol and not be under the influence because he drank what ? 5 beers that his friend saw? All those witnesses don't know what they are talking about, even the sober ones. Their eyes and ears simply lied to them andthe tape is fabricated, Deedy went over to calmly talk to Elderts, that kick we all saw was just a figment of our imagination and like the Deedy supporters say it does not matter if he caused the fight, or kicked and threatened the victim what counts is he went for the gun, um one question why did the gun even come out?
on July 31,2013 | 03:27PM
Larry01 wrote:
No, but it's against State Department regulations for their enforcement personnel to be drinkiing ANY AMOUNT while armed. That's been stated in previous articles.
on July 31,2013 | 08:17AM
aomohoa wrote:
However, it obviously affected his judgement!
on July 31,2013 | 09:07AM
mikethenovice wrote:
If the alcohol affected his demeaner at any time, he is responsible for his own actions.
on July 31,2013 | 05:28PM
kelbells34 wrote:
Soundofreason...Hawaii and most states have a "Disorderly Conduct" law...It often pertains to people who are drunk in public...Also, he was a suspected felon...They should have done a breathalyzer, toxicology screening, or something. They did one on Elderts and is using that in court. If Deedy wasn't intoxicated, he probably had coke, crack, or something else to hide. Why would you refuse the test if you weren't intoxicated? Of course his friends West and Gutowski is going to say he was not intoxicated. But, he only drank some beer? I believe I saw Deedy's receipt with 9 shots of hard liquor and some beers. And, that was just one receipt!!! Gutowski claimed they went to 5 different bars and DEEDY ordered 1 beer at each bar. That's the LIAR!!! OR...If you NEVER saw him order any of the 9 shots, must mean DEEDY drank them all himself...RIGHT? The witnesses that didn't know him (except the ER DR) testified that he was "drunk". Why would they be biased, if they didn't know either party??? HPD is TRAINED to identify intoxicated people. I'm just saying this because I noticed someone prior (last week) claimed the opposite. Seriously, get your facts straight before you post bogus information.
on July 31,2013 | 09:56PM
RetiredWorking wrote:
Kailuar, please read the article again. Detective Coons WAS on the scene.
on July 31,2013 | 06:04AM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Poor wording on my part. He was on the scene but not talkin to Deedy. He was interviewing other people. That leaves it wide open for the defense. How hard is it to get a warrant right away when a guy just shot someone? He went 9 hours without thinking about whether deedy was drunk and if they tested him?
on July 31,2013 | 06:12AM
Larry01 wrote:
Probably no one told him, and he assumed Deedy had been tested. Not out of bounds to think that things went according to regular procedure if no one tells you something was out of the ordinary.
on July 31,2013 | 08:19AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
Seems many of the people who are paid to serve the community are incompetent. The mere fact hat he didn't find out key information until 9 hours after the incident would make me question anything this guy has to say, he's lost some credibility for sure. Probably good that he's retired, we need competent detectives on the job.
on July 31,2013 | 05:21PM
saveparadise wrote:
Gotta agree with you Kailua. Logic is telling me that Coons initially felt this was a justified shooting and was taking a casual approach rather than a prosecuting approach. His testimony at this point is worthless to the prosecution and he is just covering his own lack of foresight.
on July 31,2013 | 09:17AM
dsl wrote:
Wow! you got that out of his testimony - you're a mind reader!! you should have this case figuered out already!
on July 31,2013 | 10:02AM
saveparadise wrote:
dsl, are you the mind reader or does your opinon matter any more than someone else's? If we were having beers together I would bet you lunch in conversation that he is found not guilty of murder 2 but guilty on a lesser charge of manslaughter. Too many inconsistencies to prove other than a man was killed in a fight.
on July 31,2013 | 10:29AM
dsl wrote:
Deedy started the whole thing. No body was threatened, no crime was being committed therefore, no need for Deedy. Deedy threatened and assaulted then murdered. That's what I take form what I've read and viewed. I don't read people's minds and body language or assume what they're thinking and then make a state of such to make my opinion. Don't take it personally, take it constructively:)
on July 31,2013 | 11:29AM
dsl wrote:
KailuaR- Read again - don't just pick the stuff that fits your stance. Deedy refused (knowing he was drunk AND carrying). By the time the detective found out about the refusal it was 9 hours. Big difference.
on July 31,2013 | 10:00AM
saveparadise wrote:
dsl, So who is responsible for the search warrant if the suspect refused the test? How do you know he was drunk?? Tell us his blood alchohol level if you are the expert. Testimony and factual evidence. Big difference.
on July 31,2013 | 10:37AM
dsl wrote:
The detective of course, however, he wasn't aware of Deedy's refusal until too late. I don't know he was drunk, but I've seen people drunk before and from the picture I saw of Deedy, appears that he was. No facts just observation. No mind reading just observation and opinion:)
on July 31,2013 | 11:34AM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
He was drunk that's why he refused. If he was sober, he would have submit.
on July 31,2013 | 04:41PM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
How often to you hear about a federal agent going out, picking a fight and then killing an unarmed man? Never! Do you really think Deedy started the trouble?? Or was he reacting to trouble started by Elderts? Which makes more sense? Seems to me you lack any common sense. Deedy may have handled the situation wrong but there's no doubt this incident would never have happened if Eldert's and his friend had not been hassling the haole guy waiting for his food. Eldert's bears some responsibility for his own death, particularly if Deedy showed him a badge and told him to back off. Only a stupid person picks a fight with a cop.
on July 31,2013 | 05:28PM
kolohepalu wrote:
Oh, you've never heard of it, so he must be innocent. Nice reasoning. Deedy was drunk, forfeiting whatever little credibility he had as a "cop".
on July 31,2013 | 09:31PM
scooters wrote:
You ever tried to get a hold of a Judge at that hour of the day? Good luck with that..
on July 31,2013 | 11:27AM
Kailuaraised wrote:
I can assure you there are judges you can call in the case of a murder investigation. People have cell phones.
on July 31,2013 | 01:17PM
RetiredWorking wrote:
Kailuar, Coons stated in yesterday's article that it would take 3-5 hours to get a search warrant. By then, toxicology results would be compromised.
on July 31,2013 | 03:23PM
Mypualani wrote:
He was at scene and also interviewing witnesses.
on July 31,2013 | 03:29PM
wiliki wrote:
It's a good thing the detective was interviewing witnesses at the scene. At least his report is probably better than any police report about who were the witnesses at the scene, and what basically happened. Medeiros and Eldert beating up Deedy's friend is probably in his report but not in the police report.
on July 31,2013 | 05:17PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "He also suggestit wasn't a point blank shot but that there was a lot of blood on his shirt?"

You were the one here a couple of days ago insisting that the shot to Eldert's chest meant he instant death and that Elderts wouldn't possibly be able to fight afterwards. It takes time for a person to bleed, and if, as the defense contends that it was the 3rd shot that killed him, when he was on top of Deedy and punching... then... look, I don't think it matters a whit which bullet killed Elderts.

Deedy choose to resort to deadly force, draw his weapon and start shooting at an unarmed man who had his hands at his side. I don't see why it matters which bullet killed him. Likewise, I don't think it matters if he was drunk, kinda drunk, kinda sober, or pretty much sober after a night of bar hopping.

I think it matters that he had the poor judgement to go out drinking with his service weapon in violation of US State Dept policy, picked a fight with an unarmed stranger, threatened his life, kicked him in the chest and then shot him dead thirty seconds later.


on July 31,2013 | 07:22AM
Kailuaraised wrote:
I didn't say instant death. I said it would drop them. I.E. if the first shot hit him then it would stop him from attacking. If the last bullet hit him and there are two holes in the ceiling then that would be a strong self defense case. I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't introduce the ballistics. I'm guessing because it doesn't favor them.
on July 31,2013 | 07:50AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "I didn't say instant death. I said it would drop them."

Okay. "Drop them" then. So, after Eldert's "dropped" how long do you think Deedy lay under him? I think if I had a unresponsive, bleeding man on top of me, I would get up as quickly as possible. So how did Deedy get all that blood on him form one 9mm sized hole? Keep in mind that the massive amount of blood is clearly visible on the video BEFORE Deedy eventually returns and starts CPR.

By the way, your belief about the stopping power of one 9 mm bullet to the chest is a dangerous myth, and I hope that you take the time to educate yourself before you and sidearm endanger the public or yourself with your mistaken belief.

http://www.ammoland.com/2013/06/firearm-stopping-power-fact-fiction-and-anecdotes/#ixzz2Wlqn0JoR

(Other sources readily available)


on July 31,2013 | 08:27AM
saveparadise wrote:
Kalaheo, Could it be that it was the third shot that killed Elderts and that Deedy lay under him for awhile after having been busted up while Elderts was straddling him? That situation would favor self defense. You don't get up very quickly after someone been pounding on you. Look at Deedy's and Gutowski's face. The local boyz were kicking them around pretty good before the final shot stopped the attack.
on July 31,2013 | 09:23AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
saveparadise wrote: "Kalaheo, Could it be that it was the third shot that killed Elderts and that Deedy lay under him for awhile after having been busted up while Elderts was straddling him?"

Sure, if Deedy laid under Elderts for a while then that would explain all the blood on him. It will be interesting to hear from witnesses if that happened. I guess the defense will need to bring in witnesses to testify that that happened since it will be part of their defense.

I apologize if I'm being repetitive, but if the defense tries to say that Deedy wasn't *really* defending himself until the third shot, that will be a pretty hard sell to the jury. When he pulled his weapon, Elderts was standing with him arms by his side and witnesses have testified that Deedy started shooting immediately.


on July 31,2013 | 09:53AM
saveparadise wrote:
Wow Kalaheo, where did you get testimony that Deedy started shooting immediately? If that is the case then he is guilty as charged. But the video clearly shows the man in a defensive posture with his left hand out and right hand on the gun getting ready to be drawn as Elderts is advancing.
on July 31,2013 | 10:15AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
saveparadise wrote: Wow Kalaheo, where did you get testimony that Deedy started shooting immediately? If that is the case then he is guilty as charged.

I got that right here:

http://www.staradvertiser.com/news/breaking/20130725_Witness_Elderts_was_on_top_of_Deedy_when_shots_rang_out.html?id=217013651

"Salzbrenner testified she saw Deedy pull out his gun and fire a shot at Elderts, who then pushed the agent backwards. That first shot hit Elderts, the cashier said. The defense contends it was the third shot that fatally hit the Kailua man in the chest."


on July 31,2013 | 10:26AM
MKN wrote:
@Kalaheo1: Yes, that's what Salzbrenner stated, but then why did the detective state that the second shot hit Elderts and why did Salzbrenner only hear two shots when there were three shots? It's stuff like this that casts doubt in this case. That's why we need to wait for all of the evidence to come out to see who's story pans out better. The truth is there, but it's probably somewhere between the prosecution's and defense's version of events. There's already some doubt in the prosecution's version of events. Let's see what the defense says. Maybe they'll have inconsistencies as well, but we won't know that until all their witnesses testify.
on July 31,2013 | 11:03AM
hapaguy wrote:
saveparadise: Kalaheo is correct that Salzbrenner testified that Deedy pulled his gun and shot first Then they struggled. Also don't forget that Bryd testified to that also... MKN: the most important evidence is not how many shots did witnesses hear or which bullet hit Elderts first. The most important thing is WHEN did Deedy pull his gun and start shooting. So far all the testimony contradicts Deedy's sworn "Declaration" to the court that was filed on July 26, 2012. In that Declaration Deedy states that he did not shoot until Elderts grabbed for his gun...
on July 31,2013 | 12:40PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
MKN wrote: @Kalaheo1: Yes, that's what Salzbrenner stated, but then why did the detective state that the second shot hit Elderts and why did Salzbrenner only hear two shots when there were three shots?

I think Salzbrenner testified that Deedy started shooting immediately because she was there and saw it happen first hand. The detective wasn't there and couldn't testify to that.

As for the discrepancy between two and three shots, I believe that is the fault of the reporter who wrote that after they went to the ground, she heard two (more) shots. Bad reporting. KITV has done a far better job.


on July 31,2013 | 02:25PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
I believe 3 shots under 5 seconds! Not much time for pounding. save paradise, the local boys never kicked anyone. The video doesn't show it.
on July 31,2013 | 04:48PM
Mypualani wrote:
Busted up? Or wasted on Booz? We will never know.
on July 31,2013 | 04:48PM
stingray65 wrote:
9mm, does not have enough stopping power to stop a person, specially if he is high on drugs or drunk.. however, .45cal is the best that will stop a subject even 200 lbs. person.. I know this for a fact!! By the way the exit of the bullet is much bigger than 9mm. Then that is what I call natural death!! Because, it is natural that when you get hit by .45 cal guaranteed death..Naturally!
on July 31,2013 | 12:31PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Little boys with guns.lol.
on July 31,2013 | 04:50PM
kolohepalu wrote:
And you are an authority? Not.
on July 31,2013 | 09:33PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "I'm surprised the prosecutor didn't introduce the ballistics. I'm guessing because it doesn't favor them."

I'm guessing that no one really cares about the where Deedy's wild shots went, and only really care about the one that wound up in Eldert's chest.

Unless you want us to believe that Deedy didn't *really* fear for his life until the last shot.


on July 31,2013 | 08:49AM
MKN wrote:
@Kalaheo1: Actually in all shootings, the ballistics report is very important to the police. That's why they preserve the crime scene as much as possible whenever a shooting takes place. That way, they can figure out exactly what happened when it happened and when each shot was fired from the gun to where it hit the wall. I will have to agree with Kailua on this one. I expect the defense to present the ballistics report and to provide a visual layout of the shooting.
on July 31,2013 | 09:23AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Again, we know from sworn testimony that after Deedy drew his weapon, he started firing immediately. The prosecution, like the defense, needs to paint a picture of what happened that night. They need to focused, clear and concise for the jury.

A day spent on ballistics, only to have the defense bring in another ballistics expert to disagree with the prosecution's expert just wastes everyone's time, especially if it doesn't really matter whether Elderts was killed by Deedy's 1st, 2nd or 3rd bullet.

For example, from the video we can plainly see that when Deedy drew his concealed pistol, Elderts was unarmed and standing with his arms at his side. Are we to believe that Deedy feared for his life and had to resort to deadly force at that moment?

No one would have had the opportunity to take Mr Deedy's gun if he had left it where it was, concealed under his shirt and in a holster. Instead he drew it and started waving it around like Yosemite Sam. Taking it away from him as quickly as possible seems like a prudent course of action, and, in fact, that was the VERY FIRST TIME HPD DID when they arrived on the scene.


on July 31,2013 | 10:18AM
MKN wrote:
@Kalaheo1: Both sides will always have a ballistics expert to corroborate their side of the story. Especially when the video doesn't show exactly what happened when it happened. As for Elderts being unarmed and standing with his arms at his side, you fail to mention that Elderts wasn't just standing there. He was approaching Deedy which is why Deedy had to put one arm up to stop Elderts' approach. We all know Deedy had absolutely no fighting skills, so it's quite possible that Deedy did feel threatened when Elderts was approaching Deedy. Who knows. Like I have said before, we need to hear all of the evidence before we can make a rational judgement on this case and that includes the defense's side of the story. On another note, I still don't understand why the prosecution didn't try to charge Deedy with anything and everything that they could have possibly charged him with (Assault, Terroristic Threatening, etc.) since those actions were pretty obvious on the video tape. Is there some law that states that if you charge someone with Murder 2, you can't charge them with Assault and Terroristic Threatening as well?
on July 31,2013 | 10:32AM
saywhatyouthink wrote:
lol.. your arguments are stupid.
on July 31,2013 | 05:33PM
saveparadise wrote:
Kalaheo, It may have been bad judgement to have the gun but he did. At the point of no return, Deedy was fighting to keep control of the gun which was his last hope of survival. At least that is what I would be thinking. With maybe 2 hands fighting for the gun your face, head, and wherever your opponent feels like hitting you with his free hand is vulnerable. YES, you are fighting for your life till the last shot.
on July 31,2013 | 09:30AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
saveparadise wrote: "Kalaheo, It may have been bad judgement to have the gun but he did. At the point of no return, Deedy was fighting to keep control of the gun which was his last hope of survival."

Here's the thing.

Everyone keeps talking about Deedy fearing for his life and using lethal force to defend himself, but seem to forget about Elderts and whether he feared for his life and was justified in using potentially lethal force.

Here is a man sitting waiting for his burgers. Let's say that he is loud and obnoxious. Let's even pretend he said the H word 100 times. Still, he's sitting at a table in McDonalds, he is not posing a threat to ANYONE, and Deedy approaches him, argues with him THEN threatens his life and THEN delivers a potentially life threatening kick to his chest and then draws a pistol and points it at him at starts firing. At this point, it would be reasonable for Elderts to conclude that his life was in danger and seek to neutralize the threat.

I dare say that Elderts feared for his life FIRST and was actively defending himself against Deedy's ongoing deadly assault.


on July 31,2013 | 10:03AM
saveparadise wrote:
Let's be clear on this. I have never said the shooting was justified. That is for the jury to decide. Deedy WAS fighting for his life at the moment of the shooting. That is clear. You cannot convince me that Elderts was not a part of this fight and that he did not intend great bodily harm once the rumble began.
on July 31,2013 | 10:21AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
saveparadise wrote: "Let's be clear on this. I have never said the shooting was justified. That is for the jury to decide. Deedy WAS fighting for his life at the moment of the shooting. That is clear. You cannot convince me that Elderts was not a part of this fight and that he did not intend great bodily harm once the rumble began."

Everyone seems to be forgetting that Elderts was fighting for his life too. And if Elderts did intend "great bodily harm" towards Deedy, it was reasonable as Deedy had assaulted him, kicked him and was now shooting at him.

I'm trying to remind everyone that Elderts was reasonable in fearing for his life and the same right to defend himself as Deedy, but unlike Deedy, he wasn't carrying concealed weapons.


on July 31,2013 | 10:31AM
Fred01 wrote:
Elderts was a total bully local coward. He deserved his end.
on July 31,2013 | 11:00AM
saveparadise wrote:
Kalaheo, agreed that Elderts may have feared for his life but he is not the one on trial. Takes 2 to make a fight, one died, and now what is the verdict for the survivor?
on July 31,2013 | 11:02AM
MKN wrote:
@Kalaheo1: So you're saying that both sides were just trying to defend themselves or just Elderts? You have to remember that in the final sequence of events, if both sides claim to be defending themselves, who do you think the jury's going to believe when one guy (Elderts) was rushing the other guy (Deedy)? Usually the guy getting rushed at would be viewed as the one defending themselves. Irregardless, l reserve judgement until all of the facts come out in this case. Right now, it's tough to prove Murder 2. If it was Manslaughter, the prosecution would have a pretty good chance.
on July 31,2013 | 11:23AM
stingray65 wrote:
Kaleheo, according to medical examiner, Elderts has drugs and alcohol on him. That is why he is not afraid of anything, plus besides he has his buddies tha run away after. He wanted to take charge! However, it was too late when found out that DEEDY is a Feds and with a gun..Bingo! He found what he was looking for, his maker..
on July 31,2013 | 12:39PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
stingray65 wrote: "Kaleheo, according to medical examiner, Elderts has drugs and alcohol on him. That is why he is not afraid of anything,"

And according to Deedy's own lawyer and witnesses, Deedy had alcohol in him too. DO you think that made Deedy "not afraid of anything" as well?

We don't know what drugs Deedy was on because he REFUSED to cooperate with the investigation and submit to a blood test. For all we know, Deedy's blood alcohol was twice Elderts and he was on crack cocaine, PCP and meth. We will just never know. But Deedy sure did make some TERRIBLE decisions that night, starting with acting like a professional assignment was spring break and taking his gun with him for a night of "craziness."


on July 31,2013 | 02:46PM
soundofreason wrote:
Doesn't quite explain him walking away from the initial confrontation to go out the side door and THEN going back in again as the aggressor in a NEW/separate altercation.
on July 31,2013 | 08:35PM
kolohepalu wrote:
Kalaheo, there is no winning this argument. Deedy is serving as a surrogate to the whiners that want to be in Hawai'i but yet are scared of all of the brown people.
on July 31,2013 | 09:39PM
hapaguy wrote:
Kailuaraised: No "two holes in the ceiling" as you have suggested could be signs of self defense. Watch the video of Det. Coons on KITV's website where he shows the exact frame from the Mcd"s surveillance video that shows Deedy shooting at Elderts BEFORE they struggle. This is the frame directly after your beloved frame that shows Elderts with his hands down and Deedy pulling his gun out of his back pocket. That first shot missed Elderts and was LODGED IN THE BACK WALL not on the ceiling above the cashiers counter. Deedy pulled his gun and began firing before they struggled exactly as the other witnesses (Bryd & Salzbrenner) have testified to.
on July 31,2013 | 12:18PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Well, let's see the ballistics report. If it shows the shot was wild because Elderts was grabbing for the gun then they have a very strong self defense case. Elderts was standing two feet away. It's not hard to hit someone who is just standing there so there is reason to believe there is more to it then Deedy just firing and missing.
on July 31,2013 | 01:23PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "Well, let's see the ballistics report. If it shows the shot was wild because Elderts was grabbing for the gun then they have a very strong self defense case."

Bad news, Kailuaraised. The ballistics report will never, ever tell you why Deedy's shot went wild. Personally, I think it was because he was out of his depth and firing wildly, but the ballistic report won't show that either. Have you ever seen a ballistics report?


on July 31,2013 | 02:19PM
hapaguy wrote:
Unreal. You have been claiming that the missed shots would be found in the ceiling proving that Deedy shot at Elderts during the struggle and Det Coons testifies that the first shot just plain missed Elderts and hit the back wall behind Elderts and not the ceiling and you still question it. I would bet that if a ballistics report was entered into evidence that would back up Det Coons testimony, you would point to something else to satiate your belief that Deedy is innocent. It doesn't matter what evidence is presented, you will still grasp at straws in your belief that Deedy is innocent.....
on July 31,2013 | 02:21PM
false wrote:
Was the detective testify as a forensic expert? Interesting. Don't make judgements yet. Wait for all of the evidence. Some prosecution witnesses now testifying to stuff that they did not indicate on original statements.
on July 31,2013 | 10:01AM
mongoosa wrote:
Coons needs to go back into his hole...he is getting all of his testimony from the medical examiner and prosecutors who all hold hands at the autopsy. I'm sure Coons had a cell phone on him and could have found out about the refusal while he was at the scene had he thought about how important that might be in a case such as this. HPD should be held accountable for their screw ups.
on July 31,2013 | 10:27AM
false wrote:
The Defense "act" is going to be interesting fantasy of what actually happened. Just waiting to see how they unfold the drama of who started the conflict with physical intent. Words may be venomous but only if you respond with force. Who demonstrated "force"?
on July 31,2013 | 05:30AM
yhls wrote:
Deedy is the worst kind of coward. A coward with a gun. And a punk with a badge.
on July 31,2013 | 06:04AM
8082062424 wrote:
well said
on July 31,2013 | 06:19AM
allie wrote:
He had bad judgment, was poorly trained and soon to be out of a job. This is manslaughter.
on July 31,2013 | 06:24AM
pgkemp wrote:
it's the defenses turn, go rip em hart!
on July 31,2013 | 07:16AM
aomohoa wrote:
I'm just worried he will get off like Zimmerman.
on July 31,2013 | 09:10AM
false wrote:
Got you, but they are being judged by a jury. I know I would rather be judge by a jury than public opinion. Wouldn't you?
on July 31,2013 | 10:08AM
stingray65 wrote:
False: You are correct!! I would rather be Judge by the Jury, than carried by six!!
on July 31,2013 | 12:47PM
allie wrote:
jury has the full facts. Most in the public do not
on July 31,2013 | 01:46PM
lynnh wrote:
None of the public has the facts.
on July 31,2013 | 08:38PM
Nevadan wrote:
...if not in jail
on July 31,2013 | 01:48PM
soundofreason wrote:
No, the "punk" would be the one who had illegal drugs in his system.
on July 31,2013 | 06:35AM
8082062424 wrote:
There seem to be punk behaviour on both sides. the big difference is one was a drunk agent with a gun who took some one life. that a way worst crime then being high
on July 31,2013 | 07:23AM
control wrote:
two wrongs don't make a right, both were wrong. it is unfortunate that it resulted in a death but both sides were at fault.
on July 31,2013 | 08:29AM
false wrote:
Prosecution still hasn't proved he was drunk. Let's see what they do.
on July 31,2013 | 10:09AM
Larry01 wrote:
There are all kinds of punks, soundofreason. Look at this board, for crying out loud.
on July 31,2013 | 08:20AM
hanalei395 wrote:
While Elderts went down fighting after being shot, that punk coward with the gun, Deedy, was still in complete fear.
on July 31,2013 | 07:33AM
aomohoa wrote:
And your point.
on July 31,2013 | 09:11AM
stingray65 wrote:
I was really surprised that he did not empty his whole clip of bullets!! He had a semi-automatic pistol.. I know I would!!
on July 31,2013 | 12:50PM
lynnh wrote:
How about the thug who started the whole thing by being a violent punk? A punk with a history of being a punk. He didn't go down fighting... he went down committing a felony assault.
on July 31,2013 | 08:40PM
stingray65 wrote:
I will never call a person with a Gun a coward!! Specially if he know how to use it..Who lost the fight? A coward?
on July 31,2013 | 12:44PM
Mypualani wrote:
True dat stingray65, but ask yourself this. Who's on trial facing prison, loosing his, job will be sued and wife telling him Aloha! Conjecture on my part to be sure. But think about it. He will be sued, he's not getting off Scott free like he thought when claiming immunity and his wife is too pretty to be waiting 20 years for him.
on July 31,2013 | 03:48PM
lynnh wrote:
No, he is a law enforcement agent who is require to protect the public and intervene when someone is causing problems. In the video, and now in a defense witness testimony, Deedy shows Elderts his wallet. In other words, he showed him his identification. You can then see Elderts stand up and start posturing. It is at this point Elderts showed his true disrespect for law, and is now in Deedy's rights to defend himself from a hostile aggressor. The virst violent act is Elderts and his friend assaulting Deedy's friend. That is plane and clear in the video. You can then see Deedy rush in "after" you see them on the floor assaulting his friend. Clear cut case that Elderts was the problem.
on July 31,2013 | 08:36PM
livinginhawaii wrote:
These cops are coming off as incompetent. They should have sought out a warrant for a blood test the minute they became knowledgeable of a shooting. They certainly have enough employed to have one of them do the paperwork for the warrant. I smell cover up in protecting a federal agent.
on July 31,2013 | 07:41AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
I think you may have point. I suspect that officers on the scene initially tried to help Deedy with what I guess he described as a "righteous shoot." It was was only after detectives interviewed witnesses and looked at the video tape that they realize that Deedy had instigated the whole mess himself. By that time, it was too late to get a warrant and a valid blood test.

Fortunately for the prosecution, I don't think it matters if Deedy was drunk as a skunk or sober as a judge. It matters that he had the poor judgement to go out drinking with his service weapon in violation of US State Dept policy, pick a fight with an unarmed stranger, threaten his life, kick him in the chest and then shoot him dead thirty seconds later.


on July 31,2013 | 07:55AM
control wrote:
actually, isn't the prosecution trying to show that deedy was imparied (drunk) that also contributed to his poor judgement? now the police say that he appeared to be intoxicated but nobody thought about getting a warrant to test his blood alcohol? funny how the detectives saw what might be a righteous shoot but the shooter appeared intoxicated? wouldn't that be a red flag?
on July 31,2013 | 08:27AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
I don't know, and this is a WAG (wild as s guess) but it's conceivable that HPD didn't push for the blood test because the initially didn't realize just how badly Deedy had messed up and were showing him the sort of professional courtesy they (rightly or wrongly) show each other. By the time they interviewed witnesses and reviewed the video and pieced together what actually happened, it was too late to get a valid blood alcohol.

But again, I don;t think it matters if Deedy was blind drunk or just buzzed. His actions were inexcusable and can't be blamed on alcohol.


on July 31,2013 | 09:31AM
control wrote:
while inexcusable, the prosecutor is making his level of intoxication a big issue, otherwise why bring it up? the prosecutor is using the level of intoxication as one reason for deedy's poor judgement. the prosecutor says that the level of intoxication combined with having a gun and non training on how to handle "locals" are the reasons for deedy's actions resulting in a death. While I do not totally agree, I am just mentioning what seems to be the current direction of the prosecution. As for coon's testimony, he said that when he got back to headquarters 9 hours later did he find out that deedy refused the breathalizer test. this indicates that there wasn't really a "head" person coordinating the investigation IMHO. Sorry others, I was in error with the test, it was a breathalizer test.
on July 31,2013 | 12:10PM
lynnh wrote:
non training on how to handle "locals"???? Why should anyone have to train to hand a person from another state? Are you saying that locals require special understanding because of their racist habits and violent tenancies? Are you saying they should be treated any different than anyone else? Is this Al Sharpton?
on July 31,2013 | 08:46PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
I honestly don't think it they were planning on pressing charges until the protest and outcry from the local populace came out. If another mainlander got shot then I highly doubt anyone would care.
on July 31,2013 | 01:26PM
Mypualani wrote:
What protest and out cry? The only people I saw on the news after this was attorney Green telling stories
on July 31,2013 | 03:52PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kalaheo1 wrote: Or, you know, it could be that HPD talked to witnesses and reviewed the video tape and saw and heard what actually happened.

Hey, how many things can you find wrong with this article? If the case weren't so tragic, it'd be funny:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2012/08/convicted-in-the-media.aspx


on July 31,2013 | 04:41PM
hapaguy wrote:
Yeah Kalaheo I read that article a couple of weeks ago. The irony of that article is that it is on a website that is devoted to "Police - The Law Enforcement Magazine - Community For Cops". The article seems to throw Honolulu Police Dept. under the bus as a commenter named Jase correctly pointed out in the comments section of the article. The guy that wrote that article (Jon Adler) and some of the people that made such obnoxious comments on it should all be ashamed of themselves...
on July 31,2013 | 09:58PM
false wrote:
Detective said it would have taken 5 hours to get warrant. Probably had to wait for a judge to get his morning coffee and pastry before they take a call. Lazy judges.
on July 31,2013 | 10:11AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Or, you know, it could be that HPD talked to witnesses and reviewed the video tape and saw and heard what actually happened.

Hey, how many things can you find wrong with this article? If the case weren't so tragic, it'd be funny:

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2012/08/convicted-in-the-media.aspx


on July 31,2013 | 03:56PM
control wrote:
wow, honolulu's finest. Nobody on the scene thought of getting a search warrant to test deedy's blood alcohol level? Guess the keystone cops were handling the investigation. Wish the SA would give us more detail on testimony, other than some brief snippets they really don't cover testimonies very well, only giving us the 30 second condensed review. Other than pics of the hole in the wall, no ballistics on the shootings? no mock up's of each shot being fired, position of deedy and elderts when the shots were fired? Or is the SA not giving us all the information? Coon was one of the primary detectives on the scene, yet didn't think of asking the other detective to get a warrant to draw blood? guess deedy's level of intoxication didn't have anything to do with the case...NOT!
on July 31,2013 | 07:47AM
LKK56 wrote:
Drunk or not drunk does not matter. If he was sober, extremely poor judgment pulling out and shooting your gun in a Mc Donalds restaurant with a lot of patrons - drunk patrons. You can imagine Deedy trying to protect the President in a crowd, Deedy would have shot everybody but the person trying to harm the President.
on July 31,2013 | 08:13AM
control wrote:
we all agree that deedy wasn't properly trained and that his actions caused the death of another. The point I was making was that if the officer interviewing deedy thought he was drunk or showed levels of intoxication, even though he was a fed officer, wouldn't you want to do a complete investigation? wouldn't signs of impariment warrant more scrutiny?
on July 31,2013 | 08:23AM
control wrote:
or is this a "blue" thing where like DUI cases they allow the officer a lot of leeway?
on July 31,2013 | 08:35AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
That is my guess.
on July 31,2013 | 09:32AM
Mypualani wrote:
YesI would HPD messed up.
on July 31,2013 | 03:53PM
control wrote:
go to k-i-t-v's site for more detailed information on this case. they give more details on the detective's statements on the stand, also more details on the shots fired. Unfortunate but I think that channel covers the trial better than this paper.
on July 31,2013 | 08:08AM
Peacenik wrote:
haha, you said a mouthful there. There lots of technicalities discussed by the Detective on the stand, which did not favor Deedy. But this was a tense situation where it seemed Medeiros was heading towards Perrine for allegedly giving him the stink eye. The female security guard thought it serious enough to finally get involved. Deedy felt she probably couldn't handle it herself, did finally get involved. Seem from the tape Eld and Med were making pests of themselves for quite a length of time before Deedy felt he had to do something. Maybe informing E&M he had a gun, he thought it would scare them sober to just stop their behavior, but he underestimated their bravado or drugged induced courage and they challenged him. I remember reading that during the Korean conflict, Chinese soldiers were drug before going on a suicidal attack. Drug gave them courage but did not stop them from being mowed down by machine guns. Warning from the cashier also were made to E&M to stop pestering Perrine. So it wasn't like Deedy, just went up to them and shot Elderts. Like of Stuff happened prior.
on July 31,2013 | 09:17AM
8082062424 wrote:
thing is i read one of the news channel had posted that it was a little over 4 minutes from the time Eldert's walked in McDonald's and was shot dead.
on July 31,2013 | 09:36AM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
And about 30 seconds from when Deedy approached him until he was shot dead.
on July 31,2013 | 10:33AM
8082062424 wrote:
wow did not know that. just seconds
on July 31,2013 | 11:37AM
lawman1175 wrote:
Now it makes sense why the the defense's opening argument emphasized it was the third shot that hit Elderts. KITV showed the detective explaining the path of the bullet into Elderts from the second shot and where he believed the third shot ended up. The jury will need to decide if the evidence supports the detective's testimony. Finally, we'll get to here the defense present their side. We'll get to hear Deedy's point of view and thoughts during the incident. The defense only needs to place some doubt in any of the jurors mind as to whether his actions are considered murder or manslaughter. Or, will they return a not guilty verdict which basically says it was a justified use of lethal force. Stay tuned.....
on July 31,2013 | 08:59AM
mynah wrote:
reckless manslaughter is the verdict. reckless conduct for carrying and pulling out gun which carries a risk and disregarded by Deedy hat someone could be shot and killed. No self defense since use of deadly force by Deedy was unreasonable to repel non-deadly force used by Elderts. Either Deedy was one stupid federal agent or he was afflicted with the colonial superiority complex you see in some foul-mouthed condescending tourists. Alas, living in Hawaii, a vacation spot for the world, is like living in an amusement park.
on July 31,2013 | 09:35AM
false wrote:
RIght. Not to mention some foul mouth mokes who live here.
on July 31,2013 | 10:14AM
Mypualani wrote:
Yeah we get all kinds.
on July 31,2013 | 03:56PM
puamamane wrote:
Innocent
on July 31,2013 | 10:01AM
s_and_b wrote:
"PUI" - packing under the influence - guilty, and against dept. policy to boot.
on July 31,2013 | 10:30AM
Morimoto wrote:
So after reading multiple stories about this case it looks like arrrestees in felony cases are routinely given breath tests for alcohol but in this case Deedy refused to take the test. It also seems that anyone can refuse to take a test and the police would have to get a warrant, which would take several hours, in order to administer the test right? This would probably invalidate the test due to the time elapsed. SO basically if someone doesn't want to take the test, they don't have to take the test right and police can do nothing about it. Or is there something I'm missing here?
on July 31,2013 | 10:43AM
control wrote:
other than dui cases, the police will probably have to get a warrant for alcohol test. I think it's a blood test, where they draw blood from the person. The breathalizer tests are for dui drivers to determine initial level of intoxication. the driver caught for DUI can also refuse the breathalizer test and the police may also have to get a warrant to draw blood, I am not 100 percent sure about this procedure since I never had a DUI. In the event of a car accident it may be standard procedure to draw blood to determine level of intoxication, again I am not sure since I have no experience in the matter. You are correct that there is some time to get the warrant and specialist to draw blood but in court they usually use a formula to determine the alcohol level at the time of arrest, basing it on length of time since arrest, etc.
on July 31,2013 | 11:55AM
control wrote:
I have to correct my post. Deedy was ask to submit to a breathalizer test and he refused. I think the next thing would have been to obtain a warrant to perform a blood test to determine deedy's level of intoxication. I'm not sure but I think the procedure might be the same for a person caught with a DUI. I had a friend who when stopped was given the option of a breathalizer test, I think refusing it meant stiffer penalties if he was found under the influence so he naturally submitted to the test. in accidents I think the test was mandatory.
on July 31,2013 | 12:14PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Refusing a BAC for a DUI is usually an administrative issue in most states. You'll lose your license automatically for an extended period of time (usually a year). It makes it hard to prosecute though so most cops who are pulled over for DUI refuse.
on July 31,2013 | 01:48PM
MKN wrote:
I do have one question for this case that I still haven't seen an answer for. Will the verdict be all or nothing (i.e. he either get's convicted for Murder 2 or he is exonerated)? I didn't hear from anyone yet that Manslaughter was even an option. If Manslaughter isn't an option, he could walk away from this case a free man.
on July 31,2013 | 10:44AM
Peacenik wrote:
I think i read someone complain about it being all or nothing, a long while back. I would agree to manslaughter but not murder. I think murder has to be intent to kill. In this case, Deedy had a right to be fearful for his life, as Eldert was like a drugged zombie and angry as a honest nest. Many past cases of locals beating people to a pulp incurring death or brain damage, not to say it doesn't happen elsewhere too. The one comes to mind is the off duty soldier in Haleiwa who ran into the 7-11. Another is a guy in Kahuku early in the a.m. on Kam Hwy.
on July 31,2013 | 11:23AM
hapaguy wrote:
It's Murder 2 because Deedy stated before the shooting he was going to shoot Elderts in the face. That's malice aforethought hence the Murder 2 charge. Also others have stated, as you have, that Elderts was a "hothead" with "self-control issues" and "temper problems" and now you say Elderts was a "drugged zombie" and "angry as a hornets nest". Let me ask you the same question that I have asked Ldub20 and the other Deedy supporters (they gave no answer) and see if you can give an intellectually honest reply: If Elderts was all those things, why didn't he strike Deedy first? Or Perrine? Why, after Deedy kicked him, wouldn't he go all out fists flying in retaliation? After Elderts dispatched Deedy to the ground he turns to help Medeiros, why wouldn't a "drugged out zombie" who was "angry as a hornets nest" continue to pummel Deedy while Deedy was on his back in a defenseless position?
on July 31,2013 | 11:50AM
Morimoto wrote:
It's been reported in earlier stories that manslaugher was one of the options in addition to murder and not guilty. Kind of like the Zimmerman case but in this case if I had to guess I'd say he gets convicted of manslaughter.
on July 31,2013 | 11:53AM
control wrote:
I'm sure that manslaughter is an option (don't quote me since I do not know for sure). I think the OJ case probably made sure that all cases after that they charge the person with a host of charges. I would hope that they charged deedy with terroristic threatening, assault, and other charges. While I doubt they can get a murder 2 conviction, it is possible that the result will be manslaughter or hopefully terroristic threatening or something in the end at the least. Yes, like the zimm case I am surprised that we aren't told what all the charges are, or did I miss it somewhere? Any "experts" know the full charges to this deedy case? I can't seem to find it in the SA other than murder.
on July 31,2013 | 12:01PM
Morimoto wrote:
I'm pretty sure the jury had the options of murder, manslaughter or not guilty. I've read it in earlier stories. I haven't heard about any other charges though.
on July 31,2013 | 02:01PM
hapaguy wrote:
OK Kailuaraised and you other Deedy supporters, if you watch the video of Det. Coons on KITV's website he shows the exact frame from the Mcd"s surveillance video that shows Deedy shooting at Elderts BEFORE they struggle. This is the frame directly after Kailuaraised's beloved frame that shows Elderts with his hands down and Deedy pulling his gun out of his back pocket. That first shot missed Elderts and was LODGED IN THE BACK WALL not on the ceiling above the cashiers counter. Deedy pulled his gun and began firing before they struggled exactly as the other witnesses (Bryd & Salzbrenner) have testified to.
on July 31,2013 | 12:01PM
hanalei395 wrote:
While the dying Elderts is trying to fight back, fighting to the end, that murdering punk coward Deedy, still in COMPLETE fear, fires the third shot.
on July 31,2013 | 12:43PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
*punch at Deedy.
on July 31,2013 | 02:02PM
Peacenik wrote:
I'm not hunged up on which shot killed Elderts. It has been established that Deedy threw the first kick and Deedy's bullet killed Eldert. I'm questioning the state of mind of parties involved. I agree Deedy had several beers and may have been somewhat inhibited. E&M on the otherhand, went drinking, partook in pot and cocaine. I've tried pot once but only half heartedly, so don't really know how it feels. I've never tried cocaine or meth, so I can't really say how E&M may have been feeling. The cashier who testified earlier said she felt a need to tell Eldert to stop, so i have to assume he was being obnoxious. When Medeiros started harassing P, the guard got involved which shows malice and potential for fight by M. Deedy got involved which even maybe an average cititzen with a sense of righteous would've doine, who saw it was 2 against one (E&M vs.P). It's not established yet if Deedy ID'd himself as a Fed Agent. With shouting and chaos, sometimes words can't be heard. Even in a normal conversation at a dinner table, sometime what is said can't be heard if more than one person is talking at a time. Deedy threw the first kick, agreed. Gut held up his arms to stop E from retaliating and he got punch by E and tackled by M. Eldert than went for Deedy, knocked him down and threw him to the left of the room. Then with further conforntation Deedy shot E, as he was fearful, as he had a right to be. Your camp is simplifying the situation saying to the effect, "a drunk Deedy went looking for some locals to kill and came across Eldert, walk up to him and shot him dead". Some even making it a sovereignty issue.
on July 31,2013 | 01:30PM
allie wrote:
Elderts was being egged on by the cowardly Madeiros. Both parties-Deedy and Elderts-should have walked away. This verbal altercations are part of the local shibai out here and it is best to ignore it all. I see it all the time in Waikiki. It is as boring as Waikiki itself. Madeiros walks free after betraying his friend..great guy.
on July 31,2013 | 01:49PM
Morimoto wrote:
Oh allie, looks like you're on the jazz again.
on July 31,2013 | 02:03PM
hapaguy wrote:
Peacenik everything in your comment up to and including "Deedy threw the first kick" I could agree with but after "Deedy threw the first kick" you go off the rails. Here's why: There has been no witness testimony (other than Gut himself) that Gut held his hands up and got punched in the face by Elderts in fact if you watch the video you can see Gut approach Elderts (after Deedy kicked him) and they are in front of Perrine. Their confrontation takes Elderts backwards from Perrines table to in front of the ATM. Common sense would tell you if Elderts was assaulting Gut, Elderts would not be moving backwards. Also West can be seen in the video pulling on Gut. Again common sense would tell you that you don't pull on someone who is being attacked. You pull on the person who is the aggressor. Medeiros only gets involved when Deedy comes over while Elderts and Gutowski are scuffling. I would help my friend if it was 2 against 1 also. You state "Then with further confrontation Deedy shot E, as he was fearful, as he had a right to be". Deedy had a right to be fearful but not to shoot an unarmed man. In general, a self defense claim can be valid if your use of force is equivalent to the aggressors use of force. Another words you cannot bring a gun to a fistfight. This is the reason why the defense is claiming that Elderts was grabbing the gun when it went off because it can't be self defense if he pulled the gun out and started shooting PRIOR to Elderts grabbing the gun....
on July 31,2013 | 01:51PM
Peacenik wrote:
When Elderts punched Gut, Deedy sensed he was in trouble. You can sense a hard punch to someone's face at close range. As hanalei said, that Deedy was a coward, that makes for the case he was actually scared for his life, and didn't shoot Eldert out of spite or anger. Also Medeiros wasn't exactly a tiny guy either.
on July 31,2013 | 03:19PM
hanalei395 wrote:
That would be a great line for the defense to use ... "Mr Deedy is not guilty because of the simple fact that he is a coward. A punk coward who was afraid for his life. Therefore, due to that fact alone, Mr. Deedy should be considered innocent".
on July 31,2013 | 04:29PM
hapaguy wrote:
LOL Thank you Hanalei! That's a good one!
on July 31,2013 | 10:03PM
NanakuliBoss wrote:
Peacenik, Deedy was the biggest one theta.
on July 31,2013 | 05:22PM
hanalei395 wrote:
"I'm not hunged up on which shot killed Elderts". .... You're not, but jury is. And it won't be a "hunged" jury. Deedy will be on his way to OCCC or Halawa.
on July 31,2013 | 01:55PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Ok, I just went and looked at the website. Here is the screen shot which the news said is the exact frame of Deedy firing at Elderts. http://imgur.com/imwcu90 Not only is Elderts not just standing there with his arms at his side, he's swinging a punch at Elderts and charging him. I don't see how that will get a murder 2 charge to stick. It looks like a valid case of self defense. Especially since the previous frame shows Deedy trying to get Elderts to back away and he is holding his gun.
on July 31,2013 | 01:58PM
hapaguy wrote:
Kraised this is the exact frame Det Coons testified to that I kept telling you that Deedy shot at Elderts and you kept saying that he didn't. Again, you keep taking a snippet of the whole encounter to try to make a case of self defense. I'm not going to keep arguing the same points with you because you don't get it. Let me make a final point though: A general rule of self defense law is that if you are being assaulted with nondeadly force, you can only use an equivalent amount of nondeadly force to protect yourself. In other words, you can't bring a gun to a fistfight. Again, this is why the defense is fiercely maintaining, in their court "Declaration", that Deedy did not shoot until Elderts grabbed the gun. Clearly the witness testimony as well as the video evidence, and now you, agree that Deedy shot at Elderts prior to Elderts grabbing the gun....
on July 31,2013 | 02:13PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Of course it's the exact frame. I went and pulled what you told me to. He doesn't have to grab for the gun, merely go for it. He can respond with force on that basis.
on July 31,2013 | 03:12PM
Mypualani wrote:
Hapaguy you paid attention, you can only use the equivalent amount of non deadly force. Deedy does not rise to the level of his so called claim. If he did he would have go e through the federal courts and be out of here.Hart had no choice but to go to HAWAII state court. When going through federal Deedy would have to take the stand and answer questions, that is why when coming back to state court Deedy had to change his defense to self defense. On the federal level he was trying to claim he was using his god given right to kill someone as someone with special federal powers, with immunity because he was making an arrest. That had gone wrong.
on July 31,2013 | 04:14PM
BigOpu wrote:
1st, 2nd,or 3rd shot...he got shot at and killed, why the big deal about which one? What I don't get is that the Prosecution is banking on Deedy being drunk and inexperienced. Well, there has been no factual info about alcohol level. Just some people saying he had glassy eyes, slurred, blah, blah. With no blood draw, breathalizer, or field tests, there really is no factual proof. And up to this point, I haven't read of one witness that testified to Deedy's inexperience. Prosecutions case got some holes sad to say. The only fact of this case so far is that Elderts got shot. We just don't know which one. I'm not choosing sides, but I bet Defense will tear this one up.
on July 31,2013 | 01:47PM
Mypualani wrote:
"Deedy's defense is that he drank beer but wasn't drunk when he went to McDonald's and relied on his training as a federal law enforcement officer to defuse an escalating and dangerous situation that started with a drunken Elderts bullying a customer." Relied on his training? Is that the way agents are being trained? Threaten to shoot your face, acting like that will get you shot? Then kick the person and after getting your face slapped, you shoot a person? That in my humble opinion is some very bad training.
on July 31,2013 | 01:52PM
hapaguy wrote:
Agreed. You should read the Defense Declaration that was filed in court. It really is fiction....lol http://www.deedysupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Brook-Hart-memo-26-34.pdf
on July 31,2013 | 02:27PM
biggerdog wrote:
Thought most of the blood got on Deedy when he tried to render aid.
on July 31,2013 | 02:51PM
hapaguy wrote:
Nah if you watch the video you can see after he shoots Elderts he gets up and walks over to pick up his slipper and tries to put it on. He is drenched in blood. Then he goes back to try to "render aid".....
on July 31,2013 | 02:56PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
Kailuaraised wrote: "Ok, I just went and looked at the website. Here is the screen shot which the news said is the exact frame of Deedy firing at Elderts. http://imgur.com/imwcu90 Not only is Elderts not just standing there with his arms at his side, he's swinging a punch at Elderts and charging him."

That's really interesting. So you don't think Elderts was grabbing for Deedy's gun when Deedy opened fire either. I don't know if you're aware of this, but "Elderts was grabbing for Deedy's gun so he had to shoot him" is pretty much the whole defense.


on July 31,2013 | 03:03PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Assaulting someone with their gun out is enough to prove that he was going for the gun or attempting to take it. It doesn't have to be a grab. However, I remember people clearly stating that Elderts was standing there with his hands at his side when he was shot. The prosecution just proved by their own admittance that is false.
on July 31,2013 | 03:14PM
Kalaheo1 wrote:
No... I was one of those people, and I was pointing out that wheDeedy made the decision to draw his pistol and use deadly force, Eldert's hands were down by his side.

This is the first I heard that simply touching someone with a drawn gun is considered attempting to grab the gun and wrestle control of the gun and justification for killing them. That's sort of a tactical "never hit a guy with glasses" isn't it?

I hope for Deedy's sake that they don't try to sell that pile opala to the jury, because if NOT lunging for the gun is what they mean by "lunging for the gun" then the defense is in deep, deep trouble.


on July 31,2013 | 04:53PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Yes, you shouldn't hit a guy who is drawing a weapon. That's common sense.
on August 1,2013 | 01:36AM
hapaguy wrote:
You are too much! Previously you kept claiming that Elderts grabbed the gun and that's why Deedy shot him. Now that there is witness testimony and evidence introduced that shows that Deedy drew his gun, shot first and then there was a struggle, you change to "assaulting someone with their gun out". lol "assaulting someone with their gun out"? really?...lol
on July 31,2013 | 06:56PM
Kailuaraised wrote:
Really? Go throw a punch at a police officer who has drawn and see what happens? I'm 100% positive that you will get shot. All the defense has to prove is that Elderts was going after him. He obviously was not just standing there when the shots were fired like the prosecution tried to claim.
on August 1,2013 | 01:34AM
Kailuaraised wrote:
And besides, I was merely pointing out that the prosecution themselves are getting their story mixed up. They have introduced so many conflicting stories that it is more than possible to get an acquittal based on their testimony alone. I'm sure the defense will present a counter to this detectives testimony.
on August 1,2013 | 01:53AM
jfbz2 wrote:
Golly gee, Andy, haven't they been using telephonic search warrants in most American jurisdictions for the last 30 years? But, I guess you're right. No point in upsetting the apple cart by heading into the 20th century too quickly. Let alone the 21st.
on July 31,2013 | 04:02PM
wiliki wrote:
I don't understand how the detective can say that the 2nd shoot killed Eldert. Was it a dead man who knocked down Deedy and was punching him and trying to take the gun away from Deedy? Just too hard to believe.
on July 31,2013 | 05:11PM
hanalei395 wrote:
According to the cashier Brandalynn Salzbrenner, after being shot, Elderts fell forward, pushing Deedy backward and gave Deedy "soft punches" before dying.
on July 31,2013 | 05:41PM
hapaguy wrote:
We've been over this before...There was testimony to the effect that Elderts bled out. He did not die instantly....try to keep up.....
on July 31,2013 | 07:01PM
mikethenovice wrote:
I thought I read that the cop was satisfied with just saying he smelled alcohol on his breath, and that was enough. The cop might have been smelling his own breath. Hello, we have tools to document this this day and age. No wonder some people are upset that the police are deserving a raise.
on July 31,2013 | 05:26PM
soundofreason wrote:
That would warrant termination. Not manslaughter charges.
on July 31,2013 | 08:31PM
lynnh wrote:
He didn't go down fighting... he went down committing a felony assault.
on July 31,2013 | 08:41PM
hapaguy wrote:
SA censors got me so let me try this again. Lynnh you ever notice how nobody replies to any of your comments? Its because your comments are devoid of any logic/reasoning, are lacking in common sense and the basic understanding of law. You should refrain from making any more comments to spare yourself further embarrassment....
on July 31,2013 | 11:09PM
zionjake wrote:
This guy Coons is a clown. He's a drunk himself!!!
on July 31,2013 | 08:56PM
IN OTHER NEWS
Latest News/Updates
Blogs