See my original post “A Murder in Hawai’i” here:
http://teri.nicedriving.org/2011/11/a-murder-in-hawaii/
The gist of the case is as follows: on the 5th of November, a special agent named Christopher Deedy, assigned to protect diplomats who would be attending the APEC conference in Hawaii, went out on the town. For some reason, he was carrying his gun and a knife while out drinking. He had an argument of some sort with a 23-year-old Hawaiian resident named Kollin Elderts while both were drinking in a bar. Elderts left the bar and went to the nearby McDonald’s. Special Agent Deedy followed Elderts there. Their argument apparently continued. Eye-witness testimonies differ slightly on several small details, which I will point out as they occur in the story. The internet has now been scrubbed of the witness statements and 911 calls, and even some of the original news stories have disappeared.
At the McDonald’s, the two men (and possibly several others, friends of one or the other – accounts differ) argued. Tests on Elderts’ body later showed that he was legally drunk at the time of his death. Deedy “declined” a blood-alcohol test, although a number of witnesses said he appeared intoxicated. At one point, Elderts laughingly asked Deedy, “What are you going to do – shoot me?”, to which Deedy responded, “How would you like to get shot tonight?” All witnesses agree that Deedy then kicked Elderts in the chest, knocking him down. Deedy then pulled out his service revolver and fired three shots, one of which hit Elderts in the chest, killing him. At this point, accounts differ again. According to one witness, Deedy left the McDonald’s immediately, but came back in when sirens were heard. According to other witnesses, Deedy never left. In any case, by the time the police and paramedics got there, Deedy had pulled out his knife, cut open Elderts’ shirt, and started CPR on Elderts. [This is the strangest way to perform CPR I’ve ever heard of and I dare not speculate on why Deedy pulled out his knife. I leave that to your imagination.]
A security tape from inside the McDonald’s exists and was used to charge Deedy with 2nd degree murder. This tape has not been released to the public, although it would answer any questions as to the sequence of events and who “aggressed” on whom. It is known for certain, however, that Elderts had no weapon of any sort. The police also have bar receipts showing Deedy’s purchases at the bar earlier which would offer evidence of how much he drank and verify the fact that he was in the bar at the same time as Elderts and did, in fact, follow Elderts to the McDonald’s. The claim that Deedy was acting in self-defense or in defense of others is peculiar, considering that Elderts was unarmed and had already been knocked to the ground by Deedy’s karate kick to the chest. Eye-witnesses were, oddly enough, only interviewed briefly the night of the murder, with little to no follow-up. For awhile, one could also listen to their 911 calls on youtube. Those interviews, transcripts of interviews, and 911 calls have since been scrubbed from the internet, or otherwise suppressed – either by the police department pending the trial or by some other party such as attorneys or perhaps even the State Department, seemingly on behalf of Deedy’s defense.
Deedy was charged with 2nd degree murder (rather than 1st degree), and was allowed to go free after posting a $250,000 bond. He was placed on paid administrative leave from the State Department and told to remain in Hawaii. Now, however, he has been allowed to return to his home in Virginia and will work at a desk job at the State Dept. I don’t know what you have to do to actually get fired from the State Dept, but apparently murdering the locals doesn’t do it. The trial has been postponed until September, by which time, the McDonald’s security tape may well mysteriously vanish. Nowhere is it explained why a person who is charged with murder, State Dept. employee or not, was set free on bail or allowed to leave the state in which he is charged. I doubt that had the situation been reversed, and Elderts been the one charged with murder, any judge would feel sympathy enough for his “financial situation” to release him to return to work thousands of miles away. In any case, Deedy was on paid leave during this time. His income has not been affected by the murder charges, except to the extent that he had to rent a condo in paradise while awaiting trial. The State Department will not answer any questions on this case beyond saying that they “support” Deedy; I wonder if their support included paying his Hawaiian condo rent until he returned home on Saturday.
Honolulu, Hawaii 31 Dec, 2011
by Ken Kohnyashi
Agent accused in fatal shooting can travel. Christopher Deedy will return to live and work in Virginia until his trial.State Department special agent Christopher Deedy can now return home to Virginia pending his trial in September on charges of murdering a 23-year-old Kailua man early Nov 5 at the McDonald’s restaurant on Kuhio Avenue.
Circuit Judge Karen Ahn granted a request Friday by Deedy’s lawyer Brook Hart to modify the bail conditions to allow him to leave Hawaii and reside at his Virginia home and work at a desk job with the State Department.
After the hearing, Deedy’s only comment was that he was “glad to be going home.” Hart said Deedy could get there this weekend, depending on whether they can arrange for a flight.
Deedy, 27, of Arlington, Va., who was here for the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, is charged with fatally shooting Kollin Elderts in the chest.
Deputy Prosecutor Jan Futa opposed the defense request, saying Deedy has no family or ties here and “good reason” not to return.
Ahn noted that Deedy has posted bond covering the $250,000 bail already approved by another judge.
“I cannot believe the federal government will permit anything other than the proper administration of justice,” she said.
She also set conditions that include requiring that Deedy be unarmed and work at a desk job. In addition, he cannot travel beyond 100 miles of his home.
In arguing for the modification, Hart told Ahn that his client has the “complete support of the State Department” and has “a compelling case of self-defense and defense of others.”
In his request, Hart said that his client’s bond was posted by the equity in his parents’ $455,000 home.
He also said Deedy has educational loans totaling $85,000, which were cosigned by his sister and aunt, who would be left with the debt if Deedy fled.
Hart said Deedy cannot afford to pay the $1400 monthly rent for his Virginia home and his current $900 a month rent for a one-bedroom unit in a hotel-condominium building here.
His most significant asset, Hart said of his client, who has worked about 2 1/2 years with the State Department, is a 2001 auto worth about $1800.
-the Star Advertiser, print version.
Actually, he has already returned home; he immediately took a late night flight back to Virginia after the hearing. Guess arranging for a flight isn’t so difficult when you have the support of the State Department.
27-year-old Christopher Deedy returned to his home in Virginia Saturday after gaining special permission to leave Oahu while awaiting trial. According to Deedy’s lawyer for his criminal proceedings, Brook Hart, Circuit Judge Karen Ahn granted the special permission Friday afternoon. Deedy then took a “late night” flight back to Virginia that evening. Hart added that the permission likely granted as a result of Deedy’s home and work being conducted in Northern Virginia…
He will not return to his normal work as a State Dept. agent, according to Hart. He will continue working for the department as an analyst and is not permitted to have his weapon or engage in other security detail. Under the special agreement Deedy must also stay within a 100 mile radius of his Northern Virginia home.
Deedy’s lawyer issued assurances that he will return to court when criminal proceedings continue, which is currently set for September 10, 2012…
Read more:
teri's random thoughts 
Coconut Guy
March 1, 2012 at 5:33 am
“Tests on Elderts’ body later showed that he was legally drunk at the time of his death.”
And that he had cocaine and marijuana in his system. It seems your facts on this story are very one-sided and that you have an agenda.
LikeLike
Teri
March 1, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Dear Coconut Guy,
Thank you for writing in with your concerns about this post.
Yes, tests on Elderts’ body showed that he had used some amount of drugs at some point before his death. Eye-witnesses reported that Elderts appeared drunk, as did Deedy. Deedy, however, was allowed to decline an alcohol-level test at the time. If the police did one upon taking him to the station after his arrest, I assume the results will be made public at the trial.
There is no discrepancy whatsoever in eyewitness reports regarding which man escalated the verbal argument into a physical confrontation – Deedy kicked Elderts hard enough to knock him to the ground. That was the first physical contact in the altercation. Elderts then got up and slapped Deedy; there was some “scuffling”, during which Deedy pulled his weapon and fired three shots. Elderts’ state of sobriety might be more relevant if he weren’t the one left dead.
At no time before the first kick (or ever) did Deedy call the police, tell Elderts that he was a Federal agent, or warn Elderts that he had a weapon. In fact, Deedy had two weapons: his semi-automatic handgun and a knife. Elderts was unarmed.
The police have the McDonald’s security video, which has not been released to the public. Apparently, that tape shows enough evidence that the state’s attorney was able to get an indictment against Deedy from the grand jury. I am sure that many parts of this story will be clarified at the time of the trial.
As to the information about an argument taking place earlier between the two men at a different location, that came from a police spokesman. As an example, from the article linked below: “Police spokesman Carolyn Sluyter said Kollin Elderts, Christopher Deedy and two other men were involved in a confrontation at the restaurant when the shooting occurred after an earlier altercation at a nightclub.”
http://www.bellenews.com/2011/11/08/world/us-news/hawaii-christopher-deedy-a-federal-agent-shot-dead-a-man-in-a-mcdonlads-restaurant/
I have no “agenda” beyond the obvious: our State Dept. people should not be carrying weapons while drinking and then receive judicial lenience in bail matters, etc. after shooting and killing an unarmed local. If I had wanted to make some point beyond that, to show some sort of extra bias toward Elderts, I might have mentioned that he was small enough to earn the nickname “Mouse” from friends and family and that he was the cousin of the professional football player Samson Satele of the Oakland Raiders.
Sincerely,
Teri
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 1, 2012 at 5:39 am
“He had an argument of some sort with a 23-year-old Hawaiian resident named Kollin Elderts while both were drinking in a bar. Elderts left the bar and went to the nearby McDonald’s. Special Agent Deedy followed Elderts there.”
Eldert’s attorney has already changed his story in regards to what you posted. He has now said that Eldert’s was drinking at a bar in downtown Honolulu (nowhere near the McDonald’s on Kuhio Avenue) and never came in contact with Deedy prior to the shooting. Again I think you need to do more research into the current facts of this case before blogging about it incorrectly.
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 2, 2012 at 12:20 am
Why should Deedy have to call the police when he is a law enforcement officer? The truth is that you have no idea who escalated the situation. Eyewitness reports also state that Eldert’s was harrassing people inside the McDonald’s before Deedy got involved. He is a LEO and likely told him to cool it before the situation escalated. Once they began scuffling he was fully within his rights to shoot him. Federal agents are allowed to be armed 24/7 because they are sworn uphold the law both on and off duty. IF he was drinking (which has not been proven yet) that would be an issue for him.
“As to the information about an argument taking place earlier between the two men at a different location, that came from a police spokesman. As an example, from the article linked below: “Police spokesman Carolyn Sluyter said Kollin Elderts, Christopher Deedy and two other men were involved in a confrontation at the restaurant when the shooting occurred after an earlier altercation at a nightclub.”
Eldert’s family attorney has said this is not true. He claims that Elderts and his friends were drinking at SOHO in downtown Honolulu and decided to go eat at the McDonald’s in Waikiki (which makes no sense since there are many between SOHO and Waikiki). Deedy was allegedly at Shack Waikiki which is right next to the McDonald’s. Initially Green told a different story to the press and then changed it a few days later. A common tactic when a lawyer is trying to influence the potential jury pool. Most people only remember the first version of a story they here.
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 2, 2012 at 12:25 am
If Deedy walked into McDonald’s, kicked Eldert’s in the chest and then shot him for no reason he would not have been given such a minimal bail. I think his arrest was a result of PR more than anything else and I would be surprised if he is found guilty of anything, let alone murder. Look at the two people involved here. Elderts had a prior criminal record with convictions for DUI and disorderly conduct, was drunk and on drugs. In contrast, Deedy would have needed an exceptional background to get his job.
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 2, 2012 at 12:52 am
I am going to tell you exactly what I think happened and you can keep your own opinions if you like.
1. Deedy entered McDonald’s and saw Elderts mouthing off to patrons.
2. Being a LEO he took it upon himself to intervene and told him to cool it. (verbal command: first step in use of force protocol)
3. Elderts (who was drunk/on drugs) didn’t want to hear it and threatened Deedy. This escalated the situation to where Deedy decided to use physical force by kicking him to the ground (allegedly). We have not seen the actual video yet.
4. Elderts got up and continued a physical altercation with Deedy. Once they got into a scuffle he was a threat to grab control of Deedy’s firearm. (escalation in use of force protocol to deadly force)
5. Deedy fired two misses during the physical scuffle to get his weapon.
6. Once he broke free he fired and hit Eldert’s once center mass (exactly where he was trained to fire).
Keep in mind that Deedy did not have the other means of force available to him at the time. Most LEO on Duty has OC spray, tazer, baton etc that they can use in various steps of force to subdue an uncooperative individual. Deedy only had a gun and small pocket knife). Once it became a physical confrontation the only avenue left was for him to use his firearm.
The grand jury indictment was a PR move because APEC was right around the corner and not charging him would have created a firestorm that they could not afford. Once the APEC conference was over they had his short court appearance he was allowed to leave the island soon after.
LikeLike
Teri
March 2, 2012 at 5:50 am
Coconut Guy,
You are certainly entitled to your opinions and your guesses on what happened that night. I would suggest that your use of so much law enforcement lingo hints that you may have some agenda here yourself.
However, at the heart of this discussion is the fact that if Deedy was acting in the role of law enforcement officer (LEO) and felt he had the right and/or duty to “subdue a suspect” by any means necessary, he also had the obligation to identify himself as such. Members of law enforcement, on or off duty, do not simply get to use their weapons with lethal force to subdue unarmed suspects. By not informing Elderts of his status, Deedy was not acting in the role of law enforcement. At no point did he tell Elderts who he was or try to place him under arrest. Neither of us knows what would have happened had Deedy followed protocol, the first step of which would have been to announce who he was and in what capacity he felt he had the authority to intervene and take action.
Whatever Elderts’ background, it is irrelevant. Deedy had no way of knowing about Elderts’ prior history – as you point out yourself, they did not know each other before that night no matter where they first encountered one another – and at issue is the handling of this one situation.
I suggest that we wait for the trial to assess the facts as they are made known and avoid further speculation on what might have taken place.
-Teri
LikeLike
paxhonu
March 2, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Reply to Coconut Guy:
What a pleasant Andy of Mayberry scenario you’ve developed for Mr. Deedy: “Just helping ya’ll out here with your unruly locals, even if I have to stay up half the night to do it.”
But you forget to address the most important and causal of the fact set, that there is plenty of testimony about Deedy drinking that night, and his credit card bill covering at least part of his drinking exercise has apparently been entered into evidence. And that leads necessarily to the following:
a) Deedy was neither on duty for State at the time of the various incidents that night (the altercation(s) at bar(s), which may or may not have included Elderts but did include Deedy and someone, and the final fatal altercation at the mcdonalds, most or all of which occurred sometime between midnight and 3AM), nor was Deedy even empowered in fact to act in any actual or official local law enforcement capacity whatsoever; because
b) it is a clear and egregious violation of State policy to carry a firearm while pursuing such off duty adventures, which specifically restricts the carrying of a firearm when drinking, among other things. Such violations of State policy completely override any extension of his role at State to, as you are suggesting, readily classify him as a “Law Enforcement Officer” in these circumstances. It does not do so. He will not be tried as a LEO acting in the line of duty but as a civilian for that very reason.
Further, the incident itself shows the gross danger to society that would arise if State actually had the type of open “feel free to drink and raise hell in the middle of the Waikiki red light district in the wee hours of the night, act the part of cop or well armed vigilante if you get in the mood” policy you believe exists.
I suggest a different scenario, one that security tapes and witnesses might corroborate at trial:
Mr. Deedy kicked Elderts to the ground, then fired three shots, missing twice from near point blank range because he was belligerent to begin with and now drunk as shit and fumbling with his own gun and with his own aim. He then pulled out his pocket knife drunkenly thinking to retrieve the bullet out of Elderts’ chest and run. But finally his glazed over eyes and alcoholically incapacitated brain registered the sounds of sirens and the dizzying chaos of the well lit and now bloody interior of the mcdonalds he’d just shot up, with witnesses crouching in horror.
State didn’t seek to have him arrested. They weren’t and aren’t worried about the bad PR of having him slide entirely. To them that would be a victory and would be very good PR. Let the citizens know there are matters of State at hand that they don’t have the clearance to know about, and no-one did anything wrong. The last thing in the world that State wanted was to have a rogue employee arrested on murder two.
Rather, it was exactly in spite of State’s despicable attempts to dismiss the whole matter that he was arrested and charged. With murder two. Then, amazingly, he was given low bail and freedom to leave Hawaii to return to a State paid desk job in Virginia, and, most stunning, with one full year before trial is even to be scheduled and with the written and clear support of the U.S. State Department tainting the jury pool in his favor. All of these very unusual advantages favoring the murder defendant represent State’s continuing attempt to sweep this thing under the rug and see that its own suffer nothing for their misdeeds. Not even in country.
Ironic, isn’t it. This is the same State Department that sanctioned the military overthrow of Hawaii in 1893 for purely economic reasons, using the Navy to enforce commerce benefiting corporate USA interests and individuals and repudiating Hawaii’s constitution, placing her monarch under house arrest, and completing an illegal annexation of Hawaii. And here they are back again. Same thugs, same thuggish mentality, same lack of concern for the locals, and same promotion of commerce and the corporate USA financial agenda imposed at the point of a gun.
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 2, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Pashonu,
Your story is not even worth addressing for obvious reasons.
Teri
How do you know that Deedy didn’t indentify himself? No one has seen the video and the trial has not happeend yet. You are strictly going off of hearsay testimony from Eldert’s friends and lawyer.
FYI
Federal agents don’t miss 2 shots out of 3 at point blank range and one of his misses went into the ceiling. Either he was aiming at the sky or he was in a physical confrontation with Elderts when he fired the first two shots. I know which scenario makes more sense to me. I am also not a LEO but I do have experience and understanding with rules of deadly force from military training. You are talking from a place of no experience and speculating to support your agenda.
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 2, 2012 at 9:31 pm
By the way I answered some questions you had from your previous story on this subject. Most of these would fall in the area of common sense.
“I have a lot of questions about this incident. Who is Why are they allowed to go out (intoxicated or not) amongst the civilians, carrying weapons, while off duty?”
Because ALL LEO are sworn to uphold the law both on and off duty 24/7.
“Why is Deedy charged with 2nd degree murder rather than 1st?”
Because they would never be able to prove that he went to McDonald’s with the intention of killing Eldert’s (he didn’t even know him)
“Why is he out on bail; a bail that looks rather low for murder charges? Why is he on administrative leave with pay?”
Because he is innocent until proven guilty like everyone else in this country. If he was convicted of the charges he would obviously lose his job. This is the normal procedure for all LEO once they are charged with any offense.
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 3, 2012 at 3:18 am
“Whatever Elderts’ background, it is irrelevant.”
I think it is very relevant when you consider that he was drunk beyond twice the legal limit, had cocaine and marijuana in his system and was harassing patrons inside the McDonalds. It goes right in line with things he had done before.
“I suggest that we wait for the trial to assess the facts as they are made known and avoid further speculation on what might have taken place.”
It’s too bad you couldn’t have done this from the very beginning instead of trying to skew the story to bash Deedy while trying to paint Eldert’s as a angel.
LikeLike
Teri
March 3, 2012 at 9:32 am
Coconut Guy,
Hmm, I thought you said we are all entitled to our own opinions. You have offered yours, but dismiss out of hand anyone else’s opinion. I see how that works.
As I said, we will get more information at the time of the trial. However, to answer a few of your latest remarks, I would point out the following:
1) If Deedy had identified himself first, eye-witnesses would have said so. Not one single person interviewed for the news stories made any such remark, nor did anyone in the 911 tapes. Deedy was only referred to as “a guy”, “someone” or “a caucasian” who got in a fight with “another guy”, etc. Secondly, if he had properly ID’d himself, his attorney certainly would have brought that to light, as it would go a long way in exonerating his client. His attorney has taken pains to point out that Deedy is LEO, but has never said that Deedy identified himself as such. I don’t think that the grand jury would have indicted him on any level of murder charges had they felt he was legitimately acting in the role of LEO – they might have considered it negligent homicide, but not murder. I don’t believe that cops and other LEO get indicted on murder charges every time they kill someone in the line of duty.
2) As to whether or not Deedy was drunk himself; his own attorney won’t say. The att’y has said that Deedy was within his rights to refuse a blood alcohol test prior to arrest and in one interview for a local Hawaiian station, when asked if Deedy had been drinking, made the comment, “Well, he had been at a bar.” That is all he has said.
3) Federal law allows LEOs to carry concealed weapons on duty or off, but one of the stipulations is that the officer may not carry when under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
4) Deedy is charged with two offenses. The issue of whether Deedy was acting as LEO and/or whether or not he was drinking seems to be addressed by the second charge he is facing: Use of a Firearm in the Commission of a Felony, Hawaii Revised Statutes, HRS 134-21.
5) You are mistaken in your belief about why Deedy was charged with second degree murder. And I would not even have needed to ask the question myself about degrees had I done further research. I mistakenly assumed the definitions for 1st and 2nd degree murder were standard in all the States. It turns out that in Hawaii, unlike most of the other states, 1st degree murder only applies in very limited cases, with strict definitions.
“Under Hawaii law, second-degree murder is defined as occurring simply ‘if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person,’ while first-degree murder involves specific kinds of victims.
“First-degree murder would pertain to someone who intentionally or knowingly causes the death of: more than one person in the same or separate incident; a law enforcement officer, judge or prosecutor involved in the prosecution; a witness in a criminal prosecution; a person by a hired killer, in which case the killer and the person who did the hiring would be charged; or a person while the defendant was imprisoned.”
Deedy is being charged with 2nd degree (HRS 707-701.5) because Elderts was not a judge, a LEO, a witness in a case, etc., and because Elderts was the only victim. It has nothing to do with Deedy’s intent or foreknowledge of Elderts.
You have made your opinion known, and at first politely offered to allow others to have their own opinions, yet now you seem determined to scoff at any opinion that disagrees with yours. I have let you express yourself at length, but now must ask you to stop. You are only saying the same things over and over, with no more inside knowledge than any of the rest of us have. I am sure that my response to you here will likewise mean nothing to you, despite the fact that I am presenting some actual law rather than just guesses or opinion. So enough of this. Please move along.
Thank you,
Teri
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 3, 2012 at 11:39 pm
“I don’t think that the grand jury would have indicted him on any level of murder charges had they felt he was legitimately acting in the role of LEO.”
At the grand jury indictment stage the defense is not allowed to present anything. The prosecution only has show that enough evidence is present to move forward. You are asking me to stop because I am showing how biased you are on this subject. You purposely left out that Elderts had drugs in his system, had a criminal record for DUI/driving w/o license and disorderly conduct etc. You even link your story to the “we mean’t well” blog which is equally biased an inaccurate. I am just asking your to be fair and put out everything. Not just what Eldert’s friends have said happened. You have no idea if Deedy identified himself or not because you were not there. The trial will show what did or did not happen. Deedy didn’t have to take a breathlyzer test because they were going to pull a tube of his blood anyway. Standard procedure when a LEO is involved in a shooting. You should point these things out instead of acting like he was trying to hide something.
LikeLike
Teri
March 4, 2012 at 9:44 am
@ Coconut Guy,
How odd and ironic that you feel that you should be allowed to harass someone into agreeing with your opinion.
I have already answered you at length. Please see my previous comments to you.
-Teri
LikeLike
paxhonu
March 4, 2012 at 2:41 am
Amazing density. And persistent. Jesus. Pink li’l cocoboy is crying apostrophe s over and over cuz’ he so wants Dee to be declared LEO, darling Leo, alli alli incomefree. But it ain’t so cuz Leo done been bad, real bad, son, real bad. And you so sorry must be some kine kaneohe mafb malahini wahine. ‘s my guess.
LikeLike
Teri
March 4, 2012 at 9:45 am
@ paxhonu,
Truly a conversational cul-de-sac.
-Teri
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 5, 2012 at 3:41 pm
So asking you to be fair and balanced on both sides is asking too much?
LikeLike
Coconut Guy
March 5, 2012 at 4:07 pm
This comment could have been placed here.
jmichael
November 9, 2011 – 8:58 am
I knew Chris Deedy when he worked at another agency in DC. He was a good honest guy, the kind of person you’d trust to date your sister. To the best of my knowledge, he had never been in any kind of trouble
prior to this.
The knee-jerk reaction to a story like this is to assume the suspect is a hot-shot trigger-happy agent and the victim was an innocent hippie who walked on water and never hurt a fly.
I am very sorry for the victim and his family, but I have absolutely no doubt that when the FACTS of this tragedy finally come out there will be a strong case for self-defense.
LikeLike
morning's minion
March 6, 2012 at 8:35 pm
What a fascinating thread. The real story is here in this moving testimonial from the people who knew him. We often hear that the devil is in the details, but here we have the opposite. Hearing about the origin of his name made me think of Bobby Burns’ wee timorous beasty.
Had he been “just” the drunk man our state department go-to-guy– Mr. Coconut– wants to make him, it would still have been an outrageous crime to shoot an unarmed man and walk away, but to learn some meaningful details about Kollins’ life makes the story ten times worse.
Teri, thanks for this story and the reminder of the lives being squandered to a too easy affinity for a gun, a lack of interest in the law, and a consequence free zone. Will the nation that shot an American citizen and his son –without trials– and then dumped the remains unceremoniously in the ocean, bother with a “real” trial for a man named Mouse?
“Guys like us, that work on ranches, are the loneliest guys in the world. They got no family. They don’t belong no place. . . . With us it ain’t like that. We got a future. We got somebody to talk to that gives a damn about us. We don’t have to sit in no bar room blowin’ in our jack jus’ because we got no place else to go. If them other guys gets in jail they can rot for all anybody gives a damn. But not us.”– Of Mice and Men, John Steinbeck
LikeLike
Teri
March 7, 2012 at 4:12 am
Morning’s Minion,
Yes, that was an interesting post; however I just got an e-mail from the person who provided the letter saying that he/she now questioned its authenticity and asking me to set it aside until it could be verified.
Given that, I have pulled the post until it can be sourced and will re-post at a later date if appropriate.
What an interesting case it is and how divisive it proves to be with some lining up to excuse any action at all taken by a LEO/quasi-authority figure; and others appalled at the facts of the case which simply don’t look good for the State Department under any light.
-Teri
LikeLike
Mark
May 23, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Please email me about the Deedy case.
LikeLike
Robert
June 18, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Interesting opinions on here. I was not there, I did not see it. I don’t know what happened. But I am a law enforcement officer. I carry a concealed weapon on me almost every day. I would offer this:
I’m not sure what jurisdiction state department federal agents have to enforce local laws. Some do, some don’t…it depends on the agency you work for. Most people assume that just because a person is a federal agent, they possess sworn arrest authority. Not true. There are many GS series 1811 federal agents who do not possess arrest authority. But for arguments sake, let’s assume Mr. Deedy is a sworn LEO with powers of arrest.
One of the fundemental requirements of being a law enforcement officer is good judgement. Federal, state, local…it does not matter, if you you cannot make good calls under pressure and you possess a weapon, your a danger to yourself and others.
I never worked for the state department but I’d bet you a dollar they have a written policy that says something like: “You cannot carry your government issued firearm if your intoxicated or have been consiming alcohol within X amount of hours”. Almost all departments have a written policy that restricts the carrying of firearms when consuming alcohol.
All this said: IF Mr. Deedy was partying it up at the club while carrying a gun, he was wrong. And IF Mr. Deedy got into a PERSONAL confrontation and then decided to use his federal agent status to solve it, then he was wrong. IF Mr. Deedy went out of his way to follow the victim outside of the club, he was wrong. Lots of “IF’s” and again, I don’t know what went down but bottom line, drinking and guns are a bad combination, law enforcement agent or not. I look forward to seeing the McDonald’s Video. I suspect it will anwser the most important IF question: Was the use of deadly force reasonable in this situation? Just because you have the authority to enforce law does not mean you should enforce the law when you find yourself in circumstances that would unreasonably escalate the situtation that would likely require you to use force when you could have just been a good witness and called uniformed, sober police officers.
One last comment, somewhere in the above blog comments I saw someone write that police officers can use deadly force to apprehend or stop crimes. Not his exact words but something like that. Law Enforcement Officers in this country are REQUIRED to use deadly force only as a last resort when all other lesser meands have failed or cannot reasonable be employed; AND only in situations when it is reasonable to conclude that the actions of the suspect pose imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others. There are other exceptions too but the point I’m making is deadly force would normally not be warranted if two drunks got into an arugument/fist fight in a McDonald’s. Cop or no cop.
LikeLike
Teri
June 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Robert,
Thank you so much for writing. It is wonderful to have some information from an actual law enforcement officer. I think people make assumptions that fly in the face of real legal limits. It is odd to me that so many people are willing to simply give up their rights (and sometimes their lives) when shown a badge. Officers are not simply allowed to kill people just because they are unruly or a pain in the ass, as your comment so clearly states.
I would like to copy your comment onto the latest article I wrote about the Deedy case, “Murder Trial of State Dept. SA to Go Forward”, dated 16 June, if that is okay with you. I would like your informed opinion to appear there as well as here.
Thanks,
Teri
LikeLike