With all the media attention and public interest that has focused on the Trayvon Martin case, it’s a bit puzzling why there has been almost no mainland interest in the Christopher Deedy murder trial now underway here in Honolulu.
The two cases share many of the same elements. An unarmed but far from flawless victim. An armed assailant, in this case a federal agent, claiming to have acted in self-defense. Alcohol and drugs. Underlying racial/ethnic tensions. Throw in the romance of Waikiki marred by all too common late-night brawls, the politics of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit, and it seems like it’s ready for prime time.
An AP story by Jennifer Sinco Kelleher in advance of the trial was picked up by several mainland newspapers, and the Washington Post ran a short AP story describing opening arguments, but that’s been about it for national coverage.
So what accounts for the lack of attention to the case, despite the presence of so many interesting elements?
Media watchers, any thoughts?
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Asiana crash and the Zimmerman trial totally consumed the attention of the national media.
Hawaii is not important to the Mainland news media. Watch ch. 121 the Weather Channel, I never see Hawaii mentioned. Alaska would have same affect.
Frankly I am almost relieved, given the race baiting, expolitive coverage of the Martin case. As others have said, I remember when the press reported the news, didn’t make it.
That obviously should have been “exploitative”
Al Sharpton is not on KHON in the morning whipping up the racial fury.
Deedy case isn’t making huge waves because Obama didn’t say that Kollin Elderts would have looked like his son.
I disagree with the Zimmerman verdict because I think it should have been at least manslaughter (imperfect self-defense) but I wasn’t there that night, or at the trial. To me, it appears that the verdict was the result of a mix of incomplete evidence (one witness dead, the other protected by the 5th amendment), stand your ground laws, less than stellar prosecutorial performance, and the ignorance/fear that underlies the racial issues that went largely unspoken.
That being said, I agree with what some have said and that is that at least the case saw the light of day, so to say. That there was a trial at all is testament to advocacy by Trayvon Martin’s parents, civil rights organizations, and the like. They achieved that result by making it so that the media could not ignore them. Otherwise, I don’t think the media would have paid any attention. In effect, it was just another
sad case of a person being convicted and executed for “walking while Black.”
And therein lies the difference, to me. In the Deedy/Elderts case there is not such a clear cut and historically and nationally pronounced racial subtext. For that reason and/or because of Hawaii being a more laid back, less militant place, there was no one to advocate in a way that would get the media’s attention.
The bottom line is that no one convinced the media that it had a journalistic or commercial interest in elevating an obscure shooting on the frontier to the national consciousness. As you have said, media reporting now consists largely of regurgitating press releases and the like, rather than actual investigation. There was no one to do the work for the media in the Deedy/Elderts case, so the coverage has been barely more than a footnote as a result.
As you may recall, the police did not charge Zimmerman right away, I think because they realized that they did not have much of a case. However, Martin’s parents made a fuss saying that they wanted “justice”. My opinion is that they didn’t want justice. What they wanted was Zimmerman’s head on a pike. So, under pressure Zimmerman was charged and tried. Now they don’t like the verdict. But that’s the way it works in this country. Both sides present their case in court, the jury decides. You may not like the result but you have to live with it.
I can live with the verdict but criminal jury verdicts are only form of the delivery of justice. A civil case will be much wider in scope and Zimmerman will have to testify and explain himself. A federal civil rights action may follow. Legislative action on the defense of self-defense and stand your ground laws will ensue. And in the course of all of this, there will be a discussion of what was ever-present in the Zimmerman case but never mentioned: race. For example, in a recent study by the ABA, cases in which stand your ground laws were asserted as a defense, 35%+ of white on black killings were found to be justified but less than 4% of black on white killings were found to be justified. That is a disparity that has at least some grounding in racial bias.
As both the Economist magazine and a criminal lawyer put it, justice was in no way served by the Zimmerman prosecution, but if his acquittal in that case serves to ensure that innocent people are protected, then I can live with it. OR, as a former Supreme Court Justice put it, “better that 12 guilty men go free than a single innocent one be convicted.”
” in a recent study by the ABA, cases in which stand your ground laws were asserted as a defense, 35%+ of white on black killings were found to be justified but less than 4% of black on white killings were found to be justified.”
Can you provide a link or citation, please?
From an interview with an ABA rep on one of the two new morning shows carried on HPR2, “Tell me more” (http://www.npr.org/programs/tell-me-more/); “Will ‘Stand Your Ground Laws’ Stand up to Scrutiny?” (7/15)
Mahalo. Looks like it was from the Urban Institute and not the ABA. Also, hard to determine the validity of the findings when there is no formal report or methodology to review. Makes drawing conclusions especially perilous.
I agree with the comments that the race issue in Deedy has mostly been below the surface, and as a result, there is nothing particularly interesting/unique for national media. If we hear testimony that racial slurs were used during the fight, which we might, then things might change. I also agree that, for what its worth, national attention on that sort of incident in Waikiki is something we can live without.
Florida is in eastern time zone. Hawaii is six hours removed from national consciousness. Racism element there and here are not truly comparable. The state of Florida is well known for its ongoing injustice (s); Hawaii is not. There is a slew of differences beyond dead young men in each instance.
But think of the outcomes if Zimmerman and Deedy had not been packing heat?
Mainland coverage: http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/3b0c095fef754339afea4d05519f52c2/HI–Hawaii-Restaurant-Shooting
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-07-08/national/40445022_1_federal-agent-jurors-deedy
Race relations in the South are much more tense than here in Hawaii. Besides, let’s face it – Hawaii & Alaska are afterthoughts in the eyes of the majority. I’m rather glad I don’t own a TV though – it was hard enough trying to find ‘other’ news articles that weren’t related to the Zimmerman trial.
Race relations between blacks and Hispanics aren’t any worse in the South than they are anyplace else. That’s what makes this all so puzzling. How did a Hispanic guy become portrayed as an angry white racist?
The Zimmerman case was not about race or even homicide (murder or manslaughter). Legally, the sole issue was from the start was whether or not Zimmerman acted in fear for his life. Once that issue is determined in his mind, the issue of response with deadly force becomes justified.
The prosecution put up a lot of smoke and mirrors in trying to discredit Zimmerman’s reputation and tried to say he “lied” in key instances where his story “changed”. Many lawyers would find it suspect if a person’s recollection was “perfect” and “consistent”, because it would be an indication that the story was too well rehearsed. If put on a stand to tell the story of such a traumatic event in detail and be 100% accurate is impossible. Add to that, the fact that Zimmerman had his head bounced around the cement sidewalk and a took a few shots to the head, and don’t think the prosecution had even a ghost of a chance to win this case.
The fact that Florida has a “stand your ground” law does not even factor in to this case. What Zimmerman did was simply self defense and what transpired prior to the assault is irrelevant. There was no indication by any witness that Zimmerman initiated the assault, but was merely in the vicinity of Martin. There was enough evidence that Martin was the aggressor and there was no evidence to the contrary to indicate otherwise.
As for the Deedy trial’s implication to the issue of race, it seems more apparent that Deedy made a number of mistakes that will not bode well for him. Drinking off duty is ok, but most, if not all, my law enforcement friends will never carry a firearm when out drinking. If they even discharged their weapons while drinking would bring a very harsh investigation and sanctions by their respective agencies in most cases.
What is most disturbing is that Deedy’s agency should have had him in custody immediately after the shooting, taking his statement and drawing blood to determine if he was drunk. Any officer involved shooting would be handled by most law enforcement agencies under such circumstances. So why was Deedy handled differently?
With the alleged “victim” of Eldert’s alleged racial slur claiming he wasn’t afraid or offended by Eldert’s comment and the testimony of the local federal officer “warning” Deedy of the racial overtones in Hawaii, it sure looks like Deedy’s nature and upbringing took over rather than common sense. Being a Louisiana native, one can only wonder whether Deedy grew up with a fear of minorities mindset and that was what was triggered when he went after Elderts.
I am reminded of the killing of a Japanese high school exchange student who was killed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana in 1992 while on his way to a Halloween party. The student went to the wrong house and was killed by the homeowner. The homeowner was acquitted of the homicide because he was in fear of his life. Well, shooting a kid on Halloween makes it open season for murder in Louisiana, if you are white. I think Deedy may have thought that carrying a badge gave him the right to start a fight and kill someone, but unfortunately for him the jury is not from Louisiana.
Russell, you been drinkin’ some seriously spiked Kool-Aid and stop while you can. Like now.
Trayvon Martin was unarmed and minding his own business. His only crime, at least to start, was being Black and wearing an article of clothing, both of which George Zimmerman equated to being a no good, crime waiting to happen, punk.
George Zimmerman was on “patrol” and packing heat with a motive to make sure no more punks got away. No one told him to get out of his car and the police told him not to do so. Trayvon Martin is now dead and George Zimmerman’s life may as well be over.
This case and its verdict say this: it’s OK to get into a fight and, if you’re getting the worst of it, to end it by killing the other person. You’ll realize this truth when the Kool-Aid has worn off. If it ever does.
Oh, Russell, in Hawaii (I guess unlike Louisiana), the fear has to be a reasonable one. You don’t get to kill someone just because you are afraid of them. We’d have even more dead people — mostly minorities, to be sure — were it otherwise.
Perhaps Zimmerman had a reasonable fear here but, even if it means he is not guilty, it doesn’t justify the killing in the common sense or moral sense because it was simply unnecessary. Had he stayed in his car and not provoked a confrontation, Trayvon Martin would probably still be alive and George Zimmerman would have remained — much to his own undying gratitude, I’m sure — unknown to the world.
At what point was there an issue of Zimmerman’s actions being against the law? Was the fact that he got out of his car against the law? Was it when he went to look where Martin was going? Unfortunately, a request from the 911 operator is not a lawful command.
At what point did Zimmerman, in your mind, break a law? All such cases where a life is lost is not a crime. Is it tragic? Of course it is. Do we like that to happen here in Hawaii? Most likely not.
That is why Deedy does have to worry about his actions. Had what he did happen in New Orleans, probably there would have probably been no trial at all. Here in Hawaii, a life loss is a big deal and he has to face a jury for his actions. Just because Deedy has a badge, doesn’t give him a pass on killing someone.
In Zimmerman’s case the facts are significantly different and both the prosecution and defense attorneys did the best jobs under the conditions they were given. Given the lousy set of facts and evidence, I don’t think the outcome was unreasonable or unexpected. The legal system is not perfect and that is why the statue of justice is a blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice. In Sanford, Florida the scales were held by six women, five who had children, and decided in their minds what was correct.
So Ohia, the next time you get a jury notice please go down and take the time to serve our community. If you ever sit on a criminal case of any significance, you will find out that Monday morning quarterbacking is often far from what really goes on in the trial.
A high school classmate of mine was murdered with his wife on Tantalus a few years ago and their killer was found mentally unfit. Since the killer was from a prominent, wealthy family, I don’t believe he ever served time in prison. Is the public any safer with the killer able to get out and wander the streets some day? If my classmate had a gun and killed the murderer be a better outcome? We will never know.
Russell…….a couple of things to clear up: You said “stand your ground” had nothing to do with the Zimmerman Case. That’s not true, as evidenced by one of the jurors who spoke today: Who remarked, and I paraphrase here, that the jury had no alternative but to acquit as a result of the jury instruction:
Prior to the advent of Stand Your Ground the instruction the jury would have received, would have indicated that in the instance at hand Zimmerman would have had a duty to retreat, to run; even if in fear for his life or for severe bodily harm:
In the “stand your ground” world, Zimmerman need only fear great bodily harm, death, and had no duty to retreat. The jury instructions are what framed the verdict.
As to Deedy we are pretty much in agreement. He will number one have difficulty circumventing the carrying of the firearm while out drinking which clearly controverts policy: That he circumvents the more serious charges remains to be seen.
As to Zimmerman not being in any violation of law at the time of the that’s something that really isn’t known. One of the primary blunders of the Prosecution was opening the door, by introducing all the video interviews with Z…..to in effect tell “his” story and to testify without any critical scrutiny, such as cross examination. The only other person who with certainty knows what occurred is Dead.
The prosecution also failed, from their opening, to advance an alternative theory of the case: In other words they did not tell another story: A story like this……….THE FOUR MINUTES.
Surveillance video confirms this theory to a certain extent: My theory: Z carried animus evident from the 911 call. And he had been following T for some time. T was at the very least in wonder, and likely afraid. He ran out of sight of the Z who then pulled his vehicle to a stop: grabbed his flashlight and also at that time removed his weapon from the holster, took off the safety and chambered a round. He then left his vehicle in pursuit of T. Who I suspect, rather than run home and lead Z to his address likely tried to use the darkness, and the rain, and found a place to hide. In the bushes. Remember Z said T jumped out from the Bushes. Surveillance showed images of a silhouette with a flashlight in search, flashing the light into the pool room. I believe Z discovered T in hiding and with the light in one hand and the weapon in the other accosted him there. What ensued only Z knows. We know that Z lied and had numerous inconsistencies: One important one is on the Hannity program he categorically denied having any knowledge of “stand our ground”. However at trial there was testimony that he had in fact attended a criminal justice class, where that theory/law was soundly discussed:
His story of T seeing the weapon and grabbing for it is patently false. While in another video, you see Z explaining to officers from where he grabbed his gun, you can see that he reaches to his right rear hip above his buttock: His claim that in the struggle, in the rain, in the dark, and in panic, Z’s coat flew open T saw the gun and reached for it doesn’t pass the smell test.
Throw into the mix, no need to switch off the safety, or to chamber a round. Also that there was no DNA of T or Z found on this weapon. How can that be? Did Z wipe the weapon down? If so wouldn’t that show something of a guilty mind?
And finally we have the story of being pummeled with dozens of punches and having his head pounded into the concrete dozens of times: Are you kidding? With those little scratches on the back of our head? And it’s not implausible to me, to escape a possible murder charge, and well aware of “stand your ground” that Z didn’t smack himself in the nose: People have done stranger things to cover up their crimes. Folks have shot and stabbed themselves to cover a crime scene: The big problem, for me in this specific regard, is no wounds whatsoever to T’s hands, wrists, knuckles, no scratches, no cuts, no swelling………I’ve been in a few fights in my day and hitting hurts, and rarely does one not have some indication of trauma to the hands.
I contend that “stand your ground” is the right by Florida Statute that each citizen carries with him. If for the sake of argument it was Z who accosted T in the bushes, with the light and weapon drawn, then T has every right to fear bodily harm, every right to “stand his ground” except Z had a gun this time. This time “these ass holes weren’t going to get away.”
Z set this up from the time of the 911 call. No one, no one at all, saw the actual shooting……….and it may have been Z calling for help, as a means of drawing attention, in the darkness and in the rain, knowing fully that by the time anyone’s attention was focused there, the fatal shot would be fired.
Please stay away from jury service.
The following is the jury instruction that was given to the Zimmerman jury relating to self-defense/stand your ground :
“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he reasonably believed that it was necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
Though the instruction mentions “stand your ground” language, the operative language is still bedded in basic self-defense issues. The defendant was in fear of bodily harm and the response by the defendant was justified as viewed by the jury.
“Stand your ground” only made it possible to exert the self-defense claim outside of a person’s home, essentially. The “castle doctrine” embodies the homeowner with no obligation to retreat further from an attack in their home.
“Stand your ground” only states the obvious that in any situation outside of your residence, the issue of retreating or avoiding would be subject to a reasonableness under the circumstances. It appears that Martin was the aggressor and once Zimmerman was on his back, crying for help, Martin should have left, or better yet, never attacked Zimmerman.
You can make up any story you want about what happened, but the jury was presented a case that was weak and clearly insufficient to find guilt on the part of Zimmerman. The prosecution did not even get the jury instruction that Zimmerman was the “aggressor” in to the jury. The judge decided that this instruction was not appropriate based on the evidence or argument presented by the prosecution. The only assumption that the jury could make then would be that Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.
Russell, I have both prosecuted and defended homicide cases and later sat as a juror on one. Can you say any of those things?
No, but since I don’t know who you are, there is no way to be able for me to judge whether what you are saying is truthful or whether any were significantly difficult cases.
Balderdash. Russell stated most of the issues concisely. Those of us that do understand the legal issues understand the verdict.
It’s great when people self identify. All those that don’t understand out legal system please stand up and seem exasperated. Then walk over and turn off MSNBC.
i think it’s much simpler than many of the allegations above.
i think a big part of the reason for lack of coverage is the travel cost of sending reporters from the east coast to Hawaii to cover the trial. this is happening at a time when newspapers are CLOSING not growing.
however, i will freely admit, this is not the only reason. are Hawaii’s ethnic strifes anywhere near the level of America’s long-standing white-black division that stems back to legal slavery? NO. i serously doubt every wrongful immigrant shooting in Arizona/Texas gets national attention.
AP has a bureau here and all the major networks have affiliates here. If they wanted to cover the Deedy case, they would. They don’t, for a variety of reasons discussed above.
covering a case and running an affliates story/AP story is NOT the same thing, ohiaforest3400.
national media ARE using the repetitive AP stories about the case. that’s the point. they are NOT sending their own reporters to expand the coverage and increase the number of reporters.
i’m not sure if you are missing my point above, or just looking for anything to argue about on a blog, again.
—————
Jurors see video from Waikiki McDonald’s shooting
San Francisco Chronicle – ?Jul 11, 2013?
HONOLULU (AP) — Silent and choppy surveillance footage from a Waikiki McDonald’s where a man was shot shows images of the deadly encounter that led to a murder trial against a federal agent. Jurors were shown the video during the third day of testimony in State Department Special Agent Christopher Deedy’s ….
Jurors see video in Waikiki murder trial of a State Department special agent
NorthJersey.com – ?Jul 11, 2013?
Prosecutors say Deedy’s inexperience and intoxication led to the death of Kollin Elderts. Deedy says he shot the 23-year-old Kailua man in self-defense. Hawaii News Now reports that in one scene, Elderts advances and Deedy reaches for his gun.
Police, witness testify on Day 5 of Deedy trial
Detective Peter Boyle testified Monday on the fifth day of testimony in the trial of State Department Special Agent Christopher Deedy, accused of shooting and killing a Kailua man at the McDonald’s in Waikiki in November 2011. Boyle says it appeared Deedy …http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52484583/ns/local_news-honolulu_hi/t/police-witness-te…
Fellow agent, McDonald’s customer testify in federal agent’s murder trial
Updated 5:21 p.m. HT, Fri., July 12, 2013
“Every day you open up a newspaper and there’s another shooting in a school, church, or courthouse, and I feel a responsibility to be prepared for that,” Special Agent Ben Finkelstein told Special Agent Christopher Deedy as they talked about why …http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52457173/ns/local_news-honolulu_hi/t/fellow-agent-mcdo…
What happened leading up to the killing of Kollin Elderts?
Updated 7:13 a.m. HT, Thurs., July 11, 2013
Day three of the Christopher Deedy murder trial revealed the minutes just before and after the killing. Video was shown of the special agent’s actions on the morning of Nov. 5, 2011 along with nearly all of Kollin Eldert’s final moments.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52451974/ns/local_news-honolulu_hi/t/what-happened-lea…
Witness says he didn’t feel threatened before man was shot, killed in …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…/6ff70c26-eb37-11e2-818e-aa29e855f3ab_…?
3 days ago – By Associated Press,. HONOLULU … Elderts had just ordered food when Perrine entered the eatery, while Deedy and his friends were getting ready to leave.
Jurors see video from Waikiki McDonald’s shooting – Times Union
http://www.timesunion.com/…/Jurors-see-video-from-Waikiki-McDonald-s-sh…?
3 days ago – HONOLULU (AP) — Silent and choppy surveillance footage from a Waikiki … Hawaii News Now reports that in one scene, Elderts advances and Deedy reaches …
I seem to recall quite a bit of Australian print and TV media coverage of the deadly jet ski accident involving Aussie tourist Tyson Dagley. Race wasn’t an issue in that story, but quite a bit of attention was focused on what some folks thought was an excessive bail amount set by the judge, resulting in Dagley Having to spend 12 days in jail. Add to that, the sympathetic picture that the Australian media portrayed of Dagley and his girlfriend, who also faced criminal charges of hindering the investigation. They’re young, in their early 20s. Neither of them were hardened criminals. They were decent, ordinary folks who made judgements in error which resulted in serious consequences. The teary-eyed mug photos alone was all that Aussie news directors and editors needed to be assured that interviews with Dagley and his family would be compelling stuff.
Deedy’s plight doesn’t offer any of that sort of real life melodrama. His facial expressions in both his mug shot and court appearances are devoid of emotion. He made bail rather quickly, so his jail time has been minimal.
I guess my point in all this is: if Christopher Deedy’s story was sufficiently compelling, media outlets on the mainland can and would assign reporters to cover the story, just as AU media shelled out the $$$$ to send their people out to get exclusive interviews with the Dagleys and to write stories from different angles not covered by local media. The relative absence of interest by the national media towards the Deedy trial is just that. There’s nothing in this story to tug at the heart strings or to fire up the emotions of middle America.
Perhaps things might have been different had a media savvy civil rights figure/attorney been working on behalf of Eldert’s family or if the POTUS injected his two cents into the story…
correct. American media are extraordinarily different from Australian media. thank god. (or thank emperor Murdoch.)
No major national campaign could energize an important voting bloc by blowing the Deedy case out of proportion.
Federal and APEC related in ‘distant’ Hawaii, so maybe they are going to allow a conviction and don’t want mainland attention? Or maybe it didn’t make the corporate news talking points? These vids might demonstrate the ‘NEWS’ process at play… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABn28m7kTr0 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wue5ydFV0ME
I did not follow the Zimmerman trial, but I am trying to follow the Deedy trial.
One question I have is, What does it mean to be prejudiced?
Technically, a prejudice is just a pre-judgment or presumption. When we are confronted by the world, we already have certain beliefs that shape our perceptions (e.g., that American cars are better than Japanese cars, or vice versa). It also seems like older people and less educated people are more likely to be fixed in their presumptions, and resist a different point of view, regardless of the ‘facts’.
But in the popular use of the word ‘prejudice’, it has taken on the meaning of harboring stereotypes toward certain groups, in particular, of certain ethnic groups. In fact, the word connotes a kind of hateful bigotry toward imagined biological ‘races’. There are at least two forms of bigotry, overt hostility and avoidance (the desegregation of the 1960s does not mean a diminishing of bigotry among white Americans, just a shift toward avoidance of blacks).
The shadow of the Deedy trial is the 1932 Massie trial. The defendant(s) were overt white supremacists. Most white people in the world at that time were white supremacists. In fact, perhaps most non-white people also harbored the basic assumptions that western society is superior (and perhaps this is still true). The point that I am trying to make here is that we see the full spectrum of the meaning of the word prejudice, from presumption, at the minimum, to full-blown, open bigotry, at the maximum.
Now, what about the defendant in the Deedy trial? Is he an openly hostile white supremacist? So far there is no evidence to suggest that. Is he an aversive racist who avoids non-whites? One would have to look closer at his personal life for hints of that; the fact that he was bar hopping around town would suggest that he is not averse to being around non-whites. Did Deedy have certain presumptions about Hawaii locals that were not necessarily bigoted presumptions? Perhaps. (Another federal agent warned Deedy that locals were often anti-federal and hostile toward whites.)
Now, another question is, Was the victim prejudiced? It seems that he was continually insulting a white tourist waiting in line, goading the man on with racial insults. The tourist was drunk and hungry and just seemed to want to mind his own business and shrugged it all off. On the face of it, it seems like overtly hostile racism.
But I am not quite so sure that it was. And this is because I remember the videos of fights in Waikiki that Ian Lind posted on this blog.
http://www.ilind.net/2010/08/24/another-waikiki-street-brawl-getting-lots-of-views-on-youtube/
Ian classified this as “gang violence”. But most of the fighters looked relatively clean-cut and middle-class (and a little flabby). Also, the fighting was random. (Person A runs up and starts duking it out with Person B; then Person C runs up and starts fighting off the seeming aggressor A, successfully driving off A; then both B and C start fighting. It makes no sense.) It seems like a bunch of young guys just letting off steam after drinking all night. It’s like this everywhere.
What about the prejudices of the public at large? It seems that the initial presumption is that this case is like the Massie case. (Someone wrote an editorial “I’m Angry an APEC Cop Killed a Local” soon after the killing, with the implication that behind the shooting there was racism and elitism, just like the Massie case.) But as the trial grinds on, it will be interesting to see how perceptions will change or not change according to the age and education level of the observer. This is not the Massie case at all.
Reason why it has not made national headlines is race is not an issue. If Elderts was white deedy still would have shot him. The facts in this case are simple and the video evidence and the testimony of the mcdonalds security guard are quite clear. Elderts was the agressor and he started the fight. Just another heroin user with a criminal record that we don’t need on the islands. Nobody but his loser friends will miss him….