You are viewing this post: Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy And What Happened? The 47 Top Answers
Are you looking for an answer to the topic “Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy And What Happened“? We answer all your questions at the website Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com in category: Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com/digital-marketing. You will find the answer right below.
Keep Reading
Lindani Myeni was a South African man who was killed by police outse a home in Nuuanu.
Lindani Myeni was born in South Africa in 1999, although his exact date of birth is not known. There is no information about his parents, siblings and early childhood life.
Lindani Myeni Wife
Who was Lindani Myeni’s wife? Was Lindani Myeni married? Lindani Myeni was married to Lindsay Myeni. He married from his hometown.
advertisement
Lindani Myeni Death
How d Lindani Myeni die? What is the cause of death of Lindani Myeni? Lindani Myeni was killed by police outse a Nuuanu on April 14, 2021. Police tasered him in less than a minute and shot him three times. He is accused of not following police instructions.
Lindani Myeni Shooting
Lindani Myeni was fatally shot by Honolulu police at the time and died on the spot.
Lindani Myeni Autopsy
The coroner found marijuana in Myeni’s blood, but Alm sa the autopsy report d not show drugs were a factor in Myeni’s behavior that led to the shooting.
Source: abtc.ng,
Widow of man fatally shot in Nuuanu files wrongful death suit against City, HPD officers
Images related to the topicWidow of man fatally shot in Nuuanu files wrongful death suit against City, HPD officers
See some more details on the topic Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy And What Happened here:
Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy …
Lindani Myeni was fatally shot by Honolulu police there times and died on the spot. Lindani Myeni Autopsy. The Medical Examiner found marijuana …
Source: abtc.ng
Date Published: 6/3/2022
View: 2000
Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy And …
Lindani Myeni was fatally shot by Honolulu police there times and died on the spot. Lindani Myeni Autopsy. The Medical Examiner found marijuana in Myeni’s blood …
Source: wiki.zio.org
Date Published: 5/22/2021
View: 2738
Killing of Lindani Myeni – Wikipedia
On April 14, 2021, three officers from the Honolulu Police Department shot and killed 29-year-old Lindani Myeni fronting a home in Nuʻuanu, Honolulu County, …
Source: en.wikipedia.org
Date Published: 8/2/2022
View: 6679
Everything You Need to Know About Lindsay Myeni (Wife of …
Her Husband Lindani’s death. Lindani Myeni, the late husband of Lindsay Myeni and father of two, is the victim of the police shooting in Nuuanu, Honolulu.
Source: biographytalks.com
Date Published: 9/20/2021
View: 8864
Killing of Lindani Myeni
Honolulu police officers kill 29-year-old black man
Killing of Lindani Myeni Date April 14, 2021; 14 months ago ( ) Location Nuʻuanu, Hawaii Type Killing by police Cause Shots Filmed from bodycam footage, ringcam footage, couple at residence as witnesses Participants Lindani Myeni (victim)
Three Honolulu Police Department Officers Dead Lindani Myeni Nonfatal injuries Three Honolulu Police Department Officers [1] Charge Trespassing on second-degree dwelling (Lindani Myeni)
Assault on a first degree police officer (Lindani Myeni) per Honolulu Attorney[2]
On April 14, 2021, three Honolulu Police Department officers shot dead 29-year-old Lindani Myeni while she was standing outside a home in Nuʻuanu, Honolulu County, Hawaii, during an alleged burglary.[1] Myeni was a black South African who played professional rugby and had two young children. The shooting took place in the driveway of an apartment building after what appeared to be a fight with Honolulu police officers. All three police officers were injured and one was hospitalized.[1]
Following the murder, Myeni’s widow, Lindsay Myeni, filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city of Honolulu, while Honolulu District Attorney Steve Alm, following an investigation by his office, decided not to prosecute any of the officers involved.
background [edit]
Lindani Myeni was a black South African of Zulu tribe[3] raised in the town of Empangeni, KwaZulu-Natal[4] who played professional rugby and had two young children.[5] He was married to Lindsay Myeni, who grew up in Hawaii. The couple met at a hotel in Durban where Lindani was away playing rugby and Lindsay was stopping over while on a worldwide Christian missionary tour. Their wedding took place 18 months later and they relocated to the United States in January 2020 for Lindsay’s real estate career. The couple, who originally lived in Tampa, Florida, didn’t like the racial differences there and didn’t feel safe as an interracial couple. They then moved to Denver, where Lindani joined the Glendale Merlins while awaiting a work permit, but was arrested and released without charge while traveling with the Merlins in Austin, Texas, and later stopped by police when he was playing rugby training in Denver. The couple then relocated to Hawaii, arriving in February 2021[6] with their two children.[7] Lindsay began selling real estate while Lindani was a stay-at-home father.
According to Lindsay Myeni, the family toured Oahu on April 14, 2021, the day Lindani Myeni was killed. Lindsay Myeni told the New York Times that while driving home after visiting Hānaiakamalama, the family stopped at a roadside stall selling wood carvings, and Lindani fixed herself on a large carved fish hook, which the carver was using told them he was a source of spiritual protection. According to Lindsay, they didn’t buy the hook because it was too expensive at $250, but Lindani continued to talk about it after they got home, saying that he felt the need for spiritual protection and wanted to go back and buy the hook. Uncomfortable, he went for a walk alone to clear his head.[6]
In Lindsay Myeni’s interview with the city’s coroner, which was revealed by Alm’s report, she said her husband had no known health problems. She denied any significant depression or suicidal thoughts. However, she did mention that Myeni was “excited and stressed out” about several things, including “discovering who he thought his father was his uncle, and who he thought his uncle was his father.” She said Myeni would potentially make king; however, it was stressful for him to realize that his family had lied to him his entire life.[2]
According to the report, Lindsay said Myeni and her children had a “spiritual day” on April 14, 2021, visiting various locations in Oahu, including Hānaiakamalama. In Laie, Myeni even baptized himself once more in the ocean. Then, between 7:15 p.m. and 7:30 p.m., Myeni drove off to “clear his head” and she spoke to him at 7:52 p.m. and he was “on his way home.” The coroner noted that she did not comment on why Myeni might have been at the residence, only saying he was “5 blocks from home.”[2]
Previous encounter with the police[edit]
According to Alm’s investigation, about 20 minutes before the shooting, Myeni approached the scene of a vehicle trespass and spoke with several investigating police officers and the victim. The victim told Myeni to go away. He asked one of the officers for money for food and wanted to get in the back seat of a police car. Myeni told another officer that he needed help contacting someone, but then realized he had his own phone. Myeni then drove his car to a nearby house and followed a couple inside.[5][2] Alm commented that “several of [Myeni’s] statements and actions were strange, even bizarre”.[2]
The Honolulu Police Department (HPD) released the police bodycam regarding this encounter on October 12, 2021, as described by Hawaii News Now. The body camera video begins with an officer arriving at the scene at approximately 7:40 p.m. He was startled because Myeni tried to get into the patrol car. Myeni said to this officer: “I walked this way and I thought I should get on. I thought wrong The officer asked him to get out of the car. Myeni approached the officer again after the officer exited the police vehicle. The officer asked, “Can I help you?” Myeni replied, “I was hit by a car and brought me here.” The officer then told Myeni to stay 6ft and wear a face mask. Myeni went to his car to get a face mask and returned to the officer who said, “I need to find a boat or a way to meet people.” He said he was looking for someone, but HPD beeped the details of them person off. The officer seemed confused and asked Myeni if he could call this person. Myeni then picked up his phone and started calling as he left. Then Myeni drove up and hired the officer again. “Bye. Thanks,” he said, the officer waved back and said, “Okay, thanks.” The officer reported back on the encounter.[8]
Myeni’s family attorney, James Bickerton, declined to comment.[8] He said he was waiting for HPD to turn over the unedited video. During an earlier press conference, reported by Star Advertiser, Bickerton dismissed the idea that Myeni may have been in an altered mental state – including suggesting he was suffering from mental health issues or was on drugs that night. Bickerton said there were no “signs of a disorder or strange behavior.” [9]
Shoot [edit]
At 8:09 p.m. On April 14, 2021, a person in Nuʻuanu called the Honolulu Police Department (HPD) to report that someone was entering the caller’s home. The call lasted nine minutes and 47 seconds. After a five-minute call, when Myeni appeared to have left the house, three HPD police officers arrived.[6] They approached him in the dark driveway and ordered him to sit on the ground, after which he attacked them and twice asked who they were.[10] The police used a taser. As Myeni continued to fight, they shot and killed him.[11] One of the officers was taken to hospital after suffering facial fractures, a concussion and physical injuries. Another officer suffered multiple injuries, and the third suffered a concussion and multiple abrasions to the body.[1]
Statement from the Honolulu Police Department[edit]
The day after the murder, Police Chief Susan Ballard told the press that officers had responded to a reported burglary. Myeni had been exhibiting “unexpected and strange behavior” at the residence before attacking three police officers outside. When the first officer arrived and ordered Myeni to get on the ground, she said Myeni lunged at him and hit him several times. Another officer attempted to intervene and the third officer attempted non-lethal force first, using a taser which did not stop him. The first officer fired a single round, but Myeni “continued and straddled” another officer, and then “officer two” fired three rounds. She added that all three officers were taken to the hospital and that the officers’ shots at Myeni were justified because “[Myeni] seriously injured the officers and their lives were in danger.”[12] The department released a record of the 911 call to the press, along with footage from police cameras at the scene.[11]
Two days after the killing, Acting Deputy Chief of Police Allan Nagata said the three officers involved “were very brave and fought for their lives,” adding that the shooting “was not a case of overreaction.”[6]
Wrongful death lawsuit[edit]
On April 21, 2021, Lindsay Myeni filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the city. Their attorney, James Bickerton, then conducted testimony, including the couple and the home’s owner. Bickerton was able to obtain more video footage with a subpoena as a result of the allegation, including more body camera footage and ring video footage from the home.[11]
Redacted Ring Camera footage, provided by Bickerton and described by Honolulu Civil Beat, shows two cars pulling up in front of the residence at about 8 p.m. The couple goes into the house and Lindani Myeni follows her, wearing a face mask and a traditional Zulu headband[11] called an umqhele.[6][4] Myeni takes off his shoes before entering the house and stays inside for about 40 seconds. He then leaves the house while one of the two who called 911 is overheard saying that someone broke in. According to Bickerton, during their testimony, the caller said that they initially pretended to call the police, but then decided they really did. Bickerton told Civil Beat that the ring footage supports his theory that Myeni intended to enter the International Society for Krishna Consciousness temple next to the property and said the Zulu headband he wore was typical attire for be a church or a temple. Lindsay Myeni also said that she believes Myeni intended to enter the Hare Krishna Temple.[6] In a previous interview with Hawaii News Now, Lindsay said she didn’t know why Myeni was there, but he wasn’t breaking in.[3]
Scot Brower, an attorney representing the couple and the homeowner, disputed the idea that Myeni was looking for a temple. He said the ring camera was motion sensitive and only recorded when there was movement at the front door,[13] in fact Myeni was inside for several minutes,[14] during which time Myeni was acting strange, walking down the hallway rummaging through things in rooms, claimed to own the house and said, “I have video of you. You know why I’m here.” He acknowledged that there were no records to support his claims. He said although English is not the couple’s primary language, they are fluent in English. Brower also noted that the couple feared being targeted because of their ethnicity due to xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic.[10]
Alm, the Honolulu Attorney, said there was no evidence Myeni was looking for the temple. Alm elaborated, “If Mr. Myeni was actually looking for the temple, it might have taken him a few seconds after entering the house to realize, oh no temple, wrong place, turn around, go.” [14] Alm also said that Myeni told the 911 caller, “I have videos of you. You know why I’m here.” Then he said he lived in the house and a cat in the house was his. Alm said Myeni stayed in the house for five minutes, even though the 911 caller asked him to leave the house several times and told him they were going to call the police. Alm said Myeni told the caller he was not afraid of the police and was out hunting, on safari,[14] which the couple interpreted as a threat, saying they were the prey being hunted and he was the hunter.[2]
Alm also included a statement from the President of the Hare Krishna Temple in his press kit. The President claimed: “We do not know or have any information about Mr. Myeni or the events of April 14. We are not aware that he has ever been to our temple or intended to come to our temple on April 14th. “. He stated that the temple was closed during the incident.[2]
911 call audio[edit]
In the tone of the 911 call, as described by Civil Beat, the caller tells Myeni to “please leave.” Bickerton claims the caller’s spouse can be heard saying in the background, “We don’t have a temple.” The caller tells the dispatcher that Myeni identified himself as Lindani or Linden, according to the New York Times,[6] that he said he was from South Africa and that he was not armed or shouting. The caller audibly cries for much of the call. In the ring cam footage, Myeni can be seen walking while repeatedly apologizing and saying, “I know you guys though. Can I see your phone?”. The caller tells the dispatcher he’s too scared to go outside. When officers arrive, the caller directs them to Myeni.[11]
Scot Brower denied the claim that the caller’s wife could mention a temple in the background.[10] He also stated that Myeni entered the house without permission or consent.[15]
In body camera footage, as described by Civil Beat, an officer points a gun and flashlight at Myeni in the dark and yells twice at him to “get on the ground.” Myeni starts fighting with the officers, causing the camera to shake as she asks twice who they are. Another officer uses a taser while Myeni continues to fight. Someone yells “shoot him!” and a shot is heard. Another officer says “fuck you” and three more shots are fired while the officer shouts “Police!” says.[11]
Prosecutor’s response[edit]
In April, Honolulu District Attorney Steve Alm announced that his office was investigating the police response to the incident.[11]
During the shooting[edit]
On July 1, 2021, The New York Times reported that Alm decided not to prosecute any of the three officers involved.[16] Alm said the officers’ use of deadly force was justified.[17] He noted that officers attempted to use multiple non-lethal, non-lethal force techniques to control Mr. Myeni before using their service firearms.[2] Alm said Myeni immediately attacked the officers upon arriving at the scene (identified by Alm as officers one, two and three), hitting officer one in the process. Officer three used his taser, but it was ineffective. Myeni charged officer three and officer two tried to stop him with his hand but failed. Myeni charged at officer one again. The officer shot Myeni in the chest, but that failed to subdue him; Myeni then grabbed him and began repeatedly slamming him to the ground. Alm said officer two then drew his gun and ordered Myeni to stop. As Myeni kept punching Officer One in the face, Officer Two fired three times, hitting Myeni twice in the torso and once in the leg. Alm said that both officers were justified because officer one feared for his life and officer two feared that officer one would be killed or that Myeni would gain control of officer one’s gun.[2] In the prosecutor’s filing, which he gave to the media, he indicated that Myeni had committed the second-degree felony of trespassing on a home and the felony of assault against a first-degree law enforcement officer.[2] Finally, Alm noted that all three police officers were taken to the emergency room following the incidents with injuries, including one who was seriously injured and had not returned to work at the time of the press release.[2] Noting that Myeni was unarmed, he stated that his office “did not see any evidence that race played a role in this whole incident.”[2]
Autopsy report[ edit ]
According to an autopsy report provided by Alm’s office, toxicology found the presence of a marijuana component with metabolites in his blood. However, the autopsy report offered no opinion on the psychological or physiological effects of marijuana on Myeni’s mental state or behavior.[2] The coroner noted in the report that they had proposed counseling on chronic traumatic encephalopathy through Boston University, but this was rejected by Myeni’s family, saying, “Make him look bad.”[2] The coroner came to that concluded that the cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds. [2][18]
criticism [edit]
The New York Times quoted Bridget G. Morgan-Bickerton, an attorney for Myeni’s widow Lindsay Myeni, as saying she was “very disappointed” with the prosecutors’ decision. Morgan-Bickerton said that Alm’s investigation did not address the fact that officers did not identify themselves as police officers prior to shooting Myeni and that this was because Myeni was black and that Lindsay Myeni’s wrongful death lawsuit against the city will continue. Alm replies that the officers’ uniforms were clearly visible and that Myeni could have seen them because of the bright streetlights around, and that it was therefore not necessary for the officers to verbally identify themselves as police officers.[5 ]
Public reply[ edit ]
In the US[edit]
Locally, the killing of Myeni led to some gatherings and small protests, but there were no mass protests.[19] Kenneth Lawson, a professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law, told the Associated Press that the murder “would have sparked mass protests in any other American city,” while Akiemi Glenn, founder and executive director of the Pōpolo Project, confirmed racial bias in Hawaii’s law enforcement agencies “bust the myth that this is paradise.”[4] Al Sharpton released a statement condemning the shooting as “another sensational racialization and criminalization of an innocent, unarmed black man by police in violation of the law and proper police procedures.”[15]
Following the shooting, a Back Da Blue rally was held on April 25 from Kapolei, Mililani, Kane’ohe District Parks to Kapolani Regional Park in Waikiki in support of HPD. One attendee told KITV, “Every time they get out, they put their lives on the line for everyone.” A downtown Honolulu restaurant offered free meals to officials through the end of the month.[20]
In South Africa[edit]
Lindani Myeni’s body was sent to South Africa for his burial. A group of youth from the African National Congress encountered the coffin at O.R. Tambo International Airport in Johannesburg and waved a banner reading “Black Lives Matter” and his face.[5] Nonhlanhla Khoza, who was present as part of a KwaZulu-Natal provincial government delegation, called for justice and said the killing of Myeni had “damaged the small hope that there would be a sudden change in police attitude after the killing was reported around the world by George Floyd.” Describing the actions of the police officers who killed Myeni as reminiscent of the Atlantic slave trade and lynching of black people in the United States, as well as apartheid security forces in South Africa, she expressed a loss of confidence in the Honolulu Police Department and declared that “we have confidence in US President Joe Biden that, as a crusader for human rights and justice, he will ensure that justice finally prevails”.[21]
A memorial service for Myeni was held at Empangeni Rugby Club on 6 May 2021. Sihle Zikalala, Premier of KwaZulu-Natal, made a speech calling for justice for Myeni.[22]
At Myeni’s funeral, held in eSikhavini on May 8, 2021,[23] Lindsay Myeni expressed a desire to raise the couple’s children in South Africa, saying she “did not want to raise children who are considered black in America, where.” it is clearly not safe” and asking the South African government for help in obtaining citizenship.[24] The KwaZulu-Natal government has stated that it will support Myeni’s family to seek justice,[25] with government officials telling Neliswa Nkonyeni claimed Myeni’s death was racially motivated, stating, “To understand racial disparity in the United States, we must look beyond its borders and its institutionalized racism […] We must see its violent approach to intervention in other countries in the name of exporting democracy.” question.”[26] Hlengiwe Mavimbela, local Minister for Arts, Culture and Sport, also attended.[23] Nurses with recordings of the emergency call were broadcast in South African media, and Myeni’s death was compared to the police killings of other African immigrants in America[5], such as those of Amadou Diallo, Ousmane Zongo and Alfred Olango.[6] Myeni was killed in eSikhaleni, KwaZulu-Natal, buried.[25]
See also[edit]
Everything You Need to Know About Lindsay Myeni (Wife of Late Lindani Myeni)
Safe place to order tramadol online that you can find
A good place to buy soma online is you
The best website to buy Tramadol online you can find
The best place to order Ambien online you can find
The best website to buy tramadol online overnight you can find
Lindani Myeni The Honolulu Prosecuting Attorney report – DOCUMENTS
BULLARD
GORDIN
GREAT
KANE BERMAN
MAJOZI
RW JOHNSON
SERIOUS CONVERSATION
Singapore revisited
WSM DOCUMENTS Lindani Myeni: Honolulu Prosecutor’s Report Investigation Exonerates Police Officers for Shooting and Killing South Africans After He Violently Assaulted Them STEVEN S. ALM PROSECUTOR *** THOMAS J. BRADY
FIRST DEPUTY ATTORNEY *** ATTORNEY, HONOLULU, HAWAII –> *** Department of the Prosecuting Attorney City and County of Honolulu Officer-Involved Shooting Report No. 2021-02
Report Date: June 30, 2021 Independent investigation into officers involved shooting at Lindani Sanele Myeni 91 Coelho Way, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 14, 2021 I. OBJECTIVE The objective of the Department of the Prosecuting Attorney’s (PAT) independent investigation is complete To assess the feasibility of prosecuting the REDACTED and REDACTED (Officers 1 and 2, respectively) of Honolulu Police Department (HPD) officers for a criminal offense under the Hawaii Penal Code (HPC) for their intentional use of deadly force on April 14, 2021 at 91 Coelho Way. This assessment relies on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. This investigation considered materials and information provided by HPD and collected through the independent efforts of the PAT. PAT Investigator CENSORED (Investigator CENSORED) was the chief investigator of this office.
This investigation does not provide information as to whether the officers complied with HPD policy or whether non-compliance with an HPD policy subjects them to administrative discipline.
II. FACTS
A. General Background
The incident occurred between approximately 8:07 p.m. and 8:15 p.m. on Wednesday, April 14, 2021. at 91 Coelho Way, in Nuʻuanu.1 This is a large property. The home measures 7,430 square feet and has four bedrooms, five bathrooms and two half bathrooms.2 A short rock wall faces the street. A wrought iron fence is attached to the top of the wall. A semi-circular driveway leads to a porte cochere at the front door. There are two entrances to the driveway along the Coelho Way: one on the west and one on the east.
As of April 14, 2021, CENSORED owned and lived in the residence. At the time of the incident, CENSORED’s tenants were: CENSORED and his girlfriend CENSORED and CENSORED. REDACTED (witness 1) and her husband REDACTED (witness 2) have rented a room in the residence since March 17, 2021.3
ISKCON Hawaii, Inc., a Hare Krishna Temple (the Temple), is nearby at 51 Coelho Way.4
B. Sunset and weather
Sunset was at 18:50:56.5 There was a light drizzle at the time of the incident.6
C. Event Attendees
1. The civilians
Witness 1 is a freelance website application designer. Witness 2 is a Facebook software developer. Based on their recorded interviews, Body Worn Camera (BWC) video and Ring video, English is not their first language; however, both are fluent in English.
CENSORED, CENSORED and CENSORED were not at the home at the time of the incident and have no personal knowledge of the relevant events.
2. Lindani Sanele Myeni
I. Entry into the United States
Lindani Sanele Myeni (Myeni) (Birthday: CENSORED)7 entered the United States via JFK Airport in upstate New York on January 9, 2020. He had a tourist visa at the time of entry. This visa expired on July 8, 2020, but Myeni had an application for a work visa pending.
ii. In Hawaii
Myeni, his wife REDACTED, and their children moved to REDACTED, Honolulu in or about February 2021. The landlord, CENSORED, confirmed that the family moved out at the end of April 2021.
While living at CENSORED, Myeni drove a 2015 Mazda 3 4-door sedan (the Mazda) with Texas license plates CENSORED.
REDACTED, a neighbor who lives with REDACTED told investigator REDACTED that he saw Myeni frequently. REDACTED’s flag field gave him a direct view of REDACTED. Most afternoons around 3:30 p.m., Myeni would go out on his second-story porch and smoke marijuana. CENSORED described Myeni as a strange person who would sometimes stand in the backyard for over an hour at sunset while munching on a cane stalk and staring at the sky. CENSORED heard no arguments from the Myenis; They were generally calm.
On O’ahu, Myeni expressed himself in kickboxing. REDACTED is a professional fighter and martial arts instructor at REDACTED in Kailua. At the time of his interview with HPD on April 21, 2021, CENSORED had known Myeni for 3½ to 4 months. They met in Waikiki, where REDACTED often surfed. Myeni expressed an interest in training and attended REDACTED’s one-hour kickboxing class on Monday night. These classes were intended for sport, not self-defense. Myeni, a beginner, attended five sessions. CENSORED was last seen by Myeni on Monday April 12th, 2021. Myeni came with his son. Myeni said he wanted to speak to CENSORED in person. According to CENSORED, Myeni said he’s going through some emotional stuff and sort of “crazy African spiritual stuff.”
3. The police officers9
I. officer 1
Officer 1, age 49, has been an HPD officer since February 19, 1998. He has 23 years of service behind him. His duties were as follows:
START DATE END DATE LOCATION 2/19/98 3/16/99 TRP Training 3/16/99 9/17/00 Central Reception Department 9/17/00 10/10/04 District 2 10/10/04 6/19/05 District 4 6/19/05 9/1/17 District 8 9/10/17 District Current 5
Based on the use of force (UOF) records provided by PSO, Officer 1 has no history of the use of deadly force.10
ii. officer 2
Officer 2, 46 years old, has been employed as an HPD officer since February 27, 2003. He has 18 years of service behind him. His duties were as follows:
START DATE END DATE LOCATION 02/27/03 10/01/04 TRP Training 10/01/04 08/26/07 District 5 08/26/07 05/29/16 Traffic Division, Solo Bike 05/29/16 11/18/18 District 5, S/A Records Division 11/18/18 03/10 19 District 1 03/10/2019 09/20/20 District 2 09/20/20 Current District 5
Based on the UOF records provided by PSO, Officer 2 has no history of the use of lethal force.11
iii. CENSORED (Officer 3)
Officer 3, age 40, has been employed as an HPD Officer since February 1, 2011.
He has ten years of service. His duties were as follows:
START DATE END DATE LOCATION 2/1/11 6/24/12 TRP Training 6/24/12 5/26/13 CRD 5/26/13 3/21/21 District 6 3/21/21 Currently District 5
Based on the UOF records provided by PSO, Officer 3 has no history of the use of lethal force.12
Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3 qualify as law enforcement officers for the purposes of HRS § 701-118.13
D. Fact report for April 14, 2021
1. Leaving the house
On April 14, 2021, Myeni was staying with CENSORED. According to his wife, CENSORED, he left this apartment around 7:15 – 7:30 p.m. to “clear your head.”14
2. HPD Report #21-158432 (UEMV 1 investigation)
patrol officers CENSORED,
, REDACTED , REDACTED , REDACTED and REDACTED (Officers A, B, C and D respectively) were among several officers who responded to Kewalo Basin to investigate a first degree complaint (UEMV) for unauthorized entry into a motor vehicle filed by complainant REDACTED . These officers had BWC.
At 7:42 p.m., Officer C was dispatched to 1125 Ala Moana Boulevard on the UEMV complaint.15 He arrived shortly thereafter.16 Upon arriving at the scene, Officer C took REDACTED’s statement and photos of the crime scene.17 REDACTED previously reported this During the day someone had entered his white 2006 Subaru Legacy (Subaru) car while parked near the intersection of Ekela Avenue and Date Street without permission and took his money, ID and bank cards.18
The incident was reported outside the crime scene.19 Accordingly, no chart was produced.20 No fingerprints were recovered because (1) the incident was reported outside the crime scene and (2) REDACTED had reviewed, touched, and organized the contents of his vehicle. 21
When Officer B spoke to CENSORED, Myeni approached the police and said, “Hello. How are you?”22 In response, Officer B said that the police were investigating a case.23 Myeni asked, “Are you all right? What’s going on?”24 Officer B explained that REDACTED’s car had been broken into.25 Myeni asked, “What was stolen?”26 Myeni turned to REDACTED and asked, “Have you lost something, sir?”27 Officer B informed Myeni that the police would take care of it.28 Myeni approached REDACTED .29 REDACTED said “Howzit, brah. I don’t even know you brother. What do you do? Get away from me, man.”30 After that, Myeni walked away.31 Myeni came back and asked REDACTED for five dollars.32 REDACTED said he had no money.33 Myeni apologized and touched REDACTED.34
After receiving the initial information from REDACTED, Officer C returned to his squad car to investigate further.35 Myeni stood on the driver’s side of Officer C’s squad car and the two engaged in a brief conversation.36 As Officer C sat in his car, Myeni approached him and asked five dollars for food; he wanted something to eat.37 Officer C said he had no cash.38
Later during the UEMV investigation, Officer C’s BWC records Myeni driving the Mazda past the rear of the Subaru. Myeni honked the horn.39 Officer C commented on the demand for money for a bento.40 One officer commented that Myeni tried to get into his squad car.41 Another commented that the Mazda’s lights were not on. Someone speculated that Myeni “was onto something”42
Officer D was present during the UEMV investigation mentioned above. In a separate public report, published under HPD Report #21-162831, Officer D reported that a man approached and attempted to get into the back seat while seated in his marked HPD vehicle at the crime scene. Officer D asked what he was doing and the man replied, “I was walking this way and thought I should get in.” Officer D ordered the man to back off. He did so and went to his own vehicle.
The man turned, approached Officer D and stopped 1-2 feet away. Officer D instructed the man to step back at least six feet and get a face mask. The man went to his own vehicle. The man returned again and explained that he needed help contacting someone, but then explained he had the phone number and his own phone.
He made a call and left the area. Officer D prepared the report to document the man’s odd behavior and his (Officer D’s) belief that the man may have been involved in the shooting in which the officers were involved.
GPS data obtained from Myeni’s phone confirms its presence in the Kewalo Basin.43 This data also maps Myeni’s route from the basin to the 91 Coelho Way. His route was as follows: (1) he left the basin via Ward Avenue; (2) he proceeded on Ward Avenue towards Mauka and turned left onto Kapi’olani Boulevard; (3) he drove west on Kapiʻolani Boulevard and turned right onto Alapai Street; (4) he drove the Mauka along Alapai Street and turned left onto Beretania Street; (5) he drove west along Beretania Street until he turned right onto Punchbowl Street; (6) he drove the Mauka along Punchbowl Street to the Lunalilo Freeway; (7) he left the Lunalilo Freeway and entered the Pali Highway; (8) he drove north on the Pali Highway and got off at the Wyllie Street exit; (9) he traveled down Wyllie Street; (10) he turned right at Burbank Street; (11) he then turned right onto Coelho Way; and (12) he reached 91 Coelho Way.
3. HPD Report #21-158469 (Officer Involved Shooting at 91 Coelho Way)
a. The patrolmen
On April 14, 2021, Officers 1, 2 and 3 were assigned to District 5, Third Guard Patrol.44 The stated mission for their shift that day was “UEMV and intrusion prevention.”45
Officer 1 was assigned to Patrol Strike 3M572.46 He was wearing his Class A uniform.47 He was wearing a short-sleeved uniform shirt.48 He was driving a subsidized vehicle, a 2015 Toyota MPVH, with hawaiʻi license plate CENSORED.49 Officer 1 wore a Glock, semi-automatic Model 17 (Gen4) pistol serial number WST 437.
Officer 2 was assigned to patrol beat 3M573.50 He was driving a subsidized police vehicle, a 2015 4-door Dodge with a CENSORED Hawaiian license plate and a blue light on the roof.51 He was wearing his Class A uniform.52 Officer 2 wore a semi-automatic Glock – Model 17 (Gen4) pistol with serial number WST 431.
Officer 3 was assigned squad car 3M569.53 He was driving a marked police vehicle, HPD 1562.54 He was wearing his Class A uniform.55 He was wearing a long-sleeved shirt with police insignia.56 Officer 3 was carrying a Glock, Model 17 (Gen4) semi-automatic pistol with the Serial number WST 697. He also had a taser.
b. Shooting with the participation of officers
Witness 1 and Witness 2 went to the Apple Store at the Ala Moana Mall to return a drone.57 Witness 1 was driving a gray Jeep, a rental car from Avis. Her route home was as follows: north along the Pali Highway; Wyllie Street; just off Burbank Street; and right again onto Coelho Way.58
Witness 1 noticed that a car was following them.59 Due to the car’s proximity behind her jeep, she thought it was REDACTED 1.60 She entered the driveway through the west entrance and parked on the lawn.61 The car that was following her was immediately behind the jeep parked.62 This car was the Mazda.63 Myeni was the driver.64 Several cars were parked in the front yard of the property. A VW bus was parked in the east-facing Porte Cochere just outside the front door.
Both Witness 1 and Witness 2 walked to the front door – Witness 2 first and then followed by his wife.65 Myeni followed close behind.66 He was wearing a black polo shirt, blue jeans, socks, shoes and a feathered headband.67 He took off his shoes near a pillar and entered the apartment.68 Witness 1 said she left the front door ajar believing that REDACTED was behind her.69 Myeni entered the front door.70
Witness 1 was in the residence foyer when Myeni entered. She confronted him: “Who are you? Why are you here?”71 Myeni identified herself by name72 and responded with bizarre statements. First he said: “I have videos of you. You know why I’m here.”73 Confused and frightened, Witness 1 replied, “I don’t know. I do not have anything. You should go.”74 Witness 1 thought Myeni was trying to blackmail her. “Are you blackmailing me?” she asked.75
Myeni continued to make bizarre statements that startled Witness 1 and Witness 1. Myeni sat on a chair in the foyer and said he lived there.76 “Are you a friend of REDACTED?” she asked.77 A house cat approached Myeni. He petted the cat and claimed ownership of the cat: “That’s my cat.”78 He also said he lived in the neighborhood.79
Witness 2, meanwhile, called the homeowner who was in Waikiki and explained what was happening in the hallway. 82 CENSORED denied knowing Myeni.
Witness 1 repeatedly asked him to leave and threatened to call 911 if he didn’t.83 She pulled out her phone and showed it to him.84 Myeni explained, “Tell them I’m from South Africa. I’m on the hunt I’m on safari.”85 Myeni lowered his feathered headband and said, “We hunt. We don’t have time.”86 These bizarre statements further troubled Witness 1. She interpreted this as a threat, i.e. she and her husband were the prey being hunted and he was the hunter.87 Myeni commented that he was not afraid of the police and so he would sleep outside.88
Witness 2 heard Myeni say he had nowhere to go and his people were suffering.89
At 20:09:43, witness 1 called 911 and stayed on the line for 13 minutes and 40 seconds.90
Based on information provided by Witness 1, HPD dispatch made the following relevant radio calls to patrol officers in the area:
20:11:03
The dispatcher asked 972 (Officer 1) if he could investigate a reported burglary at 91 Coelho Way. The caller, who was still on the line, reported that she found a man at her home. The dispatcher asked 973 (officer 2) if he could help 972 (officer 1).
20:12:23
The dispatcher described the suspect as an African American man wearing straight black jeans. The caller was on the line and there was a language barrier. The dispatcher addressed 972 (officer 1), 973 (officer 2), and 69 (officer 3).
20:13:30
Addressing 72, 73, and 69, the dispatcher explained that the caller was crying and did not answer questions. The man blocked the door and she couldn’t get in.
Ring video, BWC video, Witness 1’s 911 call, and witness statements, taken together, illustrate the following events.
As Myeni left the apartment, he turned and asked, “What’s going on?”91 Witness 1 (who is not visible in the ring video) replies, “Who are you?”92 Myeni, who is on or near standing on the threshold while looking into the apartment, he asks: “Can I see your phone?”93
Myeni finally left the apartment, put on his shoes, pointed to the front door and walked around the VW bus.94 Looking back at the apartment, Myeni said, “Sorry.”95 Based on the soft spoken tone and volume This testimony, coupled with Witness 1’s agitated state, makes it unlikely that either Witness 1 or Witness 2, both of whom were at the residence, heard what Myeni said.
Witness 1 left the apartment, her phone pressed to her right ear.96 She looked toward Coelho Way in the direction where the Mazda was parked.97 The Mazda’s interior lights were on; this allowed Witness 1 to see Myeni sitting in the car.98 Witness 1 told the dispatcher, “I’m so scared to go outside.”99
Officers 1, 2 and 3 responded. Of those three, Officer 1 was the first officer to arrive at the scene. Officer 1 was approaching from the east and parked near the east entrance on Coelho Way.100 He did not turn on his siren and his blue lights did not flash.101 Officer 1 heard the following message addressed to bar 72 (Officer 1), 73 ( Officer 2) and 69 (officer 3): “She cried for the caller and didn’t answer any questions. Male blocks the door. Said she couldn’t go in.”102 Officer 1 rolled up his window, got out of his car and entered the property through the east entrance.103
Witness 1 was still on the phone. She confirmed the arrival of officer 1’s car.104 Witness 1 reported that “he (Myeni) is still in the community” and referred to “the police officer”.105 Witness 1 was crying and no doubt upset.106
Officer 2 heard an announcement that a caller had returned home and that an unidentified man was in the home.107 On the way, Witness 2 heard an updated announcement that the caller was on the line and the man refused to leave.108 The caller described the male as an African American wearing a black shirt and jeans.109
Upon arriving at the scene, Officer 2 saw Officer 1 entering on foot through the east entrance.110 Officer 2, meanwhile, entered on foot through the west entrance.111 Witness 1 saw Officer 2 entering the property.112 Myeni got out of Mazda.113
As Officer 2 went through an opening in the front wall of the property, Myeni approached him from behind.114 Officer 2 asked Myeni what was going on.115 Myeni replied, “I don’t know. You tell me.”116
At 20:13, Officer 3 responded to the report of the burglary in progress.117 On the way, he heard an updated suspicious description of an African American man wearing a dark shirt and jeans who had entered the apartment.118 He arrived at 8:14
pm119 Officer 3 got out of his car and entered the property on foot through the west entrance.120
Officer 1 held a flashlight which he aimed at the front entrance of the residence.121 Witness 1 stood in front of the front door.122 “Where did he go?” asked Officer 1.123 She was excited and desperate. She replied, ‘That’s him.’124 He asked again, ‘Where did he go?’125 She pointed towards Coelho Way and cried, ‘That’s him! He’s still in the car.”126 Officer 1 asked, “Where?” as he walked around the VW bus.127 Witness 1 is heard crying.128 “That’s him! That’s him!
That’s him!” she yelled.129 As Officer 1 rounded the bend and headed down Coelho Way, he began to ask, “Where…” Then he yelled, “Now sit on the floor!” “On the Floor! Now on the floor!” 130 Witness 1 went back into the house.131
Myeni came into view of Officer 1.132 He was wearing a dark shirt, blue pants and shoes.133 His appearance and clothing matched the description broadcast over Central.134 Officer 1 held his service pistol in his right hand, arm outstretched .135 Officer 1 yelled again: “On the ground! Now on the floor!”136
Myeni refused to comply.137 Without warning, Myeni walked straight up to Officer 1, who was standing near the bend in the driveway on the west side of the property.138 Officer 3 and Officer 2 watched as Myeni attacked Officer 1 and watched Officer 1 Ground hit head and body area.139 Myeni said something unintelligible. This attack moved to the front yard, near a Toyota Prius, Hawaii license plate RPB 340 (the Prius) parked on the front lawn of the residence.140
Officer 3 yelled, “Tasers! tasers! tasers! Taser!”141 He drew his taser, aimed it at Myeni and fired a shot that had no effect.142 Myeni charged at Officer 3 and punched him with closed fists.143 Myeni continued to attack Officer 3 while he was prone . 144 Officer 2 tried to bring Myeni to the ground but was unsuccessful.145
Myeni turned his attention to Officer 1.146 Officer 3 stood.147 Myeni resumed his attack on Officer 1.148 Officer 1 fired once from his service weapon.149 Myeni brought Officer 1 to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face and head. 150
As Myeni hit Officer 1, Officer 2 removed his service weapon, pointed it at Myeni and ordered him to stop.151 Officer 2 fired his service weapon three times.152 Officer 2 described his thought process as follows:
I was afraid that if the man kept hitting him, he would kill [Officer 1]. I also believed that [Officer 3] was injured or incapacitated. I was also concerned that the suspect might have gained control of [Officer 1]’s service weapon, as he had unholstered it and was holding it when he was attacked by the man.
About five seconds elapsed between the first shot and the three-shot salvo.153 Shortly after officer 2’s three-shot salvo, someone shouted: “Police!”154
About 30 seconds elapsed from Officer 1’s first command to “Get down on the floor!”. to Officer 2.155’s three-round volley
Myeni lay face down on the floor. He was handcuffed and rolled onto his back. Officers attempted to administer first aid to Myeni. They donned the AED and performed CPR compressions.156 Ambulance arrived at 20:25157
After Myeni was handcuffed, Officer 2 checked Officer 1,158. His face was bleeding.159 Officer 1 said he was missing his service weapon.160 Officer 1 said Myeni had his service weapon drawn.161 Officer 2 found Officer 1’s service weapon in the grass, in near where he had been attacked.162 The breech of the firearm was again locked in the open position.163
EMS left the scene at 20:38. and arrived at Queen’s Medical Center (QMC) at 20:46164. dr CENSORED declared Myeni dead at 20:49165
Officer 2 intentionally fired his service pistol.166 The shot was not accidental.
At this time, Officer 1 has not yet prepared a formal statement. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that he fired his service weapon intentionally.
There is no evidence that racial hostility toward Myeni prompted officers to use deadly force.
E. Myenis Cause of Death, Recovered Evidence, and Toxicology Results
On April 15, 2021, REDACTED, MD, PhD (Dr. REDACTED), Chief Medical Examiner for the Department of Medical Examiner, City and County of Honolulu, performed the autopsy at the ME Facility at 835 Iwilei Road.
1. Cause of Death
The cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds.
2. Gunshot Wounds
dr CENSORED documented four gunshot wounds (GSW): three to the torso and one to the right lower extremity. Each GSW is summarized below.167
a. GSW No. 1
GSW #1 had an indeterminate area invading the right medial breast. The bullet fractured the right 3rd rib, punctured the right lung and fractured the 9th rib backwards. Blood filled the right chest cavity. The projectile lodged under the skin on the right back.168 The right lung was the only structure affected.
The coiled track ran front to back, left to right and down.
At the time of the autopsy, only 50 ml of blood remained in the right chest cavity.
b. GSW #2
GSW #2 was of indeterminate range, penetrating the left lateral chest. The bullet did not injure the left lung, but pierced the diaphragm and entered the abdominal cavity. The bullet ruptured the left 8th and 9th ribs, ruptured the spleen and perforated the left kidney. The bullet fractured the lumbar spine and landed under the skin near the spine.169
The coiled track ran front to back, left to right and down. There was approximately 1500 ml of blood in the left chest cavity.
c. GSW No. 3
GSW #3 had an indeterminate area invading the right medial shoulder. The bullet ruptured the 2nd right rib posteriorly, injured the right lung, ruptured the 9th and 10th ribs posteromedially, exited the thoracic cavity and ended under the skin under the right lumbar region.170
The winding trail went front to back, right to left, and steeply down.
Associated injuries include a right hemothorax with approximately 50 mL of blood at the time of autopsy.
i.e. GSW No. 4
GSW #4 had an indeterminate area invading the right anterolateral distal thigh. The bullet caused deep soft-tissue lacerations but no broken bones. GSW #4 exited the posterior thigh and reentered the right rear proximal leg. The bullet penetrated the muscle tissue and stopped in the distal lower leg.171 The bullet did not fracture bones or cause major vascular injuries.
The wound path was front to back and slightly downward. The wound path suggests that the bullet entered the right leg while bent at the knee.
3. External injuries
dr CENSORED documented minor blunt force injuries as follows: (1) two minor abrasions on the right fifth finger; (2) two small abrasions on the back of the left elbow;
(3) multiple abrasions within an inch of the right front knee; (4) a small abrasion at the front of the left proximal lower leg; and (5) a minor abrasion on the dorsal surface of the left first metatarsophalangeal joint area.
4. Preservation of Evidence
dr REDACTED recovered four projectiles from the following locations: (1) right back center; (2) right lower back; (3) left lower back; and (4) right lower leg.172
A DNA blood map was obtained. HPD received additional evidence at the morgue: two necklaces, two paper bags, a pair of handcuffs, a tag, swabs from Myeni’s hands, and nail clippings from both hands.173
5. Toxicology
A femoral blood sample was taken during the autopsy. The ME sent the sample to NMS Labs. The toxicological screen shows the presence of a marijuana component with metabolites.
dr CENSORED offers no opinion on psychological or physiological aspects
Effect of marijuana on Myeni’s mental state or behavior.
F. Scientific/Forensic Evidence
1. Gunshot residue collection kit
Gun Residue Collection Kits (GSR) were used on the hands of Officer 1, Officer 2, Officer 3, and Myeni.174 HPD Criminalist REDACTED analyzed these kits. Their findings and conclusions are as follows:
Officer 1: Two particles characteristic of GSR
Officer 3: No GSR
Myeni: Six particles consistent with GSR Officer 2: Two particles consistent with GSR175
The presence of GSR on a person’s hands indicates one or more of the following:
– The person may have fired a firearm.
– The person may have been in the vicinity of a gun when it was fired.
– The person may have been in contact with an object with GSR on it.176
3. Firearms and Tool Tokens
HPD Criminalist REDACTED analyzed the firearms and ammunition evidence.
She concluded that Officer 1, Officer 2 and Officer 3’s service firearms were functional.
Regarding the four bullets recovered during the autopsy, one was fired by Officer 1’s service weapon and three by Officer 2. The table below summarizes each GSW,177 a brief description of the GSW and the officer responsible for the shot.178
GSW NUMMER EINTRAG HPD BEWEISNUMMER VERANTWORTLICHER BEAMTER 1 Rechter medialer Brustkorb 42 Beamter 1 2 Linker seitlicher Brustkorb 44 Beamter 2 3 Rechte mediale Schulter 43 Beamter 2 4 Rechter anterolateraler distaler Oberschenkel 45 Beamter 2
4. DNA und Serologie
HPD entwickelte die bekannten DNA-Profile für Officer 1, Officer 3 und Myeni. HPD sammelte Abstriche wie folgt; (1) zwei Abstriche vom Gesicht des Beamten 1; (2) zwei Abstriche vom Gesicht des Beamten 3; (3) Nagelschnipsel von Myenis linker und rechter Hand; (4) zwei Abstriche von Myenis linker und rechter Hand.
HPD Criminalist REDACTED entwickelte die DNA-Profile aus den oben genannten Abstrichen und verglich sie mit den bekannten Profilen von Officer 1, Officer 3 und Myeni.179 Ihre Ergebnisse und Schlussfolgerungen in Bezug auf die beiden Abstriche vom Gesicht von Officer 1 lauten wie folgt:
Menschliches Blut wurde angezeigt. Das DNA-Profil war eine Mischung aus zwei Individuen. Unter der Annahme, dass Officer 1 einer der Mitwirkenden an der Mischung ist, kann Myeni nicht als möglicher Mitwirkender an dem partiellen Fremd-DNA-Profil aus der Mischung ausgeschlossen werden. Unter Verwendung der konservativsten berechneten Häufigkeitsschätzung müssten ungefähr 208,3 Millionen nicht verwandte Personen bewertet werden, bevor erwartet wird, eine Person zu finden, die ein DNA-Profil aufweist, das nicht als möglicher Beitrag zu dem partiellen fremden DNA-Profil aus diesem Beweismittel ausgeschlossen werden kann. 180
G. Durchsuchung von Myenis Handy
HPD Evidence Specialist ZENSIERT hat Myenis iPhone 11 (das Telefon) aus dem Inneren der Wohnung geborgen und als Beweismittel als Punkt 27 unter HPD-Bericht Nr. 21-158469.
Am 4. Juni 2021 erhielt die PAT den Durchsuchungsbefehl S.W. 2021-256, um das Telefon zu durchsuchen. HPD führte den Haftbefehl aus und stellte die Ergebnisse der Durchsuchung auf zwei USB-Sticks zur Verfügung. Der Ermittler ZENSIERT überprüfte die Videos auf jedem Flash-Laufwerk und fand keine Bilder von 91 Coelho Way, Zeuge 1, Zeuge 2, ZENSIERT , ZENSIERT , ZENSIERT oder ZENSIERT .
GPS-Daten vom Telefon bestätigen Myenis Anwesenheit im Kewalo-Becken und kartieren seine Route vom Becken zum 91 Coelho Way.
H. Andere Faktoren
1. ZENSIERT und seine Mieter kannten Myeni nicht
ZENSIERT, Zeuge 1, Zeuge 2, ZENSIERT und ZENSIERT, alle leugneten, Myeni zu kennen oder irgendeine vorherige Interaktion mit ihm gehabt zu haben. 181 Alle bestätigten, dass er am 14. April 2021 keine Erlaubnis zum Betreten der Wohnung hatte.
2. Leinwand der Nachbarschaft
Der Ermittler ZENSIERT durchsuchte die Nachbarschaft, die von Wyllie Street, Burbank Street, Coelho Way und Pali Highway begrenzt wird. Er fand keine Augenzeugen für die Schießerei, an der die Offiziere beteiligt waren.
Die Anwerbung ergab kein relevantes Filmmaterial aus der Hausüberwachung.
Investigator REDACTED spoke with REDACTED, temple president, REDACTED who said that no resident at the temple saw or heard anything related to the shooting. REDACTED gave Investigator REDACTED an “Official Statement” dated April 23, 2021, prepared by their attorney. The statement reads in relevant part:
In publicity surrounding the tragic event and a lawsuit brought by Mr. Myeni’s widow, there have been some references to our temple being adjacent to the property where Mr. Myeni lost his life in a police shooting after police responded to a 911 call related to his arrival there. There has been some speculation that perhaps Mr. Myeni intended to go to our temple but mistakenly went to the neighboring property instead.
As management for the temple at 51 Coelho Way, we do not know Mr. Myeni and have no information concerning him or the events of April 14. We are not aware that he has ever been to our temple or had any intention to come to our temple on April 14. Had he come to our temple during hours we are open, we would have welcomed him as we do all members of the public interested in the spiritual practices or philosophy we offer our congregation and the public. It should be noted that at the time the event occurred after 8 pm, our temple was closed to the public and we would not have anticipated any visitors at that time. Our temple and congregation also has no affiliation, connection or knowledge concerning the neighboring property or its owner(s).
3. Information Known to the Responding Officers
There is no evidence that the responding officers spoke with Witness 1 or Witness 2 prior to their arrival at the scene. Accordingly, the information of which they were aware prior to arriving at 91 Coelho Way came from the dispatcher.
The relevant transmissions are as follows:
20:11:03
The dispatcher asked 972 (Officer 1) if he could investigate a reported burglary at 91 Coelho Way. The caller, who was still on the line, reported that she found a male in her house. The dispatcher asked 973 (Officer 2) if he could help 972 (Officer 1).
20:12:23
The dispatcher described the suspect as an African American male wearing straight black jeans. The caller was on the line and there was a language barrier. The dispatcher addressed 972 (Officer 1), 973 (Officer 2), and 69 (Officer 3).
Upon his arrival the scene, Officer 1 interacted with Witness 1.182 She was upset, declared Myeni’s presence on the premises, and gestured towards Myeni’s direction. It is reasonable for Officer 1 to conclude that Witness 1, who still clutched her cell phone, was the caller referenced by dispatch.
20:13:30
The dispatcher addressed 972, 973, and 69 and stated that the call taker was crying and not answering questions. The male was blocking the door and she could not get inside.
4. Relative Size Difference
At the time of autopsy, Myeni measured 5’11” and weighed 203 pounds.183 Officer 1 is 5’8” and weighs 245 pounds.184
Officer 2 is 5’11” and weighs 190 pounds.185
Officer 3 is 5’11” and weighs 205 pounds.186
5. Law Enforcement’s Use of Non-Deadly Force
Uniformed police officers attempted to use two techniques to control Myeni before the discharge of their service firearms. First, Officer 1 made repeated verbal commands to obtain Myeni’s compliance. Myeni disregarded these commands and assaulted Officer 1.
Second, after witnessing Myeni assault Officer 1, Officer 3 deployed his Taser. It was ineffective. One Taser probe was attached to the Prius’ left rear bumper.187 The other probe struck Myeni’s shirt.188
6. Officer Injuries
Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3 were injured. Their injuries are listed below.
a. Officer 1
On April 15, 2021, the emergency room physician diagnosed Officer 1 with multiple left face fractures, a left inner cheek cut, a left wrist sprain, and a serious concussion.189 The physician indicated serious bodily injury on Officer 1’s HPD 13.190
b. Officer 2
On April 15, 2021, the emergency room physician diagnosed Officer 2 with a right face abrasion.191
c. Officer 3
Officer 3 reported injuries to his left forehead area, pain to the right side of his neck, the left side of his inner bicep area, the left side of his outer forearm, and his left knee.192 There was a hole to the left knee of his uniform pants.193
On April 15, 2021, the emergency room physician diagnosed Officer 3 with a left knee strain and abrasion, a left arm bruise, a head hematoma, and a right neck strain.194
III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
A. Definitions
“Believes” means reasonably believes.195
“Bodily injury” means physical pain, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.196
“Deadly force” means force which the actor uses with the intent of causing or which the actor knows to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily harm. Intentionally firing a firearm in the direction of another person or in the direction which another person is believed to be constitutes deadly force. A threat to cause death or serious bodily injury, by the production of a weapon or otherwise, so long as the actor’s intent is limited to creating an apprehension that the actor will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute deadly force.197
“Dwelling” means any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being a home or place of lodging.198
“Force” means any bodily impact, restraint, or confinement, or the threat thereof.199
“Unlawful force” means force which is employed without the consent of the person against whom it is directed and the employment of which constitutes an offense or would constitute an offense except for a defense not amounting to a justification to use the force. Assent constitutes consent, within the meaning of this section, whether or not it otherwise is legally effective, except assent to the infliction of death or serious or substantial bodily injury.200
“Serious bodily injury” means bodily injury which creates a substantial risk of death or which causes serious, permanent disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily member or organ.201
“Substantial bodily injury” means a major avulsion, major laceration, or major penetration of the skin; a burn of at least second degree severity; a bone fracture; a serious concussion; or a tearing, rupture, or corrosive damage to the esophagus, viscera, or other internal organs.202
B. Potential Defenses
Three HRS chapter 703 justification defenses apply to this case.203 Each is referenced below.
1. Use of Force in Self-Protection (HRS § 703-304; HAWJIC 7.01A)
HRS § 703-304 states in relevant part as follows:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.
(2) The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.
(3) Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action.
…
(5) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
(a) The actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or
(b) The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:
(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and
(ii) A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties, or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform his duty, effect the arrest, or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.
(6) The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.
The use of deadly force in self-defense involves consideration of two issue. First, did the actor use deadly force? Second, was the use of deadly force justified?204
The use of deadly force upon or toward another person is justified if the actor reasonably believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself on the present occasion against death or serious bodily injury.205 The reasonableness of the actor’s belief that the use of protective deadly force was immediately necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the actor’s position under the circumstances of which the defendant was aware or as the defendant reasonably believed them to be when the deadly force was used.206
2. Use of Force for the Protection of Other Persons (HRS § 703- 305; HAWJIC 7.02A)
HRS § 703-305 states in relevant part as follows:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-310, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(a) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(b) The actor believes that the actor’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person.
Use of deadly force in the defense of others involves consideration of two issues. First, did the actor use deadly force? Second, was the use of deadly force justified?207
The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when, under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and the actor believes that the actor’s intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.208 The reasonableness of the actor’s belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the actor’s position under the circumstances of which the actor was aware or as the actor reasonably believed them to be when the deadly force was used.209
3. Use of Force in Law Enforcement (HRS § 703-307)
HRS § 703-307 states in relevant part as follows:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-310, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is making or assisting in making an arrest and the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest.
(2) The use of force is not justifiable under this section unless:
(a) The actor makes known the purpose of the arrest or believes that it is otherwise known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested; and
(b) When the arrest is made under a warrant, the warrant is valid or believed by the actor to be valid.
(3) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless:
(a) The arrest is for a felony;
(b) The person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a law enforcement officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized to act as a law enforcement officer;
(c) The actor believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; and
(d) The actor believes that:
(i) The crimes for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
(ii) There is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.
IV. ANALYSE
A. Myeni’s Entry into the Residence
The residence at 91 Coelho Way is used for lodging. As such, it qualifies as a “dwelling.” On April 14, 2021, Myeni entered the residence. Given the totality of the circumstances, it can be inferred that his entry was intentional.210 His entry was also unlawful, inasmuch as he did not have the permission of REDACTED or any of the tenants. This
conduct and the attendant circumstances implicate at least two offenses under the HPC: (1) burglary in the first degree in violation of HRS § 708-810 and (2) unauthorized entry in a dwelling in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-812.6.211
The facts do not support the charge of burglary in the first degree. There is no evidence supporting the contention that, at the time of his unlawful entry, Myeni intended to commit a crime against person or property.212 Given that Myeni’s initial entry was unlawful, this analysis will not consider whether he remained unlawfully.213
At the time of his unlawful entry, Witness 1 and Witness 2 were present in the residence. Given the foregoing, Myeni committed the offense of unauthorized entry in a dwelling in the second degree in violation of HRS § 708-812.6.214
The affirmative defense codified in HRS § 708-812.6 is inapplicable here. At the time of his unlawful entry, there was no social gathering in progress in the residence.
As such, there was no gathering that Myeni could have intended to join.
B. Myeni Was Aware that Police Officers Had Responded to 91 Coelho Way
The argument has been made that Myeni used justifiable force against Officer 1 in self-defense. This argument rests on the contention that Myeni was unaware of Officer 1’s identity as a police officer and, as such, Myeni’s use of force against the police was an appropriate response to his perception that he was threatened. The following facts refute this argument.
First, earlier that evening Myeni had face-to-face interaction with uniformed police officers at Kewalo Basin. They communicated with each other in English. These officers were dressed in their class A uniforms. They also drove marked police cars.
This interaction occurred about 30 minutes before the fatal shooting. Accordingly, Myeni was familiar with HPD’s class A uniform before he went to 91 Coelho Way.
Second, Witness 1 informed Myeni that she intended to call 911. While there may have been a language barrier, both Witness 1 and Myeni spoke English.
According to Witness 1, Myeni said that he was not afraid of the police and that he would sleep outside. This statement conveys Myeni’s understanding of Witness 1’s intention to call the police. Witness 1 followed through and made the call. Taken together, it can be reasonably concluded that Myeni was aware that the police had been called. A reasonable person would have concluded that, based on the foregoing, the individuals who carried flashlights onto the property were police officers.
Third, Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3 all wore class A uniforms. There is no BWC video that shows that the officers identified themselves as police prior to the discharge of the first gunshot. Regardless, in viewing all the relevant circumstances from an objective standard, a reasonable person would have known that Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3 were, in fact, police officers.
Fourth, Myeni interacted with Officer 2 moments before his initial assault on Officer 1. While dressed in his class A uniform, Officer 2 asked Myeni a question. They were close enough to each other that Myeni heard and responded to the question. This close proximity supports the conclusion that Myeni saw how Officer 2 was dressed. It further supports the conclusion that Myeni knew that police had responded to Witness 1’s terrified 911 call.
C. Myeni Committed the Offense of Assault against a Law Enforcement Officer in the First Degree When He Assaulted Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3
The offense of assault against a law enforcement officer in the first degree is codified in HRS § 707-712.5, which states:
(1) A person commits the offense of assault against a law enforcement officer in the first degree if the person:
(a) Intentionally or knowingly causes bodily injury to a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the performance of duty; or
(b) Recklessly or negligently causes, with a dangerous instrument, bodily injury to a law enforcement officer who is engaged in the performance of duty.
Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3, all law enforcement officers, were engaged in the performance of their duty when then responded to 91 Coelho Way. Myeni caused bodily injury to all three officers.215 Based on the totality of the circumstances Myeni’s conduct was intentional or knowing. Furthermore, as stated above,216 Myeni was aware that Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3 were police officers. Based on the foregoing, Myeni committed the offense of assault against a law enforcement officer in the first degree as to Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3.
D. Myeni’s Toxicology Results Are Admissible in a Criminal Prosecution against either Officer 1 or Officer 2
As of this writing, the PAT is unaware of any expert opinion concerning what psychological or physiological effect, if any, the marijuana had on Myeni.217 Regardless, this investigation will assume that the toxicology results will be admissible in a criminal prosecution against either Officer 1 or Officer 2.218
As of this writing, there is no evidence that Officer 1, Officer 2, or Officer 3 were under the effect of any illicit or mind-altering substance at the time of the April 14, 2021 officer-involved shooting.
E. HRS Chapter 703 Defenses
1. Officer 1’s Use of Deadly Force in Self-Protection
The question is whether Officer 1 was legally justified in using deadly force in self-protection. This involves a two-part inquiry. First, did Officer 1 use deadly force? Second, was his use of deadly force justified?219
As to the first question, it is uncontroverted that Officer 1 used deadly force. His act of discharging his service firearm at Myeni was intentional. It was not an accident.
As to the second question, Officer 1’s use of deadly force was justified if he reasonably believed that deadly force was immediately necessary to protect himself from serious bodily injury. The reasonableness of Officer 1’s belief that the use of protective deadly force was immediately necessary is determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in Officer 1’s position under the circumstances of which Officer 1 was aware or as the Officer 1 reasonably believed them to be when the deadly force was used.
There is no evidence that Officer 1 spoke with Witness 1 or Witness 2 prior to his arrival at the scene. He had no personal knowledge of the contents of the Ring video or Witness 1’s 911 call. He had no prior contact with or knowledge of Myeni. Accordingly, the circumstances of which Officer 1 was aware prior to his arrival came from the dispatcher.
The relevant transmissions are as follows:
20:11:03
The dispatcher asked 972 (Officer 1) if he could investigate a reported burglary at 91 Coelho Way. The caller, who was still on the line, reported that she found a male in her house. The dispatcher asked 973 (Officer 2) if he could help 972 (Officer 1).
20:12:23
The dispatcher described the suspect as an African American male wearing straight black jeans. The caller was on the line and there was a language barrier. The dispatcher addressed 972 (Officer 1), 973 (Officer 2), and 69 (Officer 3).
20:13:30
The dispatcher addressed 972, 973, and 69 and stated that the call taker was crying and not answering questions. The male was blocking the door and she could not get inside.
Upon his arrival the scene, Officer 1 interacted with Witness 1.220 She was unquestionably upset, declared Myeni’s presence on the premises, and gestured towards Myeni’s direction. It is reasonable for Officer 1 to conclude that Witness 1, who still clutched her cell phone, was the caller referenced by dispatch, and that Myeni was the burglary suspect.
Officer 1 was not the initial aggressor. He did not provoke Myeni’s use of force against him. As a law enforcement officer who responded to the scene as part of his official duties, he was under no duty to retreat.221
Under the circumstances that existed based on Officer 1’s subjective belief, it was objectively reasonable that he used deadly force to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury. A former rugby player, Myeni was physically superior to Officer 1: he was younger, taller, more muscular and athletic, and clearly stronger. Myeni physically assaulted Officer 1—i.e., he used unlawful force—before the police used any physical force against him. Officer 1 only discharged his service firearm after: (1) Myeni had assaulted him; (2) Officer 2 couldn’t control him; (3) Officer 3’s Taser shot proved ineffective; and (3) Myeni assaulted Officer 3. Testimonial,222 video,223 and forensic evidence224 confirm that Myeni assaulted Officer 1. Officer 1 in fact suffered serious bodily injury.225
2. Officer 2’s Use of Deadly Force for the Protection of Other Persons
As was the case with Officer 1, the information of which Officer 2 was aware concerning the situation prior to his arrival could only have come from the dispatcher. Furthermore, Officer 2 gathered additional information at the scene based on his interaction with Myeni and his observations of Myeni’s conduct. At the time Officer 2 used deadly force, he was not protecting himself against Myeni’s use of unlawful force against him. Rather, he was protecting Officer 1 from Myeni’s use of unlawful force.
Based on the foregoing, use of force for the protection of other persons applies here.
Defense of others when deadly force is at issue involves consideration of two issues: First, did the actor use “deadly force”? Second was the use of deadly force justifiable?226
As to the first question, it is uncontroverted that Officer 2 used deadly force. He intentionally fired his service firearm three times. Each shot struck Myeni.
As to the second question, the use of deadly force upon or toward another person is justifiable to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believed them to be, the third person would be justified in using deadly force to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury and the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person. The reasonableness of the actor’s belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary shall be determined from the viewpoint of the reasonable person in the actor’s position under circumstances of which the actor was aware or as the actor reasonably believed them to be when the deadly force was used. The actor’s belief that the use of deadly force was immediately necessary may be mistaken, but reasonable.
Officer 1, the third person, was under no duty to retreat. At the time of the incident, he was employed and on duty as a law enforcement officer. A 911 call prompted the police dispatch that sent him to 91 Coelho Way. He was not the initial aggressor nor did he provoke Myeni’s use of force against him.
Similarly, Officer 2 was under no duty to retreat.227 Any retreat on his part would not, under the circumstances, have secured Officer 1’s safety.
The facts support the conclusion that Officer 2’s use of deadly force was justifiable to protect Officer 1. Under the circumstances that Officer 2 believed existed at the time, Officer 1, who was repeatedly struck to the face and head, would have been justified in using deadly force to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury. As explained above, Officer 1 suffered serious bodily injury. Under the circumstances, there was no duty for Officer 1 to retreat and he was not the first aggressor.
Officer 2 described his thought process as follows:
I was afraid that the male was going to kill [Officer 1] if he continued to strike him. I also believed that [Officer 3] was injured or incapacitated. I was also concerned the suspect may have gained control of [Officer 1’s] service firearm since he had un-holstered it and was holding it in his hand when he was attacked by the male.
This investigation finds that Officer 2’s belief that his use of deadly was immediately necessary was objectively reasonable. Three police officers could not control Myeni. Myeni had assaulted Officer 1, assaulted Officer 2, was unaffected by the Taser, assaulted Officer 3, and returned to assault Officer 1. Myeni’s second assault of Officer 1 occurred after Officer 1’s bullet struck him in the mid-chest. Officer 2 saw Myeni positioned over Officer 1 as he repeatedly struck the fallen officer in the face and head.
3. Use of Force in Law Enforcement
The initial officers did not have an arrest warrant nor did they have probable cause to effectuate a warrantless arrest when they arrived at the scene. The initial officers responded to a burglary dispatch at the residence. Officer 1 entered the east driveway entrance, at which time he saw and heard Witness 1, who stood outside the residence’s front entrance. She was clearly upset and excitedly yelled, “That’s him,” as she gestured in Myeni’s direction. Based on the foregoing, Officer 1 appropriately investigated the matter further and, once confronted by Myeni, had a basis to perform an investigative detention.228
The circumstances changed after Myeni assaulted Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3.229 This conduct established probable cause for Myeni’s warrantless arrest for assault against a law enforcement officer in the first degree.230
The question is whether Officer 1 and Officer 2’s intentional discharge of their service firearms is a justified use of force in law enforcement. HRS § 703-307 states in relevant part as follows:
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-310, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor is making or assisting in making an arrest and the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to effect a lawful arrest.
…
(3) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section unless:
(a) The arrest is for a felony;
(b) The person effecting the arrest is authorized to act as a law enforcement officer or is assisting a person whom he believes to be authorized to act as a law enforcement officer;
(c) The actor believes that the force employed creates no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons; and
(d) The actor believes that:
(i) The crimes for which the arrest is made involved conduct including the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
(ii) There is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury if his apprehension is delayed.
“Section 703-307(3) sets forth the very limited circumstances in which deadly force may be used to effect an arrest.”231 The analysis of HRS § 703-307(3) follows below.
First, the officers were authorized to arrest Myeni without a warrant for assault against a law enforcement officer in the first degree, a class C felony. HRS § 703- 307(3)(a).
Second, Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3 were on duty as sworn HPD police officers. As such, they are law enforcement officers who are authorized to make arrests for violations of the HPC. HRS § 703-307(3)(b).
Third, Officer 1 and Officer 2’s use of deadly force created no substantial risk of injury to innocent persons. HRS § 703-307(3)(c). There were no non-police persons, other than Myeni, outside the residence, in the immediate area, when Officer 1 and Officer 2 discharged their service firearms. Both officers, therefore, had a reasonable belief that their use of deadly force did not create a substantial risk of injury to innocent persons.
Fourth, under the facts of this case, there was a substantial risk that Myeni would have caused serious bodily injury if his apprehension was delayed. HRS § 703- 307(3)(d)(ii). Officer 2 articulated this objectively reasonable belief in his police report. He wrote:
I was afraid that the male was going to kill [Officer 1] if he continued to strike him. I also believed that [Officer 3] was injured or incapacitated. I was also concerned the suspect may have gained control of [Officer 1’s] service firearm since he had un-holstered it and was holding it in his hand when he was attacked by the male.
Officer 1’s diagnosed injuries, i.e., serious bodily injury, confirm Officer 2’s assessment of the situation before he discharged his service firearm.
Based on the foregoing, Officer 1 and Officer 2’s use of deadly force was justified under HRS § 703-307.
V. CONCLUSION
To secure a conviction for an offense under the HPC, the prosecution must disprove an applicable defense—other than an affirmative defense—beyond a reasonable doubt.232 The defenses codified in HRS §§ 703-304, -305, and -307 are not affirmative defenses. As such, where these defenses are applicable they must be disproved (or negated) beyond a reasonable doubt.233
The PAT declines to prosecute either Officer 1 or Officer 2 for any offense under the HPC for their intentional use of deadly force on April 14, 2021.
The prosecution is unable to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) Officer 1’s use of deadly force was not justified for self-protection; (2) Officer 2’s use of deadly force was not justified for protection of others; and (3) the officers’ use of deadly force was not a justified use of force in law enforcement.
In other words, the PAT concludes that Officer 1 and Officer 2 were justified in their use of deadly force for self-protection and protection of others, respectively.
VI. MATERIALS CONSIDERED
A. HPD Report No. 21-158469
1. Honolulu Police Department Reports
Patrol
REDACTED
– Officer 3
REDACTED
– Officer 2
REDACTED
Detectives
REDACTED
Scientific Investigation Section
REDACTED
2. Written Witness Statements
– Witness 1
– Witness 2
3. HPD Recorded Statements234
– Witness 2
– Witness 1
4. Sixteen (16) HPD Body-Worn Camera Videos
REDACTED
– Officer 3
REDACTED
– Officer 1
REDACTED
– Officer 2
REDACTED
5. Twenty-eight (28) Ring Videos
– Provided by REDACTED
– HPD 503
6. Radio Transmissions
– Witness 1’s 911 call235
– Police radio transmissions236
B. HPD Report No. 21-158432
I. Patrol Reports
– Officer C
– HPD 252 of
ii. Three (3) Body-Worn Camera Videos
– Officer C
– Officer B
– Officer A
C. Miscellaneous Public Reports
1. HPD Report No. 21-162831 (Officer D)
2. HPD Report No. 21-161113 ( )
D. Other Materials Received from HPD
1. District 5 Duty Roster for April 14, 2021
2. Personnel information for Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3
3. Vehicle information for Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3
4. Use of Force information for Officer 1, Officer 2, and Officer 3
E. Department of the Medical Examiner
1. ME Investigation of Death (ME Case No. 21-0963)
2. ME Autopsy Report (ME Case No. 21-0963)
3. Toxicology Report (ME Case No. 21-0963)
4. Chain of custody documents (ME Case No. 21-0963)
F. PAT Independent Investigation
1. Neighborhood canvassing
2. “Official Statement” from ISKCON Hawaii, Inc. dated April 23, 2021
3. Other Witnesses
a. REDACTED told investigator REDACTED: Owners of REDACTED told investigators that for the last 18 months they have gone to their residence to collect their mail.
b. REDACTED : The person to whom the police released the Mazda.237 He confirmed to have picked up the vehicle as a favor for REDACTED but claimed that he was not the owner. He declined to provide any additional information without his attorney.
c. REDACTED : Identified by REDACTED as Myeni’s good friend. The Office of the Public Defender represents REDACTED in Case No. REDACTED , where he awaits trial for abuse of family or household members that occurred on April 19, 2021. REDACTED is the complainant. Investigator REDACTED was unable to interview REDACTED.
i.e. REDACTED: Resident at REDACTED who observed Myeni’s conduct while they were neighbors.
4. Search of the Myeni’s iPhone
a. SW 2021- 256 (obtained on 6/4/21 and executed by HPD)
b. Contents of two flash drives provided by HPD
5. Video
a. Twitter Video (2:13)
Footnotes:
1 https://www.google.com/maps/place/91+Coelho+Way,+Honolulu,+HI+96817/@21.3306599,-157.8488745,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x7c006c2da1741795:0xe9131d5849c7e374!8m2!3d21.3306549!4d-157.8466858 . The start time for this period is based on the time stamp on Ring video (55560042_6951262220498915227_stamp.mp4). The three- round volley signifies the end event. Ring video (55560042_6951264144644263835_stamp (1).mp4). The time stamp is 8:15:24 HST.
2 https://qpublic.schneidercorp.com/Application.aspx?AppID=1045&LayerID=2334 2&PageTypeID=4&PageID=9746&Q=184222392&KeyValue=180060780000
3 Witness 1 and Witness 2 interviews.
4 https://www.google.com/maps/place/51+Coelho+Way,+Honolulu,+HI+96817/@21.3301569,-157.8490608,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x7c006c2d09640a8b:0x617a09be557d8 f9a!8m2!3d21.3301519!4d-157.8468721
5 https://sunrise-sunset.org/us/honolulu-hi/2021/4
6 Witness 1 interview; BWC video.
7 Medical Examiner (ME) Investigation of Death at 1.
8 Statement of REDACTED to Investigator REDACTED .
9 This information, provided by HPD’s Professional Standards Office (PSO), is as of April 14, 2021.
10 The earliest documented UOF entry in the provided records for Officer 1 is June 12, 2017.
11 The earliest documented UOF entry in the provided records for Officer 2 is April 12, 2019.
12 The earliest documented UOF entry in the provided records for Officer 3 is January 1, 2017.
13 “‘Law enforcement officer’ means any public servant, whether employed by the State or county or by the United States, vested by law with a duty to maintain public order or, to make arrests for offenses or to enforce the criminal laws, whether that duty extends to all offenses or is limited to a specific class of offenses.”
14 Statement of
15 Officer C’s report.
16 Officer C’s report.
17 Officer C’s report.
18 Officer C’s report.
19 Officer C’s report.
20 Officer C’s report.
21 Officer C’s report.
22 Officer B BWC.
23 Officer B BWC.
24 Officer B BWC.
25 Officer B BWC.
26 Officer B BWC.
27 Officer B BWC.
28 Officer B BWC.
29 Officer B BWC.
30 Officer B BWC.
31 Officer B BWC.
32 Officer B BWC.
33 Officer B BWC.
34 Officer B BWC.
35 Officer C BWC.
36 Officer C BWC.
37 Officer C BWC.
38 Officer C BWC.
39 This occurred at 7:53:31 p.m. Officer C’s BWC.
40 Officer C BWC.
41 Officer C BWC.
42 Officer C BWC.
43 See Section II.G., infra
44 District 5 3rd Watch Duty Roster for April 14, 2021.
45 District 5 3rd Watch Duty Roster for April 14, 2021.
46 See attached District 5 patrol map and District 5 3rd Watch Duty Roster for April 14, 2021.
47 BWC video.
48 REDACTED , REDACTED , and REDACTED BWC video.
49 Officer 1 did not prepare a report. Accordingly, there is no averment in his own hand that he had a blue light bar on his subsidized vehicle on April 14, 2021. Regardless, for purposes of this investigation, the PAT will assume that he did have a blue light bar.
50 Officer 2 report. See attached District 5 patrol map and District 5 3rd Watch Duty Roster for April 14, 2021.
51 Officer 2 report.
52 Officer 2 report. See photographs taken by Evidence Specialist
53 Officer 3 report. See attached District 5 patrol map and District 5 3rd Watch Duty Roster for April 14, 2021.
54 Officer 3 report. See also HPD report no. 21-161113.
55 Photographs taken by Evidence Specialist REDACTED ; BWC video.
56 Photographs taken by Evidence Specialist REDACTED .
57 Witness 1 interview.
58 Witness 1 interview; Ring video (55560042_6951262220498915227_stamp.mp4). The route described by Witness 1 is the same that Myeni took. See Section II.D.2., supra.
59 Witness 1 interview and HPD 252.
60 Witness 1 interview and HPD 252.
61 Ring video (55560042_6951262220498915227_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:07:50 HST.
62 Ring video (55560042_6951262220498915227_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 807:56 HST.
63 Scene photographs; REDACTED interview (asserting that he did not recognize the car with the Texas plates).
64 As stated previously, Myeni took the same route as Witness 1 and Witness 2 to 91 Coelho Way. It is unknown at what precise point Myeni began following them.
65 Witness 1 and Witness 2 interviews; Ring video (55560042_6951262220498915227_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:08:35 HST.
66 Ring video (55560042_6951262220498915227_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:08:39 HST.
67 Witness 1 interview; Officer 1 and Officer 3 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951262220498915227_stamp.mp4); photographs of recovered clothing. 68 REDACTED Ring videos (55560042_6951262220498915227_stamp.mp4) (55560042_6951262486786887579_stamp.mp4).
69 Witness 1 HPD 252.
70 Ring video (55560042_6951262486786887579_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:08:48 HST.
71 Witness 1 interview.
72 Witness 1 HPD 252.
73 Witness 1 interview and HPD 252. See also Witness 2 HPD 252 (“I heard him talking to my wife about ‘film or video’ and my wife was panic because we don’t know him and I heard my wife said ‘I don’t know who you are and I’ll call 911.’”)
74 Witness 1 interview and HPD 252.
75 Witness 1 interview.
76 Witness 1 interview; Witness 2 HPD 252.
77 Witness 1 interview.
78 Witness 1 interview and HPD 252; Witness 2 HPD 252.
79 Witness 1 interview and HPD 252.
80 Witness 2 and interviews; Witness 2 HPD 252.
81 REDACTED interview.
82 Witness 1 HPD 252.
83 Witness 1 interview and HPD 252.
84 Witness 1 interview and HPD 252.
85 Witness 1 interview.
86 Witness 1 interview.
87 Witness 1 interview.
88 Witness 1 interview.
89 Witness 2 HPD 252.
90 As of this writing the PAT does not have a transcript of this call.
91 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:12:56 HST.
92 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:12:59 HST.
93 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:13:07 HST.
94 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:13:28-42 HST.
95 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:13:40 HST.
96 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:13:52 HST.
97 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:13:52 HST.
98 Witness 1 interview.
99 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:13:55 HST.
100 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:14:05 HST.
101 Ring video (55560042_6951263564823678875_stamp.mp4). Again, this investigation assumes that Officer 1’s subsidized vehicle was equipped with a blue light bar.
102 Officer 1 BWC video.
103 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4).
104 Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4).
105 Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4).
106 Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4).
107 Officer 2 report.
108 Officer 2 report.
109 Officer 2 report.
110 Officer 2 report.
111 Officer 2 report.
112 Witness 1 interview.
113 Witness 1 interview.
114 Officer 2 report.
115 Officer 2 report.
116 Officer 2 report. See also Officer 2 BWC video.
117 Officer 3 report.
118 Officer 3 report. This is also corroborated by Witness 1’s 911 call and the dispatcher’s transmission.
119 Officer 3 BWC video.
120 Officer 3 BWC video.
121 Officer 1 BWC video.
122 Officer 1 BWC video.
123 Officer 1 BWC video.
124 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:14:31 HST.
125 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:14:34 HST.
126 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4). The ring video time stamp is 20:14:38 HST.
127 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:14:40 HST.
128 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4).
129 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:14:44 HST.
130 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:14:48 HST.
131 Ring video (55560042_6951263835406618523_stamp.mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:14:51 HST.
132 Officer 1 BWC video.
133 Officer 1 BWC video.
134 Compare Myeni’s appearance as recorded in Officer 1’s BWC video with dispatch’s suspect description.
135 Officer 1 BWC video.
136 Officer 1 BWC video.
137 Officer 2 report; Officer 1 BWC video.
138 Officer 3 and Officer 2 report; Witness 1 interview (she described Myeni as changing his direction and run towards the officer (Officer 1).
139 Officer 3 report and BWC video; Officer 2 report.
140 Officer 3 BWC video.
141 Officer 3 report and BWC video; Officer 2 report. See also Ring video (55560042_6951264144644263835_stamp (1).mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:15:10 HST.
142 Officer 3 report and BWC video; Officer 2 report; Ring video (55560042_6951264144644263835_stamp (1).mp4). Later, one of the Taser probes was found affixed to the Prius’ left rear bumper.
143 Officer 3 report and BWC video.
144 Officer 3 report and BWC video.
145 Officer 2 report.
146 Officer 3 report.
147 Officer 3 report.
148 Officer 1 BWC video.
149 Officer 2 report; Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951264144644263835_stamp (1).mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:15:18 HST.
150 Officer 2 report; Officer 3 BWC video.
151 Officer 2 report; Officer 1 BWC video.
152 Officer 2 report; Ring video (55560042_6951264144644263835_stamp (1).mp4).
153 Officer 1 BWC video; Officer 3 BWC video; Ring video (55560042_6951264144644263835_stamp (1).mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:15:23 HST.
154 Ring video (55560042_6951264144644263835_stamp (1).mp4). The Ring video time stamp is 20:15:27 HST.
155 Officer 1 BWC video.
156 REDACTED , REDACTED , REDACTED , and REDACTED BWC video.
157 EMS record.
158 Officer 2 report.
159 Officer 2 report.
160 Officer 2 report and BWC video.
161 Officer 1 BWC video.
162 Officer 2 report.
163 Officer 2 report.
164 EMS record.
165 ME Investigation of Death at 1-2.
166 Officer 2 report.
167 The ME’s numbering system does not imply order of infliction. See attached ME Diagram under ME Case No. 21-0963.
168 Item 42 submitted under HPD report no. 21-158469.
169 Item 44 submitted under HPD report no. 21-158469.
170 Item 43 submitted under HPD report no. 21-158469.
171 Item 45 submitted under HPD report no. 21-158469.
172 ME Autopsy Report and Chain of Custody document.
173 ME Chain of Custody document.
174 REDACTED report.
175 REDACTED report.
176 REDACTED report.
177 The ME’s numbering system does not imply order of infliction. However, given
the totality of the circumstances, GSW #1 was the first shot fired.
178 REDACTED report, ME Autopsy Report and Diagram.
179 REDACTED report.
180 REDACTED report.
181 REDACTED , Witness 1, Witness 2, , and REDACTED interviews. See also REDACTED ’s statement
to Investigator .
182 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video.
183 See ME identification tag attached to sealed body bag.
184 Personnel information provided by PSO.
185 Personnel information provided by PSO.
186 Personnel information provided by PSO.
187 ME Investigation of Death Report at 3. See Item 33 submitted under HPD report no. 21-158469.
188 ME Investigation of Death Report at 3. See Item 32 submitted under HPD report no. 21-158469.
189 HPD 13 for Officer 1.
190 HPD 13 for Officer 1.
191 HPD 13 for Officer 2.
192 Officer 3 report.
193 See photographs taken by Evidence Specialist .
194 HPD 13 for Officer 3.
195 HRS § 703-300.
196 HRS § 707-700.
197 HRS § 707-300.
198 HRS § 707-300.
199 HRS § 707-300.
200 HRS § 707-300.
201 HRS § 707-700.
202 HRS § 707-700.
203 HRS § 703-301(1) (“In any prosecution for an offense, justification, as defined in sections 703-302 through 703-309, is a defense.”).
205 HAWJIC 7.01A
206 HAWJIC 7.01A
207 HAWJIC 7.02A.
208 HAWJIC 7.02A.
210 State v. Eastman, 81 Hawaiʻi 131, 141, 913 P.2d 57, 67 (“Given the difficulty of proving the requisite state of mind by direct evidence in criminal cases, proof by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from circumstances surrounding the defendant’s conduct is sufficient.”).
211 Criminal trespass in the first degree in violation of HRS § 708-813 is an included offense that will not be discussed in this analysis.
212 State v. Mahoe, 89 Hawaiʻi 284, 288, 972 P.2d 287, 291 (1998) (holding that, in order to sustain a burglary conviction, the intent to commit the offense must have existed at the time the unlawful entry was made).
213 Id. at 290, 972 P.2d at 293 (holding that a perpetrator “remains unlawfully” for the purposes of a burglary prosecution only in situations in which the individual makes a lawful entry that subsequently becomes unlawful).
214 HRS § 708-812.6 states:
(1) A person commits the offense of unauthorized entry in a dwelling in the second degree if the person intentionally or knowingly enters unlawfully into a dwelling and another person was lawfully present in the dwelling.
(2) Unauthorized entry in a dwelling in the second degree is a class C felony.
(3) It shall be an affirmative defense that reduces this offense to a misdemeanor that, at the time of the unlawful entry:
(a) There was a social gathering of invited guests at the dwelling the defendant entered;
(b) The defendant intended to join the social gathering; and
(c) The defendant had no intent to commit any unlawful act other than the entry.
215 As to Officer 1, Myeni caused serious bodily injury.
216 See Section IV.B., supra.
217 To reiterate, Dr. REDACTED expresses no opinion on this matter.
218 State v. DeLeon, 131 Hawaiʻi 463, 319 P.3d 382 (2014) (holding that the trial court erred in excluding defense expert’s opinion that victim’s ingestion of cocaine had an impact on his behavior because the exclusion violated defendant’s due process rights to a complete defense).
219 HAWJIC 7.01A.
220 Officer 1 BWC video; Ring video.
221 HAWJIC 7.01A, as modified, states in relevant part:
“When the defendant is a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties, the defendant is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform the duty or effect the arrest or prevent the escape, because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.”
Compare HRS § 703-304(5)(b)(ii).
222 Witnes 1 and Witness 2 statements; Officer 3 and Officer 2 reports.
223 Officer 3 BWC video.
224 REDACTED report.
225 HPD 13 for Officer 1.
226 HAWJIC 7.02A.
227 HAWJIC 7.02A, as modified, states in relevant part:
“If the defendant is a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties he is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform his duty or effect the arrest or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.”
228 State v. Barnes, 58 Haw. 333, 337-38, 568 P.2d 1207, 1211 (1977) (articulating the standard for an investigative stop).
229 See Section IV.C., supra.
230 Barnes, 58 Haw. at 335, 568 P.2d at 1209-10 (“The arrest in this case was effected by the police without a warrant, and an arrest without a warrant will be upheld only where there was probable cause for the arrest. Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the officer, or of which he had reasonably trustworthy information, would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that the person arrested has committed or is committing an offense.”).
231 Commentary to HRS § 703-307.
232 HRS §§ 701-114, 701-115, and 702-205.
HRS § 701-114 states:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 701-115, no person may be convicted of an offense unless the following are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(a) Each element of the offense;
(b) The state of mind required to establish each element of the offense;
(c) Facts establishing jurisdiction;
(d) Facts establishing venue; and
(e) Facts establishing that the offense was committed within the time period specified in section 701-108.
(2) In the absence of the proof required by subsection (1), the innocence of the defendant is presumed.
HRS § 701-114 states:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in section 701-115, no person may be convicted of an offense unless the following are proved beyond a reasonable doubt:
(a) Each element of the offense;
(b) The state of mind required to establish each element of the offense;
(c) Facts establishing jurisdiction;
(d) Facts establishing venue; and
(e) Facts establishing that the offense was committed within the time period specified in section 701-108.
(2) In the absence of the proof required by subsection (1), the innocence of the defendant is presumed.
HRS § 702-205 states:
The elements of an offense are such (1) conduct, (2) attendant circumstances, and (3) results of conduct, as:
(a) Are specified by the definition of the offense, and
(b) Negative a defense (other than a defense based on the statute of limitations, lack of venue, or lack of jurisdiction).
233 See, e.g., State v. Culkin, 97 Hawaiʻi 206, 215, 35 P.3d 233, 242 (2001) (“Self- defense is not an affirmative defense, and the prosecution has the burden of disproving it once evidence of justification has been adduced.”).
234 As of this writing, the PAT does not have transcripts of these interviews.
235 As of this writing, the PAT does not a have a transcript of this call.
236 As of this writing, the PAT does not a have a transcript of this call.
237 HPD-83 “HONOLULU POLICE DEPARTMENT PROPERTY RECEIPT.”
Original PDF of report:
Officer-Involved Shooting R… by Honolulu Star-Advertiser
Related searches to Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy And What Happened
Information related to the topic Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy And What Happened
Here are the search results of the thread Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy And What Happened from Bing. You can read more if you want.
You have just come across an article on the topic Lindani Myeni Biography, Age, Wife, Death, Shooting, Autopsy And What Happened. If you found this article useful, please share it. Thank you very much.
Articles compiled by Bangkokbikethailandchallenge.com. See more articles in category: DIGITAL MARKETING