Letter writer wouldn’t have it any other way
As a longtime friend of Lanric Hyland, I am the one trying to make his memorial happen. Knowing him for almost 20 years, I thought I knew most everything, even the unprintable stuff. Now I know, I didn’t know it all.
Ric led a courageous life. The element of courage was one of his most inspiring aspects. I so wish I could be like him. He willingly stood alone in his truth when those in opposition were supposedly more powerful than his one-man army. Those on the sidelines would waver and complain (me, among others). That did not stop him. Discouraged at times, disheartened or angry, he never gave up — he could not. Being right when he knew he was pono was nourishment for him. The little guy was his responsibility. Fairness within the law was his moral imperative. And he was also a poet. And so much more.
I don’t have the funds for a funeral notice. So, I opted to use one of Ric’s favorite activities, a letter to the editor. (See, I did learn a few things from him).
Lanric Hyland, one of the most complex and brilliant of individuals, dedicated to the betterment of the lower ranks of our democratic society who was still working for us as he crossed over Sept. 6, 2018, will be celebrated at 3 p.m. Oct. 29.
Many artifacts and memorabilia will be available dating back to World War II. The service will be 4-6 p.m. It will be held at Ainakea Senior Residence, Kapaau, 96755. Following will be a no-host bar at the The Hub in Hawi from 6-8 p.m. He really appreciated being appreciated by those he helped — after all, he was only human.
Karen Martinez
Kapaau
California prop bad comparison to Hawaii issue
This is a reply to Mr. John Pierce, Oct. 17, in regard to Proposition 13 in California.
My question to Mr. Pierce is, did you live in California when this was going on? Did you own property at the time?
If you did own property and did not think this was a good proposition for the homeowners, did you have so much money that it was not a concern of yours?
I, like many, lost their homes because of the high property taxes. I was lucky however and sold our home. When we bought our home in 1966 we had to travel west to the San Fernando Valley where homes were more affordable. We settled in Woodland Hills. In 1976, we had to travel farther west to a town called Agoura to find a home we could afford.
Proposition 13 was a blessing to homeowners. All homeowners, not the ones you referred to in your article. Taxes were based on the purchase price of the house. It was a wonderful feeling to know that your taxes would only raise a small percentage each year. I lived without worry until 1987 when I sold and moved to Hawaii.
Why is it you don’t understand any issue that arose from a grassroots movement, if it got the required number of signatures, would be placed on the ballot for the voters to decide?
The example you used in your letter using Proposition 13 as an example is wrong and misleading to the issue we, the voters, are going to vote on in a few weeks.
In addition, I will add that none of our services suffered nor did our schools.
Susan Cook
North Kohala
Jury member explains ex-officer verdict
In reference to the Oct. 19 West Hawaii Today editorial about the recent Jody Buddemeyer case, as a member of the jury, I feel it necessary to correct the record. The jury, it is true, did not find the defendant guilty of the first two possible charges leveled against him by the prosecution, negligent homicide in either the third or second degree of a vulnerable victim, but instead of the lesser charge of negligent homicide in the first degree.
But the reason for that determination was not, as the opinion piece assumed, because we bought the defense’s argument that the defendant’s assumed sleep deprivation resulting from HPD’s whacked-out shift schedule caused the accident. It’s easy to see how that assumption could have been made, but to the contrary, not only did the defendant testify that he was not clear that he was sleep impaired, but the testimony presented by the defense’s expert witness on the issue of sleep deprivation was not credible and was rejected by the jury. This was, in our opinion, a defensive error.
The only reason we opted for the lesser charge of negligent homicide in the first degree was that it was the only remaining homicide charge provided to us by the prosecution, and it prevailed because it omitted the context of the negligence being directed against a vulnerable victim.
The deceased was not legally defined as a vulnerable victim because he was not operating a legally registered bike and because he was not operating that bike as close as practicable to the right side of the road. Those are part of the legal definition of being a vulnerable victim. These may seem like technicalities but they were part of the jury instructions we were admonished to follow.
At least the first part of the definition of a vulnerable victim would seem to have been something the prosecution should have checked on and, because it was clearly missing from the situation, the state should have charged the defendant with something else and not wasted all of our time on a charge that was by their own definition unattainable. This was, in our opinion, an offensive error.
It is important to me that our decision in this case is not understood as accepting the defense’s argument, because of the potential that this could taint the civil case proceeding against the county and the defendant and because it misstates a hard-argued consensus by the jury. So yes, the HPD’s practice of shift rotation is absolutely bonkers, but it was not proven to us that is was the cause of this accident.
This case was a tragedy all around: for the deceased and his family, for the defendant, and for the system in the delay it took to bring this case to trial and in the process of the prosecution and defense in that both should and could have done better.
A member of the jury
Kailua-Kona
Editor’s note: the writer requested anonymity because of the high profile nature of the case. WHT knows the writer’s identity.