Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property (Read 52504 times)

Jaydawg

Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« on: April 03, 2010, 10:30:08 AM »
HRS 703-304
             Â§703-304  Use of force in   self-protection.   (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.
     (4)  The use of force is not   justifiable under  this section:
     (a)  To resist an arrest which the actor   knows is  being made by a law enforcement officer, although the arrest is   unlawful; or
     (b)  To resist force used by the occupier or   possessor  of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows   that the  person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the  property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:
         (i)  The actor is a public officer   acting in  the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein   or a  person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; or
        (ii)  The actor believes that such   force is  necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.
     (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. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; ree L 1975, c 163, §3; am L 2001, c 91,   Â§4]
 
COMMENTARY ON §703-304

  This section substantially adopts the Model Penal   Code rules  on justification of the use of force in self-protection.  It has been   rewritten  and reorganized to make it more easily understandable.
  Subsection (1) requires a belief by the actor that   the use of  protective force is actually necessary, and that unlawful force (defined   in  §703-300) is to be used by the assailant.  He must believe, further,   that  immediate use of force is required, although the threatened harm to him   need  not be "imminent", as the rule was sometimes phrased at common law.   It is enough that unlawful force is threatened on the present occasion   by his  assailant.  The actor may make his defensive move without waiting for   his  assailant to load his gun or to summon reinforcements.  Finally, the   actor must  believe that the particular degree of force used by him is necessary.    This  formulation is not meant to require a precise equation, but it will   limit the  defense to situations in which a particular scope and degree of   retaliation is  believed by the actor to be appropriate to the aggression.
  Subsections (2) and (5) strictly limit the use of   deadly  force.  Under the circumstances specified in subsection (2), the actor   may use  deadly force if he believes it is necessary to protect himself against   death,  serious bodily harm, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.  This   formulation  has two implications:  (a) the actor must believe that deadly force is   the only  viable means of preventing the specified harm, and (b) the actor must   believe  that one of the specified harms is threatened on the present occasion.   "Deadly force" is defined in §703-300.  Its use is further restricted  by subsection (5).  Deadly force may not be used if the actor provoked   his  assailant's use of force against himself in the same encounter with the   purpose  of causing death or serious bodily injury.  Of course, if he intends   only  moderate harm and receives a deadly response, the initial aggressor may   respond  with deadly force.  The use of deadly force is also denied when the   actor can  avoid using it with complete safety by retreating, by surrendering   possession  of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right to it, or by complying   with a  demand that he refrain from taking an action which he has no legal duty   to  take.  In any of these cases, the Code may seem to be opting for   cowardice.   However, it should be the strong principle of any criminal code to   prevent  death wherever possible.  To quote the Model Penal Code commentary,
       It rests, of  course, upon the view that protection of life has such a high place in a   proper  scheme of social values that the law cannot permit conduct which places   life in  jeopardy, when the necessity for doing so can be avoided by the   sacrifice of  the much smaller value that inheres in standing up to an aggression.[1]
  However, a duty to retreat or take over evasive   action is not  imposed in two situations.  Subsection (5), subparagraph (b)(i), states   that  the actor is not required to retreat from his dwelling or his place of   work  unless he was the initial aggressor or unless he is assailed in his   place of  work by another person whose place of work he knows it to be.  We would   not  normally expect a man to abandon his home to an aggressor and would   allow him  to stand his ground, although an exception is made, consistent with   paragraph  (a), if the actor is the initial aggressor.  The exception for an attack   in a  man's place of work is new with the Model Penal Code.  The same   principles  which permit a man to remain in his home would, for example, permit a  shopkeeper to defend himself in his place of business without abandoning   it to  attackers.  Subparagraph (b)(ii), of the same subsection, relates to   public  officials or persons assisting them using force in the performance of   duty.  It  would be against public interest to require a public officer to abandon   his  duty if he meets resistance.  This Code follows the Model Penal Code in  extending the justification to all arrests and performances of duty,   even if  they are technically unlawful.  Throughout Chapter 703 the rule is that  resistance to unlawful arrest is to be made in court rather than   physically.
  The Code also specifically requires surrendering   possession  of a thing when the attacker asserts a claim of right thereto.  Where a   person  offers deadly force unless another surrenders property to him, and   claims a  right to the property, it is certainly sound policy to save life and   litigate  the disputed ownership in court.  Naturally, however, this rule does not   apply  in cases of robbery, where the assailant can make no claim of right, and   it is  the purpose of the Code to permit deadly resistance to robbery if the  conditions of subsection (2) are met.  Finally, deadly force is   impermissible  if the actor can avoid using it by complying with a demand that he   refrain from  any action which he has no duty to take.  Again, the policy of saving   life  seems more insistent than the right of the individual to complete   freedom of  action.
  Subsection (3) states the generally applicable rule   that the  actor need not retreat or take any other evasive action before   estimating the  necessity for the use of force in self-protection.
  Subsection (4) sets general limits on the use of   self-  protective force.  Paragraph (a) follows the Model Penal Code in   forbidding any  use of force to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a   peace  officer.  Resistance to even an unlawful arrest should be made in   court.  No  valid social policy is served by permitting physical resistance to peace  officers who are known as such by the actor.  If the law were to permit  physical resistance, it would in effect be sanctioning unnecessary   injury.   However, only force for the purpose of resisting an arrest is   proscribed.  If  the officer threatens to use unlawful force after the arrest, the normal  self-protection rules would apply.  In other words, the actor may resist   a  "peril greater than arrest."[2]  Paragraph (b) is closely related to  §703-306 (protection of property) which permits the use of force by the  occupier or possessor of property to protect it.  The actor may not use   force  to counter that permissible force, when it is directed at him under a   claim of  right to protect the property, unless he is a public officer or a person  assisting him or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest, or   unless he  believes that he must use force to protect himself against death or   serious  bodily harm.  A third Model Penal Code exception, dealing with a right   of  re-entry or recaption, has been omitted.  As explained in the commentary   to  §703-306, it does not seem wise to deal separately with these matters.    This  Code treats them under the more general rules relating to protection of  property.
  Subsection (6) recognizes that confinement may be   used as  protective force.  Because of the continuing nature of confinement,   however,  the Code requires the actor to terminate the confinement as soon as he   knows he  can do so safely.  He has no such duty if the person is arrested, simply  because the legality of a confinement will then be tested by ordinary   judicial  processes.
  Previous Hawaii case law required that the   defendant's belief  be reasonable.[3]  Contrary to subsection (3) of the Code, under the   Hawaii  cases, the defendant must retreat before he uses any force, except in   those  circumstances where deadly force is the only way serious felonies   against  persons can be prevented.[4]  In the latter situations, it appears that   Hawaii  case law, like the Code, would require retreat if it could be   accomplished with  complete safety.[5]  To the extent that Hawaii cases demand  "imminent" danger, in the common law sense,[6] the Code represents a  change in the law.  Finally, the subsection on confinement is an   addition to  Hawaii law.
 
Case Notes

  Defendant entitled to instruction on self-defense   whenever  testimony fairly raises the issue, no matter how weak.  59 H. 148, 577   P.2d  793.
  Defendant is entitled to jury instructions on   self-defense  where there is any evidence in the record to support jury consideration   of the  issue.  60 H. 504, 591 P.2d 615.
  In self-defense to charge of homicide, admissibility   of  evidence of deceased's character for violence and aggression.  61 H.   328, 603  P.2d 151.
  Where trial court conspicuously omitted from its   self-defense  instruction any reference to the use of "force", which was essential  to defendant's defense at trial, insofar as defendant expressly disputed  whether defendant's use of force constituted "deadly force", and  instructed jury that, as a matter of law, defendant employed "deadly  force" against victim because death in fact resulted from defendant's   use  of force, trial court's instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable  doubt.  101 H. 377, 69 P.3d 88.
  Where defendant raised the issue of self-defense,   trial court  did not err in concluding that prosecution proved that defendant was not   acting  in self-defense when defendant shot victim.  107 H. 469, 115 P.3d 648.
  Where trial court's jury instruction sufficiently   tracked  subsection (3) as it informed the jury that the reasonableness of   defendant's  belief must be viewed from defendant's perspective, appeals court   properly  determined that the instruction was consistent with the language of this  section.  118 H. 452, 193 P.3d 368.
  Defendant's claim of justification, in defense   against  prosecution for terroristic threatening, was established regardless of   whether  or not defendant used deadly force.  1 H. App. 167, 616 P.2d 229.
  Evidence indicated defendant could have retreated   safely;  attack with baseball bat using sufficient force to break complainant's   arm  constituted deadly force.  2 H. App. 369, 633 P.2d 547.
  Defendant did not reasonably believe that kicking   person on  floor was immediately necessary to protect self.  2 H. App. 577, 636   P.2d 1365.
  State failed its burden of introducing substantial   evidence  disproving defendant's facts or proving facts negativing defendant's  self-protection justification defense.  9 H. App. 435, 843 P.2d 1389.
  There was substantial evidence to support trial   court's  conclusion that a reasonable person would not have believed that it was  necessary to use deadly force on the particular occasion.  77 H. 429   (App.),  886 P.2d 766.
  Trial court did not err in denying defendant's   request that  in addition to the choice of evils defense under §703-302, jury be   instructed  on the justification defenses of use of force in the protection of self   and  others under this section and §703-305; defendant's theory of defense   was fully  and adequately covered by the choice of evils instruction which the   trial court  gave and under the circumstances of the case, there was no reasonable  possibility that the jury, which rejected defendant's choice of evils   defense,  might have embraced defenses based on this section and §703-305.  114 H.   507  (App.), 164 P.3d 765.
 
__________
§703-304 Commentary:
1.  M.P.C., Tentative Draft No. 8, comments at 24   (1958).
2.  Id. at 19.
3.  State v. Clyde, 47 Haw. 345, 388 P.2d 846 (1964).
4.  King v. Bridges, 5 Haw. 467 (1885).
5.  Id.
6.  State v. Clyde, 47 Haw. 345, 388 P.2d 846, 852   (1964);  Territory v. Yadao, 35 Haw. 198, 201 (1959).
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 12:37:10 PM by 2aHawaii »

Jaydawg

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2010, 10:31:02 AM »
HRS 703-305
    §703-305  Use of force for the protection of other persons.  (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.
     (2)  Notwithstanding subsection (1):
    (a)   When the actor would be obliged under section 703-304 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self- protection, the actor is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the actor knows that the actor can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person; and
    (b)   When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 703-304 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person's protection if the actor knows that the actor can obtain the other's complete safety in that way; and
    (c)   Neither the actor nor the person whom the actor seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other's dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in the actor's or the person's own. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993]

COMMENTARY ON §703-305

  This section extends the defense of justification to include the use of physical force to protect another person on the same terms as the defense is available for the use of force in self- protection.  The Code follows the Model Penal Code in allowing defense of others regardless of the relationship between the actor and the person being protected.  It permits a person to use force to protect another person when the actor believes the other person would have been justified in using force to protect himself and he believes that his intervention is necessary to protect the other person.  This formulation covers situations in which the other's infirmity, infancy, or other physical condition makes him especially unable to protect himself or susceptible to injury, even though the actor, in a similar predicament, might not himself have been justified in using force.
  Subsection (2) provides certain exceptions and limitations.  The actor need not retreat, surrender possession, or comply with a demand unless the actor knows the actor can thereby secure the complete safety of the other person.  The actor must try to persuade the other person to retreat, surrender possession, or comply with a demand if the actor knows the actor can obtain the other's complete safety in that way.  Finally, retreat is not required if the action takes place in the other's dwelling or place of business to any greater degree than is required in §703-304.
  Hawaii case law shows only bare recognition of this type of justification.[1]  The Code provides codification and elaboration.

Case Notes

  Defendant entitled to consideration of justification defense no matter how weak, unsatisfactory or inconclusive the evidence appeared.  81 H. 142 (App.), 913 P.2d 553.
  Defendant not justified in using protective force against complaining witness where, under circumstances as defendant believed them to be, a reasonable person would not reasonably believe person sought to be protected would be justified in using protective force against complaining witness.  81 H. 142 (App.), 913 P.2d 553.
  Unborn children are not included within the definition of "another" or "person" for purposes of the Hawaii Penal Code; thus, defendant could not justify defendant's physical abuse of girlfriend on grounds that defendant was protecting "another" or a third person, specifically, defendant's unborn child.  101 H. 3 (App.), 61 P.3d 514.
  Trial court did not err in denying defendant's request that in addition to the choice of evils defense under §703-302, jury be instructed on the justification defenses of use of force in the protection of self and others under §703-304 and this section; defendant's theory of defense was fully and adequately covered by the choice of evils instruction which the trial court gave and under the circumstances of the case, there was no reasonable possibility that the jury, which rejected defendant's choice of evils defense, might have embraced defenses based on §703-304 and this section.  114 H. 507 (App.), 164 P.3d 765.

__________
§703-305 Commentary:
1.  The King v. Bridges, 5 Haw. 467, 472 (1885); Territory v. Warren, 35 Haw. 232, 245 (1939); rehearing denied, 35 Haw. 252.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 12:39:20 PM by 2aHawaii »

Jaydawg

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2010, 10:33:53 AM »
HRS 703-306
    §703-306  Use of force for the protection of property.  (1)  The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
    (a)   To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary in a building or upon real property in the actor's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the actor acts; or
    (b)   To prevent unlawful entry upon real property in the actor's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the actor acts; or
    (c)   To prevent theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in the actor's possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection the actor acts.
     (2)  The actor may in the circumstances specified in subsection (1) use such force as the actor believes is necessary to protect the threatened property, provided that the actor first requests the person against whom force is used to desist from the person's interference with the property, unless the actor believes that:
    (a)   Such a request would be useless; or
    (b)   It would be dangerous to the actor or another person to make the request; or
    (c)   Substantial harm would be done to the physical condition of the property which is sought to be protected before the request could effectively be made.
     (3)  The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if:
    (a)   The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the actor of the actor's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
    (b)   The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit felonious property damage, burglary, robbery, or felonious theft and either:
         (i)  Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or
        (ii)  The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission of the crime would expose the actor or another person in the actor's presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
     (4)  The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
    (a)   The device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury; and
    (b)   The use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the defendant believes them to be; and
    (c)   The device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.
     (5)  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 the actor knows that the actor can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993]

COMMENTARY ON §703-306

  This section establishes the rules for the use of force upon or toward the person of another which has as its purpose the protection of property.  The standard of justification is the actor's own belief in the necessity of using physical force to prevent certain specified kinds of harm.  Force may be used to prevent criminal trespass and burglary, unlawful entry upon real property, theft, criminal mischief, and other trespassory taking of tangible, movable property, so long as in each case the property protected is in the possession of the actor or of one for whose protection the actor is acting.  (Note that in any case in which the actor fears bodily injury to the actor or another, §§703-304, 305 would apply rather than §703-306.  Thus, robbery may be covered by those sections rather than this, if the robber places the actor in fear of bodily injury or death.)
  Subsection (2) permits the actor to use such force as the actor believes is necessary to protect the property, short of deadly force, after making a request to desist from interfering with the property.  The request is required because of the high value to be placed upon prevention of human suffering.  Infliction of physical force on another cannot be justified if the desired end can be achieved without the danger of injury.  A request to desist does not, however, have to be made if the actor believes that it would be useless, dangerous to the actor, or likely to give the wrongdoer time to do substantial harm to the physical condition of the property.
  Deadly force is ordinarily not permitted.  It may be used if the assailant is attempting to dispossess the actor of the actor's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right.  This recognizes an important tradition in the common law which places a high value on the sanctity of the home and recognizes that a person will take extraordinary means to preserve it.  Deadly force may also be used to prevent felonious property damage, burglary, robbery, or felonious theft, if:  (1) the person against whom the force is used has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor, or (2) use of force short of deadly force would expose the actor or another person in the actor's presence to the danger of serious bodily injury.  Both of these cases are covered, in any event, by the self-defense provisions of §§703-304, 305, but it seems wise to spell them out here in light of the general prohibition on use of deadly force.
  Subsection (4) permits the use of certain property protection devices which may cause bodily discomfort or injury, subject to strict limitations.  Subsection (5) mirrors a similar subsection in §703-304 and regulates the use of confinement as a protective force.  As in §703-304, use of confinement is permitted, but it must be terminated as soon as possible consistent with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested.
  An attempt has been made to simplify the Model Penal Code scheme by omitting a few overly complicated concepts.  In addition, the elaborate M.P.C. rules on recaption or re-entry are eliminated.  This Code treats re-entry upon property and recaption of property under the same principles as other forms of property defense.  As a matter of policy, it does not seem wise to encourage resort to self-help when property has been seized in any circumstances in which self-help would not have been permissible to protect the property from seizure.  The M.P.C. rules have not generally been followed in other states.[1]
  Hawaii case law is substantially in accord with the Code's position on the use of deadly force.[2]  However, Hawaii has permitted the use of devices to accomplish what the defendant could do were the defendant present;[3] on this point the Code, clearly forbidding the use of deadly devices under any circumstances, represents a change from the prior law.  Subsection (2), on request, is an important addition to Hawaii law.  The subsection on confinement is also new.

__________
§703-306 Commentary:

1.  See e.g., N.Y.R.P.L. §§35.20-35.25.
2.  Territory v. Warren, 35 Haw. 232, 245, rehearing denied, 35 Haw. 252 (1939).
3.  Id.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2010, 12:40:56 PM by 2aHawaii »

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 62
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 16
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2010, 12:31:31 PM »
This looks like a good place, Jaydawg. Thanks for the info
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

Jaydawg

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2010, 12:43:46 PM »
Thanks for editing.

Old Guy

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2010, 10:59:16 PM »
Sorry, waay too much for my tired eyes to wade thru.

Does what was mentioned include the new "Castle Bill" that was passed this year?

Noskov

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2010, 08:46:46 PM »
Does use of force apply to your home only or does it include "other" property? By that I mean vehicles. One of the most common crimes here on Maui anyway is auto-theft. I'm pretty sure it happens a lot on the other islands because I'd browse the Hawaii forums and there were tons of stolen car posts. In fact there have been cars stolen here on Church property during Sunday mass.

2aHawaii

  • Administrator
  • Trade Count: (0)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • Total likes: 62
  • Sheepdog
  • Referrals: 16
    • View Profile
    • 2aHawaii
Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #7 on: September 17, 2010, 09:03:54 PM »
I'm pretty sure, in Hawaii, it only includes your life or your families' lives. We don't have defense of property like they do in Texas.
I am not a lawyer.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - United States Constitution Amendment 2 & Hawaii State Constitution Article 1 Section 17

Buying from Amazon? Click through here

Noskov

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #8 on: September 17, 2010, 09:51:43 PM »
I'm pretty sure, in Hawaii, it only includes your life or your families' lives. We don't have defense of property like they do in Texas.

Dang, so that means if I see someone breaking into my car I can't stop them? Almost always are the stolen cars here taken somewhere to be chopped and sold or abandoned and set fire in a cane field or something.

BananaClip

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #9 on: December 15, 2010, 07:01:58 PM »
Who's that guy laying by your car? What guy?  ::)
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"- Genesis1:1 KJV

"The Truth Shall Set You Free"

"Once Blind But Now i See"

palaina.kawika

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #10 on: April 12, 2011, 05:28:56 PM »
Dang, so that means if I see someone breaking into my car I can't stop them? Almost always are the stolen cars here taken somewhere to be chopped and sold or abandoned and set fire in a cane field or something.

it looks like, according to the provisions listed above, you are allowed to stop them and are even allowed to use force to do so. its just very VERY strictly limited as to how much force you can use.

an example in which deadly force would be allowed is if:

someone breaks into your car presumably to steal it,
you go outside to yell at them
they try to murder you or the guy taking groceries out of his trunk in the stall next to him.

in this highly unlikely case, we'd be referred BACK to §§703-304, 305 anyway because its not as much using force to protect property as it is to protect life.

the only other case, as described above, that would allow you to use deadly force basically circle-jerks the words back to §§703-304, 305 in which "yeah you can use deadly force to stop an in progress felonious act on your property, but only if he tries to murder you or someone else OR only if trying any other means to stop him would put you or someone else at risk."

in any case, if someone is trying to steal your car. call the cops. if he's still outside, yell at him. if he still proceeds, mace him. not much more force you can employ without a criminal investigation on you and subsequent (and possibly felonious) assault charges.

then again thats just my understanding. does anyone interpret the above laws differently than i do? i know its alot to read and it does take quite an effort to read and fully comprehend all of it. but to me, its worth every effort to know what i can and can't do with my weapons.

Cougar8045

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #11 on: July 12, 2011, 11:44:46 AM »
I would just call the cops and stay in the house.  First, and most importantly, by going outside, you're giving up a lot of advantages, because you don't know if he's got a buddy in the bushes watching for cops or concerned citizens, etc, etc, etc.  There are a ton of variables which you don't control.  Second, if you go outside, common sense dictates that you bring your firearm in case the poopy hits the paddles.  What that means, however, is that if he sees your piece and starts shooting, he or his family (if he's dead) may be able to make a case that he was using reasonable force to defend himself from you.  (Aside from trying to steal your car, he wasn't looking for a gunfight, but then you came out and were therefore the aggressor.)  Even in your own home, you can't use deadly force against an intruder unless they were in the process of committing a felony such as assault, rape, etc.  So that means that if you go down to the living room with your trusty shotgun while he's just trying to steal a DVD player, you may find yourself in hot water again for initiating (unlawfully) deadly force against him.  The best bet is if you hear the front door get kicked in or a window break, get your home defense weapon, gather up the kids and anybody else staying with you, and have someone call 911 while you control whatever spot in your house provides the best advantage.  If you have a two-story house, the stairs are probably a good spot, but if you have a single-level like mine, it may be the master bedroom.  Then you holler that you've got a gun, the cops are on the way, etc; and keep it up.  That way, hopefully, he'll just haul ass instead of coming up and having a shoot-out with you.  But, if he does decide that he wants to make you kill him in front of your three year old, at least you'll have an airtight case that you did everything you reasonably could to avoid the shooting.  Plus, when I'm bunkered down in my master bedroom, with the security alarm going off, the dogs barking, and me hollering about cops and guns, I'm not going to concern myself about whether or not he's got a weapon-the door is locked; if he kicks it open, I'm going to unload on him under the theory that if he ignores all the noise and insists on seeing what's in the back bedroom, he must be pretty confident that he can win a gunfight.  That's the two cents I've picked up at a few different schools and perusing the trusty interwebs for home defense strategies.
I'm just a fluffy white bunny rabbit who lost his way. 

"If a thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. ..."  -Exodus 22:2

PeaShooter

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #12 on: August 06, 2011, 10:50:50 AM »
Buncha idiots are stealing the fruits and vegetables from my yard again, and I'm pissed because I had a semi-violent confrontation with idiots like these not even a year ago, which required a police call. So I went to review these laws here. It seems that they make a distinction between the use of force versus deadly force.

So my question is, is pointing a firearm at such idiots, or a robber trying to break into my home (last occurrence: several years ago), constitute the use of force or deadly force? Because one may be allowed, while another may not be. I'm hoping for example that we would be allowed to point a firearm at such intruders with harmful intentions, but not shoot. But then if they resist or become violent, THEN we are allowed to shoot. Ideally the law would be set up that way.

The annoying thing about fruit-stealers is that fruit stealing and trespassing alone is not really a crime that the police do much about. Breaking and entering is a more serious crime, and having gone through that once before I have some mental idea of what I'd want to or try to do in such a situation. For breaking and entering, if they haven't gotten into the house yet and I trap them (as last time) I think it is better if I conceal my weapons (as I did last time) and call the police on my cell phone (which I didn't do last time because I did not think to get my cell phone). If they already got in the house and I haven't been able to identify them, I'd just shoot on sight.

But repeat fruit-stealers are a different situation. Since the police don't really arrest them I just want to drive those idiots away, especially the semi-violent ones. Can I point a firearm at them? Even better, can I shoot the ground around their feet or something? :P

Kingkeoni

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #13 on: August 06, 2011, 02:23:08 PM »
Buncha idiots are stealing the fruits and vegetables from my yard again, and I'm pissed because I had a semi-violent confrontation with idiots like these not even a year ago, which required a police call. So I went to review these laws here. It seems that they make a distinction between the use of force versus deadly force.

So my question is, is pointing a firearm at such idiots, or a robber trying to break into my home (last occurrence: several years ago), constitute the use of force or deadly force? Because one may be allowed, while another may not be. I'm hoping for example that we would be allowed to point a firearm at such intruders with harmful intentions, but not shoot. But then if they resist or become violent, THEN we are allowed to shoot. Ideally the law would be set up that way.

The annoying thing about fruit-stealers is that fruit stealing and trespassing alone is not really a crime that the police do much about. Breaking and entering is a more serious crime, and having gone through that once before I have some mental idea of what I'd want to or try to do in such a situation. For breaking and entering, if they haven't gotten into the house yet and I trap them (as last time) I think it is better if I conceal my weapons (as I did last time) and call the police on my cell phone (which I didn't do last time because I did not think to get my cell phone). If they already got in the house and I haven't been able to identify them, I'd just shoot on sight.

But repeat fruit-stealers are a different situation. Since the police don't really arrest them I just want to drive those idiots away, especially the semi-violent ones. Can I point a firearm at them? Even better, can I shoot the ground around their feet or something? :P

If you point a gun at or shoot the ground by someone picking fruit in your yard, you will go to jail.
Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

PeaShooter

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #14 on: August 06, 2011, 03:56:41 PM »
Why? I'm not talking about nice guys here, these are (possibly) guys who trespass repeatedly onto my property and when I confronted them in the past, they became violent and I had to call the police. If I cannot confront them and brandish a firearm, then what exactly can I do? If I just call the police, I don't know if anything will happen...but I guess that is the only thing I can do?

Then how about this? I'll just go out and yell at them, carrying a firearm on my person, either concealed or unconcealed, but not drawn. I'll tell them to leave once, and if they do not immediately leave as was the case previously, THEN can I brandish a firearm?

§703-306  Use of force for the protection of property.
     (1)  The use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary:
    (a)   To prevent the commission of criminal trespass or burglary...
    (c)   To prevent theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property...
     (4)  The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
    (a)   The device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury...

I guess that is the legal clause most directly applicable here, but I guess the problem is that a firearm is a lethal device. But the thing here is that I'm not actually USING the firearm, I'm just (potentially) brandishing it or possessing it.

Kingkeoni

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #15 on: August 06, 2011, 06:25:32 PM »
Go out and buy a king size canister of pepper spray and when you confront them on your property, if they become aggressive or violent, hose them down with as much of the pepper spray as you can.

You are authorized to use force to protect life, limb and your property but you are NOT authorized to use deadly force.

Believe me, I yearn for cowboy days myself.
The days of yesterday where if someone tries to steal your "horse" you solve the problem right then and there.
But this is not the time or state for such pleasantries.
Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation.

Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.

Vladimir

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #16 on: August 07, 2011, 05:54:27 PM »
How about this idea.

We could make a pamphlet or handout that covers Hawaii's "Use of Deadly Force" laws and break it down to key (BUT correct) points as to what we can and can't do without any legal jargon to confuse readers. If you can educate the public correctly, you can possibly enact a change if a vast majority of people realize there's something wrong with how this works.

Case in point. When I went to the yearly community town hall meetings with the police force; one lady there asked why some calls to 911 take much longer to get responded to. If I remember correctly, she mentioned it took officers almost 45 mins to respond. I never had an issue myself with slow respond times with the police; I remember calling them to report suspicious activity at an empty home nearby and it took less than 3 minutes to get here...BIG difference though is the police station is less than 5 minutes from my home.

colorado_shooter_dh

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #17 on: August 09, 2011, 04:09:02 PM »
Go out and buy a king size canister of pepper spray and when you confront them on your property, if they become aggressive or violent, hose them down with as much of the pepper spray as you can.

You are authorized to use force to protect life, limb and your property but you are NOT authorized to use deadly force.

Believe me, I yearn for cowboy days myself.
The days of yesterday where if someone tries to steal your "horse" you solve the problem right then and there.
But this is not the time or state for such pleasantries.

I'm a noob to the forum, please be gentle... I thought pepper spray was illegal here? I joined this forum for these topics in this thread!

Vladimir

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #18 on: August 09, 2011, 08:16:44 PM »
Go out and buy a king size canister of pepper spray and when you confront them on your property, if they become aggressive or violent, hose them down with as much of the pepper spray as you can.

You are authorized to use force to protect life, limb and your property but you are NOT authorized to use deadly force.

Believe me, I yearn for cowboy days myself.
The days of yesterday where if someone tries to steal your "horse" you solve the problem right then and there.
But this is not the time or state for such pleasantries.

I'm a noob to the forum, please be gentle... I thought pepper spray was illegal here? I joined this forum for these topics in this thread!

It isn't illegal (as far as I know), some shops here sell it; most buyers though use it for when they're walking or with their dog and another dog tries to attack...although I'm sure some women also carry it when they go to the clubs.

Stun guns are illegal in Hawaii though.

vooduchikn

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2011, 08:29:46 PM »
Go out and buy a king size canister of pepper spray and when you confront them on your property, if they become aggressive or violent, hose them down with as much of the pepper spray as you can.

You are authorized to use force to protect life, limb and your property but you are NOT authorized to use deadly force.

Believe me, I yearn for cowboy days myself.
The days of yesterday where if someone tries to steal your "horse" you solve the problem right then and there.
But this is not the time or state for such pleasantries.

I'm a noob to the forum, please be gentle... I thought pepper spray was illegal here? I joined this forum for these topics in this thread!

It isn't illegal (as far as I know), some shops here sell it; most buyers though use it for when they're walking or with their dog and another dog tries to attack...although I'm sure some women also carry it when they go to the clubs.

Stun guns are illegal in Hawaii though.

OC is not illegal. Young Guns sells it. You can get it WAY cheaper online.
Relax, I've banned myself..