Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property (Read 52501 times)

Kingkeoni

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #40 on: July 16, 2013, 01:16:34 PM »
Thanks for this answer, KingKeoni.  This would be an easy mistake to make for most firearm owners who don't know the law.

A follow up hypothetical.... If you (Joe citizen, non-LEO) were invited by someone to sleep over their place and you had your firearm with you.  If that someone was in trouble, would there be any issues with being there and using the firearm in self defense assuming there was a justifiable use of deadly force?

The legal definition of place of sojourn is a place of temporary stay.

You should be ok.
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.

Rocky

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2014, 12:05:43 PM »
     Kinda funny how Hawaii's "use of deadly force" laws are.

 Example:
    Women gets beat to death with shotgun in the middle of the street by some "big" guy, but you could not shoot that Mo'fo to save her life  :wacko:
“I ask you to judge me by the enemies I have made.”
                                                           Franklin D. Roosevelt

Alan A.

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2014, 12:22:51 PM »
 So very sad,.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2014, 12:36:51 PM by Alan A. »

punaperson

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #43 on: February 07, 2014, 06:58:50 AM »
     Kinda funny how Hawaii's "use of deadly force" laws are.

 Example:
    Women gets beat to death with shotgun in the middle of the street by some "big" guy, but you could not shoot that Mo'fo to save her life  :wacko:
Nor could you attempt to save her life using a taser, "stun gun", expandable baton, etc., because you aren't allowed to legally carry those or even possess several of them. But it's about "public safety" and "the children". What a crock of fecal matter!  :wtf:

Kingkeoni

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2014, 06:01:23 AM »
Nor could you attempt to save her life using a taser, "stun gun", expandable baton, etc., because you aren't allowed to legally carry those or even possess several of them. But it's about "public safety" and "the children". What a crock of fecal matter BULLSHIT!  :wtf:

There I fixed it for you.

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.

edster48

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2014, 06:49:25 AM »
     Kinda funny how Hawaii's "use of deadly force" laws are.

 Example:
    Women gets beat to death with shotgun in the middle of the street by some "big" guy, but you could not shoot that Mo'fo to save her life  :wacko:

I have to say that, in that instance, I would do it anyway. I couldn't sit by and watch something like that happen and not act.

It's morally reprehensible.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a pirate.
Then always be a pirate.

Funtimes

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #46 on: February 11, 2014, 06:58:15 AM »
     Kinda funny how Hawaii's "use of deadly force" laws are.

 Example:
    Women gets beat to death with shotgun in the middle of the street by some "big" guy, but you could not shoot that Mo'fo to save her life  :wacko:

Not sure why you would think that.  Defense of others is a legit cause; big man beating woman in street is more of a cause (size, capability, weapons involved, victim in surrender position).  I would have no problems engaging in the use of lethal force in that instance.

Kingkeoni

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #47 on: February 11, 2014, 06:59:08 PM »
Not sure why you would think that.  Defense of others is a legit cause; big man beating woman in street is more of a cause (size, capability, weapons involved, victim in surrender position).  I would have no problems engaging in the use of lethal force in that instance.

That's bullshit.

You defend some girl (let's say the Kailua incident) with deadly force and you will go straight to jail in this state.

This is just how bad its become here.
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.

Mr. Farknocker

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #48 on: March 06, 2014, 09:14:00 AM »
When I read this thread for the first time in 2012, I decided to undertake a rather ambitious project flow charting Hawaii's Statute on the use of force in self protection (as opposed to property or other persons). The goal was to make the process of determining when the use of DF was permitted under Hawaii law, easier. HRS Sec. 703-304.  I read the statutes, summarized it and then started the flowchart. Not long after starting the project, I realized that it I probably bit off more than I could chew. There were several starts and stops over the last two years before completing the chart. I don't have time to review the chart to make corrections so I thought I'd just throw it out there for anyone interested in helping me out with this task. I therefore invite comments, criticism and corrections to the chart as you deem fit.

Please keep a couple of things in mind:

1. The chart is based on MY  construction and interpretation of the language of HRS 703-304 and not subsections 305, 306 or any other section or statute. You may construe the statutory language differently;
2.  The chart is not based on existing/pending case law or case precedence; and
3. The flowchart is for academic purposes and/or discussion only, and not intended for use or reliance by someone confronted with a situation that may require the use of force, deadly or otherwise.

Link to HRS Sec. 703-304: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm


Bota-CS1

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #49 on: March 06, 2014, 10:36:46 AM »
When I read this thread for the first time in 2012, I decided to undertake a rather ambitious project flow charting Hawaii's Statute on the use of force in self protection (as opposed to property or other persons). The goal was to make the process of determining when the use of DF was permitted under Hawaii law, easier. HRS Sec. 703-304.  I read the statutes, summarized it and then started the flowchart. Not long after starting the project, I realized that it I probably bit off more than I could chew. There were several starts and stops over the last two years before completing the chart. I don't have time to review the chart to make corrections so I thought I'd just throw it out there for anyone interested in helping me out with this task. I therefore invite comments, criticism and corrections to the chart as you deem fit.

Please keep a couple of things in mind:

1. The chart is based on MY  construction and interpretation of the language of HRS 703-304 and not subsections 305, 306 or any other section or statute. You may construe the statutory language differently;
2.  The chart is not based on existing/pending case law or case precedence; and
3. The flowchart is for academic purposes and/or discussion only, and not intended for use or reliance by someone confronted with a situation that may require the use of force, deadly or otherwise.

Link to HRS Sec. 703-304: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm

Thanks for doing that flowchart Farknocker  :shaka:

I do get a stuck though with 8.  Let's use the above scenario, but from the perspective of a 3rd party - a bystander.  Let's say I'm out walking the dog and I come across the scene described above.  I yell at him that I'm going to call  the cops but that doesn't stop him.  Let's also assume that from what I can tell she can't get away from him either - unconscious, broken legs, etc.  Now with 8 the questions is whether or not DF can be avoided w/ complete safety by retreating, which would be Yes.  Then I go to 9 and I answer No - then I go to use of DF.  From my understanding it would seems that DF would only apply if the man came after me directly is this interpretation correct?

I believe KK to be right as the law is written, however I also believe that Funtimes occupies the moral high ground in intervening (at least in my limited understanding of the HRS).  If I were to play this scenario out logically - I'd yell at him that I'm calling the cops, and   proceed to call them.  If this fails to stop him before the cops arrive, and the lady were unable to get away to safety - I feel I would be justified in drawing my CCW (just a hypothetical) and telling him I'm going to shoot him if he doesn't stop.  Hopefully this would get him to stop.  If he doesn't stop or advances on me I'd have no other choice. 
No one is coming, it’s up to us.

Legislation should never be about depriving law abiding citizens of something, but rather taking those things away from criminals.

Mr. Farknocker

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #50 on: March 06, 2014, 08:49:41 PM »
Thanks for doing that flowchart Farknocker  :shaka:

I do get a stuck though with 8.  Let's use the above scenario, but from the perspective of a 3rd party - a bystander.  Let's say I'm out walking the dog and I come across the scene described above.  I yell at him that I'm going to call  the cops but that doesn't stop him.  Let's also assume that from what I can tell she can't get away from him either - unconscious, broken legs, etc.  Now with 8 the questions is whether or not DF can be avoided w/ complete safety by retreating, which would be Yes.  Then I go to 9 and I answer No - then I go to use of DF.  From my understanding it would seems that DF would only apply if the man came after me directly is this interpretation correct?

I believe KK to be right as the law is written, however I also believe that Funtimes occupies the moral high ground in intervening (at least in my limited understanding of the HRS).  If I were to play this scenario out logically - I'd yell at him that I'm calling the cops, and   proceed to call them.  If this fails to stop him before the cops arrive, and the lady were unable to get away to safety - I feel I would be justified in drawing my CCW (just a hypothetical) and telling him I'm going to shoot him if he doesn't stop.  Hopefully this would get him to stop.  If he doesn't stop or advances on me I'd have no other choice.

I'll have to go back and re-read the thread to fully understand the scenario you are describing but from what I can perceive is that you are referring to a third party stepping into to use DF to protect another person. Correct? The flow chart I constructed only applies to HRS Sec. 703-304 which governs the right to use force or DF for self-protection. I haven't read nor studied HRS 703-305 but it appears that this statute applies to your scenario.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0305.htm

Mr. Farknocker

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #51 on: March 06, 2014, 08:53:04 PM »
Just saw my No. 10 on the flowchart with two "yes" directions leading to the same conclusion and had to laugh.  Also missing some arrows for Nos. 12 and 14.  :shake:

Funtimes

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #52 on: March 06, 2014, 09:13:45 PM »
When I read this thread for the first time in 2012, I decided to undertake a rather ambitious project flow charting Hawaii's Statute on the use of force in self protection (as opposed to property or other persons). The goal was to make the process of determining when the use of DF was permitted under Hawaii law, easier. HRS Sec. 703-304.  I read the statutes, summarized it and then started the flowchart. Not long after starting the project, I realized that it I probably bit off more than I could chew. There were several starts and stops over the last two years before completing the chart. I don't have time to review the chart to make corrections so I thought I'd just throw it out there for anyone interested in helping me out with this task. I therefore invite comments, criticism and corrections to the chart as you deem fit.

Please keep a couple of things in mind:

1. The chart is based on MY  construction and interpretation of the language of HRS 703-304 and not subsections 305, 306 or any other section or statute. You may construe the statutory language differently;
2.  The chart is not based on existing/pending case law or case precedence; and
3. The flowchart is for academic purposes and/or discussion only, and not intended for use or reliance by someone confronted with a situation that may require the use of force, deadly or otherwise.

Link to HRS Sec. 703-304: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm


I will have to look at it again, but #11 appears to be maybe a bit off?   If I'm attacked at work, I'm not sure what would prohibit me from responding with lethal force (xerox) etc.

#10 - I think there is some stuff on initial aggressors who attempt to retreat? If we get into an argument that I started, but then I leave  and you show up.  Or, if we fought, I knock you out...leave,  but then you get up and come after me. I think that could go that way as well.

2am here headed to bed. Firearms training in the morning =).
« Last Edit: March 06, 2014, 09:28:44 PM by Funtimes »

Funtimes

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2014, 09:19:50 PM »
When I read this thread for the first time in 2012, I decided to undertake a rather ambitious project flow charting Hawaii's Statute on the use of force in self protection (as opposed to property or other persons). The goal was to make the process of determining when the use of DF was permitted under Hawaii law, easier. HRS Sec. 703-304.  I read the statutes, summarized it and then started the flowchart. Not long after starting the project, I realized that it I probably bit off more than I could chew. There were several starts and stops over the last two years before completing the chart. I don't have time to review the chart to make corrections so I thought I'd just throw it out there for anyone interested in helping me out with this task. I therefore invite comments, criticism and corrections to the chart as you deem fit.

Please keep a couple of things in mind:

1. The chart is based on MY  construction and interpretation of the language of HRS 703-304 and not subsections 305, 306 or any other section or statute. You may construe the statutory language differently;
2.  The chart is not based on existing/pending case law or case precedence; and
3. The flowchart is for academic purposes and/or discussion only, and not intended for use or reliance by someone confronted with a situation that may require the use of force, deadly or otherwise.

Link to HRS Sec. 703-304: http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm

Once we can get it all sorted out, I will be happy to throw it up in smart draw and layout the graphics portion.

Funtimes

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2014, 09:25:25 PM »
Thanks for doing that flowchart Farknocker  :shaka:

I do get a stuck though with 8.  Let's use the above scenario, but from the perspective of a 3rd party - a bystander.  Let's say I'm out walking the dog and I come across the scene described above.  I yell at him that I'm going to call  the cops but that doesn't stop him.  Let's also assume that from what I can tell she can't get away from him either - unconscious, broken legs, etc.  Now with 8 the questions is whether or not DF can be avoided w/ complete safety by retreating, which would be Yes.  Then I go to 9 and I answer No - then I go to use of DF.  From my understanding it would seems that DF would only apply if the man came after me directly is this interpretation correct?

I believe KK to be right as the law is written, however I also believe that Funtimes occupies the moral high ground in intervening (at least in my limited understanding of the HRS).  If I were to play this scenario out logically - I'd yell at him that I'm calling the cops, and   proceed to call them.  If this fails to stop him before the cops arrive, and the lady were unable to get away to safety - I feel I would be justified in drawing my CCW (just a hypothetical) and telling him I'm going to shoot him if he doesn't stop.  Hopefully this would get him to stop.  If he doesn't stop or advances on me I'd have no other choice.

Force can be used to protect others, where we believe a reasonable person would wish to protect themselves.  Basically, it boils down to this: People don't want to get smashed, killed or hurt.  When a crook is smashing, killing or hurting people, other people may legally intervene on their behalf.  For instance, a person is robbing a store.  They are only pointing the gun at the clerk.  They are only threatening the clerk.  It's reasonable to believe that the clerk would not want to be killed, maimed, or seriously injured by said crook with gun, and therefore it's reasonable for another person to exercise the use the deadly force on their behalf.  We see this type of incident all the time in the news etc.  For Hawaii, we just need to meet Hawaii's requirements for deadly force or have those requirements being met in regards to another person.

  I don't think the thoughts on "if you help, they will arrest you" jive with what we have seen in the past events.  There have been events such as the marine who stabbed some guys in self-defense, the guy who used deadly force with a knife in defending his backpack, and a variety of other situations. From what I can tell, Hawaii doesn't like defending criminals from good people who whoop their ass or use weapons against them.  I think we may be misconstruing the media and political disdain for guns for a disdain for use of force and protecting what is ours.

I will also see what other material I can provide from the court cases they give us next week.

Bota-CS1

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2014, 09:38:04 PM »
I'll have to go back and re-read the thread to fully understand the scenario you are describing but from what I can perceive is that you are referring to a third party stepping into to use DF to protect another person. Correct? The flow chart I constructed only applies to HRS Sec. 703-304 which governs the right to use force or DF for self-protection. I haven't read nor studied HRS 703-305 but it appears that this statute applies to your scenario.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0305.htm

 :shaka:

Force can be used to protect others, where we believe a reasonable person would wish to protect themselves.  Basically, it boils down to this: People don't want to get smashed, killed or hurt.  When a crook is smashing, killing or hurting people, other people may legally intervene on their behalf.  For instance, a person is robbing a store.  They are only pointing the gun at the clerk.  They are only threatening the clerk.  It's reasonable to believe that the clerk would not want to be killed, maimed, or seriously injured by said crook with gun, and therefore it's reasonable for another person to exercise the use the deadly force on their behalf.  We see this type of incident all the time in the news etc.  For Hawaii, we just need to meet Hawaii's requirements for deadly force or have those requirements being met in regards to another person.

  I don't think the thoughts on "if you help, they will arrest you" jive with what we have seen in the past events.  There have been events such as the marine who stabbed some guys in self-defense, the guy who used deadly force with a knife in defending his backpack, and a variety of other situations. From what I can tell, Hawaii doesn't like defending criminals from good people who whoop their ass or use weapons against them.  I think we may be misconstruing the media and political disdain for guns for a disdain for use of force and protecting what is ours.

I will also see what other material I can provide from the court cases they give us next week.

Good to know.  Looking forward to the additional info.  At first I didn't think that I would want the responsibility of CCW even if we could in HI , but now my mind is swinging more in favor of  it.
No one is coming, it’s up to us.

Legislation should never be about depriving law abiding citizens of something, but rather taking those things away from criminals.

Mr. Farknocker

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #56 on: March 07, 2014, 03:08:03 PM »
Force can be used to protect others, where we believe a reasonable person would wish to protect themselves.  Basically, it boils down to this: People don't want to get smashed, killed or hurt.  When a crook is smashing, killing or hurting people, other people may legally intervene on their behalf.  For instance, a person is robbing a store.  They are only pointing the gun at the clerk.  They are only threatening the clerk.  It's reasonable to believe that the clerk would not want to be killed, maimed, or seriously injured by said crook with gun, and therefore it's reasonable for another person to exercise the use the deadly force on their behalf.  We see this type of incident all the time in the news etc.  For Hawaii, we just need to meet Hawaii's requirements for deadly force or have those requirements being met in regards to another person.

  I don't think the thoughts on "if you help, they will arrest you" jive with what we have seen in the past events.  There have been events such as the marine who stabbed some guys in self-defense, the guy who used deadly force with a knife in defending his backpack, and a variety of other situations. From what I can tell, Hawaii doesn't like defending criminals from good people who whoop their ass or use weapons against them.  I think we may be misconstruing the media and political disdain for guns for a disdain for use of force and protecting what is ours.

I will also see what other material I can provide from the court cases they give us next week.

Agreed. Stuff is supposed to work that way. Putting it to writing so that it does, and works correctly for every other situation, is the difficult part. Doing a flowchart like this (assuming its done correctly) helps to point out whether the statute is correctly worded, contains flaws or doesn't even adequately cover scenarios that it should.  Irrespective of whether the statute is correctly worded or whether my flowchart accurately reflects the law, one thing is for sure: it's virtually impossible for the average person to run through the analysis and come out with the right answer in the instant that he/she is forced to do so. I can imagine myself walking out of my office down to the parking garage and being attacked by someone impersonating a cop and the yelling, "HOLD ON" while I bust out my iPad to check my seriously flawed flowchart.  :shake:

Mr. Farknocker

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #57 on: March 07, 2014, 03:17:01 PM »
I will have to look at it again, but #11 appears to be maybe a bit off?   If I'm attacked at work, I'm not sure what would prohibit me from responding with lethal force (xerox) etc.

#10 - I think there is some stuff on initial aggressors who attempt to retreat? If we get into an argument that I started, but then I leave  and you show up.  Or, if we fought, I knock you out...leave,  but then you get up and come after me. I think that could go that way as well.

2am here headed to bed. Firearms training in the morning =).

If the results come out whacked when the scenario is run through the flow chart, it can be at least one of two things or both: 1) my flowchart is off; and/or 2) the statute has pukas.  Check the flow chart against the statute first to eliminate the chart as the cause of the inequitable outcome.  If the chart is accurate, you need to then look to the statute to see if its wording leads to the inequitable result.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2014, 07:01:07 PM »
That's bullshit.

You defend some girl (let's say the Kailua incident) with deadly force and you will go straight to jail in this state.

This is just how bad its become here.

In that case I highly doubt you would be arrested. They would ask you to come to the station for interview. The only way you might be arrested is if they had found you were walking down the street with a concealed firearm that you used to stop the attacker. From what I recall in that case any actor would have been very justified in escalating straight to justified force. I saw the man, he was big, he had a gun that even if it was non functioning was still  club, and he was inflicting mortal wounds on someone. You could go straight for a lethal blow and easily articulate it all. Sure some yahoo would say that you didn't need to kill him but you would be completely justified and with so many witnesses around I seriously doubt you would have been arrested.

Q

.
« Reply #59 on: April 23, 2014, 08:35:05 PM »
.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2016, 10:56:54 AM by Q »