Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property (Read 52502 times)

nasdqplaya

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #60 on: April 23, 2014, 10:06:25 PM »
Wrong.

Any situation involving firearms or the use of deadly force in self-defense automatically gets you in the back of a police car (not sure if you are apprehended or not) and taken to the station, along with your firearms being confiscated as evidence.

Doesn't necessarily mean that they assume you to be guilty, but that's the way their procedure is set up.



So basically:

HPD: "you have the right to protect yourself with deadly force in certain situations, but we are going to arrest you for using deadly force to protect yourself in those situations."

And then at this point the District Attorney will decide wether or not to press charges against you. If so I personally know for a fact in the state of Virginia for a good private attorney Murder 2 charge costs $50,000 just to start the defense. I would not want to leave my chances of freedom to public defender who will basically negotiate by demise. Also the subject I personally know of is still in jail waiting trail and from 1 year ago. No bond was issued.  I do not know what a murder case would cost in Hawaii.

edster48

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #61 on: April 24, 2014, 07:18:38 AM »
And then at this point the District Attorney will decide wether or not to press charges against you. If so I personally know for a fact in the state of Virginia for a good private attorney Murder 2 charge costs $50,000 just to start the defense. I would not want to leave my chances of freedom to public defender who will basically negotiate by demise. Also the subject I personally know of is still in jail waiting trail and from 1 year ago. No bond was issued.  I do not know what a murder case would cost in Hawaii.

You and Q are quite correct. Regardless of whether or not you were " in the right" you're in for a trip to the station and an interrogation. Even the smallest of questions regarding your motive will more than likely result in you being booked and either held for up to 48 hours or released pending investigation or both.

You certainly wouldn't be getting a medal for being a good citizen even if the outcome was justified.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a pirate.
Then always be a pirate.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #62 on: July 20, 2014, 12:15:12 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:

Actually this is not accurate. In Hawaii you can use lethal force to protect someone else in the same way you can use it to protect yourself. In the case of the Kailua beating lethal force would have been absolutely justified and they would not have automatically taken you in for arrest. They would have you come to the station for questioning but not arrested in that case. There were so many witnesses for starters that you would be nearly instantly cleared of any wrongdoing.
Even an old lady driving a car could have at least tried to run over the suspect. A bystander with a pocket knife, someone doing yard work with a saw or machete, anything would have been justified in that case.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #63 on: July 20, 2014, 12:20:26 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!  :wtf:

Stun guns are illegal to own and carry. A baton is legal to own but questionable on whether you could carry it. Part of it is choosing the items you carry and the other part is justifying it correctly. Lets say you used a machete to stop the Kailua beating, you could reasonably explain that you carry it in your car for yard work, similarly you could claim a metal baton/pipe is your fish whacking tool when you go fishing, etc.

Q

.
« Reply #64 on: July 20, 2014, 12:22:41 AM »
.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 10:41:34 PM by Q »

eyeeatingfish

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #65 on: July 20, 2014, 03:59:33 PM »
You dont need any excuse to carry a machine; it is perfectly legal to do so under HRS 134, as it is not classified as a dangerous or deadly weapon.

Chop away, minions

Carry a machine?

Q

.
« Reply #66 on: July 20, 2014, 07:43:59 PM »
.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2016, 11:04:03 PM by Q »

eyeeatingfish

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #67 on: July 27, 2014, 05:03:52 PM »
Machete

That was going to be my guess. Something like that might come down to a jury and they would want to hear a reasonable reason why you were carrying a firearm.

HiCarry

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #68 on: October 08, 2014, 03:50:08 PM »
Actually this is not accurate. In Hawaii you can use lethal force to protect someone else in the same way you can use it to protect yourself. In the case of the Kailua beating lethal force would have been absolutely justified and they would not have automatically taken you in for arrest. They would have you come to the station for questioning but not arrested in that case. There were so many witnesses for starters that you would be nearly instantly cleared of any wrongdoing.
Even an old lady driving a car could have at least tried to run over the suspect. A bystander with a pocket knife, someone doing yard work with a saw or machete, anything would have been justified in that case.
Sorry, a little late to this conversation, but you are incorrect in your assumptions. In the Janel Tupuolu case Peter Carlisle was asked deadly force would have been justified. He responded "maybe." And that was after the fact when he knew Ms. Tupuaola had already  died.

Another case, from about 2006, shows clearly that no matter the circumstances, if you are forced to use deadly force, you will almost certainly be arrested. The link below is about a couple in a Makiki apartment that had a guy try to break into their home. They called 911 and the police came out but were unable to find him. The bad guy returned, tried to break in again, this time damaging the door but was ultimately unsuccessful. The police were again called but again, the suspect could not be found. When he returned the third time, he was able to get into the house and began assaulting the female. The male grabbed a knife and stabbed the intruder. The male was arrested and spent the weekend in jail.

Now, consider this. The event did not involve a gun, which is a much more prejudicial here in Hawaii and would, IMHO, result in a much more likelihood of an arrest. The police had documented two prior instances the same day of this bad guy trying to break in, so the issues about who was doing what to whom, were pretty clear. The wife had evidence of the assault. And, to add insult to injury, the door to the couple's apartment was so damaged in the third attempt to gain entry, that it could not be secured, yet the police arrested the male occupant and left the female, already traumatized by the event, in an apartment that was unsecured so they could take the male to jail.

Lot's of witnesses to this crime collaborated the stories of the apartment occupants, yet still got taken to jail. Tell me again how you can be so sure you would not have been similarly arrested if you had tried to intercede in the Tupuolu case......

Edit to add: I found an entry on this forum discussing the Tupuola case and what Carlisle said. Unfortunately the link appears to be dead or broken, but here is that 2A Forum entry:

Quote ---Honolulu City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle said lethal force "could" have been justified under Hawaii law in this situation....
--- End quote ---


http://archives.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?5f54e6f7-6cb3-429a-a5f1-2a2b5adc271b

While I understand the whole change history thing, and especially understand the domestic violence phenomena of the beaten female suddenly coming to the aid of the beater, my point was that Carlisle, even when the facts of the situation were unequivocal, seems to waiver and be non-commital, on the issue of justified use of lethal force. A "non-position" usually seen with career politicians, not gun/self defense friendly folks.....

And an editorial from Dr. Cooper: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/01/20/editorial/letters.html

« Last Edit: October 08, 2014, 04:27:49 PM by HiCarry »

Kingkeoni

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #69 on: October 20, 2014, 07:33:37 PM »
This is why no one in Hawaii wants to help anyone else in situations like this.

A) you'd almost certainly be arrested.

B) the legal system in. Hawaii is so slanted, that they'd almost certainly try to charge you for murder regardless of the evidence.

C) you're not allowed to carry any proper weapon. You have to be imaginative and maybe carry a whiffle ball bat so as not to raise questions.

D) Even the police here have no idea what the laws are.
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 #70 on: October 20, 2014, 07:52:28 PM »
I'd still do it, it's the right thing to do.

You can make your own decision should the time come, but that would be mine.

I don't think I could live with myself otherwise.
Always be yourself.
Unless you can be a pirate.
Then always be a pirate.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #71 on: October 25, 2014, 09:02:45 PM »
Sorry, a little late to this conversation, but you are incorrect in your assumptions. In the Janel Tupuolu case Peter Carlisle was asked deadly force would have been justified. He responded "maybe." And that was after the fact when he knew Ms. Tupuaola had already  died.
Another case, from about 2006, shows clearly that no matter the circumstances, if you are forced to use deadly force, you will almost certainly be arrested. The link below is about a couple in a Makiki apartment that had a guy try to break into their home. They called 911 and the police came out but were unable to find him. The bad guy returned, tried to break in again, this time damaging the door but was ultimately unsuccessful. The police were again called but again, the suspect could not be found. When he returned the third time, he was able to get into the house and began assaulting the female. The male grabbed a knife and stabbed the intruder. The male was arrested and spent the weekend in jail.
Now, consider this. The event did not involve a gun, which is a much more prejudicial here in Hawaii and would, IMHO, result in a much more likelihood of an arrest. The police had documented two prior instances the same day of this bad guy trying to break in, so the issues about who was doing what to whom, were pretty clear. The wife had evidence of the assault. And, to add insult to injury, the door to the couple's apartment was so damaged in the third attempt to gain entry, that it could not be secured, yet the police arrested the male occupant and left the female, already traumatized by the event, in an apartment that was unsecured so they could take the male to jail.
Lot's of witnesses to this crime collaborated the stories of the apartment occupants, yet still got taken to jail. Tell me again how you can be so sure you would not have been similarly arrested if you had tried to intercede in the Tupuolu case......
Edit to add: I found an entry on this forum discussing the Tupuola case and what Carlisle said. Unfortunately the link appears to be dead or broken, but here is that 2A Forum entry:
Quote ---Honolulu City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle said lethal force "could" have been justified under Hawaii law in this situation....
--- End quote ---

http://archives.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?5f54e6f7-6cb3-429a-a5f1-2a2b5adc271b
While I understand the whole change history thing, and especially understand the domestic violence phenomena of the beaten female suddenly coming to the aid of the beater, my point was that Carlisle, even when the facts of the situation were unequivocal, seems to waiver and be non-commital, on the issue of justified use of lethal force. A "non-position" usually seen with career politicians, not gun/self defense friendly folks.....
And an editorial from Dr. Cooper: http://archives.starbulletin.com/2008/01/20/editorial/letters.html

The non committal by Carlisle doesn't surprise me one bit. Either he doesn't really know or just doesn't want someone quoting him later.

It is my understanding that arrest is not necessarily automatic, especially if on is in their own home. The 2006 case you mention might be proving me wrong, but there might also be some other circumstances to why they arrested. I will have to see if there are any other comparable cases I can find. Maybe ask some cop friends if they know any that would point to one answer or another. For whatever reason the link isn't working for me though.

eyeeatingfish

Re: Hawaii laws dealing with protection of person and property
« Reply #72 on: November 01, 2014, 08:34:09 PM »
Another case, from about 2006, shows clearly that no matter the circumstances, if you are forced to use deadly force, you will almost certainly be arrested. The link below is about a couple in a Makiki apartment that had a guy try to break into their home. They called 911 and the police came out but were unable to find him. The bad guy returned, tried to break in again, this time damaging the door but was ultimately unsuccessful. The police were again called but again, the suspect could not be found. When he returned the third time, he was able to get into the house and began assaulting the female. The male grabbed a knife and stabbed the intruder. The male was arrested and spent the weekend in jail.

Now, consider this. The event did not involve a gun, which is a much more prejudicial here in Hawaii and would, IMHO, result in a much more likelihood of an arrest. The police had documented two prior instances the same day of this bad guy trying to break in, so the issues about who was doing what to whom, were pretty clear. The wife had evidence of the assault. And, to add insult to injury, the door to the couple's apartment was so damaged in the third attempt to gain entry, that it could not be secured, yet the police arrested the male occupant and left the female, already traumatized by the event, in an apartment that was unsecured so they could take the male to jail.
Lot's of witnesses to this crime collaborated the stories of the apartment occupants, yet still got taken to jail. Tell me again how you can be so sure you would not have been similarly arrested if you had tried to intercede in the Tupuolu case......

I asked a friend who is a detective about this sort of situation, and while he wasn't a homicide detective he did provide an interesting explanation on why it is pretty much always an arrest situation.

For starters he explained that because of the severity of the incident, being that someone lost their life, they want a very complete investigation. For example, you don't want to find out later that the guy lied and you are stuck not having the suspect in custody.
He also pointed towards the elements of the crime of murder. Murder in the second degree says
Quote
a person commits the offense of murder in the second degree if the person intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another person.
Now for the officer or detective at the scene, they need to establish that the person acted intentionally or knowingly and that they caused the death of the person. So if the homeowner said that he did stab the burglar on purpose he essentially admits to the crime. He went on to explain that the self defense argument is left up to the courts/prosecutor/jury to decide. He posed the rhetorical question of whether the public would want the police to be the ones deciding what was a good self defense argument and what wasn't in something as serious as the taking of a human life.


Now this was not to say arrest has to be made, an detective could decide to bring a cooperative individual claiming self defense into the station without arresting him/her. I am not sure how often that happens but it is conceivable that there could be such a preponderance of evidence at the scene to clear someone's name that police would not arrest the individual if they used deadly force in self defense.
I realize that many here might not agree with the reasoning but at least we have some clarification.