Thanks for doing that flowchart Farknocker
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.