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