Scenario
Your vehicle car/motorcycle(personal property) and is park on the street (public property) next to you place of residence.  A couple of thieves actually broken in or stolen the whole vehicle as the alarm is going off. What the legality of using firearms in this, discuss.


See the discussion got going....
Let me clarify the scenario NO LETHAL  FORCE IS BEING USED unless life danger is immediate.
Let say I  discharge my firearms on to their get away vehicle to prevent my personal property from being stolen, yet the incident is happening on the street public property.

Possible outcome.
1. they surrender
2. flee
3. fight back.

My concern is what the law looks at when firearms is being discharge in a public area to defend personal property.

.

Now sit back, relax, and let that sink in while you bask in the everlasting freedom of Hawaii and America.

I'd suggest another possible phrasing of that last sentence:

"Now bend over, relax, and let that sink in while you bask in the everlasting freedom of Hawaii and America."

For those that still might have questions about this, here's a link to the HRA page hat covers this as well as other firearms related laws....

http://www.hawaiirifleassociation.org/hawaii-gun-laws

The law does not say that you cannot attempt to prevent the thieves from taking your stuff. As a matter of fact, the law says that you can use the force necessary to prevent said crime. The question is what to do if you do intervene. Do you take your firearm along "just in case" and confront them with a "hey, that's my car. Get out" and keep the firearm otherwise concealed? Because here in Hawaii that would technically be illegal (concealed firearm outside your home/business).

Then, assuming the bad guys decide to stop what they're doing and now address your request to stop with a "what you goin' do about it?" retort.  Now, fearing for your safety/life, can you now employ the firearm in a legitimate self defense concern?

I would posit that the first action is likely to be frowned upon by responding LE but that the courts would likely see it as a "competing harms" or lesser of two evils claim.

Just my 2 cents worth.....

.

 

HiCarry - I just wrote this long ass response, and found this gem while trying to validate my resources. You win this one 

We all win when we can base our decisions on fact and logic....but thanks 

There is a difference between force and deadly force. You can use "force" to prevent theft. ie: holding the guy till the police arrive. You can not use "deadly force" to prevent theft. If you take your gun "just in case" to stop a property crime and it escalates to the point you use deadly force you will be charged with murder or manslaughter because you chose to put yourself in that situation. Some may say it was you that escalated it to that point.

Furthermore you now have the mens rea and actus rea required for your trial.

You have now sealed your fate because you have showed the court that you displayed the thought process of deciding to take your deadly weapon to a crime that you are not justified in using deadly force to intervene. You will be also called a vigilante by the prosecution.

If you want to play cops and robbers go join HPD. Leave the real crime fighting to the people trained to do it.

Sitting by and letting someone take my stuff doesn't sit well with me.  What if someone takes your stuff, you try to take it back then it escalates to use of force at that point?  Does this HRS protect you if you beat someone up to prevent them from taking your stuff?  In this question, assume no guns are involved... Other things? yes -- Flashlight, baseball bat, roll of magazine, keys, hot coffee, brick, pen, rock, chair, table, glass bottle, etc.

Sitting by and letting someone take my stuff doesn't sit well with me.  What if someone takes your stuff, you try to take it back then it escalates to a beating at that point?  Does this HRS protect you if you beat someone up to prevent them from taking your stuff?  In this question, no guns are involved.

If you try to take it back or stop it and a fight ensues then that type of force is justified as long as you remember to stop beating his ass when you get your stuff back or he is no longer resisting.

Thanks, Dblnaknak.  What if you use a make shift weapon?  Flashlight, baseball bat, roll of magazine, keys, hot coffee, brick, pen, rock, chair, table, glass bottle, mace, spoon, hammer, wrench, pipe, etc.

Thanks, Dblnaknak.  What if you use a make shift weapon?  Flashlight, roll of magazine, keys, hot coffee, mace, spoon, etc. (depends)

I edited your post for your options.

Actually in the hrs 703-306, all the way at the bottom, it says deadly force is allowed when felonious acts are occurring allowing you to protect your property from theft. How can they prosecute?, you are following the law (hrs).

If you want to play cops and robbers go join HPD. Leave the real crime fighting to the people trained to do it.

Please see https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=14406.0   

.

.

Actually in the hrs 703-306, all the way at the bottom, it says deadly force is allowed when felonious acts are occurring allowing you to protect your property from theft. How can they prosecute?, you are following the law (hrs).

If you read the entire section it will give you the answer. Felonious acts are aggravated acts. ie: used a weapon towards someone in the act of committing a crime. Now the actor is using deadly force against the victim. See the entire section. Key word is "IF"

"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. "

Once again leave the crime fighting to someone that reads the entire definition of felonious acts.

If you read the entire section it will give you the answer. Felonious acts are aggravated acts. ie: used a weapon towards someone in the act of committing a crime. Now the actor is using deadly force against the victim. See the entire section. Key word is "IF"

"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. "

Once again leave the crime fighting to someone that reads the entire definition of felonious acts.

1. It states "felonious property damage, burglary, robbery, or felonious theft". There is no "felonious" preceding "burglary" nor "robbery", but only preceding "property damage" and "theft".Does that mean the the burglary and robbery need not be felonious? Or is all burglary and robbery felonious? [I'd hope so.]

2. What are the acts that constitute "threatened"? Are verbal threats sufficient?

3. Option 2 is an "Or" clause, i.e. sufficient in and of itself, which seems to state that a reasonable belief that serious bodily injury would occur unless deadly force is used is sufficient justification for the use of deadly force. Is there a formal legal definition of "serious bodily injury"?

.

I recall a news item a few months ago where two guys stole/took a backpack from him.  He chased them down, they fought, and he stabbed one of them, and that person died.  No arrest or charges.