2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: rswarrior1700 on April 13, 2014, 11:39:39 PM
-
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 (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 :worship:
We all win when we can base our decisions on fact and logic....but thanks :shaka:
-
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 :wacko:
-
.
-
.
-
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.
-
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.
Really. Go read the article again.
-
I don't get why certain individuals are so focused on deadly force; the OP said nothing about deadly force; he was inquiring if you can respond to a robbery against personal property with a firearm, and deadly force was brought up as a side point. The HRS clearly states you can use force to protect your property, given that you you first ask them to stop, upon which if they proceed to respond in an aggressive manner, you may respond by escalating force.
What is 'force'? unarmed combat, OC/Pepper spray, attack dog, presentation of deadly force; these are all different types of force. Force is a generalized term that encompasses deadly force, but doesn't automatically mean deadly force when applied.
Cops aren't superheroes, so pretending that they are the only ones capable of interpreting the law and/or enforcing personal safety and protection is quite stupid. This whole 'leave crime fighting to people who are trained to do it' mindset is the same ideology that is preventing us from being able to protect ourselves properly in the first place. Self protection is an individual responsibility, and this statute clearly states that an individual can protect their property with force, given they are in the confines of the law.
Really? You might of been able to present your gun as a show of force as a MP in the military. But in the civilian world the rules are different. The presentation of deadly force is exactly that; deadly force. It becomes a slippery slope when the presenter of deadly force is not faced with actual deadly force.
Then again who am I. I was never a highly trained MP. (Sarcasm)
-
.
-
Really? You might of been able to present your gun as a show of force as a MP in the military. But in the civilian world the rules are different. The presentation of deadly force is exactly that; deadly force. It becomes a slippery slope when the presenter of deadly force is not faced with actual deadly force.
Then again who am I. I was never a highly trained MP. (Sarcasm)
Why do folks have to shit on or discredit others training and experience?
The last time you and Q had your little pissing match it was Q who wrote back stating all his training and experience, would you care to please do the same with your training and experience?
-
.
-
Really? You might of been able to present your gun as a show of force as a MP in the military. But in the civilian world the rules are different. The presentation of deadly force is exactly that; deadly force. It becomes a slippery slope when the presenter of deadly force is not faced with actual deadly force.
Then again who am I. I was never a highly trained MP. (Sarcasm)
It appears from your comment you are under the misunderstanding that deadly force is only appropriate if faced with deadly force.
That is not the case. The Hawaii statutes allow you to use deadly force if you feel you are facing a threat of rape, sodomy, and/or serious/substantial bodily injury.
Here's a very good synopsis of how judges instruct juries to view justification for use of deadly force:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_instruction/hi-7-01a-self-defense-when-the-use-of-deadly-force-is-at-issue/ (http://lawofselfdefense.com/jury_instruction/hi-7-01a-self-defense-when-the-use-of-deadly-force-is-at-issue/)
-
Back to the OP (sort of), I would...
1. Call HPD
2.Perch in the window with my M1 carbine and yell "Hey! Run away! Police are coming!"
If one of the miscreants decided to charge at me, I would shoot them. Otherwise, I would just watch, maybe grab the DLSR and tyr to get some pics.
Under no circumstances would I exit my house and confront them. If they take my truck and get away clean, well, I have insurance. It would burn me, but I would let it happen.
-
Back to the OP (sort of), I would...
1. Call HPD
2.Perch in the window with my M1 carbine and yell "Hey! Run away! Police are coming!"
If one of the miscreants decided to charge at me, I would shoot them. Otherwise, I would just watch, maybe grab the DLSR and tyr to get some pics.
Under no circumstances would I exit my house and confront them. If they take my truck and get away clean, well, I have insurance. It would burn me, but I would let it happen.
More in what I had in mind rather to straight up confronting the suspects. Then again the thing that always bug me is thieves, especially house burglars would strike on a non occupied home. Thata being said they'll flee and might return later for the firearms, when non ones home.
-
.
-
We had an incident on a friend's block where he literally sat outside his house, casually took pictures of the guys loading up the truck during a robbery, and also provided a detailed description w/ license plate number.
Officer that responded was pissed off that he had to do paperwork on scene, and when my friend tried to provide his info for a follow up, responding officer basically told him to fuck off and let him do his job, all while refusing to take the evidence from the guy who called the cops in the first place. Oh, and it took them 5 months to finally finish the case, as my friend had to go out of his way to give what he had to a cop that actually cared about doing his job.
Not saying that they are all bad, but holy fck.
That's why when it comes down to it, I'll do what I can to act within the confines of the law to protect what's mine and my neighbor's; no one trusts HPD to do shit anymore.
You mean to say that that television show about the diligent, hardworking, competent, caring, effective, persistent, crime-solving Hawaii police is fiction? :geekdanc:
-
You mean to say that that television show about the diligent, hardworking, competent, caring, effective, persistent, crime-solving Hawaii police is fiction? :geekdanc:
That show is about high level crimes like murder, bank robberies, and prostitution rings. Ever see that episode where the big guys go after the meth head for breaking into rental cars and Kailua houses?
Don't hold your breath. :grrr:
-
You mean to say that that television show about the diligent, hardworking, competent, caring, effective, persistent, crime-solving Hawaii police is fiction? :geekdanc:
you mean 5-0 isn't a documentary?
-
That show is about high level crimes like murder, bank robberies, and prostitution rings. Ever see that episode where the big guys go after the meth head for breaking into rental cars and Kailua houses?
Don't hold your breath. :grrr:
I haven't noticed any of those events being mentioned in the taxpayer-funded Hawaii tourism ads.
I haven't watched the show. Do they have the scene (taken from real life) where the homeowner is at the police station reporting a burglary (because the cops refused to drive their personal taxpayer-subsidized "police cars" down the crappy subdivision pot-holed roads) naively asked if there was any chance that any of his property might be recovered and the cops in the office actually laughed out loud? :wtf:
-
Well I'm glad i'm moving back to the Southeast in 2-1/2 months:
"takes the Castle Doctrine to the extreme, not only allowing you to defend your home (porches especially), but also your car, your place of employment, or practically anywhere you have a legal right to be. Also, unlike some states, you do not have to retreat before you take action to defend yourself. Last, but not least, the law added civil immunity (you can’t be sued) if you are forced to defend yourself in accordance with this law.”
And I can get CCW.