2aHawaii
General Topics => Legal and Activism => Topic started by: oldfart on April 12, 2018, 06:44:20 AM
-
Please do not reply to this thread unless you have personal experience, or are an attorney, judge or someone who has consulted an attorney or judge.
I am not looking for public opinion.
---------------------SEND A PRIVATE MESSAGE IF YOU LIKE-----------
Suppose a burglar breaks into your house and you shoot, but do not kill.
You will probably not be charged with any crime.
The perp might do some jail time and be released after paying his debt to society.
But the perp might be crippled for life.
Can the perp file a lawsuit against you claiming damages for excessive use of force?
-
i took a law class at UH. My professor told me, anyone can sue anyone for any reason. But it doesn't mean that they will win. But what does screw the homeowner is the attorney fees for defense even if the case has no merit.
He also taught us that when criminals are in prison, they have nothing but free time. So if they're thinking of a law suit, then it will come.
I hope this counts as personal experience.
-
Please do not reply to this thread unless you have personal experience, or are an attorney, judge or someone who has consulted an attorney or judge.
I am not looking for public opinion.
---------------------SEND A PRIVATE MESSAGE IF YOU LIKE-----------
Suppose a burglar breaks into your house and you shoot, but do not kill.
You will probably not be charged with any crime.
The perp might do some jail time and be released after paying his debt to society.
But the perp might be crippled for life.
Can the perp file a lawsuit against you claiming damages for excessive use of force?
Have spoke to one of my best friends about this quite a bit here and there. He's an attorney and former prosecutor.
Answer about could you possibly face a lawsuit, yes, you certainly can. Maybe not necessarily excessive use of force, but could also be for any number of reasons. As CMOil mentioned, people can sue for a wide range of things. Look at how many homeowners get sued and had to pay (or maybe settled) when a burglar broke into their home and got messed up by the family dog.
-
Thanks, this is good info
The analogy about the dog is interesting. I can google it.
But do you know any notable case offhand?
-
If said perp was charged with a felony thus allowing the home owner to walk away with justifiable use of deadly force, the verbiage here seems to insinuate that there are certain protections for the home owner. Unless Im completely missing something:
2010 Ammoland Article when Hawaii's version of "Castle Law" was signed:
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/hawaiian-castle-doctrine-law-enacted/#ixzz5CUapvdju
The other bill signed today (Act 97) is SB0532 SD1 HD1 CD1 RELATING TO LIMITING CIVIL LIABILITY. Also known as the “CASTLE DOCTRINE”, and originally introduced by Slom, the version that passed was sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi (D-Manoa), By Request. Current Hawaii law (now null and void) requires a homeowner to “retreat” from his or her own home when invaded by a criminal engaging in a felony. The new law establishes provisions relating to owner to felon; limited liability. Provides that any owner of any other interest in real property shall not be liable to any perpetrator for any injury or death that occurs upon the real property during the course or after the commission of certain felony offenses. — Section Affected: 663- (1 SECTION) OWNER TO FELON.
-
If said perp was charged with a felony thus allowing the home owner to walk away with justifiable use of deadly force, the verbiage here seems to insinuate that there are certain protections for the home owner. Unless Im completely missing something:
2010 Ammoland Article when Hawaii's version of "Castle Law" was signed:
Read more: https://www.ammoland.com/2010/05/hawaiian-castle-doctrine-law-enacted/#ixzz5CUapvdju
The other bill signed today (Act 97) is SB0532 SD1 HD1 CD1 RELATING TO LIMITING CIVIL LIABILITY. Also known as the “CASTLE DOCTRINE”, and originally introduced by Slom, the version that passed was sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Brian Taniguchi (D-Manoa), By Request. Current Hawaii law requires a homeowner to “retreat” from his or her own home when invaded by a criminal engaging in a felony. The new law establishes provisions relating to owner to felon; limited liability. Provides that any owner of any other interest in real property shall not be liable to any perpetrator for any injury or death that occurs upon the real property during the course or after the commission of certain felony offenses. — Section Affected: 663- (1 SECTION) OWNER TO FELON.
^^^^When did this happen? Had I known about the bill, myself and i'm sure everyone on this forum would have submitted support testimony.
Also can you confirm, I read that the current "castle law" states that in Hawaii, we do not have to retreat as long as it's in your residence or place of business as long as you didn't initiate the aggression. But as of now, we are still on the hook for civil liability. Still use of force and deadly force laws apply.
Searched SB0532 and stuff about Alztimeters showed up.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=532&year=2018
-
This is why many are voluntarily purchasing Defensive Use of Gun insurance policies. They'll cover legal fees and judgements up to the amount of your policy limit. They also cover legal fees and other costs associated with criminal charges.
-
^^^^When did this happen? Had I known about the bill, myself and i'm sure everyone on this forum would have submitted support testimony.
Also can you confirm, I read that the current "castle law" states that in Hawaii, we do not have to retreat as long as it's in your residence or place of business as long as you didn't initiate the aggression. But as of now, we are still on the hook for civil liability. Still use of force and deadly force laws apply.
Where is the contradiction to what the article cites? That was back in 2010 when Gov Linda Lingle made it law we dont have to retreat AND homeowner shall not face civil liabilities if perpetrator/accuser was committing "certain felonies" at that time upon homeowner.
-
^^^^When did this happen? Had I known about the bill, myself and i'm sure everyone on this forum would have submitted support testimony.
Also can you confirm, I read that the current "castle law" states that in Hawaii, we do not have to retreat as long as it's in your residence or place of business as long as you didn't initiate the aggression. But as of now, we are still on the hook for civil liability. Still use of force and deadly force laws apply.
Searched SB0532 and stuff about Alztimeters showed up.
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=532&year=2018
Bruh I noted this was a 2010 article when SB0532 became LAW under Linda Lingle. This is law now:
https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/archives/measure_indiv_Archives8-12.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=532&year=2010
"§663‑ Owner to felon; limited liability. (a) An owner, including but not limited to a public entity, of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, or any agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner, shall not be liable to any perpetrator engaged in any of the felonies set forth in subsection (b) for any injury or death to the perpetrator that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of such felony, or when a reasonable person would believe that commission of a felony as set forth in subsection (b) is imminent; provided that if the perpetrator is injured, the perpetrator is charged with the criminal offense and convicted of the criminal offense or of a lesser included felony or misdemeanor.
(b) This section applies to the following felonies:
(1) Murder in the first or second degree;
(2) Attempted murder in the first or second degree;
(3) Any class A felony as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime classified as a class A felony;
(4) Any class B felony involving violence or physical harm as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code;
(5) Any felony punishable by imprisonment for life;
(6) Any other felony in which the person inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; and
(7) Any felony in which the person personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon.
-
Where is the contradiction to what the article cites? That was back in 2010 when Gov Linda Lingle made it law we dont have to retreat AND homeowner shall not face civil liabilities if perpetrator/accuser was committing "certain felonies" at that time upon homeowner.
Sorry misread.
-
Couldn't resist...
(http://wyzguyscybersecurity.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/sticky-bandits.jpg)