2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: ren on February 17, 2024, 07:32:08 AM
-
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/02/17/concerns-arise-after-maui-man-detains-woman-with-gun-until-police-arrive/
-
HI AG gonna pressure charges. Just wait.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
If the stolen vehicle isn't mine, family or a friend's, I wouldn't get involved if I saw it. I might call 911 and tell them I saw the vehicle at such and such place. Then again, I might not. Depends how busy I am at the moment.
-
So much things wrong with this incident. In my opinion that individual should not have involved his concealed weapon.
Like mentioned above, call 911 and be a good witness. Your life and your loved ones didn't seem like it was in danger. The weapon should not even have been drawn.
The only scenario that could cause someone to draw and detain is if the car was used in a manner that could have killed bystanders, him/herself, or their loved ones.
edited to add: This kind stuff is ammunition for the gun control nuts. Garan Ball Barans. You watch.
-
So much things wrong with this incident. In my opinion that individual should not have involved his concealed weapon.
Like mentioned above, call 911 and be a good witness. Your life and your loved ones didn't seem like it was in danger. The weapon should not even have been drawn.
The only scenario that could cause someone to draw and detain is if the car was used in a manner that could have killed bystanders, him/herself, or their loved ones.
edited to add: This kind stuff is ammunition for the gun control nuts. Garan Ball Barans. You watch.
============
I was thinking something like if the car was endangering kids or pedestrians,
I might try to pursue and inform the police where the car is located.
I don't ccw but I do carry a big stick. (not joking)
:shaka:
-
Main thing to remember is the criminal is at fault.
BTW, I heard the CCW guy was related to the truck owner.
Although people shouldn't give chase, I can understand why he did what he did. If your truck gets stolen do you trust HPD to get it back? If it's uninsured, its very difficult for a family to replace. A lot of people would've given chase if they could.
For the incident itself. CCW guy looked like he was muzzling the cop. Should've been holstered or at the very least be at low ready with two hands on the gun ready to respond if needed. The good thing is the cop trusted the CCW guy.
A lot of car thieves carry weapons and police deem them dangerous. So it might be acceptable to draw on a car thief.
-
If the stolen vehicle isn't mine, family or a friend's, I wouldn't get involved if I saw it. I might call 911 and tell them I saw the vehicle at such and such place. Then again, I might not. Depends how busy I am at the moment.
If the stolen vehicle isn't mine, family or a friend's, I wouldn't get involved if I saw it. I might call 911 and tell them I saw the vehicle at such and such place. Then again, I might not. Depends how busy I am at the moment.
[/quote]
"If the stolen vehicle isn't mine, family or a friend's, I wouldn't get involved if I saw it.".
Y'all got it mostly right. CCW is not an excuse to play cop. You only use it to protect yourself, family or
someone from substantial physical harm in a public place.
In WA state where CCW holders have way more legal leeway, rights, and protections than Hawaii, that is the rule.
It is seriously enforced.
Besides, Cops have lawsuit protection when they do stupid, You don't have any protection even when
you are in the right and uncharged.
Let them play cop.
-
Main thing to remember is the criminal is at fault.
agree
BTW, I heard the CCW guy was related to the truck owner.
Is this a legit reason to draw your weapon as a CCW holder?
Although people shouldn't give chase, I can understand why he did what he did. If your truck gets stolen do you trust HPD to get it back? If it's uninsured, its very difficult for a family to replace. A lot of people would've given chase if they could.
A CCW holder brandishing his weapon playing cop? Is this within your right to defend yourself and your loved ones as a CCW holder?
For the incident itself. CCW guy looked like he was muzzling the cop. Should've been holstered or at the very least be at low ready with two hands on the gun ready to respond if needed. The good thing is the cop trusted the CCW guy.
A lot of car thieves carry weapons and police deem them dangerous. So it might be acceptable to draw on a car thief.
Again, is this a situation where self defense is warranted? A CCW holder is now a civilian deputy now?
-
Again, is this a situation where self defense is warranted? A CCW holder is now a civilian deputy now?
Depends what happened prior to the video starting and there's still a lot we don't know what was going on. Safer bet would be to follow within reason and guide the police in
Probably not considered brandishing since he's stopping a felony and he could articulate a lot of car thieves posses weapons.
People have a right to use reasonable force to protect property. The stop was fine and he could yank her out of the car, as unarmed or gun concealed. People try to prevent theft all the time. If she whips out a gun or knife outside the car as a threat, then he can draw and defend himself against death or serious bodily injury, depending on the circumstance.
Per the law if he can retreat safely he must do so. Like if she's still in the truck and whips out a knife while he's a good distance away.
-
Depends what happened prior to the video starting and there's still a lot we don't know what was going on. Safer bet would be to follow within reason and guide the police in
Probably not considered brandishing since he's stopping a felony and he could articulate a lot of car thieves posses weapons.
People have a right to use reasonable force to protect property. The stop was fine and he could yank her out of the car, as unarmed or gun concealed. People try to prevent theft all the time. If she whips out a gun or knife outside the car as a threat, then he can draw and defend himself against death or serious bodily injury, depending on the circumstance.
Per the law if he can retreat safely he must do so. Like if she's still in the truck and whips out a knife while he's a good distance away.
"People have a right to use reasonable force to protect property"
On their property or business or property they
were legally responsible for, on their property or business.
Anything else and you are risking lawsuits.
I'm not a lawyer but I once chased down a shoplifter while I was "on the clock", and restrained him
on a public sidewalk till the police showed up.
I recovered my Bosses property, a six pack of Budweiser 16 oz cans.
Cop told me the only reason I wasn't arrested for assault and various other things they could dream up is
he was a strong, healthy, young, adult male, and I was a minor.
This was in a Hispanic community and I'm a white kid.
Waste of time to deal with it.
:wtf:
-
Depends what happened prior to the video starting and there's still a lot we don't know what was going on. Safer bet would be to follow within reason and guide the police in
Probably not considered brandishing since he's stopping a felony and he could articulate a lot of car thieves posses weapons.
People have a right to use reasonable force to protect property. The stop was fine and he could yank her out of the car, as unarmed or gun concealed. People try to prevent theft all the time. If she whips out a gun or knife outside the car as a threat, then he can draw and defend himself against death or serious bodily injury, depending on the circumstance.
Per the law if he can retreat safely he must do so. Like if she's still in the truck and whips out a knife while he's a good distance away.
Can’t use deadly force to defend property except for a couple of pretty specific situations. Sounds like this probably was NOT one of them.
-
I'm not a lawyer but I once chased down a shoplifter while I was "on the clock", and restrained him
on a public sidewalk till the police showed up.
I recovered my Bosses property, a six pack of Budweiser 16 oz cans.
Cop told me the only reason I wasn't arrested for assault and various other things they could dream up is
he was a strong, healthy, young, adult male, and I was a minor.
This was in a Hispanic community and I'm a white kid.
Waste of time to deal with it.
:wtf:
Sounds like a legal detainment unless you used excessive force after you caught him. However it may have to do with the difficulty of enforcing shoplifting laws. In Hawaii you need continuous observation of the suspect from when they took the item. If you have a break in observation, then the shoplifter has a defense. If they have a defense, then you assaulted an innocent person.
-
Can’t use deadly force to defend property except for a couple of pretty specific situations. Sounds like this probably was NOT one of them.
It depends. If someone swipes your wallet, you can chase after them and keep your gun concealed. If they start shooting at you, it's no longer protection of property, it becomes protection of self.
If instead you chase after them with your gun out, then that turns a bit murky.
-
It depends. If someone swipes your wallet, you can chase after them and keep your gun concealed. If they start shooting at you, it's no longer protection of property, it becomes protection of self.
If instead you chase after them with your gun out, then that turns a bit murky.
Right. At that point, as you say, you’re not defending property with deadly force, you’re defending yourself.
Bottom line: Generally, in Hawaii (or just about anywhere else except maybe Texas), don’t draw your firearm to defend property (unless you’ve read and thoroughly understand HRS 703-306, and you fit into one of the very narrow sets of circumstances in which using deadly force to defend property is ok).
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_XQ3D6IMzU
-
But the vehicle in the article was not the CCW holder's property.
I'm referring to the OP's post.
And I'm questioning his actions as a CCW holder. Were his actions warranted? I say NO.
-
But the vehicle in the article was not the CCW holder's property.
I'm referring to the OP's post.
And I'm questioning his actions as a CCW holder. Were his actions warranted? I say NO.
You can protect the property of another. I heard the CCW guy was somehow related to the owner.
CCW probably went overboard, but depends what happened before the video. Cop doesn't seem concerned the gun is out, there may be a reason for it.
-
You can protect the property of another. I heard the CCW guy was somehow related to the owner.
CCW probably went overboard, but depends what happened before the video. Cop doesn't seem concerned the gun is out, there may be a reason for it.
Still can’t use legally use deadly force unless you meet one of the exceptions in HRS 703-306. I don’t know if any of those exceptions applied in this case, but seems to me they’d be pretty rare.
-
Criminals should have a 3 strike rule, after 3 felony crimes the next one is auto death sentence. Would really cut down crime.
Did you just make that up yourself?
The problem with your plan is there are lots and lots of felonies that are non-violent. In fact, many are statutory felonies with no actual victims involved.
Off the top of my head, I can think of one like that. Recreational drug use/possession. Depending on the state & federal laws, the amount, which drug, and your criminal history, you could be sentenced to more than a year in prison.
Are these the kinds of felonies you are talking about? Or are you mainly including violent crimes with victims involved?
-
Can’t use deadly force to defend property except for a couple of pretty specific situations. Sounds like this probably was NOT one of them.
Drawing a weapon and pointing it at a suspect is not use of deadly force though, actually firing the weapon would be.
If you walked up to a car thief with a bat but didn't swing it would be the same issue with regards to deadly force. So the requirements to use deadly force are not the same as to present a deadly weapon.
-
Criminals should have a 3 strike rule, after 3 felony crimes the next one is auto death sentence. Would really cut down crime.
The supreme court (IIRC) ruled that automatic death penalty sentences are unconstitutional.
-
Death penalty may be a bit extreme for stealing $100 worth of agricultural products.
-
Death penalty may be a bit extreme for stealing $100 worth of agricultural products.
Is that really a felony?
-
Death penalty may be a bit extreme for stealing $100 worth of agricultural products.
Dont steal and it wont be a problem.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Dont steal and it wont be a problem.
Saw a Star Trek: TNG episode where the planet the crew was visiting had a strict set of laws. The enforcement was randomly selected by sectors. If you happened to be in a monitored sector and break the law, you get arrested. If the sector is not being watched, you will not get in trouble. The randomness kept everyone on their toes no matter where they were rather than risk being in the wrong place at the wrong time doing wrong. :geekdanc:
Lt. Wesley Crusher was horsing around playing some game of catch or something, and he accidentally fell headfirst into a gardening plot. There was some minor damage, and the sector just happened to be actively monitored.
Oh, did i mention that the punishment for all infractions regardless of severity was the same?
Death!
After a trial and discussion, the planet's leaders decided they could not make an exception for an outsider, so they scheduled his execution. The dilemma was, of course, whether Picard would break the prime "non-interference" directive, or act to save Wesley from such a disproportionate punishment.
When calling for extreme punishments for others, remember how screwed up our justice system is. It might be you arguing for your own life against bogus charges one day. Nowadays, it's just not enough to actually be innocent to avoid punishment.
-
I remember that episode. Interesting dilemma.
When in Rome, can one expect to be treated using laws other than that of the Romans?
When in Russia, does one expect Russian laws to be differently applied if one was American? Singapore?
Can we expect God given rights listed in the Bill of Rights to be observed in countries other than the USA?
-
I remember that episode. Interesting dilemma.
When in Rome, can one expect to be treated using laws other than that of the Romans?
When in Russia, does one expect Russian laws to be differently applied if one was American? Singapore?
Can we expect God given rights listed in the Bill of Rights to be observed in countries other than the USA?
When in Rome, do what the Romans do...
Sent from my moto g power (2021) using Tapatalk
-
Saw a Star Trek: TNG episode where the planet the crew was visiting had a strict set of laws. The enforcement was randomly selected by sectors. If you happened to be in a monitored sector and break the law, you get arrested. If the sector is not being watched, you will not get in trouble. The randomness kept everyone on their toes no matter where they were rather than risk being in the wrong place at the wrong time doing wrong. :geekdanc:
Lt. Wesley Crusher was horsing around playing some game of catch or something, and he accidentally fell headfirst into a gardening plot. There was some minor damage, and the sector just happened to be actively monitored.
Oh, did i mention that the punishment for all infractions regardless of severity was the same?
Death!
After a trial and discussion, the planet's leaders decided they could not make an exception for an outsider, so they scheduled his execution. The dilemma was, of course, whether Picard would break the prime "non-interference" directive, or act to save Wesley from such a disproportionate punishment.
When calling for extreme punishments for others, remember how screwed up our justice system is. It might be you arguing for your own life against bogus charges one day. Nowadays, it's just not enough to actually be innocent to avoid punishment.
So what did Piccard do?
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
So what did Piccard do?
It gets more complicated. There's a strange ship (entity?) orbiting that the people of the planet call their God.
In order to convince the planet Edo counsel to spare Wesley, he transports one of the counsel leaders to the Enterprise to show what Star Fleet has accomplished.
Apparently their God/Entity has a rule against the people leaving the planet, and now the entire ship's crew is to be executed for the violation.
Picard decided he's not losing his crew over a couple of minor infractions, so he decides to break Wesley out and take his ship out of danger.
However, that strange ship, entity, whatever then demonstrates it can disable the ship, transporters, etc. It has the power to destroy the ship completely if the captain doesn't comply with the execution order.
After a lot of back and forth and strategerizing, the entity eventually grants them a pass and tells them to leave and never return. Kind of an anti-climactic ending.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_(Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation)
-
Is that really a felony?
Theft 2 is a felony. Actually it could go to a lower value.
(c) An aquacultural product or part thereof from premises that are fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or there is prominently displayed on the premises a sign or signs sufficient to give notice and reading as follows: "Private Property", "No Trespassing", or a substantially similar message;
I suppose a thief could steal a talapia from a home aquaponics tank and get the death penalty.
-
Theft 2 is a felony. Actually it could go to a lower value.
(c) An aquacultural product or part thereof from premises that are fenced or enclosed in a manner designed to exclude intruders or there is prominently displayed on the premises a sign or signs sufficient to give notice and reading as follows: "Private Property", "No Trespassing", or a substantially similar message;
I suppose a thief could steal a talapia from a home aquaponics tank and get the death penalty.
3 tilapia on 3 separate occasions.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
The supreme court (IIRC) ruled that automatic death penalty sentences are unconstitutional.
The reason there was they did not differentiate between Violent felonies and property felonies.
I agree with three strikes you are out in the case of violent felonies.
Murder rape, physical assault resulting in ER treatment et al.
Not so much because of car thefts.
:wave:
Automatic death penalty has a place, but I don't trust the government to
do it justly.
:grrr:
-
The reason there was they did not differentiate between Violent felonies and property felonies.
I agree with three strikes you are out in the case of violent felonies.
Murder rape, physical assault resulting in ER treatment et al.
Not so much because of car thefts.
:wave:
Automatic death penalty has a place, but I don't trust the government to
do it justly.
:grrr:
You touched on the problem 3 strike laws are facing. Some were implemented so that it was any three strikes but that ended up hammering drug users and petty crimes a lot and in way that didn't really accomplish much so there is a lot of pushback against these types of laws. In my opinion 3 strike laws should be for certain classes of violent felonies.
-
You touched on the problem 3 strike laws are facing. Some were implemented so that it was any three strikes but that ended up hammering drug users and petty crimes a lot and in way that didn't really accomplish much so there is a lot of pushback against these types of laws. In my opinion 3 strike laws should be for certain classes of violent felonies.
Using some drugs often leads to committing different crimes in order to get money to feed the need for said drugs. So a simple drug arrest/citation today isn't so simple in the long run.
-
Using some drugs often leads to committing different crimes in order to get money to feed the need for said drugs. So a simple drug arrest/citation today isn't so simple in the long run.
What I was getting at was that with drug addiction the deterrent effect is not the same, it is a different dynamic. Often for someone looking for their next high nothing matters as much as getting a hit, the feeling is better than the best sex they ever had so they aren't thinking about trying to avoid jail. I don't think we can solve our crime problem by just locking up someone for decades on their third drug offense. From a simple logistics side, I don't think we can afford the financial cost. I think it is better to hammer the ones who choose violent approaches to feed their drug habits.