So I went to Magnum today to test out my new Glock 22 and while I was there I watched Art and a woman engage in a conversation about the justifiable use of deadly force.

I thought about it and wondered just how many people really know when you are justified to use deadly force.

Question: Do you know when you are justified to use deadly force?

No cheating and looking it up

Answer the question then you can read the Hawaii statutes regarding the justified use of deadly force here:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_Ch0701-0853/HRS0703/HRS_0703-0304.htm

Here's how I understand it to be:

You must be at home, work or place of sojurn.
You or someone else must be in danger of death, great physical harm, kidnap or rape.

Gonna go check my answers now.

when you can't leave or escape.

Without looking it up, I believe it's when you feel there is imminent danger of death/grievous bodily harm/rape/sodomy.  I don't believe the state has a "stand your ground" law, so you would be required to attempt escape and or barricade yourself from the attacker before lethal force is permissible.

Hence I believe that if you feel deadly force is warranted, shoot to stop the threat. None of that Hollywood BS of shooting them in the leg, you shoot till you need to reload. When the police arrive, make it one person's (your) account of the situation, not two (you and the wounded perp)...

when you can't leave or escape.

In your home you have no legal duty or obligation to retreat, leave or escape.

Quote from: Jaydawg on June 08, 2011, 05:38:45 AM

when you can't leave or escape.

In your home you have no legal duty or obligation to retreat, leave or escape.

+1

Quote from: Jaydawg on June 08, 2011, 05:38:45 AM

when you can't leave or escape.

In your home you have no legal duty or obligation to retreat, leave or escape.

If I remember correctly, without cheating, I swear there was still a part  in the pseudo-castle-doctrine that was passed/revised in 2010 that said something about "reasonable chance to escape". There was no duty to escape, like make so and so many attempts at escaping before committing to deadly force, but there was a part that said something about if a reasonable opportunity to escape is available, you have to take it.

I'm going to eccho stego on the use of deadly force. Though it is a slippery slope. We all remember Carlisle's reluctant response when questioned if shooting the shotgun-to-the-face-beat-to-death asshole would have been justified.

You are justified in the use of deadly force if you reasonably fear great bodily injury or death, forcible rape, sodomy, or kidnapping, to yourself or an innocent third party. You may not have instigated the situation, although if it is a mutual combatant siutuation and your intent was to just "fight" and the other person elevates it to where you fear death or great bodily injury, you may defend yourself with the force necessary, up to and including deadly force, to protect yourself. Be aware that the term "deadly force" does not solely mean the use of a firearm. Any weapon used can be a "deadly implement" and the intent of the actor will be the key determinant of whether the force was "deadly" or not. Also, you are obligated to retreat, if it can be done in complete safety. Except you have no duty to retreat in your home.
You must also, if involved in a dispute over an object, give up that object rather than escalate the situation to the point of deadly force.

Quote from: Jaydawg on June 08, 2011, 05:38:45 AM

when you can't leave or escape.

In your home you have no legal duty or obligation to retreat, leave or escape.

We're both right. 

The use of force is not justifiable when the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession; except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work. 

Quote from: Kingkeoni on June 08, 2011, 08:22:53 AM

Quote from: Jaydawg on June 08, 2011, 05:38:45 AM

when you can't leave or escape.

In your home you have no legal duty or obligation to retreat, leave or escape.

We're both right. 

The use of force is not justifiable when the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession; except the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work.

Exactly as you have stated. "NO OBLIGATION TO RETREAT"

ok ok.  I get it.

My definition that I know -

Deadly force -- that force a persons uses with purposes of causing, who knows or should know, creates a substantial risk of causing serious death or serious bodily harm.  Deadly force is only justified as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed, or could not reasonably be employed.  Authorized for Self-defense; and in defense of others, when a reasonble person would believe that someone would wish to defend themselves with lethal force. Just because you see a felony assault in progress, i.e. two people duking it out -- doesn't mean you blast the guy.  Now, when the other guy is down, and getting curbbed... that situation has changed to when a reasonable person would probably wish to defend themselves.


To me the most important thing is, when you would rather be judged by 12 instead of carried by six... deadly force is your best option.

Deadly force can be used when there is a substantial fear of death, severe bodily injury, or rape/sodomy to yourself or another person.  Castle Law dictates that you do not have to retreat in your home, place of business, or place of sojourn; all other places you must exhauset all options for retreat before using deadly force (i.e. be cornered or trapped somewhere). 

Deadly force can be used when there is a substantial fear of death, severe bodily injury, or rape/sodomy to yourself or another person.  Castle Law dictates that you do not have to retreat in your home, place of business, or place of sojourn; all other places you must exhauset all options for retreat before using deadly force (i.e. be cornered or trapped somewhere). 

Almost, but you may be obligated to retreat in your place of business....

§703-304  Use of force in self-protection.  (1)  Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-308, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person on the present occasion.

     (2)  The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy.

     (3)  Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action.

     (4)  The use of force is not justifiable under this section:

     (a)  To resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or

     (b)  To resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if:

         (i)  The actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; or

        (ii)  The actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily injury.

     (5)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
     (a)  The actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

     (b)  The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

         (i)  The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and

        (ii)  A public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties, or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape, is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform his duty, effect the arrest, or prevent the escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom the action is directed.

     (6)  The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime.

     (5)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
     (a)  The actor, with the intent of causing death or serious bodily injury, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or

     (b)  The actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that:

         (i)  The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and...

Ah interesting.  According to this, you cannot use deadly force against a co-worker?  So in the case of a disgruntled employee like Brian Uyesugi in the Xerox shootings, his co-workers would not have legally been allowed to stand their ground and defend themselves had they been armed?   Something seems flawed with that logic.   

Hypothetically, If you were a boss or management of a business and a disgruntled employee comes in armed and with violent intent, and you verbally fire them, would you then be allowed to stand your ground and fight back, since technically, once you fire them, it is no longer their "place of work"? 

It seems that even if you have the H.R.S. Right in front of you, the laws are still unclear.

It appears as if the lawmakers have left them open to interpretation.

I wonder why that would be? (implied sarcasm)