This is regarding the murder of a woman at the Pearlridge parking lot by her domestic abuser while on a TRO.  Mother is pushing for immediate arrest and tougher penalties for TRO violations.

Doubt it would work as the person will just bail out right away or be released due to no jail space.  Or other criminals will be released to make room.  And they would need a tougher penalty than murder and suicide to try prevent the tragedy from happening.

I'm pretty sure if the woman had a gun, the murder wouldn't have occurred.

‘Enough is enough’: Family of woman fatally shot by husband in 2023 push for stricter TRO laws
https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2024/08/13/enough-is-enough-family-woman-fatally-shot-by-husband-2023-push-stricter-tro-laws/

Maybe I'm not the sharpest knife in the kitchen block, but ...

A person seriously contemplating murder is not afraid of the legal consequences.  If that worked, there would be no more murders.

"Immediate arrest and tougher penalties for TRO violations" wii not stop violence if it happens on first time violation.

How about immediate permits to acquire and CCW's for applicants?  Done by HPD in 1 day.  Person files a TRO and when it gets approved, the next day, goes to HPD and takes a "crash course" on CCW and handgun safety to get a permit to acquire.  Goes to gun shop the next day and buys a handgun.

But, I do think that none of the above should be required at all and someone shouldn't need a PTA/CCW permit to exercise a right.  But there's no way law makers would go for that.

How about immediate permits to acquire and CCW's for applicants?  Done by HPD in 1 day.  Person files a TRO and when it gets approved, the next day, goes to HPD and takes a "crash course" on CCW and handgun safety to get a permit to acquire.  Goes to gun shop the next day and buys a handgun.

But, I do think that none of the above should be required at all and someone shouldn't need a PTA/CCW permit to exercise a right.  But there's no way law makers would go for that.

You obviously haven't been paying attention.  it's been repeated here that some studies show that the existence of a firearm in the home means it's more likely to be used in a domestic violence situation.  The state's not going to voluntarily permit a gun in a domestic violence case that's already had issued a TRO.

I agree there needs to be a streamlined and compressed process for anyone choosing to defend themselves (the victim, not the offender  ).

But, if they really want to ensure safety, then instead of a TRO, they would put an ankle monitor on them and roll 5-Oh when the monitor is near the complainant.  I guess that means they need to also monitor the victim.  The extra benefit is HPD can identify whether the victim is being stalked.  The victim doesn't always see the stalker following them.

Just spitballing....

You obviously haven't been paying attention.  it's been repeated here that some studies show that the existence of a firearm in the home means it's more likely to be used in a domestic violence situation.  The state's not going to voluntarily permit a gun in a domestic violence case that's already had issued a TRO.

I agree there needs to be a streamlined and compressed process for anyone choosing to defend themselves (the victim, not the offender  ).

But, if they really want to ensure safety, then instead of a TRO, they would put an ankle monitor on them and roll 5-Oh when the monitor is near the complainant.  I guess that means they need to also monitor the victim.  The extra benefit is HPD can identify whether the victim is being stalked.  The victim doesn't always see the stalker following them.

Just spitballing....

Is the gun the victims gun or the TRO persons gun?  This would also mean that the person is in violation of the TRO if they're inside the victims home.  Which is why I refer back to my comment of the victim strapping up.  Maybe even a lesser use of force law if a TRO is approved and the victim felt like their life was in danger, but not scrutinized as much.  Like once the TRO is violated, the victim can be blastin.  And at the same time, when the respondent is presented the TRO, let them know that this now means the petitioner can start blasting and won't be held to the same standard as the current use of deadly force law, but a lesser standard, a more lenient one.  Weapons can be used if both live in the home in a DM situation before a TRO is issued.  I'm talking about after one is issued.  Unless the 2 are still allowed to live in the same household once 1 has a TRO issued to them.  I assume that 1 party moved out in order to comply with the TRO.

The ankle monitor is an interesting option as well.  Would any rights by the respondent be violated though?  As a TRO can be filed without their knowledge and they do not have a chance to address any accusations until after they were served it.  Knew a guy who was going thru a custody battle and his baby mama claimed he was going to harm her and grabbed her arm "violently".  Cops showed up to his moms (lived with parents) home and she said he's been in Vegas for a month.  And at the time when the baby mama said she was grabbed, he was in Vegas.  Later, the TRO was rescinded when he proved he was not on island when the claimed "grab" happened. Nothing happened to his baby mama for lying.  I bring up this story because if the ankle monitor was implemented, and say the guy was home from his trip to Vegas, then I assume that when the TRO is served, along with it will be an ankle monitor to be attached.

Is the gun the victims gun or the TRO persons gun?  This would also mean that the person is in violation of the TRO if they're inside the victims home.  Which is why I refer back to my comment of the victim strapping up.  Maybe even a lesser use of force law if a TRO is approved and the victim felt like their life was in danger, but not scrutinized as much.  Like once the TRO is violated, the victim can be blastin. And at the same time, when the respondent is presented the TRO, let them know that this now means the petitioner can start blasting and won't be held to the same standard as the current use of deadly force law, but a lesser standard, a more lenient one.  Weapons can be used if both live in the home in a DM situation before a TRO is issued.  I'm talking about after one is issued.  Unless the 2 are still allowed to live in the same household once 1 has a TRO issued to them.  I assume that 1 party moved out in order to comply with the TRO.

The ankle monitor is an interesting option as well.  Would any rights by the respondent be violated though?  As a TRO can be filed without their knowledge and they do not have a chance to address any accusations until after they were served it.  Knew a guy who was going thru a custody battle and his baby mama claimed he was going to harm her and grabbed her arm "violently".  Cops showed up to his moms (lived with parents) home and she said he's been in Vegas for a month.  And at the time when the baby mama said she was grabbed, he was in Vegas.  Later, the TRO was rescinded when he proved he was not on island when the claimed "grab" happened. Nothing happened to his baby mama for lying.  I bring up this story because if the ankle monitor was implemented, and say the guy was home from his trip to Vegas, then I assume that when the TRO is served, along with it will be an ankle monitor to be attached.

Yeah, like nobody will ever consider, "I'm so sorry, honey.  Why don't you come over.  We'll talk, and maybe even have a little booty-call?"

Once inside the doorway, BLAM!  TRO = instant acquittal.  Don't think that's a good feature to add to a TRO.

If a TRO can infringe on 2A rights and even 4th and 14th A rights, I don't see how an ankle monitor does any worse.  I say, if they are a threat, lock them up after a hearing.  Monitoring is a "virtual jail cell," with the obvious benefit of being allowed to go to and from work, live in your own place, eat what you want, etc. 

Different degrees of rights violations when you compare the alternatives.

As for the Vegas story, when people know they are being watched, they tend to act better.  Not going to give the victim more ammunition against them if they can't deny doing it.  And the promise of not only quicker police responses but also evidence you were there can be a good deterrent.