Yup
HNN interview had an officer saying give them what they want, they will leave and no one gets hurt

nobody move nobody get hurt...


in the Gulick robbery, an elderly woman was ATTACKED. It didn't appear she was resisting the robbers. The criminal wasn't provoked. The criminal was irrational. How can anyone predict the outcome of any crime?
With that same logic, why don't we just ask criminals to turn themselves in? We can argue that they will eventually get caught - so why not turn yourselves in? How about a criminal database where we can track them?  LEOs in Hawaii wouldn't need guns and in light of seemingly domestic issues there is a lot of argument to disarm LEOs.

I don't think that the HOPE program is to blame here.  The HOPE program is aimed at individuals that have low risk of recidivism and it seems to do quite well.  High risk individuals are not allowed into the program.

The last time i sat through a hearing where the director of the Hawaii Department of Public Safety testified, she had stated that it costs somewhere north of $40,000 a year to keep an individual in prison in Hawaii.  if i remember correctly, i think that the number was somewhere around $118 per day per individual.

Keep in mind that this was a few years ago, and the leadership has since changed, but i can't imagine that the cost has lessened at all.  Sure we can continue to lock people up, but it just becomes costly for the tax payers to incarcerate individuals that are not deterred by the prison time.  On the same token, there's no point in locking up individuals for extended periods of time if they are at a low risk of committing another crime.  To lock up low-risk individuals is just a waste of taxpayer money, and that's where the HOPE program comes in--to save taxpayer money.

of course i don't want to debate that with you since i'm sure you could defend your position with hyperbole or anecdotal evidence.  I'm coming from the perspective of policy; the statistics of the HOPE program and the cost savings to the state kind of speak for themselves.

That's part of the problem. We spend way to much money making sure that inmates are comfortable and enjoy benefits that make their stay as pleasant as possible. Maybe if prison was an unpleasant consequence, criminals would make an attempt to stay out of them.

Craig B

"if its any other group that NEEDS CCW its seniors.
sickening and infuriating to watch. 
shut down HOPE. We need the scales to tip back towards LAW ABIDING citizens. WTF are judges and legislators thinking about when HOPE and other leniency was/is afforded to criminals?"

Most of HRS 134 is trying to deprive you of having guns.  But at your Residence, place of business, and place of Sojourn, you can open carry,
conceal carry, and per HRS 663-1.57 use your weapon, if you follow the rules, and not worry about being sued.  Since there are LEO's on this site I won't say anything
other than If I was a store owner and I was being robbed, the LEO responding  would be picking up dead people, arresting me,
I have my lawyer on speed dial, and the arresting officer will be on desk duty till the civil trial is over and I am a millionaire, for
the LEO's false arrest.

From kitv this morning :
"Hpd does not approve the use of weapons to defend these stores"

I'm sure HPD also probably does not approve of civilians driving anything bigger or with more power than a Leaf or Prius (sorry if anyone here drives these).

That's a great point.
But I can see that the circumstances are very different. Personal harm vs. material possessions. One is not as easily replaceable, hence the use of force is more justified when one's personal safety is in direct line of sight of the criminal.

"Personal harm vs. material possessions" and "when one's personal safety is in direct line of sight of the criminal." ? 

Did you not see the stranglehold/neck breaker on that senior. 

I consider that "personal harm"  "in direct line of sight of the criminal". 

That dude should be charged with attempted murder, and a his partners accessories to such. If not, there is a more serious problem with Hawaii's justice system. (As if we didn't know that already)

HPD spokesperson who 'doesn't approve of armed citizen protecting themselves' is a big part of the problem as well.  Might as well give these criminals the go ahead and blessings while their at it.

That's part of the problem. We spend way to much money making sure that inmates are comfortable and enjoy benefits that make their stay as pleasant as possible. Maybe if prison was an unpleasant consequence, criminals would make an attempt to stay out of them.

Craig B

it would be fun to discuss that further, but it's too much of a tangent.  i'm not going to express whether i agree with you or not, but just know that the living situation of the inmates (as in inmate rights) are based on a reading of the same Constitution that recognizes the Second Amendment.  if we're talking about policy, this really isn't the proper venue for that--and there are usually no right or wrong when it comes to policy so a debate might be pointless.

"if its any other group that NEEDS CCW its seniors.
sickening and infuriating to watch. 
shut down HOPE. We need the scales to tip back towards LAW ABIDING citizens. WTF are judges and legislators thinking about when HOPE and other leniency was/is afforded to criminals?"

Most of HRS 134 is trying to deprive you of having guns.  But at your Residence, place of business, and place of Sojourn, you can open carry,
conceal carry, and per HRS 663-1.57 use your weapon, if you follow the rules, and not worry about being sued.  Since there are LEO's on this site I won't say anything
other than If I was a store owner and I was being robbed, the LEO responding  would be picking up dead people, arresting me,
I have my lawyer on speed dial, and the arresting officer will be on desk duty till the civil trial is over and I am a millionaire, for
the LEO's false arrest.

while it is true that you can open carry in certain places, just know that you might make yourself either criminally or civilly liable at the moment you unholster to address a situation.

as examples, reference HRS sections 707-713, 707-714, 707-715, 707-716, and 707-717.  there could be other sections, but i didn't bother looking more in depth.

whether the prosecutor decides to charge you is an entirely different story, but i think that an LEO would be entirely within the law to arrest you.

while it is true that you can open carry in certain places, just know that you might make yourself either criminally or civilly liable at the moment you unholster to address a situation.

as examples, reference HRS sections 707-713, 707-714, 707-715, 707-716, and 707-717.  there could be other sections, but i didn't bother looking more in depth.

whether the prosecutor decides to charge you is an entirely different story, but i think that an LEO would be entirely within the law to arrest you.

Police will arrest for any homicide, they can hold a person for the period of 48 hours with out a charge.  During which time, hopefully, your loved ones are not assaulted/murdered by the felon's co-conspirators.   As for the other mentioned HRS,  should they press those charges in such a self defense situation, further proof this state holds it's law abiding citizens in utter contempt.  They would side with a felonious criminal before they consider your rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When I mentioned the lawful arrest, I meant that an LEO would only need to justify their arrest with probable cause. I think a firearm discharge within the contemplation of 707-714 would be sufficient for the arrest.

Heavies, based on my reading of 707-714 and one of the cases I read that interprets an older version of that statute, I think that any intentional discharge of a firearm in a populated/residential area (which is pretty much everywhere on Oahu) makes the shooter liable of a misdemeanor. I don't think that there are any affirmative defenses available to people that are tried under 707-714. Realistically speaking, I don't think that a prosecutor would actually try someone for it, but it's technically still an option. So, if I'm right, there's almost no legal way to protect oneself with a firearm without criminal liability, even if it is in ones home against an armed intruder.

When I mentioned the lawful arrest, I meant that an LEO would only need to justify their arrest with probable cause. I think a firearm discharge within the contemplation of 707-714 would be sufficient for the arrest.

Heavies, based on my reading of 707-714 and one of the cases I read that interprets an older version of that statute, I think that any intentional discharge of a firearm in a populated/residential area (which is pretty much everywhere on Oahu) makes the shooter liable of a misdemeanor. I don't think that there are any affirmative defenses available to people that are tried under 707-714. Realistically speaking, I don't think that a prosecutor would actually try someone for it, but it's technically still an option. So, if I'm right, there's almost no legal way to protect oneself with a firearm without criminal liability, even if it is in ones home against an armed intruder.

Roger that

When I mentioned the lawful arrest, I meant that an LEO would only need to justify their arrest with probable cause. I think a firearm discharge within the contemplation of 707-714 would be sufficient for the arrest.

Heavies, based on my reading of 707-714 and one of the cases I read that interprets an older version of that statute, I think that any intentional discharge of a firearm in a populated/residential area (which is pretty much everywhere on Oahu) makes the shooter liable of a misdemeanor. I don't think that there are any affirmative defenses available to people that are tried under 707-714. Realistically speaking, I don't think that a prosecutor would actually try someone for it, but it's technically still an option. So, if I'm right, there's almost no legal way to protect oneself with a firearm without criminal liability, even if it is in ones home against an armed intruder.

Then we switch to
Title 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
it is a federal crime to do what you suggest they can do.

Then we switch to
Title 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law
it is a federal crime to do what you suggest they can do.

in my overgeneralized hypothetical, it would not be a federal crime for a police officer to arrest an individual based on probable cause that the arrestee was in violation of a Hawaii statute.

no offense, but 18 usc 242 isn't intended to do what you think it does.  first off, i'm pretty certain that the courts have ruled that 18 usc 242 does not provide a private right of action.  don't believe me?  well here is a list of cases:

18 USCS §§ 241 and 242 provide no basis for civil suit under federal Civil Rights Act. Aldabe v Aldabe (1980, CA9 Cal) 616 F2d 1089, 29 FR Serv 2d 1559 (criticized in Christy v Robinson (2002, DC NJ) 216 F Supp 2d 398).

Authority for inferring civil cause of action from criminal statute is absent where there is congressional silence as to issues. United States v City of Philadelphia (1980, CA3 Pa) 644 F2d 187.

There is no private right of action under 18 USCS § 242. Robinson v Overseas Military Sales Corp. (1994, CA2 NY) 21 F3d 502, 64 BNA FEP Cas 638, 64 CCH EPD P 42973.

18 USCS § 242 does not create private right of action; it is criminal provision for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. Williams v Halperin (1973, SD NY) 360 F Supp 554.

Neither 18 USCS § 241 nor § 242 create private rights of action for their violation. Moriani v Hunter (1978, SD NY) 462 F Supp 353.

Statutes providing criminal penalty for violation of constitutional rights do not provide for private right of action. Sauls v Bristol-Myers Co. (1978, SD NY) 462 F Supp 887, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1529, 18 CCH EPD P 8824.

There is no civil cause of action for violation of 18 USCS §§ 241, 242, 371 or 1001. Fiorino v Turner (1979, DC Mass) 476 F Supp 962.

18 USCS § 242 which is criminal analog to 42 USCS § 1983 does not create private right of action. Powell v Kopman (1981, SD NY) 511 F Supp 700, 81-1 USTC P 9383, 48 AFTR 2d 5167.

No private right of action inheres in 18 USCS §§ 241, 242. Pawelek v Paramount Studios Corp. (1983, ND Ill) 571 F Supp 1082.

There is no private right of action under 18 USCS § 242. Fundiller v Cooper City (1984, SD Fla) 578 F Supp 303, revd on other grounds (1985, CA11 Fla) 777 F2d 1436.

18 USCS §§ 241, 242 do not create civil cause of action. Richcreek v Grecu (1985, SD Ind) 612 F Supp 111, 85-2 USTC P 9520, 56 AFTR 2d 5732.

18 USCS §§ 241, 242, 245 relate to deprivation of civil rights, however there is no private right of action under any of these statutes. Dugar v Coughlin (1985, SD NY) 613 F Supp 849.

Neither 18 USCS § 242 nor 18 USCS § 1583, both of which are criminal statutes, provides private right of action. McLaughlin v CitiMortgage, Inc. (2010, DC Conn) 726 F Supp 2d 201.

To extent plaintiff employee sought to pursue claim under 18 USCS § 242 against defendant employer, that was criminal statute that did not create private right of action, and claim was dismissed. Kheru Ra El Imani Bey v UPS, Inc. (2012, ED NY) 2012-2 USTC P 50572, 110 AFTR 2d 6039.


ok, so now assuming that you could get a federal prosecutor to even take on the case against an LEO from a state or political subdivision, i doubt that you'd get a conviction against that officer.  keep in mind that the statute that you referenced was originally intended to be an anti-discrimination statute.  most of the cases relating to the prosecution under this law involve situations in which the officer is clearly beyond his duty/responsibility--think of this as applicable only to rodney king or ferguson types of situations.  as such, the proper interpretation of the statute is to include the element of "willfulness" among the other three, which are much easier to prove. "Willfulness" is a very high standard and extremely difficult to prove.

but we're going entirely beyond the point of the original topic, so i apologize for entertaining the digression.  the thing that scares me is that there are so many people that are just looking for reasons to just start popping off shots.  i'm not saying that there aren't situations in which it could be warranted, but part of being a responsible gun owner is also knowing when the use of force is appropriate. 

as a corollary, it's also important for people to know the proper amount of force to use rather than simply escalating a situation into a deadly force encounter.  the reason why i feel the need to mention this is because i think that you'd have a hard time forgiving yourself if one of your stray bullets struck an innocent bystander.  on that same token, if that innocent bystander was me me or someone i cared for, i would hold you just as accountable as the initial perpetrator.

I remember taking a class for CCW in AZ.
The cases that favored criminals were enough to think twice about carrying or shooting someone.
I remember one case where a burglar was stuck in a home he burglarized for about 2 days. He sued the homeowner that he burglarized for a million and won.

call 911. and wait...

I remember taking a class for CCW in AZ.
The cases that favored criminals were enough to think twice about carrying or shooting someone.
I remember one case where a burglar was stuck in a home he burglarized for about 2 days. He sued the homeowner that he burglarized for a million and won.

that's actually pretty common, or more common that you would hope.  although criminal laws are state-specific and vary greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even amongst the states that have adopted the model penal code, there seems to be a general consensus across the nation that it is illegal for someone to use deadly force to protect property.  what i mean by that is, it is illegal for someone to set deadly booby-traps in their homes to injure or kill intruders.

i always wondered if it had something to do with allowing access to first responders and other emergency personnel.  it's pretty clear that you wouldn't want firefighters or EMS to be killed by the unattended claymore while responding to a legitimate emergency.

in my overgeneralized hypothetical, it would not be a federal crime for a police officer to arrest an individual based on probable cause that the arrestee was in violation of a Hawaii statute.

no offense, but 18 usc 242 isn't intended to do what you think it does.  first off, i'm pretty certain that the courts have ruled that 18 usc 242 does not provide a private right of action.  don't believe me?  well here is a list of cases:

18 USCS §§ 241 and 242 provide no basis for civil suit under federal Civil Rights Act. Aldabe v Aldabe (1980, CA9 Cal) 616 F2d 1089, 29 FR Serv 2d 1559 (criticized in Christy v Robinson (2002, DC NJ) 216 F Supp 2d 398).

Authority for inferring civil cause of action from criminal statute is absent where there is congressional silence as to issues. United States v City of Philadelphia (1980, CA3 Pa) 644 F2d 187.

There is no private right of action under 18 USCS § 242. Robinson v Overseas Military Sales Corp. (1994, CA2 NY) 21 F3d 502, 64 BNA FEP Cas 638, 64 CCH EPD P 42973.

18 USCS § 242 does not create private right of action; it is criminal provision for deprivation of civil rights under color of law. Williams v Halperin (1973, SD NY) 360 F Supp 554.

Neither 18 USCS § 241 nor § 242 create private rights of action for their violation. Moriani v Hunter (1978, SD NY) 462 F Supp 353.

Statutes providing criminal penalty for violation of constitutional rights do not provide for private right of action. Sauls v Bristol-Myers Co. (1978, SD NY) 462 F Supp 887, 18 BNA FEP Cas 1529, 18 CCH EPD P 8824.

There is no civil cause of action for violation of 18 USCS §§ 241, 242, 371 or 1001. Fiorino v Turner (1979, DC Mass) 476 F Supp 962.

18 USCS § 242 which is criminal analog to 42 USCS § 1983 does not create private right of action. Powell v Kopman (1981, SD NY) 511 F Supp 700, 81-1 USTC P 9383, 48 AFTR 2d 5167.

No private right of action inheres in 18 USCS §§ 241, 242. Pawelek v Paramount Studios Corp. (1983, ND Ill) 571 F Supp 1082.

There is no private right of action under 18 USCS § 242. Fundiller v Cooper City (1984, SD Fla) 578 F Supp 303, revd on other grounds (1985, CA11 Fla) 777 F2d 1436.

18 USCS §§ 241, 242 do not create civil cause of action. Richcreek v Grecu (1985, SD Ind) 612 F Supp 111, 85-2 USTC P 9520, 56 AFTR 2d 5732.

18 USCS §§ 241, 242, 245 relate to deprivation of civil rights, however there is no private right of action under any of these statutes. Dugar v Coughlin (1985, SD NY) 613 F Supp 849.

Neither 18 USCS § 242 nor 18 USCS § 1583, both of which are criminal statutes, provides private right of action. McLaughlin v CitiMortgage, Inc. (2010, DC Conn) 726 F Supp 2d 201.

To extent plaintiff employee sought to pursue claim under 18 USCS § 242 against defendant employer, that was criminal statute that did not create private right of action, and claim was dismissed. Kheru Ra El Imani Bey v UPS, Inc. (2012, ED NY) 2012-2 USTC P 50572, 110 AFTR 2d 6039.


ok, so now assuming that you could get a federal prosecutor to even take on the case against an LEO from a state or political subdivision, i doubt that you'd get a conviction against that officer.  keep in mind that the statute that you referenced was originally intended to be an anti-discrimination statute.  most of the cases relating to the prosecution under this law involve situations in which the officer is clearly beyond his duty/responsibility--think of this as applicable only to rodney king or ferguson types of situations.  as such, the proper interpretation of the statute is to include the element of "willfulness" among the other three, which are much easier to prove. "Willfulness" is a very high standard and extremely difficult to prove.

but we're going entirely beyond the point of the original topic, so i apologize for entertaining the digression.  the thing that scares me is that there are so many people that are just looking for reasons to just start popping off shots.  i'm not saying that there aren't situations in which it could be warranted, but part of being a responsible gun owner is also knowing when the use of force is appropriate. 

as a corollary, it's also important for people to know the proper amount of force to use rather than simply escalating a situation into a deadly force encounter.  the reason why i feel the need to mention this is because i think that you'd have a hard time forgiving yourself if one of your stray bullets struck an innocent bystander.  on that same token, if that innocent bystander was me me or someone i cared for, i would hold you just as accountable as the initial perpetrator.

At the risk of being boring.
you would have to do  18 usc 242 as Qui Tam.  18 usc 242 is mainly and successfully
used by whistle blowers.
I took classes and concealed carried for many years in Washington state.
I have used guns to protect my home and people from harm. I do not run around madly waving
guns around.  I do not miss when I shoot.
Hawaii's big problem is the assumption that guns owners are
barely in control idiots, like the police are portrayed to be in some places.
What you have told me is Hawaii is a place where you have to get the
governments permission to buy and own a gun. If you use a gun to
protect yourself  you are a criminal.

 If you do have to protect yourself,
kill the perp, dig a hole, bury them , clean up, and go on with life.  If
sued,  kill the entire Plaintiff family and let God sort it out.
Hope you don't mind the sarcasm.
But you have given us  lots of good information, that gun owners in Hawaii need
to know.  Be very afraid.  The US constitution does not apply in Hawaii.

At the risk of being boring.
you would have to do  18 usc 242 as Qui Tam.  18 usc 242 is mainly and successfully
used by whistle blowers.
I took classes and concealed carried for many years in Washington state.
I have used guns to protect my home and people from harm. I do not run around madly waving
guns around.  I do not miss when I shoot.
Hawaii's big problem is the assumption that guns owners are
barely in control idiots, like the police are portrayed to be in some places.
What you have told me is Hawaii is a place where you have to get the
governments permission to buy and own a gun. If you use a gun to
protect yourself  you are a criminal.

 If you do have to protect yourself,
kill the perp, dig a hole, bury them , clean up, and go on with life.  If
sued,  kill the entire Plaintiff family and let God sort it out.
Hope you don't mind the sarcasm.
But you have given us  lots of good information, that gun owners in Hawaii need
to know.  Be very afraid.  The US constitution does not apply in Hawaii.

I'm not really sure how to respond to your post.  yes, i did give my interpretation of the law in my previous posts.  take it for what it is.  you can take what i said to heart or you can choose to ignore it--it's not my decision.

Hawaii law is not Washington state law so the things that you did or were able to do there might carry civil or criminal penalties here.  not only is the law different, but so is the culture.  don't interpret this post as me defending the law or advocating for change because i'm intentionally withholding my opinion; that would be a policy debate and this is the wrong thread for that.

regarding your comment about the use of a "qui tam" provision, i don't think that applies to actions brought under 18 usc 242 since i don't think an applicable qui tam provision exists.  sure, you can disagree with me all you want, but i think you'll get laughed out of court since this hypothetical has little to do with fraud, whistleblowers, or savings for the federal government.  i respect the fact that you probably disagree.

again, we're super far away from the original topic.

glad they caught four suspects.