If I were on that jury I would acquit, unless there was some kind of crazy unmentioned circumstance that the homeowner had some kind of criminal intent going on.   I don't give a rip what Hawaii law says, Hawaii law is dead wrong and against the lawful citizen.

NOT GUILTY

I wonder if any prospective jurists have ever been asked what their views on self-defense are?  Or if they are firearms owners.

When I last served, it was a unauthorized operation of a motorized vehicle (aka driving a stolen car).  They asked the pool if anyone had their car stolen previously, to which I responded that I did.  The judge asked if I could be impartial and I said I could (I actually ended up getting more from insurance than I paid for it).  Both sides asked me questions, but to my surprise, the defense went after three others. 

My wife ends up on jury duty quite a bit.  The attorneys always try to find someone who can be impartial first and hear out the details before making a decision. 

Surprised the media hasnt done an interview with the "victims" family. I can only imagine the heartbreaking story of how he was trying to provide for his family. All he wanted was to steal a TV and not harm anyone.

Surprised the media hasnt done an interview with the "victims" family. I can only imagine the heartbreaking story of how he was trying to provide for his family. All he wanted was to steal a TV and not harm anyone.

he's a good boi!  only gets a felony arrest sometimes, has a big heart and makes ppl laff, lets loose the heartiest chee hoo after only a 12 pack green bottles, loves his 3 kids from 2 different mamas and only occasionally beats them up, collects welfare as hard as can, but no can afford to buy 65" tv for kids ps4, etc.

My wife ends up on jury duty quite a bit.  The attorneys always try to find someone who can be impartial first and hear out the details before making a decision.

I’ve heard that engineers are often eliminated because we tend to see things in black and white, which is mostly the case for me. I wasn’t the only one though, at least in the last jury I was in. The group had to get clarification on what exactly reasonable doubt is. Reasonable left a LOT of room for judgement in this particular case as the prosecution”s case was pretty much “liar, liar, pants on fire”.

Surprised the media hasnt done an interview with the "victims" family. I can only imagine the heartbreaking story of how he was trying to provide for his family. All he wanted was to steal a TV and not harm anyone.

They ambulance chaser attorney probably told them not to do interviews.

Its important to look at the notes and the commentary after the law itself, It has been re-summarized to make it easier/clearer to understand.

It occurred outside the persons home, and the home owner had other options (retreat into the home) then deadly force.  By approaching and saying he has a gun the home owner provoked the situation causing the need for deadly force. Both of which nolify the use of deadly force in Hawaii (not saying agree but the law seems pretty clear)

A couple of issues.

I didn't see anywhere in the commentary a definition for home. I think a legal argument could be made that a persons small enclosed back yard is part of his home. No way to tell how a jury would vote on that.

The second issue is that I don't think saying he has a gun constitutes provoking the situation. As I read the law on use of force, provoking to me appears to be situations where an individual instigated a fight. For example, I punch you then you beat me up. I provoked the fight and I can't use deadly force against you. Him announcing to likely burglars that he has a gun is not provoking a deadly force situation because he isn't instigating violence and he isn't doing anything unreasonable or illegal. Him announcing he has a weapon does not provoke violence upon himself.

I just like how the cops tell people things like "don't resist", let them violate you, your family and take and your property, and hopefully you wont get hurt.  No you're not allowed to carry and defend yourself in public, and can only do so in private under certain circumstances.  YET they follow an entirely different set of rules...

Hows about when cops are about to enter a potentially dangerous situation, they put their guns in the car trunk?  When some crazy homeless person assaults them, they curl up into a fetal position and let the assailant do what they please?  Simply applying the same circumstances and how the public is expected to behave to other, more privileged individuals just shows the hypocrisy of the laws and how much they've trodden on our 2A rights.

I bet most cops were giving high fives (figuratively) to the homeowner.

I bet most cops were giving high fives (figuratively) to the homeowner.

I'd agree, but what cops feel personally differs from HPD and hawaii law standpoint.  Similar to how a lot of the cops working firearms registration are generally cool, but must enforce hawaii law.

I bet most cops were giving high fives (figuratively) to the homeowner.

did you?

I bet most cops were giving high fives (figuratively) to the homeowner.

If this happened in Lubbock TX the Sheriff would probably ask you how many rounds you fired so he can replace them.

A couple of issues.

I didn't see anywhere in the commentary a definition for home. I think a legal argument could be made that a persons small enclosed back yard is part of his home. No way to tell how a jury would vote on that.

The second issue is that I don't think saying he has a gun constitutes provoking the situation. As I read the law on use of force, provoking to me appears to be situations where an individual instigated a fight. For example, I punch you then you beat me up. I provoked the fight and I can't use deadly force against you. Him announcing to likely burglars that he has a gun is not provoking a deadly force situation because he isn't instigating violence and he isn't doing anything unreasonable or illegal. Him announcing he has a weapon does not provoke violence upon himself.

The CCW course I took in Florida stressed that once you mentioned that you have a gun or display one, you now become the aggressor.

If this goes to trial, we will finally have a definition of "residence".

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

The CCW course I took in Florida stressed that once you mentioned that you have a gun or display one, you now become the aggressor.

When did you take your FL CCW class?  A new law (nicknamed The Warning Shot Law) was signed by the FL Governor in June 2014.

It does amend Chapter 776, F.S. and specifies that the use of deadly force justifications contained therein apply to
threatened uses of force as well as actual uses of force. It is really about the broader area of Self Defense and the
use of deadly force. It allows for the threatened use of force without falling under the rule of Florida’s “10-20-Life”
law, which many believe was not intended to be used in self defense cases. What the new bill and impending law
does is to make it legal in the state of Florida for one to effectively display a weapon as a threat in a self-defense
situation IF proper justifications are met.

https://www.usacarry.com/threaten-use-deadly-force-fire-warning-shots/

Floridians who fire a warning shot or threaten to use a gun could avoid criminal prosecution under a law signed
Friday by Gov. Rick Scott.

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/21/gov-rick-scott-signs-warning-shot-bill/11204137/

Warning shot law? Wow! 

A warning shot is a waste of ammo.

A warning shot is a waste of ammo.

Not if the warning shot is center mass.   

A warning shot is a waste of ammo.

warning shot = translation for a  miss

I hit 3 out of 4 shot?  Yeah, that one that I didn't hit was a warning 

When did you take your FL CCW class?  A new law (nicknamed The Warning Shot Law) was signed by the FL Governor in June 2014.

https://www.usacarry.com/threaten-use-deadly-force-fire-warning-shots/

http://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2014/06/21/gov-rick-scott-signs-warning-shot-bill/11204137/

Me thinks the warning shot is a great idea..... shoot the SOB dead first then fire the warning shot.... 

I think the FL warning shot law was passed after a woman fired a warning shot in her home.  She had a stalker and had a TRO on the guy.  He was outside in his car watching many her times.  He broke into the home one day and she fired into the ceiling and he ran.  She was arrested and faced many years behind bars (IIRC 20 years).

This was shortly after the good kid Trayvon Martin was shot by Zimmerman.

So apparently she didn't articulate well why she fired, and she should have shot him instead.  Now he knows she has a gun, which she didn't have before he was stalking her.  And might come back with a weapon.