Armed citizen assists a cop with felony stop.   I can see issues with an untrained person shooting when they shouldn't or adding complexity in a situation for cops.  But it will be a godsend for cops in dire situations or in remote areas where backup is a long ways away.



Another story.  HPD Chiefs worst dream, armed citizen defends 2 cops


Deeter story on saving the cops
https://www.fox13seattle.com/news/i-drop-an-entire-magazine-fox-13-news-talks-to-man-who-helped-save-whatcom-co-deputies

No way in hell I would ever assist a cop who is working.
I wouldn't get near them. They are too dangerous.
I would assist one that was down and needed help as I would help any human being.
 

No way in hell I would ever assist a cop who is working.
I wouldn't get near them. They are too dangerous.
I would assist one that was down and needed help as I would help any human being.
 

same here.  A person helping a cop accepts all the risk and county isn't going to back you up.

I'd stay behind cover observing and jump in if the cops life is in imminent danger and there's no backup.

same here.  A person helping a cop accepts all the risk and county isn't going to back you up.

I'd stay behind cover observing and jump in if the cops life is in imminent danger and there's no backup.

....
Yeah that sounds about right.

not in sue-happy-Hawaii. They will parade the criminals' family around and show how good a person that person was. UNICEF volunteer. Count the whales volunteer but needed to do crime to live here in Hawaii. The criminal's lawyer would probably sue everyone that looked in the direction of the crime.

not in sue-happy-Hawaii. They will parade the criminals' family around and show how good a person that person was. UNICEF volunteer. Count the whales volunteer but needed to do crime to live here in Hawaii. The criminal's lawyer would probably sue everyone that looked in the direction of the crime.

Does HI or federal law have anything that would make the good Samaritan immune from aiding police? As a CCW holder, this is a scenario one has to be ready for. 
 
Say you see a grandma getting jacked up, odds are she is the victim.  But say its 1 guy getting jacked up, how do you know he didn't rape the other guys daughter or something like?  1 cannot assume the "victim" is the good guy.

But as to police, they're obvisouly in uniform. But how do you know that there other guy isn't defending himself from a bad cop or a cop violating his rights, etc...There are many vids showing cops not liking it when people know the law and their rights, then to have said cop arrest the person and take them to jail. Only for them to be released with no charges.  If anyone not a cop did this, then this is called kidnapping.

What I'm getting at with the examples and if there is no immunity law, Ren brings up a valid point.  You will get sued cause the bad guy "is a good guy" according to his family.  And I'll bet the cop or any victim won't help pay for your lawyer bills.  So in todays sue happy day and age, it's best to call 911 and mind your own business.  But everyone makes their own choices, so if one wants to help, then go for it. Just don't end up like the NYC train incident where the guy in a city that 9/11 took place threatened everyone and said "i'm gonna take all you with me". Then gets choked out and dies by a good samaritan.  NY decided to charge him.  And theres the cops doing their job by arresting him, processing, and keeping him in jail.

Does HI or federal law have anything that would make the good Samaritan immune from aiding police? As a CCW holder, this is a scenario one has to be ready for. 

it doesn't fall under good Samaritan.

https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol13_ch0601-0676/HRS0663/HRS_0663-0001_0005.htm#:~:text=(a)%20Any%20person%20who%20in,or%20wanton%20acts%20or%20omissions.

Does HI or federal law have anything that would make the good Samaritan immune from aiding police? As a CCW holder, this is a scenario one has to be ready for. 

Refer to 703-304 (4) (b)(i)   
§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.
  (4)  The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
  (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;

and

703-304 (5) (b)(ii)   
     (5)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
     (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.

Refer to 703-304 (4) (b)(i)   
§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.
  (4)  The use of force is not justifiable under this section:
  (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;

and

703-304 (5) (b)(ii)   
     (5)  The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this section if:
     (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.

I meant immune from civil liability.

Hawaii has no civil protections for self defense.  a bunch of other states do have varying degrees of protections from civil lawsuits.

Cops have qualified immunity and the county will cover for them.  But if you assist the cops, you are on your own.  Now there's a difference in helping to physically restrain someone.  You accidentally break their arm and maybe they'll sue you for $50,000, an amount you can recover from.  If you wrongly (or even rightly) shoot and kill them the family can sue you for millions.

You have to know what the situation is, use of force procedures, and the laws of self defense.  Then decide if you're willing to take the risk of getting involved.

Litigation has gotten so out of hand that I wouldn't be surprised one counter sues the criminal's parents for bringing a piece of sh*t into the world.

If you wrongly (or even rightly) shoot and kill them the family can sue you for millions.