Apologies for my ignorance and my inability to see the article in today’s Star-Advertiser (https://www.staradvertiser.com/2024/09/04/hawaii-news/state-law-required-arrest-of-waianae-attackers-killer-hpd-chief-logan-says), but could someone please reference the state law (referenced by HPD Chief Logan) that requires the arrest of an individual who uses deadly force to defend themselves or others as specified in HRS 703-304 and HRS 703-305?

Understandably this Waianae Valley Road shooting initially was a chaotic, complicated crime scene and that physical evidence (gunshot residue, clothing, etc.) must be preserved. 

My question is for more of a clear cut self-defense use of deadly force where it is undisputed by evidence and/or witnesses that the person was justified in using such force. 

For example, if someone (let’s say a drugged out home invader) busted down the back door of my house (where there is no duty to retreat per HRS 703-304 and 305), refused to leave upon repeated command, was in close proximity and about to physically attack me or my family with a dangerous instrument.  I feared for my safety so therefore I now had to resort to using deadly force.

Under Chief Logan’s headline statement, it would be mandatory that I be arrested, booked, and possibly held for up to 48-hours in the HPD cellblock without charges.

What state law is Chief Logan referring to?  If other mainland jurisdictions (I understand that this is Hawaii where the Aloha Spirit prevails) can make the determination that the person was justified in using deadly force without the arrest process taking place, then why would Hawaii be that much different?

If having a CCW permit means being automatically arrested after a bonafide self-defense use of deadly force, then I guess I better sign up with US Law Shield or USCCA.

The issue really is Hawaii doesn't have a "Stand Your Ground Law".  If it did, then for law enforcement, it's really simple.

Either way, when you discharge a firearm on Private Property, and defending yourself,  you could be still be taken to "Civil" court.  CCW Holders, make sure you have some sort of "insurance" coverage...like AOR, CCSafe etc.

It's sad that it had to go this way BUT you do need to protect yourself and your family.  And this is what the legal gun owner did on his private property.

Prayers for everyone.

Aloha!

 

First of all HPD defines detainment and arrest as the same thing.  As in you're not free to leave.

An arrest for any shooting incident would be required, at least for a few hours.  If a police officer came upon a shooting scene with a guy holding a gun and a dead guy with a knife how do they determine who is the good guy/bad guy.  If the guy holding the gun says they shot in self defense, does the police officer take their word for it and they can just leave?

In this case it's clearer with what happened and witnesses.  However hypothetically if the resident guy (carnate) went to Silvas house and threatened him with a gun before incident occured.  Although Carnate shot in self defense, he started or escalated the incident and has some legal liability.

It would be reasonable for Carnate to be under arrest at least for a few hours for police to determine what happened.  The issue is he was held for 48 hours which is too long.

Also this has nothing to do with stand your ground.  The only difference is you can shoot without retreating if it can be done safely and is not at the residence.

Not only was the incident at Carnates residence, but people were getting shot at the time and not able to retreat safely.

Also this has nothing to do with stand your ground.  The only difference is you can shoot without retreating if it can be done safely and is not at the residence.

Not only was the incident at Carnates residence, but people were getting shot at the time and not able to retreat safely.

It’s not as clean cut when it comes to Hawaii prosecutors.

If Silva was shooting, stopped, and was walking back to his residence, and then Carnates shot him, he’s gonna need to do some heavy lifting in court (probably civil; less so for criminal) to justify shooting and articulate that there was still a threat present. It’s a different story if Carnates shot Silva while he was shooting.

There’s too many variables that are unknown to determine whether or not the shooting was legal. Reasonable? Of course. Legal by Hawai’i standards? That’s another question.

The whole point of arresting everyone "just to be safe" is to intimidate us out of using our 2a rights

Hopefully Carnate learns his lesson and lets the mass murder finish the job next time.

The Spirit of Aloha demands our blind obedience 

It's actually simple.  The Cops will take you to the station to do an "interview."  That's where they will try to get you to provide specific details of what everyone was doing before, during and after you fired the weapon.  They will first have you tell the story several times at the scene.  Then they'll compare that story to what you tell them in the interview.

They'll ask about relationships, any animosity between the parties, which way everyone was facing, where you kept your gun, whether or not the dead guy had a weapon, whether he was pointing the weapon at you when you fired, etc, etc.

The best thing you can do is have a speech ready: 

I was in fear for my life (and the lives of others).  I used the force I thought was necessary to stop the threat.  I'd like to cooperate completely in your investigation, but first I'd like to contact a lawyer and have them present during the interview.

So, you've given them the bird's eye view of what happened without getting into details.  You've told them you're willing to help their investigation.  And you've protected your rights by requesting a lawyer.

The worst thing you can do is tell a story at the scene, then go to the station to have a parade of Cops ask you to tell it again over and over.  That's one method they use to find out if you're not being 100% truthful -- looking for inconsistencies among the versions of the story you've told.

One thing you can also do is request to be taken to the hospital for an examination.  You're going to be in shock emotionally.  Asking to be checked out will delay their interrogation so you have more time for the adrenaline and your memory to settle. 

Give yourself time to get your words straight, because anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

If they take u to the station, its no longer an interview, but an interrogation.

This is assuming u didnt ask them for a ride and volunteer to be "interviewed".


Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

Partially correct with the following . . .

 "The Cops will take you to the station to do an "interview."  That's where they will try to get you to provide specific details of what everyone was doing before, during and after you fired the weapon. 
They will first have you tell the story several times at the scene.  Then they'll compare that story to what you tell them in the interview.
They'll ask about relationships, any animosity between the parties, which way everyone was facing, where you kept your gun, whether or not the dead guy had a weapon, whether he was pointing the weapon at you when you fired, etc, etc."

The best thing you can do is SAY NOTHING BUT
"request to be taken to the hospital"
"Asking to be checked out will delay their interrogation so you have more time for the adrenaline and your memory to settle."  AND TO CALL A LAWYER

Miranda states "Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you in a court of law".
Says nothing about "Anything you say can and will be used IN YOUR DEFENSE in a court of law

Why would you say anything ?

I think it’s Mas who said to give them the Birds Eye overview so they can’t  say you were uncooperative

Partially correct with the following . . .

 "The Cops will take you to the station to do an "interview."  That's where they will try to get you to provide specific details of what everyone was doing before, during and after you fired the weapon. 
They will first have you tell the story several times at the scene.  Then they'll compare that story to what you tell them in the interview.
They'll ask about relationships, any animosity between the parties, which way everyone was facing, where you kept your gun, whether or not the dead guy had a weapon, whether he was pointing the weapon at you when you fired, etc, etc."

The best thing you can do is SAY NOTHING BUT
"request to be taken to the hospital"
"Asking to be checked out will delay their interrogation so you have more time for the adrenaline and your memory to settle."  AND TO CALL A LAWYER

Miranda states "Anything you say can and will be used AGAINST you in a court of law".
Says nothing about "Anything you say can and will be used IN YOUR DEFENSE in a court of law

Why would you say anything ?

Because you don't want to appear to be stonewalling.  Tell them in general terms how the shooting happened using the correct, legally acceptable terms:  "in fear for your life," 'you used that force you deemed necessary to stop the threat," and "I want to cooperate, but i'd like an attorney present first."

Nothing in those 3 phrases have any details about the incident -- just broad descriptions that play into a legal justification of self defense.

If you clam up and refuse to make any statements, it won't help you as much.  You're being detained or arrested on suspicion of a homicide whether or not it was justified.  At that point, you are required to identify yourself.  If you intend to stay quiet by exercising your 5th amendment rights, you still have to tell them that.  "I wish to have an attorney present when being questioned.  Until then, i will be invoking my right to remain silent under the 5th amendment."

I seem to remember a recent case that SCOTUS heard which basically required that the detainee verbally invoke their 5th amendment protection rather than remaining 100% silent.  if you fail to formally invoke the cops have no duty to stop questioning you.

Not saying anything at all can be looked at as obstructing the investigation.  Nip that in the bud by telling them you want to cooperate, and you will once you have a lawyer present.

If you choose not to answer any of the questions, you risk several things. First, you
may be considered uncooperative by police who are trying to help. There is a big
difference between an uncooperative subject, and someone who want's to give a
detailed statement only after speaking with an attorney. Being uncooperative and
refusing to answer even basic questions also makes it difficult for police to catch
suspects, collect evidence or contact witnesses.

https://www.concealedcarry.com/survival/questions-talk-to-police-after-shooting/

BTW, in today's technological world, it's important to remember that no matter where you go, there's probably video of you arriving, doing whatever you did, and leaving.

Anything you offer in a statement can be potentially verified or disputed using a variety of cameras.

So, the fewer details you give in the beginning, the better.  You might be mistaken, have memory holes from the traumatic experience, or alter the truth slightly because you think it makes you sound better. 

Inconsistencies will destroy you.  Better to take a ride to the hospital to be checked out and say nothing about the details until you talk to a lawyer.

An arrest is never really mandatory aside from a court order/warrant. Officers have to find probable cause to arrest you, that's the mandatory part.

So after even a justified use of deadly force officers are not mandated to arrest you but it is pretty standard practice because they are going off of probable cause that you caused another person's death. Evidence that the shooting was justified usually comes up later in the investigation which is why people are usually arrested and released later when the evidence shows a justified shooting. So the initial beat cop is going to gather that you shot the other person intentionally or knowingly and that is enough to arrest for murder because the murder statute just says if you intentionally or knowingly kill someone. When officers later get the video and eye witness statements, that is when it can be established that the shooting was justified and the exemption of legal force is applied. If the case was immediately clear as day a justified shooting there is a possibility they wouldn't arrest you but most shootings are not so obvious.

If you decide to CCW a firearm, insurance would be advised.

So in other words guilty until proven innocent

Makes you wonder how cops got such a bad reputation even though they are so "reasonable"

So in other words guilty until proven innocent

Makes you wonder how cops got such a bad reputation even though they are so "reasonable"

Yeah.  LE calls it probable cause.  It's probable bullsh*t.

Mahalo to everyone for their insight.  It looks like LE will probably detain and/or arrest the person using deadly force in self defense until LE sorts out all the facts.  Providing LE with minimal “high level cooperation” and requesting to speak with an attorney before making a complete statement is good advice.  I feel for anyone who is arrested and locked up pending LE completion of the initial investigation having no emotional support, no knowledge of what is happening, or no way of freely speaking with anyone on the outside when they had no choice but to defend themselves.  Guilty until proven innocent seems like that’s the way it’s going to be until a decision to charge or release is made.
 

Yeah.  LE calls it probable cause.  It's probable bullsh*t.

Yup, they will find a reason, any reason.

It amazes me how many here think cops are your "friend".
In Hawaii you are presumed guilty until the DA doesn't prosecute.
Even if they think you are in the right,  they will "run you through the system"
just to make a point and cost you lots of time and money.
Civilians don't have US constitutional rights here in the Hawaii government's opinion.
The only rights you have is what the Hawaiian government grants you.
 
Be polite and ask for a lawyer.
 

So in other words guilty until proven innocent

Not at all.

Another way to see it is if there's an active shooter incident in a building.  Police arrive and see a person walk out of the building with a firearm.  When confronted, the person wants to leave and doesn't want to stay around to answer questions.

Do police let them go or arrest them?

Remember an arrest is preventing someone from leaving against their will.  Even for a minute.