As someone who has been falsely accused of theft a time or two, the problem with Hawaii's "proportional force" laws as they pertain to property rights is that they allow somebody to initiate force after making a snap judgment on a situation. (At least that is my understanding.)

Imagine you're walking along a trail and somebody who is certain you just stole their avocadoes runs behind you, pepper sprays you, and starts beating you and rummaging through your stuff looking for avocadoes.

You think what the hell is this, and are concerned over your life because some whacko is attacking and robbing you, so you stab them.

Now who is at fault for this situation?

I don't know the best system but everybody should be extremely wary of initiating ANY force. If "nonlethal force" or "proportional force" or whatever can reasonably be responded to with lethal force, is it really nonlethal force to begin with? I'm philosophically inclined to put all force into the lethal force category, because initiating force is intrinsically escalatory.

As someone who has been falsely accused of theft a time or two, the problem with Hawaii's "proportional force" laws as they pertain to property rights is that they allow somebody to initiate force after making a snap judgment on a situation. (At least that is my understanding.)

Imagine you're walking along a trail and somebody who is certain you just stole their avocadoes runs behind you, pepper sprays you, and starts beating you and rummaging through your stuff looking for avocadoes.

You think what the hell is this, and are concerned over your life because some whacko is attacking and robbing you, so you stab them.

Now who is at fault for this situation?

I don't know the best system but everybody should be extremely wary of initiating ANY force. If "nonlethal force" or "proportional force" or whatever can reasonably be responded to with lethal force, is it really nonlethal force to begin with? I'm philosophically inclined to put all force into the lethal force category, because initiating force is intrinsically escalatory.

Unless the avocados are visible, I can see this being assault.  So if you use your knife, you better be able to articulate why you used deadly force.

No law is perfect as shit happens.

As someone who has been falsely accused of theft a time or two, the problem with Hawaii's "proportional force" laws as they pertain to property rights is that they allow somebody to initiate force after making a snap judgment on a situation. (At least that is my understanding.)

Imagine you're walking along a trail and somebody who is certain you just stole their avocadoes runs behind you, pepper sprays you, and starts beating you and rummaging through your stuff looking for avocadoes.

You think what the hell is this, and are concerned over your life because some whacko is attacking and robbing you, so you stab them.

Now who is at fault for this situation?

I don't know the best system but everybody should be extremely wary of initiating ANY force. If "nonlethal force" or "proportional force" or whatever can reasonably be responded to with lethal force, is it really nonlethal force to begin with? I'm philosophically inclined to put all force into the lethal force category, because initiating force is intrinsically escalatory.

LE and jury can only go off what you knew at the time of the incident.  Someone sprayed you and beat you while incapacitated is all that you knew.

If you call the Cops because someone at a bus stop grabbed your phone and tried to run with it, and nobody who witnessed it is willing to stick around to give a statement, the thief can claim the phone is theirs.

The Cop isn't going to try and determine whose phone it is at the scene.  He's going to take down both party's info and tell you to file a lawsuit to get it back.  It's a case of your word against the thief's.

Cops are not considered peace officers.  They are law enforcement.  Unless they saw the crime happen, they just write a report and leave the resolution up to the courts.

Your bus stop scenario is not uncommon but there are ways that the cops can establish who the phone belongs to. One of the two people claiming the phone knows the phone number, they know the passcode, they know the contents of the phone, etc. Criminals stopped with stolen property will often claim it is actually theirs if they think that will not get them arrested. If the cop has both parties and the item being disputed then the item generally gets taking into evidence if ownership cannot be immediately determined.

Witnesses are not required to make an arrest for theft. Sometimes there may be a question of whether it was theft or not and those types of cases can be referred to the prosecutor. A good example could be if a cashier didn't give you enough change. Did he steal your change or was it a mistake?

The claim over property has to be legitimate is the point, merely claiming ownership of property doesn't mean the other person cannot use force against you if you take it. If a tow truck driver tried to repo my car I could physically stop him because my car is paid off and no one has legal claim to it. But if I wasn't paying my loan and the bank sent the repo guy then I cannot use force because there was a legitimate claim on the car.

As someone who has been falsely accused of theft a time or two, the problem with Hawaii's "proportional force" laws as they pertain to property rights is that they allow somebody to initiate force after making a snap judgment on a situation. (At least that is my understanding.)

Imagine you're walking along a trail and somebody who is certain you just stole their avocadoes runs behind you, pepper sprays you, and starts beating you and rummaging through your stuff looking for avocadoes.

You think what the hell is this, and are concerned over your life because some whacko is attacking and robbing you, so you stab them.

Now who is at fault for this situation?

I don't know the best system but everybody should be extremely wary of initiating ANY force. If "nonlethal force" or "proportional force" or whatever can reasonably be responded to with lethal force, is it really nonlethal force to begin with? I'm philosophically inclined to put all force into the lethal force category, because initiating force is intrinsically escalatory.

This is a good example of why a person needs to be certain that they are using force against the right person. The avocado owner opens himself up to criminal and civil charges if he uses force on the wrong person. There is no simple answer because in court there are lots of little factors that are going to be looked at to determine if the avocado owners response was reasonable to what he knew at the time. Generally though I would say the avocado owner would be expected to use other mechanisms to get his avocados back before resorting to violence such as telling you to give the avocados back which would give you the chance to show you don't have any avocados.

A better example might be found property. Imagine I leave my phone on the bench at a park and you find it. You pick it up with the intention of taking it to the police station to turn in but I see you taking my phone. I can't just start hitting you because I know you have my phone. Now even if you are suspicious that it is my phone so you refuse to hand it back but say you want to call 911 to turn it into cops then the reasonable thing would be for me to wait for the cops.

You as a hiker in this scenario would be entirely justified in using force for self defense as long as it is appropriate to the amount of force used on you. This is why someone with a CCW must make sure they are drawing their firearm on the right individual and communicating effectively.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law

In the context of property law it can be restated as:

"In a property dispute (whether real or personal), in the absence
of clear and compelling testimony or documentation to the contrary,
the person in actual, custodial possession of the property is
presumed to be the rightful owner.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

So, unless your name is displayed on the lock screen (mine is), and the phone is turned on, a cop at the scene isn't going to start dialing numbers or viewing photos to guess whether it's your phone. 

Any identifying info you rely on to prove ownership needs to be visible and in plain view.  The person in possession is within their rights to refuse to assist the cops in the investigation, and it's not impossible for someone to know the number to that phone if they saw it on the lock screen (also on mine) or overheard the person recite the number on a call.

I put my name and number on the lock screen in case it's lost to make returning it very easy.

Possession is nine-tenths of the lawhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

So, unless your name is displayed on the lock screen (mine is), and the phone is turned on, a cop at the scene isn't going to start dialing numbers or viewing photos to guess whether it's your phone. 

Any identifying info you rely on to prove ownership needs to be visible and in plain view.  The person in possession is within their rights to refuse to assist the cops in the investigation, and it's not impossible for someone to know the number to that phone if they saw it on the lock screen (also on mine) or overheard the person recite the number on a call.

I put my name and number on the lock screen in case it's lost to make returning it very easy.

I've seen multiple post on SSH that the stolen phone was located via GPS and the owner called 911 to have a cop get it for them and make an arrest. Their common reply was that it's not HPD's duty.  Then sometimes followed by, "it's a civil matter".  And "We can't help you get your phone back".

I've seen multiple post on SSH that the stolen phone was located via GPS and the owner called 911 to have a cop get it for them and make an arrest. Their common reply was that it's not HPD's duty.  Then sometimes followed by, "it's a civil matter".  And "We can't help you get your phone back".

Exactly.  They write a report and tell you to take it to civil court.

Maybe there are some cops that will go the extra mile to settle the matter at the scene, but that's not the official procedure.

Possession is nine-tenths of the lawhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law

So, unless your name is displayed on the lock screen (mine is), and the phone is turned on, a cop at the scene isn't going to start dialing numbers or viewing photos to guess whether it's your phone. 

Any identifying info you rely on to prove ownership needs to be visible and in plain view.  The person in possession is within their rights to refuse to assist the cops in the investigation, and it's not impossible for someone to know the number to that phone if they saw it on the lock screen (also on mine) or overheard the person recite the number on a call.

I put my name and number on the lock screen in case it's lost to make returning it very easy.

You aren't wrong but there are also ways of dealing this to where it isn't going to just be "sorry, he has possession so it is his". So imagine a scenario where ownership of a bag is in dispute and one party is in possession of the bag. The person who doesn't have possession of the bag says the cop has permission to search the bag but the person who does have the bag says no permission to search the bag. The officer can take custody of the bag as evidence and both parties information. The officer can then seek a search warrant to open the bag in which case the contents will tell you who was telling the truth. There will certainly be some instances where it will be impossible to establish ownership but then you can leave it in evidence for the two parties to fight it over in court.

The other more quick and dirty way of going about it is just opening the bag at the scene to identify ownership. The reason an officer can do this is that a thief has no expectation of privacy to a stolen bag. So if you call cops saying your bag was stolen and they detain the alleged suspect, the cops can open the bag because you are giving permission and the alleged thief cannot claim illegal search. Now if it turned out you were lying and it was their bag then this may taint anything else the cop would find in the bag but that's a separate issue.

Your suggestion of having the number on the screen is a good one though.

I've seen multiple post on SSH that the stolen phone was located via GPS and the owner called 911 to have a cop get it for them and make an arrest. Their common reply was that it's not HPD's duty.  Then sometimes followed by, "it's a civil matter".  And "We can't help you get your phone back".

That is the excuse of a lazy cop or one who doesn't know what they are doing. Anyone who gets this response should request a supervisor. There are situations where it will be difficult or impossible to recover the phone but it is not a civil matter and they should be at least attempting to get the phone back.

You aren't wrong but there are also ways of dealing this to where it isn't going to just be "sorry, he has possession so it is his". So imagine a scenario where ownership of a bag is in dispute and one party is in possession of the bag. The person who doesn't have possession of the bag says the cop has permission to search the bag but the person who does have the bag says no permission to search the bag. The officer can take custody of the bag as evidence and both parties information. The officer can then seek a search warrant to open the bag in which case the contents will tell you who was telling the truth. There will certainly be some instances where it will be impossible to establish ownership but then you can leave it in evidence for the two parties to fight it over in court.

The other more quick and dirty way of going about it is just opening the bag at the scene to identify ownership. The reason an officer can do this is that a thief has no expectation of privacy to a stolen bag. So if you call cops saying your bag was stolen and they detain the alleged suspect, the cops can open the bag because you are giving permission and the alleged thief cannot claim illegal search. Now if it turned out you were lying and it was their bag then this may taint anything else the cop would find in the bag but that's a separate issue.

Your suggestion of having the number on the screen is a good one though.

Or, the cop puts the bag down has something in their eye and is blinded for a few seconds. Comes back and if contents are on the ground and open, he can determine who's bag it is.

That is the excuse of a lazy cop or one who doesn't know what they are doing. Anyone who gets this response should request a supervisor. There are situations where it will be difficult or impossible to recover the phone but it is not a civil matter and they should be at least attempting to get the phone back.

They never asked for a supervisor, but I would add a "s" to cop(s) as this has happened enough times to not be isolated to 1 cop.

They never asked for a supervisor, but I would add a "s" to cop(s) as this has happened enough times to not be isolated to 1 cop.

Very true, I have met more lazy cops than I care to admit.

Or, the cop puts the bag down has something in their eye and is blinded for a few seconds. Comes back and if contents are on the ground and open, he can determine who's bag it is.

Security guards frequently search shoplifter's bags and this is perfectly legal as long as the cop wasn't there watching it or telling the guard to do it. 

Security guards frequently search shoplifter's bags and this is perfectly legal as long as the cop wasn't there watching it or telling the guard to do it. 

Security guards aren't the government. So they don't fall under the 4th amendment.  So a cop being there to witness it isn't relevant. I guess that proxy searches though would violate someone's 4th.