And beat up three women at the wrong house

A BB gun and ten rounds is not enough


https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2026/03/02/caught-camera-10-men-allegedly-mob-maui-women-their-own-home/

Things got hairy in the garage.

Utah seems a bit out of the neighborhood.

Stupid move to bring out a BB gun.  For all they knew, at least one might have had a real gun.  Don't bluff unless you know they can't call you.

Why were there 10 guys?  Because they only had one lifted Tacoma!   

And beat up three women at the wrong house

A BB gun and ten rounds is not enough


https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2026/03/02/caught-camera-10-men-allegedly-mob-maui-women-their-own-home/

Semi-auto shotgun solves this problem.

Maybe first round over their heads.

If that doesn’t work and they advance on you - well then, it’s clearly open season on your property.

They could have just as easily been dead as they were injured enough to go to the hospital….

Great for drones too.

Semi-auto shotgun solves this problem.

Maybe first round over their heads.

If that doesn’t work and they advance on you - well then, it’s clearly open season on your property.

Bad advice.  If you feel threatened to the point of aiming a weapon at someone, you should go ahead and pull the trigger while it's aimed at them.

Warning shots have been used by prosecutors to convict victims with charges of assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful discharge of a firearm, reckless endangerment, etc.  If you didn't fire at the attacker, then your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others.  Purely deductive reasoning, but it's how they can try to get you.

So, it you have to shoot, shoot.  Don't talk -- and don't fire a warning.

Bad advice.  If you feel threatened to the point of aiming a weapon at someone, you should go ahead and pull the trigger while it's aimed at them.

Warning shots have been used by prosecutors to convict victims of assault with a deadly weapon, unlawful discharge of a firearm, etc.  If you didn't fire at the attacker, then your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others.  Purely deductive reasoning, but it's how they can try to get you.

So, it you have to shoot, shoot.  Don't talk -- and don't fire a warning.

“We were all just having a good time, and then I heard yelling from up the road,” Barner-Fujishiro said. “I heard them yelling up the road, and I heard them yelling Crip, Crip, Crip.”

Shortly after, Barner-Fujishiro said a group of about 10 men crowded into the garage, yelling a name at her and her friend.“

Seems there was a bit of distance here, doesn’t there.

If so why feel compelled to start executing people if they are already on your property and you have the option to legally do so, or not?

More specifically, do you not believe that a gang of 10 individuals advancing on you constitutes “immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily injury?

It sure as hell does.

So this argument of yours is pure bullshit:

“If you didn't fire at the attacker, then your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others.”

In this scenario, at distance, with that kind of weapon (and assuming you knew how to use it) why submit to fear and begin killing people if you have an option.

Cops commonly attempt no lethal methods, if possible.

Anyway, He who I will have to answer to in the end is the judge, and if I knew I had a chance not to kill, but chose to do so anyway - I know what that judgment will be.

So thanks, but no thanks.

“We were all just having a good time, and then I heard yelling from up the road,” Barner-Fujishiro said. “I heard them yelling up the road, and I heard them yelling Crip, Crip, Crip.”

Shortly after, Barner-Fujishiro said a group of about 10 men crowded into the garage, yelling a name at her and her friend.“

Seems there was a bit of distance here, doesn’t there.

If so why feel compelled to start executing people if they are already on your property and you have the option to legally do so, or not?

More specifically, do you not believe that a gang of 10 individuals advancing on you constitutes “immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily injury?

It sure as hell does.

So this argument of yours is pure bullshit:

“If you didn't fire at the attacker, then your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others.”

In this scenario, at distance, with that kind of weapon (and assuming you knew how to use it) why submit to fear and begin killing people if you have an option.

Cops commonly attempt no lethal methods, if possible.

Anyway, He who I will have to answer to in the end is the judge, and if I knew I had a chance not to kill, but chose to do so anyway - I know what that judgment will be.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Neither of us was there, so you're making assumptions based on nothing more than news reports.  Is it your opinion that the news is always complete, accurate and will always be a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions about who was where, how far away they were, etc, etc?

it's a simple premise.  if you feel threatened to the point of brandishing a firearm, then you must have been in fear for your life.  Unless the threat suddenly lies flat on the ground with their hands in plain sight, I would have to say there's not much room for assuaging my fear of severe bodily harm or death. if i draw a gun, it's with to intent to stop the threat, not warn them like out of some TV show/movie script.

Claim BS all you want, but I know what i'm talking about.  People who fire warning shots are putting themselves at risk of conviction when their actions fail to rise to the level of lawful self defense.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marissa-alexander-florida-woman-jailed-for-firing-a-warning-shot-now-free/

Neither of us was there, so you're making assumptions based on nothing more than news reports.  Is it your opinion that the news is always complete, accurate and will always be a reasonable basis for drawing conclusions about who was where, how far away they were, etc, etc?

it's a simple premise.  if you feel threatened to the point of brandishing a firearm, then you must have been in fear for your life.  Unless the threat suddenly lies flat on the ground with their hands in plain sight, I would have to say there's not much room for assuaging my fear of severe bodily harm or death. if i draw a gun, it's with to intent to stop the threat, not warn them like out of some TV show/movie script.

Claim BS all you want, but I know what i'm talking about.  People who fire warning shots are putting themselves at risk of conviction when their actions fail to rise to the level of lawful self defense.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/marissa-alexander-florida-woman-jailed-for-firing-a-warning-shot-now-free/

Post your JD.

Otherwise shut up.

Warning shots are not a thing for police and civilians for several reasons.  Risk of someone else getting hit.  Criminal charges.  If you have time to do a warning shot, then you're not in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  You can only shoot when the threat is imminent.  Instead show a confident and competent presence with the firearm and give strong verbal commands.   What I find lacking in most CCW classes is those skills.  Most people have never used a strong voice to give orders to someone.

Post your JD.

Otherwise shut up.

Such a mature and well thought out response.

No wonder you have to apologize on here so often for being a jerk.  Seems like that's your default mode until you realize how much of an ass you made of yourself.

i shut up when i decide it's time to walk away.  Until then, you don't get to tell me what to do -- ever.

If 10 guys went to the wrong house, that means there is a "right" house nearby.
Things that make you go,...hmmm?

Warning shots are not a thing for police and civilians for several reasons.  Risk of someone else getting hit.  Criminal charges.  If you have time to do a warning shot, then you're not in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  You can only shoot when the threat is imminent.  Instead show a confident and competent presence with the firearm and give strong verbal commands.   What I find lacking in most CCW classes is those skills.  Most people have never used a strong voice to give orders to someone.

The Front Sight class i took was a 5 day defensive handgun class geared toward CCW.  In fact, you could do all the practice exercises leading up to the final tests using open carry, but you had  to draw from concealment for the test.  I used a loose jacket. Many chose a vest made for CCW concealment.  All students had to use an OTW concealed carry holster, so a long shirt tail or outer garment was necessary.

We had a few exercises where we yelled commands at our targets telling them to "stop", "don't come any closer", and "i will shoot you."  Of course, yelling at a stationary target isn't the same as having the threat continue approaching while ignoring your commands.  But, the instructors did stress using a loud, confident voice to make sure the threat understood what you want and what might happen.

As far as warning shots, i haven't seen any videos, news reports, training guides, firearms instructors, legal cases or other sources that support the firing of a shot that isn't intended to stop a serious threat.  As you said, firing over someone's head means the round (or shot) will travel beyond your control and eventually either hit something in flight or fall to earth possibly hitting something or someone you didn't intend to hit.  It's an irresponsible position to argue in favor of.

i don't blame anyone for believing a warning shot might diffuse a situation and avoid having to actually shoot another person, but nobody who's actually taken a good training class will call the arguments against it "bullshit."  At least no honest person, that is.  Statistically, the majority of firearm self defense situations end with no shots fired.  The mere presentation of a firearm is usually enough to stop a threat who isn't determined to cause you harm.   it's the primary factor as to why the number of self defense incidents is impossible to put a number on. When someone is threatening you, and you draw a gun, that person will probably take off running if they are smart.  That, or they immediately back down and carefully walk away.  Those incidents seldom get reported to the police unless it's an ongoing problem.

I agree that when it's your life in the balance and your judgement is involved, you can choose to use proportional force to defend yourself.  i just can't see how a warning shot would be proportional to any given threat level. Did the other guy fire a warning shot over your head first?  How do you know it was a warning and not a miss?

Warning shots are not a thing for police and civilians for several reasons.  Risk of someone else getting hit.  Criminal charges.  If you have time to do a warning shot, then you're not in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  You can only shoot when the threat is imminent.  Instead show a confident and competent presence with the firearm and give strong verbal commands.   What I find lacking in most CCW classes is those skills.  Most people have never used a strong voice to give orders to someone.

To both of you:

What the hell are you two talking about ?

1. ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY? - You are wrong on this point.  There is no duty to retreat on your own property in this state.  It’s asinine to suggest you cannot fire a warning shot on your own property.

That’s the context here - not warning shots in general.

Why do you not acknowledge this? - that’s on you both.

2. SHOTGUN PELLETS FIRED up do not constitute a threat to other are handgun / rifle rounds, now do they.

3. Now putting aside the scenario in this example I am talking about, and onto the completely different thing you two are are arguing: Post any law or ordinance which states that failed non-lethal methods de facto invalidate the legality of subsequent lethal methods which become necessary to address the “immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily injury, etc.” - that’s is the bottom line of your argument.

While you’re at it, make sure you carefully address the “unavoidable” part, because you seem to gloss over that little bit.

Lastly - Flap, shouldn’t you get back to your quilting?

To both of you:

What the hell are you two talking about ?

1. ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY? - You are wrong on this point.  There is no duty to retreat on your own property in this state.  It’s asinine to suggest you cannot fire a warning shot on your own property.

That’s the context here - not warning shots in general.

Why do you not acknowledge this? - that’s on you both.

2. SHOTGUN PELLETS FIRED up do not constitute a threat to other are handgun / rifle rounds, now do they.

3. Now putting aside the scenario in this example I am talking about, and onto the completely different thing you two are are arguing: Post any law or ordinance which states that failed non-lethal methods de facto invalidate the legality of subsequent lethal methods which become necessary to address the “immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily injury, etc.”

While you’re at it, make sure you carefully address the “unavoidable” part, because you seem to gloss over that little bit.

Lastly - Flap, shouldn’t you get back to your quilting?

OMG!  That was so funny -- if I had false teeth, i would have lost them!

i think you should get more sleep and less alcohol.  You obviously can't write a coherent reply as you demonstrated here: "SHOTGUN PELLETS FIRED up do not constitute a threat to other are handgun / rifle rounds, now do they."  Did you come down with the Kamala Harris word salad foot-in-mouth disease?

"It’s asinine to suggest you cannot fire a warning shot on your own property."  Are you there's no ordinance that makes it illegal to shoot a firearm on your own property within city limits?  Why don't you fire off a few rounds this 4th of July and let us know if you need bail money.

Discharging a firearm within the city limits of Honolulu is generally illegal
unless done at a designated target range. If you discharge a firearm in a
residential area, it may be considered reckless endangering, especially if
the projectile leaves your property or if you are within 500 feet of an
occupied dwelling.

Just stop digging that hole you're in.  It's not getting you any closer to getting out of it.

Why did you bring up duty to retreat?  This has nothing to do with that.  you're just tossing out crap and hoping it sticks so we ignore what you already said.  This is absolutely about warning shots since that's what you made it about.  Stop trying to move the goal posts.

The only thing unavoidable in this thread is your lack of humility and acceptance that you're about as wrong as you can be regarding warning shots.  i stand by my original statement that you gave bad advice.  I see nothing in all your ramblings to prove me wrong.

BTW, if you're quilting in Hawaii, you must be selling them on the intenet.  There's about as much demand for quilts here as there is firewood.

OMG!  That was so funny -- if I had false teeth, i would have lost them!

i think you should get more sleep and less alcohol.  You obviously can't write a coherent reply as you demonstrated here: "SHOTGUN PELLETS FIRED up do not constitute a threat to other are handgun / rifle rounds, now do they."  Did you come down with the Kamala Harris word salad foot-in-mouth disease?

"It’s asinine to suggest you cannot fire a warning shot on your own property."  Are you there's no ordinance that makes it illegal to shoot a firearm on your own property within city limits?  Why don't you fire off a few rounds this 4th of July and let us know if you need bail money.

Just stop digging that hole you're in.  It's not getting you any closer to getting out of it.

Why did you bring up duty to retreat?  This has nothing to do with that.  you're just tossing out crap and hoping it sticks so we ignore what you already said.  This is absolutely about warning shots since that's what you made it about.  Stop trying to move the goal posts.

The only thing unavoidable in this thread is your lack of humility and acceptance that you're about as wrong as you can be regarding warning shots.  i stand by my original statement that you gave bad advice.  I see nothing in all your ramblings to prove me wrong.

BTW, if you're quilting in Hawaii, you must be selling them on the intenet.  There's about as much demand for quilts here as there is firewood.

Nice - no answer, just sniveling.

Anything but address the question.

What a waste of time you are.

Here - try again:

Post any law or ordinance which states that failed non-lethal methods de facto invalidate the legality of subsequent lethal methods which become necessary to address the “immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily injury, etc.” - that’s is the bottom line of your argument.

Nice - no answer, just sniveling.

Anything but address the question.

What a waste of time you are.

Here - try again:

Post any law or ordinance which states that failed non-lethal methods de facto invalidate the legality of subsequent lethal methods which become necessary to address the “immediate and unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily injury, etc.” - that’s is the bottom line of your argument.

Firing a warning shot is NOT a non-lethal method.  By definition, a firearm is lethal force. 

There's not a law for every scenario, so you have to look at the specific act, whether it's lawful, and then whether or not it can be charged given the fact pattern. 

2025 Hawaii Revised Statutes
Title 37. Hawaii Penal Code
707. Offenses Against the Person
707-714 Reckless endangering in the second degree.

§707-714 Reckless endangering in the second degree. (1) A person commits the offense of reckless endangering in the second degree if the person:

(a) Engages in conduct that recklessly places another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury; or

(b) Intentionally discharges a firearm in a populated area, in a residential area, or within the boundaries or in the direction of any road, street, or highway; provided that the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any person who discharges a firearm upon a target range for the purpose of the target shooting done in compliance with all laws and regulations applicable thereto.

(2) Reckless endangering in the second degree is a misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1990, c 62, §1; gen ch 1992; am L 2006, c 230, §30]

Act 215, Session Laws 1978, added to §707-713(1) the words "or intentionally fires a firearm in a manner which places another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury." The legislature felt that the grave dangers posed by the use of a firearm justified a felony sanction. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 675-78, House Standing Committee Report No. 116.

Act 285, Session Laws 1988, amended §707-713 for the purpose of limiting the offense, in regard to firearms, to a person who intentionally fires a firearm in a manner which recklessly places another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury. House Standing Committee Report No. 1604-88, Senate Standing Committee Report No. 2141.

Act 62, Session Laws 1990, amended §707-714 to subject to misdemeanor liability, a person who creates an obvious risk to the public by intentionally discharging a firearm in areas likely to be traveled or inhabited. Senate Standing Committee Report No. 3060.

There's no exception for firing a gun in a "non-lthal method", because that's some bullshit you just made up. 

Firing a warning shot is NOT a non-lethal method.  By definition, a firearm is lethal force. 

There's not a law for every scenario, so you have to look at the specific act, whether it's lawful, and then whether or not it can be charged given the fact pattern. 
There's no exception for firing a gun in a "non-lthal method", because that's some bullshit you just made up.

You stated this:

“If you didn't fire at the attacker, then your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others.”

- As counter to my initial comment about that specific scenario.

Substitute any non-lethal action for “If you did not fire at the attacker …”. That is your damn argument: Initial non-lethal action de facto invalidates a subsequent claim of lawful lethal self defense, because “your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others.”

I asked you to defend that statement, very clearly.

You obviously can’t because it’s pure dangerous garbage, especially to be spewing on a 2A forum.

The only reason I am wasting time on this is because there may be naive or younger folks reading this who may come away believing anytime you feel threatened, just shoot, and shoot to kill, because the “unavoidable” part doesn’t really count.

There’s nothing more irresponsible to say about the nature of the gravest extreme we all hope we don’t have to experience.

Kalihi, I have to say that I agree with Flapp. Most, if not all, self-defense professional instructors all agree that firing a warning shot towards an attacker is extremely bad advice. You need to have justification for pulling out a firearm and potentially using it beforehand. If you did not intend to utilize deadly force to protect yourself (or others) in the first place, then the firearm should not have been brought out or used. You are also fully accountable for any projectile leaving the firearm whether it be unintended injury or damage.

You may not be able to assert as a defense the provisions of §703-304, Use of force in self-protection in the Hawaii Revised Statutes, unless you “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 [emphasis mine].”

If this occurred at your place of residence, you are correct that you have no duty to retreat, unless you were the initial aggressor.  Based on the anti-2A attitude in this state if you fired a warning shot, you would still be initially arrested by the police, held for investigation up to 48 hours in the cellblock, likely charged and also indicted for Attempted Assault in the First or Second Degree §705-500 and §707-710 or §707-711, Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree §707-714 and possibly other firearm offenses. If so, then at least 10% of the bail amount, which is non-refundable, would have to be put up to release you from custody.

While you could eventually prevail in court, defending yourself would cost you many more thousands of dollars to defend, hours and hours of legal consultation and preparation, countless sleepless nights, not to mention that if you lose the case you could be facing years in prison, being away from family, and probable job/career loss. Then would come the appeals and more money, time, and sleepless nights. Civil suits, which has a lower standard of culpability, could also be following close behind.

Better to act within the confines of the law. Using force against another, including deadly force, must be reasonable, proportional, and of course justifiable.

If you disagree, that is your prerogative. Just ask any prosecutor or defense attorney for their opinion. I’m sure the picture they paint won’t be much better.

You stated this:

“If you didn't fire at the attacker, then your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others.”

- As counter to my initial comment about that specific scenario.

Substitute any non-lethal action for “If you did not fire at the attacker …”. That is your damn argument: Initial non-lethal action de facto invalidates a subsequent claim of lawful lethal self defense, because “your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others.”

I asked you to defend that statement, very clearly.

You obviously can’t because it’s pure dangerous garbage, especially to be spewing on a 2A forum.

The only reason I am wasting time on this is because there may be naive or younger folks reading this who may come away believing anytime you feel threatened, just shoot, and shoot to kill, because the “unavoidable” part doesn’t really count.

There’s nothing more irresponsible to say about the nature of the gravest extreme we all hope we don’t have to experience.

I can't argue with someone who can't read plain English.

Kalihi, I have to say that I agree with Flapp. Most, if not all, self-defense professional instructors all agree that firing a warning shot towards an attacker is extremely bad advice. You need to have justification for pulling out a firearm and potentially using it beforehand. If you did not intend to utilize deadly force to protect yourself (or others) in the first place, then the firearm should not have been brought out or used. You are also fully accountable for any projectile leaving the firearm whether it be unintended injury or damage.

You may not be able to assert as a defense the provisions of §703-304, Use of force in self-protection in the Hawaii Revised Statutes, unless you “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 [emphasis mine].”

If this occurred at your place of residence, you are correct that you have no duty to retreat, unless you were the initial aggressor.  Based on the anti-2A attitude in this state if you fired a warning shot, you would still be initially arrested by the police, held for investigation up to 48 hours in the cellblock, likely charged and also indicted for Attempted Assault in the First or Second Degree §705-500 and §707-710 or §707-711, Reckless Endangering in the Second Degree §707-714 and possibly other firearm offenses. If so, then at least 10% of the bail amount, which is non-refundable, would have to be put up to release you from custody.

While you could eventually prevail in court, defending yourself would cost you many more thousands of dollars to defend, hours and hours of legal consultation and preparation, countless sleepless nights, not to mention that if you lose the case you could be facing years in prison, being away from family, and probable job/career loss. Then would come the appeals and more money, time, and sleepless nights. Civil suits, which has a lower standard of culpability, could also be following close behind.

Better to act within the confines of the law. Using force against another, including deadly force, must be reasonable, proportional, and of course justifiable.

If you disagree, that is your prerogative. Just ask any prosecutor or defense attorney for their opinion. I’m sure the picture they paint won’t be much better.

Good summary.  Hits on all the salient points.

The most critical point is that you don't escalate a situation by brandishing a firearm. Unless you intend to shoot, the firearm stays out of the mix.  Any other reason for brandishing besides self defense or defense of others doesn't satisfy the legal justification for lethal force.  And you don't even have to pull the trigger.  Pointing a firearm in someone's general direction is considered assault with a deadly weapon in most places.

But, hey.  What do we know?  We are just stupid gun owners who have the naivete to trust what our paid professional firearms instructors told us.