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.

Hey there.

I’ve never advocated, or ever thought of advocating, warning shots.

This is just the usual hijacking and distortion of an individual’s position that this guy uses all the time.

My comment was in regard to the specific situation of an unarmed intruder(s) threatening a person on that person’s property, that’s it.  You can, in that situation legally use lethal force or not - up to you.  That is all I said, and meant period.

His point though is as I’ve outlined above - is that the only rule is to open fire immediately when threatened, because if you first try to use a baton, or pepper spray, or non-lethal rounds in a shotgun, and it doesn’t work and you kill with your firearm, you now have no claim of lawful use of force because on the basis of initial use of non-lethal force it’s clear that “your fear didn't rise to the level of being in fear for your life or the life of others” - his words.

I will never agree with that logic, or the legality of that, and would hope no one else would.

As much as I like Tuco - we are not living in a spaghetti western - although, of course in that case, his attacker was not unarmed, as in the initial scenario that started this bullshit.  No in Tuco’s case, his assailant was already holding a gun on him, so no argument from me there when it comes to opening fire.

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.

Usual flapping and squawking and incessant distortion of the other party’s position, throwing up clouds of bullshit to hide the poverty of your argument.

But, it’s all you got.

Usual flapping and squawking and incessant distortion of the other party’s position, throwing up clouds of bullshit to hide the poverty of your argument.

But, it’s all you got.

Insults seem to be all you have. 

Ad hominem.  Look it up.  You're a purveyor of it even if you don't know it.

Now that I have cleaned all the rhetorical bird shit and feathers from the immediate area - wanted to say this post was perfect here! - thanks dude!

Trying not to use hindsight, this is what could've been done.

The residents heard a commotion up the street and saw 10 men approaching.  As a resident in a place where violence is uncommon, I wouldn't expect an attack and assume they have the wrong person, so I'd just tell them they got the wrong person and they would leave  Versus on the mainland where violent gang activity is a thing, I'd run into the house, barricade the door, and get weapons ready.  They continue to approach while you tell them you don't know what they're talking about.  Now they enter your driveway and you tell them to leave but they keep approaching aggressively.  It's too late to run and you can only grab what's on or immediately around you - your CCW gun and pepper spray, tables, chairs, gardening and hardware tools, etc.  In that situation with overwhelming force against you and not knowing if they have weapons, drawing your CCW gun and taking cover would be the best option.

Now with hindsight from this incident that violent gang activity can occur anywhere in Hawaii, get into the house right away, barricade the door, and call 911.  Get weapons ready.  This would be a good example for having large cans of pepper spray along with your firearm.

Trying not to use hindsight, this is what could've been done.

The residents heard a commotion up the street and saw 10 men approaching.  As a resident in a place where violence is uncommon, I wouldn't expect an attack and assume they have the wrong person, so I'd just tell them they got the wrong person and they would leave  Versus on the mainland where violent gang activity is a thing, I'd run into the house, barricade the door, and get weapons ready.  They continue to approach while you tell them you don't know what they're talking about.  Now they enter your driveway and you tell them to leave but they keep approaching aggressively.  It's too late to run and you can only grab what's on or immediately around you - your CCW gun and pepper spray, tables, chairs, gardening and hardware tools, etc.  In that situation with overwhelming force against you and not knowing if they have weapons, drawing your CCW gun and taking cover would be the best option.

Now with hindsight from this incident that violent gang activity can occur anywhere in Hawaii, get into the house right away, barricade the door, and call 911.  Get weapons ready.  This would be a good example for having large cans of pepper spray along with your firearm.

I don’t disagree with anything here, whatsoever.

Your taking a few steps back to put a reasoned view on the scenario is much appreciated - thanks

I've always believed maintaining distance between you and the aggressor(s) is paramount, although I do acknowledge that this is easier said than done.

Me being of smaller stature, I am very focused on this part of a confrontation.  I do not want to engage in a CQB due to the high possibility that the firearm could be taken away from me.

With that being said, if I feel I am about to be overwhelmed and cannot keep distance I am more likely to draw and fire, (no warning shot) even though the attacker(s) intentions still are not concrete.

I've always believed maintaining distance between you and the aggressor(s) is paramount, although I do acknowledge that this is easier said than done.

Me being of smaller stature, I am very focused on this part of a confrontation.  I do not want to engage in a CQB due to the high possibility that the firearm could be taken away from me.

With that being said, if I feel I am about to be overwhelmed and cannot keep distance I am more likely to draw and fire, (no warning shot) even though the attacker(s) intentions still are not concrete.

This is good quick summary of disparity of force which you cover.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/disparity-of-force/

Has no one grasped that these ten military aged men trespassed, threatened and physically assaulted three women and were charged with ROBBERY ? 

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.

I might also add you're responsible for whatever that bullet hits/kills. Your attempt to discourage a criminal could get you manslaughter, or murder. Food for though. NEVER use a firearm for intimidation. That is what criminals do. Use it for defense. If you are just scare them away, waving a gun at them gives them a reason to use deadly force against you.

Has no one grasped that these ten military aged men trespassed, threatened and physically assaulted three women and were charged with ROBBERY ? 

Apparently not.

I appreciate zippz though for attempting to engage with the circumstance seriously.

I live across from Kam IV housing, on Kalihi stream.  I have had to confront trespassers on my property, many times, often in groups, usually teens.  Once one was armed with a machete.

He was living in the stream and clearly looking for food.  He was there to get mangoes from my tree, using the machete to cut down plants on my property in the process.

I knew this but could not allow him to do damage to my property, so I went out with my revolver concealed and spoke to him from about 15 feet away.

He was clearly starving and I told him to take all he needed, but not to cut down my plants.

He understood and took what he could and left afterwards.  He respected our property from then on.

We routinely have gunfire in the stream area as well as of course at the housing - gang related.

None of this is academic to me.

I have to say it’s extremely disappointing to have the actual issues raised by this circumstance hijacked by people who are clearly are not thinking it through.

I’ll leave it at that.

Jennie St. Boyz!

Jennie St. Boyz!

Those who know, know.

Have a great day brother!