Some hints on Carlisle's stance on guns:

http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/main/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/902/categoryId/48/Tested-and-Trusted-Honolulu-City-Prosecutor-Peter-Carlisle-Seeks-Mayors-Office.aspx

Guns: He said Hawaii already has some of the toughest gun laws in the nation – something he approves of – but he won’t push for more restrictions. He says Hawaii’s low gun crime rate and overall low crime rate is proof that tough gun laws work.

He's not shy about disagreeing with the Hawaii Supreme Court when it suits him....

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2009/Oct/02/ln/hawaii910020342.html

Carlisle said he agreed with the two lower court rulings on the matter and disagreed with the Supreme Court's written opinion.

And despite claiming to not be involved in "politics" he certainly seems to have weighed his options about "remaining" a Republican....

http://www.midweek.com/content/columns/Print_Story/the_dissing_of_hawaiis_gop/

The recent announcement from Honolulu city prosecutor Peter Carlisle that he would relinquish his Republican Party membership in anticipation of a mayoral candidacy is the least of the worries for the state GOP.

Carlisle’s rationale is reasonable and logical. The mayor’s race (along with the City Council seats) are non-partisan contests. The explanation is he did not want to have party politics enter into the non-partisan fray. OK, that’s fine. But I don’t remember a Democrat politician renouncing his or her party affiliation in order to make a run for office. Carlisle’s defection serves more of a commentary on liabilities office-seekers incur in Hawaii if you are anything but a “D.”

He and HPD opposed SB350 in 2009, which expanded the "Castle Doctrine"

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB350_SD1_TESTIMONY_JUD_03-17-09_LATE_.pdf

The Honolulu Police Department oppQses Senate Bill No. 350, S.D. 1, Relating to Use of
Force. This bill expands the existing Castle Doctrine to outside of the home. The Honolulu
Police Department opposes any expansion of the Castle Doctrine to any location outside of the
home, and we feel that the current laws provide adequate protection for our citizens. This broad
expansion will result in violent confrontations that could have been avoided by retreating and
requesting law enforcement intervention.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/SB350_SD1_TESTIMONY_JUD_03-17-09_.pdf

We also have concerns that in some instances, particularly where firearms are involved,
that since the duty to retreat is eliminated as to public places, will there be an increased risk of
injuries to innocent bystanders if an assailant and a victim end up in a gunfight on a sidewalk or a
street? We believe that there is the possibility that passage of this bill may actually result in
segments of the state's population feeling and being less safe.
We also oppose the provision of the bill which permits a person to use deadly force
against another person who uses force against the occupant and is unlawfully in the occupant's
dwelling; we believe the use of deadly force is already sufficiently regulated by our statutes.....Under the provisions of this bill, an unarmed burglar who pushes an occupant of
home in an attempted to flee the dwelling could be justifiably killed by the homeowner.

Of course the homeowner, awakened in the middle of the night only to see a bad guy rushing at him is supposed to wait until the threat of physical harm is obvious, but the police can shoot at someone driving away from a scene because they jump in front of that car....And, that is not a slam against the police, just trying to point out what appears to me to be a double standard. The homeowner, under Carlisle's position, has to wait until the uninvited gust rushing them makes threats of harm or begins to assault them, but a police officer, who chooses to jump in front of a fleeing car is justified in using deadly force because the bad guy was rushing at him in the car....couldn't the police officer jump out of the way, or not have jumped in front of the car to begin with?

The bottom line is that from all available evidence, Carlisle appears to be anti gun and anti self defense...if that perception is inaccurate, he could easily change that....if he chooses not to we have to assume that, for the purposes of fighing to regain our lost Second Amendment rights, he's an anti....

HiCarry,

    Is there a transcript of that debate?

- Alex

The Honolulu Police Department oppQses Senate Bill No. 350, S.D. 1, Relating to Use of
Force. This bill expands the existing Castle Doctrine to outside of the home. The Honolulu
Police Department opposes any expansion of the Castle Doctrine to any location outside of the
home, and we feel that the current laws provide adequate protection for our citizens. This broad
expansion will result in violent confrontations that could have been avoided by retreating and
requesting law enforcement intervention.

And I guess this has been occurring on a frequent  basis here and everywhere else the Castle Doctrine applies??  Retreat from my own home? Not happening in my world. I don't care what HPDs response time is.

We also have concerns that in some instances, particularly where firearms are involved,
that since the duty to retreat is eliminated as to public places, will there be an increased risk of
injuries to innocent bystanders if an assailant and a victim end up in a gunfight on a sidewalk or a
street? We believe that there is the possibility that passage of this bill may actually result in
segments of the state's population feeling and being less safe.
We also oppose the provision of the bill which permits a person to use deadly force
against another person who uses force against the occupant and is unlawfully in the occupant's
dwelling;     we believe the use of deadly force is already sufficiently regulated by our statutes.....Under the provisions of this bill, an unarmed burglar who pushes an occupant of home in an attempted to flee the dwelling could be justifiably killed by the homeowner.

Yep, lets protect those criminals....maybe HPD should hire psychic police who are there at the instant something goes down. Otherwise, they are only good for documenting the case of your home invasion, attack, rape, or murder of you or your loved ones. Nothing against the police, but they do not have to show up and they just cannot make it in time even if called immediately or alerted by alarm to prevent a serious attacker.

Yeah not sure what they are thinking, but I don't think you will ever convict on beyond a reasonable doubt when that guy is inside a  persons home.

Yeah not sure what they are thinking, but I don't think you will ever convict on beyond a reasonable doubt when that guy is inside a  persons home.

I know what they are/were thinking...VOTES

HiCarry,

    Is there a transcript of that debate?

- Alex

Hi Alex,

Do you mean the debate between Gura and Van Dyke? If so, I don't know. There may be one out there somewhere. The UH chapter of the Young Republicans hosted the event, they may have some additional info.

Yeah not sure what they are thinking, but I don't think you will ever convict on beyond a reasonable doubt when that guy is inside a  persons home.

Yes, but lacking clear legal authority on the part of the homeowner, it leaves way too much discretion in the hands of a liberal prosecutor, who may already have a bias against citizen self-defense and/or handguns, and allows the possibility of prosecution of the homeowner. That's why the "presumption" of a threat of deadly force is so important for the homeowner. There is nothing in the various Castle Doctrine laws that prevent investigation and prosecution if there is sufficient cause or evidence. But the act of self defense and the use of deadly force cannot alone be the genesis of deeper investigation.

Quote from: Funtimes on November 01, 2010, 09:03:47 PM

Yeah not sure what they are thinking, but I don't think you will ever convict on beyond a reasonable doubt when that guy is inside a  persons home.

Yes, but lacking clear legal authority on the part of the homeowner, it leaves way too much discretion in the hands of a liberal prosecutor, who may already have a bias against citizen self-defense and/or handguns, and allows the possibility of prosecution of the homeowner. That's why the "presumption" of a threat of deadly force is so important for the homeowner. There is nothing in the various Castle Doctrine laws that prevent investigation and prosecution if there is sufficient cause or evidence. But the act of self defense and the use of deadly force cannot alone be the genesis of deeper investigation.

Agreed. I would extend this beyond that into "defense of self or defense of others". OG and I had a discussion about  this regarding the guy who killed his girlfriend with the shotgun...think he beat her to death.  Had the average armed citizen with a firearm and the knowledge, intervened, would he/she have been protected under the law at that time?  People watched this happen. When does the Castle Doctrine become blurred. Whos to know what a criminal will do next?

I recall a recent case in my hometown of Texas. During  a home invasion two criminals broke in and the homeowner confronted and killed one and mortally wounded the other, who was found dead later (shot on the way out of the home). The prosecutor based his case on that the second was fleeing the scene (down the stairs) and tried to prosecute based on that.  He was shot in the act of a home invasion and the state found in the homeowners favor given the guy was a repeat felon and this was his operating pattern.  There were relatives downstairs and the homeowner had reasonable doubt that the individual would not attempt to harm them. I don't personally seen the "repeat felon" as a contributor.

The last thing any LAW ABIDING CITIZEN EXERCISING HIS 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT to defend his home, property and family when it counts in the middle of the night/day is legal impacts to come.  Plain and simple, he doesn't want himself or his family to get injured or killed. This goes back to the days before firearms when swords were the weapon of opportunity and are the foundations this country was built on and is perfectly NATURAL to any human.  Our forefathers had this right...not sure where it gets so blurred that we as a society cannot understand this. Most that would argue against this have never been or had a family member in this situation.

The right by the law seems to be on homeowners side regardless. The burden is on the state to prove it. The Castle Doctrine is not perfect, but is much better than "hide and call the police"  By my check, most CD shootings turn out in the victims favor based on the circumstance and location. There is the exception, but I prefer to have this law on my side if it would happen to my family. Regardless, I know what the outcome would be at my home.

Not disagreeing with you 2A...just dropping my .02 

Thoughts?

 

Thoughts are I would have laid that guy to rest in the middle of the street. I actually present that example to my wife of a prolonged attack that could have been stopped.  pretty sure castle is civil liability.  If you look in the legal books self-defense is an affirmative defense for killing someone.

Thoughts are I would have laid that guy to rest in the middle of the street. I actually present that example to my wife of a prolonged attack that could have been stopped.  pretty sure castle is civil liability.  If you look in the legal books self-defense is an affirmative defense for killing someone.

The recent law passed in Hawaii that is referred to as the "Castle Doctrine" is actually just an exemption from civil immunity if certain threshholds are met. Mainly the injury was proximately caused by the commission or attempted commission of a felony as listed in the statutory language. And, while this is good, actually much better than it had been, it can be improved, IMHO, by adding a presumption clause. Such a clause would remove the onerous duty of the homeowner/occupant to determine if actions on the part of the intruder were actually a threat of bodily harm or death. To elaoborate on a prior example, why should the homeowner, awakened in the middle of the night be required to determine if that bad guy rushing at him is just trying to get out of the house, or if he is intent on harm? The presumption clause would eliminate this requirement.

As to interveneing in a situation such as the Tupuola case, yes you can, under current law, respond with deadly force. And, at least in this case it seemed to be a rare example of Carlisle if not supporting the use of deadly force by citizens, at least recognizing there are provisions for it. When asked if someone might have used deadly force against the attacker in this case, he responded with something like, "...it may have been justified..." To which I thought, "what do you mean 'may' be justified? The guy killed the girl and there for the level of foce he used was 'deadly' and therefore the use of deadly force to prevent or stop the attack was most certainly and unequivocally 'justified'"

.....The right by the law seems to be on homeowners side regardless. The burden is on the state to prove it. The Castle Doctrine is not perfect, but is much better than "hide and call the police"  By my check, most CD shootings turn out in the victims favor based on the circumstance and location. There is the exception, but I prefer to have this law on my side if it would happen to my family. Regardless, I know what the outcome would be at my home.

Not disagreeing with you 2A...just dropping my .02 

Thoughts?

Actually, there is no burden on the State to prove self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense under Hawaii law. That means you have to admit that you shot (stabbed, hit with a rock, etc) the bad guy, BUT you had good reason because you feared great bodily harm or death. Once the issue of self defense is made the State is obligated to provide jury instructions regarding use of force in self defense. Below are the case notes from HRS 703-304:

Defendant entitled to instruction on self-defense whenever testimony fairly raises the issue, no matter how weak.  59 H. 148, 577 P.2d 793.

  Defendant is entitled to jury instructions on self-defense where there is any evidence in the record to support jury consideration of the issue.  60 H. 504, 591 P.2d 615.

  In self-defense to charge of homicide, admissibility of evidence of deceased's character for violence and aggression.  61 H. 328, 603 P.2d 151.

  Where trial court conspicuously omitted from its self-defense instruction any reference to the use of "force", which was essential to defendant's defense at trial, insofar as defendant expressly disputed whether defendant's use of force constituted "deadly force", and instructed jury that, as a matter of law, defendant employed "deadly force" against victim because death in fact resulted from defendant's use of force, trial court's instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  101 H. 377, 69 P.3d 88.

  Where defendant raised the issue of self-defense, trial court did not err in concluding that prosecution proved that defendant was not acting in self-defense when defendant shot victim.  107 H. 469, 115 P.3d 648.

  Defendant's claim of justification, in defense against prosecution for terroristic threatening, was established regardless of whether or not defendant used deadly force.  1 H. App. 167, 616 P.2d 229.

  Evidence indicated defendant could have retreated safely; attack with baseball bat using sufficient force to break complainant's arm constituted deadly force.  2 H. App. 369, 633 P.2d 547.

  Defendant did not reasonably believe that kicking person on floor was immediately necessary to protect self.  2 H. App. 577, 636 P.2d 1365.

  State failed its burden of introducing substantial evidence disproving defendant's facts or proving facts negativing defendant's self-protection justification defense.  9 H. App. 435, 843 P.2d 1389.

  There was substantial evidence to support trial court's conclusion that a reasonable person would not have believed that it was necessary to use deadly force on the particular occasion.  77 H. 429 (App.), 886 P.2d 766.

  Trial court did not err in denying defendant's request that in addition to the choice of evils defense under §703-302, jury be instructed on the justification defenses of use of force in the protection of self and others under this section and §703-305; defendant's theory of defense was fully and adequately covered by the choice of evils instruction which the trial court gave and under the circumstances of the case, there was no reasonable possibility that the jury, which rejected defendant's choice of evils defense, might have embraced defenses based on this section and §703-305.  114 H. 507 (App.), 164 P.3d 765.

Quote

.....The right by the law seems to be on homeowners side regardless. The burden is on the state to prove it. The Castle Doctrine is not perfect, but is much better than "hide and call the police"  By my check, most CD shootings turn out in the victims favor based on the circumstance and location. There is the exception, but I prefer to have this law on my side if it would happen to my family. Regardless, I know what the outcome would be at my home.

Not disagreeing with you 2A...just dropping my .02 

Thoughts?

Actually, there is no burden on the State to prove self defense. Self defense is an affirmative defense under Hawaii law. That means you have to admit that you shot (stabbed, hit with a rock, etc) the bad guy, BUT you had good reason because you feared great bodily harm or death. Once the issue of self defense is made the State is obligated to provide jury instructions regarding use of force in self defense. Below are the case notes from HRS 703-304:

Quote

Defendant entitled to instruction on self-defense whenever testimony fairly raises the issue, no matter how weak.  59 H. 148, 577 P.2d 793.

  Defendant is entitled to jury instructions on self-defense where there is any evidence in the record to support jury consideration of the issue.  60 H. 504, 591 P.2d 615.

  In self-defense to charge of homicide, admissibility of evidence of deceased's character for violence and aggression.  61 H. 328, 603 P.2d 151.

  Where trial court conspicuously omitted from its self-defense instruction any reference to the use of "force", which was essential to defendant's defense at trial, insofar as defendant expressly disputed whether defendant's use of force constituted "deadly force", and instructed jury that, as a matter of law, defendant employed "deadly force" against victim because death in fact resulted from defendant's use of force, trial court's instruction was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  101 H. 377, 69 P.3d 88.

  Where defendant raised the issue of self-defense, trial court did not err in concluding that prosecution proved that defendant was not acting in self-defense when defendant shot victim.  107 H. 469, 115 P.3d 648.

  Defendant's claim of justification, in defense against prosecution for terroristic threatening, was established regardless of whether or not defendant used deadly force.  1 H. App. 167, 616 P.2d 229.

  Evidence indicated defendant could have retreated safely; attack with baseball bat using sufficient force to break complainant's arm constituted deadly force.  2 H. App. 369, 633 P.2d 547.

  Defendant did not reasonably believe that kicking person on floor was immediately necessary to protect self.  2 H. App. 577, 636 P.2d 1365.

  State failed its burden of introducing substantial evidence disproving defendant's facts or proving facts negativing defendant's self-protection justification defense.  9 H. App. 435, 843 P.2d 1389.

  There was substantial evidence to support trial court's conclusion that a reasonable person would not have believed that it was necessary to use deadly force on the particular occasion.  77 H. 429 (App.), 886 P.2d 766.

  Trial court did not err in denying defendant's request that in addition to the choice of evils defense under §703-302, jury be instructed on the justification defenses of use of force in the protection of self and others under this section and §703-305; defendant's theory of defense was fully and adequately covered by the choice of evils instruction which the trial court gave and under the circumstances of the case, there was no reasonable possibility that the jury, which rejected defendant's choice of evils defense, might have embraced defenses based on this section and §703-305.  114 H. 507 (App.), 164 P.3d 765.

Sorry, I misspoke there. I was trying to convey that the "state" has to prove that it was anything other than self defense. You claiming self defense, they claim otherwise, they have to prove that....didn't mean to confuse anyone. 

The infamous Tupuola case.

Carlisle said AFTER the fact that it would be OK for a citizen to intervene.

I say NO.  Thare is a catch.  The catch is IF a citizen had intervened and shot Tupuola and Stopped his rampage, the citizen would/could be
arrested for several firearms Violations. 

The catch here is that by intervening, said citizen has CHANGED HISTORY.  In that, Tupuola would not have killed the woman and he himself is
 stopped by a gun weilding citizen who has no knowledge of what is happening.

By stopping the killing, History as we know it has been changed.  What Carlise is talking about NEVER happened.  Instead, a citizen shot and killed a total
stranger beating an unknown female with a firearm.  Carlise will Never say it is OK. 

The woman is saved to turn around and accuse the citizen of "murdering" her man.

Domestic violence.  How many times police stop a domestic disturbance, arrest the man and the "beaten" woman Attacks the police.

The catch phrase here is "Alternative History".  By getting involved, the historical time line branches off in another direction.

And we will never know what the alternative history would have been.

The infamous Tupuola case.

Carlisle said AFTER the fact that it would be OK for a citizen to intervene....

Actually I believe Carlisle said:

Honolulu City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle said lethal force "could" have been justified under Hawaii law in this situation....

http://archives.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?5f54e6f7-6cb3-429a-a5f1-2a2b5adc271b

While I understand the whole change history thing, and especially understand the domestic violence phenomena of the beaten female suddenlycoming to the aid of the beater, my point was that Carlisle, even when the facts of the situation were unequivocal, seems to waiver and be non-commital, on the issue of justified use of lethal force. A "non-position" usually seen with career politicians, not gun/self defense friendly folks.....

The infamous Tupuola case.

Carlisle said AFTER the fact that it would be OK for a citizen to intervene.

I say NO.  Thare is a catch.  The catch is IF a citizen had intervened and shot Tupuola and Stopped his rampage, the citizen would/could be
arrested for several firearms Violations. 

The catch here is that by intervening, said citizen has CHANGED HISTORY.  In that, Tupuola would not have killed the woman and he himself is
 stopped by a gun weilding citizen who has no knowledge of what is happening.

By stopping the killing, History as we know it has been changed.  What Carlise is talking about NEVER happened.  Instead, a citizen shot and killed a total
stranger beating an unknown female with a firearm.  Carlise will Never say it is OK. 

The woman is saved to turn around and accuse the citizen of "murdering" her man.

Domestic violence.  How many times police stop a domestic disturbance, arrest the man and the "beaten" woman Attacks the police.

The catch phrase here is "Alternative History".  By getting involved, the historical time line branches off in another direction.

We need some Minority Report Pre-crime pre-cogs. 

You have to prove self defense it is your burden.  The state will say, "He killed the man... look at x x x x ." You would respond, "Yes, i did kill him.. However, It was because he was doing x, x, x, and x -- which made me feel for my life and I shot his ass."

You have to prove self defense it is your burden.  The state will say, "He killed the man... look at x x x x ." You would respond, "Yes, i did kill him.. However, It was because he was doing x, x, x, and x -- which made me feel for my life and I shot his ass."

Eh, I give up. I know what I am trying to say here...just can't get it into words.. 

Chuck

Quote from: Funtimes on November 05, 2010, 03:39:27 PM

You have to prove self defense it is your burden.  The state will say, "He killed the man... look at x x x x ." You would respond, "Yes, i did kill him.. However, It was because he was doing x, x, x, and x -- which made me feel for my life and I shot his ass."

Eh, I give up. I know what I am trying to say here...just can't get it into words.. 

Chuck

Sorry bud sometimes we are just to "strict" to the wording and how it's said here. I think I get what you mean, just wanted to try and clarify for people . 

Quote from: vooduchikn on November 05, 2010, 04:01:56 PM

Quote from: Funtimes on November 05, 2010, 03:39:27 PM

You have to prove self defense it is your burden.  The state will say, "He killed the man... look at x x x x ." You would respond, "Yes, i did kill him.. However, It was because he was doing x, x, x, and x -- which made me feel for my life and I shot his ass."

Eh, I give up. I know what I am trying to say here...just can't get it into words.. 

Chuck

Sorry bud sometimes we are just to "strict" to the wording and how it's said here. I think I get what you mean, just wanted to try and clarify for people . 

Word!