"ALL" people are not authorized to use deadly force, cops by being armed and minions of the state, are. 

You cannot say if a cop shoots you that it will be handled in the same way as if a private citizen did.  Well, you can say it, but you know it will be a vastly different procedure and likely outcome.

Anyone can respond with lethal for in a self-defense situation.

Anyone can respond with lethal for in a self-defense situation.

A LEO it seems can simply claim "I felt threatened" and likely will be exonerated for blowing you away. 

Please do not tell me that will work for the peasants.  From all I have read, you better have a rock solid line of events leading up to that.  Heck, even in a home invasion, one wrong bit of evidence or missing justifying event will land you in prison. 

A LEO it seems can simply claim "I felt threatened" and likely will be exonerated for blowing you away. 

Please do not tell me that will work for the peasants.  From all I have read, you better have a rock solid line of events leading up to that.  Heck, even in a home invasion, one wrong bit of evidence or missing justifying event will land you in prison.

Re: LEO -- Please cite your sources.  If your (anyone) being attacked, and you have a reasonable fear of serious injury or bodily harm (or one of the other statutory provisions), then you may respond with equal or greater force up to, and including, the use of deadly force.  LEO's would actually be held to a greater standard, because they have escalation of force protocols to follow.  They also have other tools available to deal with the individual.   


Re Home Invasion:  Again, please cite your sources.   Even Hawaii has a Castle doctrine for life and limb - some places even go so far as to cover property.   I'm not going to waste a lot of time looking for it, so please be kind enough to show us some examples of someone here or some where else using deadly force during a home invasion when it was justified - and then went to prison.

From Funtimes, 1:42 pm. ( sorry I can't quote edited quotes )
"
That would depend.  How was it instigated? Just because someone is yelling at you, talking shit, isn't justification to swing at someone. 

This is nothing more than bullshit (the way you mean it, but it could also be true legally). You cannot  just "pick" a fight.  Now, by pick a fight I mean going and starting a fight i.e. "Hey, F-u! *swing*" /get ass kicked -- *bang*.   That would mean you go to jail. "

Picking a fight doesn't mean swinging first. It means provoking the other party into swinging first or enter into the monkey dance. The way I understand it.

So long as you don't swing you can apparently talk all the shit you want while carrying.
When the other guy swings.....BANG !
Not Guilty.

The way I meant it was purely legally.

Re Home Invasion:  Again, please cite your sources.   Even Hawaii has a Castle doctrine for life and limb -

If I'm not mistaken, we have a weak castle doctrine as HRA testified to shoot down the stronger version introduced this past legislative session.
( I testified for it to pass )
Perp needs to be committing a Class A or B felony or actively inflicting bodily harm to invoke Castle doctrine in HI. The current law is very confusing and diluted.

FYI: More witness testimony.

KHON2 - Arresting officer testify (Naki testimony, somewhat of a repeat of the last one)


KITV4 - 2 witnesses detail events that led to Waikiki fatal shooting (bystanders AuYoung and Alexander Byrd)

 

Great point. Elderts definitely continued to move forward. And threat of bodily harm to Deedy appeared real and imminent.
Looked like Elderts was kicking his trained ass !
Possibly, but then again Deedy is reaching for/protecting his firearm.  He is literally fighting with one arm behind his back.

Does it matter if the armed party instigated the conflict and was probably drunk, by witness accounts ? ( prosecution witnesses though. haven't heard defense )
Yes and no.  Read HRS703-304, you will see where you can/cannot use deadly force and why if you are contributary to the situation you may not be protected from prosecution.  Also I keep stating this over and over, but if Deedy identified himself as a LEO, then the same rules don't always apply to standard citizens.  Read the HRS, it's very informative.

Serious question as I'm now thinking it doesn't. Justified use of deadly force doesn't appear to depend on who instigated what or what frame of mind they were in.
So long as the threat of great bodily harm was real and imminent.
If you are a private citizen in the State of Hawaii, it absolutely depends on who instigated the conflict. Read HRS703-304 as stated above.

This would be bad for CCW though.
If I'm carrying a gun, I can pick whatever fight I like and once I feel the threat of great bodily harm, I'm justified to shoot.

of course Deedy was LEO though.
Although we still haven't determined what crime Elderts was committing that required LEO intervention and not arrest/detainment.

Answers above in bolded italics.

 

Funtimes- re: moving forward = no care for safety.
Krav maga

Glad to see my buddy q's recent posts have been focused on legit facts (you know those things that he is 100% biased toward) and not one bit of speculation on his part
 /sarcasm lol

Actually, ALL people ARE allowed to use deadly force, if it is within the confines and definitions of the law.

Let me rephrase since it came out obviously wrong:

Police are the only ones authorized to carry firearms for ready lethal force.  Seems you and Chris are trying to wrap up what is only allowable for a private citizen (by my understanding of the law) to do within their place of sojourn/business.  Who else has ready access and the legal right to use them wherever they may find themselves, and have the full protection of the law.

If there is any way someone not a LEO can use a firearm to protect themselves from serious harm outside the home it is a well kept secret.  We are not talking about knives or baseball bats.

 

If I'm not mistaken, we have a weak castle doctrine as HRA testified to shoot down the stronger version introduced this past legislative session.
( I testified for it to pass )
Perp needs to be committing a Class A or B felony or actively inflicting bodily harm to invoke Castle doctrine in HI. The current law is very confusing and diluted.

What bill in the 2013 legislative session, relating to the "Castle Doctrine" did the HRA testify against? Or am I reading your statement incorrectly?

The current "Castle Doctrine" law does not require that someone be committing a Class A or B felony, only that the home owner/occupant believe that someone is about to commit one.

You stated you testified this year for a stronger Castle Doctrine bill, just curious, did you testify for the bill that was enacted into law for the protections we enjoy now? And while I agree our "Castle Doctrine" laws could be stronger and provide the homeowner/occupant greater protections (such as a presumption of life threatening behavior by just being in your house unauthorized...) what we have now is better than we had before. 

 

Regardless of if they are LEO or not, they are still fall under the jurisdiction of the law. The law doesn't specify that 'in order to defend yourself, you must do so within your home', nor does it specify how or what a person may defend themselves with or that the law only pertains to a private citizens.

You are being willfully obtuse and ignoring what I am saying about the use of firearms by private citizens. 

No Problem, this sort of crap bores me, have at it with the rest of the gang.

I was just teasing but I guess you never catch

I appreciate that you put some time into your response. Sadly your assumptions were totally wrong lol sorry you wasted your time typing that out.

Perhaps you should rethink some of your assumptions about the case too...

 

Picking a fight doesn't mean swinging first. It means provoking the other party into swinging first or enter into the monkey dance. The way I understand it.

So long as you don't swing you can apparently talk all the shit you want while carrying.
When the other guy swings.....BANG !
Not Guilty.

The way I meant it was purely legally.

I think you are *really* reaching here - and pushing things to some far limits.  What gives you the right to assault the other individual, even if they are talking shit?  At what point do you think you can act upon unprotected speech and invade the liberties of another person?  You are more than free to call the police.  You are more than free to file a harassment case.  You can get a TRO -- or.. you could... wait for it.....



wait for it....


Walk Away like a real man.


People say things to me, way more than someone would have said something to Elderts.  I don't care what came out of deedy's mouth, I'm pretty sure I have heard it or had it said to me. 

Someone threatened your life or worse and you walked away/called cops funtimes? Damn

I agree Fun. ( with your last post )

Deedy should have walked away like a real man. 

Heck, looked like KK called out HB last night for talking shit. ( I have no affiliation with HB, just sayin' )

And sounds like you support my position.

If you're legally carrying you can talk as much shit as you like until the other guy swings/attacks then...

Wait for it....

Bang.
Legal. 

From a purely legal standpoint.  And I agree it coould be legal. And I'm not passing judgement, it is what it is.
 ( except maybe for HRS703-304 as GZire pointed out. Wonder what instigated means legally)

( Hey I support CCW and the Constitution)

What bill in the 2013 legislative session, relating to the "Castle Doctrine" did the HRA testify against? Or am I reading your statement incorrectly?

The current "Castle Doctrine" law does not require that someone be committing a Class A or B felony, only that the home owner/occupant believe that someone is about to commit one.

You stated you testified this year for a stronger Castle Doctrine bill, just curious, did you testify for the bill that was enacted into law for the protections we enjoy now? And while I agree our "Castle Doctrine" laws could be stronger and provide the homeowner/occupant greater protections (such as a presumption of life threatening behavior by just being in your house unauthorized...) what we have now is better than we had before. 

http://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=6791.0

You read it correctly.
No I didn't testify on the 2010 law. I wasn't involved in 2A then. 

 

Before I get scolded by 2A again.

Heck, looked like KK called out HB last night for talking shit. ( I have no affiliation with HB, just sayin' )

I didn't "call out" anyone.

I've found in my experience that people don't act the same way in person that they do online.

I've met a few members here that didn't like or agree with me.

After meeting them, they changed their attitude and demeanor.

We resolved any differences.

I'm friendly like that.