Regarding "Use of Force"
Measure Title: RELATING TO THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE.
Report Title: Justification; Use of Deadly Force
Description: Allows the use of deadly force when protecting one's primary dwelling against an intruder who enters the primary dwelling without invitation. Exempts the actor from civil liability for injuries or damages resulting from the use of deadly force. Repeals section 663-1.57, HRS.
Submit ASAP.....scheduled for Tues the 26th.
Sorry I'm a mud now :(
http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=HB&billnumber=603&year=2013
A
BILL
FOR
AN
ACT
RELATING
TO
THE
USE
OF
DEADLY
FORCE.
BE
IT
ENACTED
BY
THE
LEGISLATURE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
HAWAII:
1
SECTION
1.
Chapter
663,
Hawaii
Revised
Statutes,
is
2
amended
by
adding
a
new
section
to
be
appropriately
designated
3
and
to
read
as
follows:
4
“~663-
Exception
to
liability
for
use
of
deadly
force
5
for
the
protection
of
a
primary
dwelling.
Any
actor
who
uses
6
deadly
force
in
accordance
with
section
703—
shall
be
imune
7
from
civil
liability
for
injuries
or
damages,
or
both,
resulting
8
from
the
use
of
that
deadly
force.”
9
SECTION
2.
Chapter
703,
Hawaii
Revised
Statutes,
is
10
amended
by
adding
a
new
section
to
be
appropriately
designated
11
and
to
read
as
follows:
12
“~7O3-
Use
of
deadly
force
for
the
protection
of
a
13
primary
dwelling.
(1)
Notwithstanding
any
other
provision
of
14
law,
the
use
of
deadly
force
upon
or
toward
the
person
of
15
another
is
justifiable
when
the
actor
uses
deadly
force
to
16
defend
the
actor’s
primary
dwelling,
provided
that
the
person
17
against
whom
the
deadly
force
is
used:
HB
LRB
l3—007l.doc
~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Page
2
H.B.
NO.~Ø
(a)
Has
entered
the
actor’s
primary
dwelling
without
invitation;
(b)
Is
inside
the
actor’s
primary
dwelling
at
the
time
the
actor
uses
deadly
force;
and
(c)
Is
not
a
law
enforcement
officer
who
enters
the
dwelling
in
the
performance
of
the
officerTs
official
duties.”
DO IT.......before some fucking icehead breaks in to your home or family member's home and starts shanking when you try to stop them from stealing your TV because you to distracted contemplating the complexities of HRS-Sec 703!
Done.
*SALUTES!
You're only allowed to protect your "primary dwelling"? So, there's no allowance if you are in your summer home, or a guest in someone else's house? Hmmm.
Well, I would think your place of "sojourn" would logically become your "Primary dwelling"
What I believe the intent of the "Primary Dwelling" atipulation is would be that you don't go out an kill some fucker in your garage, tool shed, outhouse or yard.
"Dwelling" is defined in HRS Section 703-300 as "any building or structure, though movable or temporary, or a portion thereof, which is for the time being a home or place of lodging." This seems to cover wherever the person is staying -- not necessarily the person's main residence. Adding the word "Primary" seems to muddy the waters somewhat.
Just my $.02.
So if I'm out somewhere can I throw a sleeping bag on the ground next to the body and claim, "moveable temporary primary dwelling"? Nice!
Ossifer, I awoke to the sound of a zipper...and uninvited zipping sound. I saw and asked the stranger to cease from entering from wherein I dwelt, but he advanced. I was forced to fire in an upward manner through his ballsacks wherein the many many bullets then took many differing paths and exits. One lucky shot removed the top of his skull. Sorry for dat.
some people confuses about bill
I say SUPPORT specifically consider this"
"Use of deadly force for the protection of a primary dwelling. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use of deadly force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor uses deadly force to defend the actor's primary dwelling, provided that the person against whom the deadly force is used:
(a) Has entered the actor's primary dwelling without invitation;
(b) Is inside the actor's primary dwelling at the time the actor uses deadly force; and
(c) Is not a law enforcement officer who enters the dwelling in the performance of the officer's official duties."
The repeal section because of the changes made in 663 liability for using deadly force.....again a good thing b/c the previous sec allowed for protection against liability if person is charged and convicted of comiiting a felony.
unnastan?
bill below:
A BILL FOR AN ACT
relating to the use of deadly force.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF HAWAII:
SECTION 1. Chapter 663, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"§663- Exception to liability for use of deadly force for the protection of a primary dwelling. Any actor who uses deadly force in accordance with section 703- shall be immune from civil liability for injuries or damages, or both, resulting from the use of that deadly force."
SECTION 2. Chapter 703, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by adding a new section to be appropriately designated and to read as follows:
"§703- Use of deadly force for the protection of a primary dwelling. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the use of deadly force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable when the actor uses deadly force to defend the actor's primary dwelling, provided that the person against whom the deadly force is used:
(a) Has entered the actor's primary dwelling without invitation;
(b) Is inside the actor's primary dwelling at the time the actor uses deadly force; and
(c) Is not a law enforcement officer who enters the dwelling in the performance of the officer's official duties."
SECTION 3. Section 663-1.57, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is repealed.
["[§663?1.57] Owner to felon; limited liability. (a) An owner, including but not limited to a public entity, of any estate or any other interest in real property, whether possessory or nonpossessory, or any agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner, shall not be liable to any perpetrator engaged in any of the felonies set forth in subsection (b) for any injury or death to the perpetrator that occurs upon that property during the course of or after the commission of such felony, or when a reasonable person would believe that commission of a felony as set forth in subsection (b) is imminent; provided that if the perpetrator is injured, the perpetrator is charged with the criminal offense and convicted of the criminal offense or of a lesser included felony or misdemeanor.
(b) This section applies to the following felonies:
(1) Murder in the first or second degree;
(2) Attempted murder in the first or second degree;
(3) Any class A felony as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime classified as a class A felony;
(4) Any class B felony involving violence or physical harm as provided in the Hawaii Penal Code;
(5) Any felony punishable by imprisonment for life;
(6) Any other felony in which the person inflicts serious bodily injury on another person; and
(7) Any felony in which the person personally used a firearm or a dangerous or deadly weapon.
(c) The limitation on liability under this section arises:
(1) At the moment the perpetrator commences the felony to which this section applies; or
(2) At the moment the owner or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises by consent of the owner believes that a commission of a felony under subsection (b) is imminent;
and extends to the moment the perpetrator is no longer upon the property.
(d) The limitation on liability under this section applies only when the perpetrator's conduct in furtherance of the commission of a felony specified in subsection (b) proximately or legally causes the injury or death.
(e) This section does not limit the liability of an owner that otherwise exists for:
(1) Wilful, wanton, or criminal conduct; or
(2) Wilful or malicious failure to guard or warn against a dangerous condition, use, or structure; or
(3) Injury or death caused to individuals other than the perpetrator of the felony.
(f) Except with regard to subsections(1) and (e)(3), the limitation of liability under this section shall not be affected by the failure of the owner to warn the perpetrator of the felony that the owner is armed and ready to cause bodily harm or death.
(g) For purposes of this section, "owner" means the owner, the occupant, tenant, or anyone authorized to be on the property by the owner or the occupant, including a guest or a family or household member, employee, or agent of the owner lawfully on the premises.
(h) The limitation on liability provided by this section shall be in addition to any other available defense."]
SECTION 4. Statutory material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New statutory material is underscored.
SECTION 5. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Moke,
While 703 defines a dwelling.......Chap 134 case law has already decided that such a definition does not apply to a homeless guy in a vehicle....a vehicle not being a legal residence, so I'd doubt you sleeping bag would qualify. DLNR also does not allow for firearms in you "camp" or tent even with a camping permit......basically the residence, business, place of sojourn firearms allowances does not apply to these types of dwellings.
DAMMIT!
I thought I had solved the zombie problem around my apartment complex.
I support people protecting their own family and not hoping some hero comes to the rescue.
Like I always say,
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6
I'm not opposed to this bill. I was just wondering out loud why the scope of protection against civil liability doesn't extend to all legitimate dwellings (versus "primary dwellings"): relatives' houses (during weekend visits), cabin rentals, etc. Just as much need to protect your loved ones in those places, it seems. Perhaps this limitation makes the bill more palatable to the legislature?
OK, I'll stop pretending to be a lawyer....just like Todd Atkins should stop pretending to be "Allie" on the Star-Advertiser website. =) I've emailed the link to friends who would have an interest in this.
i cast a vote for.
signed
conviser - I'm not opposed to this bill. I was just wondering out loud why the scope of protection against civil liability doesn't extend to all legitimate dwellings (versus "primary dwellings"): relatives' houses (during weekend visits), cabin rentals, etc. Just as much need to protect your loved ones in those places, it seems. Perhaps this limitation makes the bill more palatable to the legislature?
OK, I'll stop pretending to be a lawyer....just like Todd Atkins should stop pretending to be "Allie" on the Star-Advertiser website. =) I've emailed the link to friends who would have an interest in this.
is chode really allie on there? that troll allie never ceases to annoy the living shit out of me but i dont let it get me too riled up. makes sense though they do have a sissy mentality and sense of bitchassness to them both.
IN!
Thanks Sarge! It is vigilant people like you who keep lazy americans like me from, not only losing my right to have a firearm but also protecting my right to use it to defend myself and my family. I owe you a beer.
In regards to HB603 "Use of Force"........L.I.F.E and H.R.A.... How can they oppose this? ARE YOU STUPID!?!?!?
L.I.F.E. claims:
"We believe the current language in HRS 663 offers superior language"
H.R.A. states:
"HRA opposes this bill. The current statutes are sufficient.
"AGAIN...."ARE YOU STUPID!?!?!?!
663 offers only civil protection you dumb fucks! Amending 703 as proposed in this bill would unquestionably affirm the right of an individual to use lethal force in the case of invader w/o have to engage mental gymnastics of ability-opportunity-jeapordy and articulation of a threat of/response to, a "serious bodily injury" HRS 703-304 (2) or articulating how one feared that a lesser level of force would expose them to threat of serious bodily harm as required in 703-306(3) (b) (ii).
HRS 703-304 (3) states:
"Except as otherwise provided in subsections (4) and (5) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do, or abstaining from any lawful action."
So while one has no duty to retreat or surrender possession of property, etc......one still must wait to use lethal force until a clearly articulable "serious bodily injury" threat is articulable or manifest in order to CLEARLY be justified under 703-306(3) (b) (ii)
"(3) The use of deadly force for the protection of property is justifiable only if:
(a) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to dispossess the actor of the actor's dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or
(b) The person against whom the deadly force is used is attempting to commit felonious property damage, burglary, robbery, or felonious theft and either:
(i) Has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of the actor; or
(ii) The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission of the crime would expose the actor or another person in the actor's presence to substantial danger of serious bodily injury.
SO BIG DEAL.....(ii) states you can escalate to lethal force if you fear exposure to substantial danger of SBI. BUT does anyone seriously believe that they would not face arrest and prosecution if they try to claim that they resorted to "lethal force" because they feared being exposed to "substantial danger of serious bodily injury" by engaging in a lesser level of protective force unless they are perhaps female, or obviously disabled or a frail elderly, or that the perpetrator is clearly armed or there exist someother clear disparity of force? Why is the burden upon the homeowner to show justification for use of force? Some prosecutor would easily claim if I tried to use that justification....."But Mr. Slaphead, as an experienced martial artist and obviously physically strong individual, why could you not employ a lesser level of protective force or even confining force to prevent Mr. Poor-Misunderstood-Underprivileged from committing the offenses you accuse him of?".....To which I would respond, "well maybe because Mr Prosecutor, I know how easy it is to kill, maim and more importantly be maimed or killed from blunt force trauma or be shanked to death with a hidden edged weapon." So in reality, a healthy male (let's just admit a female would likely be at an advantage here) is still faced with navigating the deadly force triangle and articulating the threat of SBI, all within the close confines of his home under the possible circumstances of surprise, darkness and violence.
Oh I know....let's throw out the tired old line of how..... property can be replaced, lives cannot, or some such other platitude that essentially means GIVE UP to a criminal and run&hide behind a locked bedroom door and hope for the best.
If a criminal, one you have no idea of their background and intent and so you MUST ASSUME they are violent&aggressive as well as armed, is in your home.......it is not the time to be contemplating the complexities of HRS 703, or engaging in a lesser level of force and hopefully not get shanked repeatedly before being justified in using lethal force. Does this mean I would automatically resort to LF.....NO, but if I did, I'd like the law to be more on my side! The side of the LAW-ABIDING citizen trying to feel safe in his own home and protect himself and his family......IT ONLY FUCKING MAKES SENSE!
i only break in because we want to view your vhs pron collection?
EXZACTLY!