05-09-2014, 09:00 PM
Sorry everyone I shouldn't have mentioned Zimmerman,just trying to point out that Hawaii is very different than Florida where oneself is moving from.
Hrs 703-306 covers protection of property and you cannot shoot an unarmed person who is stealing your TV.In the case of a home invasion it would be justified but surprising a burglar it would't.You can however beat them to death with a baseball bat.
(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.
(4) The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
(a) The device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury; and
(b) The use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the defendant believes them to be; and
© The device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.
(5) The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as the actor knows that the actor can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime. [L 1972, c 9, pt of ยง1; gen ch 1993]
Hrs 703-306 covers protection of property and you cannot shoot an unarmed person who is stealing your TV.In the case of a home invasion it would be justified but surprising a burglar it would't.You can however beat them to death with a baseball bat.
(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.
(4) The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of a device for the purpose of protecting property only if:
(a) The device is not designed to cause or known to create a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury; and
(b) The use of the particular device to protect the property from entry or trespass is reasonable under the circumstances, as the defendant believes them to be; and
© The device is one customarily used for such a purpose or reasonable care is taken to make known to probable intruders the fact that it is used.
(5) The justification afforded by this section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as the actor knows that the actor can do so with safety to the property, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime. [L 1972, c 9, pt of ยง1; gen ch 1993]