A particularly brutal attack at a party in a Waianae, Hawaii, neighborhood has at least one lawmaker in the Aloha State considering reintroducing a Stand-Your-Ground proposal when the state legislature reconvenes next year.
On August 31, party goers were enjoying themselves until a neighbor rammed his tractor into several vehicles at the house and then started shooting. According to local police, three women—Courtney Raymond-Arakaki, 34, Jessyca Amasiu, 29, and Cherell Keamo, 36—were killed by 59-year-old Hiram Silva before one of the home’s residents, Rishard Carnate, retrieved his gun and shot Silva, killing him on the spot.
Carnate was arrested on suspicion of second degree murder but was later released pending results of the ongoing investigation. But the resident’s arrest after the apparently cut-and-dried self-defense shooting didn’t set well with one state lawmaker.
Democrat State Rep. Darius Kila was deeply concerned with the shooting and the aftermath, and wants to see legislation ensuring that homeowners “can defend their loved ones and don’t have to worry about some form of legal repercussion.”
“This is happening in our backyard,” Kila told CivilBeat.com. “It doesn’t mean it can’t happen in your backyard tomorrow.”
Kila, along with some other pro-self-defense lawmakers, is expected to introduce legislation early next year that clarifies that Hawaii residents do not have to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense if they are in their home or on their own property. A similar Stand-Your-Ground measure proposed earlier this year failed to advance after never receiving a committee hearing.
According to state law, the use of force is justifiable when someone believes it “is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by the other person.” The statute also states that deadly force is not justified if it can be avoided “with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto.”
That’s the portions of the current law that have Kila and other lawmakers concerned. And they want to take Hawaii out of the list of 21 states that currently don’t have a Stand-Your-Ground law on the books.
A measure introduced by Kila and other lawmakers last year, House Bill 86, would have revised the law to stipulate that anyone who uses deadly force in self-defense does not have a duty to retreat if they are in their dwelling or on their property.
“The Legislature finds that the people of Hawaii have a fundamental right to be safe in their homes,” the measure stated. “However, the recent rise in violent crimes is threatening the public’s sense of security.”
The measure further specified: “An actor who uses deadly force in accordance with this subsection shall not have a duty to retreat under subsection (5) if the actor using deadly force is in the actor’s dwelling or on the actor’s property, unless the actor was the initial aggressor.”
In the end, Kila admits that the proposed law can be somewhat divisive, but he thinks it’s important enough that such a measure should be considered next session.
“Ultimately it’s tough, because I can point to probably several hundred people in everybody’s district that would support a measure like this,” he said. “I don’t want to make it a red or blue issue, but obviously this is sometimes an issue.”
He should have run like a good leftist.
This Democrat just stepped out of line. It seems he needs another brain washing treatment.
He will get back in line. They always do.
It’s unfortunate to see what happens when they disobey the party line.
There are very few brave people in the democrat party. Behind closed doors they speak the truth to themselves, and even to some Republicans.
But never in public. Unless under extreme pressure. And you can see what that extreme pressure is doing to the democrats, in Chiraq and NYC. Bussing in illegal aliens has caused many democrats to lose their minds.
And openly call for Trump to come and fix their problems.
Now if we just had a few brave people in the Republican Party we might get somewhere 🤣🤣🤣
Actually I thought it was very brave for the republicans and President Trump to [email protected] pot in 2018.
Industrial hemp is now legal in America.
Especially since his older brother was a drug user. And it killed him.
Obama bragged about smoking weed. And they still arrested dealers during his administration. He kept THC illegal. He never even tried to get it legalized.
But I don’t ever expect to have drug l.e-g@[email protected] crowd give credit to President Trump. Because they don’t believe in liberty. Because they don’t believe in the concept of responsibility and the consequences. That come with liberty
Now all we need is a few brave people in the Republican Party and we might get somewhere.
Lol, Trump can’t fix his own problems, let alone anyone else’s.
What a clown show, like the blind leading the stupid.
If it’s limited to the person’s property, it’s “Castle Doctrine”, not “Stand Your Ground”.
“If it’s limited to the person’s property, it’s “Castle Doctrine”, not “Stand Your Ground”.”
Exactly.
And if it does not include civil immunity following a finding of selfdefense, it is inadequate.
It doesn’t have to be “immunity,” only that self defense is an affirmative defense to civil liability. By definition, self-defense is a lawful use of force against an imminent threat of immediate bodily harm or death of oneself or others. But there ARE limitations that CAN result in civil liability. You can use no more force than is “reasonably necessary” to defend against that danger. A use of excessive force will result in liability for the harm inflicted on the bad guy. So not technically accurate to say so, it is quite similar to a qualified immunity available to certain governmental employees.
I don’t like the reasonably necessary portion of that. An anti self defense prosecutor will say he only had a bat or a knife, shooting him was more force than necessary. Or the 6’4″ 22yr old “victim” was unarmed, and methed up, the 5’2″ 64yr old “suspect” used to much force in his own living room.
I believe that a hand grenade isn’t overkill if it only harms the attacker.
“I don’t like the reasonably necessary portion of that.”
Understand, however…..
Aren’t we facing the matter of the jury, who must determine if self-defense action is what a “reasonable person” would do, in the same circumstance?
Of course, we begin with the shaky proposition that juries are made up of reasonable persons. (probably why I get excused from jury duty)
Sam the reasonable person concept is one thing. What would a reasonable person do in a similar situation? Probably whatever is necessary to end the attack.
The reasonably necessary idea is wrong because in a life or serious injury situation using whatever violence is necessary to end the threat should be legal, and not be determined by an anti self defense da. Self defense is just that defense, any and all means available to the defender should be legal.
If it was self defense how it was accomplished should not matter and there shouldn’t be a trial or jury involved.
The entire concept of “reasonable person” is problematic. The issue is that such an approach requres completely uninvolved, and notionally inexperienced individual to decide what is “reasonable” in a matter never before encountered by the average juror.
However, once “reasonable” enters the construct, then means and methods are reasonable criteria for determining if a defendants actions were/are reasonable. Jury “science” attempts to recognize and understand juror behavior, albeit inexactly.
Defending yourself or your neighbors from a vicious, deadly attack conflicts with the “spirit of aloha” and is therefore not permitted in Hawai’i.
Self defense is a concept forced on native peoples by evil colonizer pakehas.
Or something like that…
“Defending yourself or your neighbors from a vicious, deadly attack conflicts with the “spirit of aloha” and is therefore not permitted in Hawai’i.”
In Hawaii, laughing is discouraged. The polite response to humor is a low “ha”.
Weeping Jesus!
As others have stated, apparently everyone was supposed to run and hide.
The problem for Hawaii is that there is only one party. Someone in the Democrat majority had to step out to sponsor this bill.
Waianae Neighborhood Board member Philip Ganaban said he was a friend of the family and familiar with the Silvas.
“Hiram was really quiet guy and he always had ways of doing things, not Kosher or how you say it?” he said. “He would fire off his gun, get drunk fire off his gun but he’s never combat it and point it a people.”
“According to the family, there was a lot of intimidation that was going on, but he never physically came out and did anything,” Ganaban said. “So, he would shoot his gun, he would make noises, shine his spotlight around the property, but he never came out and said, ‘I am going to kill you guys, I am going to do this to you guys.’”
The video captured on cell phones by members of the Keamo family, shows Silva shining a spotlight from construction equipment into the Keamo property, while screaming slurs and obscenities.
A young lady can be heard on her phone describing what she was hearing.
“Shining right into our yard. Never does this — only tonight one big light He just when threaten us saying he going kill us all — Hiram Silva,” she said. The video was taken on March 23, 2021. It was three nights after an illegal concert on Silva’s property caused a traffic wreck and a fight.
“He just when threaten us saying he going kill us all — Hiram Silva,” she said. The video was taken on March 23, 2021. It was three nights after an illegal concert on Silva’s property“
But no enforcement by the authorities, I guess this elderly gentleman must’ve been part of the ‘protected class’.
And Hawaii’s red flag law does not extend to neighbors:
“Under Hawaii’s red-flag law, a household member, law enforcement officer, healthcare worker, educator or co-worker can intervene and file a court petition to ban a person’s access to guns for one year.”
“It doesn’t have to be “immunity,” only that self defense is an affirmative defense to civil liability”
Sure it does. HAS to be immunity.
“You can use no more force than is “reasonably necessary” to defend against that danger. A use of excessive force will result in liability for the harm inflicted on the bad guy”
And highly impractical lawyerly nanny-tator bulldhit like this, which serves to wreck lives, embolden bad actors, and turn the results into money in a lawyers bank account, are why it HAS to be civil IMMUNITY, following a finding is selfdefense. Anything less is inadequate.
“…HAS to be civil IMMUNITY, following a finding is selfdefense.”
Each state is different about civil filings. In Hawaii, if a civli suit is filed between the date of the incident, and before the criminal trial reaches verdict, would civil immunity be irrelevant, or could the plaintiff be permitted a civil damages trial? Indeed, and any SYG/Castle state?
Absolutely. The legal cost of defending yourself should be zero. If your loved one is killed trying to commit a felony, no lawyer should take your case. If you have to defend your life, it should cost you nothing in legal fees.
“But no enforcement by the authorities, I guess this elderly gentleman must’ve been part of the ‘protected class’.”
Exactly. And it led to significant tragedy.
“And Hawaii’s red flag law does not extend to neighbors:”
Not really true. Neighbors have to go through LE, as opposed to petitioning a judge directly. Seems to me like it should have been a no-brainer.
Comments are closed.