Firsthand account of defensive use of a folding knife in a Hawaii hotel

[Drang]

Classic example of getting a YUGE lucky break because the authorities chose to use their discretion to not indict, prosecute, and convict.

Had they cared to, prosecutors could have walked this to a guilty verdict without losing their breath, especially in Hawai'i.

All of that based on the initial narrative provided, of course (which was very detailed, thanks). A change in facts could drive a change in analysis.

Lots of good solid common sense in this thread, incidentally. Don't usually see much of that on internet forums. Notable. :-)

--Andrew

Told ya.

[Mr_White]

Classic example of getting a YUGE lucky break because the authorities chose to use their discretion to not indict, prosecute, and convict.

Had they cared to, prosecutors could have walked this to a guilty verdict without losing their breath, especially in Hawai'i.

All of that based on the initial narrative provided, of course (which was very detailed, thanks). A change in facts could drive a change in analysis.

Lots of good solid common sense in this thread, incidentally. Don't usually see much of that on internet forums. Notable. :-)

--Andrew

GREAT to see you here, Sir. Please stick around!

[Law of Self Defense]

GREAT to see you here, Sir. Please stick around!

Thanks for the kind words, much appreciated. :-)

--Andrew, @LawSelfDefense

[RockinU]

Yep, but that's not this knife fight in the hotel. I don't (not a lawyer) think TX statutes give you a pass if the incident went bad because TX has a differential level of lethal force by location. Even so, defending property with lethal force better be your own. There was the guy who shot the burglars breaking into his neighbor's house. It was recorded and the dispatcher told him to stay out of it and he babbled about shooting the guys. Some folks think that the property statutes saved his butt but it was really a self-defense claim backed up by a witness.

Our OP guy was quite lucky. We;ve already discussed whether his response was proportionate.

Not germane to this thread, but for the sake of accuracy there are circumstances in Texas where protecting the property of others is legal:

Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[Law of Self Defense]

Many states has some provision for the protection of other people's personal property. Every such framework is fraught with legal peril.

Just look at all the conditions in Texas Penal Code 9.43.

First you have to meet the conditions of 9.41 or 9.42. I note that they're not shown here, which is perfectly reasonable. Still--have them memorized? No? Oops. Think you'd have them memorized at the time you'd have to decide? Maybe? Maybe not?

Second, look at how often the phrase "reasonably believes" appears in the statutory language of 9.43. Guess who decides whether your "belief" was "reasonable"? Yeah, the jury. Anybody who is eager to put perhaps decades of their life behind bars unnecessarily into the hands of a jury just hasn't thought the problem through. How hard do many of you work to evade jury duty? Who do you think is left to sit on a jury? NRA Life Members? Members of this forum? Folks with Jeff Coopers' collected works?

Not to mention the physical peril that you could die from the slash of a 50 cent box cutter because you decided to protect SOMEBODY ELSE'S piece of property. WHAT?!?!

There exist good reasons for sacrificing one's life. But it is (or should be) a pretty short list.

For myself, some third person's personal property does not appear on my "willing to die for that," nor even my "willing to spend 10-20 years in jail" list.

But that's just me. I've been in jails (visiting clients). Not eager to live there, for no good reason.

--Andrew

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Many states has some provision for the protection of other people's personal property. Every such framework is fraught with legal peril.

Just look at all the conditions in Texas Penal Code 9.43.

First you have to meet the conditions of 9.41 or 9.42. I note that they're not shown here, which is perfectly reasonable. Still--have them memorized? No? Oops. Think you'd have them memorized at the time you'd have to decide? Maybe? Maybe not?

Second, look at how often the phrase "reasonably believes" appears in the statutory language of 9.43. Guess who decides whether your "belief" was "reasonable"? Yeah, the jury. Anybody who is eager to put perhaps decades of their life behind bars unnecessarily into the hands of a jury just hasn't thought the problem through. How hard do many of you work to evade jury duty? Who do you think is left to sit on a jury? NRA Life Members? Members of this forum? Folks with Jeff Coopers' collected works?

Not to mention the physical peril that you could die from the slash of a 50 cent box cutter because you decided to protect SOMEBODY ELSE'S piece of property. WHAT?!?!

There exist good reasons for sacrificing one's life. But it is (or should be) a pretty short list.

For myself, some third person's personal property does not appear on my "willing to die for that," nor even my "willing to spend 10-20 years in jail" list.

But that's just me. I've been in jails (visiting clients). Not eager to live there, for no good reason.

--Andrew

The undersigned hereby adopts the foregoing argument and sets forth same as if stated herein.

[RockinU]

I despise a thief. That being said, there are very few of my own possessions that are precious enough to me that I would wish to endure the hardships associated with the use of deadly force, much less someone else's. Protecting myself and my family is paramount, things can almost always be replaced.

Sorry for the drift...

[GardoneVT]

The undersigned hereby adopts the foregoing argument and sets forth same as if stated herein.

Objection! Council is plagiarizing the witness!

[Mitchell, Esq.]

No. I am adopting the argument of another attorney. That's perfectly acceptable and encouraged in practice to save the judge time.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

From my class on the subject:

Note on defense of a 3rd party
A person cannot claim defense of a third party, if the third party had a duty to retreat(3); however, if the third party cannot retreat, the person defending them has no obligation to do so.(4)
Be careful before stepping into someone else’s situation.
If it is not your monkeys, it is not your circus.

(3) State v. Rodriguez, 47 Conn. App. 91, 96, cert. denied, 243 Conn. 960 (1997).
(4) “… requiring a defendant acting in defense of another to retreat, without regard to the ability to retreat of the person defended, would be inconsistent with the general right to defense of others set forth in subsection [a]”); State v. Rodriguez, 47 Conn.App. 91, 96, 702 A.2d 906 (1997) (“[t]he court's instructions make it clear that a necessary predicate to the defendant's claim that he, as ... defender [of a third person], did not have a duty to retreat, is that [the third person] himself did not have a duty to retreat”), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 960, 705 A.2d 552 (1998)” State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656, 690, 975 A.2d 17, 39 (2009) overruled on other grounds by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447, 10 A.3d 942 (2011)