I was just reading the latest Concealed Carry magazine article, Defense of Others. I found this requirement bizarre.
In Hawaii, the third-party defender must urge the victim to comply with the attacker’s demands before stepping in.
— Concealed Carry, Volume 19 Issue , pg 38
It seems to me this would make a third party defender into more of a first party attacker’s accomplice.
As bad as CA, NY and several other States are at denying a citizens right to defend themselves or others, Hawaii seems to top them all in the stupid laws department.
HI is pretty out there. It doesn’t get as much attention as NY or NJ or the like because, well, people don’t need to drive through it to get somewhere else, I guess?
If we get constitutional carry this will be part of the law. unbelievable…
Compliance doesn’t always work well; there are plenty of examples out there of people who were killed even after complete compliance (ASP on YouTube has a few of the compliance question videos). That “the third-party defender must urge the victim to comply with the attacker’s demands” bit is ridiculous. It’s basically telling you that if you see a crime, either mind your own business or help the attacker by making the victim the problem and not the attacker (I agree with your statement it that it basically makes you an accomplice). This looks like more socialist principles in action, handing power to criminals and removing power from the victims. On a different point, I’d have to be absolutely certain of the situation before stepping in and risking my life or the lives of those with me.
Does that include rape? FFS, what is this planet coming to?
When Covid finally eases, Hawaii should include this in their travel marketing. That’ll really bring the tourists back. 
Seriously, though, doesn’t this sound like one of those arcane laws you see in internet click-bait lists? Top 10 Laws That Will Make Your Jaw Drop.
Please submit to the rape, I promise I will be a good witness, I might even step in and defend you…. Yes, that is total non-sense, but as we have read about, today more people are likely to video the assault rather attempt to stop it.
“Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, my client didn’t commit any crime. The act was consensual, as evidenced by her complying with his request. Why, even this bystander urged her to do so.”
Does anyone have a link to the full text of that Hawaii law?
I find
But this doesn’t have anything that looks like the above phrase
" §703-305 Use of force for the protection of other persons. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 703-310, the use of force upon or toward the person of another is justifiable to protect a third person when:
(a) Under the circumstances as the actor believes them to be, the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force; and
(b) The actor believes that the actor’s intervention is necessary for the protection of the other person.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1):
(a) When the actor would be obliged under section 703-304 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing, or to comply with a demand before using force in self- protection, the actor is not obliged to do so before using force for the protection of another person, unless the actor knows that the actor can thereby secure the complete safety of such other person; and
(b) When the person whom the actor seeks to protect would be obliged under section 703-304 to retreat, to surrender the possession of a thing or to comply with a demand if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing, the actor is obliged to try to cause the person to do so before using force in the person’s protection if the actor knows that the actor can obtain the other’s complete safety in that way; and
(c) Neither the actor nor the person whom the actor seeks to protect is obliged to retreat when in the other’s dwelling or place of work to any greater extent than in the actor’s or the person’s own. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; gen ch 1993]"
How would one know this? This law is seeking to find those that act in self-defense criminally liable for their actions. Reminds me of the UK law, and one of the Leftist SC justices, I believe Bader-Ginsberg, that stated the right to self-defense is not in our Constitution. I don’t see where the RKBA is inconsistent with the right to self-defense as our Founding Fathers wrote and spoke directly to that as part of our RKBA.
(emphasis added)
Thanks for finding and posting that. This portion of the text seems the closest to what USCCA described in the article.
How about that condition, …”if the person knew that the person could obtain complete safety by so doing…” I mean, how could someone possibly know this?
Edit: @Dave17 , I guess I need to type faster.
No idea how a person would know this, I suppose that is up to the investigating LE/prosecution/judge/jury to interpret on a case by case basis.
Defense of third party not ‘self’ defense, but yeah, this law makes it seem like acting in defense of a third party in a robbery is pretty much a no-go if you want to stay out of prison
Edit: However, applying this law to something like rape seems outside of its intended scope
Obviously one cannot, so the prosecutor would charge you with a crime(s), and force you to spend a lot of money, time, possible jail time, etc. The purpose of the law is to make people afraid of defending themselves and others, so as to prevent intervention in crimes, be they upon you or others. That is the effect, and what prosecutors do, in the UK.
Every person is presumed to know the laws in every jurisdiction you step into. It is NOT a rebuttable presumption. As they say, “ignorance of the law is not an excuse.”
I didn’t think @Dave17 was asking about the law, but rather the victim’s ability to achieve complete safety by complying, or the actor’s ability to know as much. At least, that’s why I asked the same question.
This.
Say a person has read the law, and knows the law…how does that person determine with certainty whether or not a third party victim would be completely safe if [the third party victim] just gave the armed robber what the robber wanted?
& @Alces_Americanus, no, it is not about not knowing the law, but the interpretation, being that how can one know for sure one could obtain “complete safety”? That is like our current laws in Virginia where localities can pass “gun control” laws with verbage such as “nearby” or “an event that should have been permitted” where in those instances one is required to be disarmed.
Sounds like Hawaii is turning into a crappy neighborhood!
Why would you say such a thing? No legal authority at all for it.