Man arrested for illegally entering Kailua home, attacking occupant
Police arrested today a 26-year-old man with no local address for allegedly illegally entering a Kailua home and allegedly attacking a 32-year-old man.
The man allegedly entered the home unlawfully at about 12:35 a.m. Monday and hit the occupant before fleeing the scene at about 4:30 a.m. today. A 29-year-old woman was also at the home at the time.
The suspect later returned to the home and was arrested at 4:55 a.m. today on suspicion of first-degree (violent) burglary.
31 responses to “Man arrested for illegally entering Kailua home, attacking occupant”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
homeless crime is getting worse and worse as I said a year ago. It needs to be reported. The incompetent legislature wants to put camps up next to your home.
The number of people mutating into subhumans is growing. I believe there is too much freedom to allow people to pursue a stinky rotten lifestyle.
allie, camps would be OK if surrounded by high voltage electric fences.
Nah, electricity is too pricey here. Load them up onto the next cargo ship destined for the mainland and drop them off in the fruit-and-nut state of California where they open their arms to drifters and illegals as a sanctuary state.
Allie, No local address could also mean a tourist.
A permanent tourist! Watch out for those drifters from North Dakota! 😛
Let’s not beat around the bush. This was no tourist. This was yet another deranged crack-head, most likely a mainland transplant recent arrival, who broke into the home in order to steal something.
This is why ALL law-abiding citizens must ARM THEMSELVES and train with firearms regularly. Practice home defense tactics, close-quarters shooting techniques, and know your rights under the law. From what has been reported, this would have been a clearly justifiable case of self-defense–the vagrant broke in and assaulted the home owner.
Grounds for two to the chest, one to the head. Bang Bang…Bang. Problem solved, one less sub-human polluting our state and harming our people.
Why are you so thrilled with killing?
There are non-lethal means that are just as effective at neutralizing a threat that don’t send your soul to hell.
It’s not a video game. Something the Aurora and Charlestown murderers didn’t understand til it was too late, if they ever did.
Oh yes, you’re absolutely correct about those “non lethal” techniquese that are “just as effective.”
Perhaps the home owner could’ve baked him a cake, poured some chamomile tea and engaged in some therapeutic dialogue about the intricacies of drug abuse, childhood experiences and the finer points of crawling through windows without getting injured?
It’s naïve liberals like yourself that make the world more dangerous, with your fantasy land, utopian nonsense ideals about approaching all of the world’s dangers with kid gloves, kind words and band-aids.
Someone breaks into your home. Your life is in danger. Your family is in danger.
IT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE AND RESPONSIBILITY TO NEUTRALIZE THE THREAT USING THE QUICKEST AND MOST EFFECTIVE METHOD POSSIBLE.
That’s not blowing him kisses. That’s not begging. That’s not screaming. That’s not throwing a stick at him. That’s not trying to spray him with pepper water in the dark (which doesn’t work on meth addicts). That’s not trying to stick him with a taser (which only has one shot, IS NOT LEGAL IN HAWAII and, also, DOES NOT WORK ON METH ADDICTS). That’s not busting out your awesome kung fu skills and kicking him through the wall. And that’s certainly not calling the police and then waiting the national average of 15 minutes for them to arrive.
There is only ONE known effective means of subduing and neutralizing a threat to your life in close quarters, and that is by inflicting enough shock and tissue damage to cause a sensory shut-down of the body, or by disrupting/disabling the central nervous system.
And there is only one commonly available, practical and effective method of delivering that result: a firearm and a well-placed shot.
You live in your liberal utopia, and the rest of us will live in reality. See who makes it to old age.
Recommended home defense weapon of choice on the mainland is the shotgun. Point of aim is a gut shot as it takes the longest time to die. “i tai”.
And when the bum heals, he returns to the same home or SUES the resident? Your life is in danger, your family members are in danger. Neutralize the threat.
In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. Killing an intruder for sucker punching you would likely not qualify under self defense laws unless you’re some 80 year old lady and the perpetrator is some six foot tall brawny guy. If you’re going to shoot in self defense and the perp is not armed, aim for the legs with a shotgun to stop the perp which would not likely kill the perp. and keep you out of prison for murder.
Isn’t it legal in this state to defend yourself in your own home? Why can’t you shoot someone who enters without permission?
It is legal, this is a Castle Doctrine state, but it needs to be reasonable force. You can’t shoot “two to the chest, one to the head” as OP suggested. That’s a great way to send yourself to prison. If the first shot disables the criminal from further threats, you need to stop shooting.
Hawaii Revised Statures has a section on use of force. Generally deadly force can be employed to meet deadly force depending on circumstances. In your house, no witnesses, no cameras…..got a knife in hand…… Cops don’t want to do a lots of paper work, no overtime anymore…..inept prosecutor….easy “Nolle Prosequi”
unless it’s your wife….or husband .
Yes, if you must shoot, shoot to kill, Uh, I mean shoot to stop the person.
Just like the police, they never say they shoot to kill as it is politically incorrect but their training is to shoot a person where the injury will almost always be
fatal.
There is no training to shoot to wound. And in many police shootings, you will find that multiple shots are almost always fired which makes it even more likely
that the person shot will be fatally wounded. The advent of large capacity pistol magazines (16 rounds if not more) all insure that multiple shots will be discharged, unlike back inthe day when six shot revolvers were what police carried and therefore they were not as trigger happy to unleash a barrage of shots.
To add to your comment, in many states the courts may rule it cruel and unusual to “shoot to wound,” which is another reason that every single firearms defensive course today will teach exactly what you point out: Shoot to kill.
You often hear whining liberals yammering on about, “Oh but but but…why couldn’t they shoot him in the leg???” Of course, if he or she was competent on the subject, in touch with reality and apprised of the law, he or she wouldn’t be a liberal.
Every cop is taught to shoot to kill. Every civilian in a defensive course is taught to shoot to kill. And it goes back to something people all too often forget: If you’re pulling the trigger of a firearm while pointed at a human being, you’re doing that because that human being has left you no other choice than to end his/her life. And if some crack-head breaks into my home in the middle of the night while my kids are asleep in their beds, that individual has given me no other choice.
Liberals will moan that you should call the police, hide in the closet and hope for the best.
Good. One less Democratic voter when the crack-head finds you.
Shoot until the threat is neutralized, but for the sake of surviving some activist liberal prosecutor or judge, firearms instructors will teach you to try to fire no more than three times and all responsible students should practice the “Failure To Stop” drill.
Two to the chest. One to the head.
Live to a ripe old age.
Make sure he has a knife…..kitchen one will do-wooden handles. Make you don’t have cameras too…..this is a strange case though, guys breaks in at 1235 then leaves at 0430. Then returns….
this is your end result from banning corporal punishment in our elementary schools……..you know da rules ….touch me and i’ll sue
The suspect later returned to the home where he was arrested? How stupid are these people?
Beware the liberal mantra, I rob you illegally or just like politicians I rob you legally with my ambulance chaser lawyer friends and there is no accountability. You catch me, I say sorry, the courts set me free. You defend your home and hurt me I bring a nightmare lawsuit upon you since you have deep pockets.
That’s why if you’re going to shoot, make sure……..
Liberals favor the criminal over the victim…until the victim becomes the scapegoat. Backwards system will want to make an example out of you. The family will flock to the lawsuit like vultures to feast on your bank account. Make sure…..but it has to be a good k…
He was at the house for four hours, then left and returned? There appears to be more to this story.
you seem to be the only one besides me that noticed that – sounds more like a friendship gone bad!
Drug deal gone bad most likely. He probably returned to get another hit got get his fix on.
Probably both parties knew each other which might explain why the suspect remained at the residence for 4 hours before he left ….maybe drug deal gone bad
A Cobray/SWD Ladies Home Companion would do the trick but I understand they are banned in this country.
A thought I had on “shoot to kill,” shot placement and food for thought for those not familiar with the subject of self-defense firearms applications…
Many years ago, while attending a defensive shooting course in the mainland, the instructor recounted a true story of a woman involved in a self-defense deadly confrontation. The background to the story was that the woman had recently broken up with a boyfriend who was a violent meth addict and he had begun stalking her; she filed for a protective order, and he was prohibited from coming hear her apartment.
But as all to often is the case, stalker meth-head boyfriend didn’t obey the law. In a drug-fueled rage, he came in the middle of the night and kicked in the door.
The woman had begun training with firearms and, as it was a popular model at the time and easier to learn to operate than an automatic pistol, she had purchased a 6-shot .357mag revolver. If I recall correctly, it was loaded with light-grain JHP .357mag rounds, rather than .38spl (which is popular with smaller shooters). This is what she retrieved when she heard her door break down.
The boyfriend charged her and she began shooting. She hit him with the first two rounds, but both were body shots. Keep in mind, the boyfriend is high on meth. He kept coming.
She hit him with another round to the body and he dropped to the floor…but kept coming.
In the end, she had expended all six shots, hitting him all six times in the body, and he had continued crawling toward her on the floor until he was basically at her ankles–she had backed up against a wall, sitting on the floor, firing her weapon until empty. He died on the floor in front of her.
LESSON LEARNED:
1) Body shots are NOT always effective against those on drugs. I was taught that a normal, sober human being needs to be shot to the body twice before the body will effectively shut down due to the shock and trauma of massive tissue damage. Anyone who studies real-life cases, however–or even a combat vet who was shot enemy combatants with the 5.56 round–can tell you that two shots will not necessarily due the trick, particularly with crystal methamphetamine users.
2) The only sure way (or surest way possible) to neutralize a human (or animal) threat is to disrupt/destroy the central nervous system, meaning a shot to the head or base of skull/spine.
3) And this is why, as I mentioned above, ALL students in defensive firearms courses are taught the “failure to stop” drill, which is: two shots to the body, COM (Center Of Mass), followed by a shot to the head. The theory is that the two body shots should cause enough shock and tissue damage to neutralize the attacker; however, if he/she keeps advancing on your or continues to pose a threat to your life, the third shot should be directly to the head. This situation can and will happen in a defensive shooting. Ask any cop.
Also, criminal prosecutors will generally consider anything more than 3-4 shots excessive and you may face charges. Know the law, know your chances of avoiding prosecution. Shoot to smart, shoot to save your lives, shoot to kill.
4) If at all possible, carry extra rounds and it is always better to have an auto-loading handgun than revolver. Particularly in a home defense situation where size and ability to conceal are not issues, a large automatic pistol is what I prefer. My personal choice is a .45acp striker-fired polymer pistol with three 10rd mags ready and fitted with a tactical pistol light. Six rounds is just not enough.
An acquaintance of mine through online discussion forums, many years back (when I was first educating myself about defensive shooting) recounted a true story of his own experience being involved in a defensive shooting situation, after, of course, the courts had cleared him of wrongdoing and he was free to discuss it.
A Caucasian male (acquaintance/victim) and female were out on a date, walking down an empty street one evening. They were approached by three black males, all known gang members, who surrounded them and produced weapons. They demanded his money.
What they did not know is that the victim was in possession of a CPL (Concealed Pistol License), a 1911 .45acp and routinely trained at his local indoor range for the “failure to stop” drill.
Instinctively, he pushed his girlfriend behind him, drew his weapon and put tow rounds into the first attacker’s chest, followed by a head shot; he then repeated on the second attacker, also hitting him twice COM and once in the head. Both attackers were instantly neutralized. The third attacker ran off. Police would pronounce both attackers DOA.
The police would later inform the victim that the gang members who had attacked him had lengthy rap-sheets including felony convictions for armed robbery and rape. It was apparently their M.O. to attack and rob couples, later raping the female victims.
The cops on the scene unofficially informed him that it appeared to be a “good shoot,” meaning legally justified, and that they would recommend he not be charged. The prosecutor declined to charge him with any crime.
And this individual’s advice to all of us in the discussion forums, the lessons he learned were as follows:
1) ALWAYS carry a spare mag. His 1911 .445acp only held 7 rounds and he had no spare mag. He had expended 6 shots on the two attackers. Had the third perp attacked, he may not have been able to neutralize him with the one remaining round.
2) PRACTICE your “failure to stop” drills. Practice until it becomes muscle memory. Just like with soldiers–train correctly and your training will kick in when it matters.
3) Be prepared to lose everything you own in order to save your life. The criminal thugs’ families pursued (unsuccessfully) civil litigation against the victim, and he lost his home (and girlfriend, who was so traumatized by the ordeal that she left him) in order to pay his legal fees.
4) No matter what, it’s always better to survive. As we in the shooting community like to say: Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
Stay safe.
LOL, I just love reading your armchair Rambos’ comments.