Hawaii Senate Bill SCR91

Hawaii 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/7/25
• Refer: 3/11/25
• Refer: 3/14/25
• Report Pass: 3/20/25
• Refer: 3/20/25

Caption

Urging The Legislature To Advance Legislation And Support Policies That Safeguard Individuals In The Agricultural Community, Their Families, Their Livestock And Other Property, And Other Individuals Under Their Employment Or Care By Amending The State's Selfdefense Laws To Deprioritize The Duty To Retreat In Certain Circumstances.

Impact

If enacted, SCR91 would allow individuals in the agricultural sector the right to stand their ground and utilize deadly force for self-protection without the obligation to retreat, provided they are not engaging in criminal activity at the time. This change is positioned to deter violent trespassing and crimes on agricultural lands, thereby aiming to safeguard the lives of agricultural workers, their families, and their property. The proposal aligns with existing 'stand your ground' statutes adopted in other states and reflects historical elements rooted in Hawaii's legal framework, such as King Kamehameha I's Law of the Splintered Paddle.

Summary

Senate Concurrent Resolution 91 (SCR91) is a legislative proposal aimed at enhancing the legal protection of individuals within the agricultural community, particularly regarding self-defense laws. The bill arises in light of the tragic incident involving rancher Cranston Duke Pia, who was shot in a confrontation while defending his livestock. This event spotlighted the vulnerabilities and risks faced by agricultural workers, especially in isolated areas, and highlighted the perceived insufficiency of current self-defense protections under Hawaii state law. As such, the resolution calls for amending self-defense laws to deprioritize the duty to retreat in certain situations.

Contention

The resolution emphasizes the need for legislative action due to the unique challenges agricultural workers face, including the increasing risks associated with animal husbandry and property protection. Although the bill advocates for broader self-defense rights, it has generated discussion around the implications of such legal changes on community safety and the responsibilities of individuals in conflict scenarios. Critics may voice concerns regarding the potential for escalating violence or misinterpretation of self-defense rights, emphasizing the need for careful deliberation on how these laws are enforced and understood.