Q: Can a security guard charged with murder for accidental death claim defense of family after threats?

A: Yes, the security guard would likely have a defense, but based on the facts you describe, it is very hard to imagine he was actually charged unless the prosecution believes there is more to the story.

So based solely on your description, the charges are a huge overreach and should ultimately fall apart if the defense can show the guard acted out of necessity and fear rather than malice.

A: Yes, there may be a defense available based on the threat to the guard’s family, but it will depend on how the facts are interpreted under Hawaii law. The key issue is whether the guard’s actions were a reasonable and necessary response to an immediate threat. Self-defense or defense of others, including family, generally requires that the force used is proportional and timely in response to the threat.

In this case, the trespasser had reportedly assaulted the guard and threatened his family’s safety, then ran in the direction of where the guard's family lived. If the guard reasonably believed that his family was in immediate danger, and that chasing the attacker on foot was not possible, he might argue that his actions were intended to protect them. But the fact that he used a vehicle, and that the death resulted from that use, could complicate the question of whether the response was legally justifiable.

It may come down to whether the guard’s fear for his family was immediate enough to justify such force, and whether the act of running the man over was truly accidental or seen as intentional. Prosecutors will look at the timeline, the guard’s state of mind, and any evidence suggesting recklessness or intent. A judge or jury will weigh whether a reasonable person in the guard’s position would have done the same thing. In situations this complex, a full investigation into the history between the parties and the moments leading up to the death will matter greatly.