Brandishing. Why are some people allowed, and others aren't?

[rbhargan]

I am not a lawyer. I am a newbie to firearms. But this has me scratching my head.

I have heard that you should NEVER draw a firearm unless you feel that you (or someone near you) is in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, and that your next action WILL be shooting at the aggressor - not cajoling them into "backing off." OK, I can understand that. Drawing a firearm simply because you *think* that someone *may* pose a threat, may result in you being charged with "brandishing" a firearm.

So why is it that a LEO can draw down on an individual on mere suspicion that they *may* pose a threat?

Why are the rules of engagement different for a citizen and a LEO?

Just curious.

 

[bradmedic04]

 

[Dead Duck]

I've never heard of "Brandishing" since moving to Indiana.

Isn't that something you do to cattle?

 

[nakinate]

IANAL but I don't think there are brandishing laws in Indiana.

 

[SSGSAD]

IANAL but I don't think there are brandishing laws in Indiana.

I am "undergoing" training by my employer. The LEO, tells me, that if you "show" someone your firearm, "in a threatenig manner" he will arrest you, for POINTING a FIREARM....

He explains it like intimidation .....

 

[nakinate]

I am "undergoing" training by my employer. The LEO, tells me, that if you "show" someone your firearm, "in a threatenig manner" he will arrest you, for POINTING a FIREARM....

He explains it like intimidation .....

As I said, I'm not a lawyer. Also, what a LEO will arrest you for and what laws are actually on the books can be two different things. I'm sure there's cops that will arrest you for OCing even with an LTCH.

At the end of the day, don't be an idiot when using your gun.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am not a lawyer. I am a newbie to firearms. But this has me scratching my head.

I have heard that you should NEVER draw a firearm unless you feel that you (or someone near you) is in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, and that your next action WILL be shooting at the aggressor - not cajoling them into "backing off." OK, I can understand that. Drawing a firearm simply because you *think* that someone *may* pose a threat, may result in you being charged with "brandishing" a firearm.

So why is it that a LEO can draw down on an individual on mere suspicion that they *may* pose a threat?

Why are the rules of engagement different for a citizen and a LEO?

Just curious.

Example?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am "undergoing" training by my employer. The LEO, tells me, that if you "show" someone your firearm, "in a threatenig manner" he will arrest you, for POINTING a FIREARM....

He explains it like intimidation .....

I hope he has a little more than that to enact an arrest.

 

[nakinate]

I hope he has a little more than that to enact an arrest.

QFT

 

[Dead Duck]

I hope he has a little more than that to enact an arrest.

If he was threatening with a Hi-Point, then that would be enough to put him away.

 

[Bill of Rights]

As I said, I'm not a lawyer. Also, what a LEO will arrest you for and what laws are actually on the books can be two different things. I'm sure there's cops that will arrest you for OCing even with an LTCH.

At the end of the day, don't be an idiot when using your gun.

In Indiana? "I have a LTCH. Please, feel free, officer... arrest me for the "crime" of OC, in the absence of other charges."

I will look upon it as a financial opportunity.

IC 35-47-11.1-2 The officer is a representative of a political subdivision of the State
IC 35-47-11.1-5 By virtue of arrest, I have been subject to the enforcement of a rule or policy, as the officer, representing that subdivision, has acted.
IC 35-47-11.1-6 If I am arrested in this manner, it would be hard to argue I was not so subjected.
IC 35-47-11.1-7 Financial opportunity.

The only agency within Indiana that might be exempt from this would be ISP (and the Capitol Police, but I don't carry there. Excise might fit, too. Feds are another matter.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Titanium_Frost]

It is my understanding that Feds cannot enforce state laws Bill.

 

[Bennettjh]

 

[Bill of Rights]

It is my understanding that Feds cannot enforce state laws Bill.

Just as it is my understanding that I would have greater difficulty treating it as a financial opportunity under 35-47-11.1, were they to attempt to control my OC of a handgun.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Hoosierdood]

There are no brandishing laws in Indiana. This is the only statute that I can think of that would apply.

IC 35-47-4-3 Version bPointing firearm at another person
Note: This version of section effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section, effective until 7-1-2014.
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or

---

(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
As added by P.L.296-1995, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.589.

 

[VUPDblue]

I am not a lawyer. I am a newbie to firearms. But this has me scratching my head.

I have heard that you should NEVER draw a firearm unless you feel that you (or someone near you) is in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm, and that your next action WILL be shooting at the aggressor - not cajoling them into "backing off." OK, I can understand that. Drawing a firearm simply because you *think* that someone *may* pose a threat, may result in you being charged with "brandishing" a firearm.

So why is it that a LEO can draw down on an individual on mere suspicion that they *may* pose a threat?

Why are the rules of engagement different for a citizen and a LEO?

Just curious.

Because LEO are routinely put in positions that non-LEO are not. When I chase after a stolen car, it becomes a felony stop with guns drawn at the end. You as a non-LEO would never be in that position to begin with. There are myriad other examples of positions that we are in and you would never be where guns drawn is acceptable.

 

[sidewinder27]

In Indiana? "I have a LTCH. Please, feel free, officer... arrest me for the "crime" of OC, in the absence of other charges."

I will look upon it as a financial opportunity.

IC 35-47-11.1-2 The officer is a representative of a political subdivision of the State
IC 35-47-11.1-5 By virtue of arrest, I have been subject to the enforcement of a rule or policy, as the officer, representing that subdivision, has acted.
IC 35-47-11.1-6 If I am arrested in this manner, it would be hard to argue I was not so subjected.
IC 35-47-11.1-7 Financial opportunity.

The only agency within Indiana that might be exempt from this would be ISP (and the Capitol Police, but I don't carry there. Excise might fit, too. Feds are another matter.)

Blessings,
Bill

Now they will just have to say they "misunderstood or didn't know the law" and they will be free and clear from any lawsuit.

 

[SMiller]

I've never heard of "Brandishing" since moving to Indiana.

Isn't that something you do to cattle?

I wouldn't point a weapon at my cows, they might kick the **** out of yah!

This thread reminds me of the video where the Jersey cop pulls a gun on the undercover cops and they go ape****. Its on YouTube...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It is my understanding that Feds cannot enforce state laws Bill.

They can in limited circumstances, as IC 35-33-1-1 grants them the authority to do so:

(b) A person who:
(1) is employed full time as a federal enforcement officer;
(2) is empowered to effect an arrest with or without warrant for a violation of the United States Code; and
(3) is authorized to carry firearms in the performance of the person's duties;
may act as an officer for the arrest of offenders against the laws of this state where the person reasonably believes that a felony has been or is about to be committed or attempted in the person's presence.

Now they will just have to say they "misunderstood or didn't know the law" and they will be free and clear from any lawsuit.

That only applies in very narrow circumstances, primarily when areas of the law are not settled or when the court changes their mind on what case law means. If it were that easy to avoid why would anyone bother with a lawsuit and who would ever win?