The Wrong Car

[DoggyDaddy]

Isnt it still a felony in indiana to point a firearm at someone?

Gosh, I hope not. It would be hard to shoot them without pointing your firearm at them.

Although if Patrick Mahomes was a shooter, I bet he could do it.

 

[wcd]

Seem like op could have made an iron clad case for Brandishing. Had he wanted to be an ***hat. I am guessing op did not look like a threat? Unfortunately with variations of constitutional carry becoming more prevalent many are failing to even try to understand the responsibilities that go along with being legally armed.

 

[AndreusMaximus]

Based on your account, YOU didn't do anything wrong and are arguably a Rock Star.

The other gentleman however; is a f****** moron who probably should not be armed. Walking up to a car does not present a threat of death or serious bodily injury absent display of a weapon. What the car's occupant did is threaten YOU with deadly force. Not in defense, but rather offensively.

That individual is exactly the type of individual who puts our Rights at risk of further infringement.

I might draw in the confines of a vehicle under those circumstances, but I would do my utmost to NOT point it at any living thing or allow it to be visible while engaging in clear commands to back away. Absent a visible potentially lethal threat to me or other occupants of the vehicle there is simply no defensive basis for his actions.

I thought Indiana law made it legal to use deadly force to stop forced entry into one's home or occupied vehicle. I tend to agree that the other guy in OP's story didn't make the smartest choice in this situation, but given that all he saw was two random people walk up and start trying to open his car doors, it seems like he acted within the confines of the law, so calling him a moron who doesn't deserve to exercise his 2A rights seems like perhaps a bit of an overreaction.

 

[Bassat]

Random thoughts...
The occupant of that vehicle was right to have his weapon IN HIS HAND at that moment...
If I'm on a jury, the occupant reasonably perceived a threat...
From 2 feet away, even the OP's hands may be considered a threat...
Attempting to open the door could reasonably be construed as a threat...
Pointing the weapon at the OP, while attempting to warn him off is iffy...
The occupant may well shoot/kill an innocent some day...
I'd love to hear the 'rest of the story' (the other side)...
Had the occupant opened fire, and the OP returned fire, lots of folks would say "CC got 2 innocent people killed. Repeal it."
Ugly situation, gone south quickly. I am glad everyone is OK.

 

[Bugzilla]

Many many many years ago I had a E type Jaguar

Glad things turned out OK for you! Stay safe

Many many many years ago I had a Ford Pinto wagon. There were no E-Type Jaguars at the establishments I frequented!

 

[Denny347]

Good Lord. For a site that attracts those who arm themselves for self protection, there are WAY too many who are ignorant of the ONE LAW they should know inside and out. IC 35-41-3-2. Many of these questions are answered just by reading it.

 

[Bassat]

Good Lord. For a site that attracts those who arm themselves for self protection, there are WAY too many who are ignorant of the ONE LAW they should know inside and out. IC 35-41-3-2. Many of these questions are answered just by reading it.

Would that it were true, that matters of legal import could be summarily resolved merely by reference to the appropriate statute. By that simple fact alone, we could rid ourselves of the curse of legal disagreement, lawyers, courts, politicians, and all manner of societal strife. All, we have discovered the way, the truth, and the light.

 

[Denny347]

Would that it were true, that matters of legal import could be summarily resolved merely by reference to the appropriate statute. By that simple fact alone, we could rid ourselves of the curse of legal disagreement, lawyers, courts, politicians, and all manner of societal strife. All, we have discovered the way, the truth, and the light.

Yup, knowing the law would have kept countless people away from lawyers, judges, politicians, and all manners of societal strife.

 

[Bassat]

Yup, knowing the law would have kept countless people away from lawyers, judges, politicians, and all manners of societal strife.

Agreed. But knowing is not practicing. And practicing is not interpretation. And your interpretation may not coincide with my interpretation. As a society, we have agreed to use a system laws, lawyers, judges, and courts to settle our differences. Which brings me back to the point. Knowing what a law actually states is not the end of the answer to any legal question. Read the above quoted section of Indiana Code. Know it through and through. Practice, diligently, its every nuance. See if that keeps you (generally, not personally) out of court when the SHTF.

 

[Denny347]

Agreed. But knowing is not practicing. And practicing is not interpretation. And your interpretation may not coincide with my interpretation. As a society, we have agreed to use a system laws, lawyers, judges, and courts to settle our differences. Which brings me back to the point. Knowing what a law actually states is not the end of the answer to any legal question. Read the above quoted section of Indiana Code. Know it through and through. Practice, diligently, its every nuance. See if that keeps you (generally, not personally) out of court when the SHTF.

My point is you cannot even interpret something, have an intelligent discussion over something, you've never read, looked at, or studied. There are lots of basic questions in this thread that could be easily answered if you were familiar with the ONLY Indiana law that addresses self defense. Many people spend lots of money on guns, ammo, and range time. Yet, could not tell you what Indiana law is regarding self defense, when it can be used, and on whom.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Seem like op could have made an iron clad case for Brandishing. Had he wanted to be an ***hat. I am guessing op did not look like a threat? Unfortunately with variations of constitutional carry becoming more prevalent many are failing to even try to understand the responsibilities that go along with being legally armed.

We do not have brandishing, but we do have stand your ground or no duty to retreat, and it does extend to your occupied vehicle. The person in the vehicle did no wrong.

Also, not sure I'm going to agree with "did not look like a threat". That's going to be determined from where you're watching.

(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

 

[Creedmoor]

Yup, knowing the law would have kept countless people away from lawyers, judges, politicians, and all manners of societal strife.

Shirley, You jest sir. Most Second Amendment Preachers here, have never read and understand the two GCA's.

 

[Bassat]

My point is you cannot even interpret something, have an intelligent discussion over something, you've never read, looked at, or studied. There are lots of basic questions in this thread that could be easily answered if you were familiar with the ONLY Indiana law that addresses self defense. Many people spend lots of money on guns, ammo, and range time. Yet, could not tell you what Indiana law is regarding self defense, when it can be used, and on whom.

Agreed. Completely.

 

[Lpherr]

We do not have brandishing, but we do have stand your ground or no duty to retreat, and it does extend to your occupied vehicle. The person in the vehicle did no wrong.

Also, not sure I'm going to agree with "did not look like a threat". That's going to be determined from where you're watching.

(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

But Indiana does have an intimidation and a pointing a firearm laws.
The latter is broke down to loaded and unloaded.

 

[Sigblitz]

Carjacking aside, if you observe someone enter your car while you are walking toward your car I don’t see a deadly threat or justification for deadly force. Even if they are driving away with your car and you (and your family) are clear of the vehicle it is a property crime right? It sucks but I am not sure drawing a firearm and shooting someone could be justified over a property crime. Just purely from a legal standpoint. Am I wrong? All of this is assuming no threats have been made and no weapons observed. Does Indiana allow deadly force to protect property?

You are right. The guy that drew was in the wrong and, personal opinion, unstable. I'm sure there's a sob back story that makes it ok for him to draw on people who make an honest mistake, but this scenario doesn't have a defense.

Edit: I also reread the post. I assumed he was outside his car because it was locked. Good thing it was locked and there wasn't a justified shooting by a**hat.

 

[Jaybird1980]

But Indiana does have an intimidation and a pointing a firearm laws.
The latter is broke down to loaded and unloaded.

Your vehicle is your Castle just as your house. If you point a gun at someone who keeps trying to open your locked house door then you are going to be fine. IMO it is not anywhere close to intimidation.

Now if you're walking around a grocery store pointing out all the good deals with your heater, it's going to be a different story.

 

[Jaybird1980]

You are right. The guy that drew was in the wrong and, personal opinion, unstable. I'm sure there's a sob back story that makes it ok for him to draw on people who make an honest mistake, but this scenario doesn't have a defense.

Edit: I also reread the post. I assumed he was outside his car because it was locked. Good thing it was locked and there wasn't a justified shooting by a**hat.

Hmm, I didn't take it as he was out of the car. I took it as he looked down and saw the gun as in the window.

That would change my feeling some, not a lot.

 

[Sigblitz]

After seeing all the confusion, I reread it and seems he may have been sitting in his locked car.
There is confusion in the thread. I hope the op chimes in.

 

[Denny347]

But Indiana does have an intimidation and a pointing a firearm laws.
The latter is broke down to loaded and unloaded.

"Intimidation" requires very specific circumstances in order to be applicable. "feeling" intimidated doesn't mean the law was violated.

 

[Denny347]

You are right. The guy that drew was in the wrong and, personal opinion, unstable. I'm sure there's a sob back story that makes it ok for him to draw on people who make an honest mistake, but this scenario doesn't have a defense.

Edit: I also reread the post. I assumed he was outside his car because it was locked. Good thing it was locked and there wasn't a justified shooting by a**hat.

How do you know what the person pointing the gun was thinking without actually interviewing him? Without that knowledge, you cannot POSSIBLY know it he was in the wrong. Real life example. Person X is a witness to a homicide. She has been getting legit death threats against testifying. She is sitting in her car waiting for friends and person Y mistakes her car for his (like the OP). Person X thinks Person Y is about to make good on death threats and shoots Person Y as he tries to open door. Sadly, that was not the case, person Y made an innocent mistake. It's tragic but 100% legal. What if the person in the car in the OP was a recent victim of a robbery? Of a carjacking? Of ANY violent crime where they could be unknowingly suffering PTSD? This rush to judgement is not a good look and THINKING you have enough information to have anything but a neutral stance is a mistake. We have a SINGLE side to the story. Rarely is that enough.