The Wrong Car

[Creedmoor]

This just reenforces my earlier statement that so many here spend SO MUCH time talking about self defense but have no idea what Indiana law actually says regarding it.

Here, it extends way past that.

 

[Sigblitz]

I have read it many times. I also have some common sense.

 

[bwframe]

 

[Route 45]

No, the courts interpret the law as they see fit, if it were that simple I could get a straight answer from the IRS (that would hold up in court) and not have to hire a tax accountant and there would be little/no need for lawyers.

will just have to agree to disagree

If you have to pivot to complaints about the IRS and your taxes, which has nothing to do with whether someone actually points a firearm or not, then it's pretty obvious that "agree to disagree" would be the best course of action.

 

[Denny347]

You are being too literal. From US law shield:

”Merriam-Webster® defines brandish as “to shake or wave (something, such as a weapon) menacingly.” Federal law defines brandishing as:

The term “brandish” means, with respect to a firearm, to display all or part of the firearm, or otherwise make the presence of the firearm known to another person, in order to intimidate that person, regardless of whether the firearm is directly visible to that person. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(4).

Complicating the matter, however, is that only a few states include the actual term “brandishing” or the phrase “brandishing a weapon” in their laws. As a general rule of thumb, what people think of as “brandishing” can be defined as the intentional and unlawful display of a firearm or deadly weapon to threaten, intimidate, or coerce someone, whether or not the firearm or deadly weapon is visible to that person. Often, “brandishing” includes showing a firearm in an aggressive manner, but aggression is not always necessary to be guilty of a crime associated with “brandishing.”

To be very clear, this does not mean that displaying or drawing a firearm is an illegal act in all situations. There are scenarios where it may be prudent and legally justified to draw and display a firearm. However, the difference between unlawfully brandishing a deadly weapon and drawing and displaying a firearm during a justified instance of self-defensive may not be as clear as it appears.”

This however changes the dynamics and legal standing of the guy with the gun pointing at the OP. I and several others got the impression the owner was not in the car. Given this clarification I think both the OP and the car owner let cool heads prevail and avoided a bad situation for both.

As a side note, have never owned a late model Dodge or Chrysler but both our newer cars flash lights when I approach them locked with the key fob in my pocket so even though they are pretty common I know when I am near my car.

We speak in literal terms because we deal in specifics when dealing with PC. I don't enforce Federal Statutes thus I don't spend much time with their definitions and they spend little time with such prosecutions anyway. "Pointing a firearm" in Indiana (State law) could be a robbery, could be an intimidation charge, could be a pointing a firearm charge, or it could be justified self defense.

 

[Denny347]

You just verified to yourself why you should post it. Many are probably clueless and won’t research but if you posted it it may give them the spark to investigate it further.

If they can't be bothered...

 

[Denny347]

No, the courts interpret the law as they see fit, if it were that simple I could get a straight answer from the IRS (that would hold up in court) and not have to hire a tax accountant and there would be little/no need for lawyers.

will just have to agree to disagree

No, criminal trials and criminal charges don't really work that way. You either have the elements of the crime or you do not. The elements are spelled out in the applicable statute. Lawyers are for arguing regarding the evidence that supports the charges. I'm not sure how Criminal law has anything with tax law.... Just because a term ends with the same word (Law) doesn't mean they are related enough for a comparison.

 

[HoughMade]

We speak in literal terms because we deal in specifics when dealing with PC. I don't enforce Federal Statutes thus I don't spend much time with their definitions and they spend little time with such prosecutions anyway. "Pointing a firearm" in Indiana (State law) could be a robbery, could be an intimidation charge, could be a pointing a firearm charge, or it could be justified self defense.

"pointing"- literally and specifically, is what Indiana law outlaws (with exceptions).

"brandishing", that is display, waving, whatever, is not a criminal act under Indiana law...though it may be unwise.

Under federal law "brandishing" looks to be a sentencing enhancement when done in the commission of certain crimes (robbery, for instance), rather than a criminal charge on its own.

 

[foszoe]

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

Say you are making a citizens arrest.

 

[HoughMade]

...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...

Not that I'm a big fan of what the guy in the car did, but try to sell to the powers that be that the guy sitting in his own car when someone tries to get in his car is the aggressor.

 

[Bugzilla]

Say you are making a citizens arrest.