The federal term for this is “brandishing” and while that isn’t specifically listed in Indiana state laws, intimidation is illegal.
After watching the video, I don’t know that I’d say he was showing them the gun to be intimidating. Quite the opposite, it made him look cowary and small. I can understand why the students felt uncomfortable, but I don’t know that a prosecutor could make the case for intimidation.
Yeah. Despite fucked up beliefs we was engaged in respectful dialogue which is better than most
Just showing a holstered weapon is not inherently “brandishing”.
Right, brandishing implies intent to intimidate or threaten someone. That’s why I said in the second paragraph it doesn’t seem like he’s trying to be intimidating. To be clearer, what I should have said is “the term in question is brandishing” and the answer is “no, he wasn’t brandishing his weapon.”
I think it could be argued that it’s very hard to define the difference. Ex, a mobster jeering to someone “You know, you shouldn’t say things like that. A lot of people might be angry, and many of them are carrying. See? I’m carrying right now. You see the risk? I’m just giving a friendly warning.”
Of course, harder to make that argument against a cop.
Yeah if that were the case, police with a pistol on their hip or anyone open carrying would be brandishing. A bunch of states have permitless open carry. I think you have to have the gun in your hand to be guilty of brandishing, although I’m sure laws vary from state to state.
Ehh, He unconcealed it on purpose. It’s still not enough to be brandishing but he was doing it to make a point.
Nope.
In Indiana, this would fall under intimidation. Which is threats to modify or coerce behavior (without justification, I suppose,).
She said it herself in the video. “I feel unsafe… that makes me feel unsafe.” Clearly the gesture (which was hardly needed,) was viewed as threatening.
Depending on the state, brandishing may have more specific meanings, but generally, any attempt to call attention to the weapon (like exposing it on your hip,) is a use of force. More commonly, for example, putting your hand on the weapon.
In ~8 years of reviewing incidents for between 300 and 800 armed security guards; I’ve never seen any sort of “I’m armed!” - including displaying or putting a hand on it (without drawing) ever actually descalate. It was always either going to be drawn, anyhow, or never needed in the first.
It does, however, give the subject time to escalate themselves. So it always makes things worse.
The fact this guy never actually acknowledged that he had made his (presumed) constituents - aka highschool kids - feel unsafe, says either he’s too fucking unaware to carry a firearm, too fucking dumb to be a state legislator, or scaring her was exactly what he wanted.
Probably all three.
In Indiana, this would fall under intimidation. Which is threats to modify or coerce behavior (without justification, I suppose,).
No it wouldn’t and you know it. You seem intelligent enough to have posted the specific statute that he violated, and you very tellingly left it out. Don’t lose your mind just because some asshat Republican showed that he had a gun.
Depending on the state, brandishing may have more specific meanings, but generally, any attempt to call attention to the weapon (like exposing it on your hip,) is a use of force.
This is also untrue. Why are you just making stuff up?
Sorry? I left it out? You replied three times to me tilling me im wrong. You saw the link.
It seems you’re being just as dishonest here as you are accusing me of.
Also… you may wish to read something
Verbally threatening some one is use of force. Threatening with a gesture is use of force. In every state I’m aware of- which is about twenty, specifically- all treat a threat to use a fire arm as the same as using a fire arm
I have always been trained to never (intentionally) expose a concealed fire arm (unless a cop is asking you to.) precisely because the gesture is easily misunderstood as a threat.
But, you’re right, this guy could probably pass it off as debate. He shouldn’t be allowed to, though.
Sorry? I left it out? You replied three times to me tilling me im wrong. You saw the link.
Hey, you can’t just post a link to a law and hope that nobody actually looks at it. There’s nothing in the Indiana law that you linked to that supports what you claimed.
Verbally threatening some one is use of force. Threatening with a gesture is use of force. In every state I’m aware of- which is about twenty, specifically- all treat a threat to use a fire arm as the same as using a fire arm
Threatening requires…an actual threat. Just showing someone a gun is not a threat. I would challenge you to show me a law that says “showing someone a gun is a threat”. The laws I looked up said that threatening someone with a gun is a threat.
I have always been trained to never (intentionally) expose a concealed fire arm (unless a cop is asking you to.) precisely because the gesture is easily misunderstood as a threat.
The police are not a great standard for what should be considered a threat, nor are there any laws out there that say, “it’s a threat if a police officer would consider it a threat”.
Threatening requires…an actual threat. Just showing someone a gun is not a threat. I would challenge you to show me a law that says “showing someone a gun is a threat”. The laws I looked up said that threatening someone with a gun is a threat.
Would pointing a gun at someone be a threat? (Surely yes.) Why? Because it can intimidate someone (by a statement of intent to use force) into doing something they wouldn’t otherwise do.
OK, so can the same be said for placing your hand on a gun? What about placing a gun on a table? Surely, again, the answer is yes for both of those. Why? Because purposefully displaying your weapon is displaying your intent (or a warning of possible intent) to use it.
OK, so what’s the difference between those and displaying (purposefully to a group of people in opposition to you) your holstered gun? What is the possible intent? Was he just trying to show them a piece of his wardrobe or was their another motive? If the intent was to make them feel uncomfortable (and it did) then explain how it’s not a threat?
Threats don’t have to be words. Threats can be actions, like holding a knife to someone’s throat. If the intent is coercion through an implication of danger, it’s a threat. Arguments can be made that this wasn’t what happened, but you’d be hard pressed to get anyone like me to see this as anything else. What could the other possible intent be?
Threatening requires…an actual threat. Just showing someone a gun is not a threat. I would challenge you to show me a law that says “showing someone a gun is a threat”. The laws I looked up said that threatening someone with a gun is a threat.
you can communicate a threat to shoot some one without ever having a gun on your possession. (Gran Torino comes to mind, even if that is fiction.) Here’s the relevant text of Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-45-2-1. :
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat with the intent:
- that another person engage in conduct against the other person’s will;
- that another person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act;
- [trimming this, it’s not really relevant here. Basically saying you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a theater, or similar.]
commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.
making threats in general is Class A misdemeanor. there’s conditions that can bump it to a class 6, or 5 felony (like, you’re threatening to commit a felony- aka to shoot some one.)
it goes on to say:
c) “Threat” means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:
- unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;
…
6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;
…
I’ve bolded the important bits, and trimmed out a few that were irrelevant or just too wordy and also irrelevant.
care to explain how calling attention to being armed, isn’t on some level intended to shock or scare school kids? based on posture and what little context there was, it seems more reasonable to believe he wanted- consciously or otherwise- to scare and pressure these kids. And he used a firearm to do it.
you can use a device to intimidate without ever actually drawing or firing a weapon. on a geopolitical level, the entire premise of MAD is based on that. Simply opening his jacket was “using” in that sense. “I’m armed right now!! [SEE?]” there was absolutely zero reason, as far as legitimate policy arguments go, that flashing that pistol bolstered… and a reasonable belief, by members of this group, that he was indeed threatening them.
I am hard pressed to conceive of a scenario where the situation would be improved by such an announcement where simply drawing it would not also be a greater improvement.
Am I stretching things- a bit- ? probably. Will this guy get off because “i didn’t mean it that way?” Absolutely. because he’s rich(ish), white, and in a conservative stronghold that likes this sort bullshit. Does it mean he’s not guilty? No… Does it mean it’s okay to do? absolutely not.
r/dgu already added this to their list and say it prevented a violent crime.
I got stopped by plainclothes cops one time and I wasn’t even sure if they were really cops, and one guy said “yeah, here’s my badge and this is my gun” and showed me. I was just oh, okay, but it came up in court, and the issue was it could be seen as intimidating (the cop lied and said it didn’t happen!).
All the cop had to do was show their badge and ID. No gun required to prove that they were a cop.
But the gun makes their dick hard.
but I don’t know that a prosecutor could make the case for intimidation.
If only he was a tall 21 year old black man I bet they could.
Proving that any unhinged moron can get a gun and be elected by Conservatives.
Not just can, but that’s specifically why they’re chosen. It’s not a mistake this idiot happened to be a Republican.
deleted by creator
That’s called brandishing, and it’s usually a crime.
Yeah and if there is no brandishing law in Indiana this could be viewed as possible assault. (Offen assault is the threat of violence, battery is the action of violence)
No, that’s not how it works. Merely showing someone a gun is not “brandishing”. A very simple example demonstrates how silly your claim is. Gun stores exist and involve the employee handling and showing people many guns. No one would call that “brandishing”.
https://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/1007
You’re missing the point. Its not the display that is brandishing, it is display with intent to intimidate.
deleted by creator
Do
That’s for a jury to decide.
I’m pretty sure you’re missing the point. Like your link says, simply showing someone a weapon is not brandishing. There has to be an intent to intimidate. The video of this interaction makes it plainly obvious that there was no intention on the part of this politician to intimidate anyone.
edit
All that said, your link isn’t relevant to this situation anyway. The definition of brandishing is mentioned specifically in the context of someone who possesses a weapon “during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime”. (see 18 USC 924(c)(1) and (c)(4)). This guy was not in the middle of committing a crime of violence or drug trafficking, thus the brandishing definition does not apply.
assault, menacing, intimidation, all crimes that involve the threat of violence.
Let’s use knives instead. If you’re bothering me on the street, and I flash a large knife at you in response, what would be your interpretation of that gesture? Am I just getting my knife some air? Am I inviting you back to mine for a night cap? Or am I telling you to back off because I have a weapon?
That’s not a particularly relevant example. If you and I were having a discussion about one’s right to self-defense, and I ask you “like by carrying a knife”, and you say “yes, in fact I’m carrying a knife right now” and you show me, I’m not going to feel threatened. (Which is actually exactly what happened in this instance.)
What does showing the knife accomplish in this example?
I assume to emphasize the point about having a weapon to defend oneself. You don’t have to agree with that point, but you don’t get to automatically jump to it being some kind of threat.
I mean, I kinda get where you’re coming from. Though I’ll say I could take that to an extreme to show how flawed it is.
I will say however, when someone is actively saying “we want knife control, things are unsafe if everyone is just walking around with knives” and someone else goes “what are you talking about I have this knife right here” it does have a bit more sinister a vibe in my mind.
Don’t drag us knife owners into it. Mine is a tool for cutting things, a gun has no useful purpose (outside a range). A tool can be misused but a gun’s primary purpose is to make living things dead.
You’ve lived a sheltered and privileged life if you think there is no useful purpose in a tool which has the primary purpose of making living things dead.
You’re right, your example isn’t a demonstration of brandishing. But it also has nothing to do with what the article describes.
If I walk into a gun store a reasonable person would conclude that I consent to see guns. If I express an opinion about the government to my elected official a reasonable person would not conclude that I consented to be shown a gun.
It isn’t the action alone, it is the context, and the context includes consent.
Real men don’t need props.
That’s why i never understood the angle of guns and big trucks are things deemed manly. I live on a super steep place, when i see dudes on bicycles, just huffing up there like a machine, i always think: what a bloke. When i see some ridiculous truck in my small town i just see a clown. Same with guns, it’s okay you’re scared of the worldbor think you’rs some sort of redneck aveenger.
I don’t understand why you think only rednecks have firearms. The world has changed, a large majority of firearm owners are not rednecks. Trump helped that.
Sure, but I’ve met very few lefties who advertise it. Owning a gun isn’t really a part of most people’s personality if they aren’t crazy people.
I like responsible gun ownership. You should be required to show competence with your firearm, both in usage an maintenance and storage, to own it though. You should have to go through a course (funded by taxes to ensure poorer people aren’t left out) before your purchase, and probably prove you have a safe place to store it and knowledge on how and why to store it.
(Firearms are the most stolen item, and the idiots with unsecured firearms or in safes locked with “1776” have caused part of the illegal gun crises.)
Seems reasonable to me - I got my state’s id card for ownership of a firearm, and just haven’t felt compelled to take the 16 hour class for a carry permit.
TBH, I have some concerns about the intersection of fed law and legal marijuana states that I’d rather not risk being the test case for.
You bring up a very valid point about funding of the course and equity. On further reflection, anyone who wants to learn ought to have access, whether they want to own/carry, or not.
The more educated and responsible citizens, the fewer sanctimonious fools who think “good guys with guns” stand a chance of stopping a motivated shooter with an assault rifle.
TBH, I have some concerns about the intersection of fed law and legal marijuana states that I’d rather not risk being the test case for.
IANAL, but I think the consensus is that the form asking about previous addiction or drug use is unconstitutional, but it hasn’t really been tested. The issue is you need the resources and time to actually take it up to a high enough level to matter. Generally it’s just not enforced. Either way, it’s better to just not be in a position to worry about it if you don’t feel the need.
You bring up a very valid point about funding of the course and equity.
If it’s a constitutional right (which I don’t think it is because the second amendment is talking about something else, but that doesn’t matter) then everyone should have equal access. Any barriers should not be based on class, race, gender, or anything else unreasonable. I would even go so far as to argue there should be ways to help people pay for them if they can’t afford their own. If owning a gun is good for the rich, it’s good for the poor. All this would obviously need training and education first obviously, and then checks to ensure they aren’t just taking advantage of it, like selling it. If poor people had equal access to firearms though, I’m sure conservatives would be a lot faster with regulation.
I think many of the guys out there carrying in a big truck are simply cosplaying what they think a “real man” is. They want to be cowboys in their shiny F150 trucks with Carhartts and a pistol, but actually work a desk job and have no need for any of it.
Cyclists are some of the most badass athletes on the planet. Go watch them race the Tour De France or the Giro De Italia and those dudes are blasting 120 miles every day in any weather for a month.
Some hillbilly wouldn’t make it past the first half of the first day.
Lol @redneck avenger. Gonna use that one!
… call the cops. that’s intimidation right there.
Yeah. I thought if you were concealed carrying, any interaction with your gun that was visible from displaying, peaking, drawing all the way to pointing was considered a criminal threat.
indiana law, apparently they call it ‘intimidation’. He opened his jacket and displayed it with the intention of modifying their behavior.
You need to go re-read the link you posted, because you either didn’t understand it or you’re being highly dishonest about it.
It depends on where you at, honestly. Showing off a concealed carry is just stupid anyway as the entire point is not to let people know you have a weapon.
see the link. that’s to Inidiana’s law on the matter.
Of course. I just clarified a general uncertainty with “check your local laws”.
Except the cops are on his side…
prolly. But they still at least have to respond. but a police report citing the incident looks pretty bad.
Brandishing a firearm
My mind cannot fathom how you managed to read that law and somehow connect any of the provisions to anything that this guy did.
Wow, everyone must have been so impressed.
“emotional support firearms”
Jim Lucas is such a piece of shit. He only makes my piece of shit Indiana representative (Larry Buschon) look like less of a piece of shit in comparison.
I wasn’t familiar with Lucas, but l lived in Terre Haute until about a year ago and didn’t realize anyone could make Buschon look any less shitty.
Congratulations on escaping!
“Whoa, we have a badass here”
You forgot the space between “bad” and “ass”.
deleted by creator
Indianapolis just held hostage by the state
Middle finger of the south
“He’s got a gun. Shoot him!”
I mean, this but I unironically? Brandishing like this is an illegal threat of deadly force, which can be used to straightforwardly argue self-defense. It’s a braindead move on the legislator’s part, most likely a pattern of behavior (I’ve dealt with people who used the threat of their guns to win arguments, and it very much was a regular thing) and he’s frankly lucky nobody has called his bluff yet.
You’re going to have a hard time even finding a statute to charge someone under for “brandishing” that would include merely showing someone that you’re carrying a weapon.
Everybody has guns.
Ew, no
Gun ownership is declining. The hoarders just keep buying more.
I presume they’re expecting to sprout twenty arms after civilization collapses.
For the most part, it’s holding steady around 30%. I’ve read that certain demographics are seeing spikes in gun ownership lately, including women and Blacks.
including women and Blacks.
Only way we are ever going to get gun control is if both groups are open carrying.
I mean… if you’re going to carry, don’t talk about it. Carrying is basically something that only makes the one carrying feel safer.
And is a tell-tale sign that the carrier is so insecure that he has to take his metal phallus symbol along.
We really need to make some way to cure micropenis. There would be more normal sized vehicles on the road and less guns to worry about. I almost feel bad for them, almost.
to anyone who understand this behavior - what’s the man trying to do here? Is there any charitable read? Having a hard time imagining it.
I didn’t watch the video, but it sounds like it was in the context of discussing self defense. A student asked if he meant people should carry guns, so he showed that he was carrying one in an attempt to confirm that he practices what he preaches. He was probably also trying to normalize it. Pretty dumb, but obviously not intending to intimidate the kids.
If you watch the video, it clearly didn’t seem like any kind of intentional intimidation. Definitely a whoopsie since brandishing is illegal in most but not his state. But we should be charitable to compensate for our own biases and I think the title is a bit misleading about the context
Responsible gun owners sure do seem to have a lot of “whoopsies”.
“Whoopsie, I seem to have brandised my weapon at children”
“Whoopsie, I seem to have allowed my gun to be stolen”
“Whoopsie, a family member seems to have comitted suicide with my poorly secured firearm”.
“Whoopsie, I seem to have shot a child in the face over a misunderstanding”.
Yeah I agree
Straight up intimidation.
Video from AP:
Was revealing the holstered weapon necessary, when he could have simply referred to it?
Debatable. (Nah.)
Did it intimidate?
Perhaps. Hair on my neck would momentarily spike.
Did the lawmaker aim to intimidate?
Almost certainly not.
Dude was admittedly nice enough to stop & chat with the kids. Everyone was polite & reasonable.
It’s a damn shame the man lives in a world where he can even argue he feels safer carrying death on him. Things that can launch projectiles would be confined to fun & safe spaces (e.g. shooting ranges) - the only places people could safely use them - in a better world. But, he has a perception (one I don’t share). He discussed it, and used a visual aid.
I think pointing towards the outside of his coat at his hip would’ve been smarter.
I guarantee the only reason he was “nice enough” to stop and talk to the kids was because he knew he was carrying, and he wanted to make them uncomfortable. Everything else was him working toward that goal, he had zero intention of actually having a good faith conversation with them.
If he wasn’t carrying his handheld penis extender, he wouldn’t have gone over to talk to them in the first place
It’s a good thing THOSE kids didn’t have Guns otherwise they would have Shot him in Self Defense! That’s how it works right Conservatives?
Yeah it is hard to follow the logic. If one of the kids felt threatened they should have shot him in self defense but at the same time he would have shot the kid because he felt threatened. Ever since Kyle Rittenhouse crocodile tears it’s basically last man standing is the morally correct one. Which further means that you are better off being the one to make the first attack.
Brave new world. You are allowed to be threatening and not allowed to be threatening at the same time.
