• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    103
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

      • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.”

        • Katana314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.

      • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Ehh, He unconcealed it on purpose. It’s still not enough to be brandishing but he was doing it to make a point.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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?

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              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.

              • jimbo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                9 months ago

                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”.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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?

                  • jimbo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    What could the other possible intent be?

                    Did you see the video of the interaction? He said something along the lines of “I want you to be able to defend yourself”, then a student asks “Do you mean by carrying a gun?” and he says, “Yes, I’m carrying right now.” If you did watch that video and came away saying it must have been a threat, you’re not have a good faith discussion.

                • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  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:

                  1. that another person engage in conduct against the other person’s will;
                  2. that another person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act;
                  3. [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:

                  1. 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.

                  • jimbo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    care to explain how calling attention to being armed, isn’t on some level intended to shock or scare school kids?

                    Yes, ffs, just go watch the video. I shouldn’t even have to explain this. He said something about self-defense, some kid goes “like carrying a gun”? He says “yes, in fact I’m carrying right now” and briefly revealed the gun on his side. A reasonable person would interpret that as him demonstrating that he does the thing that he himself advocates for. Nobody felt threatened by that. This group of kids didn’t gasp at seeing the gun and run away. They didn’t even take a step back. They stood there and kept arguing with him.

                    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

                    lol, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. I already explained the reason why he showed it and covered why it’s obvious that no one standing there felt threatened.

                    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.

                    He’ll get off because he didn’t do anything that anyone could even make a plausible argument is illegal. (Sorry, but your arguments here are all implausible at best.)

    • squiblet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      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!).

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.