Have You Just Committed a Crime?

[Fargo]

It is intimidation all day long and twice at night. You do not have to verbally communicate a threat for it to be a threat. In the scenario your motive was clear and you proved that you have the means to carry it out. That said if I was on this call, I wouldn't make the decision to arrest by myself. I would call my prosecutor at the house and run it by him before acting, or I would long form it.

So it is intimidation to show a firearm to a fellow who has just stated an explicit intention to commit a criminal act which will have your minor child as a victim??? Did you read my post above?

If you are so sure it is intimidation, why would you be calling the prosecutor?

Best,

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

is an implicit threat sufficient to support a criminal conviction?

Implicit threat plus an act (e.g. flashing your pistol) is sufficient to support a conviction.

Don't even think about it + flash gun = Intimidation

She will be home + flash gun = likely Intimidation

I wouldn't be showing anyone my gun like the ending of some gun shop commando fantasy. Keep it in your holster and keep your hands off it.

 

[WebSnyper]

I'm not thinking that there is any case to say that the father is making the boyfriend do anything against his will. The boyfriend clearly has a choice to take out the daughter and comply with her guardian's wishes as the father is placing the daughter into the boyfriend's care for the stated duration or to not comply and not take on responsibility for the minor.

I definitely need to review the codes, but I just don't think there is a crime here.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It is intimidation all day long and twice at night.

Maybe, maybe not.

Depends on what the jury says, or the Court of Appeals.

If you are so certain that it is intimidation, why are you calling the Prosecuting Attorney?

 

[j706]

It's been almost a year since I've posted one of my "legal scenarios," and some INGO members at the last 1500 were asking me to bring them back - so here we go:

You have a valid LTCH, and you're in the habit of carrying your Kimber Pro Carry pretty much 24/7, always concealed in a IWB holster.

Your 17 year-old daughter has starting dating someone that you really don't care for - he always avoids eye contact with you, he's a couple years older than your daughter, and he's got strange tattoos on his neck.

One night, he comes to your house to pick up your daughter, and she informs you that they're going to a rock concert nearly an hour away. You say that's fine, but she needs to be home by midnight. The "boyfriend" says, "not gonna happen, it'll be at least 1:00 am."

You raise up your shirt, show him the Kimber, and say simply, "Midnight."

The gun never leaves the holster, and you say nothing else.

The kid leaves your house, calls his parents to tell them that you've just theatened to kill him, and the cops show up at your house, looking for "the crazy guy with the gun."

Have you committed a crime?

Nope!

My daughter would not be dating a person like that at 17 and or while still living at my home....period!

While it is highly advised by the top trainers in the firearms community to never let anyone know you are armed, IMO the scenario does not warrant charges. I would be thinking that maybe there still are some decent caring dads in the world. I am thinking a verbal warning would suffice.

We all know about people with weird neck tattoos and people that won't look you in the eye.

 

[ATM]

This whole "flashing" business could all have been avoided with open carry. Common sense people!

 

[FCSD 23-18]

So it is intimidation to show a firearm to a fellow who has just stated an explicit intention to commit a criminal act which will have your minor child as a victim??? Did you read my post above?

If you are so sure it is intimidation, why would you be calling the prosecutor?

Best,

Joe

A kid keeping your daughter out past her curfew is not a criminal action, the closest it would come to is contributing to the delinquency of a minor but it would never be charged. A good rule to use when attempting to show/present a firearm into a situation is to think to yourself (Is my life or someone Else's at danger, am I at risk of major property damage or loss). If the answer is no, then keep it put away until such a time warrants it. For the second part of your question, I would call the prosecutor because our SOP is to do so if there is the slightest amount of doubt. Besides in a non emergency situation why not let the legal beaver who is going to make the decision to charge or not in on the decision it might save you some paperwork in the long run.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

Maybe, maybe not.

Depends on what the jury says, or the Court of Appeals.

If you are so certain that it is intimidation, why are you calling the Prosecuting Attorney?

You are very right, let me re cant and say that it is PC to arrest.

 

[Rob377]

Searching the code is easy. Searching caselaw is something I'd like pointers on.

Lexis FTW. West is pretty darn good too. If you don't have access to either, then many local courthouses have a law library. Learn how to use keycite, and it'll work fairly well with real books. Some counties may even provide Lexis or West access on their computers.

 

[PatriotPride]

Not intimidation. Even if it WAS, there's really no logical way that he could be convicted as there is no way for the prosecution to meet it's burden of proof. There's not a prosecutor on the planet that could prove that the shirt was lifted and that the handgun was displayed.

 

[LCSOSgt11]

Depending if there were local curfews, the "boyfriend" may have just admitted that he was going to keep her out past a curfew. That is what we call "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor."

Simpler yet, if the boyfriend popped off, the daughter doesn't go with him.

Besides, who's to say that the father here just wasn't showing the young man the gun so that the young man could be envious?

 

[FCSD 23-18]

Not intimidation. Even if it WAS, there's really no logical way that he could be convicted as there is no way for the prosecution to meet it's burden of proof. There's not a prosecutor on the planet that could prove that the shirt was lifted and that the handgun was displayed.

All you would need is for the kid to give a description of the gun that he saw, if you own a gun matching that description you are half way there. I'm not trying to fight but are you saying that you would lie about it to stay out of trouble?

 

[Fargo]

A kid keeping your daughter out past her curfew is not a criminal action, the closest it would come to is contributing to the delinquency of a minor but it would never be charged. A good rule to use when attempting to show/present a firearm into a situation is to think to yourself (Is my life or someone Else's at danger, am I at risk of major property damage or loss). If the answer is no, then keep it put away until such a time warrants it. For the second part of your question, I would call the prosecutor because our SOP is to do so if there is the slightest amount of doubt. Besides in a non emergency situation why not let the legal beaver who is going to make the decision to charge or not in on the decision it might save you some paperwork in the long run.

Keeping your child out past curfew or not returning them when requested is absolutely a crime. The contributing to the delinquency of a minor explicitly references any delinquent act defined under IC 31-37-2:

IC 35-46-1-8
Contributing to the delinquency of a minor
Sec. 8. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally encourages, aids, induces, or causes a person less than eighteen (18) years of age to commit an act of delinquency (as defined by IC 31-37-1 or IC 31-37-2) commits contributing to delinquency, a Class A misdemeanor.

Both curfew and failure to return fall under 31-37-2

IC 31-37-2-2
Delinquent act; leaving home without permission of parent, guardian, or custodian
Sec. 2. A child commits a delinquent act if, before becoming eighteen (18) years of age, the child leaves home:
(1) without reasonable cause; and
(2) without permission of the parent, guardian, or custodian, who requests the child's return.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.20.

IC 31-37-2-5
Delinquent act; curfew violation
Sec. 5. A child commits a delinquent act if, before becoming eighteen (18) years of age, the child commits a curfew violation under IC 31-37-3.
As added by P.L.1-1997, SEC.20.

Also, it matters not a whit whether the prosecutor would charge on such a violation. The determination of if a act was unlawful in an intimidation trial is solely up the judge and has none of the discretion a prosecutor has in determining whether to file charges or not.

See Norris v. State Anthony Norris v. State of Indiana :: July, 2001 :: Indiana Court of Appeals Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia for a discussion of how important the lawfulness of the act threatened against is.

Joe

 

[ATM]

All you would need is for the kid to give a description of the gun that he saw, if you own a gun matching that description you are half way there. I'm not trying to fight but are you saying that you would lie about it to stay out of trouble?

So are you suggesting that uncovering a concealed gun is somehow a problem but carrying it openly wouldn't be?

It could easily be described either way. That part means nothing.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

Keeping your child out past curfew or not returning them when requested is absolutely a crime. The contributing to the delinquency of a minor explicitly references any delinquent act defined under IC 31-37-2:

Both curfew and failure to return fall under 31-37-2

Also, it matters not a whit whether the prosecutor would charge on such a violation. The determination of if a act was unlawful in an intimidation trial is solely up the judge and has none of the discretion a prosecutor has in determining whether to file charges or not.

See Norris v. State Anthony Norris v. State of Indiana :: July, 2001 :: Indiana Court of Appeals Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia for a discussion of how important the lawfulness of the act threatened against is.

Joe

Joe, I am trying to understand what you are getting at with the case you cited. This case simply determines that it was reasonable for the officers to deny custody, and affirm the lower courts decision that the appellate was guilty of intimidation. You are aware that no one can force the county prosecutor to file charges right? A judge has no say in who is going to be charged in any case and who is not. Please help me to understand your point of view, but as it stands you are wrong.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

So are you suggesting that uncovering a concealed gun is somehow a problem but carrying it openly wouldn't be?

It could easily be described either way. That part means nothing.

You are right but in the scenario given, it was concealed at first then it was not. The reason it was revealed was to communicate a threat.

 

[rmoore911]

It is a crime, and regardless if it is reported, it's still a crime is still a crime, it just becomes an unreported crime. If you steal your neighbors lawnmower and they don't report it, it's still theft which is a crime, it's just an unreported crime.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

It is a crime, and regardless if it is reported, it's still a crime is still a crime, it just becomes an unreported crime. If you steal your neighbors lawnmower and they don't report it, it's still theft which is a crime, it's just an unreported crime.

You are right on both counts but lets consider the contributing charge. In the crime of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, would you be justified in the use or presentation of deadly force to prevent it? Nope!!

 

[LPMan59]

the whole situation is moot because no responsible parent would allow a guy who is "a few years older" (which to me means at least 3) to date their 17 year old daughter. a 20+ year old man would only be dating a junior in high school for one reason.

i can't help but think of Wooderson.....the best part about high school is I get older but the girls stay the same age.

 

[LPMan59]

also this reminds me of another scenario that was posted a while ago concerning a parking spot confrontation at a mall where a person hypothetically showed his pistol after engaging in an argument with a jerk who stole his spot.

It was intimidation then and seems like it would be now. however, IANAL