Have You Just Committed a Crime?

[Kirk Freeman]

You are aware that no one can force the county prosecutor to file charges right?

Sometimes the voters can.

a 20+ year old man would only be dating a junior in high school for one reason.

Because of true love?

 

[LPMan59]

Because of true love?

sweet statutory!

 

[FCSD 23-18]

Sometimes the voters can.



Because of true love?

You are so right, I am a believer of speaking with your vote!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

sweet statutory!

16 in Indiana.

 

[KG1]

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!!

Since there is no such charge as brandishing in Indiana than "presentation" of deadly force does not exsist, But if you were to draw that firearm and point it at an individual then thats a different story. Then I believe it constitutes the use of deadly force.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Since there is no such charge as brandishing in Indiana than "presentation" of deadly force does not exsist

Oh, yes, it do. See it every day in Intimidation, Intimidation with a Deadly Weapon, Criminal Recklessness with a Deadly Weapon, inter alia.

 

[ztrtech]

IMHO... In Indiana a LTCH is not needed if the "dad" is in/on his own property and the gun can be carried as he desires on his property. I do not think the simple act of showing that he had a gun IWB ,as long as the gun was not handled, constitutes a crime. It would be no different than "dad" sitting at his table cleaning his Garand while having this "midnight" conversation with the boyfriend or removing a cover garment that then made the gun viewable. The gun was never drawn or pointed in the general direction of the boyfriend and no verbal threat was made.

My question to FCSD 23-18 is this. If you responded to the call of "crazy guy with a gun" in this situation, how would you know if the boyfriend got a description of the gun while it was being cleaned and actually not in a ready to use condition. Maybe the gun in question is just sitting on a table on the opposite side of the room. This could be applied to either a riffle or pistol. Are you saying that if I have anyone in my house and they see a gun (either on or off my person), and they can describe it, that you would try to come up with charges against me based strictly on the complaint of a threat by that individual? There would be no proof of where the gun was located when the "visitor" saw it.

I am not trying to start a argument with you. I am just trying to understand. TIA.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

IMHO... In Indiana a LTCH is not needed if the "dad" is in/on his own property and the gun can be carried as he desires on his property. I do not think the simple act of showing that he had a gun IWB ,as long as the gun was not handled, constitutes a crime. It would be no different than "dad" sitting at his table cleaning his Garand while having this "midnight" conversation with the boyfriend or removing a cover garment that then made the gun viewable. The gun was never drawn or pointed in the general direction of the boyfriend and no verbal threat was made.

My question to FCSD 23-18 is this. If you responded to the call of "crazy guy with a gun" in this situation, how would you know if the boyfriend got a description of the gun while it was being cleaned and actually not in a ready to use condition. Maybe the gun in question is just sitting on a table on the opposite side of the room. This could be applied to either a riffle or pistol. Are you saying that if I have anyone in my house and they see a gun (either on or off my person), and they can describe it, that you would try to come up with charges against me based strictly on the complaint of a threat by that individual? There would be no proof of where the gun was located when the "visitor" saw it.

I am not trying to start a argument with you. I am just trying to understand. TIA.

Good question, and the answer is absolutely not. It is how ever just a piece of the puzzle. Add it to the other information that is gathered during the investigation and when it is all complied examine the totality of the evidence and make your decision. During a criminal investigation you should never rely on just one piece of evidence alone, you put it all together to see the whole picture. I hope I have answered your question, let me know if I haven't.

 

[Rookie]

IMHO... In Indiana a LTCH is not needed if the "dad" is in/on his own property and the gun can be carried as he desires on his property. I do not think the simple act of showing that he had a gun IWB ,as long as the gun was not handled, constitutes a crime. It would be no different than "dad" sitting at his table cleaning his Garand while having this "midnight" conversation with the boyfriend or removing a cover garment that then made the gun viewable. The gun was never drawn or pointed in the general direction of the boyfriend and no verbal threat was made.

My question to FCSD 23-18 is this. If you responded to the call of "crazy guy with a gun" in this situation, how would you know if the boyfriend got a description of the gun while it was being cleaned and actually not in a ready to use condition. Maybe the gun in question is just sitting on a table on the opposite side of the room. This could be applied to either a riffle or pistol. Are you saying that if I have anyone in my house and they see a gun (either on or off my person), and they can describe it, that you would try to come up with charges against me based strictly on the complaint of a threat by that individual? There would be no proof of where the gun was located when the "visitor" saw it.

I am not trying to start a argument with you. I am just trying to understand. TIA.

My question to you is: why would you make ANY statements let alone open the door? Remember, CAN and WILL be used against you...

 

[FCSD 23-18]

My question to you is: why would you make ANY statements let alone open the door? Remember, CAN and WILL be used against you...

Thats your right Rookie, but I'm not getting into that discussion again!! LOL. Good night all, MRI in the morning down at the Indy VA. All prayers would be appreciated, hoping not to need another surgery.

 

[Fargo]

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.

What I'm getting at with the case I cited is that the reason it WAS intimidation was because the defendant had no court ordered custody of the kids. If he had court ordered custody, the "victim" would have been committing the crime of interference with court ordered custody and so his refusal to turn over the kids would have been an unlawful act and intimidation would not have lain. That is why the court spent the bulk of the opinion focusing on his lack of a custody order.

If a person is being tried for intimidation, it matters not in the slightest whether the prosecutor has charged the "victim" with a crime. All that matters is whether the judge determines that the action he was threatened about was unlawful. In this hypothetical, the action the potential threat was in regard to was unlawful; contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It makes no difference to the judge that this was uncharged.

Any time the action threatened against is a crime, particularly when it is a crime against a person in the threatener's legal custody, it is very dubious if not impossible for intimidation to lay against a person. This is especially so when the threat is of as ephemeral a nature as in this hypothetical.

I'm not advocating for anyone to do what this guy did in the hypothetical. However, calling it the crime of intimidation is a stretch at best for 2 reason:

1. The threat is not particularly clear cut.

2. The action threatened against was criminal.

That is why you are wrong when claim it is intimidation all day and all night.

Hope all is well at the VA.

Best,

Joe

 

[PatriotPride]

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?

No offense taken. I would not lie...I doubt I'd say anything. I'm not sure if I'd actively invoke my 5th Amendment rights, but if they chose to arrest me I would speak to noone but my attorney. If it went to court, then there is NO chance that I could be convicted on the hearsay of ONE individual.

Also, one point I'd like to respectfully point out. Any 1st year law student who is half-way competent would be able to refute the description. Do I have a handgun with a black grip? Yes. Does that mean that I intimidated him with a handgun? All that's been established is that I own a firearm with a black grip...the same color that is used on MOST firearms.

 

[PatriotPride]

What I'm getting at with the case I cited is that the reason it WAS intimidation was because the defendant had no court ordered custody of the kids. If he had court ordered custody, the "victim" would have been committing the crime of interference with court ordered custody and so his refusal to turn over the kids would have been an unlawful act and intimidation would not have lain. That is why the court spent the bulk of the opinion focusing on his lack of a custody order.

If a person is being tried for intimidation, it matters not in the slightest whether the prosecutor has charged the "victim" with a crime. All that matters is whether the judge determines that the action he was threatened about was unlawful. In this hypothetical, the action the potential threat was in regard to was unlawful; contributing to the delinquency of a minor. It makes no difference to the judge that this was uncharged.

Any time the action threatened against is a crime, particularly when it is a crime against a person in the threatener's legal custody, it is very dubious if not impossible for intimidation to lay against a person. This is especially so when the threat is of as ephemeral a nature as in this hypothetical.

I'm not advocating for anyone to do what this guy did in the hypothetical. However, calling it the crime of intimidation is a stretch at best for 2 reason:

1. The threat is not particularly clear cut.

2. The action threatened against was criminal.

That is why you are wrong when claim it is intimidation all day and all night.

Hope all is well at the VA.

Best,

Joe

I agree. +1.

 

[stormryder]

either way, I'm a much bigger fan of the "Clean-your-guns-and-knives-at-the-oops-'wrong'-time-and-don't-mind-the-shovel" method.

Nothing illegal, but nothing left to the imagination either.

My favorite has always been "I have a 100 acres and a backhoe!"

 

[rugertoter]

My opinion, and its just my opinion, that's intimidation and it is a crime.

Better to be sitting in your favorite recliner with a table next to it and the Kimber laying on the table as you caress it during the entire conversation

Good point!

 

[Bill B]

Also, one point I'd like to respectfully point out. Any 1st year law student who is half-way competent would be able to refute the description. Do I have a handgun with a black grip? Yes. Does that mean that I intimidated him with a handgun? All that's been established is that I own a firearm with a black grip...the same color that is used on MOST firearms.

OMG, that is freaking hilarious. At my supsension hearing the witness described a "large black handgun, stuck in the waistband" and my attorney had me describe the only handgun I own, a Springfield XD with silver colored slide and OD green frame...
sorry to be off topic, but it struck my funny bone this morning.

 

[spec4]

The father should have discussed the daughters plans before the boyfriend showed up. In the course of that discussion, a time limit should have been set. If the boyfriend, upon hearing this disagreed, the daughter stays home. I would not have shown a weapon as IMO that is intimidation (of a minor?). Finally, my 17 year old daughter wouldn't be dating a 20 year old under any circumstances.

 

[PatriotPride]

OMG, that is freaking hilarious. At my supsension hearing the witness described a "large black handgun, stuck in the waistband" and my attorney had me describe the only handgun I own, a Springfield XD with silver colored slide and OD green frame...
sorry to be off topic, but it struck my funny bone this morning.

Funny bad, or funny good?

 

[Bill B]

Funny bad, or funny good?

Good. Anything that can get me to smile, let alone chuckle, before caffeine is good.

 

[Johnson]

+1 on Johnson!

Anything I can do to help. Your welcome