The Wrong Car

[Magyars]

I've been shot at twice and had a shotgun aimed at my chest once.
Nothing quite like the experience of life or death in an instant to get your senses concentrated on a single issue.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

You are right. The guy that drew was in the wrong and, personal opinion, unstable. I'm sure there's a sob back story that makes it ok for him to draw on people who make an honest mistake, but this scenario doesn't have a defense.

Edit: I also reread the post. I assumed he was outside his car because it was locked. Good thing it was locked and there wasn't a justified shooting by a**hat.

God forbid you ever find yourself in the same sort of 'sob story'.

 

[Lpherr]

I've been shot at twice and had a shotgun aimed at my chest once.
Nothing quite like the experience of life or death in an instant to get your senses concentrated on a single issue.

Any plans for a fourth marriage?

 

[Sigblitz]

God forbid you ever find yourself in the same sort of 'sob story'.

I would hope to be prepared and stay level, understanding a mistaken car is common.
I wasn't judging in a legal sense, it is tragic.

 

[Sigblitz]

I might draw in the confines of a vehicle under those circumstances, but I would do my utmost to NOT point it at any living thing or allow it to be visible while engaging in clear commands to back away.

This

 

[Bugzilla]

Good Lord. For a site that attracts those who arm themselves for self protection, there are WAY too many who are ignorant of the ONE LAW they should know inside and out. IC 35-41-3-2. Many of these questions are answered just by reading it.

Instead of quoting the code title why don’t you post the verbiage also so that others may learn?

 

[Born2vette]

Your vehicle is your Castle just as your house. If you point a gun at someone who keeps trying to open your locked house door then you are going to be fine. IMO it is not anywhere close to intimidation.

Now if you're walking around a grocery store pointing out all the good deals with your heater, it's going to be a different story.

Yes castle doctrine applies if you or a family member is in the house. But, if you come up to your house and are outside with nobody home my understanding of Indiana law is you legally should retreat and using deadly force in that circumstance would leave you open to prosecution.


In the OPs case, if the car was empty and the guy pointing the firearm was outside the vehicle that could be considered brandishing. I do not see how someone pulling at a door handle, no tools or weapons in evidence, could be considered a forcible felony. Does not do you any good if you get shot in that situation but I would not get my CC out unless there was clearly a threat.

BRANDISHING A WEAPON (IC §35-47-4-3)​

It is illegal for you to knowingly or intentionally point a firearm at another person. This does not apply to you if you are a police officer or you are justified in using reasonable force against someone, such as if someone broke into your home at night. A brandishing a weapon charge is a Level 6 felony, punishable by between six months and two and a half years of incarceration and fines up to $10,000. However, if your firearm was not loaded at the time, you may only face a Class A misdemeanor.


Just my , i am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. (But I have attended Guy Relford’s Indiana gun law class.

 

[bonkers1919]

After seeing all the confusion, I reread it and seems he may have been sitting in his locked car.
There is confusion in the thread. I hope the op chimes in.

Yes, the owner/driver was sitting in the driver's seat.

 

[bonkers1919]

Hmm, I didn't take it as he was out of the car. I took it as he looked down and saw the gun as in the window.

That would change my feeling some, not a lot.

The owner/driver was sitting in the driver's seat.

 

[bonkers1919]

Random thoughts...
The occupant of that vehicle was right to have his weapon IN HIS HAND at that moment...
If I'm on a jury, the occupant reasonably perceived a threat...
From 2 feet away, even the OP's hands may be considered a threat...
Attempting to open the door could reasonably be construed as a threat...
Pointing the weapon at the OP, while attempting to warn him off is iffy...
The occupant may well shoot/kill an innocent some day...
I'd love to hear the 'rest of the story' (the other side)...
Had the occupant opened fire, and the OP returned fire, lots of folks would say "CC got 2 innocent people killed. Repeal it."
Ugly situation, gone south quickly. I am glad everyone is OK.

I too would like to hear his version. My heart and my head tell me that two cool heads acted appropriately.

1. The driver did not know if this was an attack on him personally, a carjacking or a robbery.

2. He took a offensive/defensive posture and verbally asked " How can I f@#king help you?"

3. He waited for my verbal response and body actions.

4. He held his tongue and did not make any threatening gestures or inflammatory remarks.

5. Both him and I realized this was a bad situation. He though had the upper hand.

6. On that day I believe God gave both of us a hedge of protection. For that I am grateful.

 

[Denny347]

Instead of quoting the code title why don’t you post the verbiage also so that others may learn?

Google


Sec. 2. (a) In enacting this section, the general assembly finds and declares that it is the policy of this state to recognize the unique character of a citizen's home and to ensure that a citizen feels secure in his or her own home against unlawful intrusion by another individual or a public servant.  By reaffirming the long standing right of a citizen to protect his or her home against unlawful intrusion, however, the general assembly does not intend to diminish in any way the other robust self defense rights that citizens of this state have always enjoyed.  Accordingly, the general assembly also finds and declares that it is the policy of this state that people have a right to defend themselves and third parties from physical harm and crime.  The purpose of this section is to provide the citizens of this state with a lawful means of carrying out this policy.  Provisions concerning civil immunity for the justified use of force as defined in this section are codified under IC 34-30-31.

(b) As used in this section, “public servant” means a person described in IC 35-31.5-2-129 or IC 35-31.5-2-185.

(c) A person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force.  However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony.  No person, employer, or estate of a person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

(d) A person:

(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

(e) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against any other person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.  However, a person:

(1) is justified in using deadly force;  and

(2) does not have a duty to retreat;

only if that force is justified under subsection (c).

(f) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against any other person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.  For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:

(1) on the ground in Indiana:

(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff;  and

(B) until the aircraft takes off;

(2) in the airspace above Indiana;  or

(3) on the ground in Indiana:

(A) after the aircraft lands;  and

(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.

(g) Notwithstanding subsections (c) through (e), a person is not justified in using force if:

(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person;  or

(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.

(h) Notwithstanding subsection (f), a person is not justified in using force if the person:

(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;

(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person;  or

(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.

(i) A person is justified in using reasonable force against a public servant if the person reasonably believes the force is necessary to:

(1) protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force;

(2) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle;  or

(3) prevent or terminate the public servant's unlawful trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect.

(j) Notwithstanding subsection (i), a person is not justified in using force against a public servant if:

(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;

(2) the person provokes action by the public servant with intent to cause bodily injury to the public servant;

(3) the person has entered into combat with the public servant or is the initial aggressor, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the public servant the intent to do so and the public servant nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action;  or

(4) the person reasonably believes the public servant is:

(A) acting lawfully;  or

(B) engaged in the lawful execution of the public servant's official duties.

(k) A person is not justified in using deadly force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless:

(1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is:

(A) acting unlawfully;  or

(B) not engaged in the execution of the public servant's official duties;  and

(2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

 

[Route 45]

A brandishing a weapon charge is a Level 6 felony, punishable by between six months and two and a half years of incarceration and fines up to $10,000. However, if your firearm was not loaded at the time, you may only face a Class A misdemeanor.

There is no such thing as "brandishing" in Indiana law. The statute specifically and narrowly refers to pointing a firearm at another person. "Brandishing" means to display, wave or flourish a weapon in an excited or aggressive manner.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Instead of quoting the code title why don’t you post the verbiage also so that others may learn?

Do people really need to be spoon fed to the point they can't look up and read an IC themselves? Damn.

 

[Denny347]

Do people really need to be spoon fed to the point they can't look up and read an IC themselves? Damn.

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.

 

[jwamplerusa]

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.

9 words, worth every penny paid and more. "Essentials of Indiana Gun Law by Guy Relford, Attorney"

 

[Born2vette]

There is no such thing as "brandishing" in Indiana law. The statute specifically and narrowly refers to pointing a firearm at another person. "Brandishing" means to display, wave or flourish a weapon in an excited or aggressive manner.

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.”

The owner/driver was sitting in the driver's seat.

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.

 

[Route 45]

You are being too literal.

Of course I'm being literal. Something is either legal, or it's illegal. "Brandishing" does not mean to point a firearm at someone. You are wrong, no matter how many websites you link citing laws in other states. There is no such thing as "brandishing" in a legal context in Indiana. Period.

 

[firecadet613]

9 words, worth every penny paid and more. "Essentials of Indiana Gun Law by Guy Relford, Attorney"

Amen! And it's always better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6...

 

[Born2vette]

Something is either legal, or it's illegal.

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

 

[Bugzilla]

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.

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.