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
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.
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.
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.
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.
… 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”.
Indiana: The Alabama of the Midwest
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.
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.
