First time I had to draw my handgun (in this state)

[Rhoadmar]

As for the second part, Unknown doesn't really work in this situation since Op and his S/O knew the male at the door. Which from what I could gather, was the only reason the girlfriend opened the door in the first place. Because she knew who was knocking

They also both knew he had a history of being physically violent. A person showing up at your door at 2:30am with a history of drug use and being physically violent is reason enough to feel threatened.

 

[SteveM4A1]

They also both knew he had a history of being physically violent. A person showing up at your door at 2:30am with a history of drug use and being physically violent is reason enough to feel threatened.

If they felt threatened why did they go outside? That action seems to contradict the statement that they felt threatened. Yea yea I know, the GF went outside first. Well she obviously didn't feel threatened.

 

[glockednlocked]

And we wonder why I just don't answer the door unless I expect you and want you in my home.... saves a lot of trouble.

 

[Sylvain]

No, if we're lucky it will reach epic level: WALLET!!!!!!!

Reach for epic level but dont reach for actual wallet or you could get shot.

 

[jdmack79]

Reach for epic level but dont reach for actual wallet or you could get shot.

Too late. Action was taken as soon as your suspicious hands entered a pocket. The Glock 30 has already been deployed.

 

[Sylvain]

Wallet down!

 

[Jack Burton]

OP, I would email the moderators and request they delete this thread. If you are hard pressed to defend yourself among sympathetic people, how would this play out in court?

I disagree that he is among sympathetic people. He's auditioning for a choir of self proclaimed experts who enjoy nitpicking every detail and finding flaws. If he was playing the same tune among the general public who enjoy listening to music that makes them happy then he would get a much better reception.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

*IF* the person you pointed at had wished to press charges and you gave me the statement you just gave INGO, I'd arrest you. Nothing in your statement rises to the level of pointing a firearm. You could have carried the firearm and told him to leave while holding it down at your side and been fine, but I see nothing in your statement that would be justification for the pointing. No threat had been communicated, no weapon implied, no trespass was taking place as he was in a consentual conversation with an occupant of the property after knocking at the door, and his demeanor is never described as threatening. The *only* thing in your favor is personal knowledge of prior violent behavior.

I'd argue on that one that the man was trespassing and if he wanted to really push it trying to break into the house...with that said similar situation happened to me in california except my door was kicked in and you can read the whole thread here...https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ul-next-time-you-think-indiana-laws-suck.html

How do you figure he's trespassing? He knocked on the door, an occupant is willingly engaged in conversation, no one has asked him to leave. "If he really wanted to" applies to anyone. Your meter reader could break out your window and come in your house 'if he really wanted to' and that has zero bearing on what's actually happening.

Maybe, maybe not. That would be for a jury to decide. Just some fodder for thought....Odd that no one came and charged the OP after calling it in don't you think?

The goal should be to never go in front of a jury, and as the OP describes it then it would have been a bad shoot, and is almost certainly a bad "point" as well. As to it being odd, no, not at all. There's no cooperative victim at that point. If someone steals from you and you don't bother to report it and don't want to press charges, its unlikely to be filed on if you show up at the police station and confess to the theft. Police know this. We don't waste our time on cases that aren't going anywhere.

While I strongly believe that leaving the door closed would have been the smart choice, for everyone claiming he broke the law, I'll just leave this here:

See below...

(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.

Several of you posted that, but you need to keep reading.

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).

Per the OP's statement, there was no trespass, and you cannot use deadly force to stop trespass anyway absent other circumstances.

GF went outside and started talking to him so how was the guy tresspassing? OP went ouside and aimed his weapon at the individual. If the guy was armed and decided to draw his weapon and shoot op then that would have been a clear case of self defense even.

Yup. "I was talking to a woman I know who lives at this house, someone came around the corner, pointed a gun at me, and screamed for me to leave. I had no idea who they were, they were armed and were screaming at me..." Note the known weapon vs hand in pocket, note communicated threat of pointing a firearm, note difference in demeanor.

I drew my Glock and made him leave. I did not want to take a chance on him pulling anything out first.

No, you POINTED your Glock and made him leave, and that's a huge difference. Like I said,the only thing in your favor in the first post is your personal knowledge of a violent past. Being armed, openly or not, was legally fine. The pointing was not.

You might arrest him...but finding a prosecutor that would go after the OP "might" be an issue in this one.
Just saying that I struggle with the absolutes everyone is throwing around.

It woudn’t be. The IC code is clear, and nothing in the OP's statement meets the elements. The only issue here would be an uncooperative victim. Guess what, illegals who are the victims of violent crimes get to apply for a visa. You think that if he talked to an immigration lawyer he might not decide to cooperate?

Let me clarify again. I would have had to see a weapon coming out from underneath the coat BEFORE I would have fired, But I was not waiting to see a weapon before I used force to get the guy to leave.

That’s not clarification, that’s contradicting your first post. It’s already been quoted, but again

Some may say why didnt I drop him in my driveway. Mercy...is all I can say, that and I didnt really feel like going down to answer a bunch of questions and have to lawyer up and all that mess.

A cop? (see what I did there? An officer would CERTAINLY have drawn on him)

Negative. I’d have told him to take his hands out of pockets and would have patted him down, but I don’t pull on every drunk with his hands in his pockets. Now if he refused to comply and take his hands out, things change, but why would I draw on a whiney drunk guy with his hands in his pockets in the winter time?

So now you're a mind reader!?
His "history" wouldn't save you in court if you would have shot him. Only the facts. What he (and your gf, and you) did beforehand.

Point of clarification, his history is relevant as a component in determining the totality of the circumstances. You don’t have to treat someone you know is violent the same as someone you don’t know is violent. However that’s only one component and certainly doesn’t justify pointing a firearm absent other circumstances. Else we could all point firearms at convicts just walking down the street.

Woman beating druggie bangin on my door at 2:30 in the morning, not sure how I would feel.

But if he had been an officer and walked outside and pointed his gun at him while telling the perp to slowly take his hands out where he can see them everything would be all hunky dory

First day on INGO, eh?

I still want to know what a cop would have done.

Depends on how it was dispatched. If the OP said “there’s a drunk guy in my driveway”, I’d walk up, tell him to take his hands out of his pockets, get his ID, and investigate. If the OP said “there’s some crazy a-hole trying to kick in my door and kill us all” then felony approach with gun drawn . We act on the knowledge we have at the time. If I had full knowledge of what the OP’s original statement contains, it’s a low key approach . There is NOTHING to indicate he’s a current danger. He's not the first drunk I've dealt with.

Who gets to define when someone feels threatened? If he honestly felt there was a threat then what law did he break?

So if I say I felt threatened by the mailman because his mustache is twitchy, we just take that at face value if I decide to pull on him? That "I felt threatened" is some magic passcode for pointing a firearm at another human being? No, instinctively you know that's stupid. That's why we have the whole “reasonable person” standard. Relevant facts include a female is engaged in consentual conversation and doesn’t feel threatened, person has had ZERO interaction with you prior to you pointing a firearm, no threats have been made, no weapon seen or implied, demeanor of alleged suspect is “whining”. None of that equates to a reasonable fear.

 

[Jack Burton]

So if I say I felt threatened by the mailman because his mustache is twitchy, we just take that at face value if I decide to pull on him? That "I felt threatened" is some magic passcode for pointing a firearm at another human being? No, instinctively you know that's stupid. That's why we have the whole “reasonable person” standard. Relevant facts include a female is engaged in consentual conversation and doesn’t feel threatened, person has had ZERO interaction with you prior to you pointing a firearm, no threats have been made, no weapon seen or implied, demeanor of alleged suspect is “whining”. None of that equates to a reasonable fear.

Fortuntely for us it was not the "mailman" we are speaking about, and if the OP and story ever got in front of a jury they would not be hearing about a mailman and twicthy mustaches. They would be hearing about a woman-beater, a drunk, a known law-brearker who showed up at a home at 2:30 in the morning. A "reasonable person" just might be threatened by that alone.

And the OP is not responsible for his GFs state of mind immediately after being woken up from a deep sleep. Since all she had to do was slip on shoes she very well could have been half-asleep still when she opened the door to unknown danger. Her feelings do not dictate the feelings and perceptions of others.

You put the OP in front of a jury with his peers and a competent self defense attorney and he'll have them sitting on the edge of their chairs as he paints a picture of late night fears in isolated farm houses and known drunken women-beaters. What is "reasonable" to you days latter at 3:00 in the afternoon is immaterial

 

[Jack Burton]

Look at you thinking you're so smart.

I got it. I get that there's a subset of sheeple who think that self defense is subject to the whims of regulations and laws. I get that in order to avoid running afoul of those laws, it is prudent to act in accordance with them. I also get that some unknown douche on my property at 2:30 in the morning is a threat by default and I have every right, whether the law wants to recognize it or not, to meet that threat how I see fit.

88... I don't know if you read my much earlier post. If you haven't I encourage you to take a look and comment.

 

[ajeandy]

*IF* the person you pointed at had wished to press charges and you gave me the statement you just gave INGO, I'd arrest you. Nothing in your statement rises to the level of pointing a firearm. You could have carried the firearm and told him to leave while holding it down at your side and been fine, but I see nothing in your statement that would be justification for the pointing. No threat had been communicated, no weapon implied, no trespass was taking place as he was in a consentual conversation with an occupant of the property after knocking at the door, and his demeanor is never described as threatening. The *only* thing in your favor is personal knowledge of prior violent behavior.

BOOM!

Thank you BehindBlueI's!

 

[fuddus99]

Awesome summary BehindBlueI. Very valid points, you're a cop I assume?

 

[Daggy]

Fortuntely for us it was not the "mailman" we are speaking about, and if the OP and story ever got in front of a jury they would not be hearing about a mailman and twicthy mustaches. They would be hearing about a woman-beater, a drunk, a known law-brearker who showed up at a home at 2:30 in the morning. A "reasonable person" just might be threatened by that alone. And the OP is not responsible for his GFs state of mind immediately after being woken up from a deep sleep. Since all she had to do was slip on shoes she very well could have been half-asleep still when she opened the door to unknown danger. Her feelings do not dictate the feelings and perceptions of others. You put the OP in front of a jury with his peers and a competent self defense attorney and he'll have them sitting on the edge of their chairs as he paints a picture of late night fears in isolated farm houses and known drunken women-beaters. What is "reasonable" to you days latter at 3:00 in the afternoon is immaterial

INGO is populated by gun owners, who are naturally more sympathetic toward fellow gun owners. You put this story in its totality in front of a jury from the general population (which includes non-gun owners, or worse, antis), and his chance of conviction increases. If the majority in INGO believes he's not justified in pointing his gun, then out there the percentage is only gonna get higher.

Defense attorneys can sing and dance, but prosecutors can play the same game too.

 

[Daggy]

BOOM!

Head shot?

 

[Sylvain]

Woman beating druggie bangin on my door at 2:30 in the morning, not sure how I would feel.

But if he had been an officer and walked outside and pointed his gun at him while telling the perp to slowly take his hands out where he can see them everything would be all hunky dory

The thing is that if the person pointing a gun at someone is a LEO then he doesn't have to be in fear of his life for it to be legal.

IC 35-47-4-3 Version a
Pointing firearm at another person
Note: This version of section effective until 7-1-2014. See also following version of this section, effective 7-1-2014.
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or to a person who is justified in using reasonable force against another person under:
(1) IC 35-41-3-2; or
(2) IC 35-41-3-3.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Class D felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.

 

[nakinate]

The thing is that if the person pointing a gun at someone is a LEO then he doesn't have to be in fear of his life for it to be legal.

REPORTED! For rabble rousing!

 

[ajeandy]

Head shot?

Chest shot? Good thing it wasn't.

 

[nakinate]

The thing is that if the person pointing a gun at someone is a LEO then he doesn't have to be in fear of his life for it to be legal.

Also, a journalist could get away with it as long as it was in a documentary.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Fortuntely for us it was not the "mailman" we are speaking about, and if the OP and story ever got in front of a jury they would not be hearing about a mailman and twicthy mustaches. They would be hearing about a woman-beater, a drunk, a known law-brearker who showed up at a home at 2:30 in the morning. A "reasonable person" just might be threatened by that alone.

And the OP is not responsible for his GFs state of mind immediately after being woken up from a deep sleep. Since all she had to do was slip on shoes she very well could have been half-asleep still when she opened the door to unknown danger. Her feelings do not dictate the feelings and perceptions of others.

You put the OP in front of a jury with his peers and a competent self defense attorney and he'll have them sitting on the edge of their chairs as he paints a picture of late night fears in isolated farm houses and known drunken women-beaters. What is "reasonable" to you days latter at 3:00 in the afternoon is immaterial

Maybe. I'll leave the lawyering to lawyers, and have been in LE long enough to know that predicting what a jury will do is a fool's game. Aren't past convictions generally barred from being mentioned due to being prejudicial? I know I can't mention prior robbery convictions unless its used to impeach testimony. However, I am offering my personal opinion of what I would do in my professional capacity as a detective had these facts been presented to me, which would be an arrest. I believe, again based on the facts presented, that the prosecutor absolutely would file. Since this isn't my case, you're right, what I believe is immaterial, as is yours, and everyone else's here. That doesn't mean there aren't lessons to be learned and that there aren't valid learning points in what has been posted.

I'd also ask how that defense attorney is going to paint the picture of the OP being threatened by someone who is apparently unaware of his presence, has made no attempt to get into the home, and is engaged in "whining" with a 3rd party.

 

[Sylvain]

Also, a journalist could get away with it as long as it was in a documentary.

Probably.Their press card is almost like a licence to kill.