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

[nakinate]

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

Almost. Mostly it just allows them to buy drugs or illegal guns.

 

[Mark 1911]

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.

If I were the OP, I sure wouldn't bet on getting any better reception in a courtroom.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Almost. Mostly it just allows them to buy drugs or illegal guns.

What'd I miss?

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

Again, who is going to be more critical towards a musician playing in an audition... a group of fellow, accomplished musicians who will hear every wrong note, or a general group of people who enjoy listening to a song that makes them feel good in the end. And what story is the prosecutor going to tell that is going to outweigh "everyone went home and had a good nights sleep."

 

[Sylvain]

What'd I miss?

That's from another thread.Just talking about undercover journalists who buy illegal drugs and guns without being prosecuted because they are investigting drug and arm trafficking.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.

There is no discussion of "past convictions." There is a discussion of the reasonable mindset of the OP based upon what he has prior knowledge of. World of difference. It is the part of jeopardy that the defense attorney needs to bring out. Normally the standard is a outward expression either verbally or physically that would cause a person to believe they are in imminent danger. In this case the prior knowledge of the violent tendency of the person, along with the other totality of the situation, would have to stand in for the jeopardy. Would it be sufficient? I believe so with a good enough attorney and a judge willing to allow it. But as you said, there are no guarantees.

AGain, the threat comes from the totality of the situation. Does the person have the ability to do harm? That is an unknown but highly likely based upon his arm and hand actions. Is it reasonable to believe that he was holding a weapon within his coat? Yes, as reasonable as to believe he was holding anything else given the known history of violence. Was the opportunity there? Yes, the person was standing within arm's reach. Had he placed anyone in actual jeopardy with his actions or words. Not outwardly, but again it could be argued that his prior known bad and violent actions was sufficient to assume reasonable jeopardy.

The prosecutor can argue all he wants that no one was ever killed on their door stoop by another person, therefore a person just standing on a door stoop is no danger since all killings take place in the home. I don't think it will fly, though. He can also argue that a dangerous individual is no danger to a home owner until he realizes that the home owner is somewhere in the home, so therefore the home owner can't actually act in self defense prior to being spotted but I don't think that will fly also.

 

[Dirtebiker]

OP, let's get right down to it:

This guy is the ex of your girlfriend's friend. So you know him, he is not a stranger lurking in the dark. He knows where you live and since he did date your girlfriend's friend, I have to assume he's been to your home before for social gatherings. So at one point he was invited to your home and allowed to be there, or at least that's my assumption. Unless you've left out this detail, I see no evidence that you've ever told him he's not allowed to come to your home. Even though he is no longer dating your girlfriend's friend, I see no reason why he would feel that he is unwelcome at your home under threat of death. Further, you and your girlfriend went outside to speak to him and apparently did not tell him he wasn't welcome until you pulled your gun on him. I'm not sure I'd call this situation "trespassing."

Your only belief that you were in danger was a series of guesses made without any fact. A hand in the pocket on a cold winter morning is not justification for deadly force. A cocked elbow is not justification for deadly force. A belief that he must be high if he came to your house is not justification for deadly force. Having a history of drug use is not justification for deadly force. Being an illegal immigrant is not justification for deadly force. Any combination of these assumptions is not justification for deadly force.

Your statement that the only reason you didn't shoot him was out of mercy leads me to believe that you felt justified in using deadly force, although you later changed your story on this point. The fact that you weren't arrested for your actions is not proof no crime was committed, only that the police had no victim and the finer details of the story were probably never explained to an actual police officer. The dispatcher gets a general story from you and decides whether it warrants sending an officer. Without a victim and without you asking to speak to someone, it's likely the dispatcher didn't see a point in sending anybody.

Finally, you voluntarily brought this story to INGO and then specifically asked for critiques. It didn't go the way you thought it would go and now you're getting defensive. My best advice is for your to read through this thread again in a couple of days when you've cooled off and try to learn from this. Also, getting some training would be helpful for you too. Nobody here thinks you're a bad guy, just one who made bad decisions on this occasion.

This exactly! Don't be mad at us for giving our opinion, when you asked for it.

 

[KG1]

Seems to me the OP and his GF have different ways in dealing with someone that could be a potential threat based on known past abusive history. GF opens the door and engages in conversation in sweats and slippers while unarmed and OP follows that up with mercifully drawing down center mass.

 

[Dirtebiker]

First, what an officer would have done is entirely irrelevant to this situation. Since you're asking though, here is the relevant case law for officers pointing their gun at people:

http://www.patc.com/weeklyarticles/print/7th_pointing_gun.pdf

So can I justify that I was in reasonable danger because someone that I know knocked on my door at 2:30am looking for his ex-girlfriend? We have no proof he was on drugs. We have no proof he had a weapon. We have no proof he was a threat, in fact he was crying over lost love apparently. I guess it would be up to the OP to argue that in court if anything had come of it.

He said he could prove the guy was up to no good because he could "foresee" it!

 

[HoughMade]

Seems to me the OP and his GF have different ways in dealing with someone that could be a potential threat based on known past abusive history. GF opens the door and engages in conversation in sweats and slippers while unarmed and OP follows that up with mercifully drawing down center mass.

They seemed to have agreed that opening the door was a good idea with this known threat. They were so sure that, given what they knew about him, he was dangerous, that step one was: "Let's see what he wants."

The criminal history of the guy who showed up would likely be admissible ONLY if they knew about it beforehand. Then that would go to their assessment of a threat. However, I would have a field day cross examining on opening the door and talking to him.

 

[Dirtebiker]

None of them are going to answer that question because they know exactly what they would have done....the same exact thing I did.

I doubt that!

 

[Dirtebiker]

It would have been safer for all involved if you had drawn that one instead.

And now, I've given too much rep in the last 24 hours.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

First thing is to BehindBlueI's, Yes, I was taking a cheap shot. Still, I stand behind it. I have been on the receiving end of a police firearm more than once. All it takes is to answer the question "Are there any weapons in the vehicle" with a simple "Yes". I recognize and appreciate that you are a proud and professional officer. The fact that you are open and helpful and willingly participate in these forums indicates that you are a cut above the average. I can think of a few others too, Denny, Phylodog and Frank (who is seeming pretty tense lately) Who try to stand proud and represent in the face of adversity..... I believe that you would react EXACTLY as you say you would, the proper and professional way. Unknown others in uniform? Not so much. Is my attitude prejudiced? Probably..... If the INGO officers withstand the slings and arrows and still represent, standing proud, my attitude could be tempered if not even reversed. Carry on.....

To ingo in general, We have beaten ridiculed and lampooned the op to a greater extent that you have even done to ME! And still he struggles and continues. This is no coward and while appearing to be a hot-head he has maintained his composure in front of us just the same as he did to the "trespasser". I must say that I am gaining a grudging respect for him. He is standing his ground even in the face of being wrong, just like he did that night. He hasn't melted down and been BANNED..... Yet. I have to say that he did the wrong thing but did it in a right way. We are seeing it the same here in his thread. He hasn't (figuratively) SHOT any of us, and neither did he shoot the guy.

It seems plain to me that he was less in fear than he was angry. It looks to me like "Territorial imperative" more than "Fear for my life". He appears to be testosterone driven to a certain extent. I have been that guy, long ago in my youth. What passes as wisdom of age might actually be diagnosed as "Low T" if you watch commercials. I am impressed at his restraint In front of us as we pile-on and it speaks well for his restraint during his event in spite of his high octane demeanor at the time.

OP..... You ARE the man. You were excessive....... You are the EXCESSIVE MAN....... Take a deep breath, think about maybe not shooting anybody today. You are not BAD, You are a bit INTENSE. It's all over and nobody got hurt. Your thread went crazy and still nobody got hurt. Thanks for sharing your experience, I could see a bit of myself in your actions, wrong or not. I hope you don't get frustrated and run away.

 

[Dirtebiker]

He played catch with his dead dad at the end?


BTW, for those of you who are stuck on one point, there is no brandishing law in IN, so there's no way for one to be charged with that.

Correct, but he COULD be charged with pointing a loaded gun at the victim.

 

[HoughMade]

Um....why would I OWN a gun if I don't get to point it at people? That's what it's for, smart aleck.

 

[Jack Burton]

They seemed to have agreed that opening the door was a good idea with this known threat. They were so sure that, given what they knew about him, he was dangerous, that step one was: "Let's see what he wants."

The criminal history of the guy who showed up would likely be admissible ONLY if they knew about it beforehand. Then that would go to their assessment of a threat. However, I would have a field day cross examining on opening the door and talking to him.

just who opened the door and engaged in conversation? a 2/3s asleep girlfriend who hasn't studied tactical situations like all the good folk here? I can see an heavy-handed prosecuting attorney ginning up a lot of sympathy for a naive young girl who was just trying to do right and who was worried about her ladyfriend.

 

[HoughMade]

Who opened the door? The person in the house who knew the guy best.

 

[Bunnykid68]

BehindBlue- Let us assume you pull up to the house as this is happening as stated in the OP, would the intoxicated condition of said visitor played any role in your determination of the OP's actions.

Would further information of 911 having already been called on said visitor just a few hours earlier at another home have any bearing either?

OP didnt open the door, silly girlfriend did

 

[Slawburger]

I can't believe I just saw this thread (well, thirty pages ago). Thank you for a highly entertaining read. :applause:

 

[KG1]

Howbout this for a prosecutorial take on the situation? The OP had such a dislike for this scumbag individual that he drew down on him for that reason and the scumbag, woman beating, meth head was lucky the OP showed him mercy by not ventilating him on the spot.

(This post is not meant in any way as defending scumbag, woman beating, meth heads but merely as another viewpoint that may be garnered by reading some of the OP's choices of words in describing the incident)