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

[sig-guy]

I know why he had his hand inside his jacket.

Putting it over his heart (chest pains) from seeing the GF in her night wear!

 

[Jack Burton]

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

Actually it was the GF who got dressed first.

 

[Dirtebiker]

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

I bet this one outlives wallet.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Too bad OP knew the man, and so did his girlfriend.

And she was obviously not scared of a hand in a jacket.

 

[Bunnykid68]

And she was obviously not scared of a hand in a jacket.

Yep, she kinda acted like a child answering the door for anyone bangin on it

 

[Dirtebiker]

I can't believe no one has jumped on the dogpile about him using a tubbaware gun. I'm just saying if you are going to be carrying a 45 why not a "real" one like a 1911.

I'm not trying to jump on the dogpile either, I just as others have, could point out what I would do differently. Then again at 2:30am I hope that I would have the correct frame of mind to do so. The OP stated that he target practices in his backyard (at least I believe it was the OP, the thread has gotten long), so i would be inclined to believe that he does not live in a suburban setting and more likely in a rural area. I do live in a rural area with no immediate neighbors or immediate highways, if someone knocks on my door at 2:30am it would be reasonable to believe that they mean to do me or my family harm. I would like to believe that I would ask them to leave first and not brandish my weapon until the need arose. I also however never wish to test the idea. I am glad the OP and his girlfriend are alive and well, now just go get you a "real" 45.

I think it would be more reasonable to believe he meant to do harm if he DIDN'T knock.

 

[Dirtebiker]

Yes, I have moved beyond the exact details of the OP's scenario. However, it's moot since the OP made it clear that the douche had a history of physical violence as well.

And his girlfriend was well aware of that, and still went outside to meet him.

 

[jagee]

And his girlfriend was well aware of that, and still went outside to meet him.

Cuz she knew OP had her back

 

[nakinate]

To the OP: I'll just leave this here. Dr Cox - Wrong Wrong Wrong Wrong - YouTube

 

[churchmouse]

And his girlfriend was well aware of that, and still went outside to meet him.

My first roll through this thread.......sounds like maybe a new G.F. is in order.

 

[Dirtebiker]

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.

Again, they knew all this, yet STILL went outside to greet him! (at least the gf did)

 

[Bunnykid68]

My first roll through this thread.......sounds like maybe a new G.F. is in order.

Maybe not, girls are kind of like children, have to teach them right and wrong

 

[nakinate]

My first roll through this thread.......sounds like maybe a new G.F. is in order.

I hear Frosty is available!

 

[El-Cigarro]

1: Do whatever you HAVE to do.
2: Don't discuss it on a Public Forum.....

 

[rbMPSH12]

Quick question. I understand all that was wrong with how the OP handled the situation in terms of lack of trespassing and pulling on a guy who had his hand in a coat pocket on a cold night. It's been helpful to read through this. However, in terms of the "pointing a firearm" law, is it always necessary to see a deadly weapon before pointing a firearm at someone? I know in PA, self defense law dictates that a deadly weapon must be visible to justify deadly force. However I don't know of any such law in Indiana. A situation to help with what I'm asking: you're approached by a guy in a parking lot who has his hand up his shirt in the clear "I have a gun" type of way (different than in a coat pocket), and demands money. Obviously, the best thing is probably to give him the money first and try to avoid a conflict, only reacting with force if he attacks you. It's just money. But I just want to know if it would be breaking the pointing law if you pointed your gun at him and told him to scram, given his threatening behavior with the hand up the shirt even though you didn't actually see a gun.

 

[nakinate]

1: Do whatever you HAVE to do.
2: Don't discuss it on a Public Forum.....

Quick question. I understand all that was wrong with how the OP handled the situation in terms of lack of trespassing and pulling on a guy who had his hand in a coat pocket on a cold night. It's been helpful to read through this. However, in terms of the "pointing a firearm" law, is it always necessary to see a deadly weapon before pointing a firearm at someone? I know in PA, self defense law dictates that a deadly weapon must be visible to justify deadly force. However I don't know of any such law in Indiana. A situation to help with what I'm asking: you're approached by a guy in a parking lot who has his hand up his shirt in the clear "I have a gun" type of way (different than in a coat pocket), and demands money. Obviously, the best thing is probably to give him the money first and try to avoid a conflict, only reacting with force if he attacks you. It's just money. But I just want to know if it would be breaking the pointing law if you pointed your gun at him and told him to scram, given his threatening behavior with the hand up the shirt even though you didn't actually see a gun.

Please see the above post.#2 is especially important.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

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

Everything has bearing. The fact it was dark has bearing, the guy's past has bearing, the fact he's by himself has bearing, etc. It all goes toward totality of the circumstances, but they aren't all weighted equally. That's why its so hard to answer hypotheticals, because they are so many factors in play. Just for funsies, I looked at the OP's statement like I would a written statement in one of my own cases it seems to be a truthful account. Its a little tough with a shorter statement and the fact its typed hurts a bit (handwriting is easier to analyze) but running it through a quick statement analysis tells me he's being honest and it shows no signs of deception by omission. I didn't do one evaluation that takes a lot of time, but even with 4 out of 5 done and with the limitations of looking at a typed statement that I didn't watch being done, I'd say I'm very satisfied that its a truthful account. I think his statement is factually correct, in other words, and unless other witness statements or physical evidence contradicted it, I would take what he told me at face value.

While we don't have all the facts (and you never do) we have all the facts the OP remembers and believes to be relevant. We also have things we can reasonably infer, by being on the scene (exterior lighting levels) or doing some basic research (like temperature). So, while the facts are relevant they still don't add up to a reasonable belief you can use deadly force for the reasons I laid out in the earlier post. Look at the IC codes for use of force and they say "reasonably believes" and not just "believes".

So, take the facts that we have and compare them against the elements of crimes. The relevant codes here would be Pointing a Firearm for sure, possibly Intimidation as well. I'd present it to the prosecutor as Pointing and let them make the call from there. (Well, technically I'd never get the case unless he went ahead and shot the guy, but for the sake of the conversation we'll ignore that)

Let's look at Pointing a Firearm. There is no question he pointed a loaded firearm. That element is met, but the IC code provides exceptions, so we have to look at those.

This section does not apply...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.

Relevant part of -2

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.

Nothing in the OP's statement indicates anything that could reasonably be construed as an imminent attack on him (who the "suspect" seems unaware of until he announces himself) or the girlfriend who is willingly engaged in conversing with him. Again, look at the adjectives used. There is no mention of threats, aggressive movements, etc. "Whining" is the term used. If someone threatened you, would you describe their behavior as "whining"? Yet, that is the term the OP chose. I don't see that as rising to "necessary to prevent serious bodily injury". There has been no attempt to enter the house or any other felony, not physically or verbally, so I don't see the "prevent...a forcible felony."

-3 deals with arrest and escape, and non-LEOs cannot use deadly force to affect an arrest or prevent an escape unless the situations in -2 also apply.

So, going outside to tell the guy to get lost, totally legal. Taking a gun with you, totally legal. Pointing the firearm in the circumstances as given? PC for an arrest. Where it goes from there is lawyers arguing. I know Hough is a lawyer, if Jack is a lawyer as well we've already got that part going on as well. Its like our own little mock court!

 

[ruger1800]

Knocks on your door at 230am with a german Shepard and Belgian malinois raising holy hell, would bet he has been to your house enough times to know your dogs wouldn't be a threat, girlfriend sleeping dressed? Are you no longer intimate?

 

[nakinate]

Knocks on your door at 230am with a german Shepard and Belgian malinois raising holy hell, would bet he has been to your house enough times to know your dogs wouldn't be a threat, girlfriend sleeping dressed? Are you no longer intimate?

 

[Jack Burton]

Again, they knew all this, yet STILL went outside to greet him! (at least the gf did)

The OP was not responsible for the actions of the GF.