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

[Daggy]

Well, we got a response from an actual police officer confirming that his pointing a handgun is not justified. So, his posting the account on the internet can do nothing but harm him. It's written testimony that can be subpoenaed and presented as evidence against him. If the Mexican guy realizes that he could become legal through U visa (a.k.a. snitch visa) by pressing charges, the OP could be in trouble.

 

[Jack Burton]

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

Since when do we become responsible for the irresponsible decisions of others?

 

[nakinate]

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

But he was responsible for pointing a loaded firearm at someone who did not show any intention of doing him harm.

 

[Jack Burton]

Well, we got a response from an actual police officer confirming that his pointing a handgun is not justified. So, his posting the account on the internet can do nothing but harm him. It's written testimony that can be subpoenaed and presented as evidence against him. If the Mexican guy realizes that he could become legal through U visa (a.k.a. snitch visa) by pressing charges, the OP could be in trouble.

We got an "opinion" from a police officer. Which we have seen thousands of times here on INGO that a police opinion and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee at 7-11.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

However, in terms of the "pointing a firearm" law, is it always necessary to see a deadly weapon before pointing a firearm at someone?

No. It boils down to reasonableness again.

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.

The person is engaged in a robbery regardless of if its a real gun or not. Robbery is a forcible felony. So, if you reasonably believe that deadly force is necessary to stop that forcible felony, you can legally use deadly force. Hypotheticals are tough. If its an 88 year old on a walker, you're a trained MMA fighter, and its obviously his finger, you're going to have a tough sell that it was necessary to stop the forcible felony, however barring oddball circumstances such as that, you're in the clear.

You are under no requirement to see the weapon or to verify the weapon is real.

The difference between this hypothetical and the OP is there was an inference of a weapon, aggressive acts, and a forcible felony taking place.

 

[Frosty]

I hear Frosty is available!

only for you big boy, only for you now stop trying to whore me out!

 

[Daggy]

We got an "opinion" from a police officer. Which we have seen thousands of times here on INGO that a police opinion and a dollar will buy you a cup of coffee at 7-11.

My point is that posting this on the internet is a bad idea. And you disagree because...

While an opinion of a police officer is far from the be-all and end-all, I still value it more than the opinion of civilian internet warriors, mine included.

 

[nakinate]

My point is that posting this on the internet is a bad idea. And you disagree because...

While an opinion of a police officer is far from the be-all and end-all, I still value it more than the opinion of civilian internet warriors, mine included.

he could have used his gun to stop a man from punting little puppies and punching children...still a bad idea to post it on the internet.

 

[Frosty]

he could have used his gun to stop a man from punting little puppies and punching children...still a bad idea to post it on the internet.

who punts puppies anymore in these modern times??? Freak!

 

[danielson]

ME!!!!

 

[Daggy]

he could have used his gun to stop a man from punting little puppies and punching children...still a bad idea to post it on the internet.

Puppies... Meh. But if he stops the killing of kittens the jury would acquit in a heartbeat.

 

[Jack Burton]

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.



Relevant part of -2



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!

Won't dispute your rational. But still contend (not as a lawyer but someone who has studied self defense cases for decades) that it would never be prosecuted, and if so, mostly let off.

 

[Jack Burton]

But he was responsible for pointing a loaded firearm at someone who did not show any intention of doing him harm.

Then let us focus on that instead of his GF answering the door before him.

 

[nakinate]

Then let us focus on that instead of his GF answering the door before him.

I never focused on the GF.

 

[sig-guy]

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

Maybe, maybe not... we need a photo.

If she finds this thread, she maybe looking for a new BF. lol

 

[nakinate]

who punts puppies anymore in these modern times??? Freak!

Jack Black punted Baxter! Ron Burgundy was a mess after that!

 

[Jack Burton]

My point is that posting this on the internet is a bad idea. And you disagree because...

While an opinion of a police officer is far from the be-all and end-all, I still value it more than the opinion of civilian internet warriors, mine included.

Never said I disagreed with it being a less than good idea posting the OP.

 

[Frosty]

ME!!!!

that figures

Jack Black punted Baxter! Ron Burgundy was a mess after that!

what is this Ron burgundy you speak of? Yet again, freak!

 

[Dirtebiker]

Actually it was the GF who got dressed first.

That would be one and the same.

 

[Frosty]

Puppies... Meh. But if he stops the killing of kittens the jury would acquit in a heartbeat.

Kittens are cute… this thread is making me feel all warm and cuddly!