Have You Just Committed a Crime?

[GuyRelford]

(I suspect that is what you are fishing for)

You are a wise man.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

It was a dumb move but a crime only if reported.

Reported or not, neck tattoos are always crimes . . . against good taste.

 

[mrjarrell]

Sounds like intimidation to me. The logical dad response should be, "Well, then you can't go". Problem solved and no crime committed.

 

[GuyRelford]

I don't get all the "intimidation" responses - where was the threat? You just showed him the Kimber - maybe you were simply proud of your new rosewood grips?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Here's Johnson without the concealed footnote which addresses neck tats:

Jaron Q. Johnson v. State :: March, 2001 :: Indiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

 

[GuyRelford]

Here's Johnson without the concealed footnote which addresses neck tats:

Jaron Q. Johnson v. State :: March, 2001 :: Indiana Supreme Court Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

Nicely done.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

You just showed him the Kimber - maybe you were simply proud of your new rosewood grips?

*scribbles down response*

I am soooo using that.

 

[KG1]

I don't get all the "intimidation" responses - where was the threat? You just showed him the Kimber - maybe you were simply proud of your new rosewood grips?

Right, he just raised his shirt but he did'nt specifically say somthing like "If you don't have her home by midnight I will shoot you"

 

[mrjarrell]

I don't get all the "intimidation" responses - where was the threat? You just showed him the Kimber - maybe you were simply proud of your new rosewood grips?

If someone raises their shirt to show me their firearm after a minor verbal disagreement, the threat of violence is implicit. I would understand exactly what that person meant. It's an attempt to intimidate. Hence, "intimidation".

 

[E5RANGER375]

prove it punk, lol.

I will make sure that potential boyfriends know they will vanish if they hurt my daughter.

 

[GuyRelford]

If someone raises their shirt to show me their firearm after a minor verbal disagreement, the threat of violence is implicit. I would understand exactly what that person meant. It's an attempt to intimidate. Hence, "intimidation".

Beautifully stated - but is an implicit threat sufficient to support a criminal conviction?

 

[Rob377]

My first reaction was yes, intimidation. Fortunately, since it wasn't drawn, it would only be a Class A misdemeanor instead of Class C felony, with a bonus charge of IC 35-47-4-3 "Pointing firearm at another person" a Class D felony, thrown in for good measure.

BUT, under Gaddis v. State, 680 N.E.2d 860 (In. Ct. App. 997), mere display of a firearm is not considered a "threat" for purposes of IC 35-45-2-1
In that case, 2 knuckleheads had a case of road rage and were exchanging gestures and yelling at each other over some tailgating irritation. At some point of yelling back and forth and "gesturing" to one another, Gaddis pulls out his gun and puts it on the dash. He's charged and convicted of intimidation. On appeal, the court reverses:

Thus, the intimidation statute should not be construed to criminalize the mere display of a weapon when the person charged has a constitutional right to carry it. We conclude that the display of a properly licensed firearm which Gaddis was entitled to carry did not, in itself, constitute a threat under the intimidation statute.

We do not condone the flashing of a weapon on our public roads. Confrontations between angry motorists threaten public peace and safety. The display of a firearm to another motorist while traveling in close proximity at a high rate of speed is foolish, but it is not in itself unlawful under the statute. We hold that under the intimidation statute the mere display of a handgun does not express an intention to unlawfully injure a person or his property. Because the State has failed to show that such a threat occurred, Gaddis' conviction for intimidation must be reversed.

Part of the reasoning was that the yelling and gestures were supposedly not understood by either party. "A threat requires that the defendant express an intention to unlawfully injure the person threatened." and because there was no communication, since neither party understood what the other was saying.

This case is a closer one because there is certainly an implicit threat there with the kid. However, it certainly seems like the display in Gaddis was an implicit threat as well. But without something more "expressing an intention to unlawfully injure," beyond the mere display of a Kimber, I'd say this might be winnable for the defense, relying on Gaddis.

It may be winnable for defense, but I'd say it's just as winnable for the prosecution. I think that a persuasive case can be made distinguishing unintelligible yelling and angry gestures from a clear "midnight" with an unspoken "or else."

All that said, would I ever do such a thing? Hell no. Legal hair-splitting aside, I'd call it intimidation. You may be able to beat the rap, but it still is what it is.

 

[Rob377]

double tap

 

[IndyGunner]

and he's got strange tattoos on his neck.

I dont have tattoos on my neck, but thats a pretty bull**** way to judge a book by its cover. Jus sayin.

 

[GuyRelford]

double tap

Plus 1 on Gaddis!!!

 

[GuyRelford]

I dont have tattoos on my neck, but thats a pretty bull**** way to judge a book by its cover. Jus sayin.

Please. I've got tattoos myself. I wasn't judging - just setting the stage.

 

[96firephoenix]

I think that in JQJ v SoIN, Mr. Johnson was within his rights to give fair warning by displaying his handgun in anticipation of a physical assault if Sgt Kreszmer got out of the car. There's another issue... he showed his handgun to an off-duty LEO. I'm not saying that had anything to do with his conviction, but I don't think that a private citizen would have had quite the clout in reporting it.

 

[IndyGunner]

Please. I've got tattoos myself. I wasn't judging - just setting the stage.

Fair enough sir, I dont want an argument. I mean absolutely no disrespect and dont wish to insult you, but if I were talking about my daughter meeting someone I considered to be a liar (instead of an azzhat) and I mentioned that he was a lawyer (instead of a thug looking kid) in the one single descriptive sentence I gave... I dont think you would have bit your tongue either. Have a good one!

 

[mrjarrell]

Beautifully stated - but is an implicit threat sufficient to support a criminal conviction?

Hard to say, the way the courts are run these days. Johnson makes a convincing argument that you'd have a shot at conviction, tho. Of course dating the 17 year old would be out of the question in the future if you had her dad arrested.

 

[GuyRelford]

I mentioned that he was a lawyer

If the kid was a lawyer, I would have just shot him on sight. I might be arrested, but no jury would convict.