Have You Just Committed a Crime?

[IndyGunner]

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

Rep for that! LOLOLOL

 

[Hooker]

Intimidation = yes

However, the kid lied and the girl can back it up.

And he's going to have to prove what happened, which he can't.

 

[IndyGunner]

I didnt think there was a brandishing law in IN... you didnt technically threaten him with anything. Just wanted to show him your favorite handgun...

 

[GuyRelford]

That is absolulely correct - there is no "brandishing" statute in Indiana. Does that change anyone's answer?

 

[Fargo]

Couple of thoughts:

There is a real issue with the fact that your daughter is still a minor. If she is not, I think it is much more likely that you have committed a crime.

As she is a minor, you still exercise a great deal of legal control over her, including the ability to order her home at a certain time. IC 31-37-2 provides specific authority in this regard and considers her failure to comply a delinquent act. IC 35-46-1-8 provides that it is an A misdemeanor for a person over 18 to

... knowingly or intentionally encourages, aids, induces, or causes a person less than eighteen (18) years of age to commit an act of delinquency

That section explicitly refers to IC 31-37-2 violations as included. As such, it is unlikely that the that the:

other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;

part of the intimidation statute applies at the action to be engaged in is a criminal act. I know that is not explicit in the statute, but off the top of my head I believe the caselaw clarifies that a threat to cause a person to not commit a criminal act is not intimidation.


As such, I am doubtful that you have committed a criminal act, even if the flashing of the gun was in a threatening fashion. This is by no means certain and nor is it legal advice. It is simply my opinion.

best,

Joe

 

[IndyGunner]

Where are you guys searching these IC? Good info!

 

[GuyRelford]

Couple of thoughts:

There is a real issue with the fact that your daughter is still a minor. If she is not, I think it is much more likely that you have committed a crime.

As she is a minor, you still exercise a great deal of legal control over her, including the ability to order her home at a certain time. IC 31-37-2 provides specific authority in this regard and considers her failure to comply a delinquent act. IC 35-46-1-8 provides that it is an A misdemeanor for a person over 18 to


That section explicitly refers to IC 31-37-2 violations as included. As such, it is unlikely that the that the:


part of the intimidation statute applies at the action to be engaged in is a criminal act. I know that is not explicit in the statute, but off the top of my head I believe the caselaw clarifies that a threat to cause a person to not commit a criminal act is not intimidation.


As such, I am doubtful that you have committed a criminal act, even if the flashing of the gun was in a threatening fashion. This is by no means certain and nor is it legal advice. It is simply my opinion.

best,

Joe

Joe!! It's great to hear from you!!

 

[Fargo]

Good to see you back on the board as well! Sorry I missed you at the spring 1500; I never did find the booth and the wife was clamoring for me to get home.

Best,

Joe

 

[ATM]

Where are you guys searching these IC? Good info!

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/

 

[sparky241]

hes a few years older than my 17yr old daughter? and he called the cops on me. i would be getting an order of protection against a sexual predater. oh and when i stretched he happen to see the gun, it was a coincidence it happened when i was telling him what time my underage daughter was going to be home. but if it had happened to me, my daughter would not have been going out with him that night

 

[96firephoenix]

either way, I'm a much bigger fan of the "Clean-your-guns-and-knives-at-the-oops-'wrong'-time-and-don't-mind-the-shovel" method.

Nothing illegal, but nothing left to the imagination either.

 

[96firephoenix]

either way, I'm a much bigger fan of the "Clean-your-guns-and-knives-at-the-oops-'wrong'-time-and-don't-mind-the-shovel" method.

Nothing illegal, but nothing left to the imagination either.

 

[pudly]

Where are you guys searching these IC? Good info!

Most of the info related to firearms is in this section of the Indiana Code: Indiana Code TITLE 35, Article 47 Table of Contents

If you haven't read it, you really should.

 

[KG1]

Couple of thoughts:

There is a real issue with the fact that your daughter is still a minor. If she is not, I think it is much more likely that you have committed a crime.

As she is a minor, you still exercise a great deal of legal control over her, including the ability to order her home at a certain time. IC 31-37-2 provides specific authority in this regard and considers her failure to comply a delinquent act. IC 35-46-1-8 provides that it is an A misdemeanor for a person over 18 to


That section explicitly refers to IC 31-37-2 violations as included. As such, it is unlikely that the that the:


part of the intimidation statute applies at the action to be engaged in is a criminal act. I know that is not explicit in the statute, but off the top of my head I believe the caselaw clarifies that a threat to cause a person to not commit a criminal act is not intimidation.


As such, I am doubtful that you have committed a criminal act, even if the flashing of the gun was in a threatening fashion. This is by no means certain and nor is it legal advice. It is simply my opinion.

best,

Joe

I'm with Joe on this one. While going back over the OP's scenario it seems to me that he was trying to establish that she was a minor. Ref: 'Your 17 year-old daughter has starting dating someone that you really don't care for - he always avoids eye contact with you, he's a couple years older than your daughter, and he's got strange tattoos on his neck."

 

[Bill of Rights]

Searching the code is easy. Searching caselaw is something I'd like pointers on.

Ultimately, this would be the kid's word against yours. I'm thinking the conversation would have been more, "She'll be home by midnight."
"Not gonna happ--"
"You didn't hear me. I said, 'she will be home by midnight'."
"No way, man--"
"Date's off. You are trespassing. You have 10 seconds to be out my front door. You have 30 to be off my land. Don't come back. Don't contact my daughter again."

 

[LP1]

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

Do you really want to be the test case? Do you want to pay to defend yourself against a zealous prosecutor?

A couple of other thoughts...

1. She's 17. You can tell her to stay.
2. If her choice of a date is that poor, it's probably already too late.

 

[FCSD 23-18]

Searching the code is easy. Searching caselaw is something I'd like pointers on.

Ultimately, this would be the kid's word against yours. I'm thinking the conversation would have been more, "She'll be home by midnight."
"Not gonna happ--"
"You didn't hear me. I said, 'she will be home by midnight'."
"No way, man--"
"Date's off. You are trespassing. You have 10 seconds to be out my front door. You have 30 to be off my land. Don't come back. Don't contact my daughter again."

Lexis Nexis its a god send, let me know if you need anything researched.

 

[Fargo]

Searching the code is easy. Searching caselaw is something I'd like pointers on.

To effectively search caselaw, you need access to a professional database or a law library with the annotated code and the various caselaw reporters. Some of the caselaw is available online via the Court of Appeals website and Supreme Court website, findlaw and other public collections. However, these are far from complete.

Best,

Joe

 

[FCSD 23-18]

It is intimidation all day long and twice at night. You do not have to verbally communicate a threat for it to be a threat. In the scenario your motive was clear and you proved that you have the means to carry it out. That said if I was on this call, I wouldn't make the decision to arrest by myself. I would call my prosecutor at the house and run it by him before acting, or I would long form it.

 

[Pocketman]

IC 35-45-2-1
Intimidation
Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent:
(1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person's will;

The kid said 1:00, dad said 12:00, therefore intent to have the kid engage in conduct against his will is probably met.

Question remaining - was there a threat? I would say that most reasonable persons would interpret the revelation of the handgun after the verbal confrontation as threatening. I would say that both aspects of the statute have been met.

What a prosecutor would do with this is anyone's guess.

What my WWII veteran uncle would do is show up at the door and greet boys in a too tight t-shirt carrying a beer. His field stripped Garand on the kitchen table. (There were a lot of no show's to my cousins' second dates)