IN police shatter car window, extract passenger after alleged seatbelt violation

[Frank_N_Stein]

But this is Indiana.

 

[chipbennett]

But this is Indiana.

Indeed it is. And as @VUPDBlue and @GodFfearinGunTotin confirmed above, Indiana is no different.

 

[Dead Duck]

Why all this talk about pointing guns?

The backpack digging dirtbag didn't aim any guns, the police did. Agree of not - they can, they did, and that's OK.

 

[chipbennett]

Why all this talk about pointing guns?

The backpack digging dirtbag didn't aim any guns, the police did. Agree of not - they can, they did, and that's OK.

Why is it okay for police officers to point guns at passengers in a car, pulled over for a seat belt violation, for finding and producing a piece of paper with identifying information on it?

 

[VUPDblue]

The Missouri statute you quoted specifically lists "discharging" the firearm as part of the statute. You're gonna have to cite some case law to back up your claim because there is no interpretation of what you quoted that supports your claim.

 

[Dead Duck]

Why is it okay for police officers to point guns at passengers in a car, pulled over for a seat belt violation, for finding and producing a piece of paper with identifying information on it?

His suspicious actions got him in trouble.
He was told to exit the vehicle and flatout refused. Way beyond the seatbelt and ID thing by that time.
Having a stupid attitude didn't help matters.
















** Maybe he should have - I don't know - opened his door?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

But as far as I know, pointing a gun at someone is considered assault, and assault with a deadly weapon.

We have no such statutes here in Indiana.

We have Pointing a Firearm, but police acting within the scope of their duties are exempt.

Is your question, "when can the police point guns at people?"

 

[chipbennett]

The Missouri statute you quoted specifically lists "discharging" the firearm as part of the statute. You're gonna have to cite some case law to back up your claim because there is no interpretation of what you quoted that supports your claim.

That was the Ohio statute. And as I'm celebrating the Colts win right now and can't be bothered to look up any case law, all I can tell you is that the CCW course instructor explicitly stated that Missouri interpreted pointing a gun at someone as equivalent to actually pulling the trigger, with respect to the determination of use of deadly force.

Indiana statute appears to be essentially the same. If you pull a gun out and point it at someone, but can't justify it as self-defense under reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm (or prevention of a forcible felony, etc.), then you have unlawfully used deadly force against someone.

Generally, I believe that would be considered aggravated assault?

I'm struggling to understand why that point is so controversial?

 

[chipbennett]

His suspicious actions got him in trouble.

Once he was out of his backpack, had the ticket in his hands, demonstrating what he was reaching for, and that his actions were not in any way suspicious, then reaching into his bag no longer constituted reasonable grounds to believe that his actions were suspicious. At that point, pointing their guns at him for reaching into his bag was unreasonable.

He was told to exit the vehicle and flatout refused. Way beyond the seatbelt and ID thing by that time.

He was told to exit his vehicle after he produced the paper that had his name on it - ID that he didn't actually need, because he wasn't being cited with anything.

This is the problem that I have with the blanket "officer safety" justification for ordering people out of a car during a traffic stop. There was absolutely no grounds for the officers to believe that their safety was at risk, because of a piece of paper retrieved from a backpack.

Having a stupid attitude didn't help matters.

** Maybe he should have - I don't know - opened his door?

I generally have zero sympathy for DWB types of complaints, but in this situation, it seems obvious to me that the officers present were looking for trouble. I can't blame the guy for not wanting to get out of the car. The officers present were making it very clear that they intended to escalate the situation beyond what was in any way necessary.

 

[chipbennett]

We have no such statutes here in Indiana.

Yes, we do. The one you reference is the same one GodFearinGunTotin quoted above.

We have Pointing a Firearm, but police acting within the scope of their duties are exempt.

Is your question, "when can the police point guns at people?"

It's not so much of a question; it's another *ought to be*. The function of a gun doesn't change just because it's in the hands of a police officer during the conduct of his duties. Pointing a gun at someone is an inherently dangerous act, represents the risk of loss of life, and should require justification of risk to the person holding the gun. So no, I don't think that "conduct of duties" is sufficient justification for a police officer to point his gun at whomever he wants.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Yes, we do. The one you reference is the same one GodFearinGunTotin quoted above.

Again, the Indiana Code is devoid of any such statute entitled "Assault".

The elements for Assault (even under the MPC) and Pointing a Firearm do not overlap. Pointing a Firearm is Assaultesque if you must call it anything.

 

[chipbennett]

Again, the Indiana Code is devoid of any such statute entitled "Assault".

The elements for Assault (even under the MPC) and Pointing a Firearm do not overlap. Pointing a Firearm is Assaultesque if you must call it anything.

Seems like an argument based in semantics. The general definition of "assault" is "the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person". I am pretty comfortable asserting that the creation of apprehension of an imminent harmful contact is the very reason that pointing a loaded firearm at someone in Indiana is considered a felony.

Call it "Assaultesque" if you must.

 

[VUPDblue]

That was the Ohio statute. And as I'm celebrating the Colts win right now and can't be bothered to look up any case law, all I can tell you is that the CCW course instructor explicitly stated that Missouri interpreted pointing a gun at someone as equivalent to actually pulling the trigger, with respect to the determination of use of deadly force.

That "CCW course instructor" sounds like he was trying to make a point and did a poor job of it.

Indiana statute appears to be essentially the same. If you pull a gun out and point it at someone, but can't justify it as self-defense under reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm (or prevention of a forcible felony, etc.), then you have unlawfully used deadly force against someone.

This is just wrong. Just. Plain. Wrong. Use of deadly force MUST include USE. Threat of deadly force falls into a number of other charges. This is not semantics, this is the damn law.

Generally, I believe that would be considered aggravated assault?

No. Indiana does not use the term "assault". In Indiana, we have battery, aggravated battery, domestic battery, attempted battery and on and on, but no assault. Pointing a firearm without pulling the trigger is not aggravated anything, it's pointing a firearm.

I'm struggling to understand why that point is so controversial?

It's not controversial at all. It is plainly written in the Indiana Criminal Code. You either misunderstand how to read the code, have been improperly instructed as to how the law works, or a combination of both, but either way you are just plain wrong and are trying to find some nonexistent loophole to justify being wrong.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Seems like an argument based in semantics. The general definition of "assault" is "the act of creating apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person". I am pretty comfortable asserting that the creation of apprehension of an imminent harmful contact is the very reason that pointing a loaded firearm at someone in Indiana is considered a felony.

Call it "Assaultesque" if you must.

I would defer to Kirk (a practicing lawyer) and VUPDblue (a LEO) with regards to the proper terminology and the actual charges you'd be arrested for. However, I think the point is, regardless of the proper name of the charge, if you point a loaded gun at a person you could be convicted of a Level D felony. If you intentionally shot someone with that loaded gun, you'd also possibly be convicted of a felony(s)--probably higher level felonies depending on the circumstances of the case.

The point is, I think, point a loaded gun at a person, you could be in deep doo-doo, whatever you want to call it.

 

[chipbennett]

I would defer to Kirk (a practicing lawyer) and VUPDblue (a LEO) with regards to the proper terminology and the actual charges you'd be arrested for. However, I think the point is, regardless of the proper name of the charge, if you point a loaded gun at a person you could be convicted of a Level D felony. If you intentionally shot someone with that loaded gun, you'd also possibly be convicted of a felony(s)--probably higher level felonies depending on the circumstances of the case.

The point is, I think, point a loaded gun at a person, you could be in deep doo-doo, whatever you want to call it.

Hey! Somebody gets the point I'm trying to make!

I really don't care about the terminology; fine, I'm wrong about that. The lawyer and the LEO know the code. I certainly defer to them on terminology and nomenclature.

The point I have been trying to make, from the beginning, is that if you point a loaded gun at someone in a situation not justified in self-defense, you've committed a felony. You've put that person in mortal fear, and have put their life at risk. You have created the apprehension of an imminent act that risks life or great bodily harm. You have assaulted that person - regardless of the nomenclature the state legislature has chosen to define that act.

 

[Denny347]

The Taser was clearly unjustified. I think pointing guns* at the passengers was unjustified, and most certainly, endangering the children (er, youth; one is 14, I believe?) with the shards of shattered glass.

* I need to read up on Indiana law again now that I'm back, but I assume that pointing a gun at someone is considered inherent use of deadly force, whether a shot is fired or not? In which case, it would be a form of deadly-force assault if not justified as self-defense.

(I'm probably drifting into *ought to* territory here. I don't think police officers should be able to point their guns at whomever they choose without justification, any more than anyone else can. But in this case, the alleged reason was that the guy had reached into a backpack in the backseat - but he pulled a ticket out of that backpack, and turned back around, at which time, the fear that he was going for a handgun became inherently unreasonable. At that point, there was also no reasonable "officer safety" concern underlying the demand for passengers to exit the vehicle - but we've been over that one enough already.)

I can assure you it is not.

 

[Denny347]

The Missouri statutory definition of "deadly force":



The "create a substantial risk of causing..." clause *is* interpreted as pointing a gun at someone constituting an act of deadly force in Missouri.

The same is true in Ohio:



So, those were the two states I was referring to. But as far as I know, pointing a gun at someone is considered assault, and assault with a deadly weapon. In other words: it is considered use of deadly force.

"Force" must be applied. Pointing a firearm in INDIANA is a totally separate charge unrelated to force.

 

[Dead Duck]

Hey! Somebody gets the point I'm trying to make!

I really don't care about the terminology; fine, I'm wrong about that. The lawyer and the LEO know the code. I certainly defer to them on terminology and nomenclature.

The point I have been trying to make, from the beginning, is that if you point a loaded gun at someone in a situation not justified in self-defense, you've committed a felony. You've put that person in mortal fear, and have put their life at risk. You have created the apprehension of an imminent act that risks life or great bodily harm. You have assaulted that person - regardless of the nomenclature the state legislature has chosen to define that act.

Still curious what it has to do with this case.
This case doesn't have any laws broken by pointing guns.

 

[Denny347]

Hey! Somebody gets the point I'm trying to make!

I really don't care about the terminology; fine, I'm wrong about that. The lawyer and the LEO know the code. I certainly defer to them on terminology and nomenclature.

The point I have been trying to make, from the beginning, is that if you point a loaded gun at someone in a situation not justified in self-defense, you've committed a felony.

Indeed

IC 35-47-4-3 Version b
Pointing firearm at another person
Note: This version of section effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section, effective until 7-1-2014.
Sec. 3. (a) This section does not apply to a law enforcement officer who is acting within the scope of the law enforcement officer's official duties or 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.
(b) A person who knowingly or intentionally points a firearm at another person commits a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the firearm was not loaded.
As added by P.L.296-1995, SEC.2. Amended by P.L.158-2013, SEC.589

You've put that person in mortal fear, and have put their life at risk. You have created the apprehension of an imminent act that risks life or great bodily harm. You have assaulted that person - regardless of the nomenclature the state legislature has chosen to define that act.

I must act within the law as the legislature has written it or the courts have interpreted it. I cannot arrest based on anything else. What it "ought" to be or how you interpret it is irrelevant. I get this a lot at work. I get a run where one party says they are going to kick the other party's ass. I show up and they want me to arrest the threatening party for "assaulting" them verbally. They "created the apprehension of an imminent act that risks life or great bodily harm" so under your view and theirs, it's assault (a non existent charge in Indiana). However, since I have to go by what is written in law, this does not fit within the definition of BATTERY. Then they get mad because I refuse to enforce the law as they see it.


Here is Indiana's battery code (assault as you say it) so you do not have to look it up.

IC 35-42-2-1 Version b
Battery
Note: This version of section effective 7-1-2014. See also preceding version of this section, effective until 7-1-2014.
Sec. 1. (a) As used in this section, "public safety official" means:
(1) a law enforcement officer, including an alcoholic beverage enforcement officer;
(2) an employee of a penal facility or a juvenile detention facility (as defined in IC 31-9-2-71);
(3) an employee of the department of correction;
(4) a probation officer;
(5) a parole officer;
(6) a community corrections worker;
(7) a home detention officer;
(8) a department of child services employee;
(9) a firefighter; or
(10) an emergency medical services provider.
(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (j), a person who knowingly or intentionally:
(1) touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner; or
(2) in a rude, insolent, or angry manner places any bodily fluid or waste on another person;
commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor.
(c) The offense described in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) is a Class A misdemeanor if it results in bodily injury to any other person.
(d) The offense described in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) is a Level 6 felony if one (1) or more of the following apply:
(1) The offense results in moderate bodily injury to any other person.
(2) The offense is committed against a public safety official while the official is engaged in the official's official duty.
(3) The offense is committed against a person less than fourteen (14) years of age and is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age.
(4) The offense is committed against a person of any age who
has a mental or physical disability and is committed by a person having the care of the person with the mental or physical disability, whether the care is assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation.
(5) The offense is committed against an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2).
(6) The offense is committed against a family or household member (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-128) if the person who committed the offense:
(A) is at least eighteen (18) years of age; and
(B) committed the offense in the physical presence of a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, knowing that the child was present and might be able to see or hear the offense.
(e) The offense described in subsection (b)(2) is a Level 6 felony if the person knew or recklessly failed to know that the bodily fluid or waste placed on another person was infected with hepatitis, tuberculosis, or human immunodeficiency virus.
(f) The offense described in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) is a Level 5 felony if one (1) or more of the following apply:
(1) The offense results in serious bodily injury to another person.
(2) The offense is committed with a deadly weapon.
(3) The offense results in bodily injury to a pregnant woman if the person knew of the pregnancy.
(4) The person has a previous conviction for battery against the same victim.
(5) The offense results in bodily injury to one (1) or more of the following:
(A) A public safety official while the official is engaged in the official's official duties.
(B) A person less than fourteen (14) years of age if the offense is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age.
(C) A person who has a mental or physical disability if the offense is committed by an individual having care of the person with the disability, regardless of whether the care is assumed voluntarily or because of a legal obligation.
(D) An endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2).
(g) The offense described in subsection (b)(2) is a Level 5 felony if:
(1) the person knew or recklessly failed to know that the bodily fluid or waste placed on another person was infected with hepatitis, tuberculosis, or human immunodeficiency virus; and
(2) the person placed the bodily fluid or waste on a public safety official.
(h) The offense described in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) is a Level 4 felony if it results in serious bodily injury to an endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2).
(i) The offense described in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) is a Level 3 felony if it results in serious bodily injury to a person less than
fourteen (14) years of age if the offense is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age.
(j) The offense described in subsection (b)(1) or (b)(2) is a Level 2 felony if it results in the death of one (1) or more of the following:
(1) A person less than fourteen (14) years of age if the offense is committed by a person at least eighteen (18) years of age.
(2) An endangered adult (as defined in IC 12-10-3-2).
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.2. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.30; Acts 1979, P.L.298, SEC.1; Acts 1979, P.L.83, SEC.10; Acts 1981, P.L.299, SEC.1; P.L.185-1984, SEC.1; P.L.205-1986, SEC.1; P.L.322-1987, SEC.1; P.L.164-1993, SEC.10; P.L.59-1995, SEC.2; P.L.31-1996, SEC.20; P.L.32-1996, SEC.20; P.L.255-1996, SEC.25; P.L.212-1997, SEC.1; P.L.37-1997, SEC.2; P.L.56-1999, SEC.1; P.L.188-1999, SEC.5; P.L.43-2000, SEC.1; P.L.222-2001, SEC.4; P.L.175-2003, SEC.2; P.L.281-2003, SEC.3; P.L.2-2005, SEC.125; P.L.99-2007, SEC.209; P.L.164-2007

 

[chipbennett]

I can assure you it is not.

"Force" must be applied. Pointing a firearm in INDIANA is a totally separate charge unrelated to force.

Yep. I already conceded that point. I was wrong on the terminology. It's still a felony, and it is a felony for a reason. That reason leads to the point I was trying to make.

Still curious what it has to do with this case.
This case doesn't have any laws broken by pointing guns.

You're right; this case has nothing to do with any laws broken by pointing guns.

It does, however, have an instance where police officers pointed guns in a situation that in no way represented any justifiable use of their guns when they actually pointed them.

1. Police demand ID
2. Person says, "I don't have ID. It was taken for a ticket. I have the ticket."
3. Person reaches behind his seat into a backpack
4. Police take a collective dump at such an allegedly "suspicious" action
5. Person retrieves said ticket, and presents it
6. Police draw their firearms and point them at the car

Am I materially incorrect in how the situation played out? Even if 5 and 6 are transposed, at the moment he pulled a piece of paper out of the backpack and made no more more to reach into the backpack, the police were drawing their weapons over a piece of paper.

I realize that, under the law, they're allowed to do so. I have a problem with that.