• jimbo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    In Indiana, this would fall under intimidation. Which is threats to modify or coerce behavior (without justification, I suppose,).

    No it wouldn’t and you know it. You seem intelligent enough to have posted the specific statute that he violated, and you very tellingly left it out. Don’t lose your mind just because some asshat Republican showed that he had a gun.

    Depending on the state, brandishing may have more specific meanings, but generally, any attempt to call attention to the weapon (like exposing it on your hip,) is a use of force.

    This is also untrue. Why are you just making stuff up?

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Sorry? I left it out? You replied three times to me tilling me im wrong. You saw the link.

      It seems you’re being just as dishonest here as you are accusing me of.

      Also… you may wish to read something

      Verbally threatening some one is use of force. Threatening with a gesture is use of force. In every state I’m aware of- which is about twenty, specifically- all treat a threat to use a fire arm as the same as using a fire arm

      I have always been trained to never (intentionally) expose a concealed fire arm (unless a cop is asking you to.) precisely because the gesture is easily misunderstood as a threat.

      But, you’re right, this guy could probably pass it off as debate. He shouldn’t be allowed to, though.

      • jimbo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Sorry? I left it out? You replied three times to me tilling me im wrong. You saw the link.

        Hey, you can’t just post a link to a law and hope that nobody actually looks at it. There’s nothing in the Indiana law that you linked to that supports what you claimed.

        Verbally threatening some one is use of force. Threatening with a gesture is use of force. In every state I’m aware of- which is about twenty, specifically- all treat a threat to use a fire arm as the same as using a fire arm

        Threatening requires…an actual threat. Just showing someone a gun is not a threat. I would challenge you to show me a law that says “showing someone a gun is a threat”. The laws I looked up said that threatening someone with a gun is a threat.

        I have always been trained to never (intentionally) expose a concealed fire arm (unless a cop is asking you to.) precisely because the gesture is easily misunderstood as a threat.

        The police are not a great standard for what should be considered a threat, nor are there any laws out there that say, “it’s a threat if a police officer would consider it a threat”.

        • Cethin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Threatening requires…an actual threat. Just showing someone a gun is not a threat. I would challenge you to show me a law that says “showing someone a gun is a threat”. The laws I looked up said that threatening someone with a gun is a threat.

          Would pointing a gun at someone be a threat? (Surely yes.) Why? Because it can intimidate someone (by a statement of intent to use force) into doing something they wouldn’t otherwise do.

          OK, so can the same be said for placing your hand on a gun? What about placing a gun on a table? Surely, again, the answer is yes for both of those. Why? Because purposefully displaying your weapon is displaying your intent (or a warning of possible intent) to use it.

          OK, so what’s the difference between those and displaying (purposefully to a group of people in opposition to you) your holstered gun? What is the possible intent? Was he just trying to show them a piece of his wardrobe or was their another motive? If the intent was to make them feel uncomfortable (and it did) then explain how it’s not a threat?

          Threats don’t have to be words. Threats can be actions, like holding a knife to someone’s throat. If the intent is coercion through an implication of danger, it’s a threat. Arguments can be made that this wasn’t what happened, but you’d be hard pressed to get anyone like me to see this as anything else. What could the other possible intent be?

          • jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            What could the other possible intent be?

            Did you see the video of the interaction? He said something along the lines of “I want you to be able to defend yourself”, then a student asks “Do you mean by carrying a gun?” and he says, “Yes, I’m carrying right now.” If you did watch that video and came away saying it must have been a threat, you’re not have a good faith discussion.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              I still don’t see a reason for it. What he said should be enough, rather than flashing his gun. Also, since it’s supposedly for defence, what is he doing flashing it at them. That’s somewhat implying ‘I’m going to “defend” myself.’ The most generous interpretation is he flashed his firearm to make a point, which is still wrong.

              If you did watch that video and came away saying it must have been a threat, you’re not have a good faith discussion.

              The argument is likely not made in good faith to start with. Statistically a firearm doesn’t protect you. Frequently it just gets you killed instead, especially if you’re flashing it and making yourself a target and threat (there’s that word again). It almost certainly was a veiled threat (likely fake, but to make them feel uncomfortable), although it can be more than one thing at once.

              It’s also likely an appeal to his base, because it’s seen as a virtue to carry, and also likely to confront and threaten those in favor of any form of gun control. It’s an implicit endorsement to his constituents to do the same thing.

              • jimbo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                I’m entirely failing to see the “wrong” in demonstrating that he himself carries a weapon when asked about carrying a weapon. There are no doubt plenty of reasons to dislike this guy, but this example is little more than people like you trying really, really hard to make something out of nothing.

                • Cethin@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I’m entirely failing to see the “wrong” in demonstrating that he himself carries a weapon when asked about carrying a weapon.

                  And you probably never will.

                  Do you know the trope of a mob boss placing his gun on his desk? What’s wrong with that? It’s definitely not a threat, right? (sarcasm)

                  If he’s CC he should want it concealed I would assume. What’s the point of flashing it? It’s to show the people (who he doesn’t like and disagrees with, as well as those other people who hear about his actions later) what he’s got. Why? What does it do to further his argument? What does he gain? Consider the reasons why someone would choose to unconceal their firearm. It shouldn’t be a fashion piece to just show off.

                  • jimbo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    Why? What does it do to further his argument? What does he gain? Consider the reasons why someone would choose to unconceal their firearm. It shouldn’t be a fashion piece to just show off.

                    For any number of reasons, the most obvious and likely of which is that he was simply emphasizing his point about carrying a weapon for self-defense. The least likely and most ridiculous reason, the one you seem stuck on, is that he was threatening a group of kids.

                    Why? What does it do to further his argument? What does he gain?

                    Why don’t you spend some time applying some of that critical thinking to why he would threaten a group of kids?

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          Threatening requires…an actual threat. Just showing someone a gun is not a threat. I would challenge you to show me a law that says “showing someone a gun is a threat”. The laws I looked up said that threatening someone with a gun is a threat.

          you can communicate a threat to shoot some one without ever having a gun on your possession. (Gran Torino comes to mind, even if that is fiction.) Here’s the relevant text of Indiana Code Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure § 35-45-2-1. :

          Sec. 1. (a) A person who communicates a threat with the intent:

          1. that another person engage in conduct against the other person’s will;
          2. that another person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act;
          3. [trimming this, it’s not really relevant here. Basically saying you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a theater, or similar.]

          commits intimidation, a Class A misdemeanor.

          making threats in general is Class A misdemeanor. there’s conditions that can bump it to a class 6, or 5 felony (like, you’re threatening to commit a felony- aka to shoot some one.)

          it goes on to say:

          c) “Threat” means an expression, by words or action, of an intention to:

          1. unlawfully injure the person threatened or another person, or damage property;

            6) expose the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule;

          I’ve bolded the important bits, and trimmed out a few that were irrelevant or just too wordy and also irrelevant.

          care to explain how calling attention to being armed, isn’t on some level intended to shock or scare school kids? based on posture and what little context there was, it seems more reasonable to believe he wanted- consciously or otherwise- to scare and pressure these kids. And he used a firearm to do it.

          you can use a device to intimidate without ever actually drawing or firing a weapon. on a geopolitical level, the entire premise of MAD is based on that. Simply opening his jacket was “using” in that sense. “I’m armed right now!! [SEE?]” there was absolutely zero reason, as far as legitimate policy arguments go, that flashing that pistol bolstered… and a reasonable belief, by members of this group, that he was indeed threatening them.

          I am hard pressed to conceive of a scenario where the situation would be improved by such an announcement where simply drawing it would not also be a greater improvement.

          Am I stretching things- a bit- ? probably. Will this guy get off because “i didn’t mean it that way?” Absolutely. because he’s rich(ish), white, and in a conservative stronghold that likes this sort bullshit. Does it mean he’s not guilty? No… Does it mean it’s okay to do? absolutely not.

          • jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            care to explain how calling attention to being armed, isn’t on some level intended to shock or scare school kids?

            Yes, ffs, just go watch the video. I shouldn’t even have to explain this. He said something about self-defense, some kid goes “like carrying a gun”? He says “yes, in fact I’m carrying right now” and briefly revealed the gun on his side. A reasonable person would interpret that as him demonstrating that he does the thing that he himself advocates for. Nobody felt threatened by that. This group of kids didn’t gasp at seeing the gun and run away. They didn’t even take a step back. They stood there and kept arguing with him.

            Simply opening his jacket was “using” in that sense. “I’m armed right now!! [SEE?]” there was absolutely zero reason, as far as legitimate policy arguments go, that flashing that pistol bolstered… and a reasonable belief, by members of this group, that he was indeed threatening them

            lol, just stop. You’re embarrassing yourself. I already explained the reason why he showed it and covered why it’s obvious that no one standing there felt threatened.

            Will this guy get off because “i didn’t mean it that way?” Absolutely. because he’s rich(ish), white, and in a conservative stronghold that likes this sort bullshit.

            He’ll get off because he didn’t do anything that anyone could even make a plausible argument is illegal. (Sorry, but your arguments here are all implausible at best.)

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Yes, ffs, just go watch the video. I shouldn’t even have to explain this. He said something about self-defense, some kid goes “like carrying a gun”? He says “yes, in fact I’m carrying right now” and briefly revealed the gun on his side. A reasonable person would interpret that as him demonstrating that he does the thing that he himself advocates for. Nobody felt threatened by that. This group of kids didn’t gasp at seeing the gun and run away. They didn’t even take a step back. They stood there and kept arguing with him.

              For fucking hell. By YOUR definition of reasonable, and YOUR interpretation.

              How many ways do I need to say it? It’s not YOUR definition that matters. It’s not even mine. One of the kids even said it. “nothing about that makes me feel safe.”

              There is no world in which intentionally flashing a gun does not reasonably convey a threat on some level. Showing that you are carrying, serves no purpose to that argument- the argument he’s loosing (and judging by his subsequent comments… quite salty about it.)

              Now look at his posture, he’s leaning forward, in an aggressive manner (not physically aggressive, yet, but he’s leaning forward, his other hand is in an raised defensive posture. He’s squared up on them, on his toes,) He’s agitated, his face shows frustration. And he has aggressive body language.

              You’re acting like a single action will always be one thing and never more than one thing. These situations are a whole lot of gray, and his whole lot of gray said he at the very least meant to scare or shock those students.

              • HACKthePRISONS@kolektiva.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                10 months ago

                >There is no world in which intentionally flashing a gun does not reasonably convey a threat on some level.

                during a bank robbery, to the people on the floor with you while the assailants have their backs turned.