re: My Brother In Law caught his 16 y/o daughter parking with her boyfriend

You can’t reason with trailer park folks.

quote:

---

You don't need intent. Negligence is acting without intent but still recklessly

---

So confronting someone while in possession of a firearm without implying that you would use said firearm on them is a crime? I fail to see where that would hold up.

quote:

---

So confronting someone while in possession of a firearm without implying that you would use said firearm on them is a crime? I fail to see where that would hold up.

---

If you tell someone while a gun is on your person in plain sight that if they don't comply with your wishes to stop engaging in a lawful activity that you might have to pursue another option, many people will take that as an implication that you are referencing the gun.

And it's not that farfetched to argue in court, esp. since we do know that's what he was doing.

quote:

---

So confronting someone while in possession of a firearm without implying that you would use said firearm on them is a crime? I fail to see where that would hold up.

---

I go up to a bank teller raise my shite and show them I have a gun, are they wrong to assume it is a robbery?

LINK


"Letting someone know you are armed – whether it’s resting a hand on your pistol grip or sweeping back your shirt to let the other person know you’re armed – can and will be construed as a threat. And once it’s safely in that arena, you can be prosecuted in both civil and criminal court.

A few years ago, noted firearms expert Ben Findley wrote a very comprehensive article on the definitions of brandishing as they apply to some of the states. In that article, he gives a rough overview of the various definitions that exist out there as a means of educating concealed carriers to the facts about brandishing.

Brandishing can be called a lot of different things.
•“Improper Exhibition of a Weapon”
•“Defensive Display”
•“Unlawful Display”

(In Louisiana it is called "negligent display"

But it all reduces down to one key concept: threatening. And while in your mind, at the time, you may think along the lines of “that’s not a threat – that’s a promise”, the prosecuting attorney will tend to agree with you."

quote:

---

I'm just going off of the OP which states that he had a gun in his waistband. There's no mention of him intimidating/threatening him with it. If I answer my door with a glock on my side the person on the other side may feel threatened through no fault of my own. I didn't read through this entire thread though so maybe I missed some additional details.

---

You really can't see the difference between you having a firearm on your side while being approached by someone, versus having a visible firearm on your side to have a talk with someone in which you request he comply with your wishes or else?

quote:

---

I don't see how it's a crime. Louisiana is an open carry state. If I confront someone because their dog is taking a shite on my lawn while having a firearm on me I fail to see how it really changes the situation from a legal standpoint. If I tell the dog owner I'm going to shoot their dog that's a different situation.

---

You just don't understand the law then. There is judgement and implidd intent involved. Depending on how you act and what you say to the dog owner could produce different results. If you say "hey man get your dog and his shite off my yard!" You're probably fine. If you say "get your dog and his shite my yard or else" and make reference to the gun by pointing or drawing attention to it, you've probably committed a crime.

Minute details can make all the difference in the application of law. That's why it's all so confusing. I know it's a different subject, but that's why contracts and such are all lawyered up in their language. Just not to long ago a comma cost a company a couple hundred grand in I think one of the Dakota's (I may be wrong on the state).

I'm an IT consultant. Definitely not a lawyer
My argument is simply that merely possessing a gun on your property while confronting someone isn't a crime whether they feel intimidated or not.

quote:

---

Like efrad said, the standard is a reasonable person. If someone walked up to you and said if you do this again you won't like the result and looked down at their holstered gun would you reasonably believe that means if you do it again they'll shoot you? The asnwer is probably yes, so that would be against the law

---

Fair enough. I just read a few posts on this thread that seemed to imply that having the gun and confronting the kid was a crime which is mostly what I was arguing against

ETA - and I have 2 daughters and would never do this. I remember being 16 and this isn't exactly unusual for kids that age. The dad definitely freaked out.

Thank you.