Good points all. While there is no crime of "brandishing" in Indiana, there is pointing a firearm, which, as long as it is not pointed at someone, is not a crime. Someone knocking on my door with a carbine at low ready, or a handgun pointed upward, or other similar position will likely be met with the same, if he is met at all. Could this result in gunfire? Of course it could, and the point could be made that such a person was given the opportunity to holster his sidearm or sling his carbine, and did not do so. The IC does include code related to the crime of battery, and if I recall, "attempted" is included as well. (Battery as opposed to "assault" or ADW, as present in other states' codes. (No, Kirk, your First Law does not apply here! ))
What I'm getting at with the line that you quoted is to get away from the mere possession of an object being grounds for charges that can result in what is nothing short of the destruction of a person's life, reputation, and livelihood. If a man's intentional actions cause death, injury, or loss of property of another, he should be responsible for those actions under the law. I thought that was clear from my post, but perhaps not. I also don't work for LSA, so my ability to draft a law that addresses all or even most possible ramifications is not as well practiced as it might be if I did. (of course, considering the recodification mess in re: the roaming school zone, perhaps mine isn't so bad after all!)
Blessings,
Bill
What I'm getting at with the line that you quoted is to get away from the mere possession of an object being grounds for charges that can result in what is nothing short of the destruction of a person's life, reputation, and livelihood. If a man's intentional actions cause death, injury, or loss of property of another, he should be responsible for those actions under the law. I thought that was clear from my post, but perhaps not. I also don't work for LSA, so my ability to draft a law that addresses all or even most possible ramifications is not as well practiced as it might be if I did. (of course, considering the recodification mess in re: the roaming school zone, perhaps mine isn't so bad after all!)
Blessings,
Bill
I know that the "brandishing" part can be stretched quite a bit to antagonize someone doing nothing wrong other than being in mere possession of a firearm, but wouldn't this exempt malicious use of firearms without harm (yet). An example would be someone knocking on your door with a carbine in the low ready, or waving it at you and yours. Certainly nothing good can come of either, and could quite possibly result in shots fired (in either direction). If you felt you were about to be shot, and took out the antagonist, the prosecutor would have the ability to point out that they weren't doing anything illegal.