My first open carry encounter

[rcdouble2]

Thanks for the thread. Lot of good info being posted!

 

[canav844]

I'm not getting the connection you are trying to make with the provocation thing here either. All the OP did was tell the guy he would call the police if he did'nt stop what he was doing and leave.

I don't see how that would be provoking a "reasonable man to commit battery" The key word here is "reasonable"

Now it would be another story if the OP got in the guy's face and told him he would kick his ass if he did'nt leave.

That to me would be considered more like a provocation.

Well when you only cover half the post of course it doesn't make sense

Not making the claim that it would stick, but hang around here long enough and you'll see news stories that prove that politics can make the decision of whether or not to go to court more than the accounts of the events; and defending yourself in court is an expensive proposition, when you can take steps to avoid having to in the first place.....

But to elaborate on that, the cops aren't there we're unknown on security cameras; so when the cops show up after the fact if there were to be a fight and/or self defense shooting, and they need to consider there were two sides to every story. If from the OPs dress and holster you can see that he was open carrying, and it can be interpreted or claimed by the ex-husband here, that the OP was using the firearm ad a means of intimidation or threat; then someone seeking to make a name for themselves may indeed say the OPs actions were perceived as threatening with a firearm, even if the words were "get out of here or I'm going to call the cops", it may look like get out of here or I'm going to shoot you. The threat of force (notice the law doesn't say verbally), may cause a reasonable person to commit battery. 90% of all communication is supposed to be non-verbal, the OP has stated he forgot his weapon was even visible. Tone, inflection, volume, posture, stature, relative positioning of the people involved all come into play on how the other party perceived the same situation. How he perceives the situation is going to determine what is reasonable action for him, and "Mistake of Fact" (IC 35-41-3-7
) would appear to go both ways here. While this board and much of Indiana tends to be fairly pro-gun that's not the way it's viewed in some areas, and just look at the Officer Lutz thread to see the police talk about how many people perceive the presence of a gun as threatening enough to call 911; now while we may know them to be over-reacting to an inanimate object, they may very well be the people sitting on your jury. As a gun owner we may find the presence of a gun being a threat as unreasonable, however the typically reasonable is how 9 out of 10 view it, 8-13% seems to be the estimation by INGO of Hoosiers with LTCHs and many of them don't carry regularly or got the lifetime so they could take a few handguns back and forth from the range/store/hunting; so with those rough numbers the average persons socialization to firearms is Die Hard and CSI, what is their definition of reasonable. Does a prosecutor looking to advance their political position or career or want to look tough on crime or vigilantism think that based on the very little evidence given that they could make the case, or over charge and plea it down for a "win" in their totals? Are you willing to take that gamble? Initiating the contact for someone who is just making noise in the hallway, hasn't broken down her door isn't beating her up but is clearly emotional, as a civilian it isn't worth that gamble to me physically (remember #1 here is being able to go home in one piece at the end of the day) or legally.

I also highlighted some of anther section of code you failed to quote about how if your actions provoke an attack your claim to self defense without a duty to retreat may be out the window. Provoke is not something I've seen in the IC, provocation is; when you check Webster for provoke you get simply:

1)
a: to arouse to a feeling or action
b : to incite to anger
2)
a : to call forth (as a feeling or action) : evoke <provoke laughter>
b : to stir up purposely <provoke a fight>
c : to provide the needed stimulus for <will provoke a lot of discussion>

IANAL so I included the closest matching IC I could find, but should you only need to go by the dictionary definition and the OP initiates contact that would have never otherwise occurred if he had stepped back outside or into his apartment, observed and called the police; and the ex-husband was not committing an act described in IC 35-41-3-2 then there would seem to be very little if any ground to stand on should this person attack and self defense be claimed after initiating contact.

Also keep in mind that if you read any of the Zimmerman/Martin threads, there is far more recording of what actually happened there and because of perception, the case is now a Murder 2 trial; and even if acquitted Zimmerman is going to be going through much financial hardship having had to defend himself because whether or not he lost his right to self defense is in question due to the claim being made that he initiated contact. Now FL laws are not the same as IN laws but there are similarities and lessons we can learn from the troubles of others so that we need not repeat history and suffer ourselves. So regardless of whether or not it sticks, if it were me I would be making an effort to avoid putting that self in such a predicament in the first place. When someone is just disturbing the peace, or perhaps trespassing in the shared hallway beyond my curtilage (not an area I am presumably "authorized to protect"); then being a good witness is going to be better for my own self preservation than interjecting myself into a volatile situation without backup without a bulletproof vest, in an assertive to aggressive manner without any legal basis to support my actions (which an LEO would have so call 911 and they can take action), now if the situation should change and escalate itself to where there was a legal basis to take action, I'm looking at an entirely different scenario and can make that decision accordingly.

There is a line in the sand drawn for us by the legislature on when to take action and there is a line in the sand we draw ourselves for what we are willing to morally put up with. When we take action, we need to be able to justify it to ourselves, to our lawyers and in some rare cases in the courts of public opinion. I can understand that many people will take the steps needed to make sure they are on the right side of their own moral line.

 

[mrortega]

I hate this armchair quarterbacking. It's stupid.

I disagree. I think it's good to run different scenarios over in your mind of what you could be faced with. Critiquing a real encounter is just as helpful. We have to have some idea of how we will react before it happens. OP is getting some useful advice.

 

[looney2ns]

I just tried this on 2 different versions of the iPhone and a Samsung smart phone. It does not work on any of these.

Some phone's it's an option you have to turn on.
All the Verizon phones I've ever had would do this.
YMMV

 

[looney2ns]

It doesnt work on my EVO either.

Ok, well I apoligize that I was wrong and in saying Most Phones.
I should have said the phones that I have had over the years would do this trick. YMMV

I'll go back under my desk now.

 

[.45 Dave]

I know there are a lot people who say that they would not intervene because they arecarrying a gun and therefore might open them up to lawsuits, theft of gun, etc. Seems to me like more of an argument for not carrying! What's the point if you're not going to do something to help someone else or if your're afraid of lawsuits? I don't carry a gun because I think it's a pretty accessory!!
But while you must be aware of laws and potential legal blowback, you carry a gun for self-defense.
Most importantly in your case, you were not waving it in his face, you didn't draw it nor reach for it, no threatening gestures on your part. The gun was not a factor as far as you're actions were concerned. So good job. The gun might have made you a little bolder and a little more secure in doing something (not saying it did, but I think it would definitely give me a little more confidence). If it scared the other guy or made him think twice then that's on him, not you.

 

[88GT]

I disagree. I think it's good to run different scenarios over in your mind of what you could be faced with. Critiquing a real encounter is just as helpful. We have to have some idea of how we will react before it happens. OP is getting some useful advice.

Well, I think a bunch of people who weren't there and have different priorities and capabilities of the OP telling him what he should have done differently is stupid.

It's like a gaggle of women telling another one that she should have made different choices in the delivery of her child.

Learning from experience is one thing. Telling the OP he should have done it differently because you or your brother or Sponge Bob Squarepants would have done it differently is stupid.

 

[88GT]

I know there are a lot people who say that they would not intervene because they arecarrying a gun and therefore might open them up to lawsuits, theft of gun, etc. Seems to me like more of an argument for not carrying! What's the point if you're not going to do something to help someone else or if your're afraid of lawsuits? I don't carry a gun because I think it's a pretty accessory!!
But while you must be aware of laws and potential legal blowback, you carry a gun for self-defense.
Most importantly in your case, you were not waving it in his face, you didn't draw it nor reach for it, no threatening gestures on your part. The gun was not a factor as far as you're actions were concerned. So good job. The gun might have made you a little bolder and a little more secure in doing something (not saying it did, but I think it would definitely give me a little more confidence). If it scared the other guy or made him think twice then that's on him, not you.

And you know what, I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. If having a firearm for my protection enables me to be in a better position to help someone else too, how is that a bad thing?

 

[Dead Duck]

Well, I think a bunch of people who weren't there and have different priorities and capabilities of the OP telling him what he should have done differently is stupid.

It's like a gaggle of women telling another one that she should have made different choices in the delivery of her child.

Learning from experience is one thing. Telling the OP he should have done it differently because you or your brother or Sponge Bob Squarepants would have done it differently is stupid.

OH YA??? -
Well that Chick on your Avatar is just UGLY.

And the last part of your post is plain Silly - I don't have a Brother.

If the women can gossip, then let the men puff out their chests a little. What else they got?

 

[24Carat]

I hate this armchair quarterbacking. It's stupid.

 

[CPT Nervous]

You've got balls.




I like balls...

 

[KG1]

You've got balls.




I like balls...

Ummm.....Ok.

 

[9mmfan]

First, Welcome to INGO!. Second, Great Job!

 

[CPT Nervous]

Ummm.....Ok.

Don't sweat the petty things.


Don't pet the sweaty things...