• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      8 months ago

      Right, brandishing implies intent to intimidate or threaten someone. That’s why I said in the second paragraph it doesn’t seem like he’s trying to be intimidating. To be clearer, what I should have said is “the term in question is brandishing” and the answer is “no, he wasn’t brandishing his weapon.”

    • doingthestuff@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah if that were the case, police with a pistol on their hip or anyone open carrying would be brandishing. A bunch of states have permitless open carry. I think you have to have the gun in your hand to be guilty of brandishing, although I’m sure laws vary from state to state.

      • linearchaos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Ehh, He unconcealed it on purpose. It’s still not enough to be brandishing but he was doing it to make a point.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Nope.

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

        She said it herself in the video. “I feel unsafe… that makes me feel unsafe.” Clearly the gesture (which was hardly needed,) was viewed as threatening.

        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. More commonly, for example, putting your hand on the weapon.

        In ~8 years of reviewing incidents for between 300 and 800 armed security guards; I’ve never seen any sort of “I’m armed!” - including displaying or putting a hand on it (without drawing) ever actually descalate. It was always either going to be drawn, anyhow, or never needed in the first.

        It does, however, give the subject time to escalate themselves. So it always makes things worse.

        The fact this guy never actually acknowledged that he had made his (presumed) constituents - aka highschool kids - feel unsafe, says either he’s too fucking unaware to carry a firearm, too fucking dumb to be a state legislator, or scaring her was exactly what he wanted.

        Probably all three.

        • jimbo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 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.

          • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            8 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.