Indiana Brandishing Laws

[Dutch68]

I'm just glad I do not go out late anymore

 

[JDG]

Nothing good happens after 10:00. I hated it when my parents used to say that, but i find myself telling my daughters this all of the time

 

[Gunuser17]

Probably a violation of at least the intimidation/threat statute and maybe the criminal recklessness statute in Indiana.

• Indiana Code Section 35-45-2-1 (intimidation / threat)
• Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-2 (criminal recklessness)

 

[HoughMade]

Probably a violation of at least the intimidation/threat statute and maybe the criminal recklessness statute in Indiana.

• Indiana Code Section 35-45-2-1 (intimidation / threat)
• Indiana Code Section 35-42-2-2 (criminal recklessness)

There has been several mentions of the intimidation statute. I don't see the criminal recklessness elements in this story.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There has been several mentions of the intimidation statute. I don't see the criminal recklessness elements in this story.

I don't see Crim Reck here.

Maaayyybbbeee Intimidation. Likely going to jury on that.

 

[chipbennett]

I don't see Crim Reck here.

Maaayyybbbeee Intimidation. Likely going to jury on that.

If only it had happened in Fishers. (Maybe not purple.)

 

[JAL]

From the description of events by the OP, that could be easily interpreted as unlawful intimidation in an attempt to get the clerk to acquiesce from his decision to deny the sale, a form of extortion. I agree with the observation already made that the dude won't make it past a properly conducted psych eval. I have a strong suspicion his claim of becoming a LEO was an outright lie.

When it's apparent by the circumstances that the individual of legal age is making a straw purchase for underage individuals (whether or not there's an exchange of value), it's legitimate for a business to refuse to sell the alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, or any other items with legal age restrictions. Setting aside the moral and ethical obligation, there is a civil liability if a reasonable person would conclude it's a straw purchase, one of the under age women becomes intoxicated and has a traffic collision while intoxicated, or does some other inane act that hurts herself, someone else, or causes property damage.

The store would be perceived as having the deep pockets compared to the slime ball who brandished a handgun. I've little doubt they'd be named in the lawsuit(s) for having provided alcohol to a minor, even though a man of legal age purchased it. It's called "willful blindness". You cannot shield yourself with a defense from criminal or pecuniary liability by feigning ignorance that you did not know something (i.e. the women were under age) when you should have known, and a reasonable and prudent person exercising due care and diligence would have known. The sales clerk in the store made the proper decision based on the facts presented in the anecdote. The apparent policy to insist everyone in a situation like this produce proof of legal age is undoubtedly to prevent straw purchases and the civil liabilities that might arise from them. The takeaway from this is "plausible deniability" had best be a very credible one.

Turning a Blind Eye:
Sometimes willful blindness is referred to as "turning a blind eye" or "Nelsonian knowledge". Those idioms are a reference to Admiral Horatio Nelson, who was blinded in one eye early in his naval career. During the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801, the overly cautious commander of the entire fleet, Admiral Sir Hyde Parker, sent a signal via flags (the method of signaling at the time) to break off the attack and discontinue the action. When this order was brought to Admiral Nelson's attention, he raised his telescope to his blind eye and stated that he saw no such order. Most of the ships under his command continued to press their attack. It was a general order to all ships in the entire fleet, some of which did break off and retreat. Nelson's audacity resulted in a cease-fire during which the British achieved their political and military objectives via Nelson's negotiations with the Danes. Had Nelson lost the engagement with substantially greater damage to his portion of the fleet as a consequence of disobeying the order, he would have been court-martialed and sacked. Instead, Nelson was hailed a national hero. Admiral Parker was seen as too timid and meek, was relieved of his command, which was then given to Admiral Nelson. There is debate about the veracity of Nelson actually putting his blind eye to his telescope, but it is the etymology of the phrase: "turning a blind eye."

I first encountered the principle of "willful blindness" during my military career. A fellow officer had claimed ignorance of misdeeds, both violations of policy and some illegal acts that had been going on in his command with some strong suspicion he had deliberately ignored it. He was relieved of his command and was headed down the road to a courts-martial when he was offered the opportunity to submit a qualified resignation (resigning for the good of the service) in lieu of going to trial. I've little doubt it was to force his resignation as getting a conviction would have been a coin toss. The charge was Dereliction of Duty. As a consequence of this incident, there was an Officer's Call to explain the general concept of "willful blindness" and remind us under the UCMJ it's considered one of the various acts or omissions that constitute Dereliction of Duty. The former officer's name wasn't mentioned (1974 Privacy Act forbids it), but it wasn't hard for those of us who had some other knowledge about what had happened to connect the dots.

John