Scary Incident Last Night

[DaveTN]

The guy couldn’t have thought the person in the car was a threat. If they were they would have killed him when he walked up.

[McGarrett]

54 minutes ago, DaveTN said:

The guy couldn’t have thought the person in the car was a threat. If they were they would have killed him when he walked up.

You are mistaken, it's impossible to kill Rambo.

[gunslinger_Griff]

2 hours ago, McGarrett said:

You are mistaken, it's impossible to kill Rambo.

You're respectfully wrong... 

Chuck Norris, or more specifically his beard, can...  

[mikegideon]

2 minutes ago, gunslinger_Griff said:

You're respectfully wrong... 

Chuck Norris, or more specifically his beard, can...  

TRUTH!

[-boatman-]

17 hours ago, Erik88 said:

I'm disturbed, but not surprised, that some of you are defending this wanna be George Zimmerman with a long gun.

 

 

I was not defending him at all with my comment. I think he is a idiot.  I do still think the lady could have picked a better place to pull over such as a parking lot or told the caller she would have called them back in a few minutes. I can't see myself pulling into a place like she did to stop and talk on the phone at night. It's legal but is it smart?

[McGarrett]

3 hours ago, gunslinger_Griff said:

You're respectfully wrong... 

Chuck Norris, or more specifically his beard, can...  

I admit I was wrong. It looks like it was also legal.

39-17-1308. Defenses to unlawful possession or carrying of a weapon.

(a)  It is a defense to the application of § 39-17-1307 if the possession or carrying was:

       1. By a person in fear of Chuck Norris, his beard, or it's perceived presence in a vehicle.

[gregintenn]

20 hours ago, Erik88 said:

I'm disturbed, but not surprised, that some of you are defending this wanna be George Zimmerman with a long gun.

 

 

I've yet to see the problem, other than the lady drove away butthurt.

[KahrMan]

19 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

I've yet to see the problem, other than the lady drove away butthurt.

I wonder if you would feel the same if your wife was jutting in a car minding her own business and some guy came up and pointed at rifle directly at her.

 

I talked to my neighbor some more and rifle was pointed directly at her.  When she said it was not pointed at her she just meant that he did not have it shouldered with his hand on the trigger.  Even though he was cradling the rifle in his arms, the muzzle was pointed right at her chest.

[Oh Shoot]

8 minutes ago, KahrMan said:

...Even though he was cradling the rifle in his arms, the muzzle was pointed right at her chest.

That's aggravated assault, if she could prove it, or if he admits it.

Could be even if just shown as act of intimidation.

- OS

Edited August 12, 2016 by Oh Shoot

[gregintenn]

12 minutes ago, KahrMan said:

I wonder if you would feel the same if your wife was jutting in a car minding her own business and some guy came up and pointed at rifle directly at her.

 

I talked to my neighbor some more and rifle was pointed directly at her.  When she said it was not pointed at her she just meant that he did not have it shouldered with his hand on the trigger.  Even though he was cradling the rifle in his arms, the muzzle was pointed right at her chest.

It's happened....only the guy was wearing a badge. I had a long conversation with the police chief, but it did no good. She wasn't scared, but very pizzed off.

 

You're right. I don't care for a lack of muzzle discipline. We have heard her side of the story. I expect his is different. I've no idea how accurate either story would be.

It wasn't a good situation no matter how you slice it. It seems people are on edge most everywhere in light of recent events. Some people are also just plain nuts. I wish it wasn't this way, but have no idea how to change it.

Edited August 12, 2016 by gregintenn

[conn_air7]

SOME people 100 percent take their right to bear arms beyond what is reasonable. Myself, I would not even consider the idea of having an exposed rifle cradled in my arms in the event I was approaching someone who was mysteriously parked in front of my house for an odd period of time. Legalities placed aside, what the man did was disrespectful and extremely uncalled for. If nothing else, carry the rifle in a safe and non-threatening manner (if even possible). On the other hand, none of us know what this guys issues or mental state are, so I am trying to stay objective here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gregintenn]

1 hour ago, conn_air7 said:

SOME people 100 percent take their right to bear arms beyond what is reasonable. Myself, I would not even consider the idea of having an exposed rifle cradled in my arms in the event I was approaching someone who was mysteriously parked in front of my house for an odd period of time. Legalities placed aside, what the man did was disrespectful and extremely uncalled for. If nothing else, carry the rifle in a safe and non-threatening manner (if even possible). On the other hand, none of us know what this guys issues or mental state are, so I am trying to stay objective here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

1 hour ago, conn_air7 said:

SOME people 100 percent take their right to bear arms beyond what is reasonable. Myself, I would not even consider the idea of having an exposed rifle cradled in my arms in the event I was approaching someone who was mysteriously parked in front of my house for an odd period of time. Legalities placed aside, what the man did was disrespectful and extremely uncalled for. If nothing else, carry the rifle in a safe and non-threatening manner (if even possible). On the other hand, none of us know what this guys issues or mental state are, so I am trying to stay objective here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Right. It sounds like the guy was an ass, and there are certainly no shortage of those. The fact remains, however, that no one was injured, assaulted, molested, etc., so all in all, it turned out pretty good.

[Garufa]

33 minutes ago, gregintenn said:

 

The fact remains, however, that no one was injured, assaulted, molested, etc., so all in all, it turned out pretty good.

And all we have to go on is a third-hand story from a woman talking on the phone, sitting in a car, when it's just about dark, if not already.  

[tennesseetiger]

On 8/11/2016 at 5:46 PM, Oh Shoot said:

Again, there is no "brandishing" law per se in TN. Would have to rise to level of reckless endangerment or aggravated assault.

- OS

Eh...it was used to intimidate yes?
 

Quote

See King v. St. Vincent’s Hospital, 502 U.S. 215, 221 (1991)("[T]he meaning of statutory language, plain or not, depends on context."). The statute defines a brandish as occurring when an individual takes one of two courses of action: either the individual "display[ s] all or part of the firearm," or the individual "otherwise make the presence of the firearm known."
...
Our interpretation is further supported by the requirement that the presence of the firearm be made known "in order to intimidate [another] person." 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(4). The obvious way of intimidating a person during the commission of a crime is not to make it known that a gun exists somewhere, but, rather, that the gun is present "at hand" such that it could be used.

 

[Oh Shoot]

2 hours ago, tennesseetiger said:

Eh...it was used to intimidate yes?
 

 

Reference of King vs St. Vincent's Hospital is SCOTUS case about reemployment after National Guard service, btw?

But anyway, yeah, if the DA thinks this encounter involved significant enough intimidation, then yeah, he can make case that aggravated assault is justified. As I said.

The TN statute for simple assault requires that the person "Intentionally or knowingly causes another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury". And rises to aggravated assault if same plus "Uses or displays a deadly weapon".

The point is that some states have a separate law specifically covering "brandishing" of a firearm. TN does not, and the word is not even found in TCA.

What seems clear cut is that the guy violated 39-17-1307.  If that encounter is deemed "in public", then it's a Class A Misdemeanor.

But then, a prosecutor doesn't have to press any charge he doesn't want to.

- OS

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Oh Shoot