Whats the difference between displaying and threatening with weapons

[CitizenX]

You and your buddy are morons..

Possession of a bat inside a vehicle tells me that your buddy is either, a) Daryl Strawberry or b) up to no good. Having a baseball bat located inside a cab tells me he generally, and frequently stashes it there for exactly such occasions.

Then you further post an incident to disprove his actions by posting an example that this guy is one of those **cks that can't let things go. Even if the lady had made a mistake during backing up, he is that exact type of a-hole that is going to park behind her and not purposely move in an attempt to insight an incident. Not to mention that in some area's it's a infraction or crime, to do such an act.

Had you or your buddy made any threatening remarks during the detention, she (the blocked in lady) could have had both of you locked up for false imprisonment.

Grow up DB..

So all the smileys and dots implying that you had something to say were just referring to this wild speculation?

It occured on a college campus where my friend reguarly uses the batting cages to wind down from academic stress. He didn't park behind the back up rammer. He parked far behind the spot she was backing out of. That lady jerked out real fast when she saw my friend coming which is when he pulled to the far left and stopped.

The lady was given a ticket for failure to yield, and the officer was suspicious of the circumstances given how far and the angle the lady had to go in order to hit my friend. But he didn't say anything because the lady was pregnant.

[Citicop]

I think you are being purposely obtuse.

If you sit in a car, and I am outside with a bat, and you think that the glass windows afford you any protection at all, you are in for a big surprise if I decide to do you harm.

One swing breaks the glass giving me access to the interior of the vehicle (including the door locks) and glass moving at the same speed as the bat is going to be flying in your face.

The conduct of the bat wielder is criminal, even if you don't want to accept that. If he wants to get involved in a road rage incident and tell another driver to lay off the g0dammned horn, that's one thing.

Pointing the bat has only one purpose there: to physically intimidate and cause fear in the other party.

I don't need enough for a conviction to arrest. I only need probable cause. If the other person has a defense to the charge, then they can use it in court. If the court buys it, I don't take it personally. I did my job.

I also say you need to provide documentation of your claims that in your state "almost no one gets convicted of Aggressive Driving" and "Officers will charge you anyway if you make them mad."

I bet that you have no proof of these claims, and are simply regurgitating things that your friends (who clearly make bad decisions) have told you.

-Citicop.

[BJJVad]

Make no mistake about it. It is the offenders actions and attitudes that dictates their legal outcome. Just as how your attitude has earned you some red rep.

Let's ask you these questions and see what your responses would be.

What happens to a persons driving when they are in fear that someone is going to strike their car with a object?

What happens when a baseball bat strikes a car window?

What happens to a drivers ability to control a 2000lbs piece of metal when they are weilding a baseball bat?

Lastly,

I do like the new response you get for adding a disapproval. It thanks you for adding red. I bet Sam like's that.

[BJJVad]

So all the smileys and dots implying that you had something to say were just referring to this wild speculation?

It occured on a college campus where my friend reguarly uses the batting cages to wind down from academic stress. He didn't park behind the back up rammer. He parked far behind the spot she was backing out of. That lady jerked out real fast when she saw my friend coming which is when he pulled to the far left and stopped.

The lady was given a ticket for failure to yield, and the officer was suspicious of the circumstances given how far and the angle the lady had to go in order to hit my friend. But he didn't say anything because the lady was pregnant.

Don't go changing your story now to go and make it fit.

By your own judgment you stated that your friend did it with the full intentions of blocking her in (To be a d***). Man up if you are going to say something. Don't start weaseling out of it by trying to correct your statement.

You are a drain on society my friend. Instead of looking for some productive stuff to do with your life, you and your buddy are more interested at fighting each battle that comes your way. Even at pregnant females.

You are a troll here and in real life..

Congratulations..

/addedtoignore.

[CitizenX]

What are you talking about? I never said he purposely blocked anyone in. Looking back to the first post this was mentioned, I said "She was mad that he didn't let her back out".

What this means is, he didn't stop and wait for her to back out of the space and pull away, not that he boxed her in. By law in my state, he had right of way and was under no obligation to stop and let her pull out.

The reasoning for this law is simple - it is inefficient for a vehicle that is already in motion to stop in order to allow an at rest vehicle to go. It would both increase gas usage by requiring an extra acceleration, as well as slow parking lot traffic.

[PapaBear]

@Papa Bear

Well I understand what you are saying from the point of view of a police officer, but then it seems like you would arrest people for something that wouldn't be against the law. My friend, I would never arrest someone for something that is not covered by a law. I enforced the law more by the spirit of its intent as opposed to the letter of its writing.

The cases I was talking about involved confrontations where people pulled up their coat to reveal a weapon or put it on the dashboard to get another person to stop yelling at them. Since firearms are far more deadly than other weapons, displaying them is really intimidating. Then there is the issue of conditional threats not being threats in my state, since the person isn't in danger unless they keep doing whatever the person wants them to stop doing. You first and second scenarios (above) are threatening. They bode to the intent of the suspect. Displaying a weapon to cause another to cease their behavior is a THREAT! There is no discussion about that.

It seems like pointing a gun at someone would be a threat, but then does it matter what you say? And with other weapons, what is the equivalent of "pointing"? Is that directed at me; or, is it an all encompassing comment? A weapon does not have to be pointed directly at another, simply pointing it in the direction or general vicinity of that person can be interpreted as a threat.

Specifically in the situation I described, did the person threaten or display the baseball bat? Specifically, as you describe it, the action by the individual is a THREAT! The individual intended that his actions would be interpreted that he would use the bat to enforce his displeasure at the actions of another!

You asked a question, if you cannot accept the answer, fine; but, I don't intend to get into a urinating contest with you over the interpretation of law. I spent over thirty years enforcing the law and do not appreciate your inference that I may do so without cause, purpose or legal authority!

If you, or any other displays a weapon in a threatening manner, that is unlawful. I was fairly succinct in my offering of an opinion. If you are unable to read and interpret those writings correctly, perhaps you should seek the advice of an attorney.

Finally, you do not get to ask a question and then dictate the answer. You don't even get to argue an officer's answer. You may ask for clarification or expansion, but don't cast aspersions on the character of an officer in these forums without a foundation of knowledge and authority.

Nuff said!

[CitizenX]

Pointing the bat has only one purpose there: to physically intimidate and cause fear in the other party.

...

I also say you need to provide documentation of your claims that in your state "almost no one gets convicted of Aggressive Driving" and "Officers will charge you anyway if you make them mad."

-Citicop.

What do you mean by pointing the bat? Is it automatically pointing if the person sticks the bat up in the air like "Look I have one" not I AM GOING TO HIT YOU WITH THIS. This is what I am confused about.

The aggressive driving statute in my state has no provable elements, it's all about what the intent of the driver was. Since a vehicle is used for transportation first and foremost, proving that someone intended to use it for something else on the road is very difficult. But yeah, this is just hearsay from a lawyer that handles this kind of thing, not from any statistics.

[CitizenX]

Make no mistake about it. It is the offenders actions and attitudes that dictates their legal outcome. Just as how your attitude has earned you some red rep.

Let's ask you these questions and see what your responses would be.

What happens to a persons driving when they are in fear that someone is going to strike their car with a object?

What happens when a baseball bat strikes a car window?

What happens to a drivers ability to control a 2000lbs piece of metal when they are weilding a baseball bat?

Lastly,

I do like the new response you get for adding a disapproval. It thanks you for adding red. I bet Sam like's that.

Lol ONOZ RED REP. That is a circular argument, you don't like losing an argument so you neg rep me then say "oh look you have bad rep." Maybe red is a good indicator of someone who wins arguments?

The cars were all at rest btw. Gridlocked traffic.

[CitizenX]

I enforced the law more by the spirit of its intent as opposed to the letter of its writing.

This pretty much tells me what I needed to know. Police officers are under no obligation to make sure the actions of the person they arrest are strictly against the base law, much less case law.

I wasn't sure about this because case law is supposed to clarify what would otherwise be vague and ambiguous laws, and allow people to see a clear line they should not cross. It seems counterproductive that the police would not respect that clear line that is developed over time, but then I guess what is supposed to happen is that legislators go back and clarify the original law with the information gained from actual cases.

In my state a threat is specifically causing someone to fear injury. The case law in my state has clearly determine what to me is already obvious - Warning someone to back off is not a threat because they know they are not in any danger unless they continue to act aggressively themselves (which to me goes without saying).

You all grudgingly admit the significance of pointing a weapon vs displaying it. If people who display firearms to intimidate end up getting off because they did not point, I doubt holding a bat up in the air is going to get someone hard time. Also he did not display the bat with the intent of communicating displeasure at past actions - he was trying to get the person to stop threatening him with the vehicle in the future. The way you keep trying to pigeonhole his actions to fit these two criteria: pointing and responding to past actions as opposed to preventing future ones, tells me where the law draws the line (at least in your state)

I am sorry people do not automatically take your word as the god given truth. When people ask for your opinion, they are asking for just that - an opinion, and you should not expect them to pretend like it is the best and only answer that could ever be given by anyone.

[JR180]

This pretty much tells me what I needed to know. Police officers are under no obligation to make sure the actions of the person they arrest are strictly against the base law, much less case law.

I wasn't sure about this because case law is supposed to clarify what would otherwise be vague and ambiguous laws, and allow people to see a clear line they should not cross. It seems counterproductive that the police would not respect that clear line that is developed over time, but then I guess what is supposed to happen is that legislators go back and clarify the original law with the information gained from actual cases.

In my state a threat is specifically causing someone to fear injury. The case law in my state has clearly determine what to me is already obvious - Warning someone to back off is not a threat because they know they are not in any danger unless they continue to act aggressively themselves (which to me goes without saying).

You all grudgingly admit the significance of pointing a weapon vs displaying it. If people who display firearms to intimidate end up getting off because they did not point, I doubt holding a bat up in the air is going to get someone hard time. Also he did not display the bat with the intent of communicating displeasure at past actions - he was trying to get the person to stop threatening him with the vehicle in the future. The way you keep trying to pigeonhole his actions to fit these two criteria: pointing and responding to past actions as opposed to preventing future ones, tells me where the law draws the line (at least in your state)

I am sorry people do not automatically take your word as the god given truth. When people ask for your opinion, they are asking for just that - an opinion, and you should not expect them to pretend like it is the best and only answer that could ever be given by anyone.

I’m not a cop but I do feel that you are a tool. It appears that you are fishing for an answer that will make you feel like a hero instead of a giant d-bag. Did you get arrested with a van full of stolen stereos? Is that why you are so angry? It takes a big man to threaten someone with a bat, huh? Get a life.

[CitizenX]

My friend panicked and had a fight or flight reaction after another driver nearly rammed his car and then leaned on the horn 2 feet from his window. He didn't ask to be assaulted with a vehicle in this manner. There was no indication that the other person was going to stop if he didn't do or say something and there was no way the police could have gotten there at all (due to gridlock), much less in time to prevent an accident.

It perhaps wasn't necessary for him take hold of the bat in this situation while yelling at the person to stop, but that simple fact doesn't qualify him for 15 years in jail IMO given the circumstances. And then again that is speculative - who knows what it would have taken for the other driver to snap out of it. All that is known is that the situation was defused by the actions he did take. I love this person very much and if he were to go to jail for any significant amount of time over this I would consider it a massive failure of the legal system.

[Citicop]

Yes, that's what I mean.

The only reason to display a bat while telling another driver you are having a dispute with to stop honking the horn 'or you're going to see how you like it' is to make the other driver believe that the bat will be used.

You are not someplace where the bat can be used for its intended purpose. You are not talking to a bat collecter about a piece in your collection. Saying "look, I have a bat" in that case is the same as saying "look, I have a gun/knife/crossbow/other weapon" while displaying it. It is meant to cause fear in the other person, and it is a violation of the law in my state no matter how many times you ask or rephrase the question.

My friend panicked and had a fight or flight reaction after another driver nearly rammed his car and then leaned on the horn 2 feet from his window.

I think that if a horn honking caused a panic/ Fight or Flight response in your friend, he needs help and should not be allowed to drive a car. In our society, when you choose "fight" over "flight" and there is not an immediate threat to you, you have broken the law. If he felt threatened by the other driver and was waving a bat out the window in "self defense" as you seem to be claiming, that is an Affirmative Defense in my state. That means that the defendant must prove in court that they were REASONABLY afraid and took REASONABLE steps.
I doubt that will be successful in this case, but he's welcome to try.

All that is known is that the situation was defused by the actions he did take. I love this person very much and if he were to go to jail for any significant amount of time over this I would consider it a massive failure of the legal system.

That is the least true thing you have ever written on this board. That action ESCALATED the situation, it did NOT diffuse it. Yelling "SORRY!" out the window, moving the other car so that the honking driver to get through, and waiting to go until after they were gone... THAT would have diffused the situation. But instead, your friend got into a p1ssing match with another driver and had to one up him/her. Welcome to road rage.

And it does not matter what you THINK of the system. The more you try to justify it, the more I think that this arrest was the best thing that could happen to your friend.
-Citicop.

[CitizenX]

I am beginning to get a clear picture of how police are trained to try and twist the facts around to make the person seem more like a threat than they really are and increase the chances of a conviction. I think this may work most of the time because people aren't ready to make it equally clear what REALLY happened in their own defense, and the contrived bs spewed by the offense isn't countered by an equally aggressive statement of what actually happened. We will not be so unprepared.

What part of "Nearly rammed with a car" did you feel wasn't an immediate threat? The horn honking merely signifies continued willingness to act aggressively behind the wheel. A horn's legitimate purpose is to alert a person to your presence or the presence of a threat in an emergency. Not to threaten someone while you are jerking towards their car.

He didn't wave the bat.

The factual state of events was that the situation was diffused. You cannot say he escalated the situation when in fact, the situation was diffused as a direct result of his actions. This was his only goal, and the person knew they were not in danger unless they continued to threaten him with their vehicle.

I realize you cannot claim self defense after fighting if you said things that may have escalated the situation. That kind of analysis only applies if an actual fight of some kind occurred. Otherwise the person just did what they needed to do to avoid a fight.

Sometimes running from someone who is threatening you just ends up with you dying tired, whereas bluffing back could have saved your life. Pretty funny for a police officer to dispute this who relies on the implied threat of his weapons and his fellow officer's weapons to deter criminals.

[Citicop]

It is clear that you don't really want an answer to this question.

You want to keep arguing even when we have explained this to you.

You were involved in three different conversations here. This makes two that will have been closed because you want to argue more than you want to exchange information and learn what we have to say.

I am trying to be patient, but you are VERY close to a line here.

If you don't want our answer, then don't ask the question. If you don't like the answer you got, or it's not the one you wanted, arguing will not change it, and will make your stay here abbreviated.

I cannot make it clearer than that.

-Citicop.