Felony Assault charge for pointing a "finger" gun???

[Kathleen in VA]

This was on my local newspaper's website today:

 

http://blogs.fredericksburg.com/newsdesk/2012/03/21/finger-gun-lands-dad-in-jail-with-son/

 

I'm not sure what to think. I mean, the man was obviously angry at the deputies and the gesture could be construed as a threat, but felony assault?

 

I just told my sons about it and said they need to be aware of it because kids - even teenagers and young adults - do the finger gun thing jokingly all the time. Of course, they don't usually have a sheriff's deputy as their target, but still, I find it intimidating to think someone could get arrested for a felony just by pointing a harmless finger gun.

[Kim in Appalachia]

if a weapon is being pointed at them. It has occurred, in the past, that a police officer thought someone had a weapon but the individual did not. But there is no time to 2nd guess, the officer must react. Even pretending to shoot at an officer could get you shot. It would be a tragedy all around (think of the officer who mistakenly takes a life. Who would want to live with that?)

 

And these days, with untrained people going around armed and ready to shot, no one should jokingly pretend to shot at someone.

[angela in ohio]

"Bledsoe said 58-year-old David Thomas Loveless was overheard making a comment about getting back at the detectives and made a gun gesture toward them as they got into their vehicles.

 

A city deputy who saw the gesture reported it, and a magistrate later issued two felony warrants for assault on a law enforcement officer by intimidation."

 

To me, there's a little more to the story. He threatened to "get back at them" while miming shooting them. I think threatening to shoot someone should be taken seriously, police officer or not.

 

He wasn't charged with assault for pointing a finger gun. He was charged with assault by intimidation for threatening them. Focusing on the finger gun just makes a better news story.

Edited March 22, 2012 by angela in ohio

[SKL]

I think the lesson is that you have to act respectfully toward cops. There is a lot less tolerance for shenanigans because cops are actual targets of actual guns at times. Sometimes they get gun-shy and have been known to shoot unarmed people because they seemed to be pointing a gun. So in the big picture, everyone is happier if people use their (G-rated, low-volume) words instead of pretend guns to express their displeasure at the cops.

[JMDRAD]

I realize that there are corrupt cops and the system is not perfect. On the other hand, they do deserve respect. It's one thing to challenge them in a civil manner, like I said they are not perfect. But it's a whole other game to be making threats and following it up with pretending to shoot.

[Kathleen in VA]

"Bledsoe said 58-year-old David Thomas Loveless was overheard making a comment about getting back at the detectives and made a gun gesture toward them as they got into their vehicles.

 

A city deputy who saw the gesture reported it, and a magistrate later issued two felony warrants for assault on a law enforcement officer by intimidation."

 

To me, there's a little more to the story. He threatened to "get back at them" while miming shooting them. I think threatening to shoot someone should be taken seriously, police officer or not.

 

He wasn't charged with assault for pointing a finger gun. He was charged with assault by intimidation for threatening them. Focusing on the finger gun just makes a better news story.

 

I could understand if he made a verbal threat out loud with the intention of the deputy hearing him - something like, "I'm gonna get you one of these days" and then pointing a finger gun at him and mimicking firing the gun. But to be "overheard" making a threat? Could that even be considered serious evidence - overhearing something and then connecting it with an action that took place several minutes or more afterwards?

[Kathleen in VA]

I think the lesson is that you have to act respectfully toward cops. There is a lot less tolerance for shenanigans because cops are actual targets of actual guns at times. Sometimes they get gun-shy and have been known to shoot unarmed people because they seemed to be pointing a gun. So in the big picture, everyone is happier if people use their (G-rated, low-volume) words instead of pretend guns to express their displeasure at the cops.

 

I agree that we need to act respectfully to cops - I don't even like the word cop, actually. But this clearly was not a case where there was doubt as to whether or not the guy actually had a gun - it was clear he did not, hence the charge of threatening by intimidation. The deputies involved did not fear for their lives at that moment - they were not confused about whether an actual gun was being pointed at them.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I could understand if he made a verbal threat out loud with the intention of the deputy hearing him - something like, "I'm gonna get you one of these days" and then pointing a finger gun at him and mimicking firing the gun. But to be "overheard" making a threat? Could that even be considered serious evidence - overhearing something and then connecting it with an action that took place several minutes or more afterwards?

 

Of course you need to be overheard making a threat. . . would someone charge you if you weren't overheard? It sounds like you have already made up your mind on what to think on this.

[SonshineLearner]

To me, there's a little more to the story. He threatened to "get back at them" while miming shooting them. I think threatening to shoot someone should be taken seriously, police officer or not.

 

He wasn't charged with assault for pointing a finger gun. He was charged with assault by intimidation for threatening them. Focusing on the finger gun just makes a better news story.

 

:iagree: This was it; he was threatening, whether he planned to carry through with the threat or not, to kill them. It's disrespectful at the least... but if one of them men were my husband, I would have wanted the guy prosecuted. It was just as much... or even more... like the guy shouted out that he would kill them.

[Negin]

A finger is not a weapon. Its disgusting over reaching by a prosecutor.

:iagree:

[jennynd]

FIL is a policeman in NH and somebody he knew at the police department got shot yesterday.

I have no sympathy for people who threaten a policeman's life

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I could understand if he made a verbal threat out loud with the intention of the deputy hearing him - something like, "I'm gonna get you one of these days" and then pointing a finger gun at him and mimicking firing the gun. But to be "overheard" making a threat? Could that even be considered serious evidence - overhearing something and then connecting it with an action that took place several minutes or more afterwards?

 

Where does the article say the gun motion occurred well after the statement? The way I read the article it seems they likely occurred at the same time.

 

Let's say a private citizen testified against a neighborhood hoodlum. While walking back to their car, a friend of the defendant's makes the dame comment and motion. Should that be taken seriously?

[angela in ohio]

I could understand if he made a verbal threat out loud with the intention of the deputy hearing him - something like, "I'm gonna get you one of these days" and then pointing a finger gun at him and mimicking firing the gun. But to be "overheard" making a threat? Could that even be considered serious evidence - overhearing something and then connecting it with an action that took place several minutes or more afterwards?

 

Honestly, I wouldn't read that much into that word. We don't know if the police overheard it, too, or not from the article. We don't know his volume or the proximity or anything like that from the article.

 

I didn't realize until now that it was because the deputies testified against his son. That makes it worse to me.

Edited March 22, 2012 by angela in ohio

[Kathleen in VA]

Of course you need to be overheard making a threat. . . would someone charge you if you weren't overheard? It sounds like you have already made up your mind on what to think on this.

 

Well, yes, in one sense you have to be overheard. It is unclear in the article as to what was actually said and when, though. I suppose I would need to hear more details to actually have an informed opinion. I'm imagining them sitting in the courtroom within earshot of the deputy who brought the whole matter to the attention of the magistrate. What exactly did he hear? Did he threaten to kill them? "Getting back" does not necessarily mean killing. How much time elapsed between said threat and the pointing of the finger gun - a split second? an hour? It is unclear in the article. Pointing a finger gun at someone can just mean "I don't like you. I don't appreciate you arresting my son." It does not necessarily mean I am going to hunt you down until you're dead. I really don't know what to think - I am open to hearing what anyone wants to offer as another perspective.

 

As someone else pointed out - the way it is written makes for a good story so that has to be considered as well.

[Kathleen in VA]

Where does the article say the gun motion occurred well after the statement? The way I read the article it seems they likely occurred at the same time.

 

Let's say a private citizen testified against a neighborhood hoodlum. While walking back to their car, a friend of the defendant's makes the dame comment and motion. Should that be taken seriously?

 

I don't think it's clear one way or the other.

[Kathleen in VA]

FIL is a policeman in NH and somebody he knew at the police department got shot yesterday.

I have no sympathy for people who threaten a policeman's life

 

I'm sorry that happened but I don't see how that bears on this situation, frankly. I don't have patience with anyone threatening to kill a policeman either, but I don't automatically think that pointing a finger gun is a threat to kill. It is unkind, uncalled for, rude and immature - but I do not necessarily think it means "I want to kill you and I plan on doing it someday."

[Jean in Newcastle]

As someone else pointed out - the way it is written makes for a good story so that has to be considered as well.

 

I think this is the real issue. A news story is not a complete picture of what happened. I think it could be fairly complete if it were objective and the reporter was able to look at all available evidence and witness statements. But these stories don't sell based on their objectivity.

[jennynd]

, but I don't automatically think that pointing a finger gun is a threat to kill. It is unkind, uncalled for, rude and immature - but I do not necessarily think it means "I want to kill you and I plan on doing it someday."

 

I disagree.

[Princess Peach]

This -

 

Bledsoe said that during Tuesday’s hearing, deputies saw the elder Loveless silently mouthing words and shaking his head in response to testimony.

 

is why it's a big deal. He made the gestures and words in direct response to two officers testifying against his son in court. That's intimidation. He was also charged with obstruction of justice. It's not about the "finger gun", it's about the intent to get back at the officers for putting his son behind bars.

[Lisbeth]

A finger is not a weapon. Its disgusting over reaching by a prosecutor.

 

:iagree:

[Dustybug]

I think the lesson is that you have to act respectfully toward cops. There is a lot less tolerance for shenanigans because cops are actual targets of actual guns at times. Sometimes they get gun-shy and have been known to shoot unarmed people because they seemed to be pointing a gun. So in the big picture, everyone is happier if people use their (G-rated, low-volume) words instead of pretend guns to express their displeasure at the cops.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I realize that there are corrupt cops and the system is not perfect. On the other hand, they do deserve respect. It's one thing to challenge them in a civil manner, like I said they are not perfect. But it's a whole other game to be making threats and following it up with pretending to shoot.

 

:iagree:

 

And on a side note: OP, I grew up in Stafford, so Fredericksburg was a regular old haunting of mine. :001_smile: I really miss that coffee shop downtown....what is the name of it? It's been so long, I've forgotten...

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I think this is the real issue. A news story is not a complete picture of what happened. I think it could be fairly complete if it were objective and the reporter was able to look at all available evidence and witness statements. But these stories don't sell based on their objectivity.

 

To be fair, it is a bit unfair to expect every news story to have every possible detail.

[Jean in Newcastle]

To be fair, it is a bit unfair to expect every news story to have every possible detail.

 

I agree. But we've (as in people in general) have gotten used to reading a news story and then acting as a jury on the topic presented. But we really can't do that based on a news story.

[Kathleen in VA]

This -

 

Bledsoe said that during Tuesday’s hearing, deputies saw the elder Loveless silently mouthing words and shaking his head in response to testimony.

 

is why it's a big deal. He made the gestures and words in direct response to two officers testifying against his son in court. That's intimidation. He was also charged with obstruction of justice. It's not about the "finger gun", it's about the intent to get back at the officers for putting his son behind bars.

 

I understand this to a certain extent. The finger gun is being connected to a threat - it is not isolated. I also have very little sympathy for the dad or his son - the dad seems to be the kind of father who would stick up for his son no matter what the kid did and blame his child's bad behavior on others (including, perhaps, every teacher from K through 12th grade) and not taking any responsibility for his son's behavior at all. I don't like either one of them.

 

However, I am thinking that a deputy saw him "mouthing words" in response to testimony is a far cry from jumping up from his seat and saying, "I'm going to kill you!" He had an emotional reaction to the testimony that caused him to shake his head and mouth some words ( meaning they weren't actually spoken out loud and, with that in mind, is it possible the words were misinterpreted?). I can imagine any number of parents having a similar response - different words being mouthed perhaps - but still shaking the head and being upset by the testimony.

 

It is quite possible that he seriously meant harm to the deputies when he pointed his finger gun - he could seriously have meant "I want to kill you." But I don't see how you could prove that in a court of law. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

The words or "threat" were made in the courtroom - the gesture was made as the deputies were getting in their car. That signifies to me that the two actions were made at least a few minutes apart and, more likely, several minutes if not more.

 

How does a magistrate construe that as intimidation?

 

I really do understand that he could have said under his breath, "I will kill that guy someday" or some other such thing and I understand that by pointing a finger gun he may have meant, "I plan to shoot you dead someday," but how does one prove that was the intent of either behavior or both behaviors combined. Could they not easily have just been emotional responses from a dad who is upset about his son going to jail?

 

Maybe the problem is I don't really understand the law that allows someone to be arrested for intimidation or what constitutes intimidation. I would never have thought pointing a finger gun or muttering something under one's breath could be construed so. For me, a felony accusation would have to be made after more of a threat than "mouthed words" or a "gun" made with one's fingers.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Kathleen in VA

[swellmomma]

I could understand if he made a verbal threat out loud with the intention of the deputy hearing him - something like, "I'm gonna get you one of these days" and then pointing a finger gun at him and mimicking firing the gun. But to be "overheard" making a threat? Could that even be considered serious evidence - overhearing something and then connecting it with an action that took place several minutes or more afterwards?

 

If he said it about anyone else it would be considered hearsay and inadmissable. But because it was about the police of course they cry foul. I find it funny that I can outright tell a cop I am ready to be a vigilante and deal with the punks that target my kids and they laugh, but if I did what this man did it is considered a felony assault. The only difference between the 2 is the "target" is a cop. This guy did not say it to a cop, he vented, po'd I took the pointing like a gun to be no different then flipping them the bird while he vented. I highly hdoubt he would have ever acted on it. It is a dad ticked that his son (deservedly) was headed to jail due in part to the testimony of these two cops.

 

This was not a stand off etc, he jsut walked out of the court house and said/did it. If a cop is going to cry foul about someone venting, they need a thicker skin. I did not take what this dad said and did to be a crediable threat and if it had been about a civilian no one would have batted an eye.

[joannqn]

We've had some significant police shootings (ie. the police being killed) in this area over the last couple years. Before the shootings, I probably would have thought the police were over-reacting. But I can see how the police need to take every threat seriously. There are some crazy people out there, and the threats they have to take most seriously are those coming from people who have been in trouble with the law, are in trouble with the law, or have close family/friends in trouble with the law.

 

 

 

It's a crazy world when police start getting killed execution style. We've had several of those in the last couple of years.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If he said it about anyone else it would be considered hearsay and inadmissable.

 

Incorrect.

[celticmom]

If he said it about anyone else it would be considered hearsay and inadmissable. But because it was about the police of course they cry foul. I find it funny that I can outright tell a cop I am ready to be a vigilante and deal with the punks that target my kids and they laugh, but if I did what this man did it is considered a felony assault. The only difference between the 2 is the "target" is a cop. This guy did not say it to a cop, he vented, po'd I took the pointing like a gun to be no different then flipping them the bird while he vented. I highly hdoubt he would have ever acted on it. It is a dad ticked that his son (deservedly) was headed to jail due in part to the testimony of these two cops.

 

This was not a stand off etc, he jsut walked out of the court house and said/did it. If a cop is going to cry foul about someone venting, they need a thicker skin. I did not take what this dad said and did to be a crediable threat and if it had been about a civilian no one would have batted an eye.

 

:iagree:

[Kathleen in VA]

:iagree:

 

 

 

:iagree:

 

And on a side note: OP, I grew up in Stafford, so Fredericksburg was a regular old haunting of mine. :001_smile: I really miss that coffee shop downtown....what is the name of it? It's been so long, I've forgotten...

 

Do you mean the Java Connection? I don't get downtown much, but I have shopped at the JC. They went out of business, sadly.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I understand this to a certain extent. The finger gun is being connected to a threat - it is not isolated. I also have very little sympathy for the dad or his son - the dad seems to be the kind of father who would stick up for his son no matter what the kid did and blame his child's bad behavior on others (including, perhaps, every teacher from K through 12th grade) and not taking any responsibility for his son's behavior at all. I don't like either one of them.

 

However, I am thinking that a deputy saw him "mouthing words" in response to testimony is a far cry from jumping up from his seat and saying, "I'm going to kill you!" He had an emotional reaction to the testimony that caused him to shake his head and mouth some words ( meaning they weren't actually spoken out loud and, with that in mind, is it possible the words were misinterpreted?). I can imagine any number of parents having a similar response - different words being mouthed perhaps - but still shaking the head and being upset by the testimony.

 

It is quite possible that he seriously meant harm to the deputies when he pointed his finger gun - he could seriously have meant "I want to kill you." But I don't see how you could prove that in a court of law. That's what I'm trying to say.

 

The words or "threat" were made in the courtroom - the gesture was made as the deputies were getting in their car. That signifies to me that the two actions were made at least a few minutes apart and, more likely, several minutes if not more.

 

How does a magistrate construe that as intimidation?

 

I really do understand that he could have said under his breath, "I will kill that guy someday" or some other such thing and I understand that by pointing a finger gun he may have meant, "I plan to shoot you dead someday," but how does one prove that was the intent of either behavior or both behaviors combined. Could they not easily have just been emotional responses from a dad who is upset about his son going to jail?

 

You just made up a completely different version of events than what was reported. It is alleged someone overheard the threat - there is nothing mentioned about "mouthing words". There is also nothing that says the threat was made in the courtroom.

 

Maybe the problem is I don't really understand the law that allows someone to be arrested for intimidation or what constitutes intimidation. I would never have thought pointing a finger gun or muttering something under one's breath could be construed so. For me, a felony accusation would have to be made after more of a threat than "mouthed words" or a "gun" made with one's fingers.

Again, where are you coming up with the "muttering under his breath" and mouthed words"?

[Kathleen in VA]

You just made up a completely different version of events than what was reported. It is alleged someone overheard the threat - there is nothing mentioned about "mouthing words". There is also nothing that says the threat was made in the courtroom.

 

 

Again, where are you coming up with the "muttering under his breath" and mouthed words"?

 

Sorry - I was going by what a pp said - didn't take the time to go back and read the article. Mea culpa. I will do that now.

[angela in ohio]

The mouthing words silently in the courtroom was a separate incident than the comment about getting even and the finger gun pointing from the way I read the article.

 

As to whether it was a credible threat or not (not that I think that matters,) the article tells us nothing about the father's record, only his son's. So there may be something there that we don't know, but a judge did (imagine! :lol:)

Edited March 22, 2012 by angela in ohio

[Princess Peach]

Sorry - I was going by what a pp said - didn't take the time to go back and read the article. Mea culpa. I will do that now.

 

I quoted the article (cut and pasted) in my post. I'm not sure where the confusion is.

[Kathleen in VA]

You just made up a completely different version of events than what was reported. It is alleged someone overheard the threat - there is nothing mentioned about "mouthing words". There is also nothing that says the threat was made in the courtroom.

 

 

Again, where are you coming up with the "muttering under his breath" and mouthed words"?

From the article:

 

Bledsoe said that during Tuesday’s hearing, deputies saw the elder Loveless silently mouthing words and shaking his head in response to testimony.

 

and

 

Bledsoe said 58-year-old David Thomas Loveless was overheard making a comment about getting back at the detectives and made a gun gesture toward them as they got into their vehicles.

 

I seem to have combined the threat with the mouthed words in the courtroom. Apparently, another comment was made in conjunction with the finger gun pointing.

[DarlaS]

I think anyone who threatens a police officer (in any way shape or form) should expect to spend some time cooling his heels in jail. Regardless of whether you personally have found the police helpful, or believe a particular officer worthy of respect. And he DID absolutely verbally threaten them in addition to the silly finger thing the media has decided to focus our attention on.

 

I think being too stupid to know when to shut your mouth should be at least a misdemeanor also. :tongue_smilie: Oh wait, that's called contempt of court if you're in a courtroom.

[Princess Peach]

I think anyone who threatens a police officer (in any way shape or form) should expect to spend some time cooling his heels in jail. Regardless of whether you personally have found the police helpful, or believe a particular officer worthy of respect. And he DID absolutely verbally threaten them in addition to the silly finger thing the media has decided to focus our attention on.

 

I think being too stupid to know when to shut your mouth should be at least a misdemeanor also. :tongue_smilie: Oh wait, that's called contempt of court if you're in a courtroom.

Bolding mine

 

The bolded is what I see as a very important point. Perhaps if the man was just upset and said something he didn't really intend to act upon, a few days cooling down with no way to kill a PO would be a good thing.

[joannqn]

This was not a stand off etc, he jsut walked out of the court house and said/did it. If a cop is going to cry foul about someone venting, they need a thicker skin. I did not take what this dad said and did to be a crediable threat and if it had been about a civilian no one would have batted an eye.

 

Should the police just wait until they are gunned down to take a threat seriously?

 

 

Sgt. Mark Renniger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owen, and Office Greg Richards were all gunned down while preparing for their shift in a local coffee shop on November 29, 2009. They weren't even on the job yet. The shooter told his family gathered around the Thanksgiving dinner table that he was going to kill some cops.

 

Office Timothy Brenton was gunned down while sitting in his parked patrol car on October 31, 2009 discussing a traffic stop with another officer.

 

Officers Kent Mundell and Nick Hausner were ambushed while responding to a domestic disturbance call on December 21, 2009.

 

All of these officers were attacked by surprise. They weren't threatened directly prior to being gunned down. Should police not take threats seriously when they are targeted for no other reason than the fact they wear the uniform to work?

[Kathleen in VA]

I think anyone who threatens a police officer (in any way shape or form) should expect to spend some time cooling his heels in jail. Regardless of whether you personally have found the police helpful, or believe a particular officer worthy of respect. And he DID absolutely verbally threaten them in addition to the silly finger thing the media has decided to focus our attention on.

 

I think being too stupid to know when to shut your mouth should be at least a misdemeanor also. :tongue_smilie: Oh wait, that's called contempt of court if you're in a courtroom.

 

Yes, I would have to agree with your first statement - the guy should be made to sit in a jail cell and consider that even a pretend threat is not acceptable. Maybe there is no misdemeanor statute that addresses this kind of behavior. I just think felony assault by intimidation is a bit excessive. Did the deputies really feel intimidated by a finger gun?

 

Perhaps this is irrelevant, but this makes me think of lots of articles (and tv police shows) I've encountered in the last 20 years or so where someone is receiving credible threats from another person (I think of the battered wife who leaves her husband only to be stalked and hunted down by him or some other such scenario) and the victim goes to the police asking for help only to be told they can't do anything at all unless the guy actually "does" something (whatever that is). Often, the person gets a flimsy restraining order that is not enforceable and ends up dead. I guess I'm just thinking why is it so hard for the average citizen to have someone arrested for making out and out threats to one's life, but all anyone has to do to a policeman is point a finger gun and they get arrested for felony assault. Seems off balance to me.

[Princess Peach]

Yes, I would have to agree with your first statement - the guy should be made to sit in a jail cell and consider that even a pretend threat is not acceptable. Maybe there is no misdemeanor statute that addresses this kind of behavior. I just think felony assault by intimidation is a bit excessive. Did the deputies really feel intimidated by a finger gun?

 

Perhaps this is irrelevant, but this makes me think of lots of articles (and tv police shows) I've encountered in the last 20 years or so where someone is receiving credible threats from another person (I think of the battered wife who leaves her husband only to be stalked and hunted down by him or some other such scenario) and the victim goes to the police asking for help only to be told they can't do anything at all unless the guy actually "does" something (whatever that is). Often, the person gets a flimsy restraining order that is not enforceable and ends up dead. I guess I'm just thinking why is it so hard for the average citizen to have someone arrested for making out and out threats to one's life, but all anyone has to do to a policeman is point a finger gun and they get arrested for felony assault. Seems off balance to me.

 

I admit I had that thought, as well.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Yes, I would have to agree with your first statement - the guy should be made to sit in a jail cell and consider that even a pretend threat is not acceptable. Maybe there is no misdemeanor statute that addresses this kind of behavior. I just think felony assault by intimidation is a bit excessive. Did the deputies really feel intimidated by a finger gun?

 

Perhaps this is irrelevant, but this makes me think of lots of articles (and tv police shows) I've encountered in the last 20 years or so where someone is receiving credible threats from another person (I think of the battered wife who leaves her husband only to be stalked and hunted down by him or some other such scenario) and the victim goes to the police asking for help only to be told they can't do anything at all unless the guy actually "does" something (whatever that is). Often, the person gets a flimsy restraining order that is not enforceable and ends up dead. I guess I'm just thinking why is it so hard for the average citizen to have someone arrested for making out and out threats to one's life, but all anyone has to do to a policeman is point a finger gun and they get arrested for felony assault. Seems off balance to me.

 

The difference is often the amount of evidence. Threats over heard by a 3rd party also carry more weight than those reported only by the threatened party.

Also, keep in mind that state statutes can vary greatly, and not every jurisdiction may have a felony intimidation charge.

[Mrs Mungo]

Yes, I would have to agree with your first statement - the guy should be made to sit in a jail cell and consider that even a pretend threat is not acceptable. Maybe there is no misdemeanor statute that addresses this kind of behavior. I just think felony assault by intimidation is a bit excessive. Did the deputies really feel intimidated by a finger gun?

 

Perhaps this is irrelevant, but this makes me think of lots of articles (and tv police shows) I've encountered in the last 20 years or so where someone is receiving credible threats from another person (I think of the battered wife who leaves her husband only to be stalked and hunted down by him or some other such scenario) and the victim goes to the police asking for help only to be told they can't do anything at all unless the guy actually "does" something (whatever that is). Often, the person gets a flimsy restraining order that is not enforceable and ends up dead. I guess I'm just thinking why is it so hard for the average citizen to have someone arrested for making out and out threats to one's life, but all anyone has to do to a policeman is point a finger gun and they get arrested for felony assault. Seems off balance to me.

 

Or look at Florida's Stand Your Ground law. You can actually shoot someone and get away with it.

[Kathleen in VA]

Should the police just wait until they are gunned down to take a threat seriously?

 

 

Sgt. Mark Renniger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owen, and Office Greg Richards were all gunned down while preparing for their shift in a local coffee shop on November 29, 2009. They weren't even on the job yet. The shooter told his family gathered around the Thanksgiving dinner table that he was going to kill some cops.

 

Office Timothy Brenton was gunned down while sitting in his parked patrol car on October 31, 2009 discussing a traffic stop with another officer.

 

Officers Kent Mundell and Nick Hausner were ambushed while responding to a domestic disturbance call on December 21, 2009.

 

All of these officers were attacked by surprise. They weren't threatened directly prior to being gunned down. Should police not take threats seriously when they are targeted for no other reason than the fact they wear the uniform to work?

 

Well, in this particular case it sure would be helpful to know exactly what the comment was, wouldn't it? If he had said, "I'm going to kill some cops" that would definitely put a whole new light on the situation. If he had said, "I'm going to get back at you" I would not necessarily consider that a death threat. I'm not thinking so much about this particular guy and this particular situation so much as I am thinking about how this affects the general population - the freedom to make a harmless gesture (and, yes, the actual gesture harmed no one), or make an angry comment even if the anger is unfounded. How will my behavior be evaluated - how will anyone's behavior be evaluated?

 

The finger gun gesture is often used just to vent anger and rarely does anyone mean they are truly going to follow it up by getting a real gun and committing murder. It is not a threat - only an angry response to a frustrating situation.

 

Please don't misunderstand me - I am infuriated every time I hear of a policeman being gunned down. I'm trying to think through how this affects our lives as individuals. To be charged with felony assault by intimidation after pointing a finger gun just seems over the top to me. Perhaps if I were married to a police officer or knew one personally, I'd feel differently.

 

I am just concerned that those with the power to arrest people for crimes are in a position to overstep their bounds and have been known to do so from time to time. I don't want to live in a country where I have to watch every little thing I do - things I think are perfectly harmless and do with no intent to cause harm - simply because they may be misconstrued by those who have the power to arrest me and charge me with crimes I never committed. I find that intimidating.

[Kathleen in VA]

The difference is often the amount of evidence. Threats over heard by a 3rd party also carry more weight than those reported only by the threatened party.

Also, keep in mind that state statutes can vary greatly, and not every jurisdiction may have a felony intimidation charge.

 

I hadn't thought of that - the 3rd party thing. That does add credibility, doesn't it?

 

Yes, I hadn't thought of the differing laws in different states. Perhaps this law was enacted precisely to have grounds on which to make an arrest before anything happens to prevent policeman from being gunned down. In a way, I can see how a magistrate might want to err on the side of caution, and hey, if it sends a strong message to the community that, even what may be idle threats will not be tolerated in the least way, that doesn't hurt either. Again, it would be really helpful to know exactly what the guy said that was taken as a threat. And, being there and actually hearing his tone of voice and seeing his facial expressions and being able to take all that into consideration would be helpful as well. The article sure does make me feel like I have to walk on eggshells whenever I'm near a deputy and I'm an upstanding law-abiding citizen! I was taught that policemen are there to protect me - I don't want to feel afraid of them.

[swellmomma]

Incorrect.

 

Explain further. When the woman that was harrassing us in our old neighborhood, was over heard sayinig she was going to get us we were told there was nothing to be done because it was hearsay. When she broke into our home and put a hose in the kitchen and flooded it we knew it was her due to those comments and other threats she made directly to me, but because we did not catch her in the house (she was seen leaving the property itself but not the house) we were told there was nothing to be done because it was conjecture.

 

We have lived through credable threats. We have had our home broken into. ALl the windows in teh van smashed out along with the culprit uttering death threats and watching our home. My kids have been pounded more times than I can count. And yet nothing can ever be done because it wasn't enough evidence. We have had serious crimes done against our family and yet nothing. BUt a cop gets a finger gun pointed at him and the guy is up on felony charges. The charges are 100% only because it was a cop. If someone phoned the police and said they overheard someone talking to someone else and saying "I'll get them back" the cops would do absolutely NOTHING. There sure as heck would not be felony charges.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I am just concerned that those with the power to arrest people for crimes are in a position to overstep their bounds and have been known to do so from time to time. I don't want to live in a country where I have to watch every little thing I do - things I think are perfectly harmless and do with no intent to cause harm - simply because they may be misconstrued by those who have the power to arrest me and charge me with crimes I never committed. I find that intimidating.

 

Overstepping their bounds would have been tackling the guy to the ground after he said what he did and "shot" his finger at them. Reporting it to an authority and letting him decide if a warrant should be issued is not overstepping their bounds, it is acting within the bounds of the law.

[swellmomma]

Should the police just wait until they are gunned down to take a threat seriously?

 

 

Sgt. Mark Renniger, Officer Tina Griswold, Officer Ronald Owen, and Office Greg Richards were all gunned down while preparing for their shift in a local coffee shop on November 29, 2009. They weren't even on the job yet. The shooter told his family gathered around the Thanksgiving dinner table that he was going to kill some cops.

 

Office Timothy Brenton was gunned down while sitting in his parked patrol car on October 31, 2009 discussing a traffic stop with another officer.

 

Officers Kent Mundell and Nick Hausner were ambushed while responding to a domestic disturbance call on December 21, 2009.

 

All of these officers were attacked by surprise. They weren't threatened directly prior to being gunned down. Should police not take threats seriously when they are targeted for no other reason than the fact they wear the uniform to work?

 

I never said such a thing, and I never implied it. What I said was that if the cops can't handle someone making an offhand comment to someone else out of anger than they need a thicker skin. I do not think any cop should be gunned down despite my absolute lack of respect for most of them (and I have cops in my family tree). My comment is about this particular inicident in this article not about other cops shot without warning in other cases.

[Kathleen in VA]

Or look at Florida's Stand Your Ground law. You can actually shoot someone and get away with it.

 

Isn't that a bit of an oversimplification? Hopefully, the Justice Dept. will, well, mete out justice in the case of Trayvon Martin. I've not actually read the law, but I seriously doubt it gives freedom to kill anyone for any reason and get away with it.

[Kathleen in VA]

Overstepping their bounds would have been tackling the guy to the ground after he said what he did and "shot" his finger at them. Reporting it to an authority and letting him decide if a warrant should be issued is not overstepping their bounds, it is acting within the bounds of the law.

 

I guess with so little information to go on I should just let it lie for now. Still, it unnerves me a bit. I'll have to mull it over some more. You are right, of course, Jean, that they did not actually overstep their bounds. Perhaps the magistrate did - it's hard to tell with so few details. I guess the author of the article did his job well, lol - he got me riled up.:D

[Mrs Mungo]

Isn't that a bit of an oversimplification? Hopefully, the Justice Dept. will, well, mete out justice in the case of Trayvon Martin. I've not actually read the law, but I seriously doubt it gives freedom to kill anyone for any reason and get away with it.

 

It pretty much does. You obviously need to go back and read the links that I posted. Two drug dealers shot *bystanders* and nobody was arrested. My husband's best friend was murdered by the father of the hoodlum-next-door to his mom after a confrontation about the hoodlum vandalizing his elderly mom's house and nothing happened to the killer. This latest case is hardly the only case. I'm actually amazed that one of these cases is *finally* receiving national attention.

[Danestress]

I don't think the person who told you this understood what the hearsay rule is and when it applies, though perhaps Canada has a remarkably different definition.

Explain further. When the woman that was harrassing us in our old neighborhood, was over heard sayinig she was going to get us we were told there was nothing to be done because it was hearsay.

 

If the woman made a threat and was charged with making a threat, the testimony of someone hearing her make that threat would not be excluded for hearsay. That's just wrong.