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

[PinkInTheBlue]

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.

 

I think this is the biggest point. Reaction times absolutely must be fast and evaluating whether or not a jerk is pretending to shoot you or truly shooting would equal being shot.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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

 

Keep in mind that this event did not occur in a vacuum. There is a

motive behind the alleged actions, which helps provide justification for the charge. In effect, this father was threatening witnesses, and contrary to what someone alleged above, arrests are made when this happens to private citizens as well. Google "arrests for threatening witnesses" and you will find a lot of news articles.

 

Proving a random person or a neighbor made a threat towards you without additional proof is not impossible, but it is close. In a situation like this, it all becomes a bit easier to prove because of where it occurred and the circumstances underlying the threat.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

 

The case involving the bystanders seems like a misapplication of the law, considering that to invoke the self defense statute you have to engaged in a lawful activity. Unless both drug dealers had concealed carry licenses, my understanding is that both would be precluded from making that claim.

[Kathleen in VA]

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.

 

I just read the CNN article you linked.:svengo:

[Unicorn.]

"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.

 

:iagree: He was charged because he made a verbal threat of retaliation, accompanied by the gesture. He wasn't arrested simply for pointing his finger.

[Kathleen in VA]

Keep in mind that this event did not occur in a vacuum. There is a

motive behind the alleged actions, which helps provide justification for the charge. In effect, this father was threatening witnesses, and contrary to what someone alleged above, arrests are made when this happens to private citizens as well. Google "arrests for threatening witnesses" and you will find a lot of news articles.

 

Proving a random person or a neighbor made a threat towards you without additional proof is not impossible, but it is close. In a situation like this, it all becomes a bit easier to prove because of where it occurred and the circumstances underlying the threat.

 

I can see how this would make a huge impact. Thanks for your patient answers to my posts.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

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.

 

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.

 

 

Exactly. Under US law, testimony of what you were told directly is not hearsay. Neighbor A can testify that Neighbor B said he was going to beat up Neighbor A. Neighbor A cannot testify that Neighbor C told him Neighbor B was coming over to beat him up.

The issue then becomes proving what you were told, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

[joannqn]

Keep in mind that this event did not occur in a vacuum. There is a

motive behind the alleged actions, which helps provide justification for the charge. In effect, this father was threatening witnesses, and contrary to what someone alleged above, arrests are made when this happens to private citizens as well. Google "arrests for threatening witnesses" and you will find a lot of news articles.

 

Proving a random person or a neighbor made a threat towards you without additional proof is not impossible, but it is close. In a situation like this, it all becomes a bit easier to prove because of where it occurred and the circumstances underlying the threat.

 

:iagree:

[Mrs Mungo]

The case involving the bystanders seems like a misapplication of the law, considering that to invoke the self defense statute you have to engaged in a lawful activity. Unless both drug dealers had concealed carry licenses, my understanding is that both would be precluded from making that claim.

 

A LOT of the cases seem like misapplication. BUT, the law is written in such a manner that allows it to happen. There are *loads* of these stories out there.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinion/toobin-trayvon-martin/index.html

 

The article I'm linking below was written *before* the latest incident:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1128317.ece

 

One of the law's biggest critics is Willie Meggs, the state attorney for six counties in the Panhandle. He says he's a strong believer in gun rights but thinks the law is just another valuable tool for killers. The old law was working just fine, he says. He petitioned the Legislature to address the law last year. Nothing.

"Gangsters are using this law to have gunfights," he said. "That's exactly what this law breeds."

In 2008, two gangs in Tallahassee got into a shoot-out. A 15-year-old boy was killed. A judge dismissed charges against the shooters, citing "stand your ground."

[swellmomma]

Exactly. Under US law, testimony of what you were told directly is not hearsay. Neighbor A can testify that Neighbor B said he was going to beat up Neighbor A. Neighbor A cannot testify that Neighbor C told him Neighbor B was coming over to beat him up.

The issue then becomes proving what you were told, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

But in this case it was not the person being told directly, it was someone who over heard 1 comment, who knows what else was said, could have been mroe threats, it could have been plans to get strawberry ice cream. Who knows. But that is the point it was someone overhearing the comment/threat.

 

In my case neighbor A was telling neighbor B (also her best friend) how she was going to get us for calling the cops on her. Neighbor C who is not good friends with either but was heading over to borrow something over heard this comment. Neighbor C told me about it. THis all happened about 30 minutes before she was seen by neighbor D leaving my property which was about 5 minutes before I found my kitchen flooding.

 

Neighbor B would not comment against her best friend neighbor A. Cops said nothing could be done. Neighbor C offered a statement and was told it didn't matter she just over heard a tiny peice of a conversation and there was no proof. Neighbor D offered his statement but was told that because neighbor A was not seen leaving my house, just leaving my backyard there was not enough proof. So I was left with a flooded kitchen and no recourse. This same woman was heard on many occasions by myself and neighbors telling odlest ds he didn't deserve to live, witnessed video taping him etc and not a dang thing ever happened. SHe was a huge reason we moved out of that neighborhood.

 

From the sounds of the article. The accused made a comment to person B while making a finger gun at the cops. Person C happened to over hear the comment and reported it. Sounds like my neighborhood story and yet in my case there was nothing to be done and in this case the accused is being brought up on felony charges.

[TXBeth]

 

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?

 

I'm pretty sure they don't have to prove intent at all. Intent doesn't matter as long as it was reasonable for the victim to feel threatened.

[NicAnn]

As the wife of someone in law enforcement, I support this decision. Police officers are treated with zero respect in most parts of the country. The man was an adult, and unless he was a complete fool, he knew better than to threaten or pretend to point a gun (finger or not) at an officer.