Why is it considered an assault to point a gun at someone?

[her209]

Assuming the pointer does not pull the trigger, what harm has the pointee suffered? The pointee can just walk away and therefore his/her rights have not been violated, right?

 

[bfdd]

Assuming the pointer does not pull the trigger, what harm has the pointee suffered? The pointee can just walk away and therefore his/her rights have not been violated, right?

Your right of not feeling your life being threatened was taken away. Hence assault.

 

[her209]

Your right of not feeling your life being threatened was taken away. Hence assault.

You can just walk away.

 

[bfdd]

You can just walk away.

Possibly, possibly not. The sense of safety is gone, the threat that my life may be taken is some sort of "assault" on my being, even if not physical.

 

[OutHouse]

Because its a threat!

 

[Sinsear]

It's usually menacing, not assault

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If I hold a knife to your throat would you be unconcerned?

 

[BoomerD]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault

In law, assault is a crime which involves causing a victim to apprehend violence. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This answers the specific case involving a gun.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=assault

 

[blankslate]

The first rule of handling a gun is to treat it as if it is loaded.

If you want to make sure a firearm that is handed to you is unloaded you have to clear it yourself even if the person cleared it in front of you before handing it to you double check.

Many accidents happened with guns that were "unloaded"

If a person points a firearm at you, you have no way of know if it is loaded or not...

You simply should not point a gun at something that you do not intend to shoot.

 

[Doppel]

Assuming the pointer does not pull the trigger, what harm has the pointee suffered? The pointee can just walk away and therefore his/her rights have not been violated, right?

So should this be any crime or none at all? Imagine if I got my jollies running around with a butcher knife and pretending to stab people but pulling back at the last minute. Should I be charged with anything?

 

[her209]

Possibly, possibly not. The sense of safety is gone, the threat that my life may be taken is some sort of "assault" on my being, even if not physical.

That is a very broad criteria for assault. For example, if I go camping and the next campers over are firing off their guns, my sense of safety is gone because I could be hit by a stray bullet or ricochet. Shouldn't that be considered assault? Of course, I have the option of camping elsewhere.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That is a very broad criteria for assault. For example, if I go camping and the next campers over are firing off their guns, my sense of safety is gone because I could be hit by a stray bullet or ricochet. Shouldn't that be considered assault? Of course, I have the option of camping elsewhere.

You seem to be intent on creating issues without reason. You questions have been answered in the links provided, including the above.

 

[WackyDan]

It's usually menacing, not assault

Along with a charge of brandishing a firearm. You don't point a firearm at another living thing, human or not unless you intend to discharge the weapon.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

That is a very broad criteria for assault. For example, if I go camping and the next campers over are firing off their guns, my sense of safety is gone because I could be hit by a stray bullet or ricochet. Shouldn't that be considered assault? Of course, I have the option of camping elsewhere.

The difference is intent. Those people are not intending to commit a violent act against you, so it wouldn't be assault.

If they did hurt you, then negligence could come into play.

 

[OCGuy]

You need to look up the difference between "assault" and "battery."

 

[glenn1]

Assuming the pointer does not pull the trigger, what harm has the pointee suffered? The pointee can just walk away and therefore his/her rights have not been violated, right?

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that it needs to be done in a "menacing" manner to be charged with brandishing. While I understand your logic that someone may not be harmed, IMHO it's something dangerous enough that it's reasonable to use the law to discourage people from doing it.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

That is a very broad criteria for assault. For example, if I go camping and the next campers over are firing off their guns, my sense of safety is gone because I could be hit by a stray bullet or ricochet. Shouldn't that be considered assault? Of course, I have the option of camping elsewhere.

Really? Can you stop being so obtuse here and accept that your question has been answered

Assault implies issuing a threat with clear a motive and desire to threaten someone with bodily harm in a menacing manner and battery is basically acting upon this issued threat.

 

[cybrsage]

Degrees of assault are defined according to state laws. Laws vary by state, but generally, assault in the first degree is defined as when a person:
1. With intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, s/he causes serious physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument; or
2. With intent to disfigure another person seriously and permanently, or to destroy, amputate or disable permanently a member or organ of his/her body, s/he causes such an injury to any person; or
3. Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, s/he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes serious physical injury to any person; or
4. In the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempted commission of arson in the first degree, burglary in the first or second degree, escape in the first degree, kidnapping in the first degree, rape in the first degree, robbery in any degree, sodomy in the first degree or any other felony clearly dangerous to human life, or of immediate flight therefrom, s/he causes a serious physical injury to another person; or
5. While driving under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance s/he causes serious bodily injury to the person of another with a motor vehicle.
Second degree assault may involve intentional or reckless serious physical injury to another person, or physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. It may involve interfering with a police officer, emergency responder, or teacher, while performing their duties. When the injury suffered is less serious, it may be classified as assault of a lesser degree, such as "simple asault".

The following is an example of a state statute governing simple assault:
" Simple assault. A person is guilty of assault if s/he:

1. Attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or
2. Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or
3. Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

Simple assault is a disorderly persons offense unless committed in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a petty disorderly persons offense."

http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/assault/

 

[her209]

You seem to be intent on creating issues without reason. You questions have been answered in the links provided, including the above.

I've looked at those links. If the criteria is that its assault when the victim feels that violence will be done onto them, then what about hateful/provocative/menacing speech? Should that be protected speech or considered assault? Or can the victim just walk away? Why do we treat the two differently?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

I've looked at those links. If the criteria is that its assault when the victim feels that violence will be done onto them, then what about hateful/provocative speech?

In the US any voiced speech being hateful/provocative does not imply making an actual direct threat at someone or a group. It would be up to the DA to prove that a threat was indeed issued in a manner that is deemed menacing and can be directly linked to a specific person or group being menaced.

Should that be protected speech or considered assault? Or can the victim just walk away? Why do we treat the two differently?

Because intentions matter and making generalized or non-specific statements that are vague in context is not enough to imprison someone. However being that you're in Canada maybe the standards are different.

 

[Infohawk]

You seem to be intent on creating issues without reason. You questions have been answered in the links provided, including the above.

Is her209 trying to make a point by being pretending to be obtuse? I don't understand the point of this thread otherwise.

 

[cybrsage]

I've looked at those links. If the criteria is that its assault when the victim feels that violence will be done onto them, then what about hateful/provocative/menacing speech? Should that be protected speech or considered assault? Or can the victim just walk away? Why do we treat the two differently?

Sticks and stone may break your bones but words can never hurt you.

 

[her209]

Sticks and stone may break your bones but words can never hurt you.

Just like an unfired gun. It can't hurt you.

 

[cybrsage]

Just like an unfired gun. It can't hurt you.

Lots of people have been hurt by guns that could not be fired due to being unloaded. You can also smack someone upside the head with a gun. Words, though, they can never actually physically hurt you (the spell Word of Power is an obvious exception).

Assault is not battery. Once you realize this you will begin to follow down the path of understanding.