Replies

Here are my problems with incriminating the act of pointing a gun at someone as an "assault," particularly on one's own property: It goes against the plain meaning of the word and violates the principles of self-incrimination, self-defense, presumption of innocence, and establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No big deal, right? Laws like this are a gun grabber's wet dream.

We'll start with the word. From Dictionary.com:

as·sault (ə-sôlt′)
n.

1.
a. A violent physical attack, as with blows.
b. A strong or cutting verbal attack.

2.
a. A military attack, such as one launched against a fortified area or place.
b. The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy.

3. Law
a. An unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.
b. The act or an instance of unlawfully threatening or attempting to injure another.

4.
a. Sexual assault.
b. The crime of rape.

5. A rigorous or energetic effort to accomplish something difficult: an assault on the mountain's summit; an assault on poverty.

The legal definition has a problem with the term "threatening." It presumes that one can prove a state of mind beyond a reasonable doubt UNLESS that "threat" involved overt actions that can be reported as demonstrably aggressive intent by two witnesses as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Yet this presumes they can infer a state of mind as to said intent.

This event happened on the defendant's doorstep who surely did nothing to entice the entry to her property of the lady who picked up the Door Dash delivery off her doorstep. One would rationally expect her to be in a state of mind of defending her property. Had she too made a Door Dash order? Would any potential witness know?

If the reason to point the weapon is only for the purpose of deterring action in self-defense against a potential assailant or defense of property against a potential thief, how is that in any way aggressive? Every other use of the word, "assault" denotes taking purposeful and aggressive action. Yet all the circumstances suggest otherwise. The defendant never left her property!

In a real operational sense, to possess the weapon without pointing it places the holder in physical jeopardy. It takes time to raise, aim, and stabilize a weapon for firing, never mind the time it takes to make a decision to deal with the massive consequences. That is time for said potential assailant to disable the defender, thus rendering possession 'pointless.' This places the defender at jeopardy, violating their unalienable right to self-defense.

Effectively, laws like this lumping pointing a weapon into an existing body of law transforms an act more likely to be in self-defense into aggressive action. This is a really bad thing to do with language. After all, who wants all that blood and a body on one's own doorstep? Who wants the inquest and potential for jail?

Finally, virtually all of you are clearly well-versed in laws governing the use of a weapon. You have training to the point of habituation. Not everybody does. Should they be deprived of the right to self-defense by means of arms? I didn't notice such a qualification in the Second Amendment, although it does imply that such training should be mandatory by the qualification that the people be "well regulated" is "necessary."

I know this apparent crime has been on the books for a long time (I did find it in Bouvier's legal definition of ASSAULT published in 1856) and therefore accept your often disrespectful corrections, but that doesn't excuse the custom from being a very damaging use of language. So where and how that line is drawn on the definition of what constitutes an assault does matter, and to me the distinction should be at the property line.

FReegards,