Posted on 12/09/2025 7:31:29 AM PST by xxqqzz
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WSMV) - A woman is accused of pointing a long gun at another woman who was attempting to retrieve her food delivery order that was dropped off at the wrong house in Nashville, according to an arrest affidavit.
Officers responded to a report of an assault involving a gun in the 1800 block of Blair Boulevard on Thursday.
As they arrived, the victim told officers she had ordered food through DoorDash. The victim said the delivery driver mistakenly left the order at the wrong address.
The photo from the delivery driver indicated the food was dropped off at a nearby address. So, the victim rang the doorbell and waited for someone to answer in order to retrieve her food.
The affidavit states that 50-year-old Natalie D. Cross answered the door and allegedly pointed a long gun at the victim. Two witnesses told officers they saw the encounter take place.
Later, officers made contact with Cross, who denied pointing the gun at the victim but did admit to possessing multiple guns inside the residence, according to the affidavit.
She’s been charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsmv.com ...
This could have been avoided had the woman who pointed the gun at the neighbor had told the delivery person that she did not want to take possession of an order that was not hers.
But I am sure she was a stupid witch because she idiotically pointed a gun at a person over food that did not belong to her.
Nobody should defend her.
The solution to the problem is to display the weapon but not poiint it at the person. Why a hand gun is far better in a situation like this than a long gun.
Display is “brandishing”, depending on how it’s done.
Better is to not answer the door if you don’t expect someone.
Two things:
1 lady whose order went to neighbor is a gun seizure nut
2 lady who met stranger at door with her gun is within the law so long as she did not point it at the person on the porch. If she did point without any threat then she is a nut and belongs in a home.
Coppers were looking for a reason to seize ALL guns.
Keep in mind that laws and their definitions vary state to state.
It doesn’t say if the woman who ordered the food ever got it.
.
We'll start with the word. From Dictionary.com:
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.
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,
CO
At least she did not do what F. Joe Biden told the nation he would do: Fire a shotgun through the door ... then open it.
I will never understand the appeal of Door Dash or the various shopping services.
I have a relative who door dashes and she literally has orders for a single bag of candy from the convenience store.
“We’ll start with the word. From Dictionary.com:”
Nope. We will start with the state statutes.
Let's go to the first dictionary of the English language by Samuel Johnson ca. 1755:
1. Attack; hostile onset; opposed to defence. Her spirit had been invincible against all assaults of affection.
Shakespeare.
Not to be shook thyself, but all assaults,
Baffling, like thy hoar cliffs the loud sea wave. Thomson.
2. Storm: opposed to sap or siege.
Jason took at least a thousand men, and suddenly made an assault upon the city.
2 Macc. v. 5.
After some days siege, he resolved to try the fortune of an assault: he succeeded therein so far, that he had taken the principal tower and fort.
Bacon.
3. Hostile violence.
Themselves at discord fell, And cruel combat join’d in middle space,
With horrible assault, and fury fell.
Fairy Queen.
4. Invasion; hostility; attack.
After some unhappy assaults upon the prerogative by the parliament, which produced its dissolution, there followed a composure.
Clarendon.
Theories built upon narrow foundations, are very hard to be supported against the assaults of opposition.
Locke.
5. In law. A violent kind of injury offered to a man’s person. It may be committed by offering of a blow, or by a fearful speech.
Cowel.
6. It has upon before the thing assaulted.
That makes your preference that of a gun-grabber and supporter of common criminals. Hopefully, you don't want to be either.
“Then you don’t get the point: This use of the term “assault” to include pointing a weapon is an abuse of the language and therefore law. “
If it is legally defined, it is not an abuse of language or law.
Di you point a firearm at those that ring your door bell?
Core legal ideas:
Most assault‑with‑a‑weapon or aggravated‑assault statutes are satisfied if:
The defendant intentionally uses, displays, or otherwise employs a deadly weapon
that causes a reasonable person to fear imminent serious bodily harm, even if no shot is fired and no physical contact occurs.
Pointing a gun at someone is a clear example that almost always qualifies, but similar menacing use (for example, drawing and displaying the gun while making a threat) can also be enough if it creates reasonable apprehension of immediate harm.
Jurisdictional variations
Different jurisdictions define and label the conduct differently:
Some have specific offenses like “assault by pointing a gun,” where pointing alone, with intent to frighten, is sufficient even without injury.
Others treat brandishing a weapon in a threatening way as assault or aggravated assault, as long as it intentionally causes fear of imminent harm.
The key elements to check in any given jurisdiction are the statutory definition of assault or aggravated assault and how case law treats “display,” “brandishing,” or “pointing” a weapon in creating reasonable apprehension of immediate injury.
Pretty comprehensive defense. Still, it remains to be decided by legal authorities in the state whose command of the term will inform their choice to charge or not. I have no stake in the matter, other than to note that the appropriate authorities will decide based on their command of the law. Personally, I’d treat a porch pirate the same, though maybe with an actual shot from a taser; not interested in maiming or killing anyone, but definitely in favor of defending property.
I can't wrap my brain around that discrepancy nor can I accept a legal system at odds with the terms upon which it is founded. Now you know why I'm an engineer/scientist not a lawyer.
While in the Navy, I was assigned to attend a course for unit Legal Officers, taught by JAG lawyers. The opening statement was that, as a lawyer, one must adopt a moral code that usually conflicts with the one he was taught. That did it for me.
Which is to say that I understand why you are in a profession other than the law.
I think its most damaging attribute is that in order to be convincing one must be capable of adopting said defective code internally; effectively it is a form of habituated self-deception.
It's a very dangerous state of mind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.