Saying you are going to turn someone to stone, even though have a desire to do so, and have been reading up on spells and curses to do so, does not make it possible to complete the necessary overt act, i.e., turning someone actually into stone.
Saying you are going to shoot the crap out of someone with your nonexistent Jack Bauer Model H&K .40cal never empty blaster, does not mean you can do it, if you do not have the weapon, or even own such a weapon.
Now if the charge was verbal assault by implied threat to do bodily harm, that would be a Poule of a different recipe. But in the article I read of a Firearms related offense. This is just more dumb case law created by idiot judges and moronic attorneys.
Wishing does NOT make it so.
EXCEPT IN CANADA COURTS, I suppose.
Pretty wordy Canuck, aren't you. Guess you missed this part...
The four men fled minutes later, but police stopped their getaway car shortly after and found several weapons, including a loaded handgun under the driver's seat.
Sounds like a straw man, Eh?
I think you will find that a number of states treat the threat of use of a firearm as the same as possessing the firearm. Several states even hold the usage of a toy gun in the commission of a crime the same as the use of a real gun.
Basically, if the victim reasonably believes that the use of a firearm is possible, then the threat is the same thing as actually possessing the firearm.
Now, I think this goes a bit too far, but the Canadian ruling is not terribly far out of line with the laws in several states.