Brandishing, not hypothetically.....

[Half Cocked]

I don't condone her actions, I think it was pretty effin stupid, but what law did She break?

If you parked your car along a city street and as you exited your car a total stranger started to yell at you while approaching you with a baseball bat held up over their head my guess is that you would feel threatened....... hence the crime of assault.

If the article was that some LTC holder had shot a crack head who had approached them angrily as they exited their vehicle while holding a baseball bat over their head, The members here would be very supportive of the LTC holder saying that it was a deadly force situation.

Then how come what she did was not a crime?

 

[william_munny]

If it was some gangbanger armed illegally he/she would be out on the street the next day and you wouldn't hear anything about it because they's just a poor kid turning their life around.

I don't condone her actions, I think it was pretty effin stupid, but what law did She break?

MA law is soft on criminals but hard on everyone else. See the 209A thread.

This state sucks concerning the 1-10. (BOR)

This about sums it up.

 

[william_munny]

Then how come what she did was not a crime?

IANAL, but I'm not sure it was a crime. IIRC, when guns are involved, "assault with a deadly weapon" happens when the gun gets pointed at someone. From the story, all I can see is that she asked someone to move their car and happened to have a gun in her hands, pointed in a safe direction. Now, that can definitely be interpreted as menacing, but I can't see where she threatened him. The story fails to mention her flying off the handle, launching into a tirade, and waving the gun around. Whether or not she had a right to tell him to move his car is debate-able, because as far as I can tell, no one knows if he was actually on her property or not.

Again, I'm not trying to say she's in the right. In fact, I think she was incredibly stupid for what how she handled the situation, and she did make gun owners look bad. There's a very high possibility that she's a liability with firearms and maybe should not have them, but I can't see any legal reason to take them away from her. Also, I'm just not sure you can even charge her with disturbing the peace, let alone assault. Because I'm (regrettably) in a Massachusetts state of mind, I'll get mad because it's idiots like her that scare the sheep and ruin it for the rest of us, but in a free state, this more likely than not would be filed under BFD.

 

[Half Cocked]

IANAL, but I'm not sure it was a crime. IIRC, when guns are involved, "assault with a deadly weapon" happens when the gun gets pointed at someone.

Wrong..... it does not have to be pointed at someone to rise to the level of assault. The mere presentation coupled with her actions can rise to the level of assault.

I do not know her state of mind and/or the tone that she took and/or the posturing that she took. What she did may not have risen to the level of assault as it cannot be ascertained from the article but I am not saying that the charges are not without some merit.

 

[william_munny]

Wrong..... it does not have to be pointed at someone to rise to the level of assault. The mere presentation coupled with her actions can rise to the level of assault.

Ahh, I see. So brandishing goes to assault faster than Veyrons go 0 to 60. Thanks for the clarification. I can't say that I'm disappointed over not being able to argue for her.

 

[Half Cocked]

Ahh, I see. So brandishing goes to assault faster than Veyrons go 0 to 60.

Just to be clear..... "Brandishing" alone can .....but not necessarily always equates to assault. The situation as well as verbal interactions and the totality of the situation need also to be considered.

 

[Bfatz]

She should have come out blazing....oh wait this was in Mass right?..never mind. ( snark )

 

[Coyote33]

Wrong..... it does not have to be pointed at someone to rise to the level of assault. The mere presentation coupled with her actions can rise to the level of assault....

And there is the problem!

 

[economist]

Wrong..... it does not have to be pointed at someone to rise to the level of assault. The mere presentation coupled with her actions can rise to the level of assault.

I do not know her state of mind and/or the tone that she took and/or the posturing that she took. What she did may not have risen to the level of assault as it cannot be ascertained from the article but I am not saying that the charges are not without some merit.

This is an important point. I may not understand this, but it looks like assault, legally, appears to be a very broad concept, and has much to do with perception and interpretation. And presenting a weapon, particularly a gun, opens one up to a possible assault charge. The only required additional element seems to be that someone interpreted the presentation as a threat. And that, ultimately, is just a statement about how they felt at the time. Being unverifiable, and completely subjective, that puts things in the hands of fact finders, implying that any presentation of a weapon leaves one's fate in the hands of others.

 

[cekim]

This is an important point. I may not understand this, but it looks like assault, legally, appears to be a very broad concept, and has much to do with perception and interpretation. And presenting a weapon, particularly a gun, opens one up to a possible assault charge. The only required additional element seems to be that someone interpreted the presentation as a threat. And that, ultimately, is just a statement about how they felt at the time. Being unverifiable, and completely subjective, that puts things in the hands of fact finders, implying that any presentation of a weapon leaves one's fate in the hands of others.

Certainly in the modern context, I believe you are quite correct.

 

[Half Cocked]

This is an important point. I may not understand this, but it looks like assault, legally, appears to be a very broad concept, and has much to do with perception and interpretation. And presenting a weapon, particularly a gun, opens one up to a possible assault charge. The only required additional element seems to be that someone interpreted the presentation as a threat. And that, ultimately, is just a statement about how they felt at the time. Being unverifiable, and completely subjective, that puts things in the hands of fact finders, implying that any presentation of a weapon leaves one's fate in the hands of others.

Pretty much...... which makes things difficult to interpret from a basic newspaper article.

 

[GSG]

I agree with Jesse; GOAL should release a statement immediately that seperates responsible gun owners from this woman's actions. The best thing we can do is to stand behind the judgement of the Natick PD on this.

GOAL shouldn't say anything, the news doesn't favor gun owners.

Pretty much...... which makes things difficult to interpret from a basic newspaper article.

Nonsense