Isn't it a felony to point a gun at someone? So why hasn't the law gone after this guy?

[Quixote1818]

There are plenty of photos closer up showing his face so I would think he could be tracked down.

[elleng]

1. It depends on the jurisdiction.

It might be considered criminal assault.

[jberryhill]

10. The Nevada statute appears to require that the target know they are a target

NRS 200.471  Assault: Definitions; penalties. [Effective January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, and after that date unless the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution No. 14 (2011) are approved and ratified by the voters at the 2014 General Election.]

1.  As used in this section:

(a) “Assault” means:

(1) Unlawfully attempting to use physical force against another person; or

(2) Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

I've highlighted the interesting part.

The fact that he is hiding behind a barrier and pointing the barrel through a joint in the barrier would appear to indicate that he is actively attempting to conceal himself and the fact that he is pointing a gun. Hence, it would be difficult to establish that he was intending to cause reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to whomever he may be aiming at. In other words - he doesn't want them to know he's doing it. Consequently, you can't say that he is intending to inspire fear. His intent appears to be able to shoot someone WITHOUT them knowing he's pointing a gun at them ahead of time. That particular intent and the action of taking a concealed sniping position is, of course, undesirable. But it does not appear to violate the relevant Nevada assault statute, which suggests the intended target know someone is pointing a gun at them.

[elleng]

17. Right, 'assault' presumes(d) that.

[Logical]

2. I am not sure why that was not criminal assault. Maybe some lawyer knows. nt

[jberryhill]

9. Couple of things....

I have not looked up Nevada's statute on the subject, variously categorized as some sort of "assault", "menacing", or "terroristic threatening" in state codes.

However, such statutes typically require as an element of the offense that the action be done for the purpose, and sometimes with the actual result of, causing fear or apprehension in the individual at whom it is pointed.

Clearly, in picture #2, the weapon is not being pointed at anyone, and it is a picture of a person carrying a firearm which is not generally illegal in Nevada. The fact that these people appear to be standing around on a road is more interesting.

In picture #1, the person is aiming a weapon from a concealed position, and I mean "concealed" from the point of view of whomever that person, if anyone, is aiming at. In other words, it does not appear that this person is pointing the weapon for the purpose of causing fear or apprehension of injury in his target and is, in fact, attempting to conceal from such person the fact that he is pointing a weapon at them at all. From the area down below, neither he nor his weapon is visible, and thus cannot be understood to be an attempt on his part to alarm anyone below.

Oh, well, what the heck... Here it is:


NRS 200.471  Assault: Definitions; penalties. [Effective January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, and after that date unless the provisions of Senate Joint Resolution No. 14 (2011) are approved and ratified by the voters at the 2014 General Election.]

1.  As used in this section:

(a) “Assault” means:

(1) Unlawfully attempting to use physical force against another person; or

(2) Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

As I expected, the operative section here is 1(a)(2), which requires, as an element, that a person be placed in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.

That sort of language doesn't mean that someone WOULD be in apprehension IF they knew he was pointing a gun at them. It requires actual placement of a person in such apprehension, and that their apprehension be reasonable.

So, the question is, can you identify the person claiming that his pointing of that weapon placed them in apprehension of bodily harm? It does not appear that anyone has come forward to state that they were even aware that he was pointing a weapon at them. If they were aware, I think we can take it as a given that such apprehension would be reasonable.

However, it appears that by concealing his position and aiming through the traffic barriers that he has intentionally positioned himself and pointed the gun in such a way to avoid placing any person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm.

Now, sure, that seems bizarre that the upshot is "you can point a gun at people with the idea of being a sniper, so long as they don't see you" but the offense in question is not about pointing guns at people, it is about doing so with the intent of making them afraid you are pointing a gun at them. On balance, I believe that the picture itself pretty clearly demonstrates that's not what he is intending to do. He doesn't want them to know his position or the fact that he is pointing a gun.

[Electric Monk]

11. Taking pictures and publishing them on the internet would seem to indicate he did want them to know

they were being targeted, even if they only knew after the fact. It is intended to influence the targets actions in the future.

[jberryhill]

14. "IMMEDIATE" physical harm

I don't know the provenance of the photograph, who took it, whether he wanted it taken, or whether he wanted it published.

However, the statute requires, as an element, that the victim be placed "in apprehension of immediate bodily harm".

The word "immediate" in this context denotes concurrence of the action of "placing" them in that situation - i.e. pointing the gun at them - and the victim being apprehensive of the bodily harm.

Aside from which, the statute requires a victim. You cannot say, "oh it's somebody down there". Identify the person who was, at that immediate moment, apprehensive of bodily harm.

[Logical]

13. Thanks for this, great post! Makes sense. Nt

[jberryhill]

15. It sucks

On the other hand, we write these things down in black and white for a reason.

[onehandle]

3. People with guns have more rights than normal people in the U.S. nt

[notadmblnd]

4. Just because he seems to have gotten by with it

doesn't men that he'll get away with it.

If I were a Fed, I'd be doing my research finding out who they are and quietly arresting these terrorists when they return home.

[Historic NY]

5. Where is the state police it looks like an interstate.

[jberryhill]

16. That, IMHO, is the more interesting violation

[hack89]

6. Only if the person is aware that a gun is being pointed at him nt

[Hoyt]

7. I hope that guy is under surveillance and he's arrested if he spits on the sidewalk.

Of course, there are millions who look/act just like that ignorant yahoo.

[Niceguy1]

8. they appear to be

Creepy photo shoots.. notbsure whe re #1 is aiming, and #2 is just there, creepy but I doubt illegal.

[jberryhill]

12. No, it is not a felony to "point a gun at someone"

Last edited Tue Apr 29, 2014, 02:08 AM - Edit history (1)

It is a felony, under the Nevada assault statute, to intentionally place a person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.

If you are pointing a gun at someone from a concealed sniper position, then it is more likely you are trying to AVOID having them know, much less be apprehensive, that you are pointing a gun at them.

I've posted the relevant statute above in the thread.

Now there may be some other offense involved, but with respect to the Nevada assault statute, it is unlikely he is in violation.

[StarryNite]

18. Nevada Revised Statutes (N.R.S.)

Nevada Revised Statutes (N.R.S.)

Title 15. Crimes and Punishments
CHAPTER 202 – CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY

NRS 202.290 Aiming firearm at human being; discharging weapon where person might be endangered; penalty.

Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person who willfully:

1. Aims any gun, pistol, revolver or other firearm, whether loaded or not, at or toward any human being; or

2. Discharges any firearm, air gun or other weapon, or throws any deadly missile in a public place or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby, although an injury does not result, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

[jberryhill]

19. Alas, not a felony

You gotta wonder who drafted a clause like:

"in a public place or in any place where any person might be endangered thereby"

So, you can throw a deadly missile in a private place as long as you don't endanger anyone, but you can't throw one in a public place even if nobody is endangered?