Someone's ex-girlfriend refused to leave the man she was with. The man pointed a gun at them and told them to pray-he was going to shoot. The gun went off and the bullet hit the mans ex-girlfriend's handbag and dress. The man who was not injured, said that he had no fear during the experience. Was the ex-boyfriend guilty of assault and battery against his ex-girlfriend and the man she was with? WHY?
2007-02-05 05:34:09 · 8 answers · asked by circusgirl322 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
In the US assault requires only the threat of violence, which he was obviously guilty of. Battery involves carrying out some violence which he was guilty of by firing the weapon. It doesn't matter whether or not anyone "felt fear" during the experience. It matters what the perpetrator did.
2007-02-05 05:44:16 · answer #1 · answered by jurydoc 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The question is somewhat misleading, due to the undefined pronouns. However, I think the answer to your question is it depends. The woman likely suffered an assault. The current "man" may have not suffered either.
Battery is defined as an unwanted touching. Usually, the touching must be felt, therefore, if the woman did not feel the bullet strike her dress and handbag, it is not battery. The ex-boyfriend did intend harm and attempted to carry it out against another. He committed assault against the woman.
If you are taking a legal exam, the reason the teacher threw in the fact the "new man" was not afraid is because in some jurisdictions assault is defined as an attempt to menace by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. The new man was not in fear of imminent injury, therefore, the ex-boyfriend did not commit assault or battery against the new man.
However, some jurisdictions only require an assaulter to be in proximity, with the ability and intent to assault against another. The ex-boyfriend would be charged there.
If this is a law school question, it is also important that the ex said pray, he was going to shoot, this may mean it was not imminent. The gun went off, it may have been accidental and you need to discuss the mens rea. Also, the question omitted whether the ex-girl was afraid or not.
2007-02-05 08:21:34 · answer #2 · answered by Scott J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He actually committed assault with a deadly weapon. Because it is pretty much illegal to point a gun at anyone and the the gun also discharged even though no one was injured he is still guilty.
2007-02-05 05:44:50 · answer #3 · answered by Chad K 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He's lucky to not be charged with assault with intent to murder. Pointing a gun at someone and firing it is a serious offense, much more than a simple assault and battery. Regardless if they were in fear or not, he pointed a gun at them and fired it. That is a serious felony offense and he should be charged with it.
2007-02-05 05:43:13 · answer #4 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
using fact they have a special place and are generally in the line of an attack. it extremely is was hoping that human beings might think of two times earlier assaulting an Officer. of path occupation criminals use no self restraint , hitting officers and capturing officers.That regulation makes little difference to them.
2016-12-13 09:25:11 · answer #5 · answered by unck 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely yes that is assault with a deadly weapon
2007-02-05 05:52:32 · answer #6 · answered by trncbeard 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The EX's always right
2007-02-05 05:40:40 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
to me yes, he assulted her, and just because he didn't get her and go her purse does not mean he didn't try.
2007-02-05 05:44:38 · answer #8 · answered by misty blue 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋