Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-topic' started by Nemo, Sep 11, 2020.
Just click and watch.
Marking him for the police, or just for fun.
For pure damn pleasure. On the other hand in some places it could have been green tips with just as much pleasure. Crazy times.
Or that frangible stuff. And delete the video. Just saying..........
I bet his pants legs are wet.
And don't forget the brass catcher.
I suppose there's somebody ought to point out that under the circumstances he shot at the trespasser with a paintball gun he probably committed aggravated assault because the person would've reasonably thought he was being shot at by a gun which could seriously injure him ( "is likely to" seriously injure him). And even if he knew it was a paintball gun, the victim might still reasonably fear having his eye put out, or seriously injured by being struck in the nose, teeth, testicles, or throat. Because he was not wearing goggles or a face mask.
Victim-- I was pee soaking and tearing down his Trump sign in his front yard and he scared me. Then he shot me with a paint ball gun and it hurt.
Sure sounds like a defensible case to me. A jury may never acquit but I have little doubt at least one member would never convict.
Note that the level of force needed to constitute Agg Assault is lower than the force needed to constitute "deadly force" in the self defense statutes. It is agg assault if you assault with something intended or likely to cause "serious bodily injury." And, it doesn't matter what the victim thinks about the degree of the injury or what the weapon was. (I.e., the victim does not have to apprehend serious bodily injury, he only has to apprehend injury. That is the extent of the victim's subjectiveness). But a person can use any amount of force he reasonably believes necessary to prevent the criminal trespass up to force intended or likely to cause "death or great bodily harm." Going to depend on your jury, but I bet you can find an expert who will testify that a paintball gun is not "likely" to cause death or great bodily harm. The burden will be on the state to prove otherwise. So even if the state only has to prove "likely to cause serious bodily injury" to convict for agg assault, the state is going to have to prove "likely to cause death or great bodily harm" to overcome self-defense.
Well, that's certainly how I'd think of it if I only knew the statutory law, but I've seen how the courts are pretty flexible in looking beyond the actual words on paper and giving effect to the law so that it can meaningfully address the problem the legislature was concerned with.
If the only question about an assault victim's perception was whether he knew he was being attacked, but the exact nature of the weapon used to attack him is not something he need be concerned with, but rather something for the State and Defendant to argue about at trial, using evidence adduced that was beyond what the victim knew or could have known that day, it would erode the value to society in having an "aggravated assault" law that has both an "assault with intent to kill" prong and a "assault with a deadly weapon" prong.
What you have suggested above would apply to a case where the criminal intentionally unloads his handgun before assaulting a victim, intending no death, but intending to make the victim THINK he's about to sustain a gunshot. But, as a matter of fact, it's impossible for the victim to be shot. The gun cannot work without ammo.
Nor could a replica gun, a move prop gun, a fake gun, a DEWAT or deactivated gun.
But the victim would not know this, and should not be expected to know it, as a condition for his attacker getting hit with the higher charge and enhanced penalties for AGGRAVATED assault.
See Addsitt v. State, 248 Ga. 237 (Supreme Court of GA, 1981)
which follows and solidifies the holding of a similar Court of Appeals case,
Watts v. State, 142 Ga. App. 857 (1977).
The both hold that if the victim, WRONGLY but REASONABLY, perceives that a gun brandished offensively against him could be loaded, and he doesn't have any reason to know it's not loaded (and assuming the assault does not involve a threat to beat the victim with the gun as if it were just an expensive, oddly-shaped club), his perception that he could be shot is all that is needed to convict his attacker. Even when shooting the gun was, without question, impossible at that time.
This isn't even something that should be given to a jury to decide; the judge may instruct that jury that a gun, loaded or not, is a 'per se' deadly weapon, for the reasons discussed above. (Even though there's no such wording in the agg. assault statute, the way there is in the armed robbery statute, where the O.C.G.A. itself announces that fake guns and replica guns count the same as real, functional guns.)
Oh, sure, that's what the courts say. Yet another reason why I lobby every year to overhaul the agg assault statute. It is so far removed from anything logical that it should just be repealed.
But this does nothing to the main point of my post, that the state would have to overcome self defense standards, which are higher than even the wacko Agg assault court opinions.
I should add that case law in GA would lead you to believe that virtually any object used as a weapon is an aggravated assault. I don't think there's a single case where an appellate court said, "The trial court was crazy. There's no way X is likely to cause serious bodily injury." BB guns, toy guns, broken guns, letter openers, razor blades, they all are agg assault weapons.
And that's why I continue to believe that if anyone attacks you with anything, they are (under current law) committing and aggravated assault and you are privileged to use deadly force to stop the attack. The state can't have it both ways.
Is this particular to Georgia or are other states similar?
Sign should have been electrified. That would of been much more entertaining.
That's what this guy in MA did after people kept stealing his Trump signs. No peeing though.