man with gun.... "get off my lawn"

[Koda94]

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-off...to-be-charged/

Im shure there could be more to the story than this brief article describes but taking this article as it is what stood out to me is it appears the man with the gun, Ohannessian, was using his gun not because he felt his life in danger but to get his point across... presumably to get the 3 boys to drive away.

My first reaction to this is he could have easily been shot if one of the victims were lawfully carrying concealed... how many bere would have drawn and fired? ....and been justified? But then I noticed in the video the victims remained amazingly calm and even engaged in dialog with the suspect....

so the thought came to me, could it be considered that, despite the gun, Ohannessian's actions were not putting the victims life in jeopardy because be was only demanding they leave?

[TXAZ]

I expect your first statement is spot on: There's a lot more to the story than any journalist would be able to objectively find out. More will come out in time, but the picture painted doesn't look like a real professional act.

And to anyone waving a gun to make a point is a REALLY bad strategy likely to be expensive with possibly a long 'time out'.

[jmorris]

Yep, all I am seeing in the video is the end of the story.

Personally, I always figured the first anyone should know I have a gun is right after they have been shot by it.

No reason to escalate a situation and if your not justified in shooting someone, keep your firearm put up.

The "never point your gun at something you do not intend to destroy" is always valid.

[Koda94]

Yep, all I am seeing in the video is the end of the story.

I totally 100% agree but my question wasn’t about that. To put it another way, my question was just the idea of a guy harassing someone with a gun.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Koda94

...could it be considered that, despite the gun, Ohannessian's actions were not putting the victims life in jeopardy because be was only demanding they leave?

It depends on the totality of the circumstances.

Massad Ayoob has summarized the justifications for using force in self-defense as Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy, and Preclusion or AOJP. Another summary may be found at The Cornered Cat.

As this applies to Ohannessian, consider that Ability and Opportunity were undoubtedly present, as he clearly possessed a ranged weapon and was pointing it in their direction. The questions of Jeopardy and Preclusion are subjective. Was it reasonable to believe that Ohannessian would actually use the weapon (Jeopardy)? Was it reasonable to believe that, if retreat was attempted, Ohannessian might shoot anyway (Preclusion)? It's important to note that—when dealing with guns rather than knives or clubs—creating distance between yourself and the potential attacker does not automatically result in safety, thus weakening Preclusion.

I don't want to render an opinion regarding Jeopardy and Preclusion in this case because the choppy video edits and the muffled sound make it difficult to tell what's actually occurring (not that my opinion would be worth much anyway, as I'm not an attorney ). However, the key here is that the proverbial bar is already low because the 2 non-subjective elements are clearly present.

FWIW another potential complicating factor is that, based on my viewing of the video, it's not altogether clear that the Sheerin and the others were actually inside Ohannessian's property. They appear to be in a car parked on a presumably public street, and Ohannessian is standing on what appears to be a public sidewalk. It is certainly possible that the men were trespassing, but it's not clear from the CBS video excerpts that they actually did so.

[kilimanjaro]

From the video I saw, my impression was that the kids were extremely stupid indeed to stand there and argue with an armed man, regardless of the circumstances.

[TXAZ]

^^^^^^^^ This.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by carguychris

As this applies to Ohannessian, consider that Ability and Opportunity were undoubtedly present, as he clearly possessed a ranged weapon and was pointing it in their direction. The questions of Jeopardy and Preclusion are subjective. Was it reasonable to believe that Ohannessian would actually use the weapon (Jeopardy)? Was it reasonable to believe that, if retreat was attempted, Ohannessian might shoot anyway (Preclusion)? It's important to note that—when dealing with guns rather than knives or clubs—creating distance between yourself and the potential attacker does not automatically result in safety, thus weakening Preclusion.

I think this might be the answer to my question. It appeared to me the suspect was not threatening to actually use the gun, the victims seemed to engage in dialog with him... so perhaps they did not feel their life was in danger to the point of fleeing. That is as its been pointed out, would have seemed prudent. So to apply this to a person with a CCW, how does preclusion play into this? Can one argue that just pointing a gun at someone they could be accidentally shot? According to the Ayoob article one cannot actually know the persons intent.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by kilimanjaro

...my impression was that the kids were extremely stupid indeed to stand there and argue with an armed man, regardless of the circumstances.

Absolutely, but a queer side effect of the Youtube era is a tendency for some people to react to life-of-death situations as if they're a sort of performance art.

FWIW I've seen Russian road-rage videos in which presumably unarmed people acted MUCH more argumentative with a pistol being waved in their face.

Originally Posted by Koda94

...how does preclusion play into this? Can one argue that just pointing a gun at someone they could be accidentally shot?

It's tough to say how preclusion plays into this, and I could see the pointing-a-gun argument having some merit; for instance, one could argue that the potential attacker was enraged and irrational, making the defender fear that he might do something reckless.

Originally Posted by Koda94

According to the Ayoob article one cannot actually know the persons intent.

This is certainly true in a purely literal sense, but consider that it's commonplace for courts to use the totality of the circumstances to infer whether a person's conduct was intentional or not. For instance, intent to kill is generally the difference between manslaughter and murder.

[Koda94]

This is certainly true in a purely literal sense, but consider that it's commonplace for courts to use the totality of the circumstances to infer whether a person's conduct was intentional or not. For instance, intent to kill is generally the difference between manslaughter and murder.

the difficult thing about this example is the suspect is intentionally using a lethal weapon to get his point across. Given the totality of the circumstances, one can not know the suspects intentions to not use the gun.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by carguychris

....This is certainly true in a purely literal sense, but consider that it's commonplace for courts to use the totality of the circumstances to infer whether a person's conduct was intentional or not. For instance, intent to kill is generally the difference between manslaughter and murder.

Not exactly. The principal difference between voluntary manslaughter and murder is state of mind; to be murder the actor must have malice (i. e., evil or malicious intent).

It's explained here:

The unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice. The unlawful killing of a human being without any deliberation, which may be involuntary, in the commission of a lawful act without due caution and circumspection.

Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.

At Common Law, as well as under current statutes, the offense can be either voluntary or Involuntary Manslaughter. The main difference between the two is that voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary manslaughter does not.....

Originally Posted by Koda94

the difficult thing about this example is the suspect is intentionally using a lethal weapon to get his point across. Given the totality of the circumstances, one can not know the suspects intentions to not use the gun.

And a reasonable person can infer intent from conduct. Carrying a rifle slung or wearing a holstered handgun (without attempting to draw attention to the presence of the weapon) could arguably be innocuous.

But here the actor was pointing his pistol at the subject, and one can infer from what and how he is doing it that his actions with the gun are for the purposes of intimidation, or to secure compliance, or to convince someone to keep his distance. The threat is that the subject will, if he doesn't comply, be shot.

The usual definition of assault, based on the Common Law is:

an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

In the laws of some States this crime might be given another name. For example, in Alabama it's called "menacing." But by whatever name it is called, it is a crime in every State.

So a display of a firearm, when done for the purposes of intimidation, or to secure compliance, or to convince someone to keep his distance, or in response to a perceived threat is, in all States, an assault of some type. You are effectively putting someone in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, i. e., getting shot.

Now in all States it will be a defense against a charge of assault (or any similar crime) if you establish that your assault satisfied the applicable legal standard for justification.

In most States the standard for justifying a threat of lethal force is the same as for justifying the use of lethal force in self defense. In a few, it's a somewhat lesser standard. So in all States if you threaten lethal force you will need to be able to at least show prima facie such threat was legally justified, that is if you want to avoid a conviction for assault.

The video doesn't show any conduct on the part of the subject of the assault which appears to reasonably justify a threat of lethal force in response.

[Double Naught Spy]

Seems to be a lot of stupidity on both sides of the trigger. Ohannessian does not appear to be under any threat or duress by the young men. He does not appear to be fearing the female's (his wife?) safety.

[Koda94]

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

So a display of a firearm, when done for the purposes of intimidation, or to secure compliance, or to convince someone to keep his distance, or in response to a perceived threat is, in all States, an assault of some type. You are effectively putting someone in fear of an imminent harmful or offensive contact, i. e., getting shot.

So then to answer my question its reasonable to say that the suspects actions were putting the victims life in danger regardless of whatever his intentions were.

The suspect was lucky the victims weren’t lawfully (or otherwise) carrying. If he had any lawful reason to draw his gun in the first place (not shown, but doesn’t appear likely...) its my understanding that once the threat is over you cant continue to point your gun.


Frank, Thank you for the excellent clarification.

[Old Bill Dibble]

that once the threat is over you cant continue to point your gun

Perceived threat. What a reasonable person would believe.