Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire " Without Intent to Kill "

Maybe an LEO can straighten me out on this . I can't wrap my head around it

So I'm in the sherrif's group ( book of faces) in my FL area. Post about a guy who got arrested for road rage & other charges ,in the Sherrif's FB group . So it states the guy waved/pointed his pistol at another motorist in a road rage incident . I guess the fella who got the gun pointed at him called cops ,they found the perp. Arrested him on all charges ,here it is ....
One charge was " Pointing a gun at someone without intent to kill "

Now I took the cw class here & this was never discussed

Anyone here ever heard of such BS ?

Here in AZ they would charge that as, "brandishing."
PJ

I do believe something like that was included in the list of charges they printed. But the OP title was singled out ,too. There were some comments about it ,mostly people saying " I was taught you don't point a gun at anything you don't want to shoot " stuff like that

If the one that pointed the firearm at the victim placed them in fear for their life the correct charge would be Aggrevated Assault FS 784.021 wich is a 3rd Degree Felony.

Perhaps I read the post wrong and/or misunderstood . I think though ,if a handgun is pointed at me I'm gonna immediately fear for my life & others . Even brandishing ,I'm gonna be very fearful

How can they determine intent or lack thereof? Mind reading?

Here its called terroristic threat in that case.

This is what I'm saying . I don't knowwho does the writing for the Sherrif's FB group ,I am questioning if there is such a law/charge and how can it even be . A simple question to the law/power that b ,if it were brandished ,pointed at you ,how do you determine ,if there is such a thing

Even better ,how 'bout :

"Looking back at surveilance footage at the scene of the self defense shooting ,it has been clearly determined the offender did not intend to kill anyone "

It was a very confusing sentence ,reading that post in the Sherrif's group

"Without intent to kill."

I don't know about anywhere else, but in TX & OK, that's called "brandishing" and can get you arrested, lose your CHL (SDA in OK) OR get you shot!
To me, "brandishing" is the same as "threatening" and warrants one protecting one's self!

In Nevada brandishing is drawing or presenting a weapon in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self defense. This is a pretty clear description and a reasonable person would be justified in being in fear of death or great bodily injury from such an action. Intent is demonstrated by the act.


mike r

The FB post was poorly written. The charge is Aggravated Assault. The "without intent to kill" language is within the statute as noted below. It's applied after the fact I guess. No proof to the contrary, or no evidence to apply a more serious charge-attempted murder, etc,

LHS


The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE
View Entire Chapter
784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) A person who commits aggravated assault commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) For the purposes of sentencing under chapter 921, a violation of this section committed by a person acting in furtherance of a riot or an aggravated riot prohibited under s. 870.01 is ranked one level above the ranking under s. 921.0022 for the offense committed.
History.—s. 2, ch. 3275, 1881; RS 2402; GS 3228; RGS 5061; CGL 7163; s. 1, ch. 29709, 1955; s. 1, ch. 57-345; s. 731, ch. 71-136; s. 18, ch. 74-383; s. 8, ch. 75-298; s. 5, ch. 2021-6.
Note.—Former s. 784.04.

Perhaps I've gone blind, but is there a link associated with this incident/post?

They're going to get you used to the idea that they can determine intent in the negative (no intent to kill).

So later when they accuse you of intent in the positive - we all nod along and never ask why/how they're arresting people for "intent to overthrow an elected official" without any actual acts that go towards that result. People accept the idea that law enforcement can discern intent without overt acts.

Youre not blind,no link I just tried to search it got an AI pop up so you'll need to take my word ,or not