Weapons, Guns, Firearms What is this crime?

[Michael971]

Jurisdiction

Massachusetts

Person A is angry at person B.
A visits person B with a legally owned gun which is concealed.
A and gets in an intense argument with person B, but does make any threats.
B gets nervous and calls the police.
When the police arrive they find a gun on person A.
A confesses to the police that he intended to shoot B .

 

[justblue]

Person A is angry at person B.
A visits person B with a legally owned gun which is concealed.
A and gets in an intense argument with person B, but does make any threats.
B gets nervous and calls the police.
When the police arrive they find a gun on person A.
A confesses to the police that he intended to shoot B .

Is this homework? Reads like homework. We don't do homework.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Person A is angry at person B.
A visits person B with a legally owned gun which is concealed.
A and gets in an intense argument with person B, but does make any threats.
B gets nervous and calls the police.
When the police arrive they find a gun on person A.
A confesses to the police that he intended to shoot B .

Assuming this is a hypothetical (perhaps a class assignment) it paints A as a real idiot. If A's real intent was to shoot B, he'd have shot B as soon as possible and gotten out there, he'd certainly not stick around for an intense argument first. Next, A knows he's got a concealed gun and B has just called the police. If A had any brains, he'd have left ASAP before the police showed up. Then no one would have known he had the gun. Finally, A as a suspect has the right to remain silent. He should have exercised that right and told the police nothing about what happened and what he was thinking. I'll leave it to you to research what crime(s) A may have committed here, but whether or not any crime was ultimately committed here A has shown himself to not be very bright.

 

[army judge]

Person A is angry at person B.
A visits person B with a legally owned gun which is concealed.
A and gets in an intense argument with person B, but does make any threats.
B gets nervous and calls the police.
When the police arrive they find a gun on person A.
A confesses to the police that he intended to shoot B .

Oh my....

Person A should have watched this video:

Had Person A viewed that video, Person A might NOT be in trouble today!!!


Is Pointing a Gun at Someone a Crime in MA???

In short, yes. But it's not only the gun that matters, it's the threat. If you threaten a person with physical harm, and the person reasonably believes that you may inflict that harm, that crime is known as "assault." Whether you point a gun, a knife, or even a closed fist at someone, if he or she fears for their safety, you may be charged with assault. That being said, pointing a gun at someone is more likely to be perceived as a real threat than shaking a closed fist would be. For this reason, an assault charge involving a gun will probably require a more complex defense than would an assault without a deadly weapon.

The sheer presence of a firearm is compelling evidence for the prosecution. Consider the following example: About one year ago, a Maryland police officer was convicted of first and second degree assault after he was caught on film ordering a man into his vehicle while pointing a gun at his head. Officer Jenchesky Santiago was observed shouting at William Cunningham in a way that seemed to convince both Cunningham and those who watched the video that he intended to use the gun. And the whole incident began because Cunningham was illegally parked. Not only was the officer's response disproportionate to the very minor infraction, it was deemed an assault crime in court.


Is Pointing a Gun at Someone a Crime?
...

 

[zddoodah]

A visits person B with a legally owned gun which is concealed.

Was B aware that A has a gun in his/her possession?

A ... gets in an intense argument with person B, but does make any threats.

Merely a verbal argument?

B gets nervous and calls the police.

And tells them what?

When the police arrive they find a gun on person A.

Found how? Did they take A into custody and find the gun as a result of a search of his/her person?

A confesses to the police that he intended to shoot B .

That was dumb. Did A do this before or after the police found the gun?

Hard to perform an intelligent analysis of this situation until you fill in the missing, relevant facts. What do you think, by the way? And if this isn't a hypothetical or school assignment, what's your relationship to the people involved?