Law murky in cases where gun owners a...

Law murky in cases where gun owners are mentally ill

There are 6 comments on the Boston.com story from Dec 22, 2013, titled Law murky in cases where gun owners are mentally ill. In it, Boston.com reports that:

Last April, workers at Middlesex Hospital in Connecticut called the police to report that a psychiatric patient named Mark Russo had threatened to shoot his mother if officers tried to take the 18 rifles and shotguns he kept at her house.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Boston.com.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#1 Dec 22, 2013
Then he can be charged criminally for making a threat to cause great bodily harm. In many states it is a felony offense. There's no "murkiness" about it at all. To Wit:

6.2-3 Threatening in the Second Degree -- 53a-62

Revised to June 12, 2009

The defendant is charged [in count __] with threatening in the second degree. The statute defining this offense reads in pertinent part as follows:

a person is guilty of threatening in the second degree when <insert appropriate subsection:>

53a-62 (a)(1): that person, by physical threat, intentionally places or attempts to place another person in fear of imminent serious physical injury.

53a-62 (a)(2): that person threatens to commit any crime of violence with the intent to terrorize another person.

53a-62 (a)(3): that person threatens to commit any crime of violence in reckless disregard of the risk of terrorizing another person.

For you to find the defendant guilty of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

Element 1 - Made a threat
The first element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>

53a-62 (a)(1): made a physical threat to another person. A threat is the expression of an intention to injure another person. A physical threat is a threat accompanied by some action, such as words accompanied by a threatening gesture. A physical threat may also occur if the defendant expresses the threat in the person's presence and has the apparent ability to carry out (his/her) threat. Mere words are insufficient to constitute a physical threat; the defendant must also indicate by (his/her) actions an intent or an ability physically to carry out that threat. The conduct of a person, even without words, may be sufficient to cause fear in another person.

53a-62 (a)(2) or 53a-62 (a)(3): threatened to commit a crime of violence. A crime of violence is one in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of violating, injuring, damaging, or abusing another person. The state must prove that the defendant behaved in a manner that indicated (his/her) intent to commit such a crime.

A threat can only be punishable when it is a true threat, that is, a threat that a reasonable person would understand as a serious expression of an intent to harm or assault, and not as mere puffery, bluster, jest or hyperbole. In determining whether the threat is a true threat, consider the particular factual context in which the allegedly threatening conduct occurred which could include the reaction of the person allegedly being threatened and the defendant's conduct before and after the allegedly threatening conduct.1...

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#2 Dec 22, 2013
...
Element 2 - Intent
The second element is that the defendant <insert as appropriate:>

53a-62 (a)(1): intended by (his/her) conduct to put that person in fear of imminent serious physical injury. A person acts "intentionally" with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.> "Serious physical injury" means physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death, or that causes serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health or serious loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.''Imminent'' means impending or likely to occur immediately. It is not the danger or risk of injury, but the person's perception that is essential to this crime. The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to place the other person in fear of imminent and serious physical injury.

53a-62 (a)(2): intended to terrorize another person. To terrorize means to cause intense fear or apprehension.2 A person acts "intentionally" with respect to a result when (his/her) conscious objective is to cause such result. <See Intent: Specific, Instruction 2.3-1.>

53a-62 (a)(3): acted in reckless disregard of the risk of causing terror to another person. A person acts "recklessly" with respect to a result or circumstances when (he/she) is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstances exist. <See Recklessness, Instruction 2.3-4.>

- State of Connecticut Judicial Branch, Criminal Jury Instructions
http://www.jud.ct.gov/ji/criminal/part6/6.2-3...
Molon Labe

Fort Lauderdale, FL

#3 Dec 22, 2013
This mental illness nonsense is the left's last grab at gun control. Talk about a slippery slope! Are you afraid of heights? That's a mental illness. Never learned to swim? Mentally ill. Unnatural fear of bees or snakes. Mentally I'll for sure! Ever lose your temper?.....ill. Dislike large crowds. Clearly sick in the head. Talk to yourself sometimes? Wacko! You see where they want to take this. Sadly this is what fanatics do when defeated....they grab at straws.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#4 Dec 22, 2013
Molon Labe wrote:
This mental illness nonsense is the left's last grab at gun control. Talk about a slippery slope! Are you afraid of heights? That's a mental illness. Never learned to swim? Mentally ill. Unnatural fear of bees or snakes. Mentally I'll for sure! Ever lose your temper?.....ill. Dislike large crowds. Clearly sick in the head. Talk to yourself sometimes? Wacko! You see where they want to take this. Sadly this is what fanatics do when defeated....they grab at straws.
PRECISELY. And THAT is exactly what is happening to returning veterans RIGHT NOW. We need to put a STOP to this treason.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#8 Dec 23, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
you enjoy being a masturbating retard don't you....
Unlike you cowardly infantile LIEberal's. I have no need to "masturbate". Run along now, spam-bot.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#10 Dec 23, 2013
satanlives wrote:
<quoted text>
why, your mom takes care of doing that for you?......
No, my mom and sister aren't like yours. Nor is my dog.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Berlin Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Erardi retiring as Newtown schools superintendent Jul 13 George Roberge 1
Southwick & Meister (Mar '13) Jul 12 Ellena 5
News Top of June's lottery winners: Milford man gets... Jul 9 WorkAvoider 7
News Plainville Dog Park Site Being Considered Jul 7 Danielle Roux 1
Kay's Gag Shop (Jun '06) Jun 27 Judy 57
News 'My Bar' To Move (Mar '08) May '17 Wildbird 46
B & D Automotive in Newington Connecticut (Apr '14) May '17 Maurice Sandloff 3

Berlin Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Berlin Mortgages