Threatening assault law?

lukesmom

If a person threatens to knock the head off a pensioner and punch them is there any law against this?

NUTLEY BOY

lukesmom wrote: »

If a person threatens to knock the head off a pensioner and punch them is there any law against this?

Yes.

Uno my Uno.

lukesmom wrote: »

If a person threatens to knock the head off a pensioner and punch them is there any law against this?

Threatening to punch someone is an assault and is an offence.

lukesmom

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Threatening to punch someone is an assault and is an offence.

Thank you good to know.

Jimlh86

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Threatening to punch someone is an assault and is an offence.

No it's not

Jimlh86

At best it's section 6 criminal Justice (public Order) Act 1994
Provided it occurred in a public place

PaulieBoy

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2
Section 2 (1) b.
I would say yes in this instance.

MarkR

Jimlh86 wrote: »

No it's not

You sure?

Threats to kill or cause serious harm.

5.—(1) A person who, without lawful excuse, makes to another a threat, by any means intending the other to believe it will be carried out, to kill or cause serious harm to that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence,

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or

(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec5

That's gas. £?

Jimlh86

MarkR wrote: »

You sure?



http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/26/enacted/en/print#sec5

That's gas. £?

Not a hope of that running for a verbal threat like that

PaulieBoy

Jimlh86 wrote: »

No it's not

Why not?

PaulieBoy

Jimlh86 wrote: »

Not a hope of that running for a verbal threat like that

If it can be proved of course it can.

Jimlh86

PaulieBoy wrote: »

Why not?

They would never run with it, I've only ever seen it used in "gangland" threats or cases where theirs a credible threat to life. Some clown threatening a person like that it's highly unlikely. (Although the circumstances of the threat aren't clear)

If this was the case every time someone complains of threats made Section 5 would be used. All these cases in my experience are dealt with under public order act

Jimlh86

Sorry Paulie that didn't really answer your question. The poster is taking a very literal meaning of that section. "Causing serious harm" is injury which caused serious disfigurement or substantial risk of death. Also it has to be shown that th person being threatened believed, and the word believed is stressed, that the threat was going to be carried out. In my opinion the DPP in a case like this would never send it before the court.

A threat such as that would be different if the aggressor was say hold a baseball bat as he said it!

markc2951

Engaging in threatening or abusive behaviour...I'll kill you or I'll kick the s##t out of you anything along those lines...I know believe me

Uno my Uno.

Jimlh86 wrote: »

No it's not

Yes it is

Non-Fatal Offnces Against The Person Act 1997 wrote:

Assault.

2.—(1) A person shall be guilty of the offence of assault who, without lawful excuse, intentionally or recklessly—

(a) directly or indirectly applies force to or causes an impact on the body of another, or

(b) causes another to believe on reasonable grounds that he or she is likely immediately to be subjected to any such force or impact,

Thus threatening someone, viz. telling a pensioner you are going to punch the head off them could fall foul of section 2. (1)(b) and be an offence.

The question asked was not whether a prosecutor would "run with it", but rather was theatening a pensioner against the law. Unequivocally the answer is yes, whether someone would be guilty of that offence in any given circumstance or would be prosecuted for it is an entirely seperate question.

MarkAnthony

I had occasion to report an issue recently. It was interesting that the guard in question was specifically tailoring some of his questions to ensure the offence reported would fit into the above. So I'm afraid I have to back up the assertions that not only theoretically but in practice the above is followed up on.

cobhguy28

Jimlh86 wrote: »

They would never run with it, I've only ever seen it used in "gangland" threats or cases where theirs a credible threat to life. Some clown threatening a person like that it's highly unlikely. (Although the circumstances of the threat aren't clear)

If this was the case every time someone complains of threats made Section 5 would be used. All these cases in my experience are dealt with under public order act

S.2 non fatal offences against person act is what it is normal deal under.

Little CuChulainn

The important part is "immediate". So telling someone over the phone would not come under Section 2. But squaring up to someone and saying it might.

markc2951

MarkAnthony wrote:

I had occasion to report an issue recently. It was interesting that the guard in question was specifically tailoring some of his questions to ensure the offence reported would fit into the above. So I'm afraid I have to back up the assertions that not only theoretically but in practice the above is followed up on.

Guards are good at this carry on...they will destroy you if they feel you deserve it,bending the system to suit if needs be..I was in the same boat as you guard more or less telling me what to say to work in my favour

MarkAnthony

markc2951 wrote: »

Guards are good at this carry on...they will destroy you if they feel you deserve it,bending the system to suit if needs be..I was in the same boat as you guard more or less telling me what to say to work in my favour

They've a job to do, the defence barrister has one to do also. I'm with Jerome Frank on this one :pac:

4ensic15

Guards should catch the real criminals.

MarkAnthony

4ensic15 wrote: »

Guards should catch the real criminals.

The problem is everyone's definition of that seems to differ.