Question for LEOs or Lawyers on PAFOA

[cz_40p]

Is there actually a charge in the statutes called "simple assault by physical menace".
That seems to be what the Harrisburg open carry dude has been charged with. Is that a bona fide charge , or is someone talking through their arse.

If there is an actual charge called "simple assault by physical menace" what does it mean and why haven't anti organizations used it to discourage open carry. It sounds like that is exactly what it was designed to discourage.

Any insight from the front line?

[Rule10b5]

Originally Posted by cz_40p

Is there actually a charge in the statutes called "simple assault by physical menace".
That seems to be what the Harrisburg open carry dude has been charged with. Is that a bona fide charge , or is someone talking through their arse.

If there is an actual charge called "simple assault by physical menace" what does it mean and why haven't anti organizations used it to discourage open carry. It sounds like that is exactly what it was designed to discourage.

Any insight from the front line?

The crime is just called Simple Assault. The "by physical menace" language comes from the third prong of the definition of Simple Assault. I mean, you can call it the other, it's the same crime, just different requirements to prove it.

Do you have a link to the story? If he's just carrying openly in a holster, they won't be able to get a conviction. They'll never be able to demonstrate the imminent requirement -- or intent for that matter. To say nothing of Hawkins.

[XD45]

I haven't heard of this case, hopefully he was legally OCing and this will become a big issue and shine the light on how it is legal after he gets let off

[MarcS]

If he was just OCing there's a lot more to it than someone else just feeling threatened. I'd like to hear the details.

[Steve in PA]

PA CS 2701- Simple Assault
(a) Offense Defined- a person is guilty of assault if he;
(3) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

If he was just carrying openly there is no way that could be thought of as "physical menace" since we all know OC is perfectly legal in PA.

[cz_40p]

Here is a link to the story;
http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnews/...l=1&thispage=1
Once again the story is structured in a way that leaves out a lot of facts, and leads you to fill in the blanks.

In rereading the story, I'm wondering if in their zeal to find something to charge him with they settled on his previous encounter with his landlord. That would make more sense.

That would seem to be the appropriate charge for actually pointing a gun at someone.

[Steve in PA]

The physical menace charge would come in for him supposedly pointing a gun at the landlord. It would be an appropriate charge and has nothing to do with open carry.

[XD45]

I dont think having the gun out pointed at someone falls under an ok way to OC

[Jup06]

I thought we all agreed that this guy blew it. The dude obviously had a history of irking people, involving firearms. As to the 302, only a Judge or MD can do that. From what I can tell, it was not a "cop sees guns on citizen, cop 302's citizen".

[ChamberedRound]

An administrative note:

Although this is a question, I'm going to move it to the PA Law & Politics section since the question deals with PA law and it's interpretation.