Simple Assault Case in Adams County

[7998]

Thats sucks man. So what was the deal?

[ehidle]

If I cut someone off (accidentally or intentionally, it doesn't matter), at the worst it is a summary traffic violation. It is not a continuing, escalating threat to them. If the person I cut off then follows me to wherever it is that I am going, then gets out of their car to confront me, and then doesn't leave me alone when asked - then that is a continuing and escalating threat to me, and you bet your ass I'm going to at least be ready to draw my firearm if they escalate the situation to the point of being a threat to me.

I am not going to take the newspaper story at face value, so I will not opine that one of them is completely at-fault in this specific instance, but at the very least, Hoffman should have known not to escalate the incident like he did. He should not have followed the car that cut him off with the intent of creating a confrontation. He should not have remained at the restaurant when Cusimano asked him to cease his confrontation. Cusimano may or may not have perceived Hoffman as being an immediate threat. If (and again, I don't know what the exact circumstances were) Hoffman was yelling and screaming like a lunatic and was making violent gestures, it may have been completely reasonable for the passenger to ready his firearm. It all depends on whether Hoffman crossed the fine line between being an asshole and being a threat.

[Mosinshooter762]

It's possible, but I don't think the Reasonable Belief of serious bodily harm is there.

Since when is a reasonable belief that serious bodily harm will occur required in order to pull a large metal paper weight out to defend oneself? The gun was unloaded, so the only effective use for it would be to scare, hit or throw it at someone. Use of deadly force with the gun does not seem possible in this case, except possibly by bludgeoning, which is true also with a hammer. In short, the gun was not used as a deadly weapon in this case.

[djturnz]

In order for deadly force to be justified, there must be reasonable belief that you are about to be killed, seriously injured, kidnapped or raped.

In order to draw a gun and point it, you must be justified to shoot.

It makes no difference if the gun was loaded (why in the hell would you carry it unloaded?).

If I pull a rubber knife on you, and you think it's real and shoot me, would you go to jail? You would using your "it's not loaded, it's not deadly" logic.




The issue I have with it is that the aggressor didn't display a weapon, and there were two brothers. 2 on 1 does not show a desparity of force. With the facts at hand, I don't see justification to use deadly force.


Now as I understand the facts, your brother ran into the bar and left you by yourself in the car. What the hell is up with that? Anyway, that goes better to prove your side, since it is almost like 2 different altercations. Even then, I have a hard time with it. Unless some reason to believe that he was going to try to kill you, it's just an ass whooping.

The maturity thing is irrelevant, I know 30-somethings that are too imature to own guns, that doesn't make it illegal.



From your description, a lot of this seems to be based on you using the wrong terminology. You don't pull a gun to scare them off, to kill them, to shoot them, to show them you mean business. You use the gun to stop the threat. That is if indeed your conviction is based on how your words were twisted, like you said.



Have you been sentenced yet?

[buzzkill05]

hello everyone thanks for the feedback, the article left a lot of detail out like the fact that hoffman got out and confronted my brother so my brother tried to defuse the situation, so my brother eventually walked away, thinking well maybe this guy hoffman would go away, he didn t. hoffman put his hands into his hooded sweat shirt in the pouch and came around to the passager side of our car and confronted me. i serious thought he had a weapon. he got about a foot away so i reached in a pulled out my pistol. i held it sideways like a "gangster" or like they do in the movies according to the Adams county DA. i did not plan on shooting the guy how could i i had no bullets in the clip. all i ment to do is to get him to back off which he did so i just put it away and walked away without saying a word. the newspaper and the court made it seem like i went after hoffman but think about why would i go out of my way to pull a gun on someone if they just wanted to have dialogue as hoffman stated in court, and had walked away from me,if that were true which it is not then it would have been over and we would have went our ways. under the law of simple assault in pa it is the act of intended serious bodily harm against someone and putting them in fear of their well being or life by physical menace look it up. Anyway in hoffmans 911 call 15 to 20 minutes after the incident, hoffman stated that it was just a show me pulling the gun on him and he didn t fear for his life apparently. well in his statement and in court. he stated he did fear for his well being. well which is it did you fear for your safety or was it a show. if what he said in his 911 call were to be believed then i am not guilty of simple assuit because there was no immediate fear. then his girlfriend kessler never made an official police statement. me and my brother had to why not her. so anyway when we got to court low and behold she had a statement or as she stated personal notations. it was not authenticated and it had been altered several times, with words crossed out and new ones added when asked when she wrote this she said the day after, but then way did she have in there about the coming trail and some after the fact stuff. maybe she is psychic. and why were things added and changed if she wrote it the next day. don t believe me ask for the court documents for this case it is all there. Hoffman also stated he was a truck driver for 28 years and was used to being cut off, and it didn t bother him well why did this incident bother him then well hoffman stated that we were side by side well if that is to be believed then how did he manage to pull behind the driver side taillight of our car parallel to us i wish i could draw a picture for you but it is hard to do with words lol and apparently hoffman doesn t know the meaning of cutting off because first in his statement he said we cut him off when asked about it in court we didn t cut him off and were side by side. when asked well why didn t he say that in the statement he said thats what he ment by cutting off well to me cutting off and almost side swipeing are two different concepts. there is no way we could had been side by side just look at the circle in abbottstown and how you turn into the parking lot of the atland house. off of 30 east. don t take my word for it do the research look at the evidence decide for yourselfs. if i am wrong then fine throw me in prison. why that jury found me guilty after all of the state's lies and bullshit testimony. i don t know granted i could have put more detail in my statement and i should of but i never thought it would end up in court and beside if hoffman would have told the trurth then well i would not be in this situation what did he have to lose he wasn t convicted of anything. the point is i believe this was a bullshit trail to take my gun rights if you have a permit for protection what is the point if you can t protect yourself. i am telling you all you guys are next they want our guns they are taking our freedoms we need to start to fight back. what was done to me by adams county is wrong and not American. this isn t over with this case the truth will be brought to light i hope all of you out there believe me and will support me in my appeal i am taking this to a higher court this is now more then a road rage incident

[Mosinshooter762]

We are not talking about what someone else thinks. We are talking about pulling items out in self-defense, and what threshold is required. So in your view of the law, if someone is cornering someone, or punching someone, and looks like they want to injure them, that person can do nothing to stop the threat until serious bodily injury is imminent. They can't pull out paper weights, and can't throw punches. They just have to stand there and wait for serious bodily injury to be imminent while they are being pushed around, punched, and possibly receiving bodily injury that is not of the serious level. They can try to run away, but that may not be possible. They get cornered. I think your wrong. There is a difference in using non-deadly force, and deadly force.

How can one find that deadly force was used in this case, or even capable of being used (assuming he pulled the unloaded gun out in what he believed was self-defense to deter against either serious bodily injury, or just bodily injury rather than using the gun for a criminal purpose).

What law says you have to be justified to use deadly force, rather than non-deadly force, before one can pull out a rubber gun or the paperweight gun? I can not find it.

In order for deadly force to be justified, there must be reasonable belief that you are about to be killed, seriously injured, kidnapped or raped.

In order to draw a gun and point it, you must be justified to shoot.

It makes no difference if the gun was loaded (why in the hell would you carry it unloaded?).

If I pull a rubber knife on you, and you think it's real and shoot me, would you go to jail? You would using your "it's not loaded, it's not deadly" logic.




The issue I have with it is that the aggressor didn't display a weapon, and there were two brothers. 2 on 1 does not show a desparity of force. With the facts at hand, I don't see justification to use deadly force.


Now as I understand the facts, your brother ran into the bar and left you by yourself in the car. What the hell is up with that? Anyway, that goes better to prove your side, since it is almost like 2 different altercations. Even then, I have a hard time with it. Unless some reason to believe that he was going to try to kill you, it's just an ass whooping.

The maturity thing is irrelevant, I know 30-somethings that are too imature to own guns, that doesn't make it illegal.



From your description, a lot of this seems to be based on you using the wrong terminology. You don't pull a gun to scare them off, to kill them, to shoot them, to show them you mean business. You use the gun to stop the threat. That is if indeed your conviction is based on how your words were twisted, like you said.



Have you been sentenced yet?

[djturnz]

withdrawn.

[djmc812]

The brothers are inbred. If there is no threat there is no reason to pull a gun. Lucky the other guy didn't have a loaded gun

. this should have been a CLEAR case of road rage or did you not take the time to check this out like a "normal " concerned gun owner?
also if you all did your homework you would have found out it was NOT a 22 or was it just a case of shooting down and asking questions later?? join the NRA and find out what rights you have taken away because of your ignorance .

[phill]

Nice first post and did you notice that this was posted about 18 months ago.

[ByblosHex]

I cant believe you guys actually believe news reports word for word.