Originally Posted by Cameron SS
Pointing a firearm at someone CAN constitute assault, IF there was no consent to the pointing. If police witnessed you pointing a firearm, you would likely get charged for both. If the person who you pointed at said "I consented", as in the case of sports, games, backyard fun, whatever, the charge of assault must be dropped. Inherent in the definition of assault is the words, 'without consent'. If when enacting Section 87 of the Criminal Code, Parliament meant for consent to be a relevant factor, they would have said so. Lawful excuse typically, but not exclusively, means a defense of self defense, duress, necessity, etc. or any other excuse established in law relevant to that section specifically.
Thank you for proving my point.
You have presented a logical fallacy.
Not all assaults are necessarily a result of pointing a firearm.
Further the Criminal Code has set out Assault and Pointing, as two separate things, and while the same act may fall under both definitions, the legal defenses available to one do not necessarily apply to the other.
Then what was all that you spewed earlier about? Under what other assumption would pointing a firearm at someone NOT constitute assault? For all intents and purposes, any time a firearm is drawn, there is the intent for potential discharge. They are separate charges because of the different context. There's a difference between intentionally harming someone and intentionally harming someone because they wanted to defend their property. Defenses work for multiple charges. The law isn't static; it is contextual and changes with people's interpretations and understanding. What you're doing is applying a fundamental misunderstanding to skew it so that each and every law is applied regardless of social context and consideration for human nature.
Not sure that if that is a typo, so please clarify. I never said lack of consent was an essential element of s.87. In fact I have suggested the opposite. The essential elements of s. 87 are pointing a firearm at someone, and intending to do so. Consent is only a lawful excuse, if a lack of consent is a required element of the offence. There is no requirement for a lack of consent to pointing a firearm, therefore lack of consent is not a lawful excuse.
I messed up the order on that quote. I meant to say you're not wrong that consent is an essential element of Pointing, but considering that an absense of a lawful excuse constitutes the offense, its presence would therefore nullify the charge. Since you've already agreed, and contradicted yourself in the process, by saying that pointing constitutes assault when there's an absence of consent, then a lawful excuse would therefore be consent for the charge of Pointing.
Furthermore, it's fallacious to claim that consent is only a lawful excuse if the absense of consent is an essential element. For the charge of assault, consent is not a lawful excuse, it is consent. For the charge of Pointing, consent constitutes a lawful excuse, but lawful excuses can also be other things. There is no requirement that consent be a lawful excuse in order for it to be an effective defense.