Sure. Get a restraining order. One that specifically forbids the badguy from contacting the victim and especially to making such comments. Then he can be arrested for violating the restraining order.
Don’t worry, lisacurl, I got the joke. “Any 'a yous touches my stuff, I’ll kill ya!!”
pulykamell, I find it ironic that in our situation we have defense attorneys saying it IS a crime, and a former District State Attorney saying it’s NOT.
… Shouldn’t that be the other way around 
I would not consider the OP’s statement so much as a threat, but as a warning. Like a “Beware of Dog” sign on my door and a Pit Bull staring at you thru the window. Cross into my space and this dog may tear you up. Dosen’t seem to be illegal until the dog is actually chewing on you leg outside of it’s contained area.
Yes, it is odd and, like you, they are very experienced lawyers working murder and corruption cases on the state and federal level. I wonder if there is any caselaw on the matter backing up either side.
However, it seems to me to make no sense that pointing a gun at someone does does not automatically constitute a well-founded fear of imminent harm (minus obvious exceptions like, “Here, take a look at the barrel of this gun.”) The fear is there, the ability to carry out the threat is there, why would it matter what the guy says? Just because you say “20 minutes later” doesn’t make me feel less threatened. I believe a reasonable person, in this situation, would feel immediately threatened, and it’s not dependent on what the gun-wielder says.
Does this not sound reasonable? What am I missing here?
From CA Penal Code
240. An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with a present
ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another.
245. (a) (1) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of
another with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm or by
any means of force likely to produce great bodily injury shall be
punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four
years, or in a county jail for not exceeding one year, or by a fine
not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both the fine and
imprisonment.
(2) Any person who commits an assault upon the person of another
with a firearm shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison
for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less than
six months and not exceeding one year, or by both a fine not
exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000) and imprisonment.
Sounds like it fits here unless the “attempt” is the key. Would shooting and missing be required for this?
Perhaps “unlawful” is the key word. The OP is simply implying that if you commit an assult on me (one assumes unlawful contact) that you will be met with deadly force. How is this different from a DA stating that “If you do the crime, you will do time.” It’s not a threat, it’s a warning. You haven’t yet commited a crime so why threaten me? No, it’s a warning.
IANAL, but thier should be lots of cases out thier where someone got thier ass kicked after being warned not to do something. I for one would like for our lawyer types to enlighten us on some of these cases.
It’s not a threat.
It’s not a warning.
It’s a PROMISE. 
And now for a serious, perhaps-on-topic comment: Do ‘fighting words’ laws have anything to do with this?
(Emphasis Mine)
I see you’re picturing a slightly, yet significantly, different scenario. If one pulls the gun and points it at the victim and then, delivers the statement “I’m going to kill you tomorrow”, there’s actually two actions there. The first one (point the weapon and saying nothing) is an assault. However, the assault ends at the point he delivers his statement. The statement itslef is not a threat and takes the immediacy of danger away from the situation. The assault/threat–though brief–does occur, however.
But if the statement is delivered before or simultaniously with the display of the firearm, then there’s no immediate threat.
Maybe that makes a little more sense. Or maybe not. LOL. It’s like the old saying that if you catch someone stealing some oranges, just chop the oranges up into 1,000 pieces and the crime becomes a felony. Either way, we’re getting way off topic and ridiculously specif in our scenario
Oh, and the wording in your other post makes me think I was misunderstood. I am not a District Attorney. I was talking about my instructor.
I still don’t think so. Let’s say you say it before: “I will shoot you in 20 minutes,” and then you raise a gun at me. What? Am I supposed to take you at your word and not feel threatened? The mere act of pointing a gun at someone is an immediate threat, in my opinion and, I believe, in the opinion of most reasonable individuals. I really don’t think any court would buy the argument that it’s not.
I did misunderstand–I thought you were saying you’re a DA.
That is not true, or at least not true in all jurisdictions. It may not be assault, but, as Bippy asked, it apparently does qualify as an illegal threat, specifically “terroristic threats”. I had a friend have some encounters with law enforcement over this one in Pennsylvania.
I asked my gf (UK police officer) this question a little while ago. Reassuringly she said “not sure”.
I was discussing these kind of things last night with her. In UK law there are Public Order offences. Section 5 is quite a common one to pull and relates to a person causing a disturbance, using language likely to offend etc.
Section 4 is where a threat is made verbally…
My take on the OP is that “Touch me and I’ll x”, would not constitute a threat. I think there is some grey area regarding the circumstances that the “warning” is made. For instance, what if you are holding the oft quoted machette and saying “Touch me, and I’ll cut your head off” whilst gesticulating wildly with the weapon?
Anyways, my gf is going to clarify when she gets to work. (Just bringing the international feel to the debate)
There are a whole gamut of conditional threats
Give me money or I’ll hit you : Hopefully allways Illegal
Show us your tits or I’ll hit you : Hopefully allways Illegal
If I see you again I’ll hit you : ?
If you touch my car I’ll hit you : ?
If you touch me I’ll hit you : Hopefully legal
If you hit me I’ll hit you back : Hopefully legal
Are these sorts of things covered by state or federal law? If state law, what is the most comon ruling. Is it legal to threaten “Show us your arse or I’ll hit you” in any states, or is “If you hit me, I’ll hit you back” Illegal in any states?
IANAL, but wouldn’t anything in the ‘give me something/do something for me, or I’ll do something bad to you’ category count as extortion?
I’d also think the legal impact of some of those conditional threats would vary with the circumstances. If the ‘you toucha my car, I breaka you face’ guy is waxing his car at a distant corner of a nearly-empty parking lot, it’s easy to deal with the conditional threat by avoiding the condition. But if you and he are in different units of a 3-unit apartment building with a 3-car parking lot out back, and the middle space is his, the effect of his threat may be to deny you the use of your space, which I’d think might give grounds for a civil action at least. Moving might be cheaper, though. 
Yea. Using force, or the threat of force, to obtain money, goods or services, political/judicial action, etc. is extortion. And I wouldn’t doubt that there’s additional terrorist type laws recently added that this could fall under too, depending on the situation.
Okay. Suppose I point a gun at you and say, “Look at this nifty new Glock I just bought. I bought some rounds for it, but as you can see, I have not loaded it yet. But tomorrow I will load the gun and I will kill you. How do you like that?”
Well, assuming you agree that the gun is not loaded, it is not a threat to you at this time. The threat to kill you tomorrow really has nothing to do with the pointing at you of the gun right now.
In law school, back in the sixties, we had a case where a man aggressively grasped his sword (but did not draw it from its scabbard) and said to the intented victim, “If it were not assizes time, I would kill you.” The assizes were a court which met from time to time in England. The court ruled this as not an assault since the threatener had qualified his intentions and the victim had reason to know he was not in imminent peril.
This is the sort of thing that makes law school worth while.
This is the sort of thing that keeps Judge Judy going. Somebody warned me not to do something and I did it and got my ass kicked I had better sue them. :smack: Imminent peril! Why didn’t you at least try to avoid imminent peril? It’s the “I’m stupid” defense!
Out of curiosity, is Lying in Wait an offense in modern law? And if so, could stating intent and means to kill someone (i.e. I’m going to shoot you with this gun in 20 minutes) be considered Lying in Wait?
It’s a knight’s duty to sample as much peril as he can!
I was going to provide some clarification, but it looks like this is getting all unruly. I’ll just answer this question:
Lying in wait is what is known to lawyers as premeditation. This is a prima facie case to establish intent to murder, or the mens rea element for murder. The murder charge in this scenario will most likely be murder in the first degree (or however the local jurisdiction names their highest murder charge).
I would agree with this. However, had he actually drawn his sword and brandished it, or held the blade against his intended victim’s neck (which to me is analogous to pointed a loaded gun at someone), I bet dollars to donuts the ruling would have been different.