[roseblood]

http://origin.sltrib.com/news/ci_8239192

A man wanted in connection with a Brigham City armed robbery was shot during a confrontation with police early today near the Brigham City Hall.
Police say Matthew Jaramillo, 32, was shot at 12:26 a.m. after he stood in City Hall's East parking lot and fired a Romanian AK-47 assault rifle several times, said Lt. Michael Nelsen of the Brigham City Police Department.
A warrant was issued for Jaramillo's arrest on Monday for investigation of aggravated robbery, aggravated kidnapping and theft in the Saturday robbery of a Money Bags check-cashing business. Nelsen said Jaramillo communicated he was upset about police trying to find him and news reports that detailed the robbery.
"The only thing we know is he was very upset with us because we were trying to arrest him for the armed robbery. Why he picked City Hall (to shoot in front of) is anyone's guess," Nelsen said.
Police arrived at City Hall, 20 North Main, after a neighbor in the area reported a man firing his rifle into the air. Brigham City police and Box Elder County sheriff's deputies ordered Jaramillo to drop his rifle, but Jaramillo yelled back at officers and "continued to swing the gun in different locations," Nelsen said.
A sheriff's deputy fired at Jaramillo when the man allegedly pointed his gun at another officer. Jaramillo was hit three times and transported to the Brigham City Community Hospital in critical condition, Nelsen said.
He was later transferred to McKay Dee Hospital in Ogden by helicopter and underwent surgery for his wounds, Nelsen said. By afternoon, he was out of surgery and in serious condition, he said.
A family member contacted Tuesday declined to comment.
Police allege Jaramillo robbed Money Bags, 862 S. Main, around 1:22 p.m. on Saturday. He allegedly entered the business, leaped over the store's counter and held a knife to a 27-year-old female employee while demanding money from the cash drawer and safe.
Jaramillo allegedly ordered the employee to lock the business's front door before she began unloading the register, said Nelsen.
After purportedly receivimg more than $5,000 in cash, Jaramillo allegedly took the employee back to the store and tied her hands behind her back. He then reportedly left the business in a blue Isuzu Rodeo, Nelsen said.
The employee untied herself after the suspect left and was not injured.
Court records show Jaramillo has a criminal history. He pleaded guilty to third degree felony theft charges in 1994.
Police said after Tuesday's shooting that they believe Jaramillo fired eight founds while in the parking lot, based on shell casings found at the scene, Nelsen said.
The sheriff's deputy who wounded Jaramillo was placed on administrative leave pending an investigation.

 

[Cinhil]

Yep, there it is in black and white, "Assault Weapon." Who or what are they trying to scare with that trash?

Assault
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Assault is a crime of violence against another person. In some jurisdictions, including Australia and New Zealand assault refers to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, while in other jurisdictions, such as the United States, assault refers only to the threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force. Simple assaults that do not involve any aggravation such as use of a deadly weapon are distinguished from aggravated assaults in some jurisdictions.

Assault is often defined to include not only violence, but any physical contact with another person without their consent. In common law jurisdictions, including England and Wales and the USA, battery is the crime that represents the unlawful physical contact, though this distinction does not exist in all jurisdictions. Exceptions exist to cover unsolicited physical contact which amount to normal social behavior (for example, patting someone on the back): see (in England and Wales) Collins v. Wilcox [1984] 3 All ER 374.

In most jurisdictions, the intention to cause grievous bodily harm (or its equivalent) may amount to the mental requirement to prefer a charge of murder in circumstances where the harm inflicted upon the victim proves fatal. In England and Wales, this fact was criticised by Lord Edmund-Davies in Cunningham [1982] AC 566.

American jurisprudence

American common law has traditionally defined assault as an attempt to commit a battery.

Assault is typically treated as a misdemeanor and not as a felony (unless it involves a law enforcement officer). The more serious crime of aggravated assault is treated as a felony.

Four elements were required at common law:

1. The apparent, present ability to carry out;
2. An unlawful attempt;
3. To commit a violent injury;
4. Upon another.

Simple assault can be distinguished without the intent of injury upon another person. Simple assault can consist simply of the violation of ones personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate. (i.e. ones personal space consists of arms reach.)

As the criminal law evolved, element one was weakened in most jurisdictions so that a reasonable fear of bodily injury would suffice. These four elements were eventually codified in most states.

Modern American statutes define assault as:

1. an attempt to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another; or,
2. negligently causing bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon.

Some states also define assault as an attempt to menace (or actual menacing) by placing another person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury.

States vary whether it is possible to commit an "attempted assault" since it can be considered a double inchoate offense.

In some states, consent is a complete defense to assault. In other jurisdictions, mutual consent is an incomplete defense, with the result that the misdemeanor is treated as a petty misdemeanor.

Furthermore, the crime of assault generally requires that both the perpetrator and the victim of an assault are human. Thus, there is no assault if an ox gores a man. However, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 treats the fetus as a separate person for the purposes of assault and other violent crimes, under certain limited circumstances. See H.R. 1997 / P.L. 108-212

Some possible examples of defenses, mitigating circumstances, or failures of proof are:

* A defendant could argue that since he was drunk, he could not form the specific intent to commit assault. This defense would most likely fail since only involuntary intoxication is accepted as a defense in most American jurisdictions.
* A defendant could also argue that he was engaged in mutually consensual behavior.

Aggravated assault

Aggravated assault is, in some jurisdictions, a stronger form of assault, usually using a deadly weapon.[1] A person has committed an aggravated assault when that person:

* attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another person; or
* causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly in circumstances where the person has exhibited indifference to human life; or
* attempts or causes bodily injury to another person with a deadly weapon.

Aggravated assault is usually differentiated from simple assault by the offender's intent (i.e., to murder, to rape etc.), the extent of the injury to the victim, or the use of a deadly weapon, although legal definitions vary between jurisdictions. Sentences for aggravated assault are generally more severe, reflecting the greater degree of harm or malice intended by the perpetrator.
_____________________________________________________________

So, we can see, at least from this dictionary definition (which was simple & easy to cut and paste to here) that assault can only be committed by an individual. No where does it say that a weapon can be, or is an "assault Weapon?"

Any weapon used by an individual committing an assault is, and nothing more, a weapon which is being used in an unlawful manner. The individual is the only entity capable of the infraction thus to label a weapon of any type (as any weapon could fall into this class or category) an "assault weapon," is truly a misnomer. But oh how the press like to play it up. And Police Departments, Prosecutors & Congressmen love to use the phrase because it incites the minds of the naive, and adds fuel to the fire & fervor they want to create to get what they want from society.

So, no, this man, though guilty of crimes, which could include assault (pointing a gun in the direction of a police officer) is guilty, but there is no way his weapon can be called such an impolite & incorrect name.