Tubbsalot wrote:Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:Quibbling based off of the example given. An armed intruder most certainly is menacing and a source of danger.
So presumably you'd say that if a drunk driver went past, you'd accuse him of threatening you? Just having the potential to cause harm does not mean something has threatened you.
Of course, since you have a gun in this example, it's more like a drunk driver going past your fully operational tank, and you shelling the car for its impudent threats.
It is certainly threatening to me, yes, although your analogy would be improved if the drunken driver were heading directly towards me instead of past.
Tubbsalot wrote:Our Most Resplendent Goddess Sen wrote:It is not at all the same; one and three require verbal or written communication of intent; four merely requires that its nature as a threat be apparent. Which it, you know, is since you have an armed intruder who has broken into your property, and a robber isn't likely to arm themselves unless they're willing to use the weapon, precisely because possessing a weapon is an explicit demonstration of danger.
See previous reply to Big Jim: can you seriously not think of one possible reason that a thief might arm themselves other than to attack you without provocation?
Given that they have tons of reasons to not arm themselves (reducing the chance of an armed confrontation, helping to ensure that an overzealous home defender goes to jail if things go south, etc), then by far the most likely reason that they would arm themselves in a home invasion is that, yes, they are perfectly willing to use the weapon in its intended role.