Just some food for thought, since I don't know the whole story.
John Doe was confronted with someonewho pulleda gun on him.Does he have a right to defend himself? So his attack to disarm the Homeowner, may be a legitimate defense move.
Why should his punishment for pointing a gun, be any more than the Home owner's punishment for pointing and brandishing a gun. Shouldn't they both be prosecuted for their stupidity?
If John Doe was attacking the homeowner, then I could see the HOdrawing and firing. However, free from further clarification, I suspect that HO used the weapon to intimidate, thus when Johndisarmed him, it was how a reasonable man might act. (that or run quickly away from the gun)
Again, I don't know the particulars, but if A was to visit B's property, and B took out a weapon to threaten A before asking him to leave, then I feel A is justified in disarming B. B had the means to kill him, and A had to take action to save his life. Now why did A go to B's property? Because B and his friends were beating women? Was B stopping something he witnessed?
I don't agree with A going back and brandishing after the fact, but it's not (potentially) reallydifferent from B's crime the first time around.
Curious to know why he's charged with assault, and not the homeowner. And if the revolver was a DA, it didn't really matter if it was cocked or not. Lastly, if one disarms his assailant,are they to be charged with theft too? Even if they bring it back and hand it to police?
DoCitizens have rights to arrest people committing crimes they witness?
Was John Doe acting in that capacity to protect another Citizen?
Just trying to see if there's another viewpoint.