Pennsylvania appeals court upholds ruling that pointing a ‘finger gun’ amounts to a crime

A Pennsylvania appeals court on Tuesday ruled against a man who pointed his finger in the shape of a gun, saying that the act amounts to a criminal offense.

In June 2018, Stephen Kirchner and Elaine Natore walked past Josh Klingseisen, who was putting mulch down in his backyard in Manor Township, Pennsylvania.

Kirchner pointed a “finger gun” at Klingseisen, “then made a hand gesture at him imitating the firing and recoiling of a gun,” according to court documents.

Natore already had an ongoing conflict with Klingseisen, placing a “no contact” order against him. The incident was recorded on Klingseisen’s surveillance cameras, which were installed because of his bad history with Natore.

Klingseisen later testified in court that he felt “extremely threatened” when Kirchner pretended to point a gun at him with his hand. A neighbor also described feeling “insecure” after seeing the incident and called police.

Kirchner confessed that he did point his finger in the shape of a gun, but only after Klingseisen allegedly “gave [him] the finger with both hands.”

Kirchner was convicted of disorderly conduct in October 2018 and forced to pay a $100 fine and court costs.

Kirchner immediately appealed the verdict, alleging that pointing a “finger gun” did not create a hazardous or physically offensive condition. He also said the gesture could not be confused with a real firearm.

Despite Kirchner’s appeal, the appeals court ruled that “given the history of the parties involved,” pointing a “finger gun” at Klingseisen did equal disorderly conduct because it produced a “hazardous condition involving danger or risk,” including “the risk of an altercation.”

“Despite Natore’s no-contact order against Klingseisen and the ongoing rift between them, Kirchner, while accompanying Natore, approached Klingseisen in his own backyard, created a gun-like hand gesture, pointed it at Klingseisen, and made a recoil motion as if to suggest he had shot him,” the appeals court ruled. “This act served no legitimate purpose, and recklessly risked provoking a dangerous altercation.”

Related Content