In discharging B, if A points a gun at B, is this action considered a privileged threat?

In tort law, particularly under the context of assault, a threat involving a weapon such as a gun would typically be seen as an act that causes reasonable apprehension of harmful or offensive contact. Pointing a gun at someone creates a significant level of fear and constitutes an unlawful threat, which does not fall under any privilege that might justify such behavior.

The correct answer highlights that A's action of pointing a gun at B is likely to result in liability for assault because it creates an intentional act that puts B in apprehension of imminent harmful contact. Even if A's intention was to discharge B from some obligation, using a gun as a means to do so is not a lawful method and is considered excessive as a means of exercising any rights.

Privileged threats typically involve situations where the threat is proportional and justified, such as self-defense or legitimate business interests, none of which apply here given the violent nature of the act. Thus, pointing a gun at B does not constitute a privileged threat and instead results in A being liable for assault. This scenario underscores the legal principle that threatening physical harm with a weapon is not permissible, regardless of the context or intent behind the action.