When A points a pistol at B but is stopped before he can shoot, does this constitute assault?

In tort law, specifically under the definition of assault, it is crucial to focus on whether the victim had a reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. In this scenario, the critical point revolves around B's perception and whether A's actions created a valid apprehension of harm.

For B to succeed in a claim of assault, there must be evidence that he consciously understood the threat posed by A; in other words, B must have experienced apprehension of impending danger. If B did not have any apprehension of danger—meaning that he did not realize he was in a threatening situation or he felt completely safe—there can be no assault, regardless of A's intention or the presence of a firearm.

Thus, the reasoning behind the correct answer highlights that without B's apprehension of danger, the essential element of assault is missing. This ensures that legal definitions maintain their integrity, where a subjective perception of threat is foundational to establishing assault. The other options either misconstrue the criteria for assault or rely on actions (like turning around or the gun not being fired) that do not directly relate to B's psychological state at the moment of the threat.