It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Brandishing a Weapon
Assault and Aggravated Assault
Assault is defined as the intentional act of threatening to injure a person. Brandishing a weapon falls firmly under the definition of assault. If a firearm or other deadly weapon is used, the charge is elevated to aggravated assault, a felony in Texas. Even if you were acting in self-defense by brandishing a firearm, you could still be at risk of being convicted for aggravated assault.
Pulling a firearm on someone without firing it suggests that the gun was not necessary and that you did not fear for your life, because if you had you would have pulled the trigger. Fighting an aggravated assault charge with the self-defense doctrine can therefore be a difficult argument to make in court.
The Burden of Proof for Self-Defense
In any criminal case, the prosecution's main goal is to show that a crime was committed. In this instance, the prosecution must simply show that a weapon was brandished, which qualifies as assault. Whenever a defendant chooses to argue self-defense in a case, the burden of proof falls on the defendant, not the prosecution.
This means that the defendant must prove that the need for self-defense justified the commission of assault. If the defendant cannot successfully argue that self-defense was necessary, s/he may be found guilty of assault or aggravated assault.
Originally posted by Cassius666
I am not one to say its okay to shoot somone who running away with your flatscreen under his arm, but if that person was physically threatening him, I hope the law recognizes the need for self defense to prevent bodily harm.