fredmaxwell
Junior Member
So that reads to everyone that if I did not have a weapon, I am not guilty of that charge??
So that reads to everyone that if I did not have a weapon, I am not guilty of that charge??
This is the part you need to disprove it seems, the other elements appear indisputable....coupled with an apparent ability to do so...
Indisputable in my favor?This is the part you need to disprove it seems, the other elements appear indisputable.
Indisputable in my favor?
I don't even see "Mr. made a verbal threat to cause harm to my person and had the ability to carry out that threat." in the statute so I don't know why the paper work from my arrest says that - it sounds nothing like the actual LAW to me .... am I confused??
You apparently made threats to do violence against the officer. His word is reasonable to accept. The other part of the statute for it to be assault, is "coupled with the apparent ability to do so". If your lawyer can disprove the officers contention that you had the ability to do so, the threshold is not met. Hence my comment about appearing in court looking like Pee Wee Herman.784.011 Assault.—
(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
No its not. It requires either having a deadly weapon or committing the assault with the intent to commit a felony. Read the statute. You'll notice that our OP is not charged with felonies, only misdemeanors.You apparently made threats to do violence against the officer. His word is reasonable to accept. The other part of the statute for it to be assault, is "coupled with the apparent ability to do so".
True davew128, to define...No its not. It requires either having a deadly weapon or committing the assault with the intent to commit a felony. Read the statute. You'll notice that our OP is not charged with felonies, only misdemeanors.
Assault is an act that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent, harmful, or offensive contact. The act consists of a threat of harm accompanied by an apparent, present ability to carry out the threat. Battery is a harmful or offensive touching of another.
It appears he is claiming assault, not battery. Battery, the felony appears to require you actually have touched him.But it is a felony, because it was a leo.. ? But apparently I am extremely not guilty of it
The narrative also says I could not even stand up
Agreed, however I find it difficult to prove an aggravated assault charge with an incapacitated unarmed person.It appears he is claiming assault, not battery. Battery, the felony appears to require you actually have touched him.
fredmaxwell
The other posters have focused on the law issues...
OK.
Have you addressed the other thing the court will want to deal with? Namely your alcoholism.
You had 2 serious alcohol related criminal incidents weeks apart.
Your "woman" (who you should ditch) is a drug user.
Get a hold of your substance abuse problem and avoid people with substance abuse problems.
To err is human. To forgive is not judicial policy.As an aside.. some lawyers sure do eat well... the only one here I could find that seems decent wants a $5500 retainer --- I am a dead man, I think ;(
Liberty and justice for all monied people