Sec. 22.05. DEADLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly engages in conduct that places another in imminent danger of serious bodily injury.
(b) A person commits an offense if he knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of:
(1) one or more individuals; or
(2) a habitation, building, or vehicle and is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied.
(c) Recklessness and danger are presumed if the actor knowingly pointed a firearm at or in the direction of another whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded.
(d) For purposes of this section, "building," "habitation," and "vehicle" have the meanings assigned those terms by Section 30.01.
(e) An offense under Subsection (a) is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense under Subsection (b) is a felony of the third degree.
So this would be a class A misdemeanor at best.
Sec. 22.02. AGGRAVATED ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person commits assault as defined in Sec. 22.01 and the person:
(1) causes serious bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse; or
(2) uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault.
(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree, except that the offense is a felony of the first degree if:
(1) the actor uses a deadly weapon during the commission of the assault and causes serious bodily injury to a person whose relationship to or association with the defendant is described by Section 71.0021(b), 71.003, or 71.005, Family Code;
(2) regardless of whether the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(1) or (a)(2), the offense is committed:
(A) by a public servant acting under color of the servant's office or employment;
(B) against a person the actor knows is a public servant while the public servant is lawfully discharging an official duty, or in retaliation or on account of an exercise of official power or performance of an official duty as a public servant;
(C) in retaliation against or on account of the service of another as a witness, prospective witness, informant, or person who has reported the occurrence of a crime; or
(D) against a person the actor knows is a security officer while the officer is performing a duty as a security officer; or
(3) the actor is in a motor vehicle, as defined by Section 501.002, Transportation Code, and:
(A) knowingly discharges a firearm at or in the direction of a habitation, building, or vehicle;
(B) is reckless as to whether the habitation, building, or vehicle is occupied; and
(C) in discharging the firearm, causes serious bodily injury to any person.
So you have to go to assault to find out what an offense would be.
Sec. 22.01. ASSAULT. (a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another, including the person's spouse;
(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury, including the person's spouse; or
(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.
(b) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor, except that the offense is a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed against:
This seems a bit of a stretch to me. You get to assault by saying the actor threatened the other party and then you elevate it to aggravated by saying the actor used a gun to do the threatening? So the act itself is used to justify elevating the offense? Wouldn't that be known as piling on?
The threat of force is justified in 9:04. It does not say a defense to prosecution. It says justified. Therefore the offense of assault does not exist and the offense of aggravated assault then cannot exist because it fails the first prong which is that an assault must occur for an aggravated assault to occur. I also do not see how deadly conduct would exist since the use of force is justified.
The only thing I can see is that an officer could use their discretion to arrest the actor and charge deadly conduct and the courts would have to sort it out. Personally, if an officer did that to me, I would sue the department for false arrest as soon as the case is settled in my favor. And I'm pretty sure I would win. And retire.
) but I'm not sure too many people that knew him would disagree that other driver was likely in danger of serious bodily injury or worse. The case seemed to have gone the right way, which is really hard to say. An absolute waste over something stupid.
