Why Do Prosecutors Charge Aggravated Assault Instead of Attempted Murder? (John's Briefs) 

Wow sorry that happened to you. I watched a video on YT about why you should never talk to the police unless you're with your lawyer. I was convinced after that. I had thought the same thing you did. Well if I'm innocent I want the police to know I am. Sometimes it doesn't matter.

Who hurt you? From my experience, if you defend yourself against an actual criminal doing criminal stuff you are fine. The problem is that people use their firearms and "defend" themselves in social violence situations (movie theater, parking lot, little league arguments, etc.) which are much more borderline shootings.

@@papimaximus95 You’re clueless, aren’t you? You probably don’t have any experience.

They don't, generally. If a person has been shot or killed, though, the detectives will want to make sure that it is, indeed, a good defensive use of force. There are literally tens of thousands of these a year, and you never hear about them because the detective looks over the evidence, tells the DA that it's clearly defensive and justified, and the DA says "cool, next case."

@@papimaximus95 Who hurt you? Have you already forgotten about Jose Alba? Why practice the morality of a slave if you are 'free'?

@@jayyoung5627 "Have you already forgotten about Jose Alba? That was classic social violence as I stated. He was not being criminally mugged or robbed. This was a social issue that went bad. See how that works.

Glad it was helpful!

"But it’s easy to prove you just did something that led to the assault/injury of others with the intent to or not" Agg Assault still requires intent.

"Easier to prove whether an assault occurred, and whether it included a weapon or chance of serious bodily harm, than it is to prove intent" Agg Assault still requires intent.

No, no intent required for agg assault. Did you actually put someone at risk or at perceived risk of death or great bodily harm? Recklessness can cause that, and get agg assault charges to stick without intent.

@@ASPextra "No, no intent required for agg assault." No. So take Arizona for instance. Aggravate Assault is defined as Assault (which clearly needs intention) with additional specifications. All of those specification require additional intent. Recklessness is still intent...it is implied intent (you should have known better and/or didn't care). We have Specific Intent and General Intent crimes. Recklessness is a General Intent crime but is still...intent. 13-1204. Aggravated assault; classification; definitions A. A person commits aggravated assault if the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203 under any of the following circumstances: 1. If the person causes serious physical injury to another. 2. If the person uses a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. 3. If the person commits the assault by any means of force that causes temporary but substantial disfigurement, temporary but substantial loss or impairment of any body organ or part or a fracture of any body part. 4. If the person commits the assault while the victim is bound or otherwise physically restrained or while the victim's capacity to resist is substantially impaired. 5. If the person commits the assault after entering the private home of another with the intent to commit the assault. 6. If the person is eighteen years of age or older and commits the assault on a minor under fifteen years of age. 7. If the person commits assault as prescribed by section 13-1203, subsection A, paragraph 1 or 3 and the person is in violation of an order of protection issued against the person pursuant to section 13-3602 or 13-3624. 8. If the person commits the assault knowing or having reason to know that the victim is any of the following: (a) A peace officer or a person summoned and directed by the officer....and so on... 9. If the person knowingly takes or attempts to exercise control over any of the following: 13-1203. Assault; classification A. A person commits assault by: 1. Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causing any physical injury to another person; or 2. Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent physical injury; or 3. Knowingly touching another person with the intent to injure, insult or provoke such person.

@@brentives4688 Wrong. The statute literally told you what intent was needed. Again, by all legal definitions, recklessness is a general intent crime - the word intent is right there. The intent is on the action not the victim. So you intended to do the crime but the victim or consequences may not be intended - hence recklessness like shooting gun in the air. Specific intent crimes mean you intended the action and the consequences. Either way, you intended (or should have known better) to assault with the deadly weapon - which in AZ equals Agg Assault. Many other states actually separate reckless assault from aggravated assault.

It’s not justice to charge attempted Murder without any evidence of specific intent, nor is it likely to change the result.

the victims families will never put it behind them, ever. Cruz will rot in prison.

@@ASPextra Of course to both. But if the legal system operated the way the private sector does this would all be concluded in weeks, not years. And I agree, the families will never put this behind them but it's the difference between an open wound that keeps getting ripped open verses one where the families might have some blessed moments of not always remembering and maybe some moments of peace in their lives. We all know what Cruz is, but the legal system hides behind a veneer of doing good, of protecting Americans. That's just not what it does.

You should listen without bias to get the full message. I mostly agree with you about the intent, but the perp('s attorney) can claim that he was shooting to scare the victim. Then the prosecutor's case of 'intent to murder' would be lost and a waste of time & money. Aggravated assault sticks at a far higher frequency.

There is what happened, and then there is what you can prove to the satisfaction of 12 other people happened.

"if a person points a gun at someone, pulls the trigger that is intent." Aggravated Assault still requires intent. The point is that attempted Murder requires the prosecutor prove your intention to kill that person (outside of special circumstances). The law has not said that all shootings are an obvious case of attempted murder. Which is were the old wives tale comes from of shoot someone below the wait it is Agg Assault...above the waist is Attempted Murder.

i’m not sure this women was charged with aggravated assault even tho she shot the victim 3 times

Prove*

A couple of years. Maybe presumptive 8 on agg assault and maybe 11 on attempted murder. Depends on the state.

tell me you didn't watch the trial without telling me you didn't watch the trial.

Wrong.

Correct

It's beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not beyond all doubt. Nobody could ever be convicted beyond all doubts

What Shredder said. There is no criminal statute in the nation that requires beyond a shadow of a doubt, anywhere. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard.

" Some states don't have attempted murder so it's ag assault. " Do you have an example of one of these states that doesn't have it?