Defending You from Threat & Intimidation Allegations
Allegations under ARS §13-1202 for threats can lead to probation or jail. Armour Legal evaluates statement context, intent, and audience perception to dispute false or exaggerated claims.
We file motions to dismiss on lack of menace or context, negotiate reduced charges, and pursue expungement where eligible.
We defend allegations of true threats made in person, by phone, or online. Our approach restores full context—timeline, audience, tone, and provocation—by collecting complete text chains, call records, and witness accounts. We emphasize that offensive or heated speech is not automatically criminal and demand proof that statements crossed the line into credible threats.
When stress, mental‑health, or substance‑use factors contributed, we build treatment‑backed plans that reduce perceived risk and support favorable outcomes. Where trial is necessary, we rely on precise jury instructions that enforce the correct legal threshold.
Credible Threats vs. Protected Speech
The law distinguishes true threats from hyperbole, venting, or jokes. Context matters: audience, tone, history, and immediacy. We marshal texts, call logs, and witness accounts to show lack of intent to place someone in reasonable fear, and we confront overbroad readings that sweep in constitutionally protected speech.
Police reports often omit provocation, editing, or partial quotes. We retrieve full threads and messages to restore context, and we cross‑examine on perception vs. reality. Where mental‑health or substance‑use issues contributed to the incident, we frame treatment‑based plans that reduce risk and facilitate constructive resolutions.
Even when words were heated, the legal threshold is higher than “offense taken.” Our work is to hold the State to that standard.
Threatening (ARS §13-1202) and intimidating conduct can be charged when statements or gestures pose “credible threats.” Armour Legal contextualizes statements—humor, hyperbole, or provocation—to negate the “reasonable person” standard and disprove menacing intent.
We also challenge overbroad statutes on First Amendment grounds, preventing lawful expression from becoming criminal liability.
We defend these charges by separating true threats from protected speech. Armour Legal collects full text chains, call logs, and social‑media context to show tone, audience, and immediacy—or the lack thereof. We counter selective quoting in police reports and address provocation or mutual escalation that changes how words should be interpreted.
Where mental‑health or substance‑use factors contributed, we build treatment‑anchored resolutions that reduce risk and satisfy courts. If a trial is necessary, we use targeted jury instructions on intent and reasonableness so the State must meet the correct legal threshold—not just prove someone was offended.