Yes, I understand that. They admitted firing their weapons with reason. Whether or not they hit him is irrelevent to assault. In other words, had the agents stated they fired their weapons over the head of Davila in an attempt to scare him and the bullets had missed, they would have still been guilty of assault.
The did not fire to scare him. They said they thought he had a gun. Since he fled and escaped successfully there is no way to prove that he was or wasn’t armed. If they thought he was armed and fired, that was use of reasonable force and not in any way assault. Even if it was assault; When was the last time someone got 10 years for assault?
“Yes, I understand that. They admitted firing their weapons with reason. Whether or not they hit him is irrelevent to assault. In other words, had the agents stated they fired their weapons over the head of Davila in an attempt to scare him and the bullets had missed, they would have still been guilty of assault.”
So, according to you, border patrol agents can not tell someone crossing into our borders to stop, then send a threat, without being charged with assault.
Please go create your own country based on this premise, then tell me how long you were able to keep it.
Assault is a term meant for the criminals, not the enforcers of the law.