Criminal Lawyers for Threats with Weapons

Threats with weapons represent an aggravated form of the crime of threats under Article 169 of the Criminal Code. The use of a weapon or dangerous instrument during a threat significantly increases the intimidating effect on the victim and, consequently, the severity of penalties. This includes firearms, knives, blunt objects, or any item capable of causing serious physical harm.

Types of Threats (Arts. 169-171 CP)

The Criminal Code distinguishes several forms. Conditional threats (Art. 169.1) demand money or impose a condition under threat of a serious crime—homicide, injury, kidnapping—and carry the heaviest penalties. Unconditional threats (Art. 169.2) announce serious harm without any demand. Threats of non-criminal harm made to obtain money or a benefit fall under Art. 171 (coercive threats). When a weapon or dangerous instrument is displayed, the threat gains credibility and seriousness, and the conduct may concur with the unlawful possession of weapons (Arts. 563-564 CP). Threats made in writing, by telephone or through any medium of communication are punished in the upper half of the range.

Penalties

Conditional threats (demanding something from the victim) with weapons carry imprisonment of 1 to 5 years. Unconditional threats (expressing intent to harm without conditions) with weapons carry 6 months to 2 years. If the threat targets a family member or partner, penalties are further aggravated under the gender violence framework. Additionally, the weapon itself may be confiscated and weapons licenses revoked.

Defense Strategies

Our defense examines: whether the object qualifies as a "weapon or dangerous instrument" under the law (display of a kitchen knife during an argument differs from brandishing a firearm); proving the weapon was not displayed or used in a threatening manner (mere possession during an argument is not the same as threatening with it); demonstrating the threat was not serious or credible (examining context, relationship between parties, and objective circumstances); and arguing emotional disturbance or provocation as mitigating factors.