Hello friend, I hope all is well.
This is a very subjective
situation. The Tex. Penal Code does not define what is "reasonable." This is up to the D.A., and ultimately, the jury. Allow me to explain (and I know that we have touched base on this earlier).
After a complaint
is made, the D.A. decides whether or not to file a criminal
complaint, ultimately. The litmus test for whether or not someone may be charged is prima facie
evidence of guilt. A good translation for this is "at first glance."
If the D.A. feel that there is enough "at first glance" for a charge, they will likely pursue it.
But, this is just the beginning. The D.A. still then has the duty to prove the criminal action beyond a reasonable doubt
. If no plea deal is agreed upon, the matter falls to the Judge (or the jury, because the Defendant may request a jury trial
, and the Defense almost always goes for a jury trial). If so, then it is ultimately up to 12 individuals - laymen - to decide what "threatening" actually means in the situation, and, whether or not the Defendant was guilty of being/doing so beyond a reasonable doubt.
So, there is no one answer, but a whole host of answers, depending on who you ask, and what state of the prosecution you are in.
But, provided that one is clearly unarmed, not advancing, and not shouting any immediate threats (i.e. "I am going to kill/hurt you"), claiming that said person is threatening is somewhat of of a stretch - the D.A. is unlikely to pursue such a charge.
I hope this helps and clarifies.