If a pen qualifies as a deadly weapon, what doesn't? Assault with bare hands?
I guess that whole "it's mightier than the sword" thing is coming back to bite.
Randle jammed the pen into Fregi’s head and again near his jaw
I suppose it’s to do with how deadly it could have been? Not sure why it isn’t attempted murder, but I am not a lawyer.
I suppose because it's harder to prove murder. Since he failed, they'd have to prove motive, and he could argue he only wanted to harm the lawyer.
But assault is about facts, no feelings.
Depends on the hands. A professional fighter can be charged with AWALW using their hands, or feet if that's part of their martial arts training, although their body parts can't legally be registered as such.
This guy clearly intended that pen to be lethal and likely had the strength for it, but was fortunately restrained.
You haven't been to prison I take it. Pens can definitely be a deadly weapon.
pen
John Wick glares menacingly
Dude broke through restraints, clearly a pen is a deadly weapon in his hands.
I guess. But you can also smother someone with a fluffy pillow. So that's a deadly weapon, too? Like where is the line between "deadly weapon" and "any random object".
There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly.
I think it might just be a line of how they used the random object could have reasonably resulted in death. So if you smack someone in the face with a fluffy pillow, it's not a deadly weapon. If you try to smother them with it, it is.
I'll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill.
Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls?
It's a homebrew weapon from their last campaign in Pathfinder that they ported over, but the stats are legit and it's balanced trust them
Seems quite simple to me. Things like guns, swords, daggers and the like are designed to be weapons. So they're generally going to be assumed to be a weapon any time they're used/brandished.
But literally anything can be used as a weapon. So, in normal use they're not a weapon but if used as a weapon, they become one in that instance.
Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing".
Yeah, I'd agree there. It should be whatever the US equivalent of aggravated assault is. But the charges you could levy bearing in mind he aimed for the head could go as far as attempted murder I guess.
I think on a legal level it means it was an object that was being wielded as a weapon, and from the attack in the specific instance it was meant to kill and the object was capable of achieving that. Hence a deadly weapon.
If you used it as a weapon and it had the potential to kill the victim, then yes, it would be a deadly weapon.
Pretty much anything can be a deadly weapon in the right (or is it wrong) hands.
That's the thing.
Literally anything is a weapon. Banning weapons will only go so far, it'll definitely make it a lot harder for most mass killings to occur but if someone is determined enough they will make it happen.
Eventually we won't have a choice but to address the underlying mental health issues plaguing at least half the population.
True, although many countries in the world disagree with the US that banning firearms wouldn't make a huge difference. By virtue of, well, them having done so and it having made a huge difference.
I'm not saying don't ban firearms, I'm saying don't ignore the underlying problems too.
The rest of the world doesn't have easy access to firearms but they also have much better access to mental health services.
That's the other thing too, even objects not typically considered weapons can be made so, some more brual for mass killing/destruction than guns. Propane tanks, pressure cookers, even bleach and ammonia, even liquor has been used (quite effectively) historically.
None of it is right, but when you start considering banning cooking supplies (pressure cookers I believe around Boston marathon bomber time) you are right, we do have to address the underlying issues
"Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm" (CPC 245(a)(1)) can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the exact circumstances.
The intent makes it so.
I feel like it's context-dependent, though. It's hard to argue that a pen in your head/jaw/neck does not have the potential to kill you.
If a pen qualifies as a deadly weapon, what doesn't? Assault with bare hands?
I guess that whole "it's mightier than the sword" thing is coming back to bite.
I suppose it’s to do with how deadly it could have been? Not sure why it isn’t attempted murder, but I am not a lawyer.
I suppose because it's harder to prove murder. Since he failed, they'd have to prove motive, and he could argue he only wanted to harm the lawyer.
But assault is about facts, no feelings.
Depends on the hands. A professional fighter can be charged with AWALW using their hands, or feet if that's part of their martial arts training, although their body parts can't legally be registered as such.
This guy clearly intended that pen to be lethal and likely had the strength for it, but was fortunately restrained.
You haven't been to prison I take it. Pens can definitely be a deadly weapon.
John Wick glares menacingly
Dude broke through restraints, clearly a pen is a deadly weapon in his hands.
I guess. But you can also smother someone with a fluffy pillow. So that's a deadly weapon, too? Like where is the line between "deadly weapon" and "any random object".
There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly.
I think it might just be a line of how they used the random object could have reasonably resulted in death. So if you smack someone in the face with a fluffy pillow, it's not a deadly weapon. If you try to smother them with it, it is.
I'll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill.
Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls?
It's a homebrew weapon from their last campaign in Pathfinder that they ported over, but the stats are legit and it's balanced trust them
Seems quite simple to me. Things like guns, swords, daggers and the like are designed to be weapons. So they're generally going to be assumed to be a weapon any time they're used/brandished.
But literally anything can be used as a weapon. So, in normal use they're not a weapon but if used as a weapon, they become one in that instance.
Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing".
Yeah, I'd agree there. It should be whatever the US equivalent of aggravated assault is. But the charges you could levy bearing in mind he aimed for the head could go as far as attempted murder I guess.
I think on a legal level it means it was an object that was being wielded as a weapon, and from the attack in the specific instance it was meant to kill and the object was capable of achieving that. Hence a deadly weapon.
If you used it as a weapon and it had the potential to kill the victim, then yes, it would be a deadly weapon.
Pretty much anything can be a deadly weapon in the right (or is it wrong) hands.
That's the thing.
Literally anything is a weapon. Banning weapons will only go so far, it'll definitely make it a lot harder for most mass killings to occur but if someone is determined enough they will make it happen.
Eventually we won't have a choice but to address the underlying mental health issues plaguing at least half the population.
True, although many countries in the world disagree with the US that banning firearms wouldn't make a huge difference. By virtue of, well, them having done so and it having made a huge difference.
I'm not saying don't ban firearms, I'm saying don't ignore the underlying problems too. The rest of the world doesn't have easy access to firearms but they also have much better access to mental health services.
That's the other thing too, even objects not typically considered weapons can be made so, some more brual for mass killing/destruction than guns. Propane tanks, pressure cookers, even bleach and ammonia, even liquor has been used (quite effectively) historically.
None of it is right, but when you start considering banning cooking supplies (pressure cookers I believe around Boston marathon bomber time) you are right, we do have to address the underlying issues
"Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument other than a firearm" (CPC 245(a)(1)) can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony depending on the exact circumstances.
The intent makes it so.
I feel like it's context-dependent, though. It's hard to argue that a pen in your head/jaw/neck does not have the potential to kill you.
Maybe a pool noodle?
You can choke someone with a pool noodle.
That's what she said?
Assault with a penis. That's sexual assault