As a Contra Costa County jury watched, an Oakland man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend attacks his lawyer with a pen and tries to attack a prosecutor.
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.
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.
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.
Not entirely useless. “Assaulted with thing that could kill or maim under the circumstances at that time” is pretty relevant, even if it is super broad.
Spitting on someone Is assault. If I was on trial for spitting on someone I’d hate to get lumped together with the guy who caved someone’s head in with a lead pipe.
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”.
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.
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.
Not entirely useless. “Assaulted with thing that could kill or maim under the circumstances at that time” is pretty relevant, even if it is super broad.
Spitting on someone Is assault. If I was on trial for spitting on someone I’d hate to get lumped together with the guy who caved someone’s head in with a lead pipe.