▲ 375 ▼ Murder defendant slips restraints in court, stabs his lawyer with pen. All good, attorney says (www.latimes.com) submitted 2 years ago by ylai@lemmy.ml to c/nottheonion@lemmy.world 67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 41 points 2 years ago (13 children) assault with a deadly weapon If a pen qualifies as a deadly weapon, what doesn't? Assault with bare hands? permalink fedilink source hideshow 26 child comments replies: [–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 44 points 2 years ago I guess that whole "it's mightier than the sword" thing is coming back to bite. permalink fedilink source parent [–] DoctorSpocktopus@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago You haven't been to prison I take it. Pens can definitely be a deadly weapon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TriPolarBearz@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child) pen John Wick glares menacingly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago permalink fedilink source parent [–] Breezy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Dude broke through restraints, clearly a pen is a deadly weapon in his hands. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 4 points 2 years ago (5 children) 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". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] quindraco@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hazmatastic@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] r00ty@kbin.life 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* If you used it as a weapon and it had the potential to kill the victim, then yes, it would be a deadly weapon. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BugleFingers@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Pretty much anything can be a deadly weapon in the right (or is it wrong) hands. permalink fedilink source parent [–] charonn0@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago "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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Steve@startrek.website 3 points 2 years ago The intent makes it so. permalink fedilink source parent [–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe a pool noodle? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can choke someone with a pool noodle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's what she said? permalink fedilink source parent [–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Assault with a penis. That's sexual assault permalink fedilink source parent
[–] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 44 points 2 years ago I guess that whole "it's mightier than the sword" thing is coming back to bite. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] DoctorSpocktopus@lemmy.ca 20 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Khanzarate@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works 18 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RealFknNito@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago You haven't been to prison I take it. Pens can definitely be a deadly weapon. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TriPolarBearz@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child) pen John Wick glares menacingly permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Nastybutler@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Breezy@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) Dude broke through restraints, clearly a pen is a deadly weapon in his hands. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 4 points 2 years ago (5 children) 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". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] quindraco@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hazmatastic@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] r00ty@kbin.life 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* If you used it as a weapon and it had the potential to kill the victim, then yes, it would be a deadly weapon. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 4 points 2 years ago (5 children) 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". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] quindraco@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly. permalink fedilink source parent [–] candybrie@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hazmatastic@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent [–] r00ty@kbin.life 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* If you used it as a weapon and it had the potential to kill the victim, then yes, it would be a deadly weapon. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 11 points 2 years ago There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] candybrie@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I'll be honest, if I roll 99 on a crit roll with a pillow I damn well expect an instant kill. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hazmatastic@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Why are you using a d100 for attack rolls? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Hazmatastic@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Hazmatastic@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] r00ty@kbin.life 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tobogganablaze@lemmus.org 5 points 2 years ago (3 children) Yeah, but then the term "deadly weapon" is kind of meaningless as it basically just means "assualt with a thing". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] r00ty@kbin.life 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago* If you used it as a weapon and it had the potential to kill the victim, then yes, it would be a deadly weapon. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (2 children) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BugleFingers@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 8 points 2 years ago* (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BugleFingers@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago 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 permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago Pretty much anything can be a deadly weapon in the right (or is it wrong) hands. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] charonn0@startrek.website 4 points 2 years ago "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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Steve@startrek.website 3 points 2 years ago The intent makes it so. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Maybe a pool noodle? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can choke someone with a pool noodle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's what she said? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee 2 points 2 years ago (1 child) You can choke someone with a pool noodle. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's what she said? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Blumpkinhead@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago That's what she said? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago Assault with a penis. That's sexual assault permalink fedilink source parent