Yeah, and in this case the guy's legs were pulled out from under him and his face hit the concrete floor. Intended by Rocha? Maybe not. Does the law care? I don't think so. If Rocha had just sucker punched the guy and he'd fallen on his ass, OK, a deadly weapons charge is silly(ier). The effect of an action being slamming someone's head into an unyielding object makes it less silly, even though Rocha wasn't technically holding anything.
Your hands are still not a weapon and neither, for that matter, in the wall or the floor. Still assault and battery. Or maybe some other assault charge not tied to a deadly weapon.
And no matter their decision, nine pages was excessive.
If the floor and surrounding area counts as a weapon, then there is no reason to have 2 charges in the first place. If I cold clock you and you fall (the most likely result of getting clocked) anything you hit on the way down means that I might as well have hit you with a shovel, which is not the intent of the law in any way.
What if you're trained as a boxer? Or in a striking martial art? Those have been deemed enough to qualify one's hands as "weapons" for the purpose of assault before.
This is a greyer area than people are making it out to be and always has been.
What if you're trained as a boxer? Or in a striking martial art? Those have been deemed enough to qualify one's hands as "weapons" for the purpose of assault before.
Cite source, please. This is a pretty common urban legend.
No, it's not. The idea that any amount of training makes your hands "a lethal weapon" is fiction. There is no such thing as registering your hands as a lethal weapon. Being capable doesn't change the substance of your hands. Attempts to classify hands as weapons are either the result of hollywood fiction, desperate attorneys, or both.
Now it is certainly possible and feasible to take competence into account in a trial. I am, for example, a trained martial artist. I am also a pretty big guy. If I beat someone to death, it could be argued that I ought to get a pretty serious charge because I knew what I was doing and could pretty easily have gone lighter and it would probably be true.
but the same argument works in reverse. If someone with three blackbelts hurts you and doesn't kill you, it's pretty obvious that they did that on purpose, too, which could downgrade a charge in some cases (away from, say, attempted murder).
What if you're trained as a boxer? Or in a striking martial art?
You're still barehanded, and not using a weapon.
Those have been deemed enough to qualify one's hands as "weapons" for the purpose of assault before.
Nonsensically, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
There are already charges for "assault causing serious injury" and "attempting to kill a guy" and "killing a guy". The idea that sometimes "assault with a weapon" should involve no ASSAULT that USES A WEAPON is nonsense. If one of the other conditions applies, charge him with that as well, don't try to upgrade the assault to a crime that involves elements not present in the offense.
Agreed. The only reason that the different charges exist is because there's a big difference between taking a swing at a guy or having a brawl (ie a barfight or similar conflict) and he taking a whack at your head with a lead pipe. And even if the end result is exactly the same, the social context, intent, and degree of appropriateness is way different.
What if you're trained as a boxer? Or in a striking martial art? Those have been deemed enough to qualify one's hands as "weapons" for the purpose of assault before.
No, they haven't, and you're a bad person for spreading this particular idiot piece of urban legend tripe.
"Other states, although a clear minority, have allowed body parts to be considered dangerous or deadly weapons. State v. Allen, 667 S.E.2d 295 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (hands); State v. Bennett, 493 S.E.2d 845 (S.C. 1997) (hands and fists); People v. Ross, 831 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1992) (hands); State v. Grumbles, 411 S.E.2d 407 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991) (fists); Turner v.State, 664 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (hands and feet); State v. Zangrilli, 440 A.2d 710 (R.I. 1982) (hands); Ellis v. State, 224 S.E.2d 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976) (hands and floor); Pulliam v. State, 298 So. 2d 711 (Miss. 1974) (fists and teeth); State v. Born, 159 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. 1968) (fists and body parts); State v. Heinz, 275 N.W. 10 (Iowa 1937) (hands and fists). In one recent case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that hands could be considered a deadly weapon for purposes of the assault statute “depending upon the manner in which they were used and the relative size and condition of the parties.” Allen, 667 S.E.2d at 298.
The court thus pointed to the fact that the defendant was seven inches taller and outweighed the victim by forty pounds as sufficient evidence of use a deadly weapon. Id. at 301.
But see Owusu, 712 N.E.2d at 1232 (rejecting a “sliding scale of criminal liability” based on “the size of the perpetrator, his weight, strength, etc., as well as any infirmities or frailties of the victim”)."
As much as I think ruling "no weapon" as "a weapon" is stupid, it *has* been done before.
Honestly, I think it's been done before because people keep propagating the idea that it's commonplace . When i went to New York my aunt actually asked me if I needed to register myself because I took TKD. As if that makes me a gun. I suspect those cases have more to do with skilled representation and less to do with the actual laws.
I think it makes sense, honestly. I have no training in any kind of martial arts, or even really anatomy. If I hit someone, I'm not trained on how and where to hit to do the most damage. Someone with extensive martial arts training is trained in exactly that, making them hitting someone far more serious statistically than me hitting someone, and more serious than them hitting someone if they didn't have that training.
Which is why you hitting someone might carry a charge of 'assault', and a trained martial artist might carry a charge of 'assault causing bodily harm'; in neither case would 'assault with a weapon' be even remotely appropriate.
If you seriously injure them, that's aggravated assault. If you were trying to kill them and failed, that's attempted murder. If you kill them, that's murder.
The British TV Show "Green Wing" had one of the main characters "assault" a police officer by smearing a peanut butter sandwich in his face and then arguing with another character about the minute odds of the officer having a peanut allergy. He does and he dies... Chaos, although perhaps not hilarity, ensues.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 07:04 pm (UTC)I think i probably could have done that in 3 words.
that's upsetting.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 07:23 pm (UTC)So if I grab someone's head and start slamming it against a brick wall, that's assault and battery and not assault with a deadly weapon?
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 07:43 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 07:58 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 08:02 pm (UTC)And no matter their decision, nine pages was excessive.
If the floor and surrounding area counts as a weapon, then there is no reason to have 2 charges in the first place. If I cold clock you and you fall (the most likely result of getting clocked) anything you hit on the way down means that I might as well have hit you with a shovel, which is not the intent of the law in any way.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 08:21 pm (UTC)What if you're trained as a boxer? Or in a striking martial art? Those have been deemed enough to qualify one's hands as "weapons" for the purpose of assault before.
This is a greyer area than people are making it out to be and always has been.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 08:28 pm (UTC)Cite source, please. This is a pretty common urban legend.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 09:29 pm (UTC)Or, at least, the article says it does.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 09:22 pm (UTC)Now it is certainly possible and feasible to take competence into account in a trial. I am, for example, a trained martial artist. I am also a pretty big guy. If I beat someone to death, it could be argued that I ought to get a pretty serious charge because I knew what I was doing and could pretty easily have gone lighter and it would probably be true.
but the same argument works in reverse. If someone with three blackbelts hurts you and doesn't kill you, it's pretty obvious that they did that on purpose, too, which could downgrade a charge in some cases (away from, say, attempted murder).
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 09:31 pm (UTC)You're still barehanded, and not using a weapon.
Those have been deemed enough to qualify one's hands as "weapons" for the purpose of assault before.
Nonsensically, in my ever-so-humble opinion.
There are already charges for "assault causing serious injury" and "attempting to kill a guy" and "killing a guy". The idea that sometimes "assault with a weapon" should involve no ASSAULT that USES A WEAPON is nonsense. If one of the other conditions applies, charge him with that as well, don't try to upgrade the assault to a crime that involves elements not present in the offense.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 10:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 09:34 pm (UTC)No, they haven't, and you're a bad person for spreading this particular idiot piece of urban legend tripe.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 09:48 pm (UTC)"Other states, although a clear minority, have allowed body parts to be considered dangerous or deadly weapons.
State v. Allen, 667 S.E.2d 295 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008) (hands);
State v. Bennett, 493 S.E.2d 845 (S.C. 1997) (hands and fists);
People v. Ross, 831 P.2d 1310 (Colo. 1992) (hands);
State v. Grumbles, 411 S.E.2d 407 (N.C. Ct. App. 1991) (fists);
Turner v.State, 664 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Crim. App. 1983) (hands and feet);
State v. Zangrilli, 440 A.2d 710 (R.I. 1982) (hands);
Ellis v. State, 224 S.E.2d 799 (Ga. Ct. App. 1976) (hands and floor);
Pulliam v. State, 298 So. 2d 711 (Miss. 1974) (fists and teeth);
State v. Born, 159 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. 1968) (fists and body parts);
State v. Heinz, 275 N.W. 10 (Iowa 1937) (hands and fists).
In one recent case, the North Carolina Court of Appeals held that hands could be considered a deadly weapon for purposes of the assault statute “depending upon the manner in which they were used and the relative size and condition of the parties.” Allen, 667 S.E.2d at 298.
The court thus pointed to the fact that the defendant was seven inches taller and outweighed the victim by forty pounds as sufficient evidence of use a deadly weapon. Id. at 301.
But see Owusu, 712 N.E.2d at 1232 (rejecting a “sliding scale of criminal liability” based on “the size of the perpetrator, his weight, strength, etc., as well as any infirmities or frailties of the victim”)."
As much as I think ruling "no weapon" as "a weapon" is stupid, it *has* been done before.
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 10:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-25 09:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-25 10:30 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 09:33 pm (UTC)If you seriously injure them, that's aggravated assault.
If you were trying to kill them and failed, that's attempted murder.
If you kill them, that's murder.
In no case is it "assault with a weapon".
(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 09:41 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-23 11:10 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-24 07:02 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2010-03-24 05:54 pm (UTC)The British TV Show "Green Wing" had one of the main characters "assault" a police officer by smearing a peanut butter sandwich in his face and then arguing with another character about the minute odds of the officer having a peanut allergy. He does and he dies... Chaos, although perhaps not hilarity, ensues.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Wing_Special