A skateboard, when used as a weapon, is a deadly weapon.
weapon, n: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
Does a skateboard have other innocent purposes, to which it is generally put to use? Of course — that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots.
It provides plausible deniability during the times when you’re not using it to hit people in the head with a deadly weapon.
If we go with that definition, and nothing else, then imagine "one of them threw an ice cube at someone, so he was armed". It's a thing used to inflict bodily harm in that context, but calling it "a weapon" seems crazy to me.
If you have large enough ice cube — or any other object — that is capable of inflicting serious bodily harm, and you use it to physically attack someone, you’ve committed assault with a deadly weapon.
Why is this crazy to you? This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car.
Do you think that’s crazy just because cars are usually meant to be used for driving?
I'm talking about normal ice cubes. They can inflict bodily harm. With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted?
> This is why someone can be charged for assault with a deadly weapon while trying to run someone over with their car.
A car is at least in a medium category where it's not a generally safe object.
Remember that my original objection was saying someone was "armed". If we used the definition you gave to figure that out, I think almost everyone is armed. Or they transform from unarmed to armed when they smack someone??
> I'm talking about normal ice cubes. They can inflict bodily harm.
If you used it as a weapon, it's a weapon. There aren't generally enhanced criminal charges for non-deadly weapons, however — that's usually just charged as assault.
> With 'serious', does that mean you're suggesting a different definition from the one you quoted?
No, I'm tying this question back to the actual law.
> Remember that my original objection was saying someone was "armed". If we used the definition you gave to figure that out, I think almost everyone is armed.
You're treating the law like it's some sort of extremely idiotic expert system that implodes anytime someone grabs their child's baseball bat with the intent of murdering someone — or actually does so.
Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "It was a little league baseball bat!".
If this still isn't clear, maybe it'd help to see how Colorado defines a "deadly weapon":
> (I) A firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; or (II) A knife, bludgeon, or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.
If you can figure out how to use your ice cube as a deadly weapon, then congratulations, at the moment you picked up an ice cube with the intent to use it as a deadly weapon, you armed yourself with a deadly weapon.
> Or they transform from unarmed to armed when they smack someone??
They transform from unarmed to armed when they arm themselves with an object they intend to use as a weapon.
You know you could just google this stuff, right? This is very simple, well-established law.
> They transform from unarmed to armed when they arm themselves with an object they intend to use as a weapon.
That makes sense if they intended to use it as a weapon.
What if they didn't?
> This is very simple, well-established law.
Mens rea makes sense for certain crimes.
I would not say someone is 'armed' or 'not armed' based on intent.
> Google "mens rea". You're not going to beat a charge with the argument of "It was a little league baseball bat!".
> (II) A knife, bludgeon, or any other weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, whether animate or inanimate, that, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is capable of producing death or serious bodily injury.
A baseball bat at least is pretty dangerous when used as intended. So is a car. A skateboard isn't, and an ice cube isn't.
> You're treating the law like it's some sort of extremely idiotic expert system that implodes anytime someone grabs their child's baseball bat with the intent of murdering someone — or actually does so.
The legal system wouldn't implode if it was just 'assault'.
> A baseball bat at least is pretty dangerous when used as intended. So is a car. A skateboard isn't, and an ice cube isn't.
If you claim to not see the similarity between a skateboard and a baseball bat in terms of the potential for serious bodily harm, you're either lying to us to keep this tepid, boring argument on life-support, or just lying to yourself.
> The legal system wouldn't implode if it was just 'assault'.
You don't think assault with a deadly weapon is a more serious crime than simple assault?
So you'd charge and punish a shove identically to hitting someone with a skateboard?
> If you claim to not see the similarity between a skateboard and a baseball bat in terms of the potential for serious bodily harm, you're either lying to us to keep this tepid, boring argument on life-support, or just lying to yourself.
It says "intended to be used" right there in the law.
> So you'd charge and punish a shove identically to hitting someone with a skateboard?
Would you charge a shove exactly the same as stomping on someone's face?
Same crime category doesn't mean same punishment. I would charge a big skateboard swing as worse than a shove, and I would also charge a solid punch as worse than a shove.
You're extrapolating from my posts in an extremely uncharitable way.
> It says "intended to be used" right there in the law.
It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used".
> Would you charge a shove exactly the same as stomping on someone's face?
In Colorado, a simple shove would be third-degree assault, while stomping on someone's face would be first-degree assault.
> Same crime category doesn't mean same punishment. I would charge a big skateboard swing as worse than a shove, and I would also charge a solid punch as worse than a shove.
Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon!
> You're extrapolating from my posts in an extremely uncharitable way.
You don't need a law degree to wrap your head around any of this. Even the most basic googling would suffice, but you're clearly not even doing that. What you are doing is ignorantly pontificating about something you clearly know nothing about, while making not even a modicum effort to learn.
> Cool, then saying someone was 'armed' is extremely meaningless.
‘Armed’ means they were carrying a weapon. That’s not meaningless. How have we come full circle here?
You’re welcome to disagree with the dictionary, the law, and the rest of the world, but there’s absolutely zero point in us debating your unique, novel, pedantic, and most likely disingenuous position further.
If fists count as a deadly weapon, which makes someone armed, then calling someone armed is misleading and meaningless because 99% of people are armed.
Pointing that out is not disingenuous!
And it's not disingenuous for me to earnestly use the definition of weapon I'm being told to use, right? Nobody seems to like my definition of weapon.
weapon, n: a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage.
Does a skateboard have other innocent purposes, to which it is generally put to use? Of course — that’s generally why skateboards are brought to riots.
It provides plausible deniability during the times when you’re not using it to hit people in the head with a deadly weapon.