Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(06-29-2020, 03:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sigh.  Let's use a filet knife for an example.  You can chop vegetables with it, not its intended use.  You can butcher an animal carcass with it, not its intended use.  You can stab a person with it, not its intended use.  You can't use a taser for anything other than its intended use.  Your example is silly as any object with enough weight can be used to prop open a door or be used to hit someone over the head.

Sure, even a taser.

(06-29-2020, 03:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I know you don't get it, hence this circuitous argument.  As for the college student attack the taser was specifically mentioned as the reason for the charges that were filed.

Perhaps he could.  Perhaps he could also answer his own question from earlier in this thread.  It's interesting that you seek his professional expertise while completely discounting mine in numerous areas.  I wonder why that is?

In the case of the two college students, the taser was mentioned along with other factors, like pointing a handgun and using a baton.

1. I really don't know what your "expertise" is or its applicable domain. Dino assumed you were a policeman once and you excoriated him for another big "fail." I never argue from authority on this MB. But if you want to, then explain why you think you deserve the authority. What is the profession which grounds your "professional" judgment. Fred's primary job is to read, understand, interpret and apply the law. People pay him for that. Do people pay you to do that? 

2. Even if you are an expert, that doesn't grant you license to make claims you don't have to explain or otherwise support. Fred seems to understand this.  Often there are cases where "experts" disagree. What's a poor layperson supposed to do then? 


Demonstrating expertise is always better than claiming it. If you take questioning your arguments as "discounting" your claim expertise, then you are just asking to substitute the claim for demonstration.

So far, you have not offered an argument which convinces me that a DA calling a taser a "deadly weapon" in one case precludes his defining it as "less than lethal" in another under a different set of circumstances, just because of the previous case. And I mentioned the force continuum precisely because courts don't redefine weapons anew every singe case. There has to be some baseline or standard independent of individual cases, which a court accepts or rejects or otherwise measures according to the specific circumstances of a case.

The argument becomes "circuitous" because "one can't use a taser for anything other than it's intended use" does not does explain why it might be called lethal in one case and less than lethal in another.  And you keep coming back to "intended use" as if it does. If it does, then you have left out a step, some rule or factum which would close the circle of explanation. If you are a professional talking to a layperson, then a professional response would be to bridge the gap.  A non-professional response would be to explain it terms of layperson's character.

At this point, we are still waiting for more info on case. No one knows for sure what will happen, expert or not. I'm happy to wait until we hear more or the trial begins to see how this issue of definitions plays out.