Bad Boys II

[Dill]

(06-28-2020, 10:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I didn't say made for one use, I said having one use.  A kitchen knife is made for one use, it can be used for other things.  A taser is made for one use, it can't be used for any other purpose.  It's not that complicated and it's odd that I have to explain this at the minute level you're asking for.

Very difficult to find something "made for one use" that absolutely cannot be used for any other purpose.

I could use a kitchen knife to wedge a door open so it doesn't lock when I leave the house momentarily.

Claiming a taser "can't be used for any other purpose" wouldn't prevent it from wedging the door open as well.  It wouldn't prevent a police officer from jamming it in someone's mouth to choke him or beating him over the head with it.

Legal arguments/discussions frequently come to "minute levels" precisely over questions like this. Legal definitions evolve in response to such minutiae, which lay persons may find "odd," though lawyers understand well enough the difficulties which may follow absence of precision.
 
I don't see how claiming an absolute single use for a taser affects any legal argument in the case of the college students. The taser is used as a taser in combination with other weapons--a handgun, a baton and fists--which resulted in at least one broken bone and multiple contusions.

Perhaps Fred could speak to the legal validity and potential effectiveness of defense arguing that a taser has to be a deadly weapon when Brooks used it because the DA called it such in another case, where it accompanied a swarming attack involving multiple weapons.  Would the defense really want to draw out details of that attack before a jury, in a case where police overreach is the issue? Could the jury effectively be instructed to disregard the swarming, inappropriate response of the officers and focus on the DA's definition?