3 ms·

> 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 simila

> 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? Fascinating. I don't believe you.

Dylan16807 5y ago
> 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.
- teakettle42 5y ago
  > 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.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    > It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used". Yeah but I'm worried about the part before any misuse. > Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon! Cool, then saying someone was 'armed' is extremely meaningless. Which is what I really cared about here. I commented specifically because I didn't like the description of 'armed'. I don't care about what label is put on a criminal charge. That's why the things you want me to google aren't helpful to me.
    - teakettle42 5y ago
      > 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.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        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. I swear I'm arguing in good faith.

Dylan16807 5y ago

> 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.

teakettle42 5y ago
> 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.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  > It also says "in the manner it is used or intended to be used". Yeah but I'm worried about the part before any misuse. > Guess what? Both a fist and a skateboard can be classified as assault with a deadly weapon! Cool, then saying someone was 'armed' is extremely meaningless. Which is what I really cared about here. I commented specifically because I didn't like the description of 'armed'. I don't care about what label is put on a criminal charge. That's why the things you want me to google aren't helpful to me.
  - teakettle42 5y ago
    > 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.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      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. I swear I'm arguing in good faith.