46: A Raccoon Is A Deadly Weapon

McDonald's är stolt sponsor av Melodifestivalter, så tillåt oss att presentera ett av vår. Festivalmenyn Sour Cream Onion och Company. Fyra Pepper Chicken Street. För 99 kronor. Festivalmaten finns på McDonald's. Hello everyone and welcome back to the Robotal Podcast where we break down case law, calamity, and of course chaos. in the legal field. I am once again your host, Reb Mazel. And today we are going to get right into it. Everyone needs distraction and I have just the thing for you.

These cases, these issues that I'm going to talk to you about, all revolve around one seminal legal principle. Something that what people may not know varies across states, across jurisdictions. What is a deadly weapon? Can a deadly weapon be your teeth? Your hands, maybe your long acrylics, which I'm going to get put on my fingers later this afternoon. Is a deadly weapon, maybe your breath.

Maybe your aura, your vibe, your cadence. Do courts decide what a deadly weapon is or do the legislatures? And if it's the latter, how do they decide? Do they all get together in a group and come up with a big list? of different things you can use that might be deadly might not be, just like we're playing an episode of Clue, okay? Colonel Mustard in the library with a rope. Is the rope deadly? Is a rope inherently deadly? Probably not. No. Ropes used for a lot of different things.

When does it become deadly? if you're holding it in your hands while you're assaulting someone, does that mean assault with a deadly weapon, even though we haven't even proven that your assault had anything to do with you having a rope. You just happened to have it. Maybe you were at work, all right? On the docks, docking boats. And you start putting somebody who's bothering you, rope still in hand.

Would a criminal defense attorney advise you, if you could pause that interaction and call them real quick, like we're in the matrix, okay, would they advise you to drop the rope before you hit somebody? Throw it away from your person to make sure that you can't in that moment. be committing an assault that normally would be simple. Simple assault. Okay. Maybe a misdemeanor. Maybe some probation. But if you keep that rope in your hand, if you keep that rope maybe

waving it toward that person, maybe a lasso situation, all right? Who really knows? You can you can get carried away with it. Would that criminal defense attorney tell you, hey, if you keep that rope in your hand, if you do all of those silly things That means that that assault will be aggravated. It may graduate, not from high school, but to a felony.

It may turn this simple assault, potentially misdemeanor, probation, maybe some anger management classes, into several years in federal prison. What if a deadly weapon in America, especially? is harder to define than people think.

As you will learn in this episode, no state is on the same page. No jurisdiction is on the same page. There are no federal courts even. that are on the same page when it comes to what is and what isn't a deadly or dangerous weapon. And who better to kick off this episode and this phenomenon than a man named Cowboy Cody? Who was arrested just a few weeks ago from the time this episode aired.

for allegedly releasing a raccoon into a bar that had banned him due to a drunken mule incident. That is not even All of the illegal things and crimes that occurred within this story, but damn, is it difficult to shove it all into one sentence? And one headline. Cowboy Cody, real name Jonathan Mason of Murray, Kentucky, was arrested on June 6, 2025 after police got a call that he had, quote, intentionally released a raccoon into an open business.

The man then fled the scene, but police stopped him soon after and arrested him on multiple charges. It turns out That intentionally releasing a raccoon into an open business is not specifically a crime under Kentucky law, which actually was pretty surprising to me and probably to people involved in this case. Things happen in Kentucky. This is not even close to being the weirdest one, nor do I think it's the first time it's ever happened.

So not sure why the legislature hasn't gotten their their stuff together, put their heads together to start up da updating their notes, updating their laws. to account for things that are predictable. Are foreseeable to happen. But trespassing is a crime in Kentucky, and the owner of the big apple grill and bar had had enough.

of Mason shenanigans, if you will. Before this raccoon incident, they had tried to ban Mason from the premises and it obviously did not work out. But whatever for, Reb Mazel, well I will tell you. The raccoon incident came just months after this same man. was arrested for attempting to evade police officers on a mule. Police had been called to the bar after Mason refused to leave when asked to do so. They found him outside, intoxicated in a public space, which again

surprisingly, is illegal in Kentucky. But he refused to stop when ordered, instead leaping onto the mule he had ridden to the establishment and attempting to flee. I'm not sure how fast mules can gallop, walk, trudge, begrudgingly do what you asked them to do. But spoiler alert, the police did catch up to him. He was not shockingly, charged with driving a mule under the influence, which is a crime in Kentucky. Do you see why the raccoon thing, in my mind, should have been covered?

Every base people start looking at them, start putting something over them, start covering them. I bet. But he was charged with criminal trespassing, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and resisting arrest. probably committed in that order. And also, unfortunately, cruelty to animals. Witnesses claimed they saw Mason whip the mule an unnecessary amount of times, in addition to, quote, mistreating the animal in other ways.

The reports I'm reading from have not elaborated on that specific tidbit, but my imagination running wild. I'm glad that they didn't. But Mason, ever the overachiever when it comes to animal related incidences, only two days after he was arrested for the fur first mule related incident. He hopped back on either the same mule, possibly another mule, and was arrested again. Two days. For attempting to flee police while riding the mule down the roadway, intoxicated. So they did pin him.

for the MWI. So obviously Mason was trying to do everything he possibly could to include that mule in all of his messy business in a single calendar week, which if I were the mule, I'd be annoyed. I'm also being abused, so that's not great. But regardless, if you're gonna drive me, you gotta drive me sober. At least that's what Kentucky says. So an M UI, muling under the influence. Don't do it. But that's not what this episode is about.

Something, one thing, at the very least, that Mason finally left the mule completely out of was his raccoon incident, his raccoon exploit. if you will. Our cowboy Cody. Now, complete aside, I am not entirely sure still why they chose Cowboy Cody.

as the name they went with, right, in this debacle. I'm not sure if Cowboy Cody is like, oh, we've always known about Cowboy Cody, okay? This is the least this isn't even the craziest thing he's done. Let me tell you some stories. I don't know if Cowboy Cody that that name, all right, has a bit of a ring to it. I am unsure if they gave it to him because of the mule riding drunk in this.

raccoon related case here, or if they have just always called him that, which in either respect, in either event, I have some questions, I have some cues. Why would you go with Cowboy Cody? His name's Jonathan Mason. Not even close. I'm not judging. All right. A lot of nicknames can be a little bizarre, can be a little off the rails, but it is a choice. I think it's a choice. Cowboy Cody, also interesting.

Who's Cody? Is this a famous person? Am I very unaware of like Western film, Western culture? That I'm just not not with the references here. Is this a real reference? Also, he was on a mule Cowboy. Just'cause he was on a mule and what does the raccoon have to do with that? Our boy cowboy Cody drove to the bar, to the establishment after his two mule incidents. were on the record, okay, on the books on his wrap sheet. He drove himself to the bar to leave the mule out of it. Finally, God bless.

with a raccoon in tow. Not only did he have a raccoon in tow, he had apparently captured it at his home and had been carrying it around with him all day. I don't know how the all day was discovered, was found out about, was admitted to. Because what do you mean all day? He had it in his car all day. He was waiting for the right opportunity. Maybe he was like smoking dramatically in the parking lot of the big Apple Gorilla and Bar, just seething, waiting for his moment.

I mean, maybe he just knew when the perfect opportunity would be to throw a raccoon into into the place. Apparently he opened the front door and just did a big back and forward, right? Like you're swinging one of those big logs to break down a castle door during a raid. That's how he threw this raccoon in there. And the ra the raccoon was not having it. Maybe he kept him in his car all day.

So he was forced to hang out with Cowboy Cody, aka John. Because whatever the vibe was that John was giving off, pissed that raccoon off beyond all reason. The raccoon was not having a good time. And maybe that was Jonathan's point. The raccoon was already mad. But the best part is that Jonathan gave the bar an opportunity to not be raccoon rated. He walked into the bar basically and sat down and just started taking the alcohol and drinking himself and they were like

Hey, Cowboy Cody, can you leave? We totally banned you like several days ago. Actually, not several. How long? Four fucking days ago. Do you mind? And he was like, Yeah, I do actually mind. And they were like, please. You seriously need to get out. And he basically grabbed the alcohol and chugged it as they're dragging him out, which is kind of a fair move. Few drinks deep. He walks back s he walks back to his car. The car that he had drove this raccoon around in all day.

and said, Now's your time. We're going with with plan Z and he threw the raccoon into the establishment, walked up, opened the door and threw. All right, chuck. I don't know if he was aiming for someone. That's also unclear. The raccoon ended up biting someone. Not great, okay? I don't know if you guys have ever heard of this thing called rabies, but it is an incurable disease. It has a ninety-nine percent death rate. which is metal as hell, but

genuinely terrifying. So what do we do with that legally? What do we do with that here? Cowboy Cody, when he was arrested, he was charged with assault in the second degree. Why is that important? Under Kentucky law, a person is guilty of assault in the second degree when, one, they intentionally cause serious injury to another person, two,

intentionally cause physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. This two that I'm listing off means it's the degree, okay?

second degree. Three wantonly cause causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument. Although Mason was also charged with res resisting arrest, nothing in the report suggests that an officer was injured, something that surely would have been mentioned if the assault in the second degree was related to the risk the resisting arrest. Okay, duh it would be. Okay. Cops love to lean on that.

To go, I was hit, I was hit. Okay. But we are told that the raccoon bit a person after Mason released it. So it's safe to assume that the assault charge is indeed based on the raccoon bite. This is interesting for legal nerds like myself. And now you, because I'm forcing you to listen to my interests. That is certainly an injury, is it not? The fact that it could be very serious.

is also in play. Rabies, people, a hundred percent, ninety nine percent death rate. Are you out of your mind? That's crazy. You could absolutely die from a raccoon bite. For sure, for sure. There's probably enough here for intent as well, because why the fuck did he drive around with this raccoon all day? Maybe he was keeping it hungry, maybe he wanted to rile it up. Why why else would he be throwing the raccoon in there other than for the raccoon to potentially maybe hurt someone?

Sure, d f for some that might seem like a stretch, but these are the things we have to contemplate, okay, when we're thinking about intent. So, and I'm just skipping over it. Because let's get to the juicy stuff, okay? Maybe he tripped drop the raccoon he happened to be carrying while trespassing. This is all up to the whatever the defense lawyer decides to roll with, okay? And if there are security cameras cameras and witnesses who otherwise aren't

Either friends with Cowboy Cody or could maybe be blackmailed by him. I mean, it's a fair consideration if I were a witness in that. in that beautiful big apple grillin bar. Okay. Grillin busy. Hope hopefully sitting with a big thing of chips and salsa and a fat really stiff margarita. I I would be concerned that maybe in my home, in my dwelling, I could have another animal, animal number three. Involved with Cowboy C thrown into my situation. Okay? Invading my space.

Chucked through my window. I don't I'm not really feeling that. Okay, maybe, maybe, maybe Cowboy Cody is a kingpin. In in Murray, Kentucky. That would be crazy. But have we seen it? We have. Would that be the weirdest thing we've talked about on this podcast? Absolutely not. Yeah, assume everyone is capable of doing anything.

Anyone, even the people you love the most. Assume the capability. Thinking that no one or someone, right? One person in particular, a few people in particular, aren't capable Of doing something capable of Think again. Okay. Operate on the assumption that people are capable. And then base your entire movements around them on, okay, what have they shown me to show that they w would choose not to do those things? Okay. No one is incapable of shit.

Let me tell you. All right. And if I was looking at the track record of Cowboy C, Cowboy Co. I would say, you know what? Maybe I didn't see a whole lot in that, in that knockoff chilies bar and grill. Grill and bar. that day. In broad daylight, mind you. Maybe I was looking the other way and have nothing to say and nothing to report on the witness stand. Just to keep my dwelling at peace. And not a petting sale.

But I digress. Could potentially be things for a defense attorney to consider and is probably considering right now, assuming that he doesn't take some sort of plea. But the case is ongoing, so this is all alleged, okay? So we are left with the fact that Jonathan Mason was almost Surely. charged with assault in the second degree Based on

Assault with a deadly raccoon. Is a raccoon a deadly weapon? Well, the Kentucky Penal Code has a pretty specific list of deadly weapons, quote unquote, because yes, that's a legally significant term that they have to define. We can't just wing it. And go, seems pretty deadly to me because if s if that were the case, my words would have landed me in federal prison. Raccoon is not among that list, is not on that specific list.

Nor is any other living thing. If the animal had a disease, the state could try to argue it is a quote weapon of mass destruction, which is on the list and that includes any weapon involving a disease organism. However, we are not sure, not confirmed that the raccoon had rabies, transferred rabies, the pro the woman who or person or whoever who was bitten likely got a rabies shot, attended a shot, several different shots.

and a really nice band aid and a r have a really amazing, incredible, perfect icebreaker story to tell people, my God. But a raccoon can indeed cause damage to your person, bites or claws or whatnot. Is it is that deadly? What does deadly exactly mean? Well let's get into it. Is a raccoon first and foremost a quote dangerous instrument? Like I mentioned in the beginning. Every single state and jurisdiction will use a different turn of phrase for this concept.

Deadly weapon, dangerous weapon, dangerous instrument, deadly instrument. Lethal instrument, lethal weapon, you get the picture. Okay. None of us are on the same fucking wavelength. And half the time I think. Legislatures.

use different words just because they wanna be different and want it to look like they didn't just copy and paste someone else's homework. Because often they're copying and pasting statutes that they see from a different state and they're like, Mm, that sounds good and puts and put it in theirs. That's not ill that's not

a bad thing to do, right? Like, hey, like we're gonna basing our statute on Nevada's statute. They they've got it together. They have raccoon wielders that I've been wilding and we need to account for living animals potentially being weapons. Yada yada. Okay. And that's not even true. I don't even know if that's a thing. Um I would even pause it to say that. Kentucky's penal code in this instance.

defines a dangerous instrument as any under the circumstances that is quote readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury. The main issue here, or I guess the most important term here, is under the circumstances, right? A raccoon itself chilling somewhere. maybe on a leash next to you doesn't necessarily mean that you are about to fight somebody with a deadly dangerous weapon. it w turns out that the raccoon was considered a dangerous instrument, okay?

It all depends on context, of course, just like I mentioned with the rope. If we're just talking about what I think, my opinions here, alleged, this is all alleged, okay. This guy may or may not have done these things, Cowboy Co. I don't know whether the possibility, the capability of a raccoon biting someone would necessarily as a matter of law be considered causing death or serious physical injury, readily capable. Okay.

Do does the raccoon have to have rabies in order to fall under or qualify for this term fall under this definition, this category. If they don't have rabies but nobody knows it first and foremost not John, Johnny Boy, okay, does his intent of throwing it in there without caring or knowing does him doing that just in and of itself, regardless of other raccoon as babies, elevate the raccoon to a deadly weapon because of its nature?

Because public policy wise, like that would be good policy to be like, okay, th the same way that an unloaded gun is considered a deadly weapon, even though in the moment we could argue back and forth and people do, but we put a stop to that a while ago of like, well, it wasn't loaded. Well, the person who was being assaulted or battered or whatever didn't know that. And the intent was to was to assault as in make someone have a reasonable objectively reasonable apprehension.

Okay, uh, of of something happening to them. If someone brandished a weapon, a gun, a deadly weapon. All of this being said, all of these are my and these are my legal thoughts about this, there are a lot of what ifs here.

with respect to the raccoon. And there have been lawyers who've already commented on this and thought, No, they don't think that the assault charge, the second degree assault charge, would stick. Because Cowboy Cody's arrest happened just a few weeks ago, Kentucky has not firmly decided whether A raccoon can be a deadly weapon under Kentucky law, but honeybees indeed absolutely are under Massachusetts law.

Certainly, the Hampton County Sheriff's Department did not hesitate to bring quote dangerous weapon charges against a woman they say tried to attack deputies with a swarm of bees. This was in October of twenty twenty two. Deputies allege that Rory Susan Woods fifty five of Hadley, Massachusetts. pulled up to the scene of an ongoing eviction of a long meadow home on memory lane. That's right, memory lane, and this will surely be a memory for those cops indeed.

It is clear that this woman was not the resident of the home that they were trying to evict, which leads me to believe this is a Robin Hood. Type of vigilante scenario. Not all landlords do y'all hear yourselves. Reports disagree about what exactly happened after this 55-year-old woman drove up to the house towing a trailer. Stacked with bees and started trying to open them. Deputies in one report

said that they tried to stop the one, but then backed off after the bees bees started getting agitated and started circling them. So that implies that she managed to at least get a few of these lids off. Okay? Or else Why would the bees be circling? Or maybe it was like one fucking bee and they were like the swarm. Who knows? Okay. So this is where the police probably didn't think about the fact.

That them saying, Oh, they tried to stop her, but then had to back out because of the bees doesn't support the fact that she was trying to get the lids open. No? Right. Maybe there were bystander bees. Maybe there were witness bees who decided to come investigate. to buzz around to maybe defend their homies, just like our girl was trying to defend whoever was in that home getting evicted.

Do you see how the circle of life is just a beautiful, beautiful, gorgeous thing? Mother nature at work, let me tell you. According to the same report, the woman then smashed the lid of another box and flipped it off the trailer, causing the bees to swarm. And sting several officers and bystanders. But another report says the boxes fell over during the initial scuffle, and it was this which released an unspecified number of bees on the deputies and bystanders.

That report doesn't mention any actual sting. The other report by the by the police officer or the deputy or whatnot was like we had people go to the hospital is alleging that there was sting. Yeah, people were stung, but then another report says nobody was. So violent shrug, very propaganda shrug. Let's just assume that there were bees. What do we know for sure? There were bees, there was a woman, there was an eviction.

And there was a scuffle. All of the reports agree that the woman that put on a beekeeper's outfit, a professional beekeeper's outfit, before making further efforts to deploy further bees. At that point, deputies arrested her. So she put on the outfit mid B defense employed. Which one of the reports also just said that she showed up in the beekeeper uniform. That is for sure not correct. So many witnesses were like, No, she was she put that shit on.

She had that shit on, okay? Put it on mid mid swarm. Maybe pre swarm, but mid scuffle. Listen, you try to you try to create this timeline. I can't. I don't have At that point, Beekeeper Suit On deputies arrested her, which led to this photo here. She was subsequently charged with three counts of assault by means of a dangerous weapon, four accounts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon, and one count of disorderly conduct. Most states

include a list of what they consider deadly or dangerous weapons in their criminal statutes, as Kentucky's did and as Kentucky's d left out a raccoon. Okay, it wasn't on there. Massachusetts doesn't do this. They don't have a list of these are the deadlies, wink. They don't. They leave it up to the courts to decide what's deadly and what isn't based on the context.

Whether a particular thing qualifies as a weapon at all, and if so, if it is deadly or dangerous, could in some cases pose difficult questions.

But Massachusetts Massachusetts courts have largely avoided this dilemma by holding that pretty much anything that isn't a body bart can be a dangerous weapon. The courts have recognized two categories of quote dangerous weapons. One, things that are designed to kill or seriously harm people and are therefore considered dangerous per se. And two, things that are not designed to do this, but could do it if you tried.

hard enough. In Gibo, a case in Massachusetts in twenty twenty two, a different one, a woman was charged with two counts of assault and battery by means of a dangerous weapon after she hit her husband Of fifty five years, one on the arm with a plastic chair and two in the head with a ladle. Neither of these items should would appear on most states' deadly weapons lists. The jury acquitted her of the ladle assault charge but convicted her for the chair, even though the ladle

Seems to have done more serious damage. The facts of this case, which of course I had to look up immediately, they had been married for 55 years. The victim was 76 years old at the time of the trial, was in the family home watching TV and drinking coffee when his wife walked through the kitchen and out into the breezeway. He heard a loud noise, and when he went out to investigate,

found that his wife had thrown one of his shoes onto the deck. An argument ensued, which the victim characterized as the defendant hollering at him. The argument involved the cleanliness of the deck and the shoe, which the defendant maintained smelled of dog feces. As the victim bent down to pick up his shoe, the defendant grabbed a plastic chair and swung it at him, hitting him near the left wrist.

When the victim again bent to pick up the shoe, the defendant again swung the chair, but the victim was able to grab it and push it away from himself. The victim returned to the house, and the defendant followed him into the kitchen where she picked up a ladle and hit him in the back of the head. The victim briefly lost consciousness and awoke on the kitchen floor. Was this ladle made of stone, concrete, cement?

I don't know. The defendant told him that he had had a heart attack. The victim was treated at a hospital emergency room for a one inch by two and one half inch gas on his wrist gash on his wrist and an injury to the back of his head that required staples to close.

Because the victim was taking anticoagulants, both injuries bled profusely, but the victim was able to be released after the injuries were treated. The defendant testified in her own defense that she had walked into the breezeway, smelled a foul odor f coming from the victim's shoe, And threw it onto the deck.

The victim then ran toward her with his arms raised and she picked up a deck chair to protect herself. The victim wrestled the chair out of her hands, cutting her arm in the process. The victim returned to the house and

And the defendant went to the kitchen to treat her arm. At that moment she heard a sound and saw the victim on the floor with a cut on his head. The victim called N11 and was taken to the hospital where he was treated and released. It is unclear whether this couple ever got divorced. either after this incident, after the jury trial, after her convictions, anything. So

If you'd like to find um more information about that, you can do with that what you will. But the point being is that The state's highest court affirmed this conviction after an appeal was entered on her behalf saying, Oh, I can't be convicted of assault with deathly weapon because it was a motherfucking chair. It was a chair. It's a chair. A chair isn't deadly. And the court said, Mm, the way you used it was Pretty dead.

Pretty Lee. Ordinarily, it conceded, a chair is an innocuous object, but here it held the evidence of a one by two inch abrasion that bled profusely, because the victim was on anticoagulants, was sufficient to affirm the jury's finding that the chair as used. was a dend dangerous weapon, as used being the standard within the meaning of the statute. That same court, for reference in Massachusetts, had also previously held that a sneaker

Could be a dangerous weapon when used to stomp on someone. So the result is not really surprising, especially for Massachusetts standards, but for other states.

that don't really have this type of analysis or in other states where the legislature, their rules, their statutes say, Hey, if it's not on this list, it's not deadly. Put another way, unless the weapon used could not possibly be capable of inflicting serious harm. No matter how hard someone tried, in Massachusetts, a jury is free to convict under these statutes. Do you see what the issue is? Do you see why it's a little mm like

Plastic chair, it didn't kill him. Anything's kinda capable of killing you, right? Anything's capable of being deadly. I could probably chuck this g piece of glass, this piece of glass, this water glass at you hard enough To crack your skull, to hit a nerve that was already susceptible to maybe exploding and causing an aneurysm. Everything's deadly depending on the air, the wind.

The vibe, the day, the weather, and the person you're hitting and the person who's doing the hitting. So allowing this makes simple assault a little obsolete, don't you think? If you quite literally use anything other than your bare fucking hands to hit somebody, that's automatically going to be aggravated, which public policy wise is not really good policy because of course we would like to punish people with more severe punishments when it actually calls for it.

And hitting someone with a plastic chair in this scenario, hitting someone with a ladle in this scenario, we need to have the deadliness of the weapon not depend on how it's used, but the deadliness of the weapon depend on its nature. The nature of a raccoon, for example, with rabies for sure can be deadly. Like there's an argument there. Honeybees, are you kidding me?

Honey bees, uh, I can argue all day, all right? But when we're talking about inanimate objects, that that to me is where now what's the point? Now we're just charging people who should have gotten an assault charge, like a miss right? You should be punished for sure for assault, but you shouldn't be serving the same sentences or be subject to the same punishments that someone stabbing someone with a knife is.

Do you see why we should make that distinction? Perfect, amazing, gorgeous. This is legal theory, baby. Isn't it fun? Given the breadth of this definition, if we talk about bee lady, okay, our beekeeper of justice. It seems very likely that bees as used could qualify as dangerous weapons. That's probably why the Sheriff's Department didn't even hesitate for a second.

to charge her with dangerous with with the higher degree assault, second degree assault. The same court, okay, Massachusetts, has held that the use of a dog during a robbery makes it an armed robbery. Interesting. Even if there was no evidence that the dog in question, a German shepherd in that case, had been trained to attack people.

That was in 1975. The victim could reasonably have believed it might be trained to attack him, and that was enough in that context, which tracks with my prior analysis, if you remember from two minutes ago, that The throwing of the raccoon or the knowledge that the raccoon had rabies, or maybe let's say the raccoon's completely totally trained, all right, and actually wouldn't have been anyone because they're trained to like dance on the street for coins and cash.

The fact that somebody who is seeing a raccoon being flung at their face at their noggin would think this could be deadly if they fucking bite me and I get rabies, that would suck. Like if they just had to pause like the matrix matrix again and think about this. Absolutely, that could be enough in that context to have reasonably believed that that could be a deadly weapon. That is

That at least is what I think should be the standard. It shouldn't just be, oh, the w the wound that you got from the thing that they threw. is pretty bad and it caused a lot of bleeding, so obviously d it's all with deadly weapon I mean, come on. I think the living animal uh cases in Massachusetts make more sense.

But I hope my train of thought is tracking. Of course, bees can't be trained. At least I don't know. If they can be, please let me know immediately and I'll issue an apology and a corrections quarter. But if somebody threw a hive at you, it would be reasonable to expect the bees inside to get royally pissed off and mistakenly blame you for their trauma.

And throwing an hive at you without the knowledge and the confirmation that you are not allergic when going into anaphylactic shock due to a bee sting can absolutely be fatal is all the time. That that could be enough for c in context, for context, I think it could be and I think it should be.

Throwing bees at people should be considered deadly weaponry, weapons of mass destruction, because of the fact that so many people are allergic to bees and that allergy is quite literally deadly. Same way that rabies has a ninety ninety-nine percent kill rate. Which is so metal and badass. All right. Raby's the raccoon. Anaphylactic shock with the bees, with the buzzy bees. Under Massachusetts law, as it stands.

It is possible, or at least not impossible, to use bees to inflict serious harm, and therefore it would be up to a jury to decide to make this decision in this case on whether our rogue honey beekeeper could be convicted. of this aggravated elevated assault charge, all right, with deadly weaponry, weapons of mass destruction, WM dizzies. One thing that is absolutely for certain, without a doubt, is that her mugshot is not giving, I regret what I did.

At the very least, if you're gonna do something in life. follow through with that swing, uh consequences be damned. This is obviously not the life advice episode. I have had life advice episodes that really are prophetic and profound. This one I

am just enjoying every shred of shenanigans we can get in this country. That makes me laugh, even if it is kind of morally not the best thing to do, because god damn it. Ska du ta bilen till fällen eller den lokala backen? Oavsett vilket även tid som väntar, är du välkommen till någon av tankastationer. Om du betalar med CarPay får du dessutom bonus som kan lösa sin motrimedel till fler skidresor.

Hitta din namstaction på tanka.se. But thankfully for us, the list of animals who could be deadly weapons is a long one. So let's continue. Is an alligator a deadly weapon? In twenty sixteen, Joshua James of Jupiter, Florida was arrested for throwing a three and a half foot long live alligator through the Wendy's drive-thru. Window. After he ordered his food, and while the attendant was turned away from the window and looking at the cash register, he turned to his passenger seat.

picked up the gator that was sitting there, unseen, by the staff at Wendy's, or maybe they saw it and thought, Another day in Florida, and he launched it through the window. the coordination to do this and not just throw the alligator face first into the wall to get it through that little skinny window takes some skill. It also takes mental illness, I think, to be doing something such as this unprovoked.

But a photograph on the report shows the alligator flat with its legs splayed on the fast food restaurant's kitchen floor because obviously you would take a photo before you do anything after that. The alligator didn't actually hurt anybody, but Indeed, Florida had to grapple with this issue. The twenty-four-year-old accused Gator Flinger was charged with aggregate aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, a third degree felony. Had the gator actually hit someone, which it didn't

This would have been aggravated battery. Regular assault is a misdemeanor. So whether a weapon is deadly makes a massive difference. And so, as you might expect, the Florida legislature hasn't defined that term because of course Florida does what Florida does. be annoying and unhelpful in terms of its laws and legal standards. Quote.

the Florida statutes don't define deadly weapon. They do define weapon, quote unquote, but that definition is uselessly circular because it includes, quote, or other deadly weapons. So Thanks so much, Florida. Why? Of all the states too, to be vague about what's a deadly weapon, look up a list of compilation list of Florida headlines. How have you not even considered making this a little bit more clear? I don't know, but I never know when it comes to Florida.

Totally useless is what some lawyers have described that statute as. The definition is quote any dirk, knife, metallic knuckles, slung shot, billy, tear gas gun, chemical weapon or device, or other deadly weapon, the part that's useless. Except a firearm or a common pocket knife, plastic knife, or a blunt bladed table knife. The word other suggests all the listed weapons are also deadly weapons. Except that a firearm isn't a weapon at all. Question mark? Yeah, the statute sucks.

So the courts have stepped in and defined deadly weapon. The best definition we could find, okay, in Florida law is quote, an instrument that will likely cause death or great bodily harm when used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated by its design.

is a deadly weapon. However, an object can also be found to be a deadly weapon if used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Whether an object is a deadly weapon is generally a question of fact to determine by the jury. So not unlike Massachusetts.

There are cases in Florida which uh have found that a flimsy hollow broomstick, plastic broomstick was not a deadly weapon, uh, and at least discussed whether a shoe is a deadly weapon, and the conclusion was that it depends on the shoe. Which is kind of funny to me. heels girlies as a heel wearing girlie, I would be screwed. Deadly weapon all the way. I only put deadly weapons on my piggy dippers.

on these feats, on these Tootsies. So something is a deadly weapon in Florida if it's designed as one. But also it could be a deadly weapon if it isn't designed as one, if you just use it that way. Again, kind of the same rationale as Massachusetts with respect to the plastic chair and the ladle. Okay, what? But flimsy hollow plastic broomsticks broomsticks aside.

There would seem to be a few objects that could be used as a weapon but could not be used in some way to produce great bodily harm. So this definition, which is common, tends to also be applied broadly. But when you try to figure it out yourself, applying Florida law, first was the alligator likely to cause death or great bodily harm when used in the ordinary and usual manner contemplated by its design.

Does that mean God's design? Is any carnivore a deadly weapon just'cause it is in cer in some certain senses designed by either God or evolution or science or whomstever? to be able to kill something to eat it. You see where we're going with this. Second. Was the alligator used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm? The suspect made no threat. Which leaves us with the main question Is an alligator thrown through a drive thru window?

likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Whatever we think about what a jury would find. Uh, Joshua pled. Okay, he pled out. He took a plea, so we don't have the firm

Uh-huh, DP answer, because he had stolen the alligator, which is very much illegal to do in Florida. You can't just pick up an alligator on the road and transport it anywhere or use it for anything. They protect their alligators, baby. Don't fuck with those, all right?

Don't try to move'em, touch him, capture'em. You are not allowed to do that. No, you are not. That is felonious in Florida. He was released on bail and ordered to stay away from animals except for his mother's dog. Uh, I believe he also served Or had one year of uh probation. Yes. He has one year probation. And if he violates that, maximum four months in jail. There you have it with respect to gaiters. Now that we've had enough animal talk, all right.

Why don't we go straight to us? We're animals, are we not? How are the things that we have on our bodies? not aggravating our every single assault that we ever do to be deadly. Deadly weapons, okay? In United States versus Roka in 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal took 14 pages to explain why attacking someone with your bare hands. does not and should not and cannot qualify as assault with a dangerous weapon. Because then what would simple assault mean, people?

It would be fucking pointless. Thank you very much. In this case, however, it's like a little graphic trigger warning if you're like super sensitive to this type of stuff, which is totally fair. The person involved. is Victor Roca, who was in a fight with someone else in a prison. Okay. He started a prison fight.

He came up behind someone and pulled his feet out from under him, causing him to slam down onto the concrete floor. Set aside for a moment the question of whether that's nice. Obviously, that's mean. That's not a good thing to do. All right. Not great. Definitely battery. Okay. Salt a battery. But Could him using his hands to grab his ankles and flip him upside down and face first into concrete mean that these are weapons and they're dangerous and we should make your assault charge worse?

In terms of punishments possible? The answer is no. You might be wondering in what world is it necessary to spend 14 pages explaining why bare hands are not a deadly weapon, but it's not as if the lawyers and the parties did not make it a little difficult to squeak this out in about two paragraphs. The government, for example, possibly foreseeing a problem with accusing an unarmed man of using a weapon, argued that Roach's quote, weapons had been his hand.

Or the concrete floor or some combination of the two. Again, if you knock someone down with your bare hands, that's assault and battery. But the answer to the question whether you have assaulted that person with the floor is a no. It's still a no. Good try though. Thank you so much. The court basically engaged in a review of okay, let's see it. Our body parts really.

constituting dangerous or deadly weapons for purposes of assault and battery statutes. Let's look at other courts, other jurisdictions to see if they have weighed in. And sure enough they have. Quote Most states have determined that body parts cannot be considered a dangerous or deadly weapon. How about that? For example The New York Court of Appeals has held that biting somebody, which is definitely assault and battery

is not, quote, assault with a dangerous instrument just because you used your teeth. That was in nineteen ninety nine. The court decided that the state statute was intended to increase liability if a defendant, quote,

Has upped the ante by employing a device to assist in the criminal endeavor, and teeth are not a device. The bottom line, as the court concluded at long last, is that body parts can't be considered weapons because there has to be some distinction between simple assault and assault with a dangerous or deadly weapon.

We find it difficult, the court reason, to see how someone could be accused of assault without using a body part in some way. An insight that seems to have escaped the jury entirely and again Took the Ninth Circuit panel 14 pages to reach. But as I mentioned earlier, what about the people who have used their hands and been trained to use their hands in ways that exceed simply a cheap shot?

To somebody's face. In November of 2013, 27 year old Jamal Parks made waves in the legal realm of martial arts. when he was charged with aggravated assault under the Texas penal code. According to reports, Mr Parks was involved in an altercation in his home with his friend. As the situation escalated, mister Parks reportedly beat his friend with his hands And threw him through dry walls.

Further, when the police arrived, Mr. Parks physically assaulted the responding officer severely enough to jeopardize the officer's life, according to the section of the technology. Parks penal code under which Mr. Parks was charged, a finding that a deadly weapon was employed in the assault is required to establish an aggravated assault charge here. The deadly weapon used was the defendant's hands, the hands of a trained mixed martial arts fighter. Although perhaps Shocking.

This type of charge is not entirely unprecedented. Anyone who has spent time around martial arts has heard the legend about a black belt or professional boxer registering his or her hands as deadly weapons. But surprisingly, this idea carries more weight than most anticipated. In mister Parks' case, the defendant pled guilty to aggravated assaults. Accordingly, there was very little room left for judicial scrutiny of whether the hands of a martial artist

can qualify as a deadly weapon under the law. So essentially pleading guilty to that doesn't really put before the court, the judge, uh, the necessity to analyze strictly under the Texas penal code. weather hands overall generally as a rule. can be in an MMA fighter's case considered deadly weapons and charged accordingly. Nevertheless, a person's body is generally allowed to be classified as a deadly weapon under Texas's case law, essentially.

under prior cases that have dealt with similar issues. But that obviously doesn't go for every state, nor does it go for every situation. In that case, at the very least, the defendant was a trained MMA fighter. Just because your ex-boyfriend thinks he could be one wouldn't necessarily put him in that category, to say that every time he throws a punch at your local bar, he should be charged with aggravated assault.

The nuance is there, okay? But this is Texas specific, at least since 2017, when the article that I'm reading from presently uh was published.

Obviously, it's hard to carve out a general standard, a general rule that every state follows with respect to this issue. And the fact that there are so many different literal court opinions on it. is interesting. This is the type of phenomenon That sounds stupid.

when you really first hear it. But then when you get into the weeds, you're like, Well, yeah, I mean I guess it is pretty i a deadly weapon, right? It's interesting, okay? Now we move on to teeth and I mentioned it, at least the Ninth Circuit definitely mentioned it in their opinion. on the bare hands situation. They were like, well, teeth obviously aren't deadly weapons, but there have been cases where it's been considered.

Lyot svårakut var i din hermercy. Du plattade all håret utan värmesed. What's wrong with you women? And that case that it mentioned was the case in New York. The reason why it was considered a deadly weapon in the case of defendant David Plunkett was because he had reportedly a quote history of mental illness and is a carrier of the human immunodeficiency virus, HIV.

During a visit to his primary care physician, he was found by police openly possessing marijuana and acting strangely in the waiting room. This behavior prompted the police to arrest Plunkette. Plunkett resisted the arrest and bit the officer on the finger. As a result, the

Plunkett was charged and convicted of aggravated assault upon a police officer. In order to be convicted of aggravated assault in New York, it requires that the injury you caused was by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. A serious physical injury, quote unquote, is one that creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or serious and protracted disfigurement, protracted impairment of health, or protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

Defense counsel, because they were smart, challenged the charge on the premise that Plunkett's teeth cannot be considered a dangerous instrument instrument within the meaning of the penal law. The county court agreed, citing precedent that teeth are not a dangerous instrument. instrument, sorry, but the court said that Plunkett's AIDS infected saliva was a dangerous instrument and the bite by the defendant's teeth was a vehicle to transmit the virus. But

Spoiler, the Court of Appeal ultimately reversed that decision, saying, No, just because someone has HIV doesn't make their teeth a deadly weapon. Sorry. Uh, and ultimately the order was modified, the count of aggravated assault was dismissed, and the case was remanded for resentencing based on the resisting arrest. charge and I believe the marijuana possession. What about dogs? Can dogs be considered a dangerous weapon? Some judges say yes.

Prosecutors are concluding that using a dog to attack another person is the same as using a weapon and many courts have agreed. It's not unusual for prosecutors to obtain convictions for assault with a deadly weapon when a defendant uses a dog in an attack. Over the years, judges have mostly arrived at the same conclusion. If you use Fido as a weapon, he becomes one.

Some prosecutors are also bringing weapons possession charges against defendants with dangerous dogs, though that issue is more muddled. So basically saying, Oh, you possess a dangerous weapon when you're not supposed to, when it's simply a dog. In one case, James Austin was accused of ordering his puppy and a friend's dog to attack plainclothes officers pursuing a drug suspect. who ran into Austin's building in august twenty twelve. Officers killed the puppy

And inadvertently inadvertently wounded Austin in the leg. Austin was charged with menacing assault and attempted assault and criminal possession of a weapon, a pit bull. So the criminal possession of a weapon is the one that would be a mm, okay, we're kind of pushing it. Assault with one is different than possessing one, right? Duh. His lawyer disputes the police accounts. Los Angeles lawyer Kenneth Kenneth Phillips.

told a newspaper that he's seeing more prosecutions in which dogs are classified as weapons. Prosecutors are using these laws that usually apply to guns and other weapons to enhance charges. Because mind you, they're not trying to like keep you safer because they're like, Oh no, like th this for public policy. No, they're trying trying to like put people in prison for longer. It just means a longer sentence and um the a shittier

uh tick on your wrap sheet, honestly. And prosecutors usually get rewarded for doing things like that, which shouldn't be a thing. That is going on all over the country right now far more than it was even a few years ago. But let's continue on. Are toy guns a deadly weapon? On June 19th, 1987, appellant Gilbert Martinez Jimenez.

entered a bank in Bellflower, California with a toy gun and ordered the people in the bank to lie face down on the floor while his accomplice took money from bank drawers drawers and a customer During the robbery, Martinez held the gun, the toy gun, downwards by his side. Eyewitnesses, including two big employees and a big customer, who was familiar with handguns, thought that the object carried by appellant was a genuine fight.

revolver. Three witnesses later testified that the object was a revolver, which caused them to fear for the safety of both themselves and the others in the bank. At the trial, The defense introduced a toy gun into evidence. Martinez testified that the gun introduced into evidence was the gun employed during the robbery on the basis of a suggestion.

examination of bank robbery photographs and the toy gun, the trial court concluded that he had possessed a toy gun during the course of the bank robbery because he had displayed the toy gun during the robbery, he was convicted under section two one one what wow. two one one three subsection D. The Ninth Circuit was presented with the question of whether a toy gun is a quote dangerous weapon within the meaning of the federal bank robbery statute.

The Ninth Circuit concluded that yes, it is a deadly weapon. A toy gun is a dangerous weapon or device as defined under the federal bank robbery statute, because Whether loaded or not, the display of a gun instills fear in the average citizen. As a consequence, it creates an immediate danger that a violent response will ensue. A gun which is inoperable and incapable of firing will still support a conviction under that.

statute. So we've been through the animals. We've been through the objects that weren't ever designed to be harmful to someone. We've been through the objects that were indeed designed to be harmful to someone. We've been through our body parts. What's next? What could possibly be last that could that could potentially make this crazy legal world really a buzz with controversy? That last category is non-lethal weapons. It sounds stupid, but

They have been considered deadly. Just buckle your seatbelt. Are non-lethal self-defense weapons deadly weapons? dangerous weapons, as defined under aggravated assault or battery statutes. Statutes which give you longer sentences for the crime that you commit because you were carrying such a deadly weapon. Your answer to this is probably well obviously not, they're non-lethal. I wish I could say the same for the court system. Owning a stun gun is a crime in seven states and several cities.

Carrying irritant sprays such as pepper spray or mace is probably illegal in several jurisdictions. Even possessing irritant sprays at home is illegal in Massachusetts. If you are not a citizen, and in several states, if you're under 18, even if you're 16 or 17. Yet in most of these jurisdictions, People are free to possess guns in the same exact situations where stun guns or irritant sprays are illegal. The hypocrisy abounds.

So deadly devices are fine. But say you have religious, ethical, or emotional objections to killing, or don't want to risk accidentally killing an innocent bystander, or don't want your children to potentially have access to deadly. weapons, not wanting to kill, and knowing that stun guns and irritant sprays pose at most a very small risk of death. you get a stun gun, which over a hundred and ninety eight thousand civilians have apparently done, or an irritant spray. Well

Then you're a criminal. Unfortunately, I have to report that states and jurisdictions are still conflicted on whether non-lethal quote unquote devices such as irritants, pepper sprays, and tasers that often women, for example, carry on their runs to try to protect themselves in the event of being attacked. They are all conflicted and split on whether that can be used the the actual use of that thing, the non-lethal quote unquote device, can basically aggravate your assault chart.

Period. Based on what I've told you, especially with respect to the analysis about the alligators and the raccoon, it makes sense, but it also seems very counterproductive when we think about the pervasiveness.

uh of guns and firearms in this country and how horrendously uh detrimental that has been to the safety of our children in schools, the safety of our country in general. We are the number one in in gun violence, uh, consistently in in the um industrialized world, uh and no other country that is comparable to us and our economy and our our society uh is anywhere close to the number of deaths that we have due to due to guns. And in all of those countries that's because they have um

more restrictions on on guns and and they make it essentially just just harder to get one for people who shouldn't get one. And we are the opposite. It is quite easy to get a gun, even if you should not have one. And in these scenarios it the the actual analysis around Why pepper spray?

when it's used in a deadly way to spray in someone's eyes, that can make it a deadly instrument, which can mean that your assault that was simple now now changes to a assault two, which carries more prison time, yada yada. That all sounds in a vacuum okay. Like, all right, yeah, it kind of makes sense. But in the overall grand scheme of things, it sounds so

fucking ass backwards that you start to want to tear your hair out. Because what the fuck do you mean spraying someone with pepper spray carries the same charge as brandishing A firearm? Are you fucking kidding me? America. Just a few months ago in 2025, a DC court says pepper spray isn't. They ruled that pepper spray shouldn't automatically be considered a dangerous weapon under the law, though it has been proven to cause incapacitating effects.

Those are not enough to cause extreme physical pain. which would apparently render it a destructive quote unquote device, which in that jurisdiction is apparently covered by the high standard for the term dangerous under under the assault statute. But In, for example, this the case of Handy versus State in Maryland, a court of appeals held that pepper spray or mace may be considered a deadly or dangerous weapon under the robbery with a deadly weapon statute.

They determined that as a matter of fact, defendant spraying a pepper spray into a person's eyes, causing substantial pain and injury during the course of a robbery, constituted robbery with a deadly weapon. That was in two thousand. Another case in Pennsylvania Superior Court In twenty seventeen, Commonwealth vs. Chambers held that even if mace is not an inherently deadly instrumentality, it became a deadly weapon because it was used to render the victim defenseless against

a sustained attack. In that case, Chambers, the defendant, was involved in a confrontation with a victim that turned physical during the altercation. He began p he began punching the victim and prompted one or more Of his enough unidentified cohorts to spray mace at the victim. The assault of the victim by chambers included repeated punching, infliction of physical injuries, and until police physically intervened an unrelenting attack of the victim.

he also threatened to kill the victim during the attack. As a result of being sprayed with mace, the victim could no longer see clearly as Chambers pushed him flat onto the scre street and knelt on him, punching and kicking him while someone kept Spraying him. The victim was treated for three hairline rib fractures, a concussion, a laceration requiring stitches, and a burnt retina from the maze.

Following testimony, Chambers was sentenced to one and a half to three years of incarceration, followed by three years of reporting probation. And on appeal, he claimed that it was an error for the trial court to hold that mace could be a deadly weapon and an instrument of a crime. And the Pennsylvania courts affirmed the convention the conviction. And said, it can be, it can be. It's context specific specific, which sounds a whole lot like what happened in Massachusetts.

What's interesting about the Pennsylvania case that kinda takes me out, the court explained that even an egg can be a deadly weapon when thrown from the roof of a building at the windshield of a vehicle. Which is fair when you think about it. I'm pretty sure there is a recent uh case. It horribly tragic and awful and terrible and horrendous of a teenager.

throwing a massive rock at cars like above an overpass with their buddies, like to be funny. I don't know why that would be funny. It was it was basically large enough, it went through the windshield. of a woman's car that they were aiming for and it and she passed away she died. She crashed and died. Um horrendous and horrible. Context matters and I think that the best way to secure justice

Uh, the best way that we can is to really emphasize the case-by-case basis, making it so that it just depends. Like it fucking depends. We cannot have a hard and fast rule for what is and isn't a deadly weapon because some things could be and some things couldn't be. Interesting arguments on both sides of the coin for courts or jurisdictions that consistently hold, hey no. These are what dangerous weapons are, deadly and dangerous.

Okay. A pencil is not a deadly and dangerous weapon. An egg is not a deadly and dangerous weapon. You know what is a gun, a knife, etc. Right? Those are the types of weapons that we're trying to combat here. We are not trying to get after the egg throwing connoisseurs. We're not trying to get after Something of that nature. I am going to list for you all of the things that have been considered deadly weapons, at least uh most commonly. Cars, broken bottles, rocks.

The heel of a stiletto, baseball bats, everyday household items. Knives, brass knuckles, unloaded firearms used as a club, unloaded firearms, period, blunt objects, any household items that have been used to hurt somebody, like a ladle. or a plastic chair, axes, clubs, an air gauge knife, Ammunition, a ballistic knife, a belt buckle knife, a bullet containing an explosive agent, a camouflaging firearm container, a cane sword, a concealed dagger, different than a knife.

for those who know, a concealed explosive substance, a large capacity magazine, itself, just by itself, a leaded cane, a sandbag, a sand club, a sap or Slung shot. What's difference between a slung shot or a slingshot? Would anyone like to tell me? Can't wait to find out. A lipstick case knife, again, metal knuckles, brass knuckles, metal military practice hand grenade.

or a metal replica of a hand grenade, a multi burst trigger activator, a nunchuck, a shoe rekin, Shuriken, which sound looks and sounds Japanese, uh, consisting of a metal plate having three or more radiating points. Like those stars that they throw. I'm sorry if I'm butchering the pronunciation. A shobizu means a staff, crutch, stick, rod, or pole concealing a knife or blade in it. Also really cool to see in movies. And a riding pen knife. BB guns, a bludgeon, a billy, a lot.

of different things can or cannot be considered deadly weapons for the purpose of enhancing a charge like assault or battery or robbery or burglary. But it absolutely depends on where you are in this country. My rebuttal for today's episode is to never bring a raccoon to a bar fight. Put your beekeeping gear on before you let your bee assault team loose.

Wendy's frosties are definitely tastier than McFlurry's, and I stand by that opinion. And if you want to flirt with someone at a bar by telling them that you are a deadly red flag as a matter of law Just take a martial arts class. Bye, you guys. This has been an episode of Rebuttal. I hope you enjoyed it. Next one coming soon. Love you so much. I am tired of hearing myself speak. Please be safe. Love you guys.