• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Man arrested in Monroe for carrying a pellet gun

Hendu024

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
445
Location
Virginia Beach, Virginia, USA
imported post

turbodog wrote:
Louisiana Carry wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".
It does if you rob a bank with it. :?
So, it comes down to, as many things with the law seem to, a matter of a persons intent?
AFAIK, if you walk into a bank and pass a note that says you have a gun and want the money, etc etc you are still considered an "armed robber" even if you don't have a gun, and you will be charged as such.
 

georg jetson

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
2,416
Location
Slidell, Louisiana
imported post

turbodog wrote:
georg jetson wrote:
turbodog wrote:
Louisiana Carry wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
XD-GEM, that is not the first time a judge has directed a jury that the law said something other than what it plainly says.

A pencil can cause death or serious bodily harm, but that doesn't make it "customarily used or intended for probable use as a dangerous weapon".
It does if you rob a bank with it. :?
So, it comes down to, as many things with the law seem to, a matter of a persons intent?
That's why the word "intended" is used :).
LOL yeah, I got that George. Once again, my phraseology isn't up to par. But if one paints a squirtgun to look real and uses it to rob someone, you're charged with armed robbery even though a squirtgun is never "customarily used" as a dangerous weapon, nor is it possible to "intend" to use it as a dangerous weapon as it cannot ever BE a dangerous weapon. It's a hollow plastic toy. If I threw it at you, could you, in all honesty, say you were actually hurt by it beyond an imediate sting? I've stubbed my toe worse than that. Knowing what it is, I just can't call it a weapon.

To use it in a robbery would be better described as "intent to intimidate" by fooling a victim into thinking it was a real weapon and robbing them because of that.
Let's not get confused here... illegal carrying of weapons and armed robbery are 2 different charges...

64. Armed robbery [align=justify]A. Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon.[/align]Both statutes DO use the term dangerous weapon and 14.2 defines dangerous weapon...

(3) "Dangerous weapon" includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

If I were a defendant charged with either, I would force the prosecutor to prove that my squirt gun(the one you refer to) is a "dangerous weapon" as defined by 14.2

If it CANT be used as a dangerous weapon then how can it be INTENDED to be used as such.
 

turbodog

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
566
Location
Independence, Louisiana, USA
imported post

georg jetson wrote:
Let's not get confused here... illegal carrying of weapons and armed robbery are 2 different charges...

64. Armed robbery [align=justify]A. Armed robbery is the taking of anything of value belonging to another from the person of another or that is in the immediate control of another, by use of force or intimidation, while armed with a dangerous weapon.[/align]Both statutes DO use the term dangerous weapon and 14.2 defines dangerous weapon...

(3) "Dangerous weapon" includes any gas, liquid or other substance or instrumentality, which, in the manner used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

If I were a defendant charged with either, I would force the prosecutor to prove that my squirt gun(the one you refer to) is a "dangerous weapon" as defined by 14.2

If it CANT be used as a dangerous weapon then how can it be INTENDED to be used as such.
My point exactly. Give you a further example of when a weapon isn't a weapon. I was once arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. The "weapon" in question was a folding blade buck knife in a sheath on my belt. I used it in my (then) job as a carpenter. The Judge dismissed the charge on the basis that a folding blade knife that requires two hands to open did not fit the definition of "weapon" as defined in RS 14:95.

R.S. 14:95: A. Illegal carrying of weapons is:
(4) The manufacture, ownership, possession, custody or use of any switchblade knife, spring knife or other knife or similar instrument having a blade which may be automatically unfolded or extended from a handle by the manipulation of a button, switch, latch or similar contrivance.

As my knife wasn't a weapon by law, I couldn't be prosecuted for having it.

I think that if one carry's one of those lockblade knives I see alot now days, the ones with the little stud mounted on the side of the blade so it can be opened one-handed, you may have more trouble with this than I did with my old Buck knife, because it can be opened (and by it's design, intended to be opened) one-handed. That little stud may be considered a "similar contrivance". Then again, maybe not.
 

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,886
Location
Granite State of Mind
imported post

LA Confederate wrote:
KBCraig wrote:
If you extend it to mean non-humans, then you're in possession of a deadly weapon every time you get in your car, which "customarily" has splattered bug corpses all over the front.


That is an inaccurate correlation. The car's primary purpose is to transport people from point A to point B whereas the pellet gun's purpose is to kill. It's based on the primary use for which you have the tool.
[/quote]


Really? You contend that the primary use of a pellet gun is to kill?
 
Top