"“To determine whether a weapon is dangerous and unusual, ‘we consider whether the weapon has uniquely dangerous propensities "
That gets me to look up 'propensities' which is inclination which is feelings which is disposition of the mind.... of the KNIFE? Consideration of whether the knife has dangerous propensities? It's an object.
It's all about control ultimately, or rahter the lack thereof. That's what any court of law whether in the US or europe or saudi arabia will not accept; loss of control, with a weapon or with your bare hands.
"Dangerous propensities" explosives typically, dynamite, pipe bombs, grenades, stuffs once released you have no control over. That, is a big "no no", for obvious reasons.
This is also why tasers were extended Constitutional protection some years back. Controllable and in common use. I expect this to be extended to silencers in the next decade as their use grows.
Silencers... Good topic.
Why is .gtv so wary about them? Rhetorical question...
Difference between a warrior and an assassin? "Authority" of course. There's no such thing as murder in times of war when mandated by the state... Another way to put it, is that it's not illegal when .gvt does it... But I digress.
Silencers are assassins weapon by nature, "special ops", false flags and such, green berets, spies eventually, in a worst case scenario... At the same time nowadays, it has almost become mandatory, for obvious reasons... You want to shoot happy shoot hidden, hence... Silencer...
You shall not kill VS you shall not murder...
That's what the law is dealing with ultimately here; legit self defense vs "assassination"... And it's grey territory... Think of green berets...
https://youtu.be/sReUrHlTOmc?t=16
Edit:
keyword -> treason; you don't get betrayed by a warrior, a warrior is frontal just as a "napolean" infantry is... However an assassin... Well, betrayal is the corner stone ultimately... Just like spies...
Keyword -> sacrifice
Whether your allegiance goes to satan or god, ultimately... It's a matter of sacrifice.
So?
So here you are...
That makes more sense. Dangerous when not under control.
Never say or imply that you lost control, in front of a court of law, EVER
It's not a defense it's just an admission of being a loose canon essentially; if you lost control what does it imply? Well that you obviously need to be put under control... Well... They have a couple of facilities for that...
When it comes to knives/blades, if all your strikes were below the belt and your defense consists in not being the attacker in the first place... You can easily argue that yes you stabbed him on purpose yes, below the belt, to not hit vital organs/not kill him. You hit in the ass/legs/thigh typically, or forearms not the chess not the neck/face
And regardless of the outcome, in case if he died for instance, it proves that your intent wasn't to kill him in the first place, because you took care of NOT targeting vital organs... It's hard to charge for murder in that context and again you didn't start it... You aren't guilty of assault in the first place.
Now, that being said, there are areas in the legs that can turn deadly if severely damaged, the femoral artery typically https://pic8.co/sh/OqUYrx.png
Can you kill with a low kick? Well in theory, if you shatter the femoral artery yes
But well... What are you kicking? A 5 years old? A grandmother?
(post is archived)