Why it's wrong:
This logic presents a basic misunderstanding of the law, including the legal definition of a "weapon." Here's Washington state's definition of a "deadly weapon":
Any explosive or loaded or unloaded firearm, and ... any other weapon, device, instrument, article, or substance, including a “vehicle” as defined in this section, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or substantial bodily harm. RCW 9A.04.110(6)
Arkansas has a similar definition:
A deadly weapon is defined as “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious physical injury.”Ark.Code Ann. § 5–1–102(4)(B)
"Weapons specifically listed in a statute and those with known dangerous qualities are generally characterized as deadly or dangerous per se, or deadly or dangerous as a matter of law, and require little or no proof to support a classification as such a weapon." 124 A.L.R.5th 657. These items include things like firearms, clubs, knives, and axes. But not dogs. And not "pit bulls."
"There are other objects which, while not deadly or dangerous per se, may, under certain circumstances, be likely to cause death or serious injury. Such objects require proof in each case tending to show that the instruments or objects were dangerous or deadly in the manner used by the defendant. In determining whether an instrument not inherently deadly or dangerous assumes these characteristics, a court may consider: (1) the size and nature of the weapon or instrument; (2) the manner in which it was used, possessed, or carried; (3) the size and strength of the party using it; (4) the intent of the user; (5) the person on whom it was used; (6) the offense or crime in the commission of which it was used; and (7) the capability of the instrument to inflict death or serious bodily injury." 124 A.L.R.5th 657.
None of us can really dispute that many dogs are large enough to be capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. But that simply isn't enough to label a dog as a "deadly weapon." It is clear from both statutory and case law that human behavior and mental state and the critical components in these analyses. Indeed, it is the criminal conviction of a human being that is at issue in these cases.
Pit bull type dogs are most certainly not the only type of dog that presents itself in these cases. Indeed, no Court interpretation of statutory law contemplates applying the "deadly weapon" designation to only pit bull type dogs. To draw such a conclusion is to reach far beyond any legal interpretation. It can only be concluded that such statements are inherently flawed, and presented with the hope that listeners will not understand enough about the law to recognize the bluff.
Don't let this half-baked assertion fool you. When dogs are adjudicated as "weapons" in a court case, the commentary is about the dog's handler and not about the dog. The dogs in these cases are victims of violent, criminal owners -- tools manipulated for the owner's gain. We need to direct our focus squarely on dog owners and handlers, as this is where it belongs.
This logic presents a basic misunderstanding of the law, including the legal definition of a "weapon." Here's Washington state's definition of a "deadly weapon":
Any explosive or loaded or unloaded firearm, and ... any other weapon, device, instrument, article, or substance, including a “vehicle” as defined in this section, which, under the circumstances in which it is used, attempted to be used, or threatened to be used, is readily capable of causing death or substantial bodily harm. RCW 9A.04.110(6)
Arkansas has a similar definition:
A deadly weapon is defined as “anything that in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of causing death or serious physical injury.”Ark.Code Ann. § 5–1–102(4)(B)
"Weapons specifically listed in a statute and those with known dangerous qualities are generally characterized as deadly or dangerous per se, or deadly or dangerous as a matter of law, and require little or no proof to support a classification as such a weapon." 124 A.L.R.5th 657. These items include things like firearms, clubs, knives, and axes. But not dogs. And not "pit bulls."
"There are other objects which, while not deadly or dangerous per se, may, under certain circumstances, be likely to cause death or serious injury. Such objects require proof in each case tending to show that the instruments or objects were dangerous or deadly in the manner used by the defendant. In determining whether an instrument not inherently deadly or dangerous assumes these characteristics, a court may consider: (1) the size and nature of the weapon or instrument; (2) the manner in which it was used, possessed, or carried; (3) the size and strength of the party using it; (4) the intent of the user; (5) the person on whom it was used; (6) the offense or crime in the commission of which it was used; and (7) the capability of the instrument to inflict death or serious bodily injury." 124 A.L.R.5th 657.
None of us can really dispute that many dogs are large enough to be capable of causing serious bodily injury or death. But that simply isn't enough to label a dog as a "deadly weapon." It is clear from both statutory and case law that human behavior and mental state and the critical components in these analyses. Indeed, it is the criminal conviction of a human being that is at issue in these cases.
Pit bull type dogs are most certainly not the only type of dog that presents itself in these cases. Indeed, no Court interpretation of statutory law contemplates applying the "deadly weapon" designation to only pit bull type dogs. To draw such a conclusion is to reach far beyond any legal interpretation. It can only be concluded that such statements are inherently flawed, and presented with the hope that listeners will not understand enough about the law to recognize the bluff.
Don't let this half-baked assertion fool you. When dogs are adjudicated as "weapons" in a court case, the commentary is about the dog's handler and not about the dog. The dogs in these cases are victims of violent, criminal owners -- tools manipulated for the owner's gain. We need to direct our focus squarely on dog owners and handlers, as this is where it belongs.
