• Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    “His defense attorney, Matt Fregi, said he harbored “no ill will toward” his client, who had already cycled through several attorneys before him. “Nothing serious,” he said of his injuries. “Everyone thought it was a lot more serious than what it was.””

    That’s a cool lawyer

  • NounsAndWords@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    8 months ago

    according to a source at the scene, Randle jammed the pen into Fregi’s head and again near his jaw.

    Well shit. I was imagining, like, the shoulder, or something.

    • JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I had to go back and re-read the title, i thought it said he ‘slipped and stabbed lawyer’ and i was like ‘how the fuck did it happen twice?’.

  • tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    8 months ago

    assault with a deadly weapon

    If a pen qualifies as a deadly weapon, what doesn’t? Assault with bare hands?

    • DoctorSpocktopus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      8 months ago

      Randle jammed the pen into Fregi’s head and again near his jaw

      I suppose it’s to do with how deadly it could have been? Not sure why it isn’t attempted murder, but I am not a lawyer.

      • Khanzarate@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        I suppose because it’s harder to prove murder. Since he failed, they’d have to prove motive, and he could argue he only wanted to harm the lawyer.

        But assault is about facts, no feelings.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      Depends on the hands. A professional fighter can be charged with AWALW using their hands, or feet if that’s part of their martial arts training, although their body parts can’t legally be registered as such.

      This guy clearly intended that pen to be lethal and likely had the strength for it, but was fortunately restrained.

    • Breezy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Dude broke through restraints, clearly a pen is a deadly weapon in his hands.

      • tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        I guess. But you can also smother someone with a fluffy pillow. So that’s a deadly weapon, too? Like where is the line between “deadly weapon” and “any random object”.

        • quindraco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          There is no such line. The pillow counts as a weapon and all weapons count as deadly.

        • candybrie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          8 months ago

          I think it might just be a line of how they used the random object could have reasonably resulted in death. So if you smack someone in the face with a fluffy pillow, it’s not a deadly weapon. If you try to smother them with it, it is.

        • r00ty@kbin.life
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Seems quite simple to me. Things like guns, swords, daggers and the like are designed to be weapons. So they’re generally going to be assumed to be a weapon any time they’re used/brandished.

          But literally anything can be used as a weapon. So, in normal use they’re not a weapon but if used as a weapon, they become one in that instance.

          • tobogganablaze@lemmus.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yeah, but then the term “deadly weapon” is kind of meaningless as it basically just means “assualt with a thing”.

            • r00ty@kbin.life
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Yeah, I’d agree there. It should be whatever the US equivalent of aggravated assault is. But the charges you could levy bearing in mind he aimed for the head could go as far as attempted murder I guess.

            • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              8 months ago

              I think on a legal level it means it was an object that was being wielded as a weapon, and from the attack in the specific instance it was meant to kill and the object was capable of achieving that. Hence a deadly weapon.

            • Anyolduser@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              Not entirely useless. “Assaulted with thing that could kill or maim under the circumstances at that time” is pretty relevant, even if it is super broad.

              Spitting on someone Is assault. If I was on trial for spitting on someone I’d hate to get lumped together with the guy who caved someone’s head in with a lead pipe.

    • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s the thing.
      Literally anything is a weapon. Banning weapons will only go so far, it’ll definitely make it a lot harder for most mass killings to occur but if someone is determined enough they will make it happen.

      Eventually we won’t have a choice but to address the underlying mental health issues plaguing at least half the population.

      • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        True, although many countries in the world disagree with the US that banning firearms wouldn’t make a huge difference. By virtue of, well, them having done so and it having made a huge difference.

        • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          I’m not saying don’t ban firearms, I’m saying don’t ignore the underlying problems too. The rest of the world doesn’t have easy access to firearms but they also have much better access to mental health services.

      • Buglefingers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        That’s the other thing too, even objects not typically considered weapons can be made so, some more brual for mass killing/destruction than guns. Propane tanks, pressure cookers, even bleach and ammonia, even liquor has been used (quite effectively) historically.

        None of it is right, but when you start considering banning cooking supplies (pressure cookers I believe around Boston marathon bomber time) you are right, we do have to address the underlying issues

  • solrize@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    The guy is bonkers and needs medical intervention before he is fit for trial.