Oregon court rules teeth not considered dangerous weapon in a fight

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
190
Location
Sanger CA
Oregon court rules teeth not considered dangerous weapon in a fight

Published: Wednesday, March 23, 2011, 3:20 PM

By Tom Hallman Jr., The Oregonian EXCERPT: The Oregonian

Biting your opponent during a brawl may violate the rules of what's considered a fair fight, but it doesn't turn the attack into first-degree assault.

The Oregon Court of Appeals has ruled Wednesday that teeth cannot be considered dangerous weapon in a case that grew out of a 2008 fight between two Marion County men.

During the fight, 30-year-old Scott Russell Kuperus II, clamped down and took out a chunk of his opponent's lower ear. He was arrested and later convicted of first-degree assault and second-degree assault and sentenced to 90-months in prison. His attorney argued the first-degree assault charge was wrong.

The Court of Appeals agreed.

One of the requirements to be charged with first-degree assault is the use of a dangerous weapon – in this case, that would be teeth.

State law defines a dangerous weapon as: Any weapon, device, instrument, material or substance 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 serious physical injury.
END EXCERPT
It seems as if the law requires a weapon to be something other than part of the perpetrator's body. I agree.
 
Other than my hands:) I don't think human body parts should be considered weapons. If the question comes up, does he have a weapon? and you say 32. It could cause a little confusion.
Sean
 
It is an interesting question isn't it?
But...but...what about untrimmed fingernails and toenails :uhyeah:
Xue, in full command of my masculinity, I can only say "Ewwww ewww ewww!" Especially thick nasty looking toenails
 
Other than my hands:) I don't think human body parts should be considered weapons. If the question comes up, does he have a weapon? and you say 32. It could cause a little confusion.
Sean
2 hands (2 heels of the hand, eight knuckles, 2 backs of the hand...)
2 elbows
2 knees
2 feet (2 heels, 2 insteps, 2 balls of the foot)
2 hips
32 teeth
1 forehead
1 chin... the list goes on and on, but, if it is part of you, can it really be considered a weapon as if someone grabbed a knife, a lead pipe, a rope or a pistol?
 
It is an interesting question isn't it?
Xue, in full command of my masculinity, I can only say "Ewwww ewww ewww!" Especially thick nasty looking toenails

And what if they have Toenail fungus

2 hands (2 heels of the hand, eight knuckles, 2 backs of the hand...)
2 elbows
2 knees
2 feet (2 heels, 2 insteps, 2 balls of the foot)
2 hips
32 teeth
1 forehead
1 chin... the list goes on and on, but, if it is part of you, can it really be considered a weapon as if someone grabbed a knife, a lead pipe, a rope or a pistol?

Oh just save time and typing and trust in the CMA way of looking at it... the body is a fist
 
2 hands (2 heels of the hand, eight knuckles, 2 backs of the hand...)
2 elbows
2 knees
2 feet (2 heels, 2 insteps, 2 balls of the foot)
2 hips
32 teeth
1 forehead
1 chin... the list goes on and on, but, if it is part of you, can it really be considered a weapon as if someone grabbed a knife, a lead pipe, a rope or a pistol?
Well, my answer is that English speaking people consider the word weapon to mean an object that aids the human body to control, hurt, or kill others.
Sean
 
How about if I hit someone with the planet (via a throw aka assisted gravity). It's a really big weapon, and I've nearly always got it with me. ;)

Out of curiosity, how do regular household objects stack up. Is a pencil a weapon? How about a rolled up magazine? Both can do substantial damage if applied correctly to the body. But are they weapons?
 
How about if I hit someone with the planet (via a throw aka assisted gravity). It's a really big weapon, and I've nearly always got it with me. ;)

Out of curiosity, how do regular household objects stack up. Is a pencil a weapon? How about a rolled up magazine? Both can do substantial damage if applied correctly to the body. But are they weapons?
Not to the police. By this I mean you shouldn't call them if you see a guy holding a pen and a rolled up news paper. He's about to do a crossword puzzle. :)
Sean
 
now what if he had AIDS or HIV or HEP C or HERPES and bites his cheek to bleed and then bites your ear and spits his blood all over your tore up ear?
Attempted murder?
1st Degree Assault?
what?
 
now what if he had AIDS or HIV or HEP C or HERPES and bites his cheek to bleed and then bites your ear and spits his blood all over your tore up ear?
Attempted murder?
1st Degree Assault?
what?
Depraved indifference to human life, I think, but not weapons.
Sean
 
You would rather die than have a malady?

I have been stabbed several times, I would rather live well then deal with the mental and emotional trauma of being violated in that manner... The majority of cases of stab and gunfire wounds are not fatal. I will take my chances.
 
Not to the police. By this I mean you shouldn't call them if you see a guy holding a pen and a rolled up news paper. He's about to do a crossword puzzle. :)
Sean

Nice ^^

OK, well how about if someone is stabbed with a pencil then? Is the pencil in question considered a weapon by how it was used, or is it not a weapon because that was not it's intended use? Is the stabber likely to face weapons' charges or not?
 
Nice ^^

OK, well how about if someone is stabbed with a pencil then? Is the pencil in question considered a weapon by how it was used, or is it not a weapon because that was not it's intended use? Is the stabber likely to face weapons' charges or not?
Environmental weapons are not the same as weapons. If you bring a pen to a fistfight nobody will say boo. Bring a man made Rambo Knife, and you are looking at some serious jail time. It shows intent.
Sean
 
I'm from Oregon. Wasn't part of the trial or anything, but I can see how this probably went down. In Oregon (and I guess many other states) if you walk into a fight with a dangerous weapon, the law treats you differently than if you didn't - even if you scrounged and deployed one later on.

Defining teeth or other body parts as a dangerous weapon would interact strangely with that part of the law. It's a context thing.

Or maybe I'm crediting the lawmakers with an unfair and unrealistic level of common sense.
 
Back
Top