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.
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.