Hi, Rahvin.
Rahvin writes:
As Ive stated, intent to kill is not required for the charge of Assault with a Deadly Weapon - the charge is intended to convey that the accused was being not only violent, but recklessly endangered the life of his victim by using a weapon instead of just his fists.
I do not contest your technical usage of "Assault with a Deadly Weapon," and I do not wish to have to repeat this again.
The problem I have with your using it in this case is precisely because the charge ignores the perpetrator's intent. As far as the legal charge is concerned, attempting to stab somebody is the same as attempting to cut somebody's hair. Yet, when it comes to discussing somebody's character, the distinction between "intent to stab" and "intent to trim" is rather meaningful: most people will regard "intent to stab" as indicative of a much more serious and disturbing character flaw than "intent to trim."
But, since "Assault with a Deadly Weapon" is a loaded phrase, people conflate "intent to trim" with "intent to stab," and bullies become murderers in their minds. This is how the armchair psychiatrists you mentioned end up flinging around words like "sociopath" and "psychopath." The easy remedy is to recognize when it's not necessary to pile on penalty enhancers, and focus specifically on the primary concern, which, in this case, is Romney's homophobia and lack of integrity.
Incidentally, I would actually be somewhat more troubled by this incident if Romney had gone after the boy with just his fists, because that would imply "intent to harm," whereas the scissors do not.
-----
Also, I took the opportunity to read more into assault with deadly weapons, and I found
this article, in which an assault ruling in which scissors were classed as a "deadly weapon" was overturned in 2008 by a state court because the deadliness of the scissors was never demonstrated conclusively. So, there is a (non-binding) precedent that scissors are not necessarily a "deadly weapon," even if they're being used to stab someone.
-----
Rahvin writes:
This is not a situation where finding a Golden Mean better conveys what happened.
It is a rare thing indeed for people to think {fill in the blank} is a situation in which finding a Golden Mean is a desirable outcome. I submit that this is the mechanistic explanation for Godwin's Law and your new armchair-psychiatrist law ("Rahvin's Law"?).
-----
As a matter of political expediency, I find it important to point out that I do not completely agree with Catholic Scientist. There is sufficient reason to believe that Romney's assault on Lauber was related to his homophobia.
-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.