[ruksak]

Quote by: tivodan1116 Rubber-soled tennis shoe which defendant was wearing when he kicked his victim constituted a "dangerous weapon" for purposes of committing aggravated battery; eyewitness testified that defendant kicked victim in head so forcefully that impact lifted victim's body off ground and physician who operated on victim characterized victim's attack as brutal. State v. Munoz, App. 5 Cir.1991, 575 So.2d 848, writ denied 577 So.2d 1009.

I know I heard this argument made before in regards to a skinhead that used steel-toe boots to kick a man to death. As mentioned however, he killed a guy.

Also, the date at the bottom of that says 1991, and I also see where it says "writ denied" and "State vs. Munoz"? Whats the source of this quote so that it may be kept in context? When citing precedent, I want the source.
I have a hard time believing common, nondescript rubber soled athletic shoes have the necessary qualifications to be qualified as deadly weapons.

I mean, a Nerf bat could be a deadly weapon if you strangle some one with it. A pillow is if you smoother someone. But I don't see the intent of deadly force when kicking someone with common sneakers.

I am intrigued at the legal aspects of this, and you seem quite knowledgeable. I'd love to get in a little deeper, but I have to cut this short and get to bed.

Quote by: Tivo Don't schools teach civics anymore?

Now c'mon. I know this wasn't directed at me but.......Thats a bit much ain't it? Expecting people to remember obscure facts about appealant courts for 20 years is a bit snotty of you. Dismount from your high horse and be fair about this. Seriously. I'm sure you impress yourself an awful lot, but bare in mind the average debate forum member isn't real well versed in all aspects of law. You sounded a bit smug and condescending.