assault with a deadly weapon without a weapon?

Look what I found!

http://www.tafkac.org/faq2k/legal_2007.html

 

That sucks.

Those are good.

 

Most statutes have been interpreted to require an object external to the human body before a "deadly weapon" element can be met. For example, in _Minnesota v. Bastin_, 572 N.W.2d 281 (Minn. 1997), the Minnesota Supreme Court overruled the trial court's conclusion that the left fist of the defendant, a former licensed professional prize fighter, was a "deadly weapon."


The Minnesota Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the actions of the defendant, who had "substantial experience in karate," were sufficient to demonstrate his knowledge that he was hitting the victim with sufficient force to break the victim's jaw.

The defendant shot the victim and claimed self-defense. The trial court admitted evidence regarding the defendant's past training and experience as a boxer, concluding that it was relevant to a determination of whether the defendant truly believed it was necessary to shoot the victim in order to protect himself and others.

Wow, good link Kickchick.

 

Thanks for the link KickChick.

I guess it would make sence that your training would come into question in some way. I figure that it might be particularly important if the resultant injuries are quite serious, as this might up the anti to intent.

Have you been able to find anything that relates to the UK?