\n<\/p>\n
So headlines are often more difficult than you might think.<\/p>\n
They must summarize the facts of the article that follows, and must do so more-or-less accurately. (Accuracy of course is measured on a sliding scale that depends on how comical the result is likely to be while still avoiding defamation.) But they must do so using a limited number of words. Hyphenated adjectives can help, but using them can risk confusing subject and object, which can be problematic. Prepositions help clarify this, but prepositional phrases are wordy and usually not that funny (unless you think \u201cof\u201d is hilarious). There are a lot of factors to consider.<\/p>\n
So this one went through a number of drafts before being approved.<\/p>\n
According to this report<\/a>, a man in Murray, Kentucky, was arrested on June 6 after police got a call that he had \u201cintentionally released a raccoon into an open business.\u201d The man then fled the scene, but police stopped him \u201csoon after\u201d and arrested him on multiple charges. It turns out\u2014and frankly I found this a little surprising\u2014that \u201cintentionally releasing a raccoon into an open business\u201d is not specifically a crime under Kentucky law. But trespassing can be, and the business owner had previously told the man he was not welcome on the premises. So that counts. He was also charged with resisting arrest and failure to maintain insurance on the vehicle he was arrested in, and the reported facts would qualify there too.<\/p>\n But the man\u2014who I\u2019m going to call \u201cMason,\u201d because that\u2019s his last name\u2014was also charged with assault in the second degree, and here we must part ways with the Kentucky authorities.<\/p>\n Under Kentucky law, a person is guilty of assault in the second degree<\/a> when the person:<\/p>\n (1)\u201dintentionally causes serious physical injury to another person\u201d; <\/p>\n (2)\u201dintentionally causes physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument\u201d; or<\/p>\n (3) \u201cwantonly causes serious physical injury to another person by means of a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument.\u201d <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Although Mason was charged with resisting arrest, nothing in the reports suggests an officer was injured, something that surely would have been mentioned. But we are told that the raccoon bit a person after Mason released it. It therefore seems safe to assume that the assault charge is based on the raccoon bite. That is certainly an \u201cinjury,\u201d and there\u2019s probably enough here for intent, even though he couldn\u2019t be sure the raccoon would bite someone. He intentionally released it, at least. (I guess he might have tripped and dropped a raccoon he happened to be carrying while trespassing, but I\u2019ll defer to his defense lawyer on that one.) But unless the raccoon had rabies or something, and there\u2019s no suggestion it did, I don\u2019t see this as a serious <\/em>physical injury.<\/p>\n So we are left with No. 2: assault with a deadly raccoon.<\/p>\n That won\u2019t work, because the Kentucky Penal Code has a pretty specific list of \u201cdeadly weapons\u201d<\/a> and \u201craccoon\u201d is not among them, nor is any other living thing. If <\/em>the animal had a disease, the state could try to argue it is \u201ca weapon of mass destruction,\u201d which is<\/em> on the list and that includes \u201cany weapon involving a disease organism.\u201d I\u2019d like to see the state do that just for personal reasons, but realistically I don\u2019t think this fits.<\/p>\n But is a raccoon a \u201cdangerous instrument\u201d? No. The Code defines that as any \u201cinstrument\u201d that under the circumstances \u201cis readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury,\u201d and again I do not think our raccoon fits the bill. So in my view, this assault charge should not stick.<\/p>\n Can <\/em>a living thing be a \u201cdeadly weapon\u201d? It depends. See, e.g.<\/em>, \u201cAre Honeybees \u2018Dangerous Weapons\u2019?<\/a>\u201d (Oct. 21, 2022) (concluding a jury could reach that conclusion under Massachusetts law but seriously questioning deputies\u2019 claims that they were all allergic to bee stings); \u201cIs an Alligator a \u2018Deadly Weapon\u2019?<\/a>\u201d (Feb. 12, 2016) (concluding that an alligator flung into a Wendy\u2019s drive-thru window might qualify under Florida law, depending on the alligator); cf. <\/em>\u201cNinth Circuit Grapples With Whether Bare Hands Are \u2018Weapons\u2019<\/a>\u201d (Mar. 23, 2010) (noting that it took 14 pages for the court to answer \u201cno\u201d under California law). But not here.<\/p>\n Oh, I almost forgot about the mule incident.<\/p>\n It turns out that the alleged Though he did not try to take the mule into a body of water (see <\/em>this entire category<\/a>), his plan had the same basic comparative-mobility problem. He also was not charged with driving a mule under the influence (see this <\/em>entire category<\/a>), which is good because I\u2019m at 859 words already. But he was charged with criminal trespassing, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and resisting arrest (probably committed in that order), and also cruelty to animals. (Witnesses claimed they saw Mason whip the mule an \u201cunnecessary amount of times\u201d in addition to \u201cmistreating the animal in other ways\u201d that were happily not explained.)<\/p>\n Not only that, \u201ctwo days after the mule incident,\u201d Mason was arrested again \u201cfor attempting to flee police while riding the mule down the roadway intoxicated.\u201d Well, two days after the first <\/em>mule incident, that is.<\/p>\n Mason drove himself and the raccoon to the business on June 6, so maybe he has learned that lesson, at least. Not that driving is better, but at least he left the mule out of it. <\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n\n
raccoon assault<\/s> raccoon-involved incident came \u201cjust months after the same man was arrested for attempting to evade police officers on a mule.\u201d Police were called after Mason refused to leave a bar when asked to do so. They found him outside, intoxicated in a public place, which again surprisingly is illegal in Kentucky. But he refused to stop when ordered, instead leaping onto the mule he had ridden to the establishment (emphasis unnecessary to add) and attempting to flee.<\/p>\n