Dogs Can be Weapons, But What About Cats?

The New York Times has an interesting story about cases where dogs were classified as weapons in cases involving possession or use of a deadly weapon.  The Times reports:

Courts around the country have long grappled with the question of canine weaponization. Over the years, judges have mostly arrived at the same conclusion: if you use Fido as a weapon, he becomes one.

“In the past, one had to really strive hard to convict somebody of a felony when a dog was the instrument that caused the damage,” said Kenneth M. Phillips, a Los Angeles-based lawyer focused on canine law. “Now, prosecutors are using these laws that usually apply to guns and other weapons to enhance charges. That is going on all over the country right now. Far more than it was even two years ago.”

. . . 

In Washington, a state appeals court denied a claim by a dog owner, Robbie Hoeldt, that his dog could not be considered a deadly weapon, even though it had attacked a police officer, Detective Bryan Acee. “If Hoeldt had used a gun instead of an attack dog,” the court wrote in 2007, “Detective Acee could have testified that Hoeldt pointed the gun at his chest.”

This raises a number of interesting questions. Would ownership of a dangerous dog be protected under the Second Amendment? Could other dangerous animals such as poisonous snakes be considered weapons under statutes banning possession or use of deadly weapons?

Upon first reading this story, I felt that -- as a cat person -- I would be safe from prosecution under this statute. While cats can be vicious if provoked, they are highly unlikely to cause life-threatening damage.

On the other hand, a number of people are highly allergic to cats.  Would it be assault with a deadly weapon if I were to loose a feline upon a person who I knew to be deathly allergic to cats?  My understanding is that, in general, for something to be a deadly weapon, it needs to be capable of causing death or great bodily injury.  I know that in California cases, determining "capability" to cause death or injury involves looking to the manner in which the object is used as well as to other relevant facts relevant to the issue.  (See People v. Aguilar, 945 P.2d 1204 (Cal. 1997)).  California has been fairly liberal in determining what deadly weapons may be, noting that batteries, rolls of coins, or bicycle footrests can be deadly weapons if enclosed in a fist while punching.  (In Re David V., 223 P.3d 603 (Cal. 2010).

My (admittedly hasty) research leads me to the conclusion that cats could be considered deadly weapons, at least under California law, if used in the appropriate circumstances.  Whether cats are protected by the Second Amendment is a question for another post.