Originally Posted by
eschatological
For one, you can be convicted of aggravated assault with any object. The "deadly weapon" label the lawyer insists on is merely a deliberate misstatement by the defense attorney to make it seem like we need to have a deadly weapon for this charge to stick. You could beat a person with a foam pool noodle, and be convicted of aggravated assault if it "actually does result in serious bodily harm." And as people in this thread have been arguing for a damn long while - tasers are very much dangerous. All the prosecutor needs to do in this case is show that the taser can reasonably result or actually has resulted in the past (and yes, past uses are relevant here) serious bodily harm.
And like I said, prosecutors regularly overcharge. You've totally ignored my post on the bullshit sources you used, as is a normal right wing tactic, so I'll explain it again:
Prosecutors regularly overcharge to have greater leverage in plea negotiations, and/or because in many jurisdictions you can convict on a lesser included charge (which in this case would be normal assault & battery). This is standard prosecutorial procedure, and maybe you find it shitty, but in 99.9% of cases it's being used by prosecutors to protect cops and over-prosecute young black men, so I doubt you're making a good faith argument about this shitty practice that prosecutors use all. the. goddamn. time.
- - - Updated - - -
Just to further expand on this: if a civilian used a taser on another citizen, they sure as shit would be charged with aggravated assault if it wasn't in self defense. That's why it's considered a weapon.