A Stranger reader who identifies himself as Neale Frothingham writes:

Why does The Stranger continually, inaccurately, and misleadingly refer to the young men shot by police in Olympia, and other suspects without firearms, as "unarmed"?

Frothingham is referring to this and this. His letter goes on to say:

Definitions of deadly weapons from multiple sources are:

"A deadly weapon is generally defined as a firearm or anything manifestly designed, made, or adapted for the purposes of inflicting death or serious physical injury." (emphasis added) Note the words, "made or adapted" in the definition. That broadens the definition of “arms” beyond "firearm".

"A deadly weapon, sometimes dangerous weapon, is a statutory definition listing certain items which can inflict mortal or great bodily harm." (emphasis added) Note it is not just a weapon that can inflict death, but one that can inflict great bodily harm.

"..a deadly weapon is an implement or instrument which has the capacity to inflict death and from the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce or may easily and readily produce death. " RCW 9.94A.825. Note the Washington definition of “deadly weapon” is more specific than common definitions. A deadly weapon must not just be able to cause "Great personal injury" (RCW 9A.16.050) or "Serious physical injury" (RCW 9A.16.040) but actual death. It should; however, be noted that while "deadly" means "deadly" in Washington State rather than “deadly” or “serious injury” as in more common usage, the presence of a deadly weapon or any weapon by an attacker is not required for someone to use deadly force in repelling an attack or resisting a felony. See RCW 9A.16.040 and .050. See also your own reporting.

More importantly, the Washington definition introduces the idea that any object is not a weapon or deadly weapon by definition, but by the manner in which is used. A knife, though readily capable of causing serious injury or death, is not a deadly weapon most of the time. When being used to cut vegetables, meat, sheetrock, or arts and crafts, it is not a weapon at all, much less a deadly one. In the hands of mentally ill and possibly psychotic man in Pasco, a rock might no longer be merely a rock, but could be that, or a weapon, or a deadly weapon. It depends on how you assess the manner of use in that video. Likewise a skateboard in Olympia. It could be a skateboard, a weapon, or a deadly weapon but that is totally dependent on the manner of use. As The Stranger is well aware a skateboard can be a deadly weapon. What we don’t know in Olympia is the manner of use of the suspect’s skateboard or skateboards toward that officer and we are not likely to definitively know (we have the officer describing one manner of use, and I would expect a different characterization of the manner of use from the suspects, and none of the parties are objective without a vested interest in which manner of use occurred).

I am not asking The Stranger to be A.P. style journalists, but to engage in the rhetorical fallacy of re-defining arms and weapons from common usage is deceptive and harms your advocacy journalism. You destroy the force of your own argument when you stoop to rhetorical fallacy and commonly accepted persuasive writing technique.

I would like a response and would suggest you cease using the word “unarmed” unless the person you are describing had nothing that meets the common definition of a weapon or deadly weapon on or near their person.

Neale

To recap: Knives are not deadly weapons but skateboards are, if Neale Frothingham says so. Good to know.

Savage's response: "I could strangle someone with my t-shirt. So I’m armed and dangerous over here at my desk."