everybody knows just how a taser could be deadly or dangerous, but ill just go by the US penal code
dangerous weapon
(2) The term “dangerous weapon” means a weapon, device, instrument, material, or substance, animate or inanimate, that is used for, or is readily capable of, causing death or serious bodily injury, except that such term does not include a pocket knife with a blade of less than 2½ inches in length.
Source
18 USC § 930(g)(2)
i dont know why you threw that swiss army knife in there. if you used it as a projectile and hurled it at somebody somebody, then sure it would be looked at as an object used primarilly, or intently as a weapon to cause harm. theres laws defining that too, and if there wasnt, people would just stop making sandwiches and start going stab happy with their swiss army knives and hurling jars of peanut butter at everybody with no legal consequences, because a jar of peanut butter and a swiss army knife arent generally defined as a dangerous weapon, unless you intently decide to use it as one.
a taser can fit the bill for a dangerous weapon quite easilly. you wouldnt need to be a rocket scientist to know that they are capable of inflicting death or serious harm. police use these as an alternative to lethal force. and thats what they are designed for
defense teams wont even try to argue that nonsense in court. any reasonable human being in the world already knows just how a taser is capable of causing death or serious injury. and if you can't, why dont you stand in front of these concerete steps here and let me tase you in the back so you faceplant, or perhaps let me tase you long enough for your heart to give out.
yeah i dont see how a taser could be readilly capable of causing death or serious injury to you. i'm sure no court in the land would ever look at it like that either. defense attorneys are foolish not to ever make those arguments in court and try to convince people that a taser isnt capable of causing harm to anyone. its only going to waste the judges time, and hurt the defendants case.
also lets look at more federal law, this is where it gets interesting.
18 U.S. Code § 930 - Possession of firearms and dangerous weapons in Federal facilities
(a)
Except as provided in subsection (d), whoever knowingly possesses or causes to be present a
firearm or other
dangerous weapon in a
Federal facility (other than a
Federal court facility), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
(b)
Whoever, with intent that a
firearm or other
dangerous weapon be used in the commission of a crime, knowingly possesses or causes to be present such
firearm or
dangerous weapon in a
Federal facility, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
(c)
A person who kills any person in the course of a violation of subsection (a) or (b), or in the course of an attack on a
Federal facility involving the use of a
firearm or other
dangerous weapon, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be punished as provided in sections 1111, 1112, 1113, and 1117.
they have a completely different section, 930 (b) to define when a person who enters a federal facility and actually uses the weapon.
unfortunately for your peaceful little jaywalker, as defiined by section 930 (a), its also defined, and highly illegal, to carry a firearm or dangerous weapon into a federal facility.