James Hackett, 26, is accused of assault with a dangerous weapon in Lowell, Massachusetts. The weapon: french fries. Hackett was arguing with this wife when his stepdaughter stepped in. Hackett responded by throwing french fries in her face. We have seem assault with everything from flatulence to a hug to a pillow attack to bubble, but not a french fry.
The charge does raise some mechanical questions. First, the charge would indicate that the entire container of french fries is a dangerous weapon. Otherwise, it would be a couple dozen charges of assault with a dangerous weapon for each french fry. If the standard McDonald’s french fry container (assuming he got the standard and not the large size) holds at least thirty fries, that would allow thirty individual counts. Here it appears that it is en toto a weapon. Second, if the entire container is needed to constitute a dangerous weapon, is it a defense if he ate some before the assault. That would be like biting off the barrel of a 38 – would it still be a gun? Third, the standard fry throw results in a french fry pattern much like a shotgun. It is likely only a few fries hit the girl. Is that still an assault with a deadly weapon? I assume yes in the same way that being hit by one pellet of a shotgun would suffice. (If he ate some of the fries before the police arrived, is it destruction of evidence?) Finally, if the french fries cooled during the argument, do they remain dangerous weapons? After all, they could have been just limp potatoes at that point.
Of course, the dangerous aspect could be accidental ingestion leading to hardening of the arteries, heart conditions, and obesity. It could be akin to throwing a prohibited large sugary drink at someone in New York.
Notably, the child was not seriously hurt. However, I want to know if the police are going to arrest Ronald McDonald as a supplier of the weapon or his gang including “The Fry Kids.”
Now before McDonald’s accuses these prosecutors and police of blatant and ridiculous overcharging, I would like to see the forensic expert and witnesses that the prosecutors intend to call. One shady character comes to mind who may be willing to turn state’s evidence: