# Water pistols and the law **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 15, 2015, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709 "2015-10-15T08:55:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/1 "2015-10-15T08:55:57Z")
Can you be done for attempted murder if you try to squirt someone to death with a water pistol ? Can you be done for armed robbery if you threaten a teller with a water pistol, and it’s obvious that it IS a water pistol ? ---
**Author:** ![RadicalPi](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/radicalpi/32/9806_2.png) [@RadicalPi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RadicalPi)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 9:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/2 "2015-10-15T09:31:18Z")
For your first question, technically, yes, at least in Illinois. [QUOTE=(720 ILCS 5/8-4) (from Ch. 38, par. 8-4)] Attempt. A person commits the offense of attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he or she does any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense. It is not a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the offense attempted. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 9:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/3 "2015-10-15T09:57:46Z")
In the UK, you would be taking a chance, even walking down the street with anything that looks realistic. Trying to hold up a bank with a water pistol would be taken seriously since no one can know for sute that it doesn’t squirt some nasty chemical. If you "try to squirt someone to death " you are attempting murder. The weapon is relevant but not crucial. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/4 "2015-10-15T10:48:10Z")
“be done for”? ---
**Author:** ![IDtenT\_Error](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@IDtenT\_Error](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IDtenT_Error)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/5 "2015-10-15T12:43:48Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > “be done for”? It’s British, it means ‘get arrested for’. Regarding the bank one, the act of demanding money is the offense. The weapon or lack thereof is irrelevant. Even if they laugh at your water pistol and refuse to give you money, you’re still guilty. ---
**Author:** ![muldoonthief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muldoonthief/32/3188_2.png) [@muldoonthief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/muldoonthief)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/6 "2015-10-15T12:48:40Z")
I’d think that if you didn’t claim you were attempting to drown the person, it would be an awfully hard case for the prosecutor to prove that was your intent, due to the absurdity of it. If you did claim you were trying to drown the person, that would help your insanity plea. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/7 "2015-10-15T12:48:52Z")
> [@IDtenT\_Error](#): > > It’s British, it means ‘get arrested for’. > > Regarding the bank one, the act of demanding money is the offense. The weapon or lack thereof is irrelevant. Even if they laugh at your water pistol and refuse to give you money, you’re still guilty. You aren’t guilt of armed robbery though, or any other offence based on possession of a weapon. And as for attempted murder, should you attempt to kill someone by squirting them to death with water from a squirt gun then a diminished capacity defense would be very successful if you were prosecuted. Not even your own diminished capacity, the case will get thrown out based on the prosecutors diminished capacity. ---
**Author:** ![MrQwertyasd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9d8465/32.png) [@MrQwertyasd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrQwertyasd)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/8 "2015-10-15T13:09:38Z")
> [@IDtenT\_Error](#): > > It’s British, it means ‘get arrested for’. > > Regarding the bank one, the act of demanding money is the offense. The weapon or lack thereof is irrelevant. Even if they laugh at your water pistol and refuse to give you money, you’re still guilty. Now, “Give me the money” - to me that’s unquestionably a demand. But if you say "give me the money or I will squirt - are you making a demand, or offering a choice ? ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/9 "2015-10-15T13:17:17Z")
> [@](#): > > any act that constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that > offense. Such as getting in my car in the driveway, with a water pistol in my pocket (or a real gun, it apparently doesn’t matter) but the battery is dead so the car doesn’t start, foiling my plan — that would pretty clearly meet this definition of “substantial step”. The stock in trade of a modern police state is a gotcha criminal code, in which the police can round up anybody they wish, and find a crime to match. ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/10 "2015-10-15T13:28:17Z")
No no. In any jurisdiction I can think of, if you present what appears to be a weapon against the reasonable man/woman, then you will face weapons related charges. The victim is not required to figure out what sort of gun you are holding. So YES to a charge of attempted armed robbery of the teller. If the victim of your water pistol is a child or person who cannot distinguish why a complete stranger is shooting a gun at them (eg. my elderly mum who has a heart attack) then YES, you could certainly face a serious assault charge, even manslaughter. But not murder. You have the actus reas but not the mens rea. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 1:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/11 "2015-10-15T13:52:31Z")
I don’t agree completely with any of the above and this in particular: > [@](#): > > Such as getting in my car in the driveway, with a water pistol in my pocket (or a real gun, it apparently doesn’t matter) but the battery is dead so the car doesn’t start, foiling my plan — that would pretty clearly meet this definition of “substantial step”. > > The stock in trade of a modern police state is a gotcha criminal code, in which the police can round up anybody they wish, and find a crime to match. I think just really shouldn’t be a GQ response; it’s wrong. The water pistol scenario is going to depend on the jurisdiction but in terms of general legal principles, Model Penal Code 5.05 (2) is the most relevant provision: > [@](#): > > 1. Mitigation. If the particular conduct charged to constitute a criminal attempt, solicitation or conspiracy is so inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of a crime that neither such conduct nor the actor presents a public danger warranting the grading of such offense under this Section, the Court shall exercise its power under Section 6.12 to enter judgment and impose sentence for a crime of lower grade or degree or, in extreme cases, may dismiss the prosecution. My emphasis. So if the person who wants to murder someone with water is just so goofy and unreasonable that under the circumstances it doesn’t seem worth prosecuting, there’s your out, even though (contrary to the above) the person certainly has the mens rea for an attempted murder – they’re trying to murder somebody. The armed robbery question is easier - if it’s an aggravating offense that you were armed, it’s not going to matter that you weren’t really armed, because it’s going to be extraordinarily difficult for you to argue that you brandished something kinda like a gun but weren’t intending to put other people in fear of their lives with it. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/12 "2015-10-15T14:05:37Z")
> [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](#): > > I don’t agree completely with any of the above and this in particular: > > “Such as getting in my car in the driveway, with a water pistol in my pocket (or a real gun, it apparently doesn’t matter) but the battery is dead so the car doesn’t start, foiling my plan — that would pretty clearly meet this definition of “substantial step”.” > > . If I say I am going to go and kill somebody, and get in my car with that stated intention, the fact of getting into my car and turning the key is a substantial step toward the commission of the crime, regardless of whether the gun I take with me is a Glock or a water pistol. Once intent to murder is established, it could be argued that the failure of the water pistol would lead to a quick look around for a more effective blunt instrument or something. In the prosecutor’s mind, intent would carry more weight than tactical acumen, in making the “attempted murder” case. ---
**Author:** ![Ken001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/43a26b/32.png) [@Ken001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ken001)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/13 "2015-10-15T14:24:25Z")
I disagree. Making a threat is an offence but it is not attempted murder because there is no actus reas - no means to commit the crime. At that moment. ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/14 "2015-10-15T14:42:31Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > If I say I am going to go and kill somebody, and get in my car with that stated intention, the fact of getting into my car and turning the key is a substantial step toward the commission of the crime, regardless of whether the gun I take with me is a Glock or a water pistol. You added an additional fact, but in any event, turning a key is not strongly corroborative of an intent to shoot someone at a different location. Driving to where they were and parking in a hidden location, sure, but your approach would encompass any step at all, not just a substantial step. Walking toward the driveway would meet your definition. Getting up off the couch would meet it. Looked at another way, if the defendant said at trial “sure, I said I wanted to kill him, and sure, I had a water pistol, but I got in my car to go home,” is there evidence to _strongly_ suggest that wasn’t the case? > [@](#): > > Conduct shall not be held to constitute a substantial step under Subsection (1)(c) of this Section unless it is strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose. Without negativing the sufficiency of other conduct, the following, if strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose, shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law: > > ``` > (a) lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime; > > (b) enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission; > > (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime; > > (d) unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed; > > (e) possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are specially designed for such unlawful use or which can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances; > > (f) possession, collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, at or near the place contemplated for its commission, where such possession, collection or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances; > > (g) soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime. > > ``` [QUOTE=United States v. Goetzke] To constitute a substantial step, a defendant’s actions must cross the line between preparation and attempt by unequivocally demonstrating that the crime will take place unless interrupted by independent circumstances. [/QUOTE] ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/15 "2015-10-15T14:54:08Z")
> [@Ken001](#): > > I disagree. > > Making a threat is an offence but it is not attempted murder because there is no actus reas - no means to commit the crime. At that moment. [A mere threat that does not cause any harm is generally not actionable](http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Threats) “I will squirt you to death with this squirt gun” is not a threat of violence or harm except in some exceptional circumstances. ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/16 "2015-10-15T14:59:21Z")
So, what about making a burnt offering to beseech some supreme being to kill someone for you? Substantive step? ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/17 "2015-10-15T15:04:25Z")
> [@MrQwertyasd](#): > > … > But if you say "give me the money or I will squirt - are you making a demand, or offering a choice ? That depends - (bad squirter joke there) ---
**Author:** ![Thudlow\_Boink](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thudlow_boink/32/320_2.png) [@Thudlow\_Boink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thudlow_Boink)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/18 "2015-10-15T15:06:22Z")
> [@bob\_2](#): > > If you "try to squirt someone to death " you are attempting murder. The weapon is relevant but not crucial. What if you try to kill someone with voodoo, or evil thoughts? What if you step on a crack in an attempt to break your mother’s back? ---
**Author:** ![Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f475e1/32.png) [@Jimmy\_Chitwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jimmy_Chitwood)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/19 "2015-10-15T15:07:50Z")
Re: the burnt offerings and voodoo: technically yes, you’re committing a crime, because attempt is about intent/belief – so if the person genuinely believes that they’ve set something in motion that’s going to lead in somebody’s death, that’s the guilty state of mind we’re looking for – but see above re: “inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of a crime.” ---
**Author:** ![Ranger\_Jeff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ranger_jeff/32/2065_2.png) [@Ranger\_Jeff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ranger_Jeff)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2015, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709/20 "2015-10-15T15:09:55Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > “I will squirt you to death with this squirt gun” is not a threat of violence or harm except in some exceptional circumstances. Back in my days as an Instructor, I always tried to phrase any threats I made to my students in such a manner that if it went to a court martial, my defense could ask “Did you really believe Petty Officer Lastname was going to rip your arm off and beat you over the head with the bloody stump?” One class had them make up a name badge for me saying “Petty Officer Sluggo”. 🙂 Actually, asking for the phone number so we could tell their mother on them turned out to be a surprising effective threat. Especially after the student commented on the joke to another instructor and the other instructor would ask “You think he was joking about telling your mother on you?” [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/water-pistols-and-the-law/734709.md?page=2)