The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
AWDWIK & AWDWIKISI: What Do They Mean?
That's today's puzzle. No fair peeking!
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Away
With
Dumb
Web
Intelligence
Kwizzes
(If
Says
I)
Err....Assault with Deadly Weapon with Intent to kill?
Correct! That's some North Carolina legalese for you. And AWDWIKISI?
...Inflicting Severe Injury.
Seems kind of redundant, doesn't it?
John F. Carr: Correct.
Flight-ER-Doc: The AWDW focuses on the weapon, IK on the purpose, and the ISI on the actual harm caused. I take it that shooting at someone but missing, for instance, would be AWDWIK but not AWDWIKISI.
Oh, well... I rarely miss 🙂
Professor Volokh has separated us gun nuts from the chaff. Nuts have shells, I suppose, rather than chaff.
similar to the classic difference between assault and battery
- where assault is the attemot or threat
- battery is the actual attack
For example, if a person threatens to strike a victim with his or her fist and swings and misses, he or she could be charged with a simple assault. If the person actually strikes the victim with his or her fist and causes a bruise, he or she has committed a battery.
Actually, isn't it battery if you simply lay your hand on somebody against their will, regardless of whether it causes any injury?
That is the law in Massachusetts. An assault and battery is one of
1. Recklessly causing bodily injury.
2. Intentionally touching a person in a way that is likely to cause bodily harm.
3. Intentionally touching in an offensive (i.e. nonconsensual) manner.
Consent is not a defense to touching which is likely to cause bodily harm. This hit the news in the year 2000 when Massachusetts police raided an S&M party, the so-called "Paddleboro" case. The parties managed to get the warrant invalidated, avoiding an embarrassing trial for all sides.
To this day I recall the classic English definition of assault, "to cause the apprehension of immediate unlawful violence". Hence if you bash someone over the head from behind it's not assault. 🙂
Areas Where Darrell Waltrip Is King [Include Southern Indiana].
Countdown to Artie K snark in 3... 2... 1...
Boogity Boogity Boogity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These are both fairly common acronyms in the violent criminal deep web, offering helpful hints to future felons.
AWDWIK: Among Whom Does Whisky Improve Kidnapping?
AWDWIKISI: Always Write Down Whom I Kill In Serial Incidents.
Love the acronyms, some areas of Medicine you could go all day speaking only of PTCA's, STEMI's, AAA's,
And in med school you had to know exactly what they stood for or risk Pubic humiliation, be surprised how many Gastroenterologists can't tell you what "ERCP" means, (they'll bill the B-jesus out of you though)
One of my favorites, was a shorty but goody, definitely not "Woke" or "PC"
a diagnosis occasionally rendered to young Marines,
"MPH"
Frank "got a TAH-BSO at 8, an ACD at 10, and a TSRH at 1"
The military would give the medical field a run for its money with acronyms. Their use is so uniquitous that even four letter acronyms are commonly reused. FOUO - For Official Use Only, or Fire Of Unknown Origin?