of an object that is not inherently dangerous turns on the manner in which it is used (objective test), not the intention of the actor when using it (subjective test).”). Thus, the question of whether an object used in an assault that is not inherently a weapon should be considered a dangerous weapon is answered by a factu al finding that the object was used in a manner that actually caused a risk of serious injury. Such a finding necessarily proves that the object was “capable of producing death or serious bodily injury by its manner of use ...[,] whether it is used to effect an attack or is handled with reckless disregard for the safety of others.” Frye, 926 A.2d at 1097 (quoting Powell, 485 A.2d at 601) (emphasis added); of. Arthur v. United States, 602 A.2d 174, 177 (D.C.1992) (<HOLDING>); Powell, 485 A.2d at 601 (affirming ADW
holding that the united states court of federal claims may not reweigh the factual evidence quoting munn 970 f2d at 871 recognizing that it has been the law in the district of columbia since 1953 that shoes on feet are dangerous weapons at least when they inflict serious injuries  quoting medlin v united states 93 usappdc 64 65 207 f2d 33 33 1953 holding that a barge being a vessel used and employed in violation of 33 usc  408 is liable to the united states for a pecuniary penalty of 500 under the provisions of 411 and 412 and in addition thereto for the damage done recognizing federal constitutional claim against the united states holding that a state agency proceeding did not constitute an action in a court of the united states or a state within the meaning of 33 usc  1365b1