Because I sincerely doubt Juan Valdez intended his finest brew to be used as a weapon
When a man tried to rob a Dunkin’ Donuts in Connecticut on Saturday night, an employee acted quickly and stopped him with the closest weapon available -- hot coffee.
Normally coffee makes for nothing more than a good drink. Here, it turned into a weapon based on how an individual used it. If the intent of an object was transferrable, then the robber would have simply sipped the java and been slightly more awake. Worst case scenario, he’d have scalded his tongue.
Instead, the coffee, originally poured to be consumed as a hot beverage, became a weapon and one that worked quite well as it fended off the attack. Ask Caleb, he’ll tell you coffee can also be used to buy a little time while you draw your pistol. Regardless, it is the intent of the person that makes an item a weapon not the item itself.
I sincerely believe there will be no calls for “Piping Hot Coffee Free Zones” or a 3 hour waiting period to buy coffee so you (and the java) have time to cool off. I believe this because everyone knows how stupid that is, but swap out the coffee with ‘gun’ and suddenly people go full retard.
Comments
It is the INTENT of the criminal that matters most.
A classic law school example is this:
I decide that my neighbor's ability to breathe and live is more than I can bear. I want him dead. So, one night I take my gun (or knife) and I go to his house and sneak in while he is sleeping. My INTENT is to murder him - preferably in his sleep while he can't fight back.
I find him in his bed, and shoot him in the back as he faces away from me - or stab him in a similar manner.
Well, it turns out that he died of a heart attack hours earlier and all I did was mutilate a corpse.
However, using Mens Rea, my guilty mind / criminal intent, I can be charged with attempted murder. In effect all I did was tear up a piece of meat - but ONLY IN MY MIND was the intent to kill a human being. I did not harm a living breathing human being. I caused damage to a cannibal steak, thereby depriving him of dinner.
So - your point is excellent: It is not the object, but the intent behind the object that makes it dangerous and criminally used.
@Robb: Didn't McDonald's reduce the temperature of their coffee after the scald incident? I'd call that a voluntary "Piping Hot Coffee Free Zone".
but swap out the coffee with ‘gun’ and suddenly people go full retard.
You are confusing correllation with causation: They WERE full retard LONG BEFORE. The word "gun" merely brings it to the fore.
If there were ever a reason for euthansia...
It might be "wise" to stock up now.
(Yes, this is sarcasm. But given historical precedents . . .)
They try to fall back on 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', but when they've deliberately made the law so convoluted and huge that you CAN'T know what it is, then barring actual intent, ignorance IS an excuse. And they can't stand it.

