"designed to cut or stab another by being thrown,"

You're not being ridiculous SharonA. (Well, no more ridiculous than a lawyer doing her job would be.) The more I look at that definition as it was provided from the newspaper, the more vague and ambiguous it seems. That boy needs a lawyer.

This knife was not "designed to cut another" person. It was "designed to cut another" loaf of bread. Under the definition we have, you can't tell whether a knife needs to be designed to cut another (person), or just be capable of cutting another (person), and be designed to cut anything. The word "or" in that statute really screws things up.

Like McGraw, I wonder whether the newspaper definition is wrong, but it's quite possibly accurate. Rocket scientists rarely run for state legislatures.

If he'd kept his mouth shut, and this was an open bed pickup, they couldn't nail him for possession anyway. If this is a penal statute, does he have no right to counsel before being questioned by "authorities?" (I really don't know; I would guess probably not.) The penalty is severe enough.