In State v. Allen, 317 N.C. 119, 343 S.E.2d 893 (1986), the defendant pointed what appeared to be a small caliber handgun at a store clerk and demanded money from the cash register. Defendant then pointed the "gun" at another patron, who happened to be an off-duty correctional facility employee, and ordered him out of the defendant's way. The defendant claimed that the "gun" was a cap pistol and was not capable of actually harming either victim. Both victims testified that they saw the barrel of the gun and thought that it looked like a real gun. The trial court instructed the jury that a dangerous weapon "included pistols which look like firearms such as cap pistols" and that "an instrument is a dangerous weapon if it is apparently a weapon capable of inflicting a life threatening injury." Id. at 121, 343 S.E.2d at 895. The North Carolina Supreme Court held that an object incapable of endangering or threatening life cannot be considered a dangerous weapon. In State v. Allen, 80 N.C. App. 549, 342 S.E.2d 571 (1986), the Court concluded that the Defendant's proffered evidence that "another unrelated robbery was perpetrated by a man resembling defendant who utilized an almost identical modus operandi as Defendant," was irrelevant and inadmissible. Allen, 80 N.C. App. at 550, 342 S.E.2d at 572. The Court explained that "evidence is relevant if it has any logical tendency, however slight, to prove the fact in issue," and that the Defendant's proffered evidence was "so weak, so speculative and uncertain, that it did not possess sufficient probative value to justify receiving it in evidence." Id. at 551, 342 S.E.2d at 573. In State v. Allen, 14 N.C. App. 485, 188 S.E.2d 568 (1972), defendant Walter Allen ("defendant Walter") was charged, inter alia, with resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer. Id. at 491, 188 S.E.2d at 572. This Court articulated a remonstrating exception to the charge of resisting arrest and determined defendant Walter's actions did not constitute "the offense of resisting, delaying and obstructing an officer." Id. at 491, 188 S.E.2d at 573. In determining defendant Walter's actions did not rise to the level of resisting an officer, this Court held: "Merely remonstrating with an officer in behalf of another, or criticizing an officer while he is performing his duty, does not amount to obstructing, hindering, or interfering with an officer." Id.