Stun Baton Flashlight (repost)

[Darkw]

Let's stop spewing crap heresay shall we?

[st1264]

I have a nice flashlight.

[Apollyon]

subscribe

[DocShay]

Nope. Not on paper anyways.
But I'm talking about the real world here.

The cops tell the judge that they believe you were going to taze someone.
The judge automatically believes the cops, unless you can prove otherwise.

That's why most people take a plea bargain. It's not worth risking ten years in jail.

Erm, since we are talking about the "real world" - Lets break this down further. They would have to explain WHY he held a belief. In this case "The cops tell the judge that they believe you were going to taze someone." Would not be accepted without further explaining why he held that belief. (IE He was threatening someone with it, he commented how he had plans to use it on someone, etc)

[inthewoods]

"For charges of possession of a dangerous weapon, the Crown must prove the weapon was actually intended to be used for a dangerous purpose." - Michael Oykhman, Criminal Defence Lawyer http://www.oykhmancriminaldefence.co...pons-offences/

[Jon.]

Nope. Not on paper anyways.
But I'm talking about the real world here.

The cops tell the judge that they believe you were going to taze someone.
The judge automatically believes the cops, unless you can prove otherwise.

That's why most people take a plea bargain. It's not worth risking ten years in jail.

I thought you said this was the real world. Go spend a few years in court and let me know if you still think that.

And nobody gets max jailtime for anything outside of extreme cases. Heck, judges consistently ignore minimums let alone go to maximums.

If I had to guess it would be something along the lines of buddy has a bad record already, buddy told the police it was for protection against 2 legged animals, or buddy was caught using it in not it's official capacity at some point. 3rd hand arrest/court stories are almost always lacking important details, purple monkey dishwasher....

As for searching the back of SUV's as someone asked, I don't know who, every traffic stop every non-mentally challenged officer makes he's looking in the back of the vehicles as he approaches. It's for your own safety.

[Bad Lieutenant]

4. ... Or ask when they are going to arrest every rancher that has a cattle prod.

You beat me to it. Just how is it this device is somehow a "prohibited weapon" (despite the length) when all those ranchers and farmers and other livestock wranglers have cattle prods, which are essentially the same thing?

Oh, and I'm still waiting for the name of the supposed 'friend' that was convicted of possessing one of these at a traffic stop...

[Bad Lieutenant]

This is what Toronto Police would charge you with; They love this one.

A tape measure won't save you. Nothing will.

It's a law based on circular logic. Impossible to defend against.

88. Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose

88. (1) Every person commits an offence who carries or possesses a weapon, an imitation of a weapon, a prohibited device or any ammunition or prohibited ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)
(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Basically it's an offense to possess anything that could theoretically be used to commit an offense.

Ten years in jail.

But according to the law, these stun batons aren't a "weapon, an imitation of a weapon, [or] a prohibited device".

So how does this apply?

[HK45auto]

Good early morning read!!! :P

[Stormchaser]

Interesting stuff, I wish there was a thread like this about speeding tickets!