Incredible Stun Baton?

Onagoth said:
Then if you have been affected, file a lawsuit against the RCMP for damages and/or the return of property
Click to expand...
.... Perhaps I'm a little sensitive, but I don't see where the RCMP have anything to do with this specific case. It's strictly Abbotsford Police that were responsible for both the seizure and correspondence. ..... David K
 
Noticed that the law says: "less than 480mm AND ANY SIMILAR DEVICE" - opens the door to more than 480mm. Being right can cost in legal fees and even employment. I try not to operate "close to the line" even though I may be right. We are living in a changing world where (sadly) media and politics guide action. I live in a big city, would not walk around with this device because it could even have the appearance of looking for trouble! Now, going to golf! Ugh.
 
David K said:
.... Perhaps I'm a little sensitive, but I don't see where the RCMP have anything to do with this specific case. It's strictly Abbotsford Police that were responsible for both the seizure and correspondence. ..... David K
Click to expand...

my mistake....My only goal was to point out that if property has been inappropriately confiscated, then the only recourse available (given their position on the matter) is through the courts.
 
VinnyQC said:
A letter with a law firm letter head is more expensive than a brand new 40$ baton. If I was in T-bones place, the cop would definitely get away with it unless he charges me with something, I'd probably just buy a new one. Actually, the cops in question probably knows he's wrong, and that's why you're not getting charged.

That's one of the problem with cops. They can do whatever they want until they meet someone with principles. Most people are like me and value their time and money more than moral principle. If you feel up to it t-bone, rip em a new one, and keep us updated. We're all rooting for you. But personally, I do understand why you wouldn't want to waste thousands of dollars and days/weeks in courts for a 40$ item that you can just order again.
Click to expand...

Matter of principal. I spent 3k fighting a 140 dollar speeding ticket. I won was it worth the cash no but the officer made me a little bit mad. If everyone plays nice this sort of thing will cotinue.
 
Onagoth said:
my mistake....My only goal was to point out that if property has been inappropriately confiscated, then the only recourse available (given their position on the matter) is through the courts.
Click to expand...
... Fair enough. I just hate the injustice of an individual or an Organization being wrongfully stigmatized, and the RCMP is a popular and easy target here because of their high national visibility. .... David K
 
KRJ said:
Police can seize anything indefinitely in the course of a criminal investigation. Your only recourse is to file a motion at a superior court. The criminal code allows for this. At that time the police would have to justify why they believe that the seizure is necessary. Considering the fact that the items are not illegal and that they have no intention to charge the individual I would think it would be hard to justify. Just a note if you file a motion you will make a few enemies in both the police department and the crownsuch office.
Click to expand...

90 days until they lay charges. art. 490 criminal code

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-116.html#docCont

2) Nothing shall be detained under the authority of paragraph (1)(b) for a period of more than three months after the day of the seizure, or any longer period that ends when an application made under paragraph (a) is decided, unless

(a) a justice, on the making of a summary application to him after three clear days notice thereof to the person from whom the thing detained was seized, is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the investigation, its further detention for a specified period is warranted and the justice so orders; or


(b) proceedings are instituted in which the thing detained may be required.
 
simonsez said:
90 days until they lay charges. art. 490 criminal code

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-116.html#docCont

2) Nothing shall be detained under the authority of paragraph (1)(b) for a period of more than three months after the day of the seizure, or any longer period that ends when an application made under paragraph (a) is decided, unless

(a) a justice, on the making of a summary application to him after three clear days notice thereof to the person from whom the thing detained was seized, is satisfied that, having regard to the nature of the investigation, its further detention for a specified period is warranted and the justice so orders; or


(b) proceedings are instituted in which the thing detained may be required.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the section. I was too lazy to go look it up.
 
I have file a F.O.I. form & will post the Cst Q findings here as soon as I get it. After I have my Lawyer(neighbour) read the report , I will get his opinion as to how to proceed. Luckily I bought 5 of these things , being down 1 isn't that bad.......I'm still piss off ......... but willing to see how this all plays out.
 
So here it is , I'll save you guys all the introduction & get into the muddy stuff.

Analysis:
The exhibit was examined in close detail. Its attributes were recorded in the body of this report.

At first glance. the item exhibited the the general characteristics consistently found with objects that are characterized as a multi-cell battery powered flashlight.

The item is fashioned entirely of metal. It its present form, it's made from a sufficient amount of weighted metal material that , when used against as intended target or victim could/would effectively deliver the needed momentum and kinetic energy towards an impending object or subject to cause sufficient blunt trauma, injury, or damage.

The secondary purpose of this analysis was also to determine whether the item falls within the category of a Conductive Energy Weapon (CEW) as defined by the professional standards set out by the technical community as large, private industry, and in accordance with the definitions outline in the criminal Code of Canada.

The term "conductive energy device" or "CED" is used to refer to the general class if electronic incapacitation devices.

First and second generation stun systems, commonly referred to as "stun guns," worked by transmitting pulses of electricity to the subject that acted on the sensory nervous system. (the system that carries information from the body to the brain.) These devices worked on the basis of pain compliance * (Taser international)

At first glance, it appears the main purpose and design of this item is to use it as a flashlight. However, the device now coupled with the ability to transfer electrical impulses, adds to its lethality and ability to both intimidate and harm the intended victim(s) on another level.

The device is designed with a lanyard/carabiner soo that it can be conveniently carried like a large flashlight. The abilty to conduct energy in the form of electrical impulses adds to its ability to inflict pain or harm on any intended victim.

Open source research located on several US and Canadian distributors whoe sell this item on the open online market. All distributors market the item for "personal protection" and focus their marketing strategy on the items compact nature, its ease of use, and ability to thwart an impending attack.

As a flashlight , the device operates normally and provides sufficient lumens to allow someone to see under dark or low light conditions.

As a weapon, this Stun Flashlight/ "Incredible Stun Baton" appears to be quite effective on two distinct levels:

a) as a large heavily weighted object, the device could inflict pain if used against human flech, bone or tissue. This item would most likely inflict serious injury and
harm to an individual; and

b) secondly , as a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW), the transfer of an estimated/advertised 1,000,000 volts of conducted energy would cause damage and burns
to the skin through single layers of clothing if active contact remained in one area for prolonged period of time.

As a weapon, this stun baton-flashlight could be used in an offensive and defensive manner against an impending attacker/victim.

Cited Legislation

1 Criminal Code of Canada Section 92 (2)

Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized

(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

2 Criminal Code of Canada - Section 2 defines a "weapon" as,

weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use

(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or

(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person

and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm and, for the purposes of sections 88, 267 and 272, any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will; (arme)

3 Criminal Code of Canada Section 84 states that a " Prohibited Weapon" means

prohibited weapon means

(a) a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, or

(b) any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a prohibited weapon; (arme prohibée)

4 Criminal Code of Canada (Part III) provides a Former PRohibited Weapons List and Under Former Prohibited Weapons order #3 Conducted energy Weapons are described
as
6 Any device that is designed to be capable of injuring, immobilizing or incapacitating a person or an animal by discharging an electrical charge produced by means of the amplification or accumulation of the electrical current generated by a battery, where the device is designed or altered so that the electrical charge may be discharged when the device is of a length of less than 480 mm, and any similar device.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the analysis conducted of exhibit#1 - Stun Flashlight/ "Incredible Stun Baton" clearly revealsthat the item seized by Constable NM is in fact, a conducted weapon as described by the Criminal Code of Canada - Former Prohibited Weapons Order #3.

It meets all the definitions and criteria set out by the law and the analysis conducted supports all conclusions made in its determination .

Constable P. Quaglia #326
Abbotsford Police Department
Non Firearms Prohibited Weapons Expert.




somebody please help me ????????? He just said that it conforms with formerly prohib weapons but it's still a prohib weapon ??????WTF ?????
 
I see nothing in his analysis that leads to a determination of it being a prohibited weapon.

Frankly, I think he simply did not measure the device and see that it is longer than 480mm.
 
Last edited:
The analysis by the Abby police reminds me of this old song but you have to substitute the words "Government Authority" for "Love" in the song..............


canadiantbone said:
So here it is , I'll save you guys all the introduction & get into the muddy stuff.

Analysis:
The exhibit was examined in close detail. Its attributes were recorded in the body of this report.

At first glance. the item exhibited the the general characteristics consistently found with objects that are characterized as a multi-cell battery powered flashlight.

The item is fashioned entirely of metal. It its present form, it's made from a sufficient amount of weighted metal material that , when used against as intended target or victim could/would effectively deliver the needed momentum and kinetic energy towards an impending object or subject to cause sufficient blunt trauma, injury, or damage.

The secondary purpose of this analysis was also to determine whether the item falls within the category of a Conductive Energy Weapon (CEW) as defined by the professional standards set out by the technical community as large, private industry, and in accordance with the definitions outline in the criminal Code of Canada.

The term "conductive energy device" or "CED" is used to refer to the general class if electronic incapacitation devices.

First and second generation stun systems, commonly referred to as "stun guns," worked by transmitting pulses of electricity to the subject that acted on the sensory nervous system. (the system that carries information from the body to the brain.) These devices worked on the basis of pain compliance * (Taser international)

At first glance, it appears the main purpose and design of this item is to use it as a flashlight. However, the device now coupled with the ability to transfer electrical impulses, adds to its lethality and ability to both intimidate and harm the intended victim(s) on another level.

The device is designed with a lanyard/carabiner soo that it can be conveniently carried like a large flashlight. The abilty to conduct energy in the form of electrical impulses adds to its ability to inflict pain or harm on any intended victim.

Open source research located on several US and Canadian distributors whoe sell this item on the open online market. All distributors market the item for "personal protection" and focus their marketing strategy on the items compact nature, its ease of use, and ability to thwart an impending attack.

As a flashlight , the device operates normally and provides sufficient lumens to allow someone to see under dark or low light conditions.

As a weapon, this Stun Flashlight/ "Incredible Stun Baton" appears to be quite effective on two distinct levels:

a) as a large heavily weighted object, the device could inflict pain if used against human flech, bone or tissue. This item would most likely inflict serious injury and
harm to an individual; and

b) secondly , as a Conducted Energy Weapon (CEW), the transfer of an estimated/advertised 1,000,000 volts of conducted energy would cause damage and burns
to the skin through single layers of clothing if active contact remained in one area for prolonged period of time.

As a weapon, this stun baton-flashlight could be used in an offensive and defensive manner against an impending attacker/victim.

Cited Legislation

1 Criminal Code of Canada Section 92 (2)

Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized

(2) Subject to subsection (4), every person commits an offence who possesses a prohibited weapon, a restricted weapon, a prohibited device, other than a replica firearm, or any prohibited ammunition knowing that the person is not the holder of a licence under which the person may possess it.

2 Criminal Code of Canada - Section 2 defines a "weapon" as,

weapon means any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use

(a) in causing death or injury to any person, or

(b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person

and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm and, for the purposes of sections 88, 267 and 272, any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will; (arme)

3 Criminal Code of Canada Section 84 states that a " Prohibited Weapon" means

prohibited weapon means

(a) a knife that has a blade that opens automatically by gravity or centrifugal force or by hand pressure applied to a button, spring or other device in or attached to the handle of the knife, or

(b) any weapon, other than a firearm, that is prescribed to be a prohibited weapon; (arme prohibée)

4 Criminal Code of Canada (Part III) provides a Former PRohibited Weapons List and Under Former Prohibited Weapons order #3 Conducted energy Weapons are described
as
6 Any device that is designed to be capable of injuring, immobilizing or incapacitating a person or an animal by discharging an electrical charge produced by means of the amplification or accumulation of the electrical current generated by a battery, where the device is designed or altered so that the electrical charge may be discharged when the device is of a length of less than 480 mm, and any similar device.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the analysis conducted of exhibit#1 - Stun Flashlight/ "Incredible Stun Baton" clearly revealsthat the item seized by Constable NM is in fact, a conducted weapon as described by the Criminal Code of Canada - Former Prohibited Weapons Order #3.

It meets all the definitions and criteria set out by the law and the analysis conducted supports all conclusions made in its determination .

Constable P. Quaglia #326
Abbotsford Police Department
Non Firearms Prohibited Weapons Expert.




somebody please help me ????????? He just said that it conforms with formerly prohib weapons but it's still a prohib weapon ??????WTF ?????
Click to expand...
 
LOL, they basically quoted you the part where it says it's not prohib (>480mm) then say it's prohib. It's like saying that a blue car isn't blue.

Good luck arguing with those guys. Gonna be as fun as arguing with an inanimate object. For practice, try the nearest asylum, look for a guy tied up in a contention vest and strike a conversation.

P.S. It's also funny how they keep arguing it's a blunt weapon cause it's a metal object of sufficient weight. In that case, we need to prohibit half the stuff from Home-Depot.
 
VinnyQC said:
LOL, they basically quoted you the part where it says it's not prohib (>480mm) then say it's prohib. It's like saying that a blue car isn't blue.

Good luck arguing with those guys. Gonna be as fun as arguing with an inanimate object. For practice, try the nearest asylum, look for a guy tied up in a contention vest and strike a conversation.

P.S. It's also funny how they keep arguing it's a blunt weapon cause it's a metal object of sufficient weight. In that case, we need to prohibit half the stuff from Home-Depot.
Click to expand...

No #### ! Can they seize a baseball bat if they see me walking down the street with one going to practice !? Cause technically that falls under the weapons category.
That's why if the law asks if there's any weapons in the car you answer with NO but I have a utility blade in the glove box. If you answer and say ya there's a knife in the glove box, technically you said yes to the questions of "weapons" in the car
 
And sorry for laughing, but this is funny on so many level if you're not the poor guy who got his toy seized. I mean, just the fact that Abbotsford Police Dept believe they have a "Non Firearms Prohibited Weapons Expert" on the force is funny (unless you give these 1/2 day long seminars any credit, I'd be surprised if the RCMP had more than 1 or 2 of those). I think they messed up his signature, should be Non-Expert in Firearms or Prohibited Weapons.

Then there's the fact that they consider a cute version of a cattle prod a weapon. Heh, let's arrest every cattle farmer in canada, those guys are obviously criminals. Plus, it's not like we're gonna miss beef, milk or leather.

Then they just quote you the part that says your particular cattle prod isn't prohibited because it's longer than 480mm, and still call it prohibited.

On the bright side, your weapon is "conducted". It's got a personnal chauffeur and all. But I guess we should believe a "Non Firearms Prohibited Weapons Expert" who can't make the difference between "conductive" and "conducted".

Probably not funny to you, but from here, it looks like an Abbot and Costello routine. Or a Francis Veber movie.

But hey, we live in a world where 2 sticks tied by a rope is a prohibited weapon (nunchaku), so nothing surprises me anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom