Stun Baton Flashlight (repost)
- Thread starter canadiantbone
- Start date
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)
"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.com/criminal-practice-areas/weapons-offences/
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.
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...
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?
Assault with a friendly weapon.
How can the police seize an item saying it's prohibited and not charge you?? and I'm pretty sure we all know that it's not a prohibited weapon.
I had bought an ak47 bb gun approx. 7 years ago from someone online that I bought from regularly, and he had a visit from the police.
The bb gun was afterwards on the "prohibited list" because it was made with real ak47 parts, and if you were to change the barrel and the bolt you would have a working ak47.
I called the RCMP 2 times and they told me not to worry because it was just a bb gun, I called them one last time and told them to take my name down so if I was ever stopped with the bb gun I would have this as a reference (recorded the phone call) that is when they changed their tune and told me to bring it to my local pd to have it checked.
I was right, and they seized my bb gun.... But I would rather have had lost $400 than serve time in prison for a bb gun of all things.
The difference between my story and the OP's story is different, I just thought I would share mine.
And the OP's stun baton is NOT prohibited and mine was.
Here is the write up - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/replica-ak-47-bb-guns-allowed-into-canada-1.1050388
Also to the guy who said something about the OP's son flapping his gums.... You are a POS..
I had bought an ak47 bb gun approx. 7 years ago from someone online that I bought from regularly, and he had a visit from the police.
The bb gun was afterwards on the "prohibited list" because it was made with real ak47 parts, and if you were to change the barrel and the bolt you would have a working ak47.
I called the RCMP 2 times and they told me not to worry because it was just a bb gun, I called them one last time and told them to take my name down so if I was ever stopped with the bb gun I would have this as a reference (recorded the phone call) that is when they changed their tune and told me to bring it to my local pd to have it checked.
I was right, and they seized my bb gun.... But I would rather have had lost $400 than serve time in prison for a bb gun of all things.
The difference between my story and the OP's story is different, I just thought I would share mine.
And the OP's stun baton is NOT prohibited and mine was.
Here is the write up - http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/replica-ak-47-bb-guns-allowed-into-canada-1.1050388
Also to the guy who said something about the OP's son flapping his gums.... You are a POS..
Unfortunately because he allowed the police to. It's hindsight now, but he should have insisted they get a warrant and/or spoken to a lawyer as soon as they showed up and started asking questions. We can only hope that he now pursues this and prevails.
Absolutely agree. That... person... is obviously not a parent.
It'll fly against a poor illiterate ganger, not against someone who can afford a lawyer. In a real court, the prosecution still has to prove you guilty, and proving intent to commit a crime is kinda hard against someone who's driving home after an honest day of work.
In practice it's mostly a charge they'll add when they arrest a ganger with a stash full of drugs and illegal weapons or if you actually use it on a 2-legged animal. At that point it doesn't even make a difference on the sentence.
Ok, now I see how this could be prohibited.
Former Prohibited Weapons Order, No. 3, section 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.
See how he unscrews the battery compartment at 13:30 to 14:30? The part that's left is less than 480mm and it can discharge current. Wheter the current "may be discharged" without that part is an expert debate, which definitely has its place in a court of law. All the electronic components are in the part that's left, and unless the stun baton has a specific mechanism to ensure that the battery compartment isn't removed when the current is discharged, then I would say that "the electrical charge may be discharged when the device is of a length of less than 480 mm", making it prohibited. I don't think the usual cattle prod can be separated like that.
A simple solution might be to use red locktite to ensure that this part can't be removed at all without physically destroying the baton, but even there, it would be left to interpretation. We might very well be facing a badly designed product here. Interesting court debates, which I'll be happy to follow, but even more happy that they won't be happening on my dime.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I wonder if the OP is not telling us something?
Such as how this item firstly came to the attention of the authorities.
Maybe an important 'chapter' is missing in this tale regarding the actual use of said product in a public place??
just maybe
Such as how this item firstly came to the attention of the authorities.
Maybe an important 'chapter' is missing in this tale regarding the actual use of said product in a public place??
just maybe
Which video did you watch? Baton will not work when it's unscrewed as there's nothing holding the batteries to both contacts. My very end of the baton does not unscrew, unless you need pliers or something. Even if it did, it's probably long enough anyway as the OAL is 19 3/4.
Check the video. At 13:27 he begins unscrewing the battery compartment and finishes at 13:38. All the electronic is still there, and he has removed a good 5.5 inches of tubing (the length of 2x 18650 batteries). Given that all the electronic is still there and it measures less than 480mm, it is very possible that it is prohibited. The very question is wheter the electronic, without the batteries, satisfies the may be discharged criteria. I don't personnaly own a SB, so I can't positively confirm, but I'd guess that those are just built with relatively simple capacitors and inductances, and that therefore they may be discharged even when the batteries are not present. Remember how old radios used to keep playing 2-3 seconds after you unpluggued them? Same principle here. If there's one remaning "shot" in the baton after you remove the batteries and the battery compartment, and that "shot" may be discharged, then it could pass the 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 criteria.
It's very possible that they may be be discharged, just not as simply as the push of a button like when the batteries are present, and that would qualify them as prohibited weapon. Think like how an AR15 lower receiver is a restricted weapon although it can't reasonnably fire a bullet by itself (it's not a perfect comparison, just the best I can think of right now).
As I said, it's not clear-cut, and even if I had one in my lab that I could test, I'm not sure I could come to the conclusion that it's prohibited or not. The very word "may" is very subjective, and it's pretty much the part that's left for interpretation. That's the part that's decided by judges and lawyers, not engineers or a simple measuring tape. My best guess is that 2 judges listening to the same arguments from 2 lawyers could come up with a different verdict.
Just tried it with mine. Doesn't work at all once the battery compartment loses contact. Still attached, like 4 turns it loses power. No residual power left.
