Stun Baton Flashlight (repost)

VinnyQC said:
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.
Click to expand...

ON position flashlight, unscrew compartment = nothing. No juice. I'm sure this all was gone over with a fine tooth comb. No internet investigator without the item in his hands can prohibit it himself.

Maybe if you want to hold the batteries in and use your tongue as a contact... I may reimburse your purchase if you buy one and make a video of you doing this.

It wasn't designed to stun when it's not fully assembled, which is why I asked which video you were watching. Some guys on here are as bad as the RCMP lab.

Another poster already disproved your BS above me.
 
VinnyQC said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes it rarely used as a singular charge, more a hybrid charge to do with things like - criminal stabs 7-11 clerk, now the 'dangerous weapon' charge is added along with the stabbing.

VinnyQC said:
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
Click to expand...

No, it cannot discharge current. The vital component that's missing is power pack. Without a battery compartment, its is just a capacitor, transformer, and not capable of anything. In order to function it must be assembled to it's full length.
 
Okay I tried to keep it civil through this utter crap but there's too many people on here irresponsibly spewing disinformation.

"you'll just have to take a plea deal or risk 10 years" false

"you'll get charged with Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose" false

"the onus is on you in court" ie guilt till you prove yourself innocent false

"the cops just say something & judge always believes the cops" false

then horror stories of people getting convicted of prohibited weapon with no follow up substantiation whatsoever

then "the stun device discharges dissassembled, no wonder its prohibited" false

and tomorrow more people spewing more disinformation right?? of course
 
inthewoods said:
Okay I tried to keep it civil through this utter crap but there's too many people on here irresponsibly spewing disinformation.

"you'll just have to take a plea deal or risk 10 years" false

"you'll get charged with Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose" false

"the onus is on you in court" ie guilt till you prove yourself innocent false

"the cops just say something & judge always believes the cops" false

then horror stories of people getting convicted of prohibited weapon with no follow up substantiation whatsoever

then "the stun device discharges dissassembled, no wonder its prohibited" false

and tomorrow more people spewing more disinformation right?? of course
Click to expand...

This right here!!
 
VinnyQC said:
I decline the opportunity to argue with your hallucination of what I've said. Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

Dude... you went on and on (and on) about how you believe it's prohibited because it can still deliver a shock, even when disassembled to a shorter length and without it's power supply.

You made these claims as pure conjecture as you admit you don't even have one of these devices. Don't get upset now that several people here are disagreeing with you and stating flat out that you are wrong.

You simply shouldn't have made any of those statements without any proof.
 
inthewoods said:
Okay I tried to keep it civil through this utter crap but there's too many people on here irresponsibly spewing disinformation.

"you'll just have to take a plea deal or risk 10 years" false

"you'll get charged with Possession of weapon for dangerous purpose" false

"the onus is on you in court" ie guilt till you prove yourself innocent false

"the cops just say something & judge always believes the cops" false

then horror stories of people getting convicted of prohibited weapon with no follow up substantiation whatsoever

then "the stun device discharges dissassembled, no wonder its prohibited" false

and tomorrow more people spewing more disinformation right?? of course
Click to expand...

Well said. People need to pay attention to this post.
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
Dude... you went on and on (and on) about how you believe it's prohibited because it can still deliver a shock, even when disassembled to a shorter length and without it's power supply.

You made these claims as pure conjecture as you admit you don't even have one of these devices. Don't get upset now that several people here are disagreeing with you and stating flat out that you are wrong.

You simply shouldn't have made any of those statements without any proof.
Click to expand...

And that's why I used the word "could".

It still is a court of law to decide. Not you, me, or the court of the internet.
 
Last edited:
No time to read all this, but I would send a letter to the school's principal demanding that he discipline the teacher for exceeding her authority and invading your privacy, I'd also send letters of complaint to the school board and the BCTF. You could also demand an interview with the principal and the teacher with your lawyer present and give them a nice little dressing down. Junior? Dock his allowance until it's paid for. Yourself? Don't blab to kids about your stuff without remembering that little boys of all ages love to brag, and some love to tell tales on each other too. Just look around this place.
 
VinnyQC said:
And that's why I used the word "could".

It still is a court of law to decide. Not you, me, or the court of the internet.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see... you can go on - at length - with as many wild and unfounded claims as you like, as long as you throw in the odd "might", "maybe" or "could" to negate it all should you be wrong. Got it.

So I can make all kinds of grandiose claims on the internet, but as long as my fingers are crossed while I'm typing, they don't count...? :p
 
Bad Lieutenant said:
Ah, I see... you can go on - at length - with as many wild and unfounded claims as you like, as long as you throw in the odd "might", "maybe" or "could" to negate it all should you be wrong. Got it.

So I can make all kinds of grandiose claims on the internet, but as long as my fingers are crossed while I'm typing, they don't count...? :p
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you're hallucinating about what I wrote, but I'll simplify it very much for you:

Everyone (including me at first, I'll admit): Just measure the damn thing. Longer than 480mm means it's not a prohibited weapon. Every rancher in the galaxy has a cattle prod that's similar to the SB.
*me thinking for a few minutes*
Me: It could be a lot more complicated than just measuring the thing. There is both a technical argument and a legal argument to be made that this thing is prohibited. Even if the SB ends up not being prohibited, a lengthy and costly court battle isn't my idea of fun, so I'm really happy I'm not the one dragged into this mess. Good luck OP.

That's pretty much the gist of what I said. I'm sorry that you imagined I was making a grand standing against the amazing stun baton, but I'm not. I'm mostly realizing that whether the SB fills the criteria for a prohibited weapon under section 3 doesn't revolve only on its measurement, and that when cops and lawyers (and possibly engineers) get involved into a problem, it can never be solved by a simple measuring tape. I also pointed the fact that an AR-15 lower is legally a restricted weapon while it is technically less dangerous than a screwdriver.

Then I thought some more, and realized that I'm arguing with complete strangers on the internet over what is a 100% trivial issue (for me, but definitely not for the OP), since I don't even own one of these. Moreover, some of these strangers are arguing against an hallucination of what I wrote. Hence the one liners you've got in my last 2 posts. This one is mostly for the benefit of new readers who might not want to read through 12 pages of variations on the "Just measure the damn thing" theme.
 
It's longer than 480mm, so grasping at straws to see how/why they'd classify it as prohibited is a waste of time. Stores are still selling these for a couple years now, if they were prohibited weapons, they'd be seized and charged. They are not.
 
VinnyQC said:
I'm not sure why you're hallucinating about what I wrote, but I'll simplify it very much for you:

Everyone (including me at first, I'll admit): Just measure the damn thing. Longer than 480mm means it's not a prohibited weapon. Every rancher in the galaxy has a cattle prod that's similar to the SB.
*me thinking for a few minutes*
Me: It could be a lot more complicated than just measuring the thing. There is both a technical argument and a legal argument to be made that this thing is prohibited. Even if the SB ends up not being prohibited, a lengthy and costly court battle isn't my idea of fun, so I'm really happy I'm not the one dragged into this mess. Good luck OP.

That's pretty much the gist of what I said. I'm sorry that you imagined I was making a grand standing against the amazing stun baton, but I'm not. I'm mostly realizing that whether the SB fills the criteria for a prohibited weapon under section 3 doesn't revolve only on its measurement, and that when cops and lawyers (and possibly engineers) get involved into a problem, it can never be solved by a simple measuring tape. I also pointed the fact that an AR-15 lower is legally a restricted weapon while it is technically less dangerous than a screwdriver.

Then I thought some more, and realized that I'm arguing with complete strangers on the internet over what is a 100% trivial issue (for me, but definitely not for the OP), since I don't even own one of these. Moreover, some of these strangers are arguing against an hallucination of what I wrote. Hence the one liners you've got in my last 2 posts. This one is mostly for the benefit of new readers who might not want to read through 12 pages of variations on the "Just measure the damn thing" theme.
Click to expand...

You keep accusing everyone else of "hallucinations", where really it's self-delusion that you should be concerned about. We're not all 'seeing things', just responding to your very real, very lengthy, and very needless suppositions. That said, however, if you really feel this is all "100% trivial", then why don't you just move on to something else, and stop filling up this thread with baseless nonsense and conjecture, mm-kay?
 
If you are new to this thread, do not believe the voluminous tripe.

The item remains as legal as any cattle prod, since it is not under 480mm. It's cleared for entrance by CBSA, sold and owned legally.

When disassembled, it cannot function normally because the circuit cannot close from the capacitors or detached batteries.
 
Last edited:
Op!

Hey OP, did you end up getting your SB back? If so, did you have to hire Harry and Mike or it got resolved without getting in front of a judge?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom