|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Jul 27, 2010 13:21:46 GMT -5
This reeks of a "rookie-cop" all the way. This is what I was asking earlier in the thread. Is it inexperience or something else like a previous experience that led the officer to use the approach he did? I can't remember the last time I saw two officers riding together a la Adam 12. However, it's possible officers starting out are paired with more experienced mentors (I don't know how their training process works to be honest). I guess I'm wondering how much patrolling alone in your own vehicle can affect an officer's judgment. Does it make he/she more cautious than they would otherwise be if they had a partner? This scenario really does sound over the top in a way. Hard to say why the officer reacted the way he did. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 27, 2010 13:23:10 GMT -5
You were in a cube van .. since the officer saw the "questionable item" when he walked up to you. The weapon (yes, a machete is a weapon) now gives the officer probable cause to search for more weapons in the general area where the weapon was ... the exact same reason an officer can search for drugs if he spots a joint in your vehicle. I am not sure why you keep insisting that you are right when the law says otherwise. A machete is NOT a weapon unless used like one. A machete is NOT illegal. HERE is the law...and not conjecture, interpretations or internet translations and expertise. www.theatreontario.org/theatresafety/downloads/v_firearms-blades.pdfHere....prove otherwise. laws.justice.gc.ca/www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/ |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 27, 2010 17:56:28 GMT -5
You were in a cube van .. since the officer saw the "questionable item" when he walked up to you. The weapon (yes, a machete is a weapon) now gives the officer probable cause to search for more weapons in the general area where the weapon was ... the exact same reason an officer can search for drugs if he spots a joint in your vehicle. I am not sure why you keep insisting that you are right when the law says otherwise. A machete is NOT a weapon unless used like one. A machete is NOT illegal. HERE is the law...and not conjecture, interpretations or internet translations and expertise. www.theatreontario.org/theatresafety/downloads/v_firearms-blades.pdfHere....prove otherwise. laws.justice.gc.ca/www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/So it CAN be a weapon ... the only thing the officer didn't know is IF you used it like one or why you had it on you. Like I said earlier, maybe I'm out to lunch ... but I'd prefer policemen to stop a van when he sees something that could be a weapon and check if there is other possible weapons (maybe even illegal ones) than to walk away and brush it off as "it was only a machete" (if the officer even knew it was a machete and not a sword or something else). EDIT: Those links are the same ones I have been using ... nice to see your google is as good as mine .. lol ... but I direct you to the first link: " There are no federal laws concerning the lengths of knives allowed. However there are many informal "blade length rules" in Canada. These vary from 3" to 4" for folding knives in various areas around the country, depending on what differentiates a pocket-knife from a fighting knife to the police. There are no federal laws about knife materials, as well there are no formal laws on serrations, or dual edged blades." Is a machete blade longer than 4 inches? Can a machete be used as a "fighting knife/blade"? As I said before the CCoC does not specifically mention anything to do with machetes or swords ... but it does say: The Criminal Code has a number of provisions which bear on martial arts weapons. The most specific are the regulations which prohibit certain weapons. Under section 91(3), possession of a prohibited weapon is a criminal offence. Prohibited weapons are defined in s. 84(1) and its regulations. The following martial arts weapons are prohibited:
(a) a knife with a retractable or folding blade which, by design or through wear, will open by centrifugal force or gravity, or by a spring or similar device. This has been interpreted by the courts to include a butterfly knife;
(b) nunchaku or similar objects made up of hard, non-flexible sticks linked by a flexible length of chain. This includes objects where the sticks are replaced by, for example, pipes or other rigid pieces, and where the chain is replaced by rope, wire or other flexible material;
(c) shuriken or similar objects which are made of a hard, non-flexible material in an essentially two-dimensional regular geometric form with one or more sharp edges;
(d) manrikigusari or kusari or similar objects which are made up of geometrically-shaped hard weights or hand grips linked by rope, chain, wire or other flexible material;
(e) a push dagger, namely a knife where the blade is perpendicular to the handle;
(f) any item under 30 cm which looks like another object but which conceals a blade;
(g) spiked wristbands;
(h) blowguns;
(i) manually-triggered telescoping spring-loaded steel whips;
(j) morning stars or similar items consisting of a ball of metal or similar heavy material studded with spikes and connected to a handle by a length of rope, chain, wire or other flexible material;
(k) brass knuckles or similar items.
In addition to these specific items, there are also sections of the Code which deal with weapons generally. What is a “weapon”, however, can depend on circumstances. Normally a chair or a beer bottle would not be considered to be a weapon; however, both can be used as a weapon, and if a person does so they can be charged with using a weapon. In s. 2 of the Code, a “weapon” is defined as meaning not only an item designed to cause death or injury, but also anything which a person actually uses or intends to use to cause death or injury. It also includes any item which is designed, used or intended for use to threaten or intimidate. Thus the beer bottle is not a weapon until a person decides to use it to threaten, to intimidate, or to hurt someone.
However, that is only the definition of what constitutes a weapon. Simply possessing a weapon is not a criminal offence by itself (aside from firearms, prohibited weapons and certain other weapons). We must therefore look at specific sections of the Code which create the actual offences. So I go back to my original thought ... the officer, IMO, had a duty of care to ask why you had the machete on you, and to evaluate if the evidence supported your claims. Machete definitely can be used to itimidate, and are designed so that they can cause death and injury. I also would not be surprised to see a machete added to the list of prohibited weapons eventually ... I mean not every spiked wristband wearing goth intends to use them as a weapon either. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Jul 27, 2010 18:51:12 GMT -5
. Like I said earlier, maybe I'm out to lunch ... . When I'm coming out your way, I'm buying.  I love the winds you guys have out there. ONE of these babies can churn out enough to power a 1000 homes.  |
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Jul 28, 2010 10:01:24 GMT -5
Like I said earlier, maybe I'm out to lunch ... but I'd prefer policemen to stop a van when he sees something that could be a weapon and check if there is other possible weapons (maybe even illegal ones) than to walk away and brush it off as "it was only a machete" (if the officer even knew it was a machete and not a sword or something else). So would H.A. .... When the cop approached my van, he saw the machete in the back. Instead of approaching me and making even the most rudimentary inquiry, he called for back up and all hell broke lose. ...but alas, it's not the way it played out. The cop DID NOT stop the van because "he sees something that could be a weapon and check if there is other possible weapons (maybe even illegal ones) than to walk away and brush it off as "it was only a machete" (if the officer even knew it was a machete and not a sword or something else)." In fact, the cop (on his own) stopped no-one! He, in all likelihood, pulled his cruiser over because he saw a citizen that might possibly be in distress (changing a tire) - but whatever the reason, it wasn't because he sensed "danger". Now, when he DID sense potential "danger", he did absolutely f-all (in terms of interrogation/investigation) but saunter over to his cruiser and call for "back-up". The cop walks up, about ten feet from my van, he stops, says nothing and goes back to his car. Sorry fellas, and again, IMO this isn't "precautionary"; this is shoddy over-the-top police workbadgering. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 28, 2010 10:27:09 GMT -5
Sorry fellas, and again, IMO this isn't "precautionary"; this is shoddy over-the-top police workbadgering. I'm not disputing the consequential actions ... merely the cop's right to detain and search. But I do see why he may have went back to his cruiser. I have no clue as to how cops are trained; but I wouldn't approach someone who I felt potentially could have a van full of weapons ... I mean I spotted one (I am assuming that's why he stopped 10 feet away; in any event the cop will use it as his reason for stopping HA), how many more are in there. I have a family, what if I approach and ask "what's wthe story on the machete?" and this guy has a gun on his person. If he is hiding something, odds are he is protecting it with more than a machete I too would be calling for back-up. My only question is when is it reasonable for the officer to conduct his search ... when he feels safe, or immediately upon viewing questionable material? |
|
|
|
Post by HABsurd on Jul 28, 2010 14:17:16 GMT -5
So it CAN be a weapon ... the only thing the officer didn't know is IF you used it like one or why you had it on you. Like I said earlier, maybe I'm out to lunch ... but I'd prefer policemen to stop a van when he sees something that could be a weapon and check if there is other possible weapons (maybe even illegal ones) than to walk away and brush it off as "it was only a machete" (if the officer even knew it was a machete and not a sword or something else). So I go back to my original thought ... the officer, IMO, had a duty of care to ask why you had the machete on you, and to evaluate if the evidence supported your claims. Machete definitely can be used to itimidate, and are designed so that they can cause death and injury. I also would not be surprised to see a machete added to the list of prohibited weapons eventually ... I mean not every spiked wristband wearing goth intends to use them as a weapon either. Actually, machetes are designed to clear undergrowth and harvest certain crops. I have a huge problem with the idea that police would have the right to search indiscriminately because something can potentially happen without further evidence, like say some actual facts, to back it up. Baseball bats can also have the potential to intimidate. Should those be banned? Hell, RCMP officers have been known to be intimidated by a stapler. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Jul 28, 2010 22:24:53 GMT -5
So it CAN be a weapon ... the only thing the officer didn't know is IF you used it like one or why you had it on you. Like I said earlier, maybe I'm out to lunch ... but I'd prefer policemen to stop a van when he sees something that could be a weapon and check if there is other possible weapons (maybe even illegal ones) than to walk away and brush it off as "it was only a machete" (if the officer even knew it was a machete and not a sword or something else). So I go back to my original thought ... the officer, IMO, had a duty of care to ask why you had the machete on you, and to evaluate if the evidence supported your claims. Machete definitely can be used to itimidate, and are designed so that they can cause death and injury. I also would not be surprised to see a machete added to the list of prohibited weapons eventually ... I mean not every spiked wristband wearing goth intends to use them as a weapon either. Actually, machetes are designed to clear undergrowth and harvest certain crops. I have a huge problem with the idea that police would have the right to search indiscriminately because something can potentially happen without further evidence, like say some actual facts, to back it up. Like submitting you to a breathalyser simply due to irratic driving? (The courts throw this one out time and time again because people claim they were reaching for the radio, or had insulin problems, etc and come up with excuses to not use the breathalyser and wait for a blood test, giving them more time) Like spotting a single joint that may not be yours ... jeepers nowadays it may even be medicinal. ========================== Here in NL, we are now in a debate over new legislation that gives police the right to pull a person over and request a breathalyser (with extra penalties for being between 0.05 - 0.08). Some seem to think the new legislation gives the police to pull someone over willy-nilly .... the intent is to try to take the "probable cause" issues for stopping vehicles (as I said before, swerving vehicles dont seem to be probable cause in many court decisions) in an attempt to get drunk drivers off the road. |
|
