September 16th, 2010 07:30 PM
As I tell folks in class the one thing you can be sure of is that you have more to lose than the other guy does.
September 16th, 2010 09:12 PM
Before you take what I say personal, and then try to attack me personally, lets get a few things out there. My comments weren't directed at you personally, so don't take it that way. You have a department policy you need to follow, just like I had rules of engagement for 20+ years in the Army. I understand that. I've also taught the legal parts after the fight, along with how to fight. My issue is people getting so wrapped around the axle about what the public thnks, or trying so hard to use minimal force, or worrying more about what will happen in court, that they defeat themselves before the fight even starts. The public will never understand what you do as a law enforcement officer, and they will never understand the average CPL holder, so why worry about them? If you do the right thing, follow the law, and tell the truth, you'll probably be okay.
Originally Posted by BikerRN
You have an obligation to arrest and/or take suspects into custody, along with getting home alive at the end of your shift. The average CPL holder has no obligation to arrest or detain, just get home. There isn't some minimum force rule they have to follow, except maybe in some more asinine jurisdictions. If I'm attacked, why should I expect the bad guy to use minimum force? I don't, so I won't. I didn't start the fight, but I will finish it, and go home to my family, and I'll use whatever I need to do so. I can stand the court of public opinion, but I won't stand for my family being without me, if I can help it.
Suarez International Staff Instructor
"I am not afraid to go unarmed...I simply detest being unarmed. It is a contemptible and undignified condition in which to find oneself."
NRA Life Member
September 16th, 2010 10:43 PM
The example I gave was for a more restrictive environment, such as Australia, and some insight in to the articulation as to why you used a flashlight as a baton. Sadly the more asinine jurisdictions are out there, and quite prevelant in my expirience. "The law is what the local prosecutor says it is."
Originally Posted by SteveCollins
I think we can both agree that we will do what needs to be done to go home alive, as that is my only goal. The thing is, people do need to consider the court of public opinion, especially when out in public. If you will notice, I stated that I would not use the less than lethal when defending my home. My Use of Force Model in my home, is presence, verbal, lethal, and depending upon the circumstances I may go straight to lethal and fore-go the verbal.
Should be shouldn't even be a consideration for a homeowner in my opinion. There is a reason it's referred to as "defending the castle." My home is my castle, and will be defended as such. If badguys don't like that, they need a new line of work. I don't think we are that far apart in our views, but I do think that consideration and public perception has to factor in to our decisions, to a point. I would much rather use a benign flashlight as opposed to a baton. Often in court, perception becomes reality. Why look like a Bruce Lee want to be when you can appear as a harmless befuddled fuddy duddy?
If you do the right thing, follow the law, and tell the truth, you'll probably be okay.
September 16th, 2010 11:43 PM
I have an ASP in the drivers side door carry pouch of my car. If things get worse than that, I have some really good Pepper Spray and at the end of the fight is my G-19 with two reloads for a total of 46 rounds of Cor-Bon Ammo. At 62 years old, things may get pumped up very early depending on the threat. I'm not taking any prisoners.
Praise the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle --- Psalm 144
NRA Endowment Life
There are NO Silver Medals for Street Combat
Blue Thunder, I smell Victory in the Morning!
November 6th, 2010 06:05 PM
Here is WA State Law on it, but I need some help interpreting. Does it mean that it is only illegal if you intimidate someone with it? In other words, it's ok to carry, and it's ok to use when threatened with bodily harm/protecting someone? I hope so, 'cause I have one I carry when walking the dog. I have a CCW, but I can't use my pistol unless my life is in danger. A charging dog might not warrant such use, so a baton seems like a good option. I know pepper spray would probably work too, but the baton seems more pertinent?
Weapons apparently capable of producing bodily harm — Unlawful carrying or handling — Penalty — Exceptions.
(1) It shall be unlawful for any person to carry, exhibit, display, or draw any firearm, dagger, sword, knife or other cutting or stabbing instrument, club, or any other weapon apparently capable of producing bodily harm, in a manner, under circumstances, and at a time and place that either manifests an intent to intimidate another or that warrants alarm for the safety of other persons.
(2) Any person violating the provisions of subsection (1) above shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor. If any person is convicted of a violation of subsection (1) of this section, the person shall lose his or her concealed pistol license, if any. The court shall send notice of the revocation to the department of licensing, and the city, town, or county which issued the license.
(3) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to or affect the following:
(a) Any act committed by a person while in his or her place of abode or fixed place of business;
(b) Any person who by virtue of his or her office or public employment is vested by law with a duty to preserve public safety, maintain public order, or to make arrests for offenses, while in the performance of such duty;
(c) Any person acting for the purpose of protecting himself or herself against the use of presently threatened unlawful force by another, or for the purpose of protecting another against the use of such unlawful force by a third person;
(d) Any person making or assisting in making a lawful arrest for the commission of a felony; or
(e) Any person engaged in military activities sponsored by the federal or state governments.
November 6th, 2010 06:56 PM
It would appear to me that 9.41.270 (1) could be used to prohibit the open carry of an expandable baton. In addition, 9.41.250 (1), (b) appears to prohibit the concealed carry of an expandable baton (dangerous weapon). That's just my take on it and INAL.
Dangerous weapons — Penalty — Exemption for law enforcement officers.
(1) Every person who:
(a) Manufactures, sells, or disposes of or possesses any instrument or weapon of the kind usually known as slung shot, sand club, or metal knuckles, or spring blade knife, or any knife the blade of which is automatically released by a spring mechanism or other mechanical device, or any knife having a blade which opens, or falls, or is ejected into position by the force of gravity, or by an outward, downward, or centrifugal thrust or movement;
(b) Furtively carries with intent to conceal any dagger, dirk, pistol, or other dangerous weapon; or
(c) Uses any contrivance or device for suppressing the noise of any firearm,
is guilty of a gross misdemeanor punishable under chapter 9A.20 RCW.
(2) Subsection (1)(a) of this section does not apply to:
(a) The possession of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement officer while the officer:
(i) Is on official duty; or
(ii) Is transporting the knife to or from the place where the knife is stored when the officer is not on official duty; or
(b) The storage of a spring blade knife by a law enforcement officer.
"I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".
November 7th, 2010 11:37 AM
I believe in Tennessee you can't carry one, but you can get certified to carry one, and that is a defense to carrying one illegally..some such nonsense just came of of the AGs office. I just completed armed private security classes, and I'm signed up to take baton, handcuffing and taser. I walked into a local cop shop, went to the rack, picked up a baton, paid for it and left. They know me however NOT to be a wanna be cop or a thug.
"If I was an extremist, our founding fathers would all be extremists," he said. "Without them, we wouldn't have our independence. We'd be a disarmed British system of feudal subjectivity."
November 7th, 2010 11:49 AM
One of the advantages of living in a state that issues a CWP/L rather than a CPP/L.
"I do what I do." Cpl 'coach' Bowden, "Southern Comfort".
November 7th, 2010 03:49 PM
Amen to that.
Originally Posted by Guantes
November 7th, 2010 05:57 PM
I just sent the following email to the Missouri Attorney General's office. We'll see if I get a response that isn't a "Thank you for your concern" form letter.
Dear Sir or Madam of the Attorney General's Office,
I have a question regarding the scope of self defense weapons, in addition to a firearm, a valid Missouri concealed carry endorsement holder may carry under current Missouri state law.
Section 571.030.1 - Unlawful Use of Weapons--Exceptions--Penalties, subsection (1) of Missouri's Revised statutes reads:
"571.030. 1. A person commits the crime of unlawful use of weapons if he or she knowingly: (1) Carries concealed upon or about his or her person a knife, a firearm, a blackjack or any other weapon readily capable of lethal use; or..."
"4. Subdivisions (1), (8), and (10) of subsection 1 of this section shall not apply to any person who has a valid concealed carry endorsement issued pursuant to sections 571.101 to 571.121 or a valid permit or endorsement to carry concealed firearms issued by another state or political subdivision of another state."
and, 571.010.2 defines a blackjack as:
"(2) "Blackjack", any instrument that is designed or adapted for the purpose of stunning or inflicting physical injury by striking a person, and which is readily capable of lethal use."
With the preceding information in mind, would I be correct in inferring that an item such as an ASP expandable baton would be classified as a "Blackjack" and as such, a person with a valid concealed carry endorsement would be legally allowed to carry one for self defense purposes?
Thank you for your time and consideration.
November 8th, 2010 05:31 AM
WA RCW are vague and attach intent to what is defined as a weapon. It is difficult to explain an ASP or other telescoping baton as anything other than a weapon. I used to carry one in the car. Sometimes still do on the bike but a cane is a much more effective weapon, hidden in plain sight that you can take anywhere weapons are prohibited. Also a fish club is a nice handy tool to have in the ca. Be sure to have some tackle in the car as well. Should you ever need to explain the fish club.
Originally Posted by KralBlbec
Abort the Obamanation not the Constitution
Those who would, deny, require permit, license, certification, or authorization for me to bear arms are as vile, dangerous & evil as those who would molest, abuse, assault, rape or murder my family
By TattooedGunner in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: December 7th, 2008, 09:29 AM
By Wiggy in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
Last Post: August 24th, 2007, 01:15 PM
By dls56 in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
Last Post: July 8th, 2007, 11:56 AM
By Lew in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
Last Post: October 15th, 2006, 08:37 AM
By ninpo in forum Defensive Knives & Other Weapons
Last Post: February 23rd, 2006, 12:52 PM
Search tags for this page
are batons illegal
are collapsible batons illegal
are collapsible batons legal
are collapsible batons legal in missouri
are collapsible batons legal in texas
are retractable batons legal
are retractable batons legal in texas
collapsible baton illegal
collapsible baton laws
collapsible baton legality
is it legal to carry a collapsible baton
retractable baton legality
Click on a term to search for related topics.
» DefensiveCarry Sponsors