Home Defense Weapons
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Whats the best home defense weapon for us noguns Canucks?
I keep hearing people knock violently on my neighbours' door and he has no idea why so I'm thinking about protecting myself. I only have a baseball bat, which is pretty unwieldy in tight quarters.
Are ASP batons a good idea in case you need to keep people out of your doorway? I have a big kitchen knife, but I feel like a melee weapon is better in Canada because if you seriously injure someone you can get charged.
Throw syrup at them to slow them down and attract bears.
Then apologise.
Shorty Shotty. Owning one of these is the only reason to be Canadian.
Can canucks get tasers, stun guns, or pepper spray?
>>29417174
Yeah, but shooting someone dead when they are 'only' breaking into your home will land you in deep shit
>>29417146
Geese
Just Geese
>>29417200
No, it won't.
>>29417199
Taser and stun guns and pepper spray are all prohibited weapons.
You can get bear mace, but if you used it on someone you'd potentially get fucked by the law.
Also nunchucks and switchblades are prohibited.
>>29417219
Christ, what are you guys meant to do? Get Trudeau to throw free pot at them?
>>29417213
Are you even Canadian?
http://www.630ched.com/2015/11/21/northern-alberta-homeowner-charged-after-shooting-intruder/
Get a katana. I own one and it would definitely fuck a nig up
>>29417248
LOL, those poor 3 armed men! You had no right to shoot them, no right I say! :D
>>29417248
Yes, which is how I know you're full of shit.
We practically have to cover the subject of home/self defence every fucking /k/anada thread.
tl;dr - it's perfectly legal, stop acting like we're persecuted because we have a sane legal system that actually investigates, instead of just taking someone's word for it
>>29417248
Well honestly if this is the case your best defense is a plane ticket. And yeah, ha ha, I get it, everyone says get a plane ticket, I know it's expensive, I know it's a hassle.
But people can fucking break into your home and if you defend it you can go to jail. What in the fuck is that pure madness?
>>29417359
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise, same shit happens in the US. Very rarely do people just go, ayyy we got you no worries, after a human is snuffed out.
>>29417247
The Criminal Code over here says you're allowed to use self defence "within reasonable force", but for these Libtard governments and cops nothing's reasonable. Not even using your bare hands is reasonable.
>>29417359
Yeah because everyone has thousands of dollars for lawyers and years of free time
You know it's only worth shooting someone in Canada if your life absolutely depends on it.
>>29417379
>implying
>>29417408
Uhh, no. Are you retarded?
>>29417415
Same shit does not happen in the US
>>29417280
>can cut through 1.5 pig carcasses
That's pretty badass, indeed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8qQZLtIuiA&t=4m33s
>>29417247
>Christ, what are you guys meant to do?
We're meant to fucking shoot them.
>>29417395
>acting like it's always a trial that requires lawyers and legal bills
I'm not sure if you're American, or just retarded. Your one news article doesn't prove shit when there have been plenty posted to this amazonian smoke signal network over the last few years that demonstrate the opposite.
>>29417432
Yes, it does you moron, that's why you don't talk to cops, an investigation happens. They don't just go lel kay, clean up the body and toss him in the trash XDD ur good
>>29417516
Investigation =! charging someone with a crime
>>29417534
Depending on the state, it absolutely happens in the US. Charging someone with a crime =! convicting them of it.
>>29417561
Where is your evidence?
>>29417566
http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/18/ohio-man-charged-with-manslaughter-for-shooting-burglar/
One right off dat ole google.
>>29417505
When you get charged by the Police, there is typically a trial.
That aside, I don't want to kill people that are probably just drunk assholes, I just want advice on a good weapon to keep by your bed in case shit happens. Something I can immediately grab in the dark, and not worry about unlocking a safe and loading.
>>29417607
>shot after they already left his house and were fleeing
Yeah, that's totally the same.
>>29417516
An investigation is going to happen post-shooting regardless of whether or not you talk to them. An aggravated assault/assault with a deadly weapon or a homicide occurred. And, btw, probable cause is a ridiculously low bar.
Do you know what I have to prove at a preliminary hearing to get PC for an agg assault? That somebody 1) intentionally or recklessly; 2) caused; 3) either "serious bodily injury," attempted to do so, committed an assault while displaying a weapon, or strangled/choked 4) the victim; 5) in my jurisdiction.
You know how I do it? I put the victim on the stand, ask them their name, direct their attention to the day/time of the assault, ask them to describe the assault, prod for definite answers for certain details as needed, ask them to point to the defendant and state what he/she is wearing, and ask them if the location of the assault was within the county I work in. That's literally it. Assuming there's a cooperative victim, works basically every time. I do it maybe ten times per week. That preview is enough to cost you tens of thousands of additional dollars in legal fees.
So yeah, talking to investigators -- preferably through an attorney -- is a pretty good idea.
>>29417716
>An investigation is going to happen post-shooting regardless of whether or not you talk to them.
>So yeah, talking to investigators -- preferably through an attorney -- is a pretty good idea.
Welp, someone that's more skilled and experienced than you says otherwise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
>>29417781
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/nol+pros
You can explain it to the investigators and, when I'm doing my review of the file prior to court, I can look at it, determine that it's self-defense and nol pros the case at no cost.
Or, you can follow his advice, and literally not tell the police about anything, to include the knife the assailant may have dropped in the bushes as he fled, and take that shit to trial to the tune of a $4500 signing fee for a defense attorney to sign the case and a $250/hr billing rate for every hour (every six minutes is another tenth, so $25) he or she spends researching, talking to me or someone like me, traveling, appearing in court for motions, drafting motions, expenses for legal research, and arguing at trial.
The choice is yours.
>>29417844
>I can look at it, determine that it's self-defense and nol pros the case at no cost.
Well good on you, you're a great guy, unfortunately, not everyone is you.
>>29417860
>not everyone is [me]
A whole bunch of prosecutors work in very busy jurisdictions, and would absolutely love to knock a case off their docket. You know how many arraignments I did this morning? 101. That's 101 people arrested over Easter weekend for one specific set of crimes. I had another 156 set for attorney or report. There are seventeen other courts just like the one I work in, all working new criminal cases -- both misdemeanor and felony -- before they go upstairs for for indictment (if necessary) and trial. We absolutely love nol pros'ing shit if it's justifiable.
"Good" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
>>29417716
>pretending to be a lawyer on the internet
>doesn't even know the difference between a police investigation and the formal charging process
kek
>>29417927
>probable cause
>the standard police need to make an arrest
>thus, the standard police are trying to meet over the course of their investigation
>pretending it's somehow a different standard when the police do it, instead of when the defendant asserts his/her absolute right to such a hearing a few weeks after their arrest
kek
>>29417903
I'm sure you speak for everyone in the field.
Oh you don't actually. Sorry mate, 5th exists for a reason, you DO NOT speak for everyone and you're a shitty member of the system for attempting to entice people into using anything they say against themselves. Fuck you quite frankly, you're leading people on based on your own personal experience, which is what's called anecdote, and is dismissed easily.
>>29417951
>So yeah, talking to investigators -- preferably through an attorney -- is a pretty good idea.
>preferably through an attorney
but muh 5th amendment
>>29417950
>>probable cause
>>the standard police need to make an arrest
>>thus, the standard police are trying to meet over the course of their investigation
HAHAHAHAHA
O WOW
>still didn't address the issue of obviously conflating the two in his first post
How embarrassing.
>>29417964
Annnd that's what I thought, the ultimate copout. May as well say muh 1st, muh 2nd, muh every. Move along.
>>29417977
You realize that, as a prosecutor, if you do not make your side of the story known, the ONLY thing I have to work on is what the police investigation tells me? That may be a few sentences in a police report, a ballistics or crime lab report, a few pictures, and maybe a victim and/or an eyewitness. I'm the guy who makes the decision whether to proceed with what the police brought me, so if you intend to assert a self-defense claim it might be a good idea to get that ball rolling well before you rack up $50K in attorney's fees. I've never said (and frankly, never would I advise) you should talk to the police/investigators/the DA's office immediately after a shooting, or even unrepresented. I am saying that a reflexive "never, ever, EVER talk to the cops under any circumstances" is a very expensive and wasteful move if you're in the right.
Again, the choice is yours: you shut up, ride that horse to trial, and pat yourself on the back while you fork over that legal bill, or you (or really, your attorney since I'm ethically bound not to talk to you outside their presence) can talk to me and work it from there.
But again, muh fifth amendment.
>>29418069
I'm not a poorfag, I can afford a good attorney, and if I WAS a poorfag, one would be provided for me. Have at it boo boo. You aren't the ONLY guy to make the decision by the way, there's many like you, and not everyone is going to let it off. Your anecdote is trash, like, move along how are you even a prosecutor when you think anecdote means anything topkek.
>>29417976
>A defendant asserts their right to a preliminary hearing after arraignment, in order to determine whether there is probable cause to continue the prosecution
>After arraignment
>As in, no longer part of the formal charging process
How embarrassing.
The point of that statement about a preliminary hearing was to demonstrate just how little the police would have to obtain in order to charge you. Their proof to charge is the exact same proof I'd need to put on if you're going to assert your right to a prelim.
>>29418155
>The point of that statement about a preliminary hearing was to demonstrate just how little the police would have to obtain in order to charge you.
Yeahno.
You said a bunch of obviously wrong bullshit and now are changing the subject again.
Nice try, but you're too dumb to be a lawyer.
The most amusing part is that it took you 15 minutes to craft that reply.
Obviously you had a lot of stuff to look up.
;^)
>>29418119
Well, enjoy that second mortgage.
By the way, look up "discovery." You may also want to look up your state's rules of criminal procedure, specifically as they pertain to when you'll have to disclose any witnesses you intend to call at trial, expert witnesses and any special disclosure requirements there (important if you go full Ayoob), notice requirements for affirmative defenses, and any requirements to turn over evidence.
You're going to tell me your self-defense claim eventually. You can do it early on or later on.
And yes, in my office and unit, I am the only guy to make the decision whether to continue to prosecute, for misdemeanors and felonies that are assigned to me based on where the defendant's name falls on the alphabet. I don't have to ask my unit chief whether to nol pros a case prior to a grand jury indictment (after that happens, we don't do that barring exceptional circumstances), much less anybody higher up the food chain. The only time I have to ask permission is when I offer a guilty plea upstairs in criminal court, about $10,000 later for the defendant (or, free less the $50-200 public defender fee if you're doing the whole poorfag thing).
So once again: if you've got a legit claim, you can tell me now or later. All I'm saying is that one route is a lot more expensive, to include things like potential job loss/lost time at work, eviction, and a few other fun consequences. Follow the professor's advice if you wish or, better yet, follow your own attorney's advice.
>>29418253
>Well, enjoy that second mortgage.
Topkek, not at my salary mate.
>And yes, in my office and unit, I am the only guy to make the decision whether to continue to prosecute
So fucking dumb, you don't understand you're not the only person in this role and you can't bank on your one little viewpoint for all others to follow.
>>29418253
>follow your own attorney's advice.
He told me not to talk to cops, as did that guy with again, way more experience and skill than you. Yeesh this is why our legal system is fucked.
>>29418279
Good for you. Sound financial planning is important. Though, somehow I doubt you've got even the fee to get the average criminal defense attorney to sign your case sitting in your bank account at the moment, nevermind the six figure bond you're probably looking at for a homicide case or the five figure bond for an agg assault/assault with a deadly weapon case.
---
I am very much the only person in the role to determine whether or not to prosecute. Here's how this works:
1) Police make an arrest. In my city, they make about 200,000/year.
2) That arrest ticket gets kicked to the DA's office, who hands it off to the admin assistants, who then put it in a file, write a few details (bond, defendant in custody, co-defendants, etc.) on the file
3) That file, one of about 15-30/day, is placed in my chair. I get there about two hours before court on my days doing arraignments. I spend maybe 5-10 minutes looking at each of my file. The other seven prosecutors in my unit do the same for theirs. Each of us make a decision for each case as to whether or not we want to go forward. If we do, we might make an initial plea offer or we might wait for attorney/victim contact. If we don't, we take a blue sharpie and write "NP/NC -> close" on the file.
So once again, for the cases assigned to me, I am very much the only person in that role. If I don't want it to happen, I can nol pros the case. If I do want it to happen, I can do the arraignment thing and, if necessary, send it to the grand jury. That decision, again, is entirely mine up until the grand jury has had their say. After that, my unit chief also has a say.
---
And yet, if you actually had a criminal case -- especially a defensive shooting -- your attorney still communicated your side of the story to investigators. They may not have been the officers on scene, but it's a virtual certainty that he did so. Under the ethics rules, he didn't have to ask your permission to do that, either.
>>29418486
Okay buddy, you've already discredited yourself by scoffing at the 5th amendment and thinking anecdote means anything, you can move along.
>>29418686
I'm actually scoffing at the reflexive "never talk to the police ever" reaction so pervasive among internet gun people. The "muh fifth amendment" thing is mocking you specifically.
FWIW, what I actually advocate:
- Give a very basic who/what/when/where statement on the scene. "That guy attacked me, he came at me with a knife, I shot him, he went that-a-way." If there is evidence that will help you, such as a dropped weapon, point that out as well. The thought process is to get the investigation pointed in the right direction. And then shut up, take the ride, get word to your family, decline to talk to the detectives pending attorney contact, etc.
- Follow your attorney's advice as to whether the both of you need to discuss the matter more with the detectives. If yes, do so. You've got control over this decision, but if he says not to, it's probably a good idea to listen. Remember that statements can be delayed (and, after high-stress events, should be. Police don't give detailed statements right after shootings for a good reason. Why should they expect you to?). However, I would strongly prefer not to become a defendant at all. Pointing investigators towards self-defense, by and through an attorney, can prevent that.
- If arrested, I would concentrate on minimizing the time spent having to defend your actions in court, both for the primary financial consequences and secondary consequences. Accordingly, discuss the matter at the regularly scheduled times with the DA's office. Remember that what you say there is protected from being used against you per the rules of evidence (both federally and in the states, all of whom adopted the federal rules with minor tweaks -- double-check at the state level, however).
TL;DR: I think that, if you are in the right, controlled disclosure of your side of the story is a better option than shutting up and saying "prove it." Both can work. One is a LOT less painful.
And again, muh 5th amendment.
>>29418846
I don't take advice from inexperience and anecdote, sorry mate. I already posted someone far better than you making a real claim and citing why. You just give sourcless examples that could wind you up in jail.
>>29419112
You posted a video by a crim pro professor from a no-name law school in Virginia that's older than you are that gives a categorical answer to a question that the overwhelming majority of defense attorneys, to include recognized experts in self-defense law (Andrew Bianca, etc.) would answer as "it depends." You also posted a vague anecdote from that time you supposedly talked to a lawyer and he never talked to the cops. You're not very compelling yourself.
Counterpoint that comes from an actual, recognized expert in these matters:
http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/10/debunking-dont-talk-to-police/
But, to play your game:
- Yes, I could potentially use the fact that you were, for example, wrong about the direction the assailant ran against you in order to point out an inconsistency. Professor Duane is 100% correct in that regard. What he fails to mention, however, is that such a course of action is fucking stupid, and I'd destroy my credibility with a jury by doing so. A basic, non-detailed statement that mirrors the public safety statements police give after officer-involved shootings simply isn't going to be enough to sink you if it's inconsistent. Furthermore, it'd almost certainly be hearsay for me to put the cop on the stand and have him repeat it -- which means it'd be difficult for me to get admitted as evidence. Duane didn't mention that, did he?
- A guided conversation with police, by and through counsel, can certainly be used against you. It's why your lawyer will do things like stop you, answer for you, or terminate the questioning on your behalf. Keep in mind that I'm not advocating a categorical "always talk to the detectives." I am saying that, if it's to your advantage, you should consider it
- Similarly, I advocate having your lawyer talk to the prosecutors in a controlled environment where the rules of evidence explicitly prohibit me from using those statements at trial. Very, very risky!
>>29417280
>Canadians with katanas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb3UobSZl34
