Value of the combat cane

[lklawson]

Not exactly... Or it depends on what sort of court. If you find yourself charged with assault, and you assert that you were justified in defending yourself, you've moved the burden of proof into your lap.

Yes, that's true. If the Police don't buy that your use of the weapon was justified self defense and arrest you, if the prosecutor doesn't buy that your use of the weapon was justified self defense and levels charges, if the Grand Jury agrees that there is enough evidence that your use of the weapon was in some way illegal or malicious and wasn't justified self defense, then you may find yourself in court and trying to use self defense as an Affirmative Defense.

Frankly, if you honestly follow the 4 Pillars, it's not going to get that far in the vast majority of cases. I can only think of one that made national news in the last 5 or 10 years.

And it's not as if the 4 Pillars are Rocket Surgery. They're simple and common sense.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

 

[Mephisto]

Actually, yeah, it really is that simple. The fact that you don't like the truth doesn't change it.

I'm as much a lawyer as you apparently are. So where do I get my information? From similar sources to what you're claiming you do: actual lawyers and law-makers. The difference is that 1) I didn't start with a preconceived notion and then try to make facts fit what I wanted to hear 2) the legal experts I reference specialize in this sort of thing 3) I paid attention to what they have to say.

Because you don't know what they are or how they relate to self defense. This is because you didn't read them after being advised to. Read them. The information comes from actual lawyers and is specific to using weapons for self defense.

I've been saying this for decades but few people seem to be paying attention. The larger "Martial Arts community" can really learn a lot if they'd pay attention to the "Gun Community," in particular the subset of Firearms for Self Defense. Besides important research and training on subjects such as stress and adrenal dump and its effects upon the human body, they also have an absolute metric crap-ton of legal expertise on using weapons for self defense. You should pay attention to it but, given how you've reacted so far, it seems unlikely that you will.

OK. I chose to listen to people with real names such as Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and a whole host of legal experts in the CCW and Firearms for Self Defense community.

Which is exactly what I wrote and what you chose to ignore when you told me above that you "don't care about the 4 pillars, I'm not interested" You don't know about Preclusion or Imminent Jeopardy and the rest because you already decided before hand that you had the answer and didn't like what I was telling you. Now your buddy "Matt" is agreeing with me and you don't even know it! You think that he's saying something different because you already refused to pay attention.

Well dang, doesn't that just sound familiar? It's exactly what I already told you and you just told me that I'm wrong. I specifically wrote that it doesn't matter if you were carrying a weapon, provided that it's legal for you to do so, but what mattered is if your use of it is justified (post #31 and several other times). But, because I know you're still not going to pay attention, let's go ask Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine about using a weapon in self defense, shall we?

"Depending on the specific facts of the situation, an accused person may claim that the use of deadly force was justified to excuse his actions..." He then spends a couple of pages talking about the 3 "Conditions" such as the defendant not causing the situation or being the aggressor, a reasonable and honest belief of danger, and the responsibility to try to avoid the danger before using deadly force, all of which were discussed in the 4 Pillars article which you refused to read.

That's nice. However, actual examples of people using weapons for self defense seem to not bear out his concern. "What examples," you ask? Glad you asked. Here are, literally, thousands of them. You can read for days on end of actual examples. In the vast majority of them, it doesn't matter that the person had the weapon, what matters is that the use of it was considered "justified."

I really wish you and "Matt" would stop using Straw Man arguments. I didn't write that so stop claiming I did. What I wrote was, "You're going to have to explain WHY YOU USED IT AS A WEAPON. Where you got it and why you had it is only relevant if your explanation for why you used it is not believable because it sounds like you were starting a fight. If it's clear that you used the cane for self defense, then that's all that matters." Are you deliberately ignoring this, like the rest?

There "Matt" goes again, agreeing with what I already wrote and you already ignored: " Where you got it and why you had it is only relevant if your explanation for why you used it is not believable because it sounds like you were starting a fight. If it's clear that you used the cane for self defense, then that's all that matters." Remember the "Armed Citizen" link I pointed you to just a few sentences ago in this post? Notice how very many of them end with "Police declined to file charges" or "the police chief said, 'this is a clear case of self defense'." or have the Police praising their actions.

Again, you made an assumption in your thread-start that you're "not sure it's the best idea for an able bodied person to walk around with a cane" because "If you're able bodied you'll probably have to justify why you had a cane to begin with." Again, it turns out that the answer is still, "No, why you had it is irrelevant as long as it was legal for you to have it." What matters is if your use of it as a weapon is legally justified. I've told you. "Matt" has told you. Mike DeWine has told you. Legal experts from the firearms world have told you.

I actually think we're in agreement here but you're too concerned with winning an argument to recognize it. I cited my lawyer friend pretty early in the post and conceded that a cane for self defense is a viable option if you have a decent excuse for having it, with the qualifier of if you end up in court. Obviously if you act unquestionably within the law there is no cause for concern, and you likely won't end up in court. My concern was about when things aren't so clear cut and you do end up in a courtroom, that's what you can't seem to get past. That was pretty much the end of the discussion right there. You chimed in typing in all caps and speaking in absolutes. You're contradicting yourself, you agree with my lawyer friend in one sentence than disagree in the next sentence. I read " the four pillars of self defense" to make you happy. It's exactly what I expected. If you act 100% within the law you're good to go, I get it. My point is that in the heat of the moment you might overreact or things might not play out perfectly and a court case might result. I'm speaking from this less favorable scenario, you're being an idealist and assuming nothing could go wrong. I'm considering the worst case scenario because as a martial artist it's a subject that preoccupied me, and you're stuck on an idealized scenario. The weapon does matter and it can work against you. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be, that's my point. You want to carry a cane? Fine, it's already been established before you joined the thread that if an altercation occurs and things don't go perfectly and you end up in court it's good to have an explanation of why you had the cane. it might just matter after all.

 

[lklawson]

I actually think we're in agreement here but you're too concerned with winning an argument to recognize it.

That's funny, because that's exactly what I'm getting from you. Heck, you admit below that you discarded and ignored my 4 Pillars article without even reading it.

I cited my lawyer friend pretty early in the post and conceded that a cane for self defense is a viable option if you have a decent excuse for having it,

Which is wrong. You don't need an "excuse" for having it. That's the point. The only excuse you need is "it's legal for me to have this cane/weapon here in this place at this time." That's it. This has been born out in case after case.

You chimed in typing in all caps

You understand "emphasis" right?

I read " the four pillars of self defense" to make you happy.

Finally. But you shouldn't have read it to "make me happy." You should have read it so that you'd know what you were arguing against, you know, before you decided that it was irrelevant.

My point is that in the heat of the moment you might overreact

Don't do that. That's exactly the reason that lawyers came up with that 4-point list; so that you don't overreact.

you're being an idealist and assuming nothing could go wrong.

No. I'm arguing that you should follow the law; the law which says that justified use of a weap

I'm considering the worst case scenario because as a martial artist it's a subject that preoccupied me, and you're stuck on an idealized scenario. The weapon does matter and it can work against you. It's not as simple as you're making it out to be, that's my point. You want to carry a cane? Fine, it's already been established before you joined the thread that if an altercation occurs and things don't go perfectly and you end up in court it's good to have an explanation of why you had the cane. it might just matter after all.

No. All available evidence, including advise from lawyers and actual cases referenced, is this.

What Matters:

• Can you legally possess the weapon in question in that place and at that time?
• Was your use of the weapon legally justified (4 Pillars, 3 Conditions, etc.)?

What Doesn't Matter:

• Do you "need" the cane to walk

Everything else is superfluous distractions.

 

[Mephisto]

That's funny, because that's exactly what I'm getting from you. Heck, you admit below that you discarded and ignored my 4 Pillars article without even reading it.

Which is wrong. You don't need an "excuse" for having it. That's the point. The only excuse you need is "it's legal for me to have this cane/weapon here in this place at this time." That's it. This has been born out in case after case.

You understand "emphasis" right?

Finally. But you shouldn't have read it to "make me happy." You should have read it so that you'd know what you were arguing against, you know, before you decided that it was irrelevant.

Don't do that. That's exactly the reason that lawyers came up with that 4-point list; so that you don't overreact.

No. I'm arguing that you should follow the law; the law which says that justified use of a weap

No. All available evidence, including advise from lawyers and actual cases referenced, is this.

What Matters:

• Can you legally possess the weapon in question in that place and at that time?
• Was your use of the weapon legally justified (4 Pillars, 3 Conditions, etc.)?

What Doesn't Matter:

• Do you "need" the cane to walk

Everything else is superfluous distractions.

I didn't throw out the 4 pillars, I just knew exactly what they would say. I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree, you clearly are not seeing my point. I'm considering what happens in a situation where someone questions your claim of self defense. It could happen. You don't seem to consider that, you're being obtuse.

 

[elder999]

Never, ever, even once been a problem for me. I carry a cane every day.

My problem with products such as the Cane-Masters "Combat Cane" is that they're over priced for what they are. Just go to the Farm & Fleet store and buy a hickory Stock Cane. Simple and cheap.
Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

SHHHH!!!, dammit!!

The First rule of Stock Cane's is you do not talk about stock canes!!!