The line after the CFR is confusing to me. Where is says "intended to be used". In the essence of where you live, if I unintentionally kill someone with my electric cattle dehorner, say by electrocution or burning, how would that be perceived? Is that lawyer speak to use for or against someone?
True lol
This is how I see it too. I try not to irritate them. I want the officer in a good mood when they are talking to me lol. So far I've only had toe deal with 1 A-hole officer. It was for a speeding ticket that I got when I wasn't speaking. Officer lied all the way through, and then when I asked him did he clock me when I was moving towards him or when I passed him, He couldn't answer that question, But he claimed he knew which position my car was in relation to other people. That's when I learned first hand about the practices of Police Quotas. But the rest are cool. A-holes are A-holes regards of what uniform they are wearing or not wearing.
That may be a big gamble for the officer. To harass you about a cane and to put you in a position where you produce medical records which end up proving that he was harassing you. That is something that could spiral out of control, especially if you injured yourself as a result of officer taking the cane away from you. And all of that over a cane and a guy with bad knees.
I read it as anything thing used to in a manner that you intend to cause harm. So my stone massage stone becomes a weapon at the moment I use it or threaten to use it to cause harm. But it's not a weapon if I yell to you "hey catch" , you miss it and it hits you in your head. There would be other laws for that type of behavior if they find that the behavior is negligence (or whatever the term is lol). So if I did the same thing with a knife and it stuck you in your eye, then they would look at the intent. Was I purposely trying to stick it in your eye to cause harm or did I have negligent behavior which caused you harm. It's still can be a crime but it's not a "Weapon's based crime."
My guess is this would depend on your motive and the context of which it happened. For example, if you threw it on the back seat of your car and you didn't secure it and someone sits down on it or picks it up then it will probably not be seen as a weapon. But if you place it where you knew it would cause harm for the intent of causing harm to other's then it will satisfy the weapon status.
Oh, that's definitely true. And, as has bee said, most cops are good people trying to do good. But in any group of people, there will be some who aren't so good...and even some who do things that are both foolish and not in their own best interest.
You pretty much have it. The last part of the statute is designed to deal with things that are not weapons but can be used as weapons under certain circumstances. Hammers, screwdrivers, baseball bats, rocks, kitchen knives. All can be used as weapons even though they were not designed as such. So mere possession of these items wouldn't result in a charge, but could under the right circumstances.
True. LE officers are human and as such will make mistakes from time to time. The glaring difference I hear in the conversation is not acknowledging intended purpose. When your job entails a considerable portion of you day dealing with the worst kind of people, it is difficult not to have a hard edge. Often you will be dealing with good people who have been thrown into bad situations (wrecks, break ins, assaults, etc...) and their bad side comes out. An officer has to deal with this dynamic as best he/she can but has to stay in control of a situation for everyone's benefit. Too often this is not acknowledged and people get bent out of shape when a situation doesn't go the way of their narrow minded narrative. It is entirely possible the officer who just pulled you over came from a fatality accident or domestic disturbance. They deserve the benefit of doubt just like the rest of us. And just like many of us, they are under paid and over worked. Above reproach? That is subjective and where I think the problem usually lies.
Or they just need to have their guard up. Even the most innocuous traffic stop can turn deadly in the blink of an eye if you are not paying attention. I am not a cop, but I do have to deal with accused criminals, and I try not to forget that
Coyote's are fair game. We also have kills from red headed buzzards and, believe it or not bald eagles. Of course we don't shoot at the eagles but I have video of them perched near recent births. I think it is a very different dynamic here. I cannot overstate the number of road kills of various animals we have here. It gets crazy when deer are moving and breeding. It is more than an inconvenience, it is too often a matter of life and death. And yes, many farmers have chased coyotes away while trying to make a kill. I guess you could call it profiling if you have to give it a name but that is what they do. It is estimated that for every coyote killed in TN, six are taking its place.
What if a "gang member" said that next time you and him meet, he will kill you? Which one is more important, to protect your life, or to worry about the legal issue (assume you live in a country that firearm is not allowed)?
I was in a similar situation where I was threaten, on my job by someone in the neighborhood. I told the police and they said there was nothing they could do. He told me to do what I need to do in order to protect myself and that it was better to defend myself and have the courts decide if my actions were legal then to not defend myself and be dead. While he didn't say these exact works about protecting myself, It's exactly what he meant when he told me "It's better to be judged by 12, than carried by 6"
What makes you say something like that about "SD people", as if it's a homogenous group? That's a pretty shallow view, IMO.
Because the term SD mean to defense yourself and not to defend the others.
That's what the term means, but I doubt you'd find that "SD people" have a common reaction to much else. In fact, most "SD people" I know do talk about the concept of defending others. Self-defense, as a concept, is not exclusive of defending others.
