PDA

View Full Version : CBS 5 San Francisco - Carry a Stick or Club for defense?


the_natterjack
04-19-2011, 5:26 PM
Just watched a news story about two dogs that attacked an older women and her dog still being loose in San Jose.

It was advised in the story that people carry a stick, club, or umbrella to defend themselves against these dogs. Even had video of a San Jose Animal Control Officer showing how to use a stick to prevent a dog bite.

I was under the impression that carry a knife for defense was OK, but carry a blunt object like a baton, club, or stick was a crime?

Can anyone school me on this? Maybe cite a penal code for me?

Brian

Shotgun Man
04-19-2011, 5:34 PM
CA Penal Code 12020 provides:

"12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica handgrenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag."

A club is a billy. There is no exception for general self defense.

the_natterjack
04-19-2011, 5:40 PM
LOL, that's what I thought. Interesting to see a television station advising people to break the law. :rolleyes:

Brian

paradox
04-19-2011, 6:11 PM
Here's my standard case law response to such questions:

People v. Grubb

Thus we hold that the statute embraces instruments other than those specially created or manufactured for criminal purposes; it specifically includes those objects "of the kind commonly known as a billy." The concomitant circumstances may well proclaim the danger of even the innocent-appearing utensil. The Legislature thus decrees as criminal the possession of ordinarily harmless objects when the circumstances of possession demonstrate an immediate atmosphere of danger. Accordingly the statute would encompass the possession of a table leg, in one sense an obviously useful item, when it is detached from the table and carried at night in a "tough" neighborhood to the scene of a riot. On the other hand the section would not penalize the Little Leaguer at bat in a baseball game.

THE PEOPLE, v. SEAN KING

First, the prosecution must prove that the item had the necessary
characteristic to fall within the statutory description. It must also prove that the
defendant knew of the characteristic. That is, it must prove that a defendant
charged with possession of a short-barreled rifle knew the rifle was unusually
short, but the defendant need not know the rifle’s actual dimensions. Similarly, a
defendant charged with illegally possessing a cane sword must know that the cane
contained a sword, and a defendant charged with possessing a writing pen knife
must know that the pen contained a stabbing instrument. Knowledge can, of
course, be proved circumstantially. Further, the prosecution need not prove that
the defendant knew there was a law against possessing the item, nor that the
defendant intended to break or violate the law.

THE PEOPLE v. ERNESTO ARNOLDO RUBALCAVA

the Legislature recognized that the new definition may criminalize the “innocent” carrying of legal instruments such as steak knives, scissors and metal knitting needles, but concluded “there is no need to carry such items concealed in public.” As a result, the Legislature made “[t]he unlawful concealed carrying of a dirk or dagger in Section 12020 . . . a general intent crime” and expressly stated that “[n]o intent for unlawful use would be required for violations of the prohibition on the concealed possession upon the person of an otherwise lawful dirk or dagger.”

Thus, the legislative history is clear and unequivocal: the intent to use the concealed instrument as a stabbing instrument is not an element of the crime of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger. Indeed, the offense has never had such an intent requirement, and we find nothing suggesting an intent by the Legislature to alter this established rule.
...

As an initial matter, we dispel a misconception fostered by Oskins and repeated by Rubalcava: the absence of a specific intent requirement does not make the carrying of a concealed dirk or dagger a strict liability offense. Strict liability offenses eliminate the “requirement of mens rea; that is, the requirement of a ‘guilty mind’ with respect to an element of a crime.” As such, a defendant may be guilty of a strict liability offense even if he does not know “the facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense.” By declining to make defendant’s intended use of the instrument an element of the offense, we do not eliminate the mens rea requirement. Because the dirk or dagger portion of section 12020 criminalizes “ ‘traditionally lawful conduct,’ ” we construe the statute to contain a “knowledge” element. Thus, to commit the offense, a defendant must still have the requisite guilty mind: that is, the defendant must knowingly and intentionally carry concealed upon his or her person an instrument “that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon.” A defendant who does not know that he is carrying the weapon or that the concealed instrument may be used as a stabbing weapon is therefore not guilty of violating section 12020.6

...

Even though section 12020 may seem overbroad as a matter of common sense, we will not find it unconstitutionally overbroad without some concrete impairment of constitutionally protected conduct.

Although we conclude that section 12020 is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad, we echo the concerns over the breadth of the statute raised by Rubalcava. As written, section 12020, subdivisions (a) and (c)(24) may criminalize seemingly innocent conduct. Consequently, the statute may invite arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement not due to any vagueness in the statutory language but due to the wide range of otherwise innocent conduct it proscribes. Indeed, the Legislature suggested this very possibility. “Proponents of this bill would possibly suggest that everyone—peace officers, prosecutors, judges, and juries—knows what is considered ‘bad’ carrying of a concealed dirk or dagger, cite Grubb (supra), and argue that is the protection against possibly overzealous use of the Penal Code proscriptions on such conduct?”

THE PEOPLE v. JOHNNY RALPH FANNIN,

Here we consider whether a bicycle lock on a chain may be a “slungshot” within the scope of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law. (Pen. Code, § 12000 et seq.) We conclude that it may be, if the evidence proves the defendant carried it as a weapon.

...

We believe the tension must be resolved as follows. Intent to use a weapon is not an element of the crime of weapon possession. “Proof of possession alone is sufficient.” (People v. McKinney, supra, 9 Cal.App.2d at p. 525.) However, if the object is not a weapon per se, but an instrument with ordinary innocent uses, the prosecution must prove that the object was possessed as a weapon. The only way to meet that burden is by evidence “indicat[ing] that the possessor would use the object for a dangerous, not harmless, purpose.” (Grubb, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 620-621, italics added.) The evidence may be circumstantial, and may be rebutted by the defendant with evidence of “innocent usage.” (Id. at p. 621.) The prosecution may not, however, merely show that the defendant had a table leg in his car while driving through a dangerous neighborhood, and require him to prove that he did not carry it as a weapon. Such a rule would turn the presumption of innocence on its head. Intended use is not an element of weapon possession, but the prosecution always bears the burden of proving that the defendant possessed a weapon. This interpretation of Grubb puts to rest the constitutional challenges raised by Fannin.

...

Like the Rubalcava court, we accept the Legislature’s determination to criminalize possession of a broad range of “instruments and weapons.” However, the Legislature has treated dirks and daggers differently than slungshots. Penal Code section 12020 does not proscribe possession of any object “capable of ready use” as a slungshot. Nor does any legislative history reflect a desire to broadly prohibit the possession of heavy objects affixed to flexible handles regardless of the possessor’s purpose. The statute proscribes possessing “any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a . . . slungshot” (Pen. Code, § 12020, subd. (a)(1)), and the judicially adopted definition specifies that a slungshot is a device “used as a weapon” (Williams, supra, 100 Cal.App. at p. 151). Therefore, when the prosecution contends an ordinary object like a bicycle lock is a kind of slungshot, it must prove the defendant possessed the object as a slungshot. On the other hand, when the defendant is charged with possessing a slungshot like the rawhide and metal device described in Mulherin, which had no conceivable innocent function, proof of mere possession is sufficient.

Fannin told Officer Oglesby that he carried the chain and padlock for self-defense. That statement identified the bicycle lock as a weapon, and brought it within the class of objects prohibited by Penal Code section 12020.

Clubs carried for defense or offense (even against dogs) are highly illegal in California. It is far better, legally, to carry a sword or machete on your dog walk than a golf club or broom handle.

stix213
04-19-2011, 6:49 PM
As crazy as it is, bringing a bat for dog protection is a wabbler felony, while illegally carrying a concealed loaded handgun would be 2 misdemeanors (PC 12025 & 12031).

CalBear
04-19-2011, 6:51 PM
It would be good to get the word out to the station and its viewers that what they've suggested is actually a felony. Maybe it'll begin to show people just how moronic California's weapons laws are.

CalBear
04-19-2011, 7:00 PM
The news piece in question is here:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/show/all-news-kcbs/#

curtisfong
04-19-2011, 7:47 PM
It would be good to get the word out to the station and its viewers that what they've suggested is actually a felony. Maybe it'll begin to show people just how moronic California's weapons laws are.

This.

BT JUSTICE
04-19-2011, 7:52 PM
Bring a bat with you. But make sure you have a catcher's mitt with it at all times :whistling:

CalBear
04-19-2011, 7:53 PM
I sent an e-mail to KCBS comments about this.

safewaysecurity
04-19-2011, 8:01 PM
The news piece in question is here:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/show/all-news-kcbs/#

Funny... I just went to that link and saw this " Teen Arrested for Waving Rifle in San Francisco Neighborhood "

curtisfong
04-19-2011, 8:02 PM
It would be good to get the word out to the station and its viewers that what they've suggested is actually a felony. Maybe it'll begin to show people just how moronic California's weapons laws are.

By the way, that isn't how the media works. They'll never do that. They'll silently pull the story because they are gutless cowards.

Glock22Fan
04-19-2011, 8:04 PM
Bring a bat with you. But make sure you have a catcher's mitt with it at all times :whistling:

Get yourself a nice pretty pink Hannah Montana softball bat, wrapped inside a WallieWorld plastic bag. The jury would laugh themselves silly (in your favor) if the cops said you were carrying it as a weapon and you said it was a gift you had just bought for your niece.

carsonwales
04-19-2011, 8:05 PM
By the way, that isn't how the media works. They'll never do that. They'll silently pull the story because they are gutless cowards.

I dont think so...

I think the bean counters and the in house legal team mandate it

I irony is delicious nonetheless

curtisfong
04-19-2011, 8:12 PM
I sent an e-mail to KCBS comments about this.

The story is as good as pulled at this point.

curtisfong
04-19-2011, 8:25 PM
LOL or not. this should be amusing to see how they word it.

curtisfong
04-19-2011, 8:27 PM
Clubs carried for defense or offense (even against dogs) are highly illegal in California. It is far better, legally, to carry a sword or machete on your dog walk than a golf club or broom handle.

Might want to send that in to CBS too, in case they have a cop come on to assure viewers that he won't arrest people for defending themselves against dog attacks if they use a stick.

CHS
04-19-2011, 8:49 PM
Clubs carried for defense or offense (even against dogs) are highly illegal in California. It is far better, legally, to carry a sword or machete on your dog walk than a golf club or broom handle.

This just bears quoting and repeating.

Thank you California.

CalBear
04-19-2011, 8:55 PM
This just bears quoting and repeating.

Thank you California.
That's what happens legislators base entire sections of the penal code on what they saw in West Side Story and Lethal Weapon. If you've ever got a free Saturday and plenty of hair to pull out, try reading the penal code weapons chapters. It's like reading a fantasy novel written by a group of Tom Clancy wanna-bees with the legal and language prowess of kindergarteners, and absolutely no working knowledge of weapons beyond what they saw on the big screen.

CHS
04-19-2011, 9:01 PM
That's what happens legislators base entire sections of the penal code on what they saw in West Side Story and Lethal Weapon. If you've ever got a free Saturday and plenty of hair to pull out, try reading the penal code weapons chapters. It's like reading a fantasy novel written by a group of Tom Clancy wanna-bees with the legal and language prowess of kindergarteners, and absolutely no working knowledge of weapons beyond what they saw on the big screen.

Oh, I've read them plenty :)

I love how they ban things that no one's even HEARD of anymore. Like air gauge knives and slungshots (not slingshots).

CalBear
04-19-2011, 9:07 PM
Oh, I've read them plenty :)

I love how they ban things that no one's even HEARD of anymore. Like air gauge knives and slungshots (not slingshots).
Haha yup. Might as well add to the code right now:

12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any Eku, Flail, Macana, Mace, Mere, Metero Hammer, Morning Star, Falx, Javelin, Trident, Quarterstaff, Catapult, Ballista, Battering Ram, Springald, Hellrack, Heart Carver, Kuko Shakaku, Thunderstroke, Bladebone, Bloodraven's Charge, Fleshripper, Cloudcrack, Griswold's Edge, or any potions, tonics, gems, hexes, or other items of black magic or the occult.

Vinz
04-19-2011, 9:08 PM
I had a walking stick that I bought at REI that I use to carry when walking the dogs. Now I just carry a 6 cell maglight.
There are always loose pits running around free in the neighborhood. Nothing stops your heart faster then seeing 6 pits running across a half a block away when walking 2 yippy yorks with pink leashes. LOL


Vince

s4alex
04-19-2011, 9:27 PM
Pocket tazer.. I wonder how much shock a Pit can take... I mean, I saw all of these "legal" pocket tazers at the gun show...

N6ATF
04-19-2011, 9:34 PM
I think I've seen Cesar Millan use a tennis racquet.

CalBear
04-19-2011, 10:24 PM
Leave your comments here:

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2011/04/19/east-san-jose-pit-bull-attack-prompts-warning-to-residents/

Not sure why the “officials” are recommending that people carry sticks or canes. Carrying a heavy stick or cane with the intent to use it for any purpose other than stability while walking has the potential to be prosecuted as a felony crime under California Penal Code 12020.

Criminal prosecutions have found that sometimes-useful objects (like baseball bats) are outlawed depending upon the time/place/destination of the person, any alterations of the object, and other facts that show the possessor intended on using the object for dangerous, not harmless, purposes.

Carry a baseball bat or a heavy stick on a walk with the intent to ward off dangerous dogs, and you could end up being charged with a felony for carrying a weapon classified as a “billy.”

Very few items of self defense are permitted under California law. Dog walkers might want to carry pepper spray instead, which is legal to carry in CA if the container is less than 2 oz. I’m just troubled that SJ Animal Services are suggesting that people do something that is possibly a felony under CA law.

Proceed with caution.

nick
04-19-2011, 11:01 PM
LOL, that's what I thought. Interesting to see a television station advising people to break the law. :rolleyes:

Brian

Most people, including the journalists (who are generally very ignorant of pretty much anything) and public officials, don't even know just how screwed up the laws in this state are. It's a typical case of "if you aren't angry, you're not paying attention". Most people aren't paying attention.

Window_Seat
04-19-2011, 11:02 PM
zBQ7qIJGhQs

bld0121
04-20-2011, 2:28 AM
Sounds like it's time to buy a $6.00 machete (with nylon sheath) at Harbor Freight for my evening walks. I wouldn't want to have to defend my dog with elbow displascia with a "billy".

Interesting how I'm certain 1) neighbors, 2) the police they call about a dude with a machete strapped to his side, and 3) my wife would all be more comfortable with me carrying a $20 walmart-special softball bat and hassle me about my machete. Maybe that's what the UOCers should have dangling right next to their mag pouch on their weak-side hip!

Liberty1
04-20-2011, 6:54 AM
Or just carry nunchakus if in Placed County...

http://volokh.com/2010/12/18/california-trial-court-holds-second-amendment-protects-nunchakus/

the_natterjack
04-20-2011, 7:18 AM
Late last night I tried to make a follow up call to the news desk.

Quote "we didn't say that, animal control did" and "what if you have a bum knee and carry a cane".

Well you did say that, and if its for defense it's still a crime. Thank You! CBS 5.

Brian

The Shadow
04-20-2011, 8:10 AM
Could an argument be made for batons because the state is essentially banning a class of arms that in one form or another is in common use ?

CalBear
04-20-2011, 8:25 AM
Late last night I tried to make a follow up call to the news desk.

Quote "we didn't say that, animal control did" and "what if you have a bum knee and carry a cane".

Well you did say that, and if its for defense it's still a crime. Thank You! CBS 5.

Brian
That's the typical media attitude these days. Notice how nearly every story says Officials: Blah Blah Blah. And that's if you're lucky. They might just parrot what officials say without even putting in the "Officials" tag. Basically the news media just echoes whatever they're told without doing much, if any, fact checking.

I got a response to my e-mail:

Thanks for the note and information; we’ve passed this on to the managing editor and our reporter who covered the story.

Wherryj
04-20-2011, 9:45 AM
Haha yup. Might as well add to the code right now:

Darn, there go my plans to concealed carry my catapult for protection against rogue pit bulls. Back to the drawing board...

CHS
04-20-2011, 11:30 AM
You know, it would actually be interesting to start a movement of people carrying machete's on walks for self defense.

When the cops get called the standard answer would be "Because if I was carrying a baseball bat or golf club for protection, I would be a felon."

the_natterjack
04-20-2011, 1:12 PM
You know, it would actually be interesting to start a movement of people carrying machete's on walks for self defense.

When the cops get called the standard answer would be "Because if I was carrying a baseball bat or golf club for protection, I would be a felon."

I'm down for this. No machete free school zones to worry about.

Brian

mdimeo
04-20-2011, 1:14 PM
Could an argument be made for batons because the state is essentially banning a class of arms that in one form or another is in common use ?

They're not banned. Carry is banned. We haven't got a carry right from the courts yet.

jeffsenpai
04-20-2011, 1:19 PM
You know, it would actually be interesting to start a movement of people carrying machete's on walks for self defense.

When the cops get called the standard answer would be "Because if I was carrying a baseball bat or golf club for protection, I would be a felon."

Then DeLeon would try to ban open carry of machetes :mad:

N6ATF
04-20-2011, 1:26 PM
They're not banned. Carry is banned.

Nope. Mere possession.

http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/dwcl/12020.php

12020. (a)Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:
(1) ...possesses... any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.

packnrat
04-20-2011, 1:37 PM
zBQ7qIJGhQs

got to love it a dog attacks a cop and gets to go free, if you or i did the same we would be in jail or the hospital with a couple bullet holes in us. :eek:


:TFH:


.

Mesa Tactical
04-20-2011, 3:48 PM
Could an argument be made for batons because the state is essentially banning a class of arms that in one form or another is in common use ?

The argument is simple and concise. Why, if I am legally permitted to possess any number of high-powered semi-automatic rifles, am I prohibited from possessing (let alone carrying) a baton or sap?

None of it makes any sense at all.

yelohamr
04-20-2011, 3:49 PM
Last week, my wife and I were walking our small dog, when a large German Shepard became aggressive and ran at us. I triggered my stun gun and the sound alone made the bigger dog turn tail and run home home.
I had introduced the German Shepard to Mr. Electricity several months ago and it seems he remembered.

jwkincal
04-20-2011, 4:02 PM
The argument is simple and concise. Why, if I am legally permitted to possess any number of high-powered semi-automatic rifles, am I prohibited from possessing (let alone carrying) a baton or sap?

None of it makes any sense at all.

Isn't it OBVIOUS? If you have read PC12020 it is agonizingly clear that the CA State Legislature KNEW they couldn't get away with an outright ban on firearms (due to 2A interests) or knives (tools that are used in too many blue collar [i.e. Union] jobs)... but they damn sure wanted to ban EVERY OTHER KIND OF WEAPON POSSIBLE.

The INSTANT they believe they CAN, they will ban knives and firearms too.

CalBear
04-20-2011, 5:11 PM
Isn't it OBVIOUS? If you have read PC12020 it is agonizingly clear that the CA State Legislature KNEW they couldn't get away with an outright ban on firearms (due to 2A interests) or knives (tools that are used in too many blue collar [i.e. Union] jobs)... but they damn sure wanted to ban EVERY OTHER KIND OF WEAPON POSSIBLE.

The INSTANT they believe they CAN, they will ban knives and firearms too.
Basically. As soon as there aren't enough lobbyists or people who care about a certain class of weapon, the legislature just bans it.

The Shadow
04-20-2011, 10:51 PM
They're not banned. Carry is banned. We haven't got a carry right from the courts yet.

I think it could be argued that we are essentially in the same situation as D.C. was with handguns. You can't get one unless you have a permit, in fact you can't even touch a collapsible baton unless you have some kind of permit that allows you to buy one. Don't believe me, go to a store that sells police equipment and ask to see a collapsible baton, and see how far you get.

thatrogue
04-21-2011, 2:12 AM
zBQ7qIJGhQs

Now those guys used serious restraint, and the leo out of eye shot that deployed the taser is a marksmen!

Bullcoop
04-21-2011, 5:07 AM
@ CalBear, Oh boy. I went to the site you recommended for us to post our comments at...I thought you-tube comment section arguments were laughable, these peoples comments for the most part were disgracefully ignorant at best, and idiotic and potentially harmful at worst.
I never made it to where you posted your comment because I came across this first:

"Sure, there are some responsible gun owners too, but your chances of getting SHOT increase exponentially by owning a gun, Pure logic."

Pure logic? Exponentially? To put the comment in context, he was comparing irresponsible dog owners to all gun owners.
Look, I am not a very social person. Don't get me wrong I'm pretty jovial just not social, I have a tight small group of friends and only see them occasionaly.
If a stament like this qaulifies as "pure logic" in todays society then I am way out of touch w/society, and should get out more. That statement is, well, complete rubbish. Not many of the other comments I read were any less moronic.

I'm really not trying to hijack the thread, so I'll just end my rant.
I really had intentions on posting in their comments section, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. Kudos CalBear, you're a better man than I am.
BC

Wherryj
04-21-2011, 9:10 AM
zBQ7qIJGhQs

That officer showed amazing restraint. I would have shot the rot with the 9mm. Perhaps he has a better idea about the difference in the volume of paperwork than I do, however.

CalBear
04-21-2011, 9:15 AM
@ CalBear, Oh boy. I went to the site you recommended for us to post our comments at...I thought you-tube comment section arguments were laughable, these peoples comments for the most part were disgracefully ignorant at best, and idiotic and potentially harmful at worst.
It's also a pit bull hate-a-thon. I didn't know so many people were experts in dog behavior. I love the comments about pit bulls being naturally very aggressive and dangerous. :rolleyes:

Not only do these people blame guns for violence and want guns banned, they blame pit bulls for all dog attacks, and want pit bulls banned. Unbelievable nanny statists.

Isn't it sort of funny that the very same people who draw parallels between gun violence and gun possession and dog attacks and pit bull possession don't dare to draw the same parallels between inner city violence and African American crime rates. Their inconsistency is simply stunning. They blame single objects and breeds for all of the world's problems, but they won't extend their logic into the race realm because their head would explode.