so you are imposing your views on us?
forcing us to believe them?

Nope.  Never said I was.  I don't think it fits, but you are free to believe whatever you want.  The law will decide.

Nope.  Never said I was.  I don't think it fits, but you are free to believe whatever you want.  The law will decide.

The law already decided.

You seem to be a Less Lethal Weapon Denier.

Cops have shot assailants pointing or discharging tasers in the Cops' direction.  The courts DECIDED that a taser is a "LETHAL WEAPON", and that Cops are authorized to meet that force with deadly force.

You are NOT free to believe whatever you want if you are going to post it online as if it's true.

We are here to inform and discuss, not push #FakeNews.

The law already decided.

You seem to be a Less Lethal Weapon Denier.

Cops have shot assailants pointing or discharging tasers in the Cops' direction.  The courts DECIDED that a taser is a "LETHAL WEAPON", and that Cops are authorized to meet that force with deadly force.

You are NOT free to believe whatever you want if you are going to post it online as if it's true.

We are here to inform and discuss, not push #FakeNews.

Do you have court cases proving that?  Not used against cops but just being in possession.  Cause a bat used as an offensive tool would be a lethal weapon too.   If you have proof I will fully admit that a Taser is a lethal weapon.

Do you have court cases proving that?  Not used against cops but just being in possession.  Cause a bat used as an offensive tool would be a lethal weapon too.   If you have proof I will fully admit that a Taser is a lethal weapon.

I'm not here to do your homework for you.  Try Google.

But, since you're too lazy, I know I'm going to have to help you eventually.

This was TEN YEARS AGO.  And yet, you still have it wrong in your head. 

Is a stun gun a dangerous weapon capable of inflicting deadly force? That is a question we
have raised here on several occasions and suggested that they should be treated as deadly
weapons.

Yesterday (11-1-11) the N. C. Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision, agreed with our
reasoning.

In the case of the State v. Riveria the court ruled that a stun gun (an X26 Taser) "is a dangerous
weapon that endangered or threatened Scott's (victim) life." You can read the actual decision
by clicking here:
http://appellate.nccourts.org/opinions/?c=2&pdf=MjAxMS8xMS0yNjgtMS5wZGY=

Briefly, the case resulted at a robbery at a Raleigh Wal-mart. Victim Scott was robbed by two men
who tried to grab a cash box as Scott replenished an ATM machine in the store. When she resisted
one man's attempt to siege the cash box. While she struggled a second man shocked her with a stun
gun. She fell to the floor, and evidence showed she suffered serious injury (requiring surgery for a
dislocated shoulder and other injuries).

    The two robbers were apprehended and charged with robbery with a dangerous weapon. At the
end of state's evidence the defendants moved for dismissal of the charge, contending that a stun gun
is not a dangerous weapon. The trial court rejected the motion. The COA upheld that ruling.
....
 [t]he use of a dangerous weapon need not result in death, but the instrument itself must merely be
capable of taking life in the manner that it was used. . . . [A]ny instrument capable of causing serious
bodily injury could also cause death depending on its use. In our view, serious bodily injury is synonymous
with endangering or threatening life.

    We hold that due to the actual effect of the stun gun in this case -- serious injury -- a permissive
inference existed sufficient to support a jury determination that the stun gun was a dangerous weapon.

Some officers have not considered stun guns to be dangerous weapons. In fact, an expert witness
testified to that effect at trial in this case. The COA disagreed with that conclusion, holding that stun
guns fall at the same end of the continuum of force that firearms do.

Court of Appeals > OmniView

https://beaufortcountynow.com/post/2191/

Nope.  Never said I was.  I don't think it fits, but you are free to believe whatever you want.  The law will decide.

yet you claim people are imposing their religious views on you?
what means hypocrisy?

yet you claim people are imposing their religious views on you?
what means hypocrisy?

Nope laws are different.   I am expressing opinion. Not forcing laws on you much different. 

I'm not here to do your homework for you.  Try Google.

But, since you're too lazy, I know I'm going to have to help you eventually.

This was TEN YEARS AGO.  And yet, you still have it wrong in your head. 

Court of Appeals > OmniView

https://beaufortcountynow.com/post/2191/

Still not what I asked for.   I need a case showing possession not use.  They used a electric device in a offensive way.    A pocket knife that is used in that way would be considered a deadly weapon.  But it's not considered to be one when carried. 

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/assault-with-a-deadly-weapon.html

#flappfakenews
#itsoktobewrong

Still not what I asked for.   I need a case showing possession not use.  They used a electric device in a offensive way.    A pocket knife that is used in that way would be considered a deadly weapon.  But it's not considered to be one when carried. 

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/assault-with-a-deadly-weapon.html

#flappfakenews
#itsoktobewrong

Read this part:

 [t]he use of a dangerous weapon need not result in death, but the instrument itself must merely be
capable of taking life in the manner that it was used. . . . [A]ny instrument capable of causing serious
bodily injury could also cause death depending on its use. In our view, serious bodily injury is synonymous
with endangering or threatening life.

Key word is capable.  Which means it doesn't have to cause serious injury at that moment. So even though the stun gun was used in this particular situation, they argued that it in general it;s the same a as a firearm (deadly weapon).

"Some officers have not considered stun guns to be dangerous weapons. In fact, an expert witness testified to that effect at trial in this case. The COA disagreed with that conclusion, holding that stun
guns fall at the same end of the continuum of force that firearms do."

This pretty much answers your question, which Flapp already posted.

Read this part:

 [t]he use of a dangerous weapon need not result in death, but the instrument itself must merely be
capable of taking life in the manner that it was used. . . . [A]ny instrument capable of causing serious
bodily injury could also cause death depending on its use. In our view, serious bodily injury is synonymous
with endangering or threatening life.

Key word is capable.  Which means it doesn't have to cause serious injury at that moment. So even though the stun gun was used in this particular situation, they argued that it in general it;s the same a as a firearm (deadly weapon).

"Some officers have not considered stun guns to be dangerous weapons. In fact, an expert witness testified to that effect at trial in this case. The COA disagreed with that conclusion, holding that stun
guns fall at the same end of the continuum of force that firearms do."

This pretty much answers your question, which Flapp already posted.

Its all about use.  As said in the webpage.  A bottle can be used as a deadly weapon.  It is capable of causing serious injury at that moment.  Are we not able to carry bottles around? 

There was a short example list:
Broken bottles;
Dogs;
Power tools;
Gardening tools;
Blunt objects; and
Boats.

All of these are legal to possess and "carry/use".  But yet depending on use can be considered a deadly weapon.  An electric gun would be the same category. 

Electric devices are designed NOT to be lethal and are less lethal than many of the items on that list.

Can a felon posses an EG?  Felons can possess a knife, because I have friends who are cooks and use knives all the time.  Depending on the knife, a kitchen knife is not considered a deadly or dangerous weapon if it's used per the manufacturers description.

A felon can also possess a bat as long as it's used per manufactures description.  But an EG on the other hand, its sole purpose is to cause bodily injury.  A felon in HI cannot be in possession of 1. 

We want clarification from the AG.  The assistant AG stated it wasn't the taser bills intent to fall under HRS134-51 (Deadly or dangerous weapons).  But the assistant AG didn't say "no, an EG does not fall under HRS134-51".  She just stated intent. So right now it could go either way for HI come Jan 2022.  And can the recorded zoom testimony be used in court later?  IDK.  But speaking to an attorney, their legal opinion was that we are correct and as written, an EG falls under HRS134-51; regardless of what the deputy AG stated.  Until it's in writing that states otherwise.

But does Omni really need a court case that defines what an EG is (lethal or not)?  If 1 knows how to read, HRS134-51 is pretty clear. IDK about other states EG laws, but I am more familiar with HI's one.  But if omni, you feel that an EG is not a lethal weapon just by being in possession, feel free to walk in front a HPD station or the AG's office with 1 and let us know how it goes.  I would recommend wearing a bodycam.  Then if you are wrong and arrested and charged, keep us posted how your court case is going.

Its all about use.  As said in the webpage.  A bottle can be used as a deadly weapon.  It is capable of causing serious injury at that moment.  Are we not able to carry bottles around? 

There was a short example list:
Broken bottles;
Dogs;
Power tools;
Gardening tools;
Blunt objects; and
Boats.

All of these are legal to possess and "carry/use".  But yet depending on use can be considered a deadly weapon.  An electric gun would be the same category. 

Electric devices are designed NOT to be lethal and are less lethal than many of the items on that list.

It isn't about EG's not being designed to be lethal. The ruling is based on "causes bodily injury", which an EG is "capable" of. Read the "capable" part.  This particular case that Flapp posted answers your question if you read it carefully.  But like my last post, IDK how this affects HI's EG law.

*edit, I'm using lethal and deadly as the same. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Can a felon posses an EG?  Felons can possess a knife, because I have friends who are cooks and use knives all the time.  Depending on the knife, a kitchen knife is not considered a deadly or dangerous weapon if it's used per the manufacturers description.

A felon can also possess a bat as long as it's used per manufactures description.  But an EG on the other hand, its sole purpose is to cause bodily injury.  A felon in HI cannot be in possession of 1. 

We want clarification from the AG.  The assistant AG stated it wasn't the taser bills intent to fall under HRS134-51 (Deadly or dangerous weapons).  But the assistant AG didn't say "no, an EG does not fall under HRS134-51".  She just stated intent. So right now it could go either way for HI come Jan 2022.  And can the recorded zoom testimony be used in court later?  IDK.  But speaking to an attorney, their legal opinion was that we are correct and as written, an EG falls under HRS134-51; regardless of what the deputy AG stated.  Until it's in writing that states otherwise.

But does Omni really need a court case that defines what an EG is (lethal or not)?  If 1 knows how to read, HRS134-51 is pretty clear. IDK about other states EG laws, but I am more familiar with HI's one.  But if omni, you feel that an EG is not a lethal weapon just by being in possession, feel free to walk in front a HPD station or the AG's office with 1 and let us know how it goes.  I would recommend wearing a bodycam.  Then if you are wrong and arrested and charged, keep us posted how your court case is going.

I wouldn't want to cause issues for no reason.  I am one of those police and government supporters.  Why make their job harder. But I have to consult some lawyers and I may carry an EG.  I support the clarification from the AG. 

The problem with HRS134-51 is its beyond vague "or other deadly or dangerous weapon".  Technically can cover literally everything and anything...From cars to chefs tools to wrenches.  Necklaces, hell even clothes. 

It isn't about EG's not being designed to be lethal. The ruling is based on "causes bodily injury", which an EG is "capable" of. Read the "capable" part.  This particular case that Flapp posted answers your question if you read it carefully.  But like my last post, IDK how this affects HI's EG law.

*edit, I'm using lethal and deadly as the same. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I have searched google and can't find any cases of simple possession of an EG is prohibited, while legalized in the state.  I believe the only way would be for the AG to clarify or for the case to be brought to court.  I have to research if the self defense insurance would cover this type of case.

I wouldn't want to cause issues for no reason but I have to consult some lawyers and I may carry an EG.  I support the clarification from the AG. 

The problem with HRS134-51 is its beyond vague "or other deadly or dangerous weapon".  Technically can cover literally everything and anything...From cars to chefs tools to wrenches.  Necklaces, hell even clothes.

"sole purpose is to cause bodily injury"=EG, karabat knife, TDI K-bar knife.  "sole purpose" is the key phrase.

"diverted from it's intended purposes"=use a chef tool to stab someone, wrench used to hit someone on the head, clothes used to strangle someone.  Just possessing said items will not all under the dangerous weapon category because you're using them for their intended purpose.   So your examples are a bad one.

I have searched google and can't find any cases of simple possession of an EG is prohibited, while legalized in the state.  I believe the only way would be for the AG to clarify or for the case to be brought to court.  I have to research if the self defense insurance would cover this type of case.

Google felons in possession.  Felons are restricted from possessing a lot of things. IDK about other states, but HI's EG law specifically says felons cannot possess.

Alan Beck who is the atty for Roberts v. Ballard (EG case), is working on clarification.  The case is still pending.

"sole purpose is to cause bodily injury"=EG, karabat knife, TDI K-bar knife.  "sole purpose" is the key phrase.

"diverted from it's intended purposes"=use a chef tool to stab someone, wrench used to hit someone on the head, clothes used to strangle someone.  Just possessing said items will not all under the dangerous weapon category because you're using them for their intended purpose.   So your examples are a bad one.

So if they manufactured an EG thats sole purpose was not to cause bodily injury it would be fine?  Like an cattle prod?  Or any company that details the description of the EG that its sole purpose is not to cause injury?  For example a EG which sole purpose is to make sounds and flashes of light "aka party trick".  Or similar its sole purpose is to make scary sounds to deter an attack. 

Google felons in possession.  Felons are restricted from possessing a lot of things. IDK about other states, but HI's EG law specifically says felons cannot possess.

Alan Beck who is the atty for Roberts v. Ballard (EG case), is working on clarification.  The case is still pending.

Thanks I hope Alan figures it out.  Great work. 

So if they manufactured an EG thats sole purpose was not to cause bodily injury it would be fine?  Like an cattle prod?  Or any company that details the description of the EG that its sole purpose is not to cause injury?  For example a EG which sole purpose is to make sounds and flashes of light "aka party trick".  Or similar its sole purpose is to make scary sounds to deter an attack.

"
"So if they manufactured an EG thats sole purpose was not to cause bodily injury it would be fine? "-Yes, no longer fits the definition of a deadly weapon. See below

The definition of a EG goes along the of any mobile devise that transmits an electrical current into another person.  So the prod is now an EG. .  And you're only allowed to use it for specific reasons. Like self defense or protect property.  Also under the EG definition for HI falls TENS units used by physical therapist or other medical devices that pass a current form a mobile devise into another person.   1 doctor wrote to his doctors board and showed them the bill. They then sent it off to the AG's office. The reply from the AG was "we highly doubt a doctor would be prosecuted under the EG law".  Which isn't a no.  And if any patient gets injured from said units, then if they have a smart attorney, they can sue for malpractice and win because the doctor used an EG illegally on them.  The law does not state you can use an EG on another for treatment, or even training purposes.   Even a muscle stimulator sold at walmart is an EG. 

Now you're trying to find a loop hole in the sole purpose.  This is a moot point because an EG is now defined.  Refer to TENS unit example above.  And the moment 1 uses it on someone else, they broke the law if it wasn't for self defense or to protect property. 

Since you claim you said you do your part for the 2a, you should really read the testimonies submitted. Especially the ones by HIFICO and like parties because this was all addressed.  Also watch the zoom.  This way you can submit testimony and bring up said points. The more the merrier.  These are the reasons why all but 1 or2 2a supporters opposed this bill in testimony.  The ones who did support the bill are the podagees.

Or did you not submit any testimony for this bill?  If it's due to work reasons, then that's understandable.  Because I do read most of the testimonies and look at who submits them.  Even the 1100 testimonies for the mag ban.

Since you claim you said you do your part for the 2a, you should really read the testimonies submitted. Especially the ones by HIFICO and like parties because this was all addressed.  Also watch the zoom.  This way you can submit testimony and bring up said points. The more the merrier.  These are the reasons why all but 1 or2 2a supporters opposed this bill in testimony.  The ones who did support the bill are the podagees.

Or did you not submit any testimony for this bill?  If it's due to work reasons, then that's understandable.  Because I do read most of the testimonies and look at who submits them.  Even the 1100 testimonies for the mag ban.

I did testify but I didn't not fully do research.   I just followed advice posted on this forum.