To be honest, I knew about their idea that the USA was a corporation from my earlier forays into this nuttiness, but I didn’t imagine any of them actually believed Canada was incorporated under US law.
These people have long since left the realm of views it’s possible to parody. Every time you come up with something you think is crazier than they are, they’ve already used it, or something crazier, in court.
I think it means they’re ship-heads. 
Oh, don’t get them started on “Admiralty Law.”
I’ve had a few American clients who believe their laws apply here (I don’t mean conflict/choice of law stuff – I mean they honestly believe that their laws trump our laws here in Kanukistan). The most recent one I dumped when he started having some poor bastard from the US embassy call me. At the moment I have a Canadian client who took about a year to get over his notion that because he nominally lives in the USA, its laws should apply in Canada (again, not a conflict/choice of law matter, just a perverse presumption that US laws always trump our laws). Funny how some folk’s minds work (or don’t work as the case may be).
Funny, when I was reading the thread, I kept being reminded of the idiot tax protesters I meet with on a weekly basis.
I’ve seen several times now where my tax protestor clients have caused major headaches for their kids once the kids get to college age. Often times, the parents will refuse to get SS Numbers for their kids and the kids don’t find out until they are much older and trying to apply for financial aid for college. Good times.
Okay, I have to know: what did the US embassy guy say to you? I’m hoping it was more of a “I’m calling so I can tell Mr. Whatzisname that I called you” rather than “I’m calling to let you know that US law applies in Canada.”
Occasionally, we’ll hear about similar things here, but mostly in the context of news stories about gun seizures at the border. Some Americans visiting Canada mistakenly believe that their Second Amendment rights cover them up here, and get a nasty surprise from the CBSA and RCMP. But personally and professionally, I haven’t encountered any who believe that, in Canada, US law trumps Canadian law.
Do they get the guns back when they return to the U.S.?
No. The guns are confiscated and destroyed.
Missed the edit window…
I should add that it is possible, in some circumstances, for Americans to bring their guns into Canada legally. This generally involves getting in touch with Canadian authorities ahead of the planned trip, doing some paperwork, and paying a fee. The circumstances usually relate to such sporting activities as hunting and competition. My statement above refers to Americans who may have a gun in the car for protection, or similar reasons.
Adding to Spoons’ comment, the reason for confiscation and destruction is usually that the American in question declined to identify that he had a gun and tried to bring it in. Canada Customs guards usually ask if you have any firearms, and there are posters up that advise visitors that you need to get permission to bring them in. In most border areas, there are also often gun-locker businesses on the US side which will keep your guns safely while you’re in Canada.
There are so many options to obtain permission to bring in hunting weapons, and to know the rules, and to obtain safe storage, that usually it’s pretty wilful on the part of the gun-owner found to have brought them in illegally, so not unreasonable for the guns to be confiscated, as being in violation of Canadian law.
There was one case a while ago where the American in question was a police officer (not from Kalamazoo, as far as I can recall :)), who consciously brought in a gun and then discovered he was facing a criminal charge in Canada, which could have ended his career in the US. It eventually got reduced to a border offence which wasn’t considered a criminal conviction by his employer.
Sometimes there’s a bit of professional courtesy unofficially granted to off-duty peace officers. To quote a CBSA friend: “If it’s an American cop, there often will be a handgun.” To get around a formal seizure, they send the gun to the officer’s commander along with a note reminding that the handgun must no be brought into Canada.
I came across something a bit spooky a few years ago – a fellow who worked at the foundry that melted confiscated guns who was a bit of a gun nut (his basement was an arsenal). His most treasured possession was a partly melted handgun that he snuck out from his job. I recall that he was convicted, but I don’t think he did jail time.
What’s the statute of limitations on smuggling guns into Canada? I’m asking for a friend.
It was down the rabbit hole for the first few minutes. The fellow from the embassy tried to hire me as the US government’s agent to represent my own client for an application to return a child to the USA under the Hague Convention on Child Abduction. He was a nice person and he knew the law well enough, but unfortunately, he did not have all the facts.
One suspects that subduing a subject may be necessary (and acceptable) prior to placing the subject under physical restraint. Tasering, chemical spray, batons and dogs are tools/methods for subduing a subject so that the act of placing the subject under physical restraint can be performed with the smallest practicable amount of risk to the “big burlies.”
In fact, the argument could be presented that subduing is merely a step in the process of placing under physical restraint, and that they do not need to be considered separate from one another at all.
Thing is, Chimera was talking about rules of engagement for tasering, not about how well each country’s laws stands up to FOTL woo.
“Physical restraint” is the end result, the suspect in cuffs being frog-marched off. How they go about getting the suspect into physical restraint, though, is a process. Now a generally cooperative suspect can be placed in physical restraint by walking up, saying “I am arresting you on charges of ____, turn around and place your hands on the wall.” Uncooperative suspects are a different story. They start punching you, or stabbing you, or shooting you, etc. So you need a different method.
Piling a half a dozen cops onto a suspect to use weight to get physical control is prone to injury, both to the suspect and to the cops involved. Said suspect has a knife, and starts cutting/stabbing cops? What about a club? What about just being a big mothereffer who likes punching and kicking? Elbows and knees start flying, friendly fire incidents happen, concussions break out. There is a case in courts in Houston right now where cops are on trial for civil rights violations for kicking a suspect in the head after they had 4 or 5 guys on top of him. (The first cop has already been “not guilty”, and he’s on videotape clearly stomping on the guy’s head. 
) Because emotions are hightened in the physical activity, personal responses are harder to control. It is easier to succumb to the inclination to get in an extra lick or two for punishment/good measure.
Batons are not magic submission sticks. Sure, there are ways to use a baton that don’t involve clubbing upside the head, but they still generally involve the application of force, some risk of impact injury, and some risk of breaking things (like elbows and wrists). Sweeping someone’s legs out from under them tend to make them fall down hard, with the possible impact of skull on pavement. Not safe.
Threatening with guns is an option, but what if the suspect doesn’t comply? Shoot them?
Chemical sprays are intended to make the suspect willingly stop resisting or else be so concerned with the pain they cannot effectively resist, yet use pain that has no long-term damage. That is key, pain without significant injury. Breaking a finger might cause pain, but doesn’t pass the “without injury” threshhold.
Tasers are supposed to work by impeding physical resistance by jamming the nerve signals both to prevent conscious control from working and to tire out the muscles so they cannot respond effectively afterwards.
Thus, the suspect is physically incapable of resisting for a few moments, and that is the window to exert stronger restraint and gain control, handcuffs, etc. It is also generally persuasive that continued resistance will not be pleasant. Usually, this is also mostly harmless. Thus, in principle, Tasers should be much safer for everyone when the suspect is non-compliant. However, there are people with conditions that are susceptible to the high voltage shocks, and some people thrash or otherwise try to resist, which leads to cops repeating or continuing to shock the suspects. And some non-aggressive actions by the suspect getting tased can be interpreted as resistance, thus leading to sustained tasering. And injuries can happen just by virtue of the suspect collapsing and/or flailing about.
Good tasering policy should not make Tasers the first response, but rather a reasoned response that allows room for negotiation and persuasion as the first response. Short-cutting to Tasering just because you don’t feel like talking to the suspect is, unfortunately, too common of a practice. Hopefully, law enforcement agencies are scrutinizing and adjusting their policies and training.
By the way, the new device I saw on the news is a pepper gun. It uses the same agent in pepper spray, but packs it in a gel that is fired at high speed from a gun-like device. Rather than a thin stream that can be avoided, it comes out like a shot, and is more targetable, and harder to evade. There’s less risk of blowback on the user. They also make a civilian version.
Your quote is accidentally misattributed. The actual comment was from Spoons in post 150.
A good long post, but people also have some misconceptions about other aspects of their use.
I used to do armed overnights at a national chain for a short period of time about 4-5 years ago. I was asked not to return to one in an inner city neighborhood after 10 drunken gang members got into a fight and I refused to wade in and bust heads. At the time all I had was a gun. I peeled one drunk off the back of another because he was choking him out from behind and shoved him (with some effort) out the door. By the time I got back to the others, the fight was over.
My response to the assistant manager being angry about me not wading in (my response being backed up by my company), was that 1> I cannot blindly assault people just because he wants me to, and 2> One 40-something with a gun on his hip trying to ‘bust heads’ on TEN drunken 20-somethings? How fast do you want them to end up with my gun in the middle of your place? 3> The goal is de-escalation, not escalation.
After that, I was provided with a baton and mace. But there too, mace is an ‘outside’ weapon. If I were to use it in a crowded restaurant, it would clear the place and they wouldn’t be able to re-open until they did some cleaning and airing out. So add ‘loss of business’ to the cost of using that for inside crowd control. In a court house as the OP incident, you’re potentially talking some serious inconvenience if they have to clear the area even to air it out. You may also have innocents who happened to be in the same area bothered by the spray and requiring assistance or to go home (loss of work issues) because of it.
I did see it used once at that place, outside the doors. Former Spec Ops turned security supervisor sprayed the hell out of a mouthy punk, starting with the top and back of his head, from less than a foot away. It certainly did nothing to disable the kid. He did leave, but he came back cleaned up an hour or so later and made another pest of himself.
So really, none of these are panaceas to the issue of controlling people who are uncooperative. They are merely tools, each of which has their own place and time of use, and rules of engagement.
Yep. Frustratingly I have one of these people in my family. ( It’s the person who was recently banned after littering the board with insane conspiracy stuff after I introduced them to the place)
Anyways..Freemen on the land stuff? Check. Wild ideas about the federal reserve? check. 9/11 Truther? check. Whats frightening is watching the mental gymnastics they use to tie it all together into a coherent (to them) world view. Then throw in Kennedy conspiracy, Rothschilds purposely caused the Great Depression and on and on.
That would make a great bureaucratic euphemism though. “The officers applied their submission sticks until compliance was assured.”