Come to think of it, this would make an interesting weapon to try to explain. I bought on as a teen (more for the Cool factor than practicality, as it's not great at chopping)

http://www.1sks.com/store/american-tomahawk-lagana-legend-vietnam-tomahawk.html

"whoop, whoop" would be all the poor SOB heard before it... clanged off the wall. I've never practiced with it. Sorry to disappoint. But, it would be interesting to see the look on the perp's face as I screamed bloody murder as I sprinted down the hall waving this around. Perhaps I need a headdress as well to complete the image?

Hi Hacksaw,

I found about the same use for my hooked machette as you do, trail/shooting lane clearing and shelter/treestand building. I guess you could baton it through wood to split it for a fire but I have never tried. I think the one I have is a little heavier as the handles are solid metal/plastic, it has proven to be a very tough and useful bush tool.

I apoligize for diverting this thread off topic; back to aluminum baseball bats for home defence.

Mike

Baseball bat, machette - we are still on topic. Both
are usefull against the SLOW and the UNARMED.

The young, small boy mentioned did quite well with the bat.

Sean Taylor, on the other hand, a physical monster in his own
right, did very poorly with a machette against a youth with
a hand gun. Sean Taylor took a round in the femoral artery
and died the next day.

Glad you liked it. Technically I could have beware of Mossberg, S&W, Ruger, Para ordinance, Colt, Remington, and about five others added to such a sign as I am a collector. My Mossberg 590 and my Para Ordnance .45 ACP are my dedicated HD guns though. In ref to your question I have been told by a friend who is ex Army turned police officer, that if you follow all steps to a normal escalation of force before you shoot then legally you should be fine. There are exceptions to this such as using exotic ammunition etc. If you shoot a person using a terminator round or a load of flechette then it may be hard to explain that one.

If you find someone in your home and give them a reasonable warning and they still intend on doing you harm then you should fair off well in court if you shoot. If they try to run and you chase them down and then shoot them in the back then your court case may head south on you fairly quick.
If there is only you and him then I guess there may be only one person left to tell the tale anyway. Much better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6 as the old saying goes. I think if you shoot him in the groin with a load of #4 buckshot , smash him into a bloody jelly with a bat or cut him limb from quivering limb with a hooked machete then your case will be no different in front of a judge as there are no different levels of killing, dead is dead. If you torture him before calling the cops it may be looked at differently by a Judge I would imagine. I think being Military that my service to my country would be taken into account if I were the one doing the answering in court. (At least I hope so) Hopefully anyone who attempts to gain entry into my house whether I am home or not gets the fear of God put in him by my dog and decides to abort mission before it ever comes to the need to shoot him.

Usually jurisdiction has to judge the means you used to defend yourself and the facts that lead you to the conclusion that the used force was required. As a trained person you should be able to assess the situation faster and better than an untrained person and you should be able to use the intended amount of force.
E. g. a black belt martial artist may have a harder time to explain why a hit to the throat should be considered as accidental than an person who never had a self-defense class. A veteran police officer may be expected to actually hit the leg instead of the center of the torso when aiming for it.
Many people make the Wrath Of The Law come down on them by the way the handle the situation afterwards. Never say more than "I was involved" without your lawyer. The wrong version of the truth can very well spoil your day. Again a trained person should perform better than a layperson.

It's my understanding that in Canada people who are trained to kill (soldiers, martial arts black belts, etc) come under higher scrutiny in such situations for just that fact...they should be able to asses just how much force is needed better than the average person and be able to control themselves better than the average person.

My old Kung Fu instructor used to tell me that the sign of a good martial artist boiled down to 2 things. The first was intent...without intent you'll never succeed. The second was the ability to control that intent as if it's unrestrained it won't be effective.

He was very good at training a balance of the 'assume the other person is going to kill you at all times' mentality combined with the ability to only use what's needed to get the job done without going overboard.

How would they know that you are a Black Belt if you don't tell them?

Thankfully, here in Colorado, we have a law that protects homeowners on their property when they use reasonable force to defend themselves. It's nicknamed the "Make My Day" law.

It would easily come up in court if the person you defended yourself against charged you with assault.

That sounds so stupid but it happens.

I seriously doubt that anyone trained in the martial arts is any more liable than anyone else. This (to me) falls under the same category as people that loved to brag that they had to register their hands as lethal weapons...

I've heard of it happening...and really when it comes to court it's all about perception. All a lawyer has to do is put doubt in the minds of the jury and anybody who was just defending themselves can be seen as a cold blooded killer.

I tried to find precedence on the interweb and couldn't find anything but I did find some interesting links while looking:

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Buckner/Chapter%2010.htm
http://www.self-defender.net/law5.htm
http://www.canadagunlaws.com/self-defense-laws-in-canada/