Edmonton cops vow crackdown on knives

Afternoon Doug,

I think we are going to need your help with this one:

Edmonton Police Vow Crackdown on Knives

Preferably, before someone develops the $25 billion dollar knife registery program.

"What I can say with certainty is ... individuals who walk the streets of Edmonton with these types of weapon, with any edged weapons, we're looking at laying charges and looking at multiple charges," Preston said.

The voice of reason.

What I'm concerned about is the general population assuming Preston and his cohorts are the voice of reason.

The comments below the story are great...

I went to Edmonton on business a few months ago, and carried my assisted-opening Kershaw... it's my every-day carry knife. While there, I experienced no desire to stab or slice anyone. Just the same, I didn't realize I was part of the problem. Sorry, Edmonton. [/sarc]

Coming up on the 6 o'clock news: Edmonton cops vow to crack down on big biceps!
In this day and ages, nobody needs big biceps... every body knows that powerful arms are a fight waiting to happen...

Let's not forget the fatal shooting of woodcarver John T. Williams by Seattle police.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeGcCGeHuIg&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbyKPeq_-14&feature=related

Police do not need more incentive to terrorize the public.

What's next, hockey sticks?

Oh, wait... it's Canada!

Politicians and bureaucrats: kings of the knee-jerk reaction. And the first thing they think to do is remove the weapons from the law-abiding people because it's the easiest. 'Tis a pity they don't start with the criminals, first.

Guns first, then knives, then...
Baseball bats (sorry, USA)
Hockey sticks (sorry, Canada)
Pointed sticks (naturally pointed or formed)
Building lumber like 2x4s
Loose cement could be tossed into people's eyes
Glass, broken, very sharp
Rope for choking
Duct tape for suffocation
Lengths of metal like fireplace pokers, rebar and pipe
Spoons that could be turned into knives
Frozen bottles of water
Frozen dead cats
Feet - feet can do a lot of damage
Hands - very adaptable to crime: choking, punching, karate-chopping
And let's not forget possibly the greatest killer of all: automobiles.

Well, it looks like we've got a lot of laws to create, better get started!

Sue

(~ahem~)

Before we all get our snit in a fit, a few thoughts from the guy who has lived and worked in the Edmonton area all his life ...

First, note the trash tabloid source of the link posted above. Long on editorial blather (supporting the sale of advertising with both hands) and a wee bit short of hard information. I'm not sure if this concerns the bikini-girl-of-the-day in the sports section, but perhaps it should. 'Nuff said.

A slightly more informative article from the Edmonton Journal, with a little more raw detail: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Edmonton+police+after+concealed+knives/5243698/story.html

Note this salient point from the news conference: "He cautioned that the renewed focus on knives won’t impinge on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry knives or other tools for a legitimate purpose."

If you have a look at the photos in the Ed. Journal story, you'll see that the items confiscated are mostly garbage Chinese-made knives. They are useless for mostly anything other than icepick duty.

This is the focus of police efforts, I think: being a bit more proactive (and pushing the fuzzy definition in the Criminal Code) in order to keep the peace. Seriously, if the local beat cop meets up with a known bad actor, and the guy is walking funny because he has a $3 machete down his leg, it's reasonable to assume he's not off to prune his tomato plants.

There are some legitimate concerns around here. There are some local areas where troublemakers, gangbangers, and a very tiny minority of immigrants who haven't left the past behind, find reasons to beat on each other. Honest citizens are sometimes blindsided. There is room for some more proactive law enforcement in this regard.

(That said, the murder rate per capita is maybe a tenth of an equivalent U.S. city. Perhaps we just have a lower cultural tolerance for this? I dunno. None of my business. No political commentary intended.)

Cheers,
-Doug

There's too much wiggle room there, and they know it. The words "for a legitimate purpose" are unnecessary and leave prosecution wide up for discretion. Either you make a certain instrument illegal or you don't. You don't muddy the waters by adding superfluous language. You trample rights when you subject an innocent person to being arrested for having a 2" blade or whatever. "Sir, we're arresting you so we can run an investigation to make sure you were carrying for a legitimate purpose."

If you want to criminalize the behavior, then you criminalize the behavior, instead attaching such language to a law about a tool. For example, you make stabbing someone with a knife illegal outside of self-defense. It's a subtle but hugely important difference.

The problem here is that the government (including law enforcement) wants the easy way out. They can't (or are too lazy to) enforce the laws that are ALREADY THERE. These are feel good laws that do absolutely nothing but restrict the rights of law abiding citizens.

First, thanks to Doug for his post. I agree that the originating newspaper website link is hardly considered as a reliable source.

As for the whole knives argument here in Canada, there is very lengthy thread here from a couple of years ago. In summary, the LEO's up here use great discretion when it comes to interpreting the knife laws and if you are not viewed as a deadbeat type of person and don't have a criminal record then they will leave you alone..

Evening Doug,

Point taken. You are correct - the source of the article is not the most reliable. I don't reside in Alberta and not familiar with the violent crime in its major cities. It is the intent behind the story that concerns me.

The difficulty is where the line is going to be drawn by the LEO/Crown. The Criminal Code is not absolute in its definition of what is legal other than to state that mechanically activated and gravity knives are prohibited weapons. Everything else is open to interpretation.

What defines a legitimate purpose?

I'm worried that the vagaries of our laws are being exploited. Currently here in Toronto the police chief has initiated a program for patrol officers to visit the home of elderly legal gun owners to complete a spot check of their firearms. Despite the fact this is completely outside their jurisdiction and contrary to the firearms act.

Although, I have met with no opposition from LEO - I don't want the public to automatically associate knife ownership with being a criminal.

The "legitimate purpose" language was only so bad back in the day when individual officers had more personal discretion in these matters. Unfortunately all it takes is a departmental directive to "hook everyone up and let the court sort it out" to land a lot of normal folks in trouble.

Doug,
Thank you for pointing out the credibility of the source to those of us that linked to the story without being familiar with the site.

We have the same thing here in Regina, Saskatoon, and Winnipeg. Too many native youth gangs. They buy anything cheap that can be used as a weapon. Of late it has been the dime-store machetes that seem to attract a lot of attention. Of course balisongs, nunchucks, stars and the like are illegal and a bit harder to get so they go for anything cheap and lethal looking. The cops aren't worried about law abiding citizens with pocket knives and multi-tools. It's the punks they are after. The cops have plenty of laws, it just about enforcing them and the legal system to punish properly.

I suspect the legality of the hardware is going to be less of an issue than the very grey area regarding probable cause for search and seizure. LEOs will be walking a fine line here. Criminal charges won't stick without a legal search based on probable cause. I see this ultimately being tested in higher courts.

Even if charges don't go anywhere, a more proactive stance on the part of police may serve as control rods in the reactor -- trying to prevent meltdowns instead of cleaning up afterward. Whether or not this will work is frankly up in the air.

I was just reading an article about one of the G-20 arrests that seems relevant. In part, the article reported:

Police testified Puddy had a 15-centimetre knife attached to his belt.

Puddy, 32, from London, Ont., was eventually charged with obstructing police, concealing a weapon and possession of a prohibited weapon.
...
Justice Melvyn Green accepted Puddy's defence that he was not carrying the knife as a weapon and further ruled that since the arrest was illegal, so too was the search that uncovered the knife.

This seems to confirm a couple things.

First, having a knife is not the same as having a weapon; a knife only becomes a weapon if you intend to use it as such. This is likely a good thing about the way the law is actually worded. While the police may sometimes use terms like "legitimate purpose" with respect to knives, the law simply says you can't carry one with the intention of using it as a weapon.

Second, as dougwalkabout said, there must be a valid reason for a search to be considered legal.

Apologies, it seems the Canadians have taken hostage this thread.

As previously mentioned, the police are seeking a proactive measure against increasing urban violence by utilising existing law. As noted by dougwalkabout - does the law support the current initiative? Ultimately, time and the courts will decide.

The LEOs in Edmonton are now having to substantiate the intent of the person in possession of the knife and I don't envy them the task. Although, this would seem an obvious measure of common sense - common sense is not nearly so common.

My greatest fear is that we descend into a situation similar to what is happening in NYC - where Doug and Kniferights.org are currently having to issue a court challenge against the office of the DA to re-establish the boundaries of current law.

The public needs to be reassured that it is not the legal knife owner they need fear. Those that subscribe to this forum see them as tools for everyday use. However, that is not how the vast majority view knives and it is going to be an uphill struggle to convince them of otherwise.

And it is probably time to end my rant.

P.S.
Dennis, I'm sorry I didn't reply to your comment from a previous posting.

I found this article in the Friday edition of the Globe:

Gun Collector Sues Toronto Police

Take care everyone.

In the UK the law is worded differently. Penknives are presumed to be tools, but knives with blades that are long and/or fixed are presumed to be weapons. Both presumptions are rebuttable. In a case like the one you cite, Puddy couldn't just claim the 15cm blade wasn't carried as a weapon: he'd need to show what other purpose it was carried for.

In my view the UK law is a reasonably compromise, given that we want any kind of knife control at all (which I appreciate many Americans won't agree with). The biggest problem with the UK wording is that when the statute defined "penknife", it didn't allow for folding knives with locking blades. That the blade locks makes it a safer tool, but the courts have construed it as instead turning it into a fixed-blade weapon.

So I don't think that banning blades has to be all or nothing. I also have sympathy with the view that if you merely make it illegal to attack someone with a knife, then you can't get involved until it's too late and someone has already been stabbed.

Wow, I had no idea you could get away carrying an ~6" knife in public here. I wouldn't try it, it is way more than you need for a handy *urban* (pocket) tool. He's lucky to get away with it, if the search had been legal the charge might have stuck. I know on the sporting Canadian forums 3.5-4" is the most usually recommended. Whether you're right or wrong, it can cost you a helluva lot in Canada to "prove" it, and who needs that. Plus it's far too easy nowadays for some busybiddy to call 911 and seriously disrupt your day...

The big prob IMO in Canada is concealment. Any potential "weapon" it may be legal to own and carry moves to an entirely different category when it's concealed and on your person. Like a 4" knife inside your waistband, maybe even your pocket. Or a cheap pellet pistol being carried to a field in a backpack (an actual local concealed weapons charge). No diff here if you commit a robbery with a water pistol or a real gun, same charge. IOW it's the circumstances and not the item that brings the charge, which is what you guys are saying.

There's a problem there too if that what the law actually says. (I'm taking your word for it.)

What's wrong with carrying a knife with the intent to use it for self-defense, and therefore as a weapon? There's no problem in my book. Heck, I'm in favor of concealed carry of firearms, which would be a weapon.

If that's what the law says, then everybody has to do this fake dance about carrying their knife as a tool only. For example, "I'm a mover officer, and I open boxes all day; please don't arrest me; I promise I can show you my business card here."

It's not just a suggested fake dance. The person actually has to plan out their fake routine meticulously so they don't get arrested, charged, and convicted, merely because they're carrying a knife.

I see red flags when a knife law restricts behavior within the law. If the officer is not satisfied with what you're saying, then the officer can go ahead and make an arrest because he can. Getting arrested is a potential life changer, depending on your job and lifestyle.

Make a separate law directed toward behavior (e.g., threatening to kill someone is a crime). Really, what's the problem there?

I feel this is another example of the widening urban/rural gap in thought patterns.

You are in Canada for God's sake, a place where a knife can make the diference between life and death, outside the urban zone, and EVERYONE carried a knife only a few years back.

Now you have towns that are large enough that some folk never leave them, and they develop an urban mindset that is no diferent from that in Montreal or New York City.

"Someone please protect me from the knife wielding roughians!"

The only way one can go through life with the attitude that a knife is an unnecessary item for daily existance is to live in an urban setting where everything can be accessed with poptops or torn open with you teeth.

I have also noted, while going through life, that police are interchangable within their environment. An urban cop is an urban cop. You wear a badge or you do not wear a badge. Anyone with a badge is "one of us" and anyone without a badge is a criminal waithing for a chance to break the law. If you have a badge your knife is a tool. If you do not wear a badge the knife is a weapon, and you need to go to jail.

^ Yeah, being from Edmonton (born there) I am extremely surprised this is going on there...it sure has changed attitudinally. For those who don't know, check where Edmonton is on a map, then check what's around it. Still, I find it very very hard to believe Albertans (think of them as northern Texans lol) are going along with this.

Even in prissy Ontario, it wasn't that long ago (OK, longer than I probably think...) that a teenager could walk down a back road with a .22 rifle and nobody would say a thing. They wouldn't dare lol. People minded their own business when it came to other people minding *their* own business. No more. Everything has to become open for public discussion, even your personal behavior in your own home or car.

Around here the police are pretty reasonable. But they have their marching orders from their supervisors, and the chief law enforcement types are all *political appointees*, they are NOT voted in.

It turns out that aspect of the news report was incorrect, maybe someone did their math wrong? I found a copy of the judgement online and it describes his knife as a wooden-handled folding Gerber with a 3-4 inch blade carried in a sheath, unconcealed on his belt.

The judgement also explains prohibited weapon charge. The officer was able to open the knife using centrifugal force and the judge did find that the knife clearly met the criteria for being a prohibited weapon. However, interestingly he found that it wasn't shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Puddy either modified the knife (loosening the pivot) or knew that the knife could be operated in such a way and therefore found him not guilty of the charge. The judge recognized it was an ordinary, legal knife which could have unintentionally developed the characteristics of a prohibited weapon.

It is my understanding that in Canada it is illegal to carry a knife for the purpose of self defence; it would be considered a weapon in such a case. I'm no lawyer or expert, but this is what I've come to understand from others.

The law defines a weapon as "any thing used, designed to be used or intended for use (a) in causing death or injury to any person, or (b) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating any person and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, includes a firearm."

Not arguing whether this is right or wrong, but it seems to be the way it is.

I think part of it makes sense, however the 'designed to be used' part is subjective.

If an object (knife, gun, bowling pin, etc) is used to commit or threaten violence in the commission of a crime, it is a weapon.

A logical stretch might be if a knife, gun, bowling pin, etc is in the possession of a person who is committing a crime, or the person is a convicted violent felon, that object may be intended as a weapon.

Leave everyone else alone.

this is why our friends up in Canada are know for their world class fist fights and not so much for mindless blasting away at each other.

It is not that subjective. Some things are designed for a fairly narrow array of uses. E. g. daggers are designed to be used as weapons and they are of limited use for other tasks. SAKs are design as tools. They still can be used as weapon.

I've read about that kind of decisions by judges in both Canada and Britain. Apparently, they are at least somewhat interested in the INTENT of the law.

Here in the U.S., that doesn't seem to be the case -- here it is only the LETTER of the law. Here, judges seem to be nothing but tax collectors in black robes.

Even 25+ years ago, it was like this. For instance, a man was walking with his family from a parking lot to a restaurant in San Jose, CA. An off-duty, out-of-uniform LEO in his own personal, unlighted car, ripped through the parking lot at a fairly high rate of speed (for a parking lot), and almost hit one of the kids. Mom grabbed the boy's clothes and jerked him back, Dad slapped the back of the car with the flat of his hand. Dad subsequently received a fine by the judge for interfering with a police office.

The red-light cameras are touted as safety features, but to collect more fines, the yellow-light timing has been shortened.

As one of our members here once said, "America doesn't have a judicial system, it has a legal system".

Sue

Laws like this lead to the regurgitation of distinctions that are more artificial than real. The good ol' Swiss Army Knife is in the same boat as an "evil" dagger. A SAK can be a highly effective weapon, and not just the blade. The corkscrew on a SAK may be a preferable weapon sometimes, and is something regular knifes don't have. I guess Canada had better start banning cork screws too!

A dagger may be used effectively to do the same things for which I use my regular folder. In fact, if I needed to punch my way into many boxes for whatever reason, I'd prefer a dagger over a regular folder. A person shouldn't have to get special permission (license) from big daddy government just to carry a dagger.

Easy there , we're still quite a way's off from either of those things and I haven't seen anything suggesting the laws will be changing any time soon.

If you want to see all the sordid details, section 84.1 of the Criminal Code has the general definition of a prohibited weapon and part 3 of SOR/98-462 has a specific list of prohibited weapons (i.e., those 84.1's definition refers to as the ones "prescribed to be a prohibited weapon"). Between the two, it lists the things Canadians cannot legally own (without some exceptions of course).

To skip to the Coles Notes version, the Canada Border Services Agency has a consise list of prohibited weapons. The sharp & pointy things on the list include:

• automatic knives such as switchblades;
• centrifugal knives such as flick knives or butterfly knives;
• gravity knives;
• finger rings with blades or other sharp objects projecting from the surface;
• shuriken (throwing stars);
• Constant Companion (belt-buckle knife);
• push daggers;
• devices shorter than 30 cm concealing a knife blade (e.g. knife-comb);
• spiked wristbands.

While, in theory at least, the the general definition of a weapon quoted earlier could be used to prosecuting an otherwise upstanding citizen for carrying a "scary" knife concealed, I'm not aware of any cases where this has happened or if the case law would even support such a conviction.

Evening Denis,

If the Edmonton police make good on their original media release - we may very well see the upstanding citizen prosecuted for that very offence.

The worst possible outcome is for the courts to establish precedence and for that decision to spread throughout the rest of the country.

Hey, if we ever run into a situation even remotely like what's going on in NY I will definitely be concerned. However, I'm just not convinced that is going to happen up here.

Look at the case discussed earlier, for example. Puddy was in the front of the crowd at the G-20 protests sporting a mohawk, dressed all in black (similar in style to the "Black Block", potentially violent protesters) with a t-shirt with the words "Police Bastards" on it and was carrying a knife which met the legal definition of a prohibited weapon.

And yet, the judge found he was simply a hard working, respectful guy and found him not guilty of a prohibited weapons charge even though the knife met that legal definition.

Back to the Edmonton case specifically, the Edmonton Journal article mentions the police intend to use section 88 as the primary basis for their crackdown. In reading this section, it doesn't say it is illegal to carry or possess a weapon. Rather, it's illegal to carry or possess a weapon "for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence" (section 91 is the one which makes simple possession illegal, but that only applies to prohibited weapons). The Crown will need to prove that the individual charged is in possession of the weapon for one of these reasons.

A more likely scenario that could impact otherwise law-abiding people was mentioned in that article though; the possibility of amending the Alberta Liquor and Gaming Act to prohibit carrying knives into bars and nightclubs.

This is actually similar to the what the Calgary city council did a little while ago when it enacted its Public Behavior bylaw. It's now a bylaw infraction if you "carry a visible knife in any public place." If I recall correctly, this aspect of the bylaw came from the fact that there was nothing illegal about panhandlers having hunting knives on their belts which was intimidating some people (the whole bylaw seems largely targeted at controlling the behaviour of the homeless and other non-business type people downtown).

That said, its unlikely this bylaw is going to be widely enforces so those outside of the "targeted" groups likely have little to fear.

Until they change their minds.

I don't understand how you could be this smug. The opposite would make more sense if we think about the federal laws. As you know, the Canadian legal system has its foundation in the British common law system. This alone would make me nervous.

The U.S. fought a bloody revolution to get away from the British mindset. The U.S. Constitution includes the Second Amendment, which codifies the intent not to infringe on one highly important individual liberty. The right to keep and bear arms is a close relative to these knife laws.

NYC is an anomaly. With the right case facts and constitutional lawyers, NYC's nanny state laws can be turned around at least a little. With the help of the right lawmakers, NYC laws can be turned around a lot.

Sorry, that's really not my intention.

While I appreciate your perspective, I am just not seeing any real reason for concern. We aren't talking about proposed legislative changes or newly implemented laws here. These are the same laws that have been on the books for years, likely decades.

Granted, if the police start trying to charge people in ways they haven't in the past and the judges start convicting based on new precedents, then yes I would agree there could be reason for concern. However nothing like this has happened that I'm aware of and I've seen no indication that anything like it is in the works.

All we have here is a press conference where the police are trying to reassure the public that they have a plan to combat knife related crime. I don't see any reason to think that there is anything happening that can or will impact the general public.

Frankly, I'm not even convinced they will have much success targeting the bad guys with this approach given the law, though I wish them the best of luck with cracking down on the thugs up there.

All that said, it is probably wise to keep our eyes on the situation up there in case they do start lobbying for some type of legislative change.


I can see how you would disagree with the way our laws are as they stand. I'm not trying to arguing our laws are better or ideal. All I'm trying to do is say what the law is and how I see it applying to your average, law abiding knife owner.

True, that's a very valid point; not that I ever thought this bylaw was a good idea.

Let's hope that this does not blossom into another bill C-68 (Firearms act).

The fallout from that document is still being sorted out some 20 years on.

There is always a juggling act between the two directions. I know cops who have basically told me that unless I use or brandish a pocket knife as a weapon it would likely be considered a tool first and LEOS wouldn't have a problem with it in the first place. Once the user crosses that line, however, the gloves come off. There are enough knife laws out there to allow our LEOS to make the call in the field. The problems come when politicians wanting to make a name for themselves or simply (and honestly) just fed up with knife based crimes try to get MORE laws passed. As if making a knife 2x or 3x illegal will get more of them out of the hands of criminals! [I never did understand their logic]. The other type of law would be to narrow the definition of what is a permitted knife in the first place. This is a far reaching type of change that would make some legal tools into illegal weapons.

Knife usage in crimes is on the increase (at least in the media visibility but perhaps not so much in reality). Each jurisdiction has to make a balance depending on the general mood of the public. I don't know about your area but where I live the lion's share of actual violence is a direct result of a "house party" where the occupants (almost always - natives) get drunk, an argument breaks out and a kitchen knife is used.

The other side is the native gangs who grab or make anything cheap and sharp and menacing to use. "Dime store" machetes are the recent trend. They will use the weapon to threaten, force and provoke issues including territorial fights. This is the biggest thing that the politicians are after when they talk of more laws and greater prosecution of the existing laws. The problems begin where the law abiding citizens get sideswiped in the process.