Talk:Baton (law enforcement)

Final section issues

The section on the end about blows to noncritical areas causing possible death seems both redundant and is poorly written.

Tools?

Is there a reason why this article refers to pepper spray, Tasers, and batons as "tools" instead of weapons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.36.20 (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• A weapon can be a tool used by certain people to do their job. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • A "weapon" is a type of tool, in particular a tool used to inflict pain, ijure, or cause death.

Probably because calling it a weapon gives it a negative connotation. In much the same way that 'police force' sounds passive aggressive, whereas 'police service' simply sounds passive neutral. It's more of a deterrent in application anyway, whereas weapons intend to harm or outright kill with minimal effort. - NemFX (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed Section

Rapid rotation baton

Rapid rotation baton

Rapid rotation batons focus on handle characteristics that permit rapid and fluid grip changes as well as incorporating an additional hand protector and "rotator" to a normal tonfa in the form of a "cross-guard". It is purportedly effective as an extreme close quarter baton against grips, grabs, body holds and ground defense. It has recently been picked up by the Federal Bureau of Prisons for maximum custody use.

Roy Bedard, a Tallahassee Police officer, designed the RRB in 1995 due to his belief in that the current baton being offered was ineffective. The telescopic baton, usually known as the ASP baton, had a tendancy to collapse upon impact, and did not provide the user with a defensive position. The RRB is used by many different agencies, primarily for agencies who use community policing, due to the RRB's non-threatening carry position.

why was this section removed? i looked up info on the RRB and the talk page was the first result. I think it deserves to be on the page. Is it deemed low quality? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warmallis0n (talk • contribs) 04:35, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Another Removed Section

Cuffing baton

Cuffing baton (Apprehender CB-01)

A cuffing baton marries a baton design and an integrated handcuff. The baton itself is reminiscent of the steering wheel locking device commonly known as "the Club" - it has a long straight section and a "y-shaped" yoke at the other end. The yoke includes a triggered handcuff that can be remotely unlocked.

Notability issues here: no independent (non-press release) verification of Cuffing Baton's popularity, use, or innovative nature. --98.224.250.238 (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Expandable-Baton: Interesting Legal Paradox

While illegal for civilians in California (as far as I know. I don't know CA law very well), I don't know if they're illegal in many other American states. They are not illegal in Maryland, for example, due to (among other factors) an interesting paradox: If the law were to rule them a "deadly weapon" explicitly, it would cause liability issues for police officers. While in reality not intending to be deadly, every use of the baton by a police officer would automatically qualify as "deadly force," with all the mess that comes with it. I don't know about other states though. I was intended to work that section to be a bit more balanced across the United States.Legitimus (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Having worked as a police officer before, this is inaccurate from our training doctrine. A baton (of any sort, fixed, expandable etc) was a hard intermediate weapon, just below deadly force on our scale It was only classed as "deadly force" if it was used on the head of a subject. I've seen several training doctrines that place it as less than deadly force, such as the ASP training course, PPCT course, but as I have hard copies of these resources, I can't link to an example until I find something similar. Paladin656 (talk) 09:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very glad to have your perspective on this as a officer. Just a clarification though: I was referring to civilian carry for self-defense purposes. And I was referring to statutory criminal law, rather than police procedure manuals. The wrinkle here is that concealed weapon possession laws with regards to civilians are often approaching strict-liability, meaning that the actual usage in the eyes of the courts means nothing, mere possession is the crime. Of course many jurisdictions use different language to describe weapons that are unlawful to carry.

I misunderstood the comment then, I thought we were speaking strictly in the use of police officers. Civilian possession varies in the US probably by state law in most areas. Where I'm at, you can get a permit for one, such as through a security guard training program. Paladin656 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting hypothetical, if batons are to be regarded as just below deadly force, what happens if a criminal is armed with one? Is deadly force to subdue him/her justifiable?Legitimus (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

That exact question has come up in training that I've attended. It would depend on the full scope of the circumstances. Police are trained to use a baton in a non lethal way, striking in a way to disable or minimize a threat rather than kill. In the hands of an untrained person, well, think of someone holding a metal baseball bat. They -can- kill you with it. Is that they're intent? How close is backup? How many of them are there, versus how many of you? It's not really a black or white, in some circumstances, yes, deadly force can be justified, in others no. Paladin656 (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Paladin656 responses. Also make note, batons are apparently legal to wear in Alaska and (western) Canada, while Canada makes many other less than lethal tools illegal such as simple pepper sprays. (Canada is known for being strict with firearms.) As for California, it is even illegal (the last I knew) to carry a baseball bat. Personally some parts of California's laws I do not agree with, because many other civilians with criminal intent simply arm themselves with very large dogs and then supposedly accidentally and routinely drop or forget their dog's leash. (I've witnessed this scenario routinely within Oregon and Alaska.) And good luck calling Animal Control at most times, depending on the State or County of the US you live within. Best bet is to talk with local police and acquire some understanding of what you can and cannot do. Personally, I think I like Ohio's wording best, as the law doesn't apparently prevent using less than lethal force for which is usually preferred. Go figure as to what California's focus is, as I've even witnessed one security officer almost cited for having a baseball bat in the back seat of their vehicle, for which they earlier confiscated from some teenagers using the baseball bat for criminal activity. (Of course, I'm only telling an abbreviated form of the story of the California baseball bat scenario, but I think most will get my point.) And for untrained civilians, I wouldn't suggest carrying a baton as the tool will be somewhat useless, unless trained and experienced. --roger (talk) 00:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

What about having a retractable baton in your home and always within the confines of your residence? Is that still illegal in California? Also, you stated baseball bats are illegal to carry in public. I've seen kids and adults carry baseball bats while walking to the local park. Are they at risk of being arrested for walking with a lethal weapon in public? Same question applies to hammers and axes. I've seen men carrying these things around for work and in any given scenario could be caught up in a physical altercation where said tools could be used in the conflict. I'm just curious because the definition parameters lethal weapons sure seem vague. You can order a lethal pocket knife and carry it around in public in California last I checked.--47.157.17.126 (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Legal batons versus those shown.

The types of batons show would be strictly illegal everywhere I am aware of with the exception of the expandable baton; By law they must be a UNIFORM diameter, that is the same diameter from the grip to the tip (there’s some play from the grip down, but not much). ¿So why are patently illegal batons being displayed? (It can’t POSSIBLY be to generate ill-will to them or anything…) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.68.186 (talk) 03:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about the legal issues, but it's certainly not what I would think of as a typical police baton. How about replacing it with something like this? It shows a fairly typical straight baton, and manner of use. sorsoup (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Illegal? How? If they are used by the police for riot control? Anyway, the picture depicts a "control" baton which has a thonged end for primary grip and a serrated end for a secondary grip. Allowing the user to use both hands to immolize, ie control, somebody. They are very effective when used properly.--209.213.220.227 (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What in blazes was the original poster smoking? What is "legal" is a multi-dimensional word and what it is varies by country, but state, and by police department. Police are generally not prohibited from carrying any kind of weapon even if the same is illegal for the civilian populace. Rather, the type of baton used by sworn law enforcement is contingent upon their departmental requirements. Some departments give officers their batons, some allow the officer to use an alternative style so long as he pays for it, others require that he must use the issued baton or must buy one of several approved types.

Civilians on the other hand, it depends on the jurisdiction. Most US states allow ownership of batons, but carry is subject to restriction. There is generally no prohibition against specific types, but rather all batons are treated the same under the common legal term "billy." Examples: Maryland and Indiana have no laws prohibiting civilians from owning and carrying batons for self-defense. Tennessee allows civilians to carry as long as they have a training certificate. California allows security guards to carry them.Legitimus (talk) 21:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

UK Law on telescopic batons

As a note to the above ; Telescopic Batons are not offensive weapons, rather they are defensive, intended for self defense ( being a blunt instrument )- perfectly legal to own in the UK. Any comment other than this openly legitimizes the UK Police therefore to carry offensive weapons- which is an illegal act for any persons, law enforcement personnel included. Am surprised that Wikipedia openly made such a erroneous legal statement in this regard. --86.129.226.205 (talk)

If I recall correctly, AFOs in the UK police carry machine guns. So those are legal to own too, are they?Legitimus (talk) 12:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the state has this funny thing called a monopoly on the use of force, which means the police are allowed to carry things like that. Goodness knows where you got your interpretation of UK law from, because it's wholly innaccurate. Batons are designed to cause injury to a person regardless of whether that's in self-defence or otherwise. You cannot posess anything in public in the UK "for the purpose of self defence" (unless you reasonably believe that you are about to be attacked), because such an item would be designed to injure a person and therefore be an offensive weapon. They're perfectly legal to own in your house, but everything else you might do with them is illegal. ninety:one 16:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, restrictions on weapondry in statute contain an exception "for the purposes of functions carried out on behalf of the Crown." The police are agents of the state (called the Crown in UK law), and therefore do not count for purposes of weapon and force restrictions (though they have internal rules that apply).

Though regarding Weber's monopoly on the use of force, it actually refers to how one defines a government. The right to use force or violence always derives its legitimacy from the state; it's simply a matter of how much the state allows from country to country. The UK allows almost none. In the US, most states allow the carry of handguns for self-defense, but the ability to do so legally is entirely dependent on the blessing of the government. And if we ever use gun or baton against another person, we are judged by the government (i.e. police and courts) as justified or not, based on the government's law and process. In this way, the government still has a monopoly on the use of force, because it still controls its legitimacy.Legitimus (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear - I was replying to the IP! Not sure whether you bit about the monopoly of the use of force was directed at me or not - but I agree. (Interestingly, simple possession is just "lawful authority", which can be something of a minefield! And before a gun nut descends on this page, in the UK the standard issue weapon is apparently a sub-machine gun, altered to fire a single or triple burst.) ninety:one 23:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My mistake, my first comment was directed at the IP as an expansion on my previous comment. The stuff about monopoly was tangentially a clarification on what the term means, as I think you may have been referring to a different concept in philosphy of law whose name escapes me.Legitimus (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I was using quite a practical application of Weber, that was all! But ultimately it's where "lawful authority" and "functions carried out on behalf of the Crown" come from. ninety:one 14:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Duplicate page?

There is another Wikipedia page called Club (weapon) that appears to duplicate, or at least to overlap with, this page. Thomas.Hedden (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Baton (law enforcement). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402122824/http://nypdrecruit.com:80/inside-nypd/nypd-history to http://www.nypdrecruit.com/inside-nypd/nypd-history
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511022315/http://www.wvstatepolice.com:80/training/educator/july_2001.htm to http://www.wvstatepolice.com/training/educator/july_2001.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070302130119/http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk:80/rds/prgpdfs/fprs11.pdf to http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/prgpdfs/fprs11.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928122333/http://www.safetyenforcement.com/testba.html to http://www.safetyenforcement.com/testba.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.baycoproducts.com/index.php/about-nightstick. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 17:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

baton weapon and Slapjack (weapon)

The section on this article claims that these two are of "similar design", but what I'm seeing is slightly different wording for exactly the same thing. Can anyone provide an explanation for how these two weapons are different, aside from the other article including less professionally-made weapons? -- Fyrael (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I contend they are the same thing, and think that other article needs to be deleted or merged into this this one. The other has no real sourcing, just a link to a blog about multitools.

I also feel there needs to be some strengthening in the sourcing for these various "weighted clubs" of the 19th and 20th century. They're are many types and it's very inconsistent. Arguably many of them are not really "batons" nor law enforcement weapons.Legitimus (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Stanky Doodle listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stanky Doodle. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:06, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

History

The article seems to suggest that the baton originated in Victorian England as the "billy club". Examples of these truncheons with a royal warrant painted on them come up frequently at auction from Georgian times.

Its origin as a badge of office is the "tipstaff" and these are mentioned as early as 1555. See Tipstaff

The tipstaff is represented on the badge of Assistant Chief Constables (Commanders, in the Met.) File:Rank_insignia_of_police_ACC_or_commander.jpg 151.170.240.200 (talk) 05:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Good piece of information! This appears probable, but I will need to find some more solid sources so that they can be incorporated. I have a few I'll look into and get back to this.Legitimus (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Status

This Article fell in the category "Military history articles with incomplete B-Class checklists", it has now been completed. It has been promoted to B-Class. It is recommended that it is nominated to GA-Class.

SEKDIS (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

video of baton used in crowd control

File:Chicago Protests - UNBADGED COP - WHERE'S YOUR BADGE - 5 30 2020.webm This video could be used to show the use of the baton in a crowd-control situation. Victor Grigas (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)