
Quoting
aardvarc
Yes. In the context given, beyond it's state of being a cane, it was used as a weapon in a case where subjects received injuries. Police would tyupically want to seize ANY weapon, in case the DA determined that they wanted to bring a charge. If the DA feels it was clearly self defense, no charges. If the DA feels that the use of force exceeded the level needed to avert the threat, then charges are possible.
Probably not - but it's dependent on circumstances we don't have.
Save them from WHAT, exactly. From being harassed? From being physically harmed? Had there been actual threats? How did the blind subject determine that harm was imminent? Who struck the first blow? There's a LOT more that needs to be known before a reasonable opinion on whether the use and level of force was justifiable. Having multiple assailants, as opposed to a single assailant, can have the effect of a DA (or jury, if it gets that far) allowing for a much greater use of force because (a) the possibility of injury to the defender or those being defended is increased exponentialy, and (b) only using the minimal force to stop the immediate threat, which is the crux of all self defense cases, ceases to be prudent with multiple assailants - in other words, if you don't disable some of them proactively, which may take MORE than the force they are exerting, then it's only a matter of time before the numbers game ends to the detrement of the defender.
Until any criminal charges were settled.
The victim would ask the DA to return any personal property, or ask the victim advocate to handle the matter.
Unless it was some priceless artifact, I fail to see why anyone would even raise an eyebrow. Such canes can be easily found for under $20 and replaced on the way home - most major drug stores sell the standard folding models, and medical supply stores and online retailers provide more advanced options (police aren't going to just walk away from the guy and leave him standing on the street corner, caneless). The issue isn't whether he used to cane to save a woman and child, the LEGAL issue is that the cane was being used as a weapon. Just as if someone wearing dentures bit someone and inflicted injury. Similarly, the state could seize the dentures as part of any criminal case (to show that the dentures in question were the ones that inflicted the wounds). Canes and dentures are certainly important aids, but people absolutely can live without them for the time that it would take to replace them or could choose to live without them until the end of the case.