Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Knife confiscated at County Court
256 views
Skip to first unread message
Sara
Apr 17, 2013, 4:40:02 AM4/17/13
to
I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
which would be within 28 days of the request.
I wrote to them the next day (recorded, to make sure they got the
letter) but have never heard from the court and have not received my
knife back.
Obviously my next step is to contact them again and ask why they haven't
sent it, but if they still ignore me, what redress do I have?
--
Sara
cats cats cats cats cats
Sara
Apr 17, 2013, 5:50:02 AM4/17/13
to
In article
<saramerriman-C5C3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Realised I put the wrong court in the title. I get so confused, so
easily...
<saramerriman-C5C3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
Realised I put the wrong court in the title. I get so confused, so
easily...
Adam Funk
Apr 17, 2013, 6:05:09 AM4/17/13
to
On 2013-04-17, Sara wrote:
>
> I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
> Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
> explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
> I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
>
> However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
> confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
> tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
> of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
> had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
> which would be within 28 days of the request.
I don't understand the logic in that --- why shouldn't they just hand
>
> I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
> Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
> explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
> I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
>
> However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
> confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
> tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
> of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
> had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
> which would be within 28 days of the request.
such property back in exchange for the receipt on the way out?
> I wrote to them the next day (recorded, to make sure they got the
> letter) but have never heard from the court and have not received my
> knife back.
>
> Obviously my next step is to contact them again and ask why they haven't
> sent it, but if they still ignore me, what redress do I have?
Sara
Apr 17, 2013, 6:50:02 AM4/17/13
to
In article <21824ax...@news.ducksburg.com>,
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
> On 2013-04-17, Sara wrote:
>
> >
> > I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
> > Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
> > explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
> > I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
> >
> > However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
> > confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
> > tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
> > of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
> > had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
> > which would be within 28 days of the request.
>
> I don't understand the logic in that --- why shouldn't they just hand
> such property back in exchange for the receipt on the way out?
>
No idea - but their notices say they won't.
> On 2013-04-17, Sara wrote:
>
> >
> > I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
> > Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
> > explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
> > I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
> >
> > However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
> > confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
> > tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
> > of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
> > had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
> > which would be within 28 days of the request.
>
> I don't understand the logic in that --- why shouldn't they just hand
> such property back in exchange for the receipt on the way out?
>
>
> > I wrote to them the next day (recorded, to make sure they got the
> > letter) but have never heard from the court and have not received my
> > knife back.
> >
> > Obviously my next step is to contact them again and ask why they haven't
> > sent it, but if they still ignore me, what redress do I have?
>
> I wish you success, as I've had similar problems in the past.
Ah. BUgger - that doesn't bode well!
> > I wrote to them the next day (recorded, to make sure they got the
> > letter) but have never heard from the court and have not received my
> > knife back.
> >
> > Obviously my next step is to contact them again and ask why they haven't
> > sent it, but if they still ignore me, what redress do I have?
>
> I wish you success, as I've had similar problems in the past.
The Todal
Apr 17, 2013, 7:00:04 AM4/17/13
to
security, and ask if I can pop by later today to pick up my knife. Court
staff are often sloppy about reading letters. They get so many.
If they have lost it, write to the Court Service to claim reimbursement
of the cost.
Message has been deleted
Paul Rudin
Apr 17, 2013, 11:10:02 AM4/17/13
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> writes:
> But at least with letters (and emails) you have proof it happened. Unless
> you record a phone call, it's amazing how many people "forget" it ever
> happened.
Right, but they're not mutually exclusive. Try a 'phone call - if it
proves fruitless then send a letter...
> But at least with letters (and emails) you have proof it happened. Unless
> you record a phone call, it's amazing how many people "forget" it ever
> happened.
Right, but they're not mutually exclusive. Try a 'phone call - if it
proves fruitless then send a letter...
David Hearn
Apr 17, 2013, 11:30:02 AM4/17/13
to
On 17/04/2013 11:05, Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2013-04-17, Sara wrote:
>
>>
>> I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
>> Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
>> explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
>> I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
>>
>> However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
>> confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
>> tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
>> of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
>> had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
>> which would be within 28 days of the request.
>
> I don't understand the logic in that --- why shouldn't they just hand
> such property back in exchange for the receipt on the way out?
That's exactly what Guildford Crown Court did a few years ago when I was
> On 2013-04-17, Sara wrote:
>
>>
>> I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
>> Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
>> explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
>> I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
>>
>> However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
>> confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
>> tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
>> of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
>> had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
>> which would be within 28 days of the request.
>
> I don't understand the logic in that --- why shouldn't they just hand
> such property back in exchange for the receipt on the way out?
viewing a trial, but had forgotten to leave my nail clippers at home.
Got a receipt, and picked up the clippers again on the way out.
D
Walt
Apr 17, 2013, 9:05:02 AM4/17/13
to
Sara <sarame...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in news:saramerriman-
C5C3D5.093...@news.eternal-september.org:
By what Act or Regulation do they think they can retain your property?
If they won't return it, try reporting the theft (taking with intent to
deprive)to the police.
Walt
C5C3D5.093...@news.eternal-september.org:
If they won't return it, try reporting the theft (taking with intent to
deprive)to the police.
Walt
Mike Bristow
Apr 17, 2013, 12:35:02 PM4/17/13
to
In article <XnsA1A58E7927...@216.196.109.145>,
They probably do have the right to refuse you access to the building
unless you e.g. consent to a search and consent to leave anything they
find objectionable with the security guard.
> If they won't return it, try reporting the theft (taking with intent to
> deprive)to the police.
It'll go nowhere as there is no chance unless you can (reasonably)
claim that there is dishonesty. Note: cockup is not dishonest.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Walt <wa...@walt.com> wrote:
> By what Act or Regulation do they think they can retain your property?
They probably don't think they have that right without your consent.
> By what Act or Regulation do they think they can retain your property?
They probably do have the right to refuse you access to the building
unless you e.g. consent to a search and consent to leave anything they
find objectionable with the security guard.
> If they won't return it, try reporting the theft (taking with intent to
> deprive)to the police.
claim that there is dishonesty. Note: cockup is not dishonest.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Syd Rumpo
Apr 17, 2013, 12:20:02 PM4/17/13
to
Cheers
--
Syd
the Omrud
Apr 17, 2013, 12:45:05 PM4/17/13
to
for carrying without normally attracting interest of the authorities?
Blades no longer than 3", and which do not lock open.
I've had to stop carrying my Leatherman Wave because it falls foul on
the grounds that the blades lock open. So I have to carry a less-safe
Leatherman original tool, which is liable to snap shut on your fingers
if you're not careful.
--
David
Dr Zoidberg
Apr 17, 2013, 3:15:02 PM4/17/13
to
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wiAbt.8635$8L4...@fx29.fr7...
> On 17/04/2013 09:40, Sara wrote:
>> I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
>> Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
>> explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
>> I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
>>
>> However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
>> confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
>> tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
>> of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
>> had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
>> which would be within 28 days of the request.
>>
>> I wrote to them the next day (recorded, to make sure they got the
>> letter) but have never heard from the court and have not received my
>> knife back.
>>
>> Obviously my next step is to contact them again and ask why they haven't
>> sent it, but if they still ignore me, what redress do I have?
>
> Just out of interest - does your knive conform to the permitted limits for
> carrying without normally attracting interest of the authorities? Blades
> no longer than 3", and which do not lock open.
Yes, it would do.
>> I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
>> Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
>> explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
>> I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
>>
>> However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
>> confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
>> tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
>> of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
>> had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
>> which would be within 28 days of the request.
>>
>> I wrote to them the next day (recorded, to make sure they got the
>> letter) but have never heard from the court and have not received my
>> knife back.
>>
>> Obviously my next step is to contact them again and ask why they haven't
>> sent it, but if they still ignore me, what redress do I have?
>
> Just out of interest - does your knive conform to the permitted limits for
> carrying without normally attracting interest of the authorities? Blades
> no longer than 3", and which do not lock open.
The "standard" size Victorinox knives have a 2.75" blade without a lock.
I believe the limit was specified with these in mind.
--
Alex
GB
Apr 17, 2013, 3:30:02 PM4/17/13
to
On 17/04/2013 20:15, Dr Zoidberg wrote:
> Yes, it would do.
> The "standard" size Victorinox knives have a 2.75" blade without a lock.
> I believe the limit was specified with these in mind.
>
How do you measure the length of the blade? I'm not joking! There's
> Yes, it would do.
> The "standard" size Victorinox knives have a 2.75" blade without a lock.
> I believe the limit was specified with these in mind.
>
probably an extra 1/4" to 1/2" of blade inside the hinge part of the knife.
Neil Williams
Apr 17, 2013, 3:40:01 PM4/17/13
to
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> How do you measure the length of the blade? I'm not joking! There's
> probably an extra 1/4" to 1/2" of blade inside the hinge part of the knife.
The logical answer would be the part protruding from the handle, as that is
> How do you measure the length of the blade? I'm not joking! There's
> probably an extra 1/4" to 1/2" of blade inside the hinge part of the knife.
the only part available for use.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.
Message has been deleted
Adam Funk
Apr 17, 2013, 4:05:01 PM4/17/13
to
On 2013-04-17, Neil Williams wrote:
> GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you measure the length of the blade? I'm not joking! There's
>> probably an extra 1/4" to 1/2" of blade inside the hinge part of the knife.
>
> The logical answer would be the part protruding from the handle, as that is
> the only part available for use.
Is "available for use" a euphemism for "practical to stick into
> GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> How do you measure the length of the blade? I'm not joking! There's
>> probably an extra 1/4" to 1/2" of blade inside the hinge part of the knife.
>
> The logical answer would be the part protruding from the handle, as that is
> the only part available for use.
someone"?
Message has been deleted
Adam Funk
Apr 17, 2013, 2:05:09 PM4/17/13
to
may be silly security theatre, that sounds reasonable. I can
understand not allowing penknives & such in court, but I can't see any
excuse for not returning them on exit.
Humbug
Apr 17, 2013, 6:35:02 PM4/17/13
to
On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:05:09 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com>
wrote:
On September 13 2001 my nail clippers were confiscated at Luton
Airport.
The security officer folded out the blunt-ended blade of the nail
file, and said "This is classed as an offensive weapon".
He added "actually, I could do more damage with a bar of soap and a
sock", but he still confiscated it.
When I arrived home on 19 September, I emptied out the pockets of my
coat and found a packet of twelve 3-inch No. 10 decking screws which I
had bought in Homebase and forgotten about.
They'd been through x-ray security at two major European airports.
It seems likely that they were specifically looking for ordinary
personal effects and making a point of showing The Public how
hazardous they could be, and so were too busy to notice an item which
could easily be turned into a weapon with not very much ingenuity.
--
Humbug
wrote:
Airport.
The security officer folded out the blunt-ended blade of the nail
file, and said "This is classed as an offensive weapon".
He added "actually, I could do more damage with a bar of soap and a
sock", but he still confiscated it.
When I arrived home on 19 September, I emptied out the pockets of my
coat and found a packet of twelve 3-inch No. 10 decking screws which I
had bought in Homebase and forgotten about.
They'd been through x-ray security at two major European airports.
It seems likely that they were specifically looking for ordinary
personal effects and making a point of showing The Public how
hazardous they could be, and so were too busy to notice an item which
could easily be turned into a weapon with not very much ingenuity.
--
Humbug
Dr Zoidberg
Apr 18, 2013, 4:10:01 AM4/18/13
to
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:516ef72f$0$1108$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk...
--
Alex
Sara
Apr 18, 2013, 4:40:02 AM4/18/13
to
In article <wiAbt.8635$8L4...@fx29.fr7>,
the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/04/2013 09:40, Sara wrote:
> > I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
> > Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
> > explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
> > I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
> >
> > However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
> > confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
> > tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
> > of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
> > had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
> > which would be within 28 days of the request.
> >
> > I wrote to them the next day (recorded, to make sure they got the
> > letter) but have never heard from the court and have not received my
> > knife back.
> >
> > Obviously my next step is to contact them again and ask why they haven't
> > sent it, but if they still ignore me, what redress do I have?
>
> Just out of interest - does your knive conform to the permitted limits
> for carrying without normally attracting interest of the authorities?
> Blades no longer than 3", and which do not lock open.
Yes. The longest blade is less than 3" and none of them lock open.
> On 17/04/2013 09:40, Sara wrote:
> > I went to Kingston Crown Court at the beginning of March instead of
> > Kingston County Court to deliver some documents. The receptionist
> > explained where I should have been instead (just around the corner) and
> > I left, feeling a bit of a twit.
> >
> > However to get to the receptionist I had to pass through security, who
> > confiscated my Victorinox Cybertool (a type of penknife that also has
> > tools for taking computers apart) which I've had for many years and is
> > of great sentimental value to me. They gave me a receipt and told me I
> > had 28 days to write in to the court manager to request its return,
> > which would be within 28 days of the request.
> >
> > I wrote to them the next day (recorded, to make sure they got the
> > letter) but have never heard from the court and have not received my
> > knife back.
> >
> > Obviously my next step is to contact them again and ask why they haven't
> > sent it, but if they still ignore me, what redress do I have?
>
> Just out of interest - does your knive conform to the permitted limits
> for carrying without normally attracting interest of the authorities?
> Blades no longer than 3", and which do not lock open.
>
> I've had to stop carrying my Leatherman Wave because it falls foul on
> the grounds that the blades lock open. So I have to carry a less-safe
> Leatherman original tool, which is liable to snap shut on your fingers
> if you're not careful.
--
> I've had to stop carrying my Leatherman Wave because it falls foul on
> the grounds that the blades lock open. So I have to carry a less-safe
> Leatherman original tool, which is liable to snap shut on your fingers
> if you're not careful.
--
Nightjar
Apr 18, 2013, 4:50:02 AM4/18/13
to
On 17/04/2013 20:51, newshound wrote:
....
> Presumably the retractable and foldable Stanley knives fail technically
> under the "locking" rule. I have several in car and other mobile tool
> kits. I suppose a carpet fitter has a reasonable excuse for carrying
> such things, but how about the rest of us?
>
ISTR there was a case where a carpet fitter was found guilty of an
offence as he had more than the Court thought reasonable in his van. I
don't think it was many knives either. Of course, there may have been
other factors involved, such as a previous record of knife crime.
Colin Bignell
....
> Presumably the retractable and foldable Stanley knives fail technically
> under the "locking" rule. I have several in car and other mobile tool
> kits. I suppose a carpet fitter has a reasonable excuse for carrying
> such things, but how about the rest of us?
>
ISTR there was a case where a carpet fitter was found guilty of an
offence as he had more than the Court thought reasonable in his van. I
don't think it was many knives either. Of course, there may have been
other factors involved, such as a previous record of knife crime.
Colin Bignell
Lordgnome
Apr 18, 2013, 7:35:01 AM4/18/13
to
shows where a legitimate forester was detained for carrying a chain saw
in public. How else one is expected to take it to the dealer for
spares/service, I know not.
Les.
David L. Martel
Apr 18, 2013, 8:45:01 AM4/18/13
to
Syd,
>
> You need dishonesty too for theft.
Failing to issue a receipt and failure to return the item seem to argue
for dishonesty.
Dave M.
>
> You need dishonesty too for theft.
for dishonesty.
Dave M.
Syd Rumpo
Apr 18, 2013, 9:05:01 AM4/18/13
to
"They gave me a receipt and told me I had 28 days to write in to the
court manager to request its return..."
</OP>
Cheers
--
Syd
David L. Martel
Apr 18, 2013, 1:40:01 PM4/18/13
to
Syd,
You're right. Can't say how i missed the receipt.
Dave M.
You're right. Can't say how i missed the receipt.
Dave M.
fred
Apr 18, 2013, 10:00:06 AM4/18/13
to
Nightjar <c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> wrote in
news:Hbydncdjmq-4LvLM...@giganews.com:
I wonder if you are thinking of the wholesale newspaper delivery driver
who was pulled for knives and argued that he needed them to cut the
straps binding the bundles of newspaper together but frequently
misplaced them? I think in that case the court viewed the number of
knives stashed about the van to be excessive and there was a hint there
was a bit more to the case than was reported in the press.
Dodgy bloke or forgetful knife user?
Personally I have multiple stanley type bladed knives (7<?>) as I never
seem to be able to find one when I need one, but only one in the car
tool kit.
Going back to the 'cutting edge' length rule, it seems to imply that a
folding sword with blunt sides but with only a a sharpened point could
comply with the rules despite being able to cause serious damage by
piercing.
--
fred
news:Hbydncdjmq-4LvLM...@giganews.com:
who was pulled for knives and argued that he needed them to cut the
straps binding the bundles of newspaper together but frequently
misplaced them? I think in that case the court viewed the number of
knives stashed about the van to be excessive and there was a hint there
was a bit more to the case than was reported in the press.
Dodgy bloke or forgetful knife user?
Personally I have multiple stanley type bladed knives (7<?>) as I never
seem to be able to find one when I need one, but only one in the car
tool kit.
Going back to the 'cutting edge' length rule, it seems to imply that a
folding sword with blunt sides but with only a a sharpened point could
comply with the rules despite being able to cause serious damage by
piercing.
--
fred
Stuart Bronstein
Apr 18, 2013, 10:30:03 PM4/18/13
to
Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>> That's exactly what Guildford Crown Court did a few years ago
>> when I was viewing a trial, but had forgotten to leave my nail
>> clippers at home. Got a receipt, and picked up the clippers
>> again on the way out.
>
> Apart from the point that putting nail clippers on the forbidden
> list may be silly security theatre, that sounds reasonable. I
> can understand not allowing penknives & such in court, but I
> can't see any excuse for not returning them on exit.
I once had a Swiss Army Knife taken when I entered one court
>> That's exactly what Guildford Crown Court did a few years ago
>> when I was viewing a trial, but had forgotten to leave my nail
>> clippers at home. Got a receipt, and picked up the clippers
>> again on the way out.
>
> Apart from the point that putting nail clippers on the forbidden
> list may be silly security theatre, that sounds reasonable. I
> can understand not allowing penknives & such in court, but I
> can't see any excuse for not returning them on exit.
building. They told me to come collect it the following day. When
I did, they sent me to an office on the 18th floor, where they just
handed it to me and let me wander around the building with it.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
GB
Apr 19, 2013, 3:30:02 AM4/19/13
to
On 19/04/2013 03:30, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> I once had a Swiss Army Knife taken when I entered one court
> building. They told me to come collect it the following day. When
> I did, they sent me to an office on the 18th floor, where they just
> handed it to me and let me wander around the building with it.
How about your 2nd Amendment 'right' to carry a gun? Are you allowed to
> I once had a Swiss Army Knife taken when I entered one court
> building. They told me to come collect it the following day. When
> I did, they sent me to an office on the 18th floor, where they just
> handed it to me and let me wander around the building with it.
take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
Adam Funk
Apr 19, 2013, 5:50:02 AM4/19/13
to
Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
police officer).
Roland Perry
Apr 19, 2013, 9:10:16 AM4/19/13
to
In message <15g74ax...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 10:50:02 on Fri, 19
Apr 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
derogation. Secret Service, and probably US Marshals, for example.
In fact, the expression "Police Officer" doesn't seem to mean quite the
same in the USA. The chap who was shot at MIT last night was a
"University Police Officer", something we don't really have an
equivalent of here (a kind of local BTP equivalent for Uni Campuses).
When I lived in Atlanta I decided that some places seemed to be within
the jurisdiction of anything up to five different "people in police
cars" once you count the almost-private ones, county and state, highway
patrol and FBI.
MIT is currently crawling with four of those (MIT police, Boston Police,
Massachusetts Police and FBI) and perhaps the Highway Patrol was
involved in the car chase to Watertown.
ps And then there's the US Postal Inspection Service (who seem to have
picked up the tab for a lot of child abuse investigations) not to
mention Homeland Security and the Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
And Explosives.
--
Roland Perry
Apr 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>> How about your 2nd Amendment 'right' to carry a gun? Are you allowed to
>> take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
>
>No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
>Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
>police officer).
I'm sure there will be many more people than police officers with a
>> take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
>
>No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
>Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
>police officer).
derogation. Secret Service, and probably US Marshals, for example.
In fact, the expression "Police Officer" doesn't seem to mean quite the
same in the USA. The chap who was shot at MIT last night was a
"University Police Officer", something we don't really have an
equivalent of here (a kind of local BTP equivalent for Uni Campuses).
When I lived in Atlanta I decided that some places seemed to be within
the jurisdiction of anything up to five different "people in police
cars" once you count the almost-private ones, county and state, highway
patrol and FBI.
MIT is currently crawling with four of those (MIT police, Boston Police,
Massachusetts Police and FBI) and perhaps the Highway Patrol was
involved in the car chase to Watertown.
ps And then there's the US Postal Inspection Service (who seem to have
picked up the tab for a lot of child abuse investigations) not to
mention Homeland Security and the Bureau Of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
And Explosives.
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
John Briggs
Apr 19, 2013, 7:25:02 AM4/19/13
to
On 19/04/2013 03:30, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
claiming to be a Secret Service Agent: he was allowed to take his gun
onto the aircraft (he counted as an air marshal) but they confiscated
his knife as the permit didn't cover that!
--
John Briggs
Ian Smith
Apr 19, 2013, 11:20:08 AM4/19/13
to
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:50:02 +0100, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
> Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
> police officer).
I know a UK clergyman who went on a job-swap with a USA-ian one who
>
> No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
> Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
> police officer).
did some sort of chaplaincy role with the police. He was slightly
surprised to be offered a gun when he was about to go out on patrol
with some officers. He was even more surprised when they told him
that clergy are permitted to carry their gun concealed (most people
are not). I've a recollection that the latter conditions may have
been state or local law rather than federal. He declined, as it
happens.
But the point is - he would have been a non-police-officer who would
have been carrying a (concealed) firearm on federal property, at the
suggestion of the police, so presumably legally.
regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
Adam Funk
Apr 19, 2013, 4:35:02 PM4/19/13
to
On 2013-04-19, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <15g74ax...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 10:50:02 on Fri, 19
> Apr 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>> How about your 2nd Amendment 'right' to carry a gun? Are you allowed to
>>> take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
>>
>>No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
>>Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
>>police officer).
>
> I'm sure there will be many more people than police officers with a
> derogation. Secret Service, and probably US Marshals, for example.
Yes, good point. Also, I think that police officers can't generally
> In message <15g74ax...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 10:50:02 on Fri, 19
> Apr 2013, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>>> How about your 2nd Amendment 'right' to carry a gun? Are you allowed to
>>> take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
>>
>>No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
>>Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
>>police officer).
>
> I'm sure there will be many more people than police officers with a
> derogation. Secret Service, and probably US Marshals, for example.
go into courthouse armed --- only the ones who are supposed to be
armed in a courthouse can do so, & those appearing as witnesses
(usually for the prosecution) are supposed to check their weapons at
the entrance.
S
Apr 19, 2013, 4:45:01 PM4/19/13
to
On 19 Apr, 14:10, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <15g74axkm6....@news.ducksburg.com>, at 10:50:02 on Fri, 19
> Apr 2013, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
> In message <15g74axkm6....@news.ducksburg.com>, at 10:50:02 on Fri, 19
> Apr 2013, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> remarked:
>
> >> How about your 2nd Amendment 'right' to carry a gun? Are you allowed to
> >> take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
>
> >No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
> >Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
> >police officer).
>
> I'm sure there will be many more people than police officers with a
> derogation. Secret Service, and probably US Marshals, for example.
The are all law enforcement officers.
> >> How about your 2nd Amendment 'right' to carry a gun? Are you allowed to
> >> take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
>
> >No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
> >Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
> >police officer).
>
> I'm sure there will be many more people than police officers with a
> derogation. Secret Service, and probably US Marshals, for example.
S
Apr 19, 2013, 4:55:02 PM4/19/13
to
On 19 Apr, 16:20, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
under federal law to sell or to give weapons to foreigners who are not
permanent residents, the major exception is licenced hunters. A law
enforcement officer of a friendly foreign country would also be OK,
but a police chaplain would not qualify, and in any case I do not see
police giving a gun to someone who has not had any training. The thing
about clergy being exempted from the concealed carry laws is
definitely bogus, it would be a massive loophole as anybody can get
ordained in an internet church for a few dollars.
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:50:02 +0100, Adam Funk <a240...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
> > No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
> > Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
> > police officer).
>
> I know a UK clergyman who went on a job-swap with a USA-ian one who
> did some sort of chaplaincy role with the police. He was slightly
> surprised to be offered a gun when he was about to go out on patrol
> with some officers. He was even more surprised when they told him
> that clergy are permitted to carry their gun concealed (most people
> are not). I've a recollection that the latter conditions may have
> been state or local law rather than federal. He declined, as it
> happens.
I have the feeling he may have embellished his story. It is illegal
>
> > No, & I think it's also illegal to carry a firearm on US Postal
> > Service premises & other kinds of federal property (unless you're a
> > police officer).
>
> I know a UK clergyman who went on a job-swap with a USA-ian one who
> did some sort of chaplaincy role with the police. He was slightly
> surprised to be offered a gun when he was about to go out on patrol
> with some officers. He was even more surprised when they told him
> that clergy are permitted to carry their gun concealed (most people
> are not). I've a recollection that the latter conditions may have
> been state or local law rather than federal. He declined, as it
> happens.
under federal law to sell or to give weapons to foreigners who are not
permanent residents, the major exception is licenced hunters. A law
enforcement officer of a friendly foreign country would also be OK,
but a police chaplain would not qualify, and in any case I do not see
police giving a gun to someone who has not had any training. The thing
about clergy being exempted from the concealed carry laws is
definitely bogus, it would be a massive loophole as anybody can get
ordained in an internet church for a few dollars.
Steve Firth
Apr 19, 2013, 2:50:10 PM4/19/13
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
> ISTM the 2nd amendment is a crock anyway. "Congress shall pass no
> laws ... a citizens right to bear arms".
And for some reason, the NRA never want to read all of the second
amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The first part gets overlooked every time. The Second Amendment refers to
the fact that the USA did not have a standing army, nor much of a
professional structure to the army. The British and Mexicans were largely
defeated by the abort of the USA to organise giant "bring your own gun"
parties with barely trained militias performing the role of the National
Guard.
Hence it seems reasonable that the predicate for owning a gun in the States
should be membership of a militia and undergoing the appropriate training
and being willing to fight for no pay and die as required.
The NRA don't like that concept.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
> laws ... a citizens right to bear arms".
And for some reason, the NRA never want to read all of the second
amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The first part gets overlooked every time. The Second Amendment refers to
the fact that the USA did not have a standing army, nor much of a
professional structure to the army. The British and Mexicans were largely
defeated by the abort of the USA to organise giant "bring your own gun"
parties with barely trained militias performing the role of the National
Guard.
Hence it seems reasonable that the predicate for owning a gun in the States
should be membership of a militia and undergoing the appropriate training
and being willing to fight for no pay and die as required.
The NRA don't like that concept.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
Andy Champ
Apr 19, 2013, 6:05:02 PM4/19/13
to
On 19/04/2013 12:25, John Briggs wrote:
>
> They are more careful on aircraft. I remember a post from someone
> claiming to be a Secret Service Agent: he was allowed to take his gun
> onto the aircraft (he counted as an air marshal) but they confiscated
> his knife as the permit didn't cover that!
They are ridiculously careful. I heard a tale of a pilot having his nail
>
> They are more careful on aircraft. I remember a post from someone
> claiming to be a Secret Service Agent: he was allowed to take his gun
> onto the aircraft (he counted as an air marshal) but they confiscated
> his knife as the permit didn't cover that!
scissors confiscated, presumably in case he might use them to threaten
himself. As he said, if he did want to crash the plane there would be
easier ways.
Andy
Message has been deleted
Paul Rudin
Apr 20, 2013, 1:10:12 AM4/20/13
to
Steve Firth <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> writes:
> And for some reason, the NRA never want to read all of the second
> amendment:
>
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It's almost obligatory to refer to Toby Zeigler's rant at this point:
> And for some reason, the NRA never want to read all of the second
> amendment:
>
> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFIYLimyRHU
steve robinson
Apr 20, 2013, 3:55:02 AM4/20/13
to
(i think)Indian Airways came through with scissors refused to hand
them over was promptly arrested. We even had to have an escort to go
for a pee so its quite possible its correct
Roland Perry
Apr 20, 2013, 4:35:02 AM4/20/13
to
In message <azIPO7i+...@perry.co.uk>, at 14:10:16 on Fri, 19 Apr
2013, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>MIT is currently crawling with four of those (MIT police, Boston
>Police, Massachusetts Police and FBI) and perhaps the Highway Patrol
>was involved in the car chase to Watertown.
On the news this morning were men wearing vests saying "ATF Police", and
the officer wounded in the shoot-out where they let the younger brother
escape was reportedly from the "transit police". So that's six layers.
(I'm not counting officers seconded in from neighbouring towns/
counties, nor personnel from the US attorneys Office, or any troops
drafted in).
--
Roland Perry
2013, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>MIT is currently crawling with four of those (MIT police, Boston
>Police, Massachusetts Police and FBI) and perhaps the Highway Patrol
>was involved in the car chase to Watertown.
the officer wounded in the shoot-out where they let the younger brother
escape was reportedly from the "transit police". So that's six layers.
(I'm not counting officers seconded in from neighbouring towns/
counties, nor personnel from the US attorneys Office, or any troops
drafted in).
--
Roland Perry
robert
Apr 19, 2013, 10:30:02 PM4/19/13
to
passed through security, and then piched up his mandated shotgun in case
they crashed in grizzly terittory.
Roland Perry
Apr 20, 2013, 4:40:01 AM4/20/13
to
In message
<a222135b-2cc7-4c2f...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, at
21:45:01 on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, S <s_pick...@yahoo.com> remarked:
--
Roland Perry
<a222135b-2cc7-4c2f...@cd3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, at
21:45:01 on Fri, 19 Apr 2013, S <s_pick...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>> I'm sure there will be many more people than police officers with a
>> derogation. Secret Service, and probably US Marshals, for example.
>
>The are all law enforcement officers.
Are they all "officers"?
>> derogation. Secret Service, and probably US Marshals, for example.
>
>The are all law enforcement officers.
--
Roland Perry
Chris Hills
Apr 20, 2013, 4:30:03 AM4/20/13
to
On 17/04/2013 12:15, Jethro_uk wrote:
> But at least with letters (and emails) you have proof it happened. Unless
> you record a phone call, it's amazing how many people "forget" it ever
> happened.
It is for this reason why I now have an app that automatically records
all my calls, in and out. It ought to be a standard feature on mobiles
these days!
> But at least with letters (and emails) you have proof it happened. Unless
> you record a phone call, it's amazing how many people "forget" it ever
> happened.
It is for this reason why I now have an app that automatically records
all my calls, in and out. It ought to be a standard feature on mobiles
these days!
Periander
Apr 20, 2013, 5:45:02 AM4/20/13
to
On 17-Apr-2013, the Omrud <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just out of interest - does your knive conform to the permitted limits
> for carrying without normally attracting interest of the authorities?
Good point, well made but irrelevant in this case as it's a "condition of
entry" situation rather than criminal offence one.
Personally if I was the OP I'd be chatting with the court manager (there is
one at Kingston and a very nice lady she was to last time I spoke with her -
granted a few years ago) to get my knife back as soon as poss before it gets
"lost" by accidentally falling into a staff member's pocket whilst (s)he is
on the way home and on the way out or some similar fate befalls it.
--
All the best,
Periander
Periander
Apr 20, 2013, 6:00:02 AM4/20/13
to
On 19-Apr-2013, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> I know a UK clergyman who went on a job-swap with a USA-ian one who
> did some sort of chaplaincy role with the police. He was slightly
> surprised to be offered a gun when he was about to go out on patrol
> with some officers.
who were then employed in the UK. It as usual for many of them to carry
firearms when visiting "clients" at least in many areas. Same with a couple
of South African ones I knew - granted they were both very pretty young
ladies and had amongst other things had to go into the "townships" - without
protection they'd never have got out alive.
Sometimes we don't realise just how lucky we are in the UK.
Stuart A. Bronstein
Apr 20, 2013, 6:35:02 AM4/20/13
to
Jethro_uk <jeth...@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
>> How about your 2nd Amendment 'right' to carry a gun? Are you
>> allowed to take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
>
> ISTM the 2nd amendment is a crock anyway. "Congress shall pass
> no laws ... a citizens right to bear arms".
Well, it's certainly poorly written, and very problematic in this day
>> How about your 2nd Amendment 'right' to carry a gun? Are you
>> allowed to take your six-shooter into the courtroom these days?
>
> ISTM the 2nd amendment is a crock anyway. "Congress shall pass
> no laws ... a citizens right to bear arms".
and age.
> So how come you can't have a tank or grenade launcher ("arms")
> but you can have - and can't be prevented from having - a
> handgun.
At this point it's not clear you can't. What the courts may find to
be "reasonable restrictions" has not yet been decided.
> How come you're allowed to prevent felons from owning guns.
> Aren't they citizens too.
Not necessarily. Sometimes felons lose many rights of citizenship.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
John Briggs
Apr 20, 2013, 6:55:01 AM4/20/13
to
--
John Briggs
Sara
Apr 20, 2013, 7:40:02 AM4/20/13
to
In article <atf67e...@mid.individual.net>,
That's what I;m going to try on Monday. I think the court manager is a
he now, but hopefully as nice.
--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.
he now, but hopefully as nice.
--
Billy doesn't clean his paws often enough. Mucky cat.
GB
Apr 20, 2013, 8:20:02 AM4/20/13
to
On 20/04/2013 11:35, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>> How come you're allowed to prevent felons from owning guns.
>> Aren't they citizens too.
>
> Not necessarily. Sometimes felons lose many rights of citizenship.
>
A US friend told me that felons lose the right to vote. That's even
>> Aren't they citizens too.
>
> Not necessarily. Sometimes felons lose many rights of citizenship.
>
after they've served their sentence. If true, how does that help them
rehabilitate themselves and become decent citizens?
Nick Odell
Apr 20, 2013, 10:05:02 AM4/20/13
to
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 09:35:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Unfortunately, probably not 'layers' since their areas of
responsibility are likely non-concentric and non-overlapping. Until
now, I thought La Paz, Bolivia, with five[1] non-concentric,
non-overlapping police forces in town was the worst[2]. I wonder: can
anyone cite anywhere with more than six?
Nick
[1]National, City, Traffic, Tourist and Military.
[2]Yes, I did once have the misfortune to have to navigate my way
through that lot.
wrote:
responsibility are likely non-concentric and non-overlapping. Until
now, I thought La Paz, Bolivia, with five[1] non-concentric,
non-overlapping police forces in town was the worst[2]. I wonder: can
anyone cite anywhere with more than six?
Nick
[1]National, City, Traffic, Tourist and Military.
[2]Yes, I did once have the misfortune to have to navigate my way
through that lot.
Roland Perry
Apr 20, 2013, 10:20:09 AM4/20/13
to
In message <3j75n85omf1qmtn2j...@4ax.com>, at 15:05:02 on
Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> remarked:
seen to apply in Boston.
And the State police can't investigate if there's a city police
presence? Doesn't seem to apply in Boston.
And no-one but the MIT or transport police can investigate an incident
on their turf? Doesn't seem to apply in Boston.
And the ATF police can't investigate if any of the above (including the
FBI) are involved. Doesn't seem to apply in Boston.
And none of the Transport, MIT, City, State nor FBI can investigate if
there are Firearms (or Tobacco/Alcohol/Explosives) involved? [You can
guess the rest].
>Until now, I thought La Paz, Bolivia, with five[1] non-concentric,
>non-overlapping police forces in town was the worst[2]. I wonder: can
>anyone cite anywhere with more than six?
Ah yes, I forgot the "tourist police" they have in some places. Another
genuine "layer".
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> remarked:
>>>MIT is currently crawling with four of those (MIT police, Boston
>>>Police, Massachusetts Police and FBI) and perhaps the Highway Patrol
>>>was involved in the car chase to Watertown.
>>
>>On the news this morning were men wearing vests saying "ATF Police", and
>>the officer wounded in the shoot-out where they let the younger brother
>>escape was reportedly from the "transit police". So that's six layers.
>>
>>(I'm not counting officers seconded in from neighbouring towns/
>>counties, nor personnel from the US attorneys Office, or any troops
>>drafted in).
>
>Unfortunately, probably not 'layers' since their areas of
>responsibility are likely non-concentric and non-overlapping.
So the FBI can't investigate if there's a state police presence? Doesn't
>>>Police, Massachusetts Police and FBI) and perhaps the Highway Patrol
>>>was involved in the car chase to Watertown.
>>
>>On the news this morning were men wearing vests saying "ATF Police", and
>>the officer wounded in the shoot-out where they let the younger brother
>>escape was reportedly from the "transit police". So that's six layers.
>>
>>(I'm not counting officers seconded in from neighbouring towns/
>>counties, nor personnel from the US attorneys Office, or any troops
>>drafted in).
>
>Unfortunately, probably not 'layers' since their areas of
>responsibility are likely non-concentric and non-overlapping.
seen to apply in Boston.
And the State police can't investigate if there's a city police
presence? Doesn't seem to apply in Boston.
And no-one but the MIT or transport police can investigate an incident
on their turf? Doesn't seem to apply in Boston.
And the ATF police can't investigate if any of the above (including the
FBI) are involved. Doesn't seem to apply in Boston.
And none of the Transport, MIT, City, State nor FBI can investigate if
there are Firearms (or Tobacco/Alcohol/Explosives) involved? [You can
guess the rest].
>Until now, I thought La Paz, Bolivia, with five[1] non-concentric,
>non-overlapping police forces in town was the worst[2]. I wonder: can
>anyone cite anywhere with more than six?
genuine "layer".
--
Roland Perry
Nick Odell
Apr 20, 2013, 10:45:01 AM4/20/13
to
On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 15:20:09 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
The events this week in Boston were, thank goodness, highly unusual.
Even so I presume that six forces were not running six separate
investigations independent of each other but there was some
co-ordination which meant in effect that all efforts were co-opted
into the the work of just one overall controller.
I was looking at it from the user perspective. Suppose I have my
cellphone stolen on the MIT campus. If I go to the City Police or the
FBI about it, do they have a channel through which they cooperate with
the MIT police or do they say 'sorry, that's not us - go and talk to
the university police about your problem? If the former then, yes, I'd
say there were layers. If the latter, I'd say from the user
perspective they are separate.
Nick
wrote:
Even so I presume that six forces were not running six separate
investigations independent of each other but there was some
co-ordination which meant in effect that all efforts were co-opted
into the the work of just one overall controller.
I was looking at it from the user perspective. Suppose I have my
cellphone stolen on the MIT campus. If I go to the City Police or the
FBI about it, do they have a channel through which they cooperate with
the MIT police or do they say 'sorry, that's not us - go and talk to
the university police about your problem? If the former then, yes, I'd
say there were layers. If the latter, I'd say from the user
perspective they are separate.
Nick
John Briggs
Apr 20, 2013, 10:55:01 AM4/20/13
to
foreign terrorism then the FBI have jurisdiction. Everyone takes
direction from the lead agency.
--
John Briggs
John Briggs
Apr 20, 2013, 11:00:05 AM4/20/13
to
you can lose the right to vote if you have the same name as a felon...
--
John Briggs
Roland Perry
Apr 20, 2013, 11:25:02 AM4/20/13
to
In message <qn95n8913llq0449v...@4ax.com>, at 15:45:01 on
press conferences, it wasn't at all clear who was in charge. Although
the State Police had the most voluble spokesperson.
For whatever reason, Homeland Security seemed to be very much in the
background.
>I was looking at it from the user perspective. Suppose I have my
>cellphone stolen on the MIT campus. If I go to the City Police or the
>FBI about it, do they have a channel through which they cooperate with
>the MIT police or do they say 'sorry, that's not us - go and talk to
>the university police about your problem? If the former then, yes, I'd
>say there were layers. If the latter, I'd say from the user
>perspective they are separate.
You can't go to the FBI unless it's a case which triggers their
threshold, broadly speaking being a "Federal Crime", which stealing a
cellphone usually isn't. In this case I think they were instructed to
act by the President.
But I have to admit I'm not clear when crimes in the USA get escalated
from 'campus'[1] to the County/City or the State.
I don't think the State police only concern themselves with things which
happen outside of a County/City because all of the State is usually
either in one or the other.
[1] On reflection, we do have 'campus police' in the UK. The Oxford
University Police (aka Bulldogs) were disbanded in 2003, but the
Cambridge ones seem to be still operating:
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/proctors/constabulary/
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 20 Apr 2013, Nick Odell <ni...@themusicworkshop.plus.com> remarked:
>The events this week in Boston were, thank goodness, highly unusual.
>Even so I presume that six forces were not running six separate
>investigations independent of each other but there was some
>co-ordination which meant in effect that all efforts were co-opted
>into the the work of just one overall controller.
Given that several were present at (or gave their apologies to) the
>Even so I presume that six forces were not running six separate
>investigations independent of each other but there was some
>co-ordination which meant in effect that all efforts were co-opted
>into the the work of just one overall controller.
press conferences, it wasn't at all clear who was in charge. Although
the State Police had the most voluble spokesperson.
For whatever reason, Homeland Security seemed to be very much in the
background.
>I was looking at it from the user perspective. Suppose I have my
>cellphone stolen on the MIT campus. If I go to the City Police or the
>FBI about it, do they have a channel through which they cooperate with
>the MIT police or do they say 'sorry, that's not us - go and talk to
>the university police about your problem? If the former then, yes, I'd
>say there were layers. If the latter, I'd say from the user
>perspective they are separate.
threshold, broadly speaking being a "Federal Crime", which stealing a
cellphone usually isn't. In this case I think they were instructed to
act by the President.
But I have to admit I'm not clear when crimes in the USA get escalated
from 'campus'[1] to the County/City or the State.
I don't think the State police only concern themselves with things which
happen outside of a County/City because all of the State is usually
either in one or the other.
[1] On reflection, we do have 'campus police' in the UK. The Oxford
University Police (aka Bulldogs) were disbanded in 2003, but the
Cambridge ones seem to be still operating:
http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/proctors/constabulary/
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Apr 20, 2013, 11:30:02 AM4/20/13
to
In message <lZxct.11785$zK3....@fx17.fr7>, at 15:55:01 on Sat, 20 Apr
2013, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>If it's domestic terrorism then the ATF have jurisdiction; if it's
>foreign terrorism then the FBI have jurisdiction.
Wouldn't it be the CIA for foreign terrorism?
>Everyone takes direction from the lead agency.
And what happens in the lull when no-one knows if it's terrorism, or
even when terrorism has been diagnosed, whether it's domestic or
foreign?
--
Roland Perry
2013, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>If it's domestic terrorism then the ATF have jurisdiction; if it's
>foreign terrorism then the FBI have jurisdiction.
>Everyone takes direction from the lead agency.
even when terrorism has been diagnosed, whether it's domestic or
foreign?
--
Roland Perry
John Briggs
Apr 20, 2013, 12:10:02 PM4/20/13
to
On 20/04/2013 16:30, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <lZxct.11785$zK3....@fx17.fr7>, at 15:55:01 on Sat, 20 Apr
> 2013, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>
>> If it's domestic terrorism then the ATF have jurisdiction; if it's
>> foreign terrorism then the FBI have jurisdiction.
>
> Wouldn't it be the CIA for foreign terrorism?
Terrorism in the USA by (non-resident) foreigners - wherever they have
> In message <lZxct.11785$zK3....@fx17.fr7>, at 15:55:01 on Sat, 20 Apr
> 2013, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> remarked:
>
>> If it's domestic terrorism then the ATF have jurisdiction; if it's
>> foreign terrorism then the FBI have jurisdiction.
>
> Wouldn't it be the CIA for foreign terrorism?
come from.
>> Everyone takes direction from the lead agency.
>
> And what happens in the lull when no-one knows if it's terrorism, or
> even when terrorism has been diagnosed, whether it's domestic or foreign?
suppose you watched the first episode of "NCIS"? A US Navy Commander
dies on Air Force One, so both the Secret Service and the FBI try to
take the lead.
--
John Briggs
Mike Bristow
Apr 20, 2013, 12:50:02 PM4/20/13
to
In article <db-dnfbOY4dMI-zM...@eclipse.net.uk>,
distingish between a pilot for Ukraine International Airlines and
a guy who picked up a fancy dress costume down the road.
> As he said, if he did want to crash the plane there would be
> easier ways.
Undoubtedly; but that's not the point.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Andy Champ <no....@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> They are ridiculously careful. I heard a tale of a pilot having his nail
> scissors confiscated, presumably in case he might use them to threaten
> himself.
No: it's becuase they don't trus the security staff to be able to
> They are ridiculously careful. I heard a tale of a pilot having his nail
> scissors confiscated, presumably in case he might use them to threaten
> himself.
distingish between a pilot for Ukraine International Airlines and
a guy who picked up a fancy dress costume down the road.
> As he said, if he did want to crash the plane there would be
> easier ways.
--
Mike Bristow mi...@urgle.com
Periander
Apr 20, 2013, 7:20:01 AM4/20/13
to
On 20-Apr-2013, John Briggs <john.b...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >> How come you're allowed to prevent felons from owning guns.
> >> Aren't they citizens too.
> >
> > Not necessarily. Sometimes felons lose many rights of citizenship.
>
> Only if they are the wrong colour.
to my MP to argue for change. Naturally I believe you but obviously my MP
doesn't know you.
Martin
Apr 20, 2013, 7:35:01 AM4/20/13
to
think I'd rather have a .303 (or bigger)
>
Roland Perry
Apr 20, 2013, 8:55:02 AM4/20/13
to
In message <atf72d...@mid.individual.net>, at 11:00:02 on Sat, 20
Apr 2013, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> remarked:
students in downtown Atlanta (that's the glitzy part, not an 'inner
city'), and they were quite certain they'd never dare to be there
without a handgun in their purse.
--
Roland Perry
Apr 2013, Periander <u...@britwar.couk> remarked:
>A few years ago I was doing a lot of work with some American social workers
>who were then employed in the UK. It as usual for many of them to carry
>firearms when visiting "clients" at least in many areas. Same with a couple
>of South African ones I knew - granted they were both very pretty young
>ladies and had amongst other things had to go into the "townships" - without
>protection they'd never have got out alive.
>
>Sometimes we don't realise just how lucky we are in the UK.
A bit longer ago than that, I did some work with female university
>who were then employed in the UK. It as usual for many of them to carry
>firearms when visiting "clients" at least in many areas. Same with a couple
>of South African ones I knew - granted they were both very pretty young
>ladies and had amongst other things had to go into the "townships" - without
>protection they'd never have got out alive.
>
>Sometimes we don't realise just how lucky we are in the UK.
students in downtown Atlanta (that's the glitzy part, not an 'inner
city'), and they were quite certain they'd never dare to be there
without a handgun in their purse.
--
Roland Perry
Percy Picacity
Apr 20, 2013, 6:05:02 PM4/20/13
to
election practice? Most don't, in my experience.
--
Percy Picacity
Message has been deleted
Steve Firth
Apr 20, 2013, 7:00:02 PM4/20/13
to
National, Local, Penal, Financial, Postal, Highway, Street, Forest,
Military, Quasi Military and National Park to name but a few.
--
<•DarWin><|
_/ _/
John Briggs
Apr 20, 2013, 7:05:25 PM4/20/13
to
--
John Briggs
Andy Champ
Apr 21, 2013, 11:40:01 AM4/21/13
to
On 20/04/2013 12:35, Martin wrote:
> Shotgun against a grizzly? Isn't that just likely to tick it off? I
> think I'd rather have a .303 (or bigger)
If I was hunting grizzly I'd rather have a high velocity rifle, so I
> Shotgun against a grizzly? Isn't that just likely to tick it off? I
> think I'd rather have a .303 (or bigger)
could pot it from a safe distance. But this scenario implies a lack of
safe distance, and shotguns are _extremely_ effective at short ranges.
Andy
Message has been deleted
Szymon von Ulezalka
Apr 22, 2013, 4:45:02 AM4/22/13
to
> Not on Windows mobile.
Windows mobile is dead... Windows Phone is its replacement
Windows mobile is dead... Windows Phone is its replacement
Message has been deleted
Adam Funk
Apr 22, 2013, 10:05:09 AM4/22/13
to
On 2013-04-20, Phil W Lee wrote:
> robert <rob...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:30:02 +0100
> I doubt if a bear would be impressed by the offer of a manicure, but
> taking nail clippers away does seem particularly stupid in that
> scenario (as does putting the pilot through the same checks in any
> case).
Especially since he might break a nail on his trigger finger & not
shoot straight.
> robert <rob...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 20 Apr 2013 03:30:02 +0100
> the perfect time to write:
>>One story I heard was that a pilot had his nail clippers taken off him,
>>passed through security, and then piched up his mandated shotgun in case
>>they crashed in grizzly terittory.
>
> That's Alaska.
>>One story I heard was that a pilot had his nail clippers taken off him,
>>passed through security, and then piched up his mandated shotgun in case
>>they crashed in grizzly terittory.
>
> I doubt if a bear would be impressed by the offer of a manicure, but
> taking nail clippers away does seem particularly stupid in that
> scenario (as does putting the pilot through the same checks in any
> case).
Especially since he might break a nail on his trigger finger & not
shoot straight.
Adam Funk
Apr 22, 2013, 4:05:01 PM4/22/13
to
F Murtz
Apr 23, 2013, 4:20:11 AM4/23/13
to
Szymon von Ulezalka wrote:
>> Not on Windows mobile.
>
> Windows mobile is dead... Windows Phone is its replacement
>
My old touch diamond 2 windows phone does record all calls.
>> Not on Windows mobile.
>
> Windows mobile is dead... Windows Phone is its replacement
>
Message has been deleted
Goldenwight
Apr 23, 2013, 7:50:02 AM4/23/13
to
I know that Brighton magistrates actually put an article in the paper about some of the stuff they had confiscated, including sex toys and a samurai sword.
Generally speaking, they return these when people leave the Court building so I'm not sure where they are coming from here.
Strangely, some years ago I visited a Court building and had a spoon confiscated as a weapon. Even more bizarrely, I had just been to the hardware store and was carrying all of the ingredients to make 5kg of explosives- but it was considered perfectly OK to take these in with me!
Generally speaking, they return these when people leave the Court building so I'm not sure where they are coming from here.
Strangely, some years ago I visited a Court building and had a spoon confiscated as a weapon. Even more bizarrely, I had just been to the hardware store and was carrying all of the ingredients to make 5kg of explosives- but it was considered perfectly OK to take these in with me!
Lordgnome
Apr 23, 2013, 10:50:02 AM4/23/13
to
On 23/04/2013 12:50, Goldenwight wrote:
> Strangely, some years ago I visited a Court building and had a spoon confiscated as a weapon. Even more bizarrely, I had just been to the hardware store and was carrying all of the ingredients to make 5kg of explosives- but it was considered perfectly OK to take these in with me!
Excellent - I suspect there might have been some raised eyebrows if you
> Strangely, some years ago I visited a Court building and had a spoon confiscated as a weapon. Even more bizarrely, I had just been to the hardware store and was carrying all of the ingredients to make 5kg of explosives- but it was considered perfectly OK to take these in with me!
whistled out a pestle & mortar and started filling tubes though!
Les.
Ian Jackson
Apr 24, 2013, 12:10:09 PM4/24/13
to
In article <c11e5560-c6d2-4da2...@googlegroups.com>,
Do they really mean that someone was carrying a pocket vibe in their
handbag had pointless trouble with security goons ? Are the court
staff of such delicate disposition that everything needs to be banned
preemptively or is this a reactive rule, or one even made up on the
spot ?
Did an unsuccessful claimant brandish the Purple Big One at the judge
in the moment of their defeat ? Have they had problems with people,
bored of interminable speeches, having a bit of solo sexy time in the
back of the public gallery ?
Anyway, if you were so minded, surely you'd use one designed for use
in public. Are they going to do an internal search when you say "it's
a medical appliance" ? (Indeed there is an overlap between medical
appliances and sex toys; would they want you to show a prescription?)
Or maybe you fess up and they confiscate your vibrating mini egg,
since you're already late for your hearing, and you reclaim it later.
All the scenarios that come to mind are absurd or ridiculous.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Goldenwight <prostetn...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I know that Brighton magistrates actually put an article in the paper
>about some of the stuff they had confiscated, including sex toys and a
>samurai sword.
You're not allowed to bring _sex toys_ into court ? The mind boggles.
>I know that Brighton magistrates actually put an article in the paper
>about some of the stuff they had confiscated, including sex toys and a
>samurai sword.
Do they really mean that someone was carrying a pocket vibe in their
handbag had pointless trouble with security goons ? Are the court
staff of such delicate disposition that everything needs to be banned
preemptively or is this a reactive rule, or one even made up on the
spot ?
Did an unsuccessful claimant brandish the Purple Big One at the judge
in the moment of their defeat ? Have they had problems with people,
bored of interminable speeches, having a bit of solo sexy time in the
back of the public gallery ?
Anyway, if you were so minded, surely you'd use one designed for use
in public. Are they going to do an internal search when you say "it's
a medical appliance" ? (Indeed there is an overlap between medical
appliances and sex toys; would they want you to show a prescription?)
Or maybe you fess up and they confiscate your vibrating mini egg,
since you're already late for your hearing, and you reclaim it later.
All the scenarios that come to mind are absurd or ridiculous.
--
Ian Jackson personal email: <ijac...@chiark.greenend.org.uk>
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657
Ian Jackson
Apr 24, 2013, 12:10:02 PM4/24/13
to
(I have fixed your quoting.)
You'd do it in the khazi beforehand. No-one's going to go to the
staff and say "there's someone in the loos who's, well, grinding
something, no no, not like that..."
staff and say "there's someone in the loos who's, well, grinding
something, no no, not like that..."
Message has been deleted
Goldenwight
Apr 28, 2013, 2:10:02 AM4/28/13
to
Actually, I should point out that I was NOT going to make 5kg of explosives, I was carrying the stuff for legitimate reasons. As an explosives veteran, I would advise anyone against homemade explosives. Unless you really want to be a suicide bomber, that is- far too dangerous!
Francis Davey
Apr 28, 2013, 11:25:02 AM4/28/13
to
Le mercredi 24 avril 2013 17:10:09 UTC+1, Ian Jackson a écrit :
> You're not allowed to bring _sex toys_ into court ? The mind boggles.
>
>
What about a whip? I can exactly see why someone might not want a member of the public walking into court with one. Possibly handcuffs and other bondage devices too.
> You're not allowed to bring _sex toys_ into court ? The mind boggles.
>
>
Francis
Ian Jackson
May 2, 2013, 7:55:01 AM5/2/13
to
In article <fd95a26e-ecdc-4463...@googlegroups.com>,
I guess, but I don't think they'd be classified as "sex toys" when
officialdom confiscate them - "weapons" I would guess.
officialdom confiscate them - "weapons" I would guess.
jay3...@gmail.com
Mar 14, 2014, 4:58:02 AM3/14/14
to
The reason they wouldn't return it on exit will be because what if you were a disgruntled family member and soon as you received your knife you decided to stab a member of the accused family on your way out. Hence why they give you the option to send it to you in the post.
GB
Mar 14, 2014, 5:06:08 AM3/14/14
to
On 14/03/2014 08:58, jay3...@gmail.com wrote:
> The reason they wouldn't return it on exit will be because what if you were a disgruntled family member and soon as you received your knife you decided to stab a member of the accused family on your way out. Hence why they give you the option to send it to you in the post.
>
I'm not sure what you are replying to?
> The reason they wouldn't return it on exit will be because what if you were a disgruntled family member and soon as you received your knife you decided to stab a member of the accused family on your way out. Hence why they give you the option to send it to you in the post.
>
Whilst your explanation may be reasonable, that doesn't make it legal.
Sara Merriman
Mar 14, 2014, 5:48:37 AM3/14/14
to
In article <5322c5f7$0$1128$5b6a...@news.zen.co.uk>, GB
He may have been replying to a thread started by me about a year ago.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages