Baseball bats verboten in Sverige...
Feb. 26th, 2011 12:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpAccording to The Local, it's now up to Sweden's Supreme Court to decide whether "wielding a baseball bat in a public place is against the law."
I wonder what the guy was doing with the bat? To me, the word "wielding" doesn't just mean "possessing" or "holding," but something akin to "waving" it around in a threatening manner, if not actually "swinging" it. However, the article doesn't provide any additional detail in this regard, except near the end, where it is made clear that holding the bat was not relevant to the court's decision, but I get ahead of myself.
It turns out some guy in Malmö was convicted and fined 1,200 kronor ($184) by the city's district court for "the illegal possession of a dangerous object." The man argued, in his defense, that he used the baseball bat to hit balls for his dog to chase and that having the bat in the passenger seat made him—as a two-time victim of assault—feel safer.
The article then goes on to explain that by Swedish law, the possession of dangerous items such as knives and other weapons "designed to be used as a weapon in crimes against life or limb" is not permitted in a public place. That wording sort of bothers me, because if there was one thing I learned in the Marines, it was that anything can be used as a weapon, which leaves it up to the The Powers That Be to decide whether the design of said anything places it in the weapon class.
Carving knife? Okay, a weapon.
Nunchucks? Yep, weapon.
Walking stick? Gray area, I guess (translation: if the judge wants you in jail, you're going to jail).
Baseball bat? ...
Despite the argument that baseball bats have a legitimate use and are thus not covered by the law, the appeals court remained unconvinced, on the grounds that "he kept it on apparent display in his car, and thus can be construed to conform to the legal definition of a dangerous item."
This last part doesn't make sense to me. Keeping a legitimate item in your car so passersby can see it automagically makes it a "dangerous item"? Heck, I keep Shiloh's lead in my car, and (recalling my Marine training) theoretically, there are several ways in which it could be used as a lethal weapon. Would I be subject to a fine for leaving a leash in my car on a street in Malmö? (It might be worthwhile mentioning that neither a leash or a bat can be effectively "wielded" inside a car, but it's probably not relevant to the argument.)
I'm just guessing, here, but it would appear to me that the district court's decision was likely fueled by a dissatisfaction, on the part of The Powers That Be, with the man's premeditated attitude with regard to self defense, compounded by—I suspect—a cultural bias against baseball bats, which thus posits a lack of their legitimate purpose.
I hear it's worse in Britain, where even penknives are apparently illegal.
Cheers...
I wonder what the guy was doing with the bat? To me, the word "wielding" doesn't just mean "possessing" or "holding," but something akin to "waving" it around in a threatening manner, if not actually "swinging" it. However, the article doesn't provide any additional detail in this regard, except near the end, where it is made clear that holding the bat was not relevant to the court's decision, but I get ahead of myself.
It turns out some guy in Malmö was convicted and fined 1,200 kronor ($184) by the city's district court for "the illegal possession of a dangerous object." The man argued, in his defense, that he used the baseball bat to hit balls for his dog to chase and that having the bat in the passenger seat made him—as a two-time victim of assault—feel safer.
The article then goes on to explain that by Swedish law, the possession of dangerous items such as knives and other weapons "designed to be used as a weapon in crimes against life or limb" is not permitted in a public place. That wording sort of bothers me, because if there was one thing I learned in the Marines, it was that anything can be used as a weapon, which leaves it up to the The Powers That Be to decide whether the design of said anything places it in the weapon class.
Carving knife? Okay, a weapon.
Nunchucks? Yep, weapon.
Walking stick? Gray area, I guess (translation: if the judge wants you in jail, you're going to jail).
Baseball bat? ...
Despite the argument that baseball bats have a legitimate use and are thus not covered by the law, the appeals court remained unconvinced, on the grounds that "he kept it on apparent display in his car, and thus can be construed to conform to the legal definition of a dangerous item."
This last part doesn't make sense to me. Keeping a legitimate item in your car so passersby can see it automagically makes it a "dangerous item"? Heck, I keep Shiloh's lead in my car, and (recalling my Marine training) theoretically, there are several ways in which it could be used as a lethal weapon. Would I be subject to a fine for leaving a leash in my car on a street in Malmö? (It might be worthwhile mentioning that neither a leash or a bat can be effectively "wielded" inside a car, but it's probably not relevant to the argument.)
I'm just guessing, here, but it would appear to me that the district court's decision was likely fueled by a dissatisfaction, on the part of The Powers That Be, with the man's premeditated attitude with regard to self defense, compounded by—I suspect—a cultural bias against baseball bats, which thus posits a lack of their legitimate purpose.
I hear it's worse in Britain, where even penknives are apparently illegal.
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 08:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 08:40 pm (UTC)As he indignantly pointed out later, he was also wearing a belt, which had the definite feature that it, too, could be pressed into service as a weapon, indeed, a far more lethal one.
Sheesh!
no subject
Date: 2011-02-26 08:44 pm (UTC)You see, we are at large not a gun wielding people, here knives tend to be the weapon used, that or blunt objects. A while back there was a man that ran amok in the subway with a lead pipe and smashed in several heads, but as you point out, this law is very unclear.
Technically I can't walk around with a carving knife in my pocket that I had just bought, and the same can be said for baseball bats. This law has judges trying to judge intent rather than fact, which is why it has gone as far as the supreme court. It will be very interesting to see their stance on this, I do hope they put their foot down and put some sense into the wording of this law.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-27 12:21 am (UTC)I found it was pretty easy to list "weapon" in almost every case.
Then again, the tale is told of how Japanese peasants were able to adapt agricultural tools for, um, secondary uses.
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2011-02-27 12:27 am (UTC)If TSA was truly interested in "bang for the buck," they'd ban forthwith any and all batteries and battery-powered items on aircraft (although that'd be very hard to enforce).
Cheers...
no subject
Date: 2011-02-27 03:18 am (UTC)It's conclusion, reenforced with close ups on some of the bats in question, was that the alleged baseball bats were just tapered pieces of wood.