![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Feb. 26th, 2011
Baseball bats verboten in Sverige...
Feb. 26th, 2011 12:55 pmAccording 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...
In re: weapons...
Feb. 26th, 2011 02:59 pmThe recent BBC rendering of Sherlock Holmes, deliciously updated for the 21st century, does have this hiccup that has me wondering.
In conformance to The Canon, Dr. John Watson is a military doctor, retired, who served in Afghanistan. Also in conformance to The Canon, the good doctor possesses a pistol. In a very early scene of A Study in Pink, the camera gives the audience a glimpse of an automatic pistol as Watson takes a laptop from his desk drawer. (And, in keeping with Chekhov, the pistol gets used later in the plot, but I digress—).
But the setting here is the UK, in the 21st century. Is it feasible to think that Watson's possession of the pistol is legal? He is, after all, now a civilian (not that it would make much of a difference if he were still in the service), and I don't seem to recall the UK as being all that big on the citizenry carrying pocket knives, much less firearms.
Seeing as this was a retelling of Holmes (and that I'm such a fan of Doyle's "consulting detective" that I will exert every effort to enjoy such a tale), at that point of the story, I exerted some effort to suspend disbelief, and enjoyed the rest of the story. To anyone from the UK who has seen the telecast: Did you experience any similar reaction? (Or might British audiences readily accept that firearms are readily available in the UK?)
Cheers...
In conformance to The Canon, Dr. John Watson is a military doctor, retired, who served in Afghanistan. Also in conformance to The Canon, the good doctor possesses a pistol. In a very early scene of A Study in Pink, the camera gives the audience a glimpse of an automatic pistol as Watson takes a laptop from his desk drawer. (And, in keeping with Chekhov, the pistol gets used later in the plot, but I digress—).
But the setting here is the UK, in the 21st century. Is it feasible to think that Watson's possession of the pistol is legal? He is, after all, now a civilian (not that it would make much of a difference if he were still in the service), and I don't seem to recall the UK as being all that big on the citizenry carrying pocket knives, much less firearms.
Seeing as this was a retelling of Holmes (and that I'm such a fan of Doyle's "consulting detective" that I will exert every effort to enjoy such a tale), at that point of the story, I exerted some effort to suspend disbelief, and enjoyed the rest of the story. To anyone from the UK who has seen the telecast: Did you experience any similar reaction? (Or might British audiences readily accept that firearms are readily available in the UK?)
Cheers...
The fruits of the kitchen...
Feb. 26th, 2011 03:49 pmWith Galina gone, I've not been very organized about the consumption of food, which may have its good points, but also certainly its bad ones.
Today, I set about making another batch of cockaleekie soup, and while the soup was on the stove, I decided to make a recipe for a fennel-and-mushroom salad that Galina and I saw on a Cooking Channel telecast on French cooking. The recipe called for fennel, which I don't recall having ever bought before, and a shallot, which some Google research suggests is "an onion with an altogether too high opinion of itself."
I just had a late lunch and can report the following:
The salad was okay, but nothing that causes me to foam at the mouth (probably a good thing) and swear to make repeatedly for the rest of my life. That said, I think it would make a fine salad course for a meal on the veranda once the weather turns to spring.
The soup was—the soup. Had I added any more of any component, I would have ended up with more of a stew than a soup. (Don't misunderstand, I'm not complaining.) The recipe is dirt simple: chicken meat, some chopped onion, some barley, and leeks. Some spices and greens, too. Very filling. It should last several days.
Cheers...
Today, I set about making another batch of cockaleekie soup, and while the soup was on the stove, I decided to make a recipe for a fennel-and-mushroom salad that Galina and I saw on a Cooking Channel telecast on French cooking. The recipe called for fennel, which I don't recall having ever bought before, and a shallot, which some Google research suggests is "an onion with an altogether too high opinion of itself."
I just had a late lunch and can report the following:
The salad was okay, but nothing that causes me to foam at the mouth (probably a good thing) and swear to make repeatedly for the rest of my life. That said, I think it would make a fine salad course for a meal on the veranda once the weather turns to spring.
The soup was—the soup. Had I added any more of any component, I would have ended up with more of a stew than a soup. (Don't misunderstand, I'm not complaining.) The recipe is dirt simple: chicken meat, some chopped onion, some barley, and leeks. Some spices and greens, too. Very filling. It should last several days.
Cheers...