The behaviour of UK police officers.

[bluesjnr]

'Auditor'. That's the point at which I lose all sympathy. He appears to be there simply to provoke the police, wasting their time.

Any other sections of the public carrying out legal activities you lack sympathy for?

It cannot be deemed a waste of police time if they elect to attempt to put the individual on the wrong side of the law.

This claim of wasting police time is bogus. It's well established that filming in public is not a crime. Ignore the ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ and it'll soon go away.

 

[smartcooky]

Criticise Putin in Russia or express your support for LGBTQ rights in Uganda, in social media posts. Go on, I dare you.

Thanks... you're making my point for me

Likening the actions of Police in those countries with UK Police is not the flex you think it is.

 

[smartcooky]

'Auditor'. That's the point at which I lose all sympathy. He appears to be there simply to provoke the police, wasting their time.

And who's choice was it to approach him?

If the cops in this case did their job... which is leave people alone unless they have probable cause to believe the person is committing an offense, none of this would have happened. To determine such probable cause, they could have spent some time looking up the regulations on drone flying BEFORE deciding whther to approach him. Then they would have realized, without even talking to this guy, that he wasn't doing anything illegal, and they could have saved themselves the embarrassment of being schooled on the law by a member of the public, and having their faces on YouTube.

Honestly, I can't understand how cops repeatedly fall into this trap. The moment they realize they are talking to an auditor, their best bet is to just walk away.

 

[Nessie]

I note that the copper in you is rearing it's head. It's that bit of every copper who, as I have constantly repeated, insists on putting an individual they are or might be interacting with on the wrong side of the law.

Why do I say this?

Because you insist the it's an offensive weapon. It's not. It's not because under Sec. 47 an offensive weapon is

Definition of an Offensive Weapon

• Made or adapted: Any item specifically built or changed to cause physical harm to a person.
• Intended use: Any item that the person carrying it (or someone else) plans to use to cause injury.

At this point in time there is no evidence other than a weak assumption that it's about to become an offensive weapon

Fair enough.

No, I don't. The law does.

Only under caution. Slow down officer.

Then why was he attacked without being told he was detained? Why wasn't he cautioned?

Manchester police wear BWC, It'll be interesting to see if they release any footage. I'm damn sure that if I was able to prove that one of my officers acted entirely reasonably up till the scuffle then it would right out there in the public domain alongside all the camera phone footage.

I don't but the officers subsequent observed behaviour and ignoring of the "reasonable excuse" proffered suggests that he might have called the man then didn't like the fact that he was legally ignored.

I've already described one way of getting a better outcome. I could describe many more but that's unfair on the copper and individual involved (armchair quarter backing and all that).

Let's have a look at yours.

"Officer, just to confirm, you've detained me, can you be specific about what crime you suspect me of and what gives rise to this suspicion?"

"Thanks for that advice officer but did you have to detain me to tell me this? It seems like you are escalating a completely harmless situation."

"Officer, I haven't committed any crime, none whatsoever. Why do you think I need to give you my details at this point in time. If you plan to threaten arrest to gain them, that will be unlawful."

"I'm sorry officer. Are you OK? The burden of proof lies with you you cannot legally force or instruct or coerce me to phone a friend to prove my innocence or verify my story. Are you new to this job? Right now, you are staring a civil case right in the face."

Tell me, what it was that triggered your "presumption" that I'm intending to use this as an offensive weapon?

I tell you what, I'll defer to your reasonable suspicion but will say no more than I'm meeting my friend to play baseball and the item is in the wrapper it was purchased in, I bought it from there."

[if you watch the video you'll hear the individual say the above virtually word for word within the first 6 seconds of the officer grabbing him. The officer continues to escalate the situation.]

Now you have two options, let me go or arrest me. Neither will work out well for you.

Can I have your badge number and home station please? It's a pity, for you, that you decided to specifically instruct me to, "phone a friend", to prove my innocence. That was entirely unlawful. The poor beleaguered, lawful, taxpaying people of Scotland are going to pay for your tardiness, your lawlessness as well as your incompetence.

I have not insisted a baseball bat is an offensive weapon. Instead, I have pointed out to you that street fights in city centres between youths is a problem, so the police seeing someone openly carrying a baseball bat is reason for them to make enquiry. That is why I have said common sense is that anyone with something commonly associated with street violence, that can be readily used as an offensive weapon, should be carried out of sight.

You have created scenarios, based on the limited information we have about the arrest. I have been more open minded and suggested that the officer reacted too quickly and showed he is not up to the job of a response police officer, or the male had acted suspiciously before the video starts and the arrest to make further enquiries, was justified.

It is not unlawful, when someone claims a reasonable defence, to check that defence, by speaking to another person to confirm it.

 

[Nessie]

Thanks... you're making my point for me

Likening the actions of Police in those countries with UK Police is not the flex you think it is.

You suggested that the UK is the only place where people can be arrested for social media posts. I was showing you how wrong you are. The disingenuous like to make out that "hurty words" are enough to get people arrested, when a closer look reveals many of the arrests are for incitement to riot or gross offence. The issue here is that sometimes, there are some police officers, who overreact to complaints. That is wrong and the cause of it is the simple one of the police often do recruit the brightest of people.

 

[Nessie]

And who's choice was it to approach him?

If the cops in this case did their job... which is leave people alone unless they have probable cause to believe the person is committing an offense, none of this would have happened. To determine such probable cause, they could have spent some time looking up the regulations on drone flying BEFORE deciding whther to approach him. Then they would have realized, without even talking to this guy, that he wasn't doing anything illegal, and they could have saved themselves the embarrassment of being schooled on the law by a member of the public, and having their faces on YouTube.

Honestly, I can't understand how cops repeatedly fall into this trap. The moment they realize they are talking to an auditor, their best bet is to just walk away.

Police officers not knowing, or understanding the law and then trying to enforce it, is a huge problem. There is a strong anti-academic sentiment in the police, where the ability to learn, understand and remember the law and procedures, is not fully appreciated.

My limited experience of auditors, is that sometimes they have a point and they need to be treated as a member of the public would be.

The police do not like to be filmed backing down and walking away.

 

[bluesjnr]

It may be different where you live, but in the UK the police operate (or at least, are meant to) according to the Peelian priciples. The first of which is to prevent crime

They struggle with No. 1 where I live. Let's have a look at No. 2. Maybe they'll fare better?


2. To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

Oh dear.
Oh dear, dear, dear...

 

[Mojo]

I have not insisted a baseball bat is an offensive weapon. Instead, I have pointed out to you that street fights in city centres between youths is a problem, so the police seeing someone openly carrying a baseball bat is reason for them to make enquiry. That is why I have said common sense is that anyone with something commonly associated with street violence, that can be readily used as an offensive weapon, should be carried out of sight.

You have created scenarios, based on the limited information we have about the arrest. I have been more open minded and suggested that the officer reacted too quickly and showed he is not up to the job of a response police officer, or the male had acted suspiciously before the video starts and the arrest to make further enquiries, was justified.

It is not unlawful, when someone claims a reasonable defence, to check that defence, by speaking to another person to confirm it.

Indeed. There are legitimate reasons for asking someone carrying a baseball bat around Market Street what they are doing with it. If they were out at Wythenshawe, maybe not so much.

Context is important, as in the old Willie Rushton cartoon: "Adults you are, consenting you may well be, but I would question the privacy of Lowndes Square."

 

[bluesjnr]

I have not insisted a baseball bat is an offensive weapon.

You started from the position that it is an offensive weapon and would use your powers under Sec. 47 to apprehend and detain.

Instead, I have pointed out to you that street fights in city centres between youths is a problem, so the police seeing someone openly carrying a baseball bat is reason for them to make enquiry. That is why I have said common sense is that anyone with something commonly associated with street violence, that can be readily used as an offensive weapon, should be carried out of sight.

I cannot and will not argue against this. Again, I would say that there is no requirement to carry such an article out of sight. If you don't then it is entirely reasonable that you'll be asked to account.

Nessie, I'm not arguing against the fact that you should expect to be questioned by authorities if you are carrying something that could be used as a weapon. I'm arguing, in good faith, against the way things went down with the guy in the video. I think the officer handled it terribly and I do not think there is any room at all for justification in his approach.

You yourself, a long serving, very experienced retired officer created a situation where you would have acted incorrectly by attempting to coerce me to phone a friend.

Having said that, I see Manchester police have reviewed the incident and found that the officer has done nothing wrong. Colour me surprised.

You have created scenarios, based on the limited information we have about the arrest.

Correct, I do wonder why BWC video has not been released which would show the correctitude of the initial approach.

Actually, I say I wonder, I don't. I'm working with two scenarios at the moment.

1) The footage does not show the officer acted within the remit of his job.
2) (most likely) Despite it being a requirement for an officer to activate their body-worn cameras when exercising official police powers, attending specific emergency or domestic incidents, or dealing with situations where evidence or use of force is likely. He never bothered, and why should he? He knew his ass was covered by the big wigs, why bother with any thing that might stay his hand when dealing with this situation.

I have been more open minded and suggested that the officer reacted too quickly and showed he is not up to the job of a response police officer, or the male had acted suspiciously before the video starts and the arrest to make further enquiries, was justified.

I'd be, as I have previously said here, delighted to see you proved correct. It would be great to see that the physical attack was entirely justified. For the record I do understand that there are many occasions where use of force is required.

It is not unlawful, when someone claims a reasonable defence, to check that defence, by speaking to another person to confirm it.

But you weren't going to speak to another person, you were going to coerce the imaginary person to phone a friend. You were going to take the right of refusal to do so as evidence and if this situation was real I put it to you that you would have arrested him.

Anyway, this is pointless, I think we've both made our points and let's wait and see if this incident disappears or if there is more to come.

Before I go, true story.

Just yesterday, coming out of Tesco's in Forfar, I spotted a young lad sitting on bench outside. Next to him was a backpack and sticking out of one of the side pockets was a claw hammer. As I passed I could easily have grabbed it. I did consider having a word with him, for the craic, and chat about the baseball guy, I did consider asking if I could take a pic of the back pack to post here to ask what you would do in this real life situation. I, for one tiny moment, considered phoning the police to report a man with a potentially offensive weapon sitting out side Tescos just to see how it would go down. I did nothing, of course.

The bag looked like a branded workwear bag, he looked like he had just finished work and I presumed all was in order and took that visual set up as a reasonable defence.

That guy is lucky a certain police officer from Manchester (or you ) wasn't on duty.

 

[jimbob]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2088580410192040311

Matthew Jury
@MattJury_Law
·
1h
Met Police disclosure of Al Fayed victims’ details: this is more than a data breach

The Metropolitan Police has admitted inadvertently disclosing the email addresses of 143 people who had alleged sexual abuse by Mohamed Al Fayed.

Some of the women affected are my clients

A lot more detail in tweet

initially posted in wrong thread

Posted By: jimbob

 

[Nessie]

You started from the position that it is an offensive weapon and would use your powers under Sec. 47 to apprehend and detain.

I cannot and will not argue against this. Again, I would say that there is no requirement to carry such an article out of sight. If you don't then it is entirely reasonable that you'll be asked to account.

Nessie, I'm not arguing against the fact that you should expect to be questioned by authorities if you are carrying something that could be used as a weapon. I'm arguing, in good faith, against the way things went down with the guy in the video. I think the officer handled it terribly and I do not think there is any room at all for justification in his approach.

You yourself, a long serving, very experienced retired officer created a situation where you would have acted incorrectly by attempting to coerce me to phone a friend.

Having said that, I see Manchester police have reviewed the incident and found that the officer has done nothing wrong. Colour me surprised.

Correct, I do wonder why BWC video has not been released which would show the correctitude of the initial approach.

Actually, I say I wonder, I don't. I'm working with two scenarios at the moment.

1) The footage does not show the officer acted within the remit of his job.
2) (most likely) Despite it being a requirement for an officer to activate their body-worn cameras when exercising official police powers, attending specific emergency or domestic incidents, or dealing with situations where evidence or use of force is likely. He never bothered, and why should he? He knew his ass was covered by the big wigs, why bother with any thing that might stay his hand when dealing with this situation.

I'd be, as I have previously said here, delighted to see you proved correct. It would be great to see that the physical attack was entirely justified. For the record I do understand that there are many occasions where use of force is required.

But you weren't going to speak to another person, you were going to coerce the imaginary person to phone a friend. You were going to take the right of refusal to do so as evidence and if this situation was real I put it to you that you would have arrested him.

Anyway, this is pointless, I think we've both made our points and let's wait and see if this incident disappears or if there is more to come.

Before I go, true story.

Just yesterday, coming out of Tesco's in Forfar, I spotted a young lad sitting on bench outside. Next to him was a backpack and sticking out of one of the side pockets was a claw hammer. As I passed I could easily have grabbed it. I did consider having a word with him, for the craic, and chat about the baseball guy, I did consider asking if I could take a pic of the back pack to post here to ask what you would do in this real life situation. I, for one tiny moment, considered phoning the police to report a man with a potentially offensive weapon sitting out side Tescos just to see how it would go down. I did nothing, of course.

The bag looked like a branded workwear bag, he looked like he had just finished work and I presumed all was in order and took that visual set up as a reasonable defence.

That guy is lucky a certain police officer from Manchester (or you ) wasn't on duty.

I started from a position that it can be, not that it is an offensive weapon, where intent and context are important.

I would not necessarily detain, but I would speak to the male, as the context is he openly displaying a baseball bat in a city centre, where there have been problems with youths fighting and using such as weapons. The reason I would speak to him to establish intent. If he stops, engages, states he is off to meet a friend for baseball and we can confirm that, he is on his way with the advisory about carrying the bat in bag next time. If he refuses to engage, then he gets detained.

You are wrong to claim I would be wrong to ask him to establish reasonable excuse for having the bat in a public place. The law is clear;

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995

An Act to consolidate for Scotland certain enactments creating offences and relating to criminal law there.

www.legislation.gov.uk

"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) above to [F3show that the person had a reasonable excuse] or lawful authority for having the article with him in the public place."

If you fail to provide a such a defence and/or I am not able to confirm it, you cannot then use that defence. It is not coercion to ask to speak to someone to confirm your defence. It is in your interests, as it will prevent an arrest or detention, and, whether that person makes the call, or provides the number for the police to make the call, makes no difference.

The police likely decided there would no action against the cop, because they accepted his reasons for the arrest, probably because there have been so many problems with youths fighting in city centres. They will have seen the arrest was pretty inept, but, that happens, arrests are rarely pretty, he still managed to arrest the male.

If I saw that male with the hammer visible in his bag, I would have a word, but since you say he appeared to be a workman, it would be an advisory to keep himself safe, from people like you, who might try and grab it off him. I have always found workmen to be very responsible about carrying items they know could cause people concern and one of the few times a male was arrested and kept in custody, was when a farmer walked into the local Sheriff Court carrying a knife. His reasonable excuse of, he had been using it to cut twine, whilst hay bailing, does not work when he inside a Court.

 

[bluesjnr]

I started from a position that it can be, not that it is an offensive weapon, where intent and context are important.

I would not necessarily detain, but I would speak to the male, as the context is he openly displaying a baseball bat in a city centre, where there have been problems with youths fighting and using such as weapons. The reason I would speak to him to establish intent. If he stops, engages, states he is off to meet a friend for baseball and we can confirm that, he is on his way with the advisory about carrying the bat in bag next time. If he refuses to engage, then he gets detained.

You are wrong to claim I would be wrong to ask him to establish reasonable excuse for having the bat in a public place. The law is clear;

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995

An Act to consolidate for Scotland certain enactments creating offences and relating to criminal law there.

www.legislation.gov.uk

"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) above to [F3show that the person had a reasonable excuse] or lawful authority for having the article with him in the public place."

If you fail to provide a such a defence and/or I am not able to confirm it, you cannot then use that defence. It is not coercion to ask to speak to someone to confirm your defence. It is in your interests, as it will prevent an arrest or detention, and, whether that person makes the call, or provides the number for the police to make the call, makes no difference.

The police likely decided there would no action against the cop, because they accepted his reasons for the arrest, probably because there have been so many problems with youths fighting in city centres. They will have seen the arrest was pretty inept, but, that happens, arrests are rarely pretty, he still managed to arrest the male.

If I saw that male with the hammer visible in his bag, I would have a word, but since you say he appeared to be a workman,
it would be an advisory to keep himself safe, from people like you, who might try and grab it off him. I have always found workmen to be very responsible about carrying items they know could cause people concern and one of the few times a male was arrested and kept in custody, was when a farmer walked into the local Sheriff Court carrying a knife. His reasonable excuse of, he had been using it to cut twine, whilst hay bailing, does not work when he inside a Court.

Really? Trying to put me on the wrong side of the law much? How do you arrive at the "presumption" that being around me with a claw hammer is not safe?

I listed 3 things that I considered in the 2 seconds or so it took me to spot the hammer as I passed him and walked on, none of which were to even attempt to take the hammer and you've turned that into a, "near miss".

 

[Nessie]

Really? Trying to put me on the wrong side of the law much? How do you arrive at the "presumption" that being around me with a claw hammer is not safe?

I listed 3 things that I considered in the 2 seconds or so it took me to spot the hammer as I passed him and walked on, none of which were to even attempt to take the hammer and you've turned that into a, "near miss".

You said "Just yesterday, coming out of Tesco's in Forfar, I spotted a young lad sitting on bench outside. Next to him was a backpack and sticking out of one of the side pockets was a claw hammer."

Then you said "As I passed I could easily have grabbed it."

It is reasonable for me to think that the first thing which popped into your head, was that you could grab the hammer.

 

[bluesjnr]

You said "Just yesterday, coming out of Tesco's in Forfar, I spotted a young lad sitting on bench outside. Next to him was a backpack and sticking out of one of the side pockets was a claw hammer."

Then you said "As I passed I could easily have grabbed it."

It is reasonable for me to think that the first thing which popped into your head, was that you could grab the hammer.

Then you are an idiot. That staement is idiotic in the extreme.

Any respect I had for you is gone.

Thank goodness you're retired. You're a danger to public and I should know because, according to you, I am too and it takes one to know one.

 

[Nessie]

Then you are an idiot. That staement is idiotic in the extreme.

Any respect I had for you is gone.

Thank goodness you're retired. You're a danger to public and I should know because, according to you, I am too and it takes one to know one.

It is blatantly obvious you are trying to wind me up and provoke. If you treat the police like you treat me, it is unlikely you will ever have a positive contact with them.

 

[bluesjnr]

It is blatantly obvious you are trying to wind me up and provoke. If you treat the police like you treat me, it is unlikely you will ever have a positive contact with them.

I think you have things round the wrong way. Especially following that ridiculous recent statement.

I don't deal with police under any normal circumstances and only when absolutely required to. That's because they behave just like you have did towards the end of this exchange. #cop ego.

It's a sickness.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I started from a position that it can be, not that it is an offensive weapon, where intent and context are important.

I would not necessarily detain, but I would speak to the male, as the context is he openly displaying a baseball bat in a city centre, where there have been problems with youths fighting and using such as weapons. The reason I would speak to him to establish intent. If he stops, engages, states he is off to meet a friend for baseball and we can confirm that, he is on his way with the advisory about carrying the bat in bag next time. If he refuses to engage, then he gets detained.

You are wrong to claim I would be wrong to ask him to establish reasonable excuse for having the bat in a public place. The law is clear;

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995

An Act to consolidate for Scotland certain enactments creating offences and relating to criminal law there.

www.legislation.gov.uk

"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) above to [F3show that the person had a reasonable excuse] or lawful authority for having the article with him in the public place."

If you fail to provide a such a defence and/or I am not able to confirm it, you cannot then use that defence. It is not coercion to ask to speak to someone to confirm your defence. It is in your interests, as it will prevent an arrest or detention, and, whether that person makes the call, or provides the number for the police to make the call, makes no difference.

The police likely decided there would no action against the cop, because they accepted his reasons for the arrest, probably because there have been so many problems with youths fighting in city centres. They will have seen the arrest was pretty inept, but, that happens, arrests are rarely pretty, he still managed to arrest the male.

If I saw that male with the hammer visible in his bag, I would have a word, but since you say he appeared to be a workman, it would be an advisory to keep himself safe, from people like you, who might try and grab it off him. I have always found workmen to be very responsible about carrying items they know could cause people concern and one of the few times a male was arrested and kept in custody, was when a farmer walked into the local Sheriff Court carrying a knife. His reasonable excuse of, he had been using it to cut twine, whilst hay bailing, does not work when he inside a Court.

My experience of the police on these matters has been very good, I used to have a Sinclair Safety Knife that I kept in my wallet for opening parcels at home and work. Unfortunately I forgot it was there when flying out out of Gatwick. I'd put my wallet in the tray with my carry on bag, the security guy asked if I had any sharps in my bag and I said no (I had one once make a big deal because he didn't know what a plug adaptor looked like in an X-Ray) and he didn't show me the picture. When he did I realised what it was told him exactly where and what it was but he called the police in and made a big deal about me saying I didn't have it without clarifying that he had asked me specifically about the bag or that once I'd seen the image I'd immediate realised what it was and told him. Being at the airport this meant I was detained by armed police, but the officers I dealt with were calm, polite and reassuring, I co-operated, told them my side of the story, gave my details and explained I used the knife to open parcels at work. They ran a quick background check to confirm I wasn't on any watch or no-fly list, assessed if my reason was credible and got me on my plane before departure. They did confiscate the knife, but I was perfectly happy with that outcome. My SAK I might have asked if I could post it home.

The moment of levity in the event was when we we're sitting there with two armed police detaining us on hard plastic chairs that agrivate my wife's back and she asks me why everyone walking past is staring at her rather than, far more potentially criminal looking, me. And I pointed out that I was sitting forward with my arms on my knees, she was sitting back with her hands in the small of her aching back and hence looked slightly handcuffed.

 

[smartcooky]

Police officers not knowing, or understanding the law and then trying to enforce it, is a huge problem. There is a strong anti-academic sentiment in the police, where the ability to learn, understand and remember the law and procedures, is not fully appreciated.

My limited experience of auditors, is that sometimes they have a point and they need to be treated as a member of the public would be.

The police do not like to be filmed backing down and walking away.

There is no excuse for it. They all carry smartphones. Those phones could be enabled to access to a searchable police database on the laws. They should simply be able to look up laws on the spot. Most auditors can do that!

 

[novaphile]

Once again I'm reminded of an incident involving my step brother...

After being pulled over for a traffic offence, the police officer noticed the handle of a sword poking out of a large kit bag on the back seat.

My step brother was asked to remove the bag and reveal the contents. (Swords, sais, nun chucks, etc.)

The officer said: "Please tell me you have a lawful excuse for carrying this stuff around."

"I'm a martial arts instructor and I'm on my way to teach a class."

"Good enough for me son, on your way."

 

[theprestige]

I started from a position that it can be, not that it is an offensive weapon, where intent and context are important.

I would not necessarily detain, but I would speak to the male, as the context is he openly displaying a baseball bat in a city centre, where there have been problems with youths fighting and using such as weapons. The reason I would speak to him to establish intent. If he stops, engages, states he is off to meet a friend for baseball and we can confirm that, he is on his way with the advisory about carrying the bat in bag next time. If he refuses to engage, then he gets detained.

You are wrong to claim I would be wrong to ask him to establish reasonable excuse for having the bat in a public place. The law is clear;

Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995

An Act to consolidate for Scotland certain enactments creating offences and relating to criminal law there.

www.legislation.gov.uk

"It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) above to [F3show that the person had a reasonable excuse] or lawful authority for having the article with him in the public place."

If you fail to provide a such a defence and/or I am not able to confirm it, you cannot then use that defence. It is not coercion to ask to speak to someone to confirm your defence. It is in your interests, as it will prevent an arrest or detention, and, whether that person makes the call, or provides the number for the police to make the call, makes no difference.

The police likely decided there would no action against the cop, because they accepted his reasons for the arrest, probably because there have been so many problems with youths fighting in city centres. They will have seen the arrest was pretty inept, but, that happens, arrests are rarely pretty, he still managed to arrest the male.

If I saw that male with the hammer visible in his bag, I would have a word, but since you say he appeared to be a workman, it would be an advisory to keep himself safe, from people like you, who might try and grab it off him. I have always found workmen to be very responsible about carrying items they know could cause people concern and one of the few times a male was arrested and kept in custody, was when a farmer walked into the local Sheriff Court carrying a knife. His reasonable excuse of, he had been using it to cut twine, whilst hay bailing, does not work when he inside a Court.

Once again I'm reminded of an incident involving my step brother...

After being pulled over for a traffic offence, the police officer noticed the handle of a sword poking out of a large kit bag on the back seat.

My step brother was asked to remove the bag and reveal the contents. (Swords, sais, nun chucks, etc.)

The officer said: "Please tell me you have a lawful excuse for carrying this stuff around."

"I'm a martial arts instructor and I'm on my way to teach a class."

"Good enough for me son, on your way."

I love the idea of stopping them to ask if they're planning to do armed crimes. What if they tell the police they're not? Police officers must hate this one trick!