I miss Sky.
Not to piss all over someone’s domestic problems, but :rolleyes:. The Atlantic Ocean seems mighty wide today.
At any rate, I agree with Istara. The reason smuggling replica guns onto an airplane is illegal is to prevent people from trying to hijack planes with them. If the reporter had been caught red-handed doing this, then I’d support throwing the book at him. Because, like Anthracite says, how do you know if he’s doing it for a story, or doing it for real? But once he’s gotten away with it, and no one was harmed or even inconvenienced in the process, it’s a waste of time and resources to bust him now. It makes it look like the cops are just pissed at him for making them look bad.
Yes, poor us. We usually only get to deal with replica guns.
It doesn’t even have to be a replica gun to get you into trouble.
Years ago when I was living in Fort Lauderdale, I had such an experience on an otherwise boring night. Our game of Axis and Allies was waning, so what do we do? Break out the Lazer Tag gear and start duelling.
My roommate and one of our guests went first and both quickly disapperared into the night. We were in a townhouse complex, with a parking lane out front and a pool in the back yard. After just a few minutes our guest came in, with his target all lit up, and it was my turn.
I did two loops around the house, never seeing Dirk- he was wearing all black, and had long black hair, so he blended right into the shadows. On my third trip around I saw a police car flying into the lot with its lights out- so I ducked into the house. The other two guys were not inside; after a few minutes my roommate came in and said that the police wanted to talk to me.
My roomie and Matt, the other guest, were having a beer at poolside. Four cops were there as well, two talking to Dirk and two waiting for me. Apparently, they found Dirk in the bushes near the pool, and disarmed him at gunpoint. The only thing that saved him was that he didn’t recognize the voice- and we were not yelling “freeze, drop the gun.” The cops were livid, but they had no charge against us- someone, one of the neighbors, ahd called in and reported a “black man with a machine gun in the yard.” They kept us there for about a half-hour, then left all disgusted.
Even though nothing really happened, I agree that toy guns are dangerous; anyone playing with toy guns should be supervised or should be playing where they will not be mistaken for criminals.
Thank you for addressing my question, but I wasn’t asking whether it was illegal to hold up a bank with a toy gun. I already know that.
What I was asking–what it seemed like the OP was saying–was that it’s illegal in the UK to *go into a store and buy a toy gun with the express purpose of using it to commit a crime. * What I wanna know is, is that true? And, how do they prosecute something like that? How do the authorities prove what your intent was? Do they actually bust people in the parking lot of Toys R Us, “Whatcha doin’ with that toy gun? Not gonna use it to hold up any banks, are ya?”
DDG, it’s not uncommon at all for the legality of an act to be dependent on the intent. There’s a world of difference between hitting someone with your car intentionally versus accidentally, no ? And I’m pretty sure it’s illegal in the US to go into a store to buy diesel and nitrate fertilizer with the express purpose of making a truck bomb.
Anyhoo, the idjits were charged with “conspiracy to possess an imitation firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence”, and I think you’re overlooking the “conspiracy” bit, which is what can make it stick in this case. Let’s say Tom and Harry decides to rob a bank, and Tom is put in charge of getting replica weaponry. Meanwhile Harry gets cold feet and turns Crown’s witness - wouldn’t you agree that there’s a good case against Tom, if we watch him go out and buy a couple of realistic plastic guns ? He’d better be able to produce a pair of nephews in the right age bracket…
And, of course, after the fact there’s no doubt. You committed a burglary with a replica gun ? Obviously, you got the gun with malice aforethought and the Court has an additional crime to prosecute you for. Have another 3 months.
All of which makes it less attractive to use replica guns to rob banks, which makes life easier for police and innocent bystanders. Hell, it makes sense to me.
Back in '86, at the “height” of Lazer Tag popularity, some kids in Los Angeles were playing at night on a school playground. Somebody reported a “man with a gun”. A deputy showed up and started looking- one of the kids didn’t know he was a cop (he wasn’t yelling ‘come out with your hands up’ for example) and popped out of a bush and “shot” at him.
The deputy killed him with two rounds from a 12-gauge.
It’s technically called a “furtive movement shooting”- the officer had every reason to believe the kid had a real weapon, and the kid was moving and pointing it as if it were. It’s what got that fellow in New York killed a few years back.
Consider yourself lucky.
As I mentioned, you would check his credentials as a journalist.
You would also check with his commissioning editor that the guy was commissioned to do this particular investigative expose.
Then the fact that the gun incident ended up as an expose in the UK papers - before the arrest - rather than ending up as an actual hijack/public scare - might also tip off even the average plod that the guy was working as a journalist, not a terrorist.
I don’t get it. What he did was illegal, in and of itself. He knew it was illegal. How are reasons for doing it exculpatory? How is his editor able to give him a free pass for committing a crime?
Erm, no. Just no. It’s not the police’s decision on whether or not to prosecute. That belongs to the Crown Prosecution Service, or in Scotland the Procurator Fiscal. The police have reason and evidence that an offence may have been committed. It is their duty to act upon this, and then let the relevant authorities decide upon further action. I would be a lot more uncomfortable with a state where the police did make decisions on guilty intentions, then I would with this little affair.
And frankly, I doubt the police are pissed at all. It’s the CAA and that airports specific management who look stupid on this one - the police are not responsible for checking the various staff working around airports in the UK, any more than they’re responsible for checking the passengers boarding each plane. Thats another little reason why the “UK police state” tag seems so innapropriate.
They didn’t do it to expose a security breach, they did it to sell newspapers.