To do or not to do

[Riverkilt]

Why not just phone the police and ask them?...and hope that opinion was accurate and shared by the cops working the event?

Ron

[Archangel]

Why not just phone the police and ask them?...and hope that opinion was accurate and shared by the cops working the event?

Ron

Sometimes it's not clear if you ask.

I'm thinking that I've recently seen reports where that is specifically prohibited so the official answer would have to be negative. I have double-checked that. The event people might okay it in context.

In Canadian law, few knives are specifically outlawed. A visible skean dhu is legal (actually a claymore would be but I wouldn't push it). A concealed one would be illegal. Because Canadial law takes the common sense approach that anything can be a weapon, it is the event cops' subjective opinion if it is illegal. That can be based on their assessment of you alone, your attitude/behaviour or even the mood of the event itself. Lack of co-operation would indicate that the cop was right. Their first suggestion is you put it away, it's good to follow that advice. It is a hard defence to challenge.

[Dreadbelly]

Sorry, but reading this is making me angry.

What a bunch of horse crap.

I can do more damage with my two fists or my cane than I could with some butterknife stashed in my sock, and there is all this fuss about legality. ARGH! The whole concept is STUPID and it defies logic. If I have a black knife stashed in my sock that is the least of your worries if you are a law enforcement type.

A little itty bitty knife causing so much fuss is just silly... It's the psuedo danger they can focus on and pretend they are doing something good to defend society. A well trained human being with his (or her) two fists, their skull, knees, elbows, hip bones, knees, and feet is far more dangerous but impossible to outlaw.

The whole thing is just IRKSOME. It makes me batty. Makes me want to kick somebody in the *** to knock some sense in to them.

[Archangel]

Sorry, but reading this is making me angry.

What a bunch of horse crap.

I can do more damage with my two fists or my cane than I could with some butterknife stashed in my sock, and there is all this fuss about legality. ARGH! The whole concept is STUPID and it defies logic. If I have a black knife stashed in my sock that is the least of your worries if you are a law enforcement type.

A little itty bitty knife causing so much fuss is just silly... It's the psuedo danger they can focus on and pretend they are doing something good to defend society. A well trained human being with his (or her) two fists, their skull, knees, elbows, hip bones, knees, and feet is far more dangerous but impossible to outlaw.



The whole thing is just IRKSOME. It makes me batty. Makes me want to kick somebody in the *** to knock some sense in to them.

ah, but you're forgetting the point. the idea of the law is protect those who are not trained or armed. then the idea is that the responsibility of protection becomes that of the civil authorities. so then it follows that ordinary people don't have to arm themselves to protect themselves.

You and I know the flaws of this logic, but Canada, Britain and most of the US accept it as an ideal to pursue. (I know I'm going to get in trouble for this but once again, I'm not going any further because that thread never goes well. These are facts not my opinion.)

Do I follow this, ha. I come from a background with a very strong knife culture. I always have one. Last year there was an event that was going to be firmly policed and I would be wanded. I left my knife in the car. However, crossing the field to the event I found something suitable. I don't even know what it really is. It looks like a jagged caping knife but it is some kind of plastic compound. I felt better and took it as a sign from above that I was right.

[bubba]

ah, but you're forgetting the point. the idea of the law is protect those who are not trained or armed. then the idea is that the responsibility of protection becomes that of the civil authorities. so then it follows that ordinary people don't have to arm themselves to protect themselves.

Interesting thing is the police simply can't uphold their end of the deal but demand we stick closely to it. In the US a while back the Supreme Court ruled that police have no obligation to protect any individual. This society is insane and suicidal.

[KMacT]

I can do more damage with my two fists or my cane than I could with some butterknife stashed in my sock, and there is all this fuss about legality. ARGH! The whole concept is STUPID and it defies logic. If I have a black knife stashed in my sock that is the least of your worries if you are a law enforcement type.

I can see two alternate law enforcement approaches. The police could take issue with weapons (even small knives), or they could assess each individual and make a specific determination. What would an individual approach look like? A baby with a small knife? Not a danger to anyone (leaving aside danger to the baby). So the police don't care about the baby's weapon. An adult with a good (non-weapon) reason to have a knife? Then they may not take issue. And then there is Dreadbelly. A self-professed dangerous person. If the police are to make individual determinations, I would expect them to lock up Dreadbelly because he's a walking weapon and a potential danger to others. As he says, he doesn't need a weapon to do a lot of damage, so in this approach a weapon would not be a prerequisite to detaining him.

I prefer the focus to be on weapons and not the potential danger inherent in people (aren't we all potentially dangerous?), but that's just me.

There is a third option, I suppose, where the police don't care at all about what you are carrying, be that a small knife, an automatic weapon or a ground to air missile, but I'm a Canadian so it's hard to comprehend such unrestricted freedom.

Kevin

[Dreadbelly]

I can see two alternate law enforcement approaches. The police could take issue with weapons (even small knives), or they could assess each individual and make a specific determination. What would an individual approach look like? A baby with a small knife? Not a danger to anyone (leaving aside danger to the baby). So the police don't care about the baby's weapon. An adult with a good (non-weapon) reason to have a knife? Then they may not take issue. And then there is Dreadbelly. A self-professed dangerous person. If the police are to make individual determinations, I would expect them to lock up Dreadbelly because he's a walking weapon and a potential danger to others. As he says, he doesn't need a weapon to do a lot of damage, so in this approach a weapon would not be a prerequisite to detaining him.

I prefer the focus to be on weapons and not the potential danger inherent in people (aren't we all potentially dangerous?), but that's just me.

There is a third option, I suppose, where the police don't care at all about what you are carrying, be that a small knife, an automatic weapon or a ground to air missile, but I'm a Canadian so it's hard to comprehend such unrestricted freedom.

Kevin

Our nation is rapidly becoming spineless pussified dipsticks... Wouldn't suprise me if there was some sort of bright idea to make people boneless so they couldn't bludgeon somebody with their own natural weaponry.

We'll all be oozing bags of skin blobbering around soon.

[Blu (Ontario)]

Dang... I must be asleep at the switch or somethin' ... just got the pun from the thread title - "To dubh or not to dubh" -

"Another Drambuie please..."

[James]

I would certainly wear my skean dhu-as I do anyway: both in and around London: or wherever else I happen to be.

For it is one of the things that distinguishes the kilt as a kilt, and of course the clan/highland as opposed to the Scottish connection.

James

[Archangel]

Interesting thing is the police simply can't uphold their end of the deal but demand we stick closely to it. In the US a while back the Supreme Court ruled that police have no obligation to protect any individual. This society is insane and suicidal.

I'm pretty sure that the Canadian gov't still holds that they are responsible for protection.
I'm more familiar with defence issues. The Canadian ruling is that one must be able to demonstrate that (a) one tried to call the authorities or (b) had no opportunity to call or (c) called and was unable to wait for their arrival. If those conditions are satisfied then one may be able to claim a legal position of self-defence. There's also a limitation on the degree of force one can use, enough to stop the attack. There is another position which is not used as often but it's a better legal defence: enough force to stop a continuing attack. That one allows an incapacitating, Dreadbelly, type response. Most self-defence instructors do not distinguish the two legal positions. My classes teach the students to never say to the police that they had a knife, they had a cutting tool, and that the situation was a continuing attack. The students have never had to go to court even though several have had to use the skills. My proudest was a young lady who knocked the first guy out and scarred the second so that all the police had to do was hit the bars and find the scarred and get them both. That was within an hour of being shown the technique.

....but we're way off the thread here.