Here's to opening an old thread:
English law would have applied, plain and simple.
As was posted above, the USMS can deputize local officers to help with extraditions, but there is no mention of this being the case in the movie. Even so, the carrying of a weapon would have been under the auspices of the host nation.
In the current setting, Federal Air Marshals can land and deplane in foreign airports, but they secure their weapons in the airport if they wish to leave it.
Now, as to the authority of officers outside of their geographic jurisdictions, please note that there are 50 states in the US, and each has their own framework. In my state, a police officer may leave their jurisdiction with full authority to investigate a crime that occurred within their jurisdiction. Furthermore, warrants are applicable to all peace officers, constables, coroners, etc, without any regard to jurisdiction. Sheriff's in my state are constitutional officers; so, sheriff's and their deputies have statewide jurisdiction. Finally, our traffic code has the phrase "any officer" in it, and the state supreme court ruled that meant any officer anywhere in the state provided the offense was prosecuted in the jurisdiction in which it occurred.
I believe California grants complete statewide jurisdiction to any peace officer. In some states the sheriff is simply a civil officer, but in others it is a full fledged law enforcement officer and a quite powerful one at that.
Current law in the US (as of 2004 if I remember correctly) allows active and certain retired officers to carry firearms across state lines.
reply
share
gary_overman
11 years ago
<English law would have applied, plain and simple.>
Quite so.
Except for purposes of the extradition, Braningan would have had absolutely no police authority at all in the UK. And since British law does not allow in most cases, even the police to be armed, our lovable Irish cop would have to relinquish his Colt Diamondback at the demand of Scotland Yard. That Sir Charles did not do so immediately, is amazing to me.
But then the story would not have worked out like it did if he had, now would it?
reply
share
Zipper69
10 years ago
pops_mcfly says:
"Considering that British folks who decided on a "No gun" law were a bunch of dumbasses for even considering that it was a good idea......"
clearly fails to appreciate that England has had restrictions on the personal ownership of handguns since 1914 (due to Fenian attacks at that time).
More to the point the English don't live in constant fear and terror of being attacked, perhaps Mr McFly needs to man up.
Come on lads
bags of swank
reply
share
joe_538
7 years ago
Don't have to worry about attacks on that side of the pond so long as they have handguns legally banned? MI-5 would disagree with you. Private gun ownership aside, what about trucks, machetes, knives, Molotov cocktails, improvised explosives, and bare hands? Rape and other violent crimes are on the rise in the UK, and a person is more likely to be mugged in London than in Harlem. The UK is fortunate their intelligence agencies catch so many terrorist plots before they can be carried out, but it also makes you wonder how long until someone slips by under their radar.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/nov/01/andrew-parker-mi5-director-general-there-will-be-terrorist-attacks-in-britain-exclusive
reply
share
Zipper69
7 years ago
The danger of terrorist attack is universal throughout the Western World, no more so in the UK than anywhere else.
Comparing London (population 8.36 million) with Harlem (population 335 thousand)
is ridiculous.
As I posted much earlier personal handgun ownership there has been severely restricted since 1914. The Dunblane school massacre was enough to convince Parliament that a total ban would be worthwhile. Shotguns and hunting rifles are restricted but much more straightforward to register and own, but comprehensive background checks weed out the cranks and nutters than seem free to arm themselves here.
Come on lads, bags of swank!
reply
share
joe_538
7 years ago
The comparison between London and Harlem was made per 1,000 residents, not the overall number of muggings.
The Tories have found that in Harlem last year there were just 5.9 robberies per 1,000 residents.
Across London the figure was 7.4 attacks.
In some inner-city boroughs the level of street crime was even higher.
Lambeth, which includes Brixton, saw 24 muggings per 1,000 people - four times the Harlem rate.
Westminster - which includes Downing Street and Buckingham Palace - had 12 robberies per 1,000 residents.
The borough of Islington, where Tony Blair lived before becoming Prime Minister, saw 9.3 attacks per 1,000.
I've seen graphs of England's homicide rate after the handgun ban, it seems less than effective, and reports of the police underreporting crimes have been making their way here since the late 1990s. A knee-jerk reaction by ill-informed politicians to an isolated incident with questionable results is nothing to take pride in.
reply
share
Zipper69
7 years ago
Nevertheless, to derive statistical significance by comparing a huge city with a local area is flawed.
Lambeth is largely inner city government housing with a large percentage Afro-Caribbean population, Westminster, despite the posh connections also has large areas of run down government housing were recidivist criminals choose to live. Islington, despite being gentrified by the like of Blair was solidly working class, who have now been priced out of town leaving what is not owned by yuppies as rooming houses for the Welfare classes.
The handgun, as an instrument of murder was never common in the UK, the ban was a prescriptive one. Handgun ownership, except for a tiny minority that were either target shooters or collectors was rare. Certainly the UK population had never felt the urge to be armed for personal protection.
Much of the increase in violent crime was due to the collapse of the USSR and the sudden influx of illegal firearms from the Soviet bloc into Western Europe and the UK. In addition the huge increase in illegal drug imports and the inter-gang warfare that usually accompanies it led to turf wars.
Worth reading:
http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/examining-uk-gun-crime-15-years-after-firearms-act
Come on lads, bags of swank!
reply
share