Re: Radcliffe bad press
Godbout, Marc (GodboutM@ANDOVERCONTROLS.COM)
Fri, 2 May 1997 08:21:32 -0400
> From: John Peschken[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Reply To: email@example.com
> Sent: Thursday, May 01, 1997 8:09 PM
> To: Godbout, Marc
> Cc: Multiple recipients of list SCOUTS-L
> Subject: Re: Radcliffe bad press
> Godbout, Marc wrote:
> > I believe the main reason these laws were written were to prevent
> > hijacking.
> They do so by making it a felony to attempt to take a gun on the
> There is no doubt Mr. R did that. The fact that he says he forgot is
> irrelevant. Try that one next time a cop wants to give you a speeding
> ticket. Gee, officer, I forgot what the speed limit was. Bet it
I doubt very much that it's irrelevant to the FL courts. In the initial
press release, the comment from the police was something like "usually
it's a case where someone forgot they had the gun packed". Sounds like
they were not too worried about it at the time. Intent to commit a
crime is very relevant when doling out punishment. The speeding is not
a good analogy because the limit is posted everywhere and it's your duty
to know the limit. Besides, that's just a lame excuse. So how about
"Gee, Your Honor (the judge decides the punishment, not the officer), I
didn't know my speedometer was inaccurate."?
> > I also believe that certain individuals, such as Federal
> > Marshals, are allowed to bring loaded firearms onto an airline.
> Mr. Radcliffe is not a Federal Marshall.
My point was that the act of carrying a loaded gun is not, by itself, an
unsafe act worthy of a felony. It's a felony because the police need a
tool to combat hijackers, and scanning for and preventing guns from
making it onto a plane is very effective. No, Mr. Radcliffe is not a
Federal Marshall. Neither is he a hijacker.
> > None of us know any differently and until we find out any real
> > *FACTS*
> > that prove differently we've got no right demanding his dismissal.
> Certainly our information is second hand, but we have a statement from
> Mr Radcliffe that he did it. What facts do you feel we might be
Intent to break the law. I have no problem with whatever the FL law
decides to do, but many on this list would have Mr. Radcliffe dismissed
summarily for what is a stupid mistake. I say that if he intended to
deceive airport security, or if he knowingly carried a concealed weapon
without permits, then that should be dealt with.
> > We should be careful not to set our standards so high that only
> > deity
> > need apply.
> It does not require a deity to follow the law. If you choose to carry
> gun, it is your responsibility to do so in accordance with all
> applicable laws. If you don't, you need to be held responsible.
> You don't need to be a God, just a good citizen.
Good citizens make mistakes. Gods don't. You would like to end a man's
career because of a mistake which happened to break the law. If he
never intended to break the law, then exactly how does that make him a
bad citizen? He never said he didn't know the law, which is also a good
citizen's duty. He absent-mindedly forgot to unpack his gun. Unsafe?
Yes - although many would argue even this point. Unlawful? Not until
he crossed onto airport property.
SM Troop 98
ASM Troop 412
Terry Howerton Sakima Group, Inc. SCOUTER Magazine Kansas City