"If we (Judicial Marshals) don't have weapons, we won't pose a threat, and hopefully we won't be targeted."

Sounds like a milquetoast statement to me. What do you cops/marshals/bailiffs think?

Great logic.


So why  not just disarm everyone, deputies and all?


Bleet.

Pusillanimous asshole.

Sam

Was the court reporter armed? Was the judge armed?


ByteTheBullet  (-:

"If we (Judicial Marshals) don't have weapons, we won't pose a threat, and hopefully we won't be targeted."

What do we pay these guys for????

Quoted: Pusillanimous asshole. Sam

LOL

Another example of an unintelligent bureacrat with the right connections

What do you expect from a blue state politition? (note my location)
Yes, weapon retention is something that has to be thought about and trained about.If you provide law enforcement with weapons, (and of course you need weapons when "guarding" or handeling people who are proven or potential threats)you can not totally prevent those weapons from misuse .From a quick read of the headlines it certainlly seems that this particular event might have been handeled better.Sometimes the animals need to be kept in locked cages,not paraded around in public places without chains and cuffs.
My thoughts and good whishes go out to the friends and family of those killed in this incident and I can only hope much thought and preperation is going on at all courthouses and such to try to head off like problemns
in the future. (note I said TRY,life is never certain)
I seem to remember that when I last served jury (7 or 8 years ago) I was surprised at the lack of security.
People serveing jury were run thru the metal detector first thing in the morning and given a paste on label
"jury" to go on their shirt or jacket and after lunch could walk around the detector when reentering the court. The inside of the public parking garage next door  had hundreds of these stickers pasted over the inside of the stairs,eleavators and walls . Just flabergasted me that they couldn't see what a lousy system it was. I don't think any of the ballif types (mostly old and out of shape ) or the younger sherrif types manning the metal detectors had any sidearms.

I say bailiffs/deputies should keep their firearms, but keep the defendants cuffed.  If it makes the jury think that person is more guilty, then that jurist probably shouldn't be part of the jury anyways.

Quoted: "If we (Judicial Marshals) don't have weapons, we won't pose a threat, and hopefully we won't be targeted." Sounds like a milquetoast statement to me. What do you cops/marshals/bailiffs think?

WTF are CT Judicial Marshals? No SDs in CT?

While I agree the officer handling the prisoner and going back into the holding cell should not be armed, someone in the courtroom should be.

"Bailiffs" are called "Judicial Marshals" in CT.

This would be good application of those sidearms with a safety, ie is only the authorized person can fire the gun. If for some unknown reason, a prisoner did wrest the gun away inspite of all the training, the gun couldn't fire it because that person was not authorized.

Quoted: This would be good application of those sidearms with a safety, ie is only the authorized person can fire the gun. If for some unknown reason, a prisoner did wrest the gun away inspite of all the training, the gun couldn't fire it because that person was not authorized.

No, this would be a good application of some training and common sense, ie letting a 51 year old woman guard a very dangerous prisoner.

I'd rather trust good procedure than an electronic magic gun.