User talk:Charles01/Archive 26

Merge discussion for Messerschmitt KR200

An article that you have been involved in editing, Messerschmitt KR200, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

For creating the Renault 1 000 kg article. Well done! Urbanoc (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing and bothering to comment.

I'm still troubled by the way one vehicle can support so many different names, but that did not seem a sufficient reason to leave it out. I suppose the next thing is to set up a lot of redirect pages. Or maybe to decide between 1 000 and 1,000 (and 1.000 ...). Maybe a cup of coffee is indeed the better option. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Borgward may have broken the syntax by modifying 7 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Charles01. You have new messages at A930913's talk page.
Message added 19:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neckar (car) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Neckar (car) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tax horsepower may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The Kabinenroller discussion lives!

An editor named User:Degen Earthfast has put in his two cents to the discussion about merging the articles about the Messerschmitt Kabinenroller. His argument is just about exactly the same as yours. However, being presented the argument again after not thinking about it for so long has given me a fresh perspective, and I have replied to your point here: Talk:Messerschmitt Kabinenroller#Reply to Charles01 and Degen Earthfast. Feel free to take a look if you're still interested in the debate. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

1st Czechoslovak Partisan Brigade of Jan Žižka

Hello Charles,

it's been a long time since we've been in contact. How are you doing?

I am currently looking for someone to do a copy-edit of 1st Czechoslovak Partisan Brigade of Jan Žižka, in order for it to pass for Template:Did you know nominations/1st Czechoslovak Partisan Brigade of Jan Žižka. Could you please do that for me, or maybe recommend me someone else capable of doing it?

Also, a topic that might be closer to your heart and which I would also appreciate to be copy-edited after me: [1] :) Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The one about the partisan brigade looks interesting. I'll certainly take a look, though if someone else gets in first I shan't complain. If that sounds half-hearted, it doesn't indicate lack of interest. Merely that it might be quite a big job. I'll see if the muse grabs me. I AM interested in that period of history, very interested, and of course that war looks very different two generations on, depending on whether you live in a European country where you ended up in the Soviet zone or in the western zone. The Brits lost the economic and political heft to retain an empire (which Churchill said we were fighting to save) and our glorious US allies took great care no to let us off our war debts to them (unlike other European countries closer to the Soviet Union which they showered with money) and went to great lengths to ensure that British decolonisation was a one-way street. Yet the British public view on the street is still that the Americans (once the Germans and Japanese had drawn them into the war) were "better" and "more reliable" allies for the Brits than other Europeans. Well, certainly I cannot blame US governments for pursuing US (rather than Churchillian UK) interests, and I am sufficiently a child of my own time to think the British empire probably deserved to be liberated from colonisation just as Hitler's empire and Stalin's empires did. But I do get fed up that the ONLY bit of history they teach the kids at school here is the period 1940-45, and the approach is so crassly distorted that one wonders sometimes why they bother. Yes, I know history teaching is always distorted by subsequent and contemporary political priorities. Anyhow, you didn't deserve this digression. I think I must be overdue for another coffee.

The Skoda one also would be interesting, especially interesting for me since our SEAT Toledo blew up its turbo in 2012 and now we spend quite a bit of time driving a (modern! - well no longer latest model, but still feels modern to me) Octavia. But time is always a constraint, and so if you go to the Project Automobile discussion page you'll find plenty of people who could check it out and one or two who would probably welcome the opportunity and do it well. Never having asked the question myself, I don't know which they are, of course. Still, it would be interesting to find out. If you agree, leave a message and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and see what happens.

Success Charles01 (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh that is a very nice idea with throwing Superb to the crowd. I might do the same also with Randy Blythe's manslaughter charges. Also, thank you for taking up the brigade. I thought it is not that bad but my attempt at getting it to DYK seemed to have proven me wrong.

The Czechs have it easy in the direction of colonies since they never had any and never really tried to conquer anyone (fighting off the Germans was enough for 900 years, and then they turned to Habsburg colony). As regards what is taught in schools, I think that the fact that Germans were showered with money after the war while countries like UK had to pay off the debts is very telling. Here in the Czech Republic the issue is complicated by the fact that Germany never agreed to set off war damages against the duty to take care of the expellees.

The new Toledo is completely designed and manufactured by Škoda. Considering that Škoda is recently outperforming even VW as regards reliability, maybe trading in for a new model would not be a bad idea ;)

Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I sat in a (European: NOT Indian)Skoda Rapide at the Skoda dealer a couple of months back. Not unpleasant, but slightly smaller than (even a 2011) Octavia in the back and the front, and the kids aren't getting any smaller. In an emergency the Octavia still works as a family car for a multi-passenger school run. (Our diesel Previa has MUCH more space, but it is very slow and it broke down four times when still fairly new and is currently on its third turbo in under 200,000 km. So given the choice I still tend to prefer to trust the Octavia as I did (see rather indifferent picture) when I found an oriental Renault at a Peugeot museum over the weekend.) And if ever I can afford another car, I think an Octavia - even a second hand one - would trump a Rapide based Toledo.

On the Czechoslovak partisans, I'm still "on the case", though I've been deflected by going to France and then by the telephone going "down". You are lucky to live in a country with a first world infra-structure... + Saluts Charles01 (talk) 09:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Czechoslovak partisans: request for clarification

I modified a line then wondered if I had got it right. Here's the line:

"...most of them being ethnic Slovaks ...The majority were former members of the Slovak army: some of these had served in the Hungarian army, and then deserted in order to join either Soviet partisans or the Red Army. "

Question 1: Does this mean they were mostly from Slovakia? Or were they part of the Slovak minority that had ended up in the Czech lands when the two had been split in 1939? And how odd that most of the partisans in the Czech lands to the west were ethnically Slovak rather than "ethnic Czechs". OR is the point that Bohemia and Moravia are also predominantly peopled by "ethnic Slovaks". Well, I'm not sure I explain it very well, but at least you can see that I am confused. Again.

Question 2: I'm not clear whether the ones from the Hungarian army had previously served in the Slovak army, or whether they are in addition to (and therefore in terms of where they came from separate from) the ones who had previously served in the Slovak army.  ?

"The unit of 21 was divided into.."

Question 3: I cannot find where the article has said what the "Unit of 21" was. Is it a unit of the 1st Czechoslovak Partisan Brigade of Jan Žižka? Is it a unit of 21 men? Is it called this because it was parachuted in on 21 August?

It's a real problem (in terms of trying to come up with an accurate translation) that I know so little of the background, but of course the good news (in terms of my general knowledge) is that I am now learning more. And for better or worse, other English speaking readers of the entry may know even less about the background than I do, so it is important to spell things out.

Thanks for any available clarifications. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for making it such a mess :) The unit was 21 men strong. 14 of them were ethnic Slovaks (the original plan was for them to operate in Slovakia) and 7 were citizens of USSR (I am not sure about ethnicity).

Most of those Slovaks found themselves in Fascist Slovakia in 1939, and served in its army. However, some of the Slovaks who were part of the original unit of 21 men served in Hungarian army - presumably these were ethnic Slovaks who had lived on the southern side of the Slovak-Hungarian border. In any case, all of them have defected in order to join the enemy.

At the part where you are now, it was still known as "Uršiak-Murzin Unit".

Later, the article explains how most Slovaks didn't make it to Moravia and the ethnic mix-up changed with most members being Czechs.

Please feel free to ask as many questions you like, I will be glad to give more information either for your personal gain or for the clarity of article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a mess. Not even a mess with a “ :)”. It’s a fascinating and well presented article. But it does also, I think, give an example of how much we can be affected by differences in unspoken assumptions that usually don’t even get noticed and certainly don’t normally get discussed. You and I both come from Europe, but we nevertheless have our thought patterns defined by different languages and we grew up learning about different places. In the article I have noticed a town – more than one – with a Czechoslovak looking name - that begins with “S”. I do not know, simply from looking at the spelling, how I should pronounce it. Because I cannot instantly say the word to myself I still have not got round to fixing the name in my head. You not merely know without thinking about it how to pronounce the name. You probably even know where it is without having to look at a map. So you are applying maybe 2% of your applied mental space to the issue of location while I am obsessing about it, using up maybe 30% or more of my relevant thinking space. You are writing about who the guys were and what they did while I am still distracted by trying to figure out and then to remember where they were doing it. My brain was desperately trying to follow “Richtlinien” (tram lines) that said these guys were meant to be in the Czech lands while for you that was a minor detail and, by the way, they were in Slovakia at this time. Those differences in unspoken assumptions generally go unremarked, but they help explain the colossal errors of the Blair Gang in Iraq as well as countless lesser mutual misunderstandings between unimaginative political leaders who spent all their energies simply getting to the top. May God help the Americans trying to understand the Chinese or vice versa. Maybe the answer is to spend half a life time spying on the other side before you become a world leader. Or spend half a life time with the other side’s army in town. I sense that that nice Mr Putin and that nice Mrs Merkel maybe understand one another better than is usual between world leaders, even if that does not mean they have to like each other very much. So much for digression. On with Friday. Oh yes, and thank you for these clarifications. Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

When looking at it, this might also need a clarification: There, the unit made contact with members of partisan group Wolfram, the establishing members of which had been deployed by the Czechoslovak-government in exile and air-dropped to the area from Italy. These soldiers were trained in UK and sent by the Czechoslovak officials based in UK (unlike the Uršiak-Murzin unit, which was de-iure sent also by the London CS government, but de facto by the Reds). Wolfram was first transferred to Italy and then took another airplane from there for airdrop in Moravia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

This is beginning to look like maybe it's quite a long digression, if you're planning at some stage to give the Wolfram Group it's own entry (after which a lot of the detail can simply be addressed with a link to the more detailed article. I'm wondering about relegating some of it for now to a footnote. Not sure.... Any thoughts?

Yes, Wolfram will definitely get a separate article. They were the most successful of all intelligence units operating in the Czech lands as regards the number and quality of reports they dispatched to London. Unfortunately, having spent some 65 hours at work this week, I really need to try to avoid the keyboard this weekend :) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Czechoslovak partisans: more requests for clarification

"...as regards the original air-drop..."

I don't think we mentioned an air-drop before. I had the impression they crossed into Moravia through the hills/mountains beyond Štiavnik. If there was an airdrop, I think we need to say what and where and who. The first question that comes to me is "who supplied the planes?"

Thoughts/clarification please? and regards Charles01 (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

They were parachuted from Soviet plane to Štiavnik Sklabiňa (sorry for this mistake), Slovakia, then they transfered on land to Moravia. I meant the 21 initial members by the "original airdrop".

Also, a clarification regarding Wolfram: they were transfered from UK to Italy (probably by plane) where they got on another plane, from which they were parachuted to Moravia. They were not parachuted to Italy. I guess flying across Alps was easier to avoid detection than flying across Germany.

As regards the bombardment of their initial position: they fled mostly because they knew that it would draw attention of Germans who would come to check why the hell the airplane bombed a supposedly empty woods in the mountains.

Just one more point: I have read before that Hitler ordered his best forces to be in the Czech lands because he expected the Reds to go through this area due to the strategic importance of Czech industry (by this time the industry in Germany was in ashes). However, Stalin decided to go through Poland. I suppose that one of the aims of organizing the partisan movement in the area was to make the Germans believe that they would indeed go through there to Germany. I will try to find a source for this. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Czechoslovak partisans: another requests for clarification

"...Two groups of partisans were sent further West-East under command of..."

This doesn't work for me. Either they were sent east or they were sent west. (Or they weren't....) I cannot even guess at the intention here. Please help! + Thanks im Voraus! Best wishes Charles01 (talk)

Wow, that is really stupid from me :) it was supposed to say south-west, approximately like this.

Also, as you mentioned in the edit summary that it is not very well understandable: the two groups who went "out" were still part of the unit. Meanwhile, there were other partisan units/groups active in the area already before the Uršiak-Murzin unit came there. These two groups thus reached out to those who were already established. Some of those pre-existing remained independent, some joined the Uršiak-Murzin unit (followed their orders directly, although remained in their original area of operation), some remained loosely connected (did not follow orders but cooperated rather closely). It seemed too detailed to write it in the wiki. Also, these two groups were being joined by Czechs daily. Most Czechs were anti-nazi, but lacked the impetus to come out of their closets ;) before Uršiak's unit started their daring raids and attacks (the before-existing Czech partisan units seem to had toned their activity down in order not to invite German wrath against civilians).Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Question on Operation Grouse

We write that the operation was followed by "a string of executions" which implies a lot of execution. Yet in the next para we write that "only 8" partisans were killed (& 13 others captured, who might have been killed later) despite the deployment of 13,000 military etc personnel. On the face of it, those two statements are in conflict even though, for the most part, these two bits seem to come from the same source. I guess the most obvious explanation is that there were a lot more partisans and partisan sympathizers killed later, but if that is the explanation then I am tempted to think it needs to be spelled out. Otherwise the reader stops reading while pondering the contradiction, and I don't think this is necessarily a good place for the reader to stop reading. Any thoughts?

I also tried translating Operation Grouse into German and Czech, because translating merely "Grouse" somehow looked too digressive. But I speak no Czech (and my German, till now, involved very little about birds that live to be shot or other (quasi-)military operations) so you might wish to check what I did here....

Thanks and regards Charles01 (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The executions were concerning mostly civilians suspected of supporting the partisans. The sources differ with number being between 13 to 40 civilians captured. One of the reasons for this is that some of those captured were transfered elsewhere and executed later (for example, two men arrested for supporting partisans were transfered to Pankrác Prison and executed there as late as 13 March 1945), while those well documented are cases of those who were taken for questioning, and then brought back to their home towns and publicly executed. Moreover, a few committed suicide when the arrest was imminent. Some died during "questioning" or hanged themselves in the cells. Therefore the variation in the sources.

I've found this [is.muni.cz/th/180692/ff_m/Suchankova_DP.pdf‎ master thesis], it has very detailed description of the Grouse. But I am not sure whether adding too many details would help the article or not. Apparently, as a consequence of the previous attack on the base the unit was too dispersed for Grouse to be effective. Also, the weather was unfavorable with a lot of snow and despite the high numbers, the Germans could not effectively close the blockade of the area. Especially in the night they didn't have sufficient numbers to prevent partisans from leaving the area of operation.

The thesis also alleges that the Germans decided for wrong tactic. They encircled the area, divided it into 9 sectors and started systematic searches. The alternative which was not accepted would be to first search towns and villages and then continue into the woods and pastures. In normal conditions the systematic search would be more effective, but in the winter with high snow it was too exhausting for the soldiers.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Specific conditions

[For the Germans,] specific aspects of waging partisan warfare in Moravia involved the following factors:

• a dense network of military garrisons
• military control and protection of military and industrial premises, roads, railway stations, bridges and administrative institutions
• a diversified Gestapo network supported by spies in towns, settlements and villages
• special penal units of SS, schutzpolizei, Vlasov army and field gendarmes in the mountains and woods, in areas known to contain partisan bases and battalions

Murzin's notes

These were not so much for the Germans, but for the partisans. In Ukraine and Russia they were used to have desolated forests that were hardly accessible to the enemy, enemy did not leave much security forces behind but moved them along towards the frontline, the locals would not tell on partisans and the enemy, mostly, could not use the knowledge of the terrain of the locals since these were uncooperative, unlike the ethnic Germans in the Czech lands.

Yes, that makes sense. I'd leapt to a wrong conclusion (as I sometimes do!). Thanks Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW thank you for what you've done so far on the article. I appreciate it very much. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks & another matter

So Charles, it seems that we´ve got it to DYK :) THank you for your contribution.

On another matter, I am planning to write an article on a mureder case which I reckon will get a lot of attention as the proceedings move forward. I wanted to ask you for your input as native speaker as regards THE name of the article. I have in mind either ′′Murder of Harok family′′ or ′′Harok family murder case′′. What do you think is more suitable? Or do you have any other suggestion? I will be fiddling with it in my sandbox as I find time. Thank you! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No strong opinion. I think of the two you suggest I prefer ′′Harok family murder′′ (without the case. I took a look at the existing entries on notorious murders and they were mostly named after (1) the place or (2) the victim and NOT (3) the perpetrator. That's logical, because at the time when the case was fixed in the public mind by news coverage, most of which would predate identification of the murderer, no one knew his (or her?) name. The other thing I noticed was that most of the titles have only two or three words. For better or worse, we anglophones use short "snappy" titles. I guess if Brno were smaller you might consider "Brno murders", but probably Brno has too much history for that to work.

If you look at [Category:Murder_in_2000] you'll find a number of English language murder titles. If you change the year you'll find more. Before doing any of that I thought about the first two murders that came into my head, and they were both named after the murder location. Anyhow, here they are followed in no particular order by a lot of other entry titles. I do not claim they'll give you inspiration, but they do provide the sort of pattern which I guess you will wish to follow when determining a title for the new entry:

A6 Murder

Moors Murders

Murder of the Aroyo children

Orangeburg massacre

Tochigi patricide case

(I think this entry may have been started - and therefore the title chosen for it - by someone whose first language is not English...)

Wanda Beach Murders

Murder of Joanna Parrish

Bosphorus serial murders

Murder of Victoria Climbié

Murder of Magdalena Stoffels

Bradford murders

Hyvinkää shooting

Murder of April Jones

It's a savage old world. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 14:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Please feel invited to copy-edit User:Cimmerian_praetor/sandbox in case you find it interesting and worth your while. I don't want to put it out of sandbox before adding some more information in line with the fact that it is a current event concerning a living person, so if it should go out to the wikiworld, it may as well go with clean English. Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Charles, I have added Harok family murder and left there a copy edit needed template. Please feel invited to do it yourself, although I understand if this goes beyond your history and cars interest :) I think that the formal request for extradition will be filed in next couple of weeks and the case will get some spotlight then. Have a nice day! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a look. Thank you. I might (or might not) find irresistable the temptation to change something. I'm quite sure it's interesting. The more effective constraint on whether or not I jump in is, as ever, not something you can not control or influence. How many hours there are in the day and how much energy do I have to use them all? (And, I guess, how much of that time is directed to wiki-activity) Success Charles01 (talk) 10:42, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I know. Wiki is so damn addictive. The worse yet when I spend over 12 hours a day writing legal briefs at work. Somehow most of them don't satisfy my writing urge the way wiki does. So little time and so many issues to write on :) Thanks for the murder article copy edit!

I have added In_absentia#Europe and In_absentia#Czech_Republic and I would be glad if you could copy-edit those few lines too. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Charles, I have added a couple of sentences to the Harok family murder. Could you please c-e them? I would hate to destroy otherwise well copy-edited text by something that would sound strange in English. Thank you! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a look and made a few changes. Please make sure I didn't do damage to the meaning! My computer's in hospital so I'm taking turns with my wife's this evening. Screen in the wrong place, mouse on the wrong side..... Maybe I'll take another look at the Harok article again when my own comes back! Best Charles01 (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It seems that only the public tv has went so far as getting the court papers in the US, so my guess is that they will be now for days releasing information from the 300 pages extradition request bit by bit (since there is no other paper that could bring the story before them). Which means that I will be also adding it as it comes and I would be glad if you could c-e it accordingly.

The court should take weeks/months to decide on extradition and then the final decision will be taken by the US Secretary of State, so apart from the information from the extradition request, I don't expect the article to grow considerably any time soon.

I wish a speedy recovery to your computer! Greetings & my thanks to your wife. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

in absentia

This is looking more complicated than I'd expected. Ach well, questions line by line:

1. "...when criminal proceedings may be conducted without the presence of the person charged:" I took out a few words directly after this because I didn't understand what they meant. IF my best estimate of the meaning was correct, it seemed to narrow down the circumstances, but how and when and why wasn't clear. Is it safe to leave it out? Or what? And please. Sorry if I'm being obtuse with this.

You did a great job. I would leave a convict rather than convicted party, since it is always the one person, but if "party" sounds better in English, then its fine.

They both work. Not quite sure why I changed it. Somehow "convict" carries more baggage from novels and history. Maybe I'm thinking of Charles Dickens and the old nineteenth century prison ships where they put convicts when they'd run out of space in the prisons here in England.

2. "...In case that a defendant is unknown:... Before charges against a person were brought...." Again, maybe it's simply my lack of imagination, but I do not understand how you can have a criminal trial before you have identified the suspected criminal. Does your source offer (or can you think of) an example from real life?

This is not concerning the trial itself, but pre-trial proceedings, i.e. from the very beginning of investigation. When I wrote "criminal proceedings" in the article, I meant from charges all the way to enforceable judgment; this rare case touches even time before charges are brought: typically, police find someone shot on the street who may die soon. In order to have a witness statement that could be used in the trial, they need to follow this special rule which is in place to make sure that the rights of the future defendant are not breached (especially in case the victim dies and the defendant will not be able to cross-examine). Please use the line below for the article, subject to your kind copy-edit:

For example, when the police conclude that a crime was committed and that unrepeatable and exigent action needs to be taken in order to find out the perpetrator (such as interrogation of a witness or recognition attempt (i.e. when they line more people up and ask the wittness to show who is the perp)), such an action is taken in the presence of a judge. Normally, the defendant or their attorney would have the right to be present during the interrogation or recognition attempt. In order to secure full legality and impartiality, the judge, who would not normally be present in pre-trial proceedings, is present, and such evidence is then admissable also during trial. Typically, this may concern a dying witness, who may not be later available for cross-examination by the defendant.Šámal, Pavel (2013), Trestní řád I., II., III. (7th ed.), Prague: C. H. Beck, p. 1977 - 1983 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

3. "...When seizing property involved in criminal case from unknown owner." Again, it's a little hard to envisage a case where property is seized without knowing from whom it is seized. I wonder if an example would help? If it is seized (thinking on paper here) from a left-luggage locker at a railway station, then presumably it is seized in the first instance from the person who left it there. You cannot have a trial to authorize the seizure retrospectively if you do not know who he is. If he returns to the left luggage office to request his property, then by definition you have him identified so he is no longer unknown. No, doesn't work. Your example, please...

Maybe the right word would be confiscated? They policemen first take it (seize?) from the locker, but still remains the property of the unknown owner up until the court decides that the thing is (confiscated?) and becomes the property of the state. Real life example: far right wants to march through an area inhabited by a minority (Roma). They know that the cops will search them for guns before entering the district (they can't forbid a demonstration), so they hide some baseball bats within the district a day before. The cops find them and take them away, not knowing who is the actual owner. Until the judge makes a formal ruling on confiscation, the given nazi-skinhead may at any time file a request for return of the baseball bats. For the purposes of the article, please use the following subject to your kind copy-edit (with use of seizing, confiscating, or else, of your linking):

This is possible under the condition that the thing which should be subject to confiscation endangers the safety of people, property or society, or that it may be used for perpetration of a felony crime. Typically, this concerns prohibited weapons or ammunition, explosives, narcotics, poisons, etc., which were seized by the police without knowing who they belong to.Šámal, Pavel (2012), Trestní zákoník (2nd ed.), Prague: C. H. Beck, p. 1195 - 1209 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)

Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I hope that my clarification help! Thank you! Best, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2013 (UTC)