In my day, to "short-stop" was to "head-off" something or someone...
"Son, go and short-stop your father before he leaves for the beach and send him my way."
"Yes, mom."
I suppose in the manner it is meant in this discussion is simply "commandeering." I can put my memory on an incident but not my finger, so if anyone'll be so kind as to help. Some officer commandeered something of someone else's fleet train for their own duty. It is rather interesting to ponder the rules for this. When can an officer tell another that he's requisitioning some or all of his forces and or ammo? This seems as if it could become a bag of snakes. Does the commandeerer have to be of higher rank than the commandeered?
Odds would certainly have it that Honor would almost certainly be outranked, yet odds would also have it that she would also most likely be the one who is bare-ass and deeply naked in a hornet's nest and in need of the firepower. And at what point would it have become insane to commandeer Honor's ship?
Take the Basilisk System, if some wholeass of a Captain or Admiral had come hypering into the system wanting to commandeer Fearless but not have been willing to believe Honor's sixth sense, could she have rejected his "friendly take-over?"
Think of someone like Pavel Young or Elvis Santino whom—if they had outranked her at the time—commandeering Eighth Fleet? Admirals can simply commandeer and transfer flags. Can you imagine an Elvis Santino of an Admiral commandeering Eighth Fleet for something Honor feels is quintessential "Santino-stupid" and is likely going to cost her her fleet?
What are the rules, the politics?
I suppose this doesn't come up in today's navy, since communication circumnavigates the globe. (Unless communication has been neutralized planet-wide?) But in the Honorverse...
Can the Police Commandeer Your Car?
http://www.slate.com/id/2118263/ Yo, hand over that Miata
A pilot from central Kansas almost died last Friday after being asked by the local sheriff to help out with a manhunt. He had just located the suspect from his Cessna 150 airplane when a gunshot fired from below hit him in the forehead. The pilot (who somehow managed to avoid serious injury) has told police, "You need me again, you call me." Could he have refused to help the cops or to let them use his vehicle?
It depends on the local laws, but in many places the answer would be no. Many states and cities have laws on the books that make it a misdemeanor offense to refuse aid to a police officer. And legal precedents suggest that the obligation to help out with an arrest extends to giving cops the use of your plane, your car, or anything else that might come in handy.
Policemen used to commandeer cars more often. As recently as 40 years ago, New York City cops on foot would routinely flag down taxis when they needed to bring arrested criminals back to the station house.
In the 1920s, a New York cop hopped on the running board of a yellow taxi and demanded that its driver chase another car. The cabbie took off, but another car cut in front of him, and he was killed in the crash. A legal battle ensued over the extent of the obligation to aid a police officer and over the question of whether the cabbie's widow deserved payment under workers'-compensation law.
The New York state court referred to English common law in its discussion of the case. At least as far back as the 13th century, the "hue and cry" system compelled private citizens to join in the pursuit of a criminal, and the Statute of Winchester from 1285 even requires that every man keep appropriate instruments on hand, in case he's called to action. Among the tools listed are "a Breastplate of Iron, a Sword, a Knife, and a Horse."
The court ruled that the taxi was analogous to the horse mentioned in the Statute of Winchester: "The horse has yielded to the motorcar as an instrument of pursuit and flight. … We may be sure that the man who failed to use his horse … would have had to answer to the King." Courts in other states with similar laws have often cited this decision.
Another important case involved a store-owner in Alabama who, in the 1890s, refused to help a police officer make an arrest because he feared for his life. The court ruled that a citizen cannot refuse to aid a police officer simply because the request involves some form of danger: "The fact that there is danger involved is the very thing which calls for and makes obedience a duty." Provided that the police officer has not made a reckless or unreasonable request for aid, a citizen must comply.
What happens if you refuse to help the cops, and you live in a state with one of these laws on the books? You'll probably have to pay a fine.
Anti-commandeering
Although the anti-commandeering doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach, nothing prohibits flipping the doctrine in the opposite direction to protect federal sovereignty from state overreach. Federalism preserves a balance of power between two sovereigns.
