TMF

This has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. He is just trying to get rich quick off the gov. He is no different than any other locust that seeks to get on the gov tit. The aggravating factor is this guy is using our cause and our community as his platform for his crusade for the gov dollar. That pisses me off, a lot. So when I say that I'll find it amusing when he gets shot dead is the same as me finding it amusing when anyone else wins the Darwin Award. I see those posted a lot, and most folks seem to get a kick out of that. What makes this moron any different?

Well now I'm specifically referring to inciting panic. You might see him as a mall ninja, but the average person doesn't have the firearms community background that you do. Just like there aren't many road flare enthusiast, but the ones who are wouldn't interpret someone with road flares on their chest as a suicide bomber. But you have to admit, the average person would absolutely see him as an active shooter, and Leonard knew that. In fact, he was counting on it because he wanted people to call the cops on him.

I was about to say that it's a little early for the angry whiskey, but not if your shift ends in the morning.

And it shouldn't be. This situation is a matter of context. If I see a guy with a rifle slung walking somewhere I would probably assume he is moving his rifle and didnt have a case to put it in. If I see a guy with a rifle slung wearing body armor I'm going to assume he is on the first leg of a shooting spree. It's all about context.

We live in a world with Bronies, who is anyone to say that being a road flare enthusiast is wrong, or for that matter, who is to say you're trying to simulate a bomb? Just like the argument I see where folks seem to act like Leonard isn't presenting himself as an active shooter.... he is wearing body armor whilst carrying what appears to be a loaded AR15. The only time you see that is at the range, a war zone or an active shooter. For someone to make the automatic assumption that he is about to go on a shooting rampage is akin to saying my road flares on my chest are a bomb.

I'm certainly no expert either, but just going off the aftermath of the Quebec and 1859 event I'd say there is validity there. Even if the grid in some parts of the US gets knocked out for a few weeks that would be catastrophic in terms of civil unrest, especially if the area is so large that the government can't respond fast enough for aid. As bad as Katrina was, that was still a relatively small area. If it was an entire region of the country that had the lights knocked out, it would be very dangerous once folks started to run low on food.

Good point. I would say that unless an EMP like that is localized to places like Afghanistan or the continent of Africa, we're all going to feel the pain to some degree. Obviously, if an EMP from a solar flare hits most places in Africa there will be little to no effect.

I'll admit, that's me. I don't watch NASCAR and never thought wrecks were cool, but I sure would get a good laugh out of Voldemort getting a hot lead injection for his stupidity.

For future reference LEAs in the greater Nashville area should familiarize themselves with this waste of oxygen and respond to his stunts by simply assigning an officer to stand within a few feet of him whilst he is stunting in order to minimize panic and annoy Voldemort. At least it would reduce calls to 911 and take the wind out of his sails.

Cops stood by during the LA riots as they watched people being murdered and brutally assaulted and did nothing. This is why I'll never understand liberals when they say you don't need a gun because that's what police are for. Obviously it isn't.

Okay, how bout this one if it makes you feel better. It is not illegal to possess road flares. It is not illegal to run around downtown. It is not illegal to yell "Allah akbar". Any one of these by themselves will likely not draw too much attention or get LEO called on you. However, if I do all three of these things simultaneously, such as wear road flares on my chest, run around downtown while yelling "Allah akbar" the context will be interpreted by 99.9% of people as a terrorist suicide bomber. I would undoubtedly be arrested and charged with something, although I didn't do anything illegal per se. Maybe I'm just a road flare collector and I do think Allah is great. Now, since I know this would get me arrested and I'm doing that specifically for that purpose so I can file a lawsuit later, I'm in Voldemort's category. I don't care what anyone says, what Voldemort was doing was inciting panic so the police would show up. Who knows how many people called 911. Had he been carrying the case by itself maybe no one would have called. The body armor, however, added the context of an active shooter. Some people here may disagree, but it doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of Americans would interpret it that way. I see people with body armor and assault rifles everyday and I don't bat an eye, but if I saw one downtown Nashville I'd be calling the cops. If it turns out that the charges are dropped the only thing he deserves in return is an "oops" from th PD, nothing more. I mean, how silly is it to try to get arrested, then act outraged when it happens?

I wouldn't care if he was shooting an illegal FA. The notion that FA should be illegal unless the fed gov approves is stupid. I feel the same way about folks who break NFA laws as I do about someone paying for sex or smoking dope.... doesn't hurt me, I don't care.

1) The weapon wasn't loaded. If it had been he would have been charged with that as it is illegal in this state. 2) There is a distinct difference between an action that is generally alarming, yet legal (what Voldemort did) and a specific act of aggression against an individual. That has been my main point from the beginning. You are equating the two and they are not the same thing. That is why your argument was fatally flawed from the start. For the most part I agree with you in regards to our dear friend Voldy. I don't like his lawsuit fishing, his tactics or the possible end outcomes of his shenanigans. I was just trying to get you to bring a better game if you were going to call him or those that may support him out. First off, he was carrying it in a kydex case that was molded to the shape of a loaded AR15. From a distance it may have even fooled me, but certainly to 95% of the population, that looked like a loaded rifle he's carrying around with body armor. What is a person (the average person) supposed to assume when they see someone with body armor and a loaded AR15? I mean really? I think you're the one being obtuse here.

Folks can go a good while without eating. It isn't fun, but I've done it. Most people have a few weeks of food in their cupboards if they ration appropriately, and once real food runs out people can still make it eating just about anything that is left that one wouldn't normally eat for sustenance alone. It becomes a calorie game at that point. So reasonably, most folks do have enough to see them through the first 30 days. That's actually the part that is scary for me. Once the regular meals run out, folks are now going through the scraps to make an acceptable caloric intake. That is when the real panic sets in; when they realize they might starve to death, yet they still have enough to give them the strength to look for food elsewhere. That's when they start killing people for a ham sandwich. That's when thugs start banding together to pillage homes, steal what they can carry, rape and murder. No matter how much food you save, that scenario is going to happen. I'm not worried at all about starving to death. I'm worried about the mob killing my family.

From what I gathered from other sites on the interwebz, this flare would not have fried most electronics as with a nuclear device designed for such a purpose. Power grid might still be effed though, so it doesn't really matter anyway... people would starve, but at least they'd still have their iPod.

I saw I good comment on this article which said society is only 9 meals away from breaking down. A good point indeed.

[quote data-cid='1008801' name='Chucktshoes' timestamp='1375360582' post='1008801'][quote data-cid='1008764' name='TMF' timestamp='1375352904'] I think you are confusing action and reaction. No, insulting someone's spouse is not aggressive, however will result in getting an aggressive response, such as a punch in the face. Regardless, you are missing the point that I was making, which was that he is doing something legal (yet incredibly provocative) in order to elicit a response which will give him grounds for a lawsuit. That is the whole point I am making. Insulting someone's wife is legal, yet provocative, and if done so with the intent to provoke a response you can sue over it is no different than what Voldemort is doing. He did something provocative to elicit a response for the purpose of gaining grounds for a lawsuit.[/quote] I didn't miss your point about Voldemort's actions, I addressed it and agreed with it. I have simply been debating with you about the poorly constructed and inapplicable nature of the argument you presented. As far as the idea that I am "confusing action with reaction" in viewing certain words as aggression, or even outright violence, I will let the words of the SCOTUS speak for me. The concept that words can be aggressive enough on their own to be considered an act of violence is the basis for anti-bullying, sexual harassment and other forms of civilly and criminally actionable damage. It is the primary basis on which 1st Amemndment limitations are built. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting words" those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. — Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942[/quote][/quote] And walking around a heavily populated area with body armor and a loaded rifle in a country that has had multiple mass shootings is somehow not going to cause a breach of peace? The 911 calls are your proof there.

  Actions have consequences. 

  Especially since I predict he will be doing all the lawyering on his own.  I don't see him sinking tens of thousands of dollars into lawyer fees and I don't see any lawyer doing this pro bono.  He will get owned in court.

  I'm not trying to be an ass for asking this question, but you do know where grade averages come from, right?

  He was lawfully detained.  He was not free to go, they let him know that.  They determined they had PC to search him.  When this goes before a judge they will articulate that, and it will either be upheld or it won't.  He was arrested and charged with a crime.  He wasn't held in an interrogation room from which he was free to go, he was actually arrested.    If it comes out that the police had good PC for the search then none of his rights were violated.  I don't see how this has to do with some random person that may or may not be put into an interrogation room they are free to leave from.  If someone voluntarily goes with police for questioning without consulting a lawyer, that is their problem.  It is not the job of the police to be a lawyer for you.  I'll never understand how police get a bad rap for the average person being a dumba**.  They have investigations to do.  It is not their fault if you choose to cooperate when you otherwise shouldn't have.

  If you want to feel better about it read the comments section.  95% of the comments are reasonable, even from Brits.  Most of the comments are "why is this in the news?"

  What I'm talking about has nothing to do with UCMJ or his court martial, what I am referring to is the damage that has been done by his actions.  They aren't quantifiable, but they are very, very real.  It is nearly impossible to pin individual deaths of Servicemembers to the leaking of classified information, unless that classified information is so specific to the circumstances of the deaths leaving no doubt that the information leaked led to the death.    But make no mistake, there are dead US Servicemembers because of him.  There are.  Every time tactics, techniques and procedures are discovered by the enemy they use that to exploit weaknesses in order to kill us.  I can cite several examples if you need me to.  It is exactly how we use intelligence assets against them, to discover enemy TTPs so that we can better protect the force, kill, capture and deny enemy movement.  Fortunately for us, the enemy is very limited on how they discover our TTPs.  Since their ability to gather intelligence on us is so limited, they must rely on basic techniques such as observation.  There isn't much we can do about that, so observable TTPs are always changing, however, the stuff that goes on behind the scenes may be used as long as the TTP isn't burnt.  Manning burnt a sh**load of stuff that our sons and daughters can no longer use to protect the force and target the enemy.  Therefore, there is undoubtedly many, many deaths that are directly and indirectly tied to this sorry POS that needs to be chained to the back of a truck and dragged to death.    And I'll add that what makes me even more angry is that he is supposed to be a brother in arms.  What he did is far worse and damaging than what that sorry POS did in the Ft. Hood shooting, or that other sorry POS that fragged his leadership prior to the invasion of Iraq.  What Manning did do his fellow brothers in arms was so damaging and deadly that it won't ever be put into numbers.  He deserves death for the damage he caused and the betrayal of fellow Servicemembers.  It is one thing to be a sorry civilian traitor, such as Jane Fonda, but to be a traitor in uniform is something that deserves death, every single time. 

  I think you are confusing action and reaction.  No, insulting someone's spouse is not aggressive, however will result in getting an aggressive response, such as a punch in the face.  Regardless, you are missing the point that I was making, which was that he is doing something legal (yet incredibly provocative) in order to elicit a response which will give him grounds for a lawsuit.  That is the whole point I am making.  Insulting someone's wife is legal, yet provocative, and if done so with the intent to provoke a response you can sue over it is no different than what Voldemort is doing.  He did something provocative to elicit a response for the purpose of gaining grounds for a lawsuit. 

I worked as a ranch hand/bushhogger for several summers during my teens.  It was good money for a kid but hard work.  I learned quite a bit about labor, but I don't see myself enjoying doing that again.  Not that it wasn't good work, just not something I found to be fun or satisfying.   My favorite job was working as a server in a restaurant.  Money was great for my age and I worked with mostly hot college chicks.  We didn't have any other male servers at the restaurant, so I spent a year with unlimited tail from coworkers and customers and partied every night.  It was how I defined my college years.   A dream job for me would be opening my own tactical training center with a focus on leadership development of leaf eaters.  There is a meat eating decision maker in everyone, and it is awesome to see it come out when you force it out.