Man Who Carried AK-47 Pistol In Park Loses Appeal

[TMF]

My take on the Radnor Rambo is that he did not take that "pistol" to the park to have a picnic with it. He took it to get a response from the public and law enforcement. He was trolling for attention. Was he legally right or morally wrong? That's open for debate. Is what he did good for the gun owning public? No.

It makes non-gun owners afraid. You go to a park with your wife and young children and their is the crazy man walking around in camo with that THING strapped under his arm? He's doing more for the anti-gun people than you can ever imagine.

"Look Buffy! There is a crazy man with a gun! We need to outlaw those things."

"You mean we need to outlaw crazy people?"

"No Lovey, those guns."

I played that scenario in my head when I heard about this case. Having kids changes your perspective on how you will react to situations, since it isn't as easy as just saving yourself if someone goes off the deep end and decides to start capping people. However, I figure in an open park I would have seen him in time to get my kids to a safe place and call police before he would be in danger distance. But, then I think about if I was in a scenario where I was cornered, and some guy comes walking in to a restaurant with an AK strapped to his chest wearing tactical gear.

What would I do? Well, simply because this a-hole exists I now have to consider that maybe it's just somebody being an a-hole, but what if I was not aware? What reason would I have to think the guy is there to do anything else but shoot the place up, since there is no practical reason to be doing what he is doing. Once again, with kids it isn't as easy as getting to cover an calling police. Add to that the obligation to protect your family over yourself. I don't see myself doing anything but drawing down on the guy and holding him for the cops, which would turn real bad for a Voldemort character if he does anything other than put his hands up. Just some thoughts. I'm sure he has considered this too which is why he has been careful to pick and choose where he makes his stands at, but if he has a brain fart he's gonna end up getting shot in the face.

[Jonnin]

Ok, so everyone else seems to agree that the type of weapon -- namely its size, shape, and caliber, legal or not, is an issue. These things do come in .22 LR, however, so caliber issue can probably be ignored (?)

Do you think the law for what is allowed should be changed? What would you change it to? Do the existing guns, already in hand, get grandfathered in?

What about smaller guns that look "extra mean" ? For example, what about this thing: http://www.lowpriceguns.com/product.php_417114

or this one

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/387 ?

Just curious where you guys would draw the line in the sand.

[TMF]

Ok, so everyone else seems to agree that the type of weapon -- namely its size, shape, and caliber, legal or not, is an issue. These things do come in .22 LR, however, so caliber issue can probably be ignored (?)

Do you think the law for what is allowed should be changed? What would you change it to? Do the existing guns, already in hand, get grandfathered in?

What about smaller guns that look "extra mean" ? For example, what about this thing: http://www.lowpriceg...duct.php_417114

or this one

http://www.thiscantb...ng.net/node/387 ?

Just curious where you guys would draw the line in the sand.

The law is not the issue here.

[mikegideon]

The law is not the issue here.

Right. The law was used to create the issue.

[Jonnin]

so, so you guys would not change the laws but think that no one should carry a weapon that "looks scary", some sort of system where we all just follow an unspoken agreement?

[mikegideon]

so, so you guys would not change the laws but think that no one should carry a weapon that "looks scary", some sort of system where we all just follow an unspoken agreement?

Why change anything? Out of the entire population of metro nashville, there was one idiot that needed special handling. I think the cops did a fine job. He needed to be kicked in the nuts, but I can live with that omission.

[Jonnin]

Why change anything? Out of the entire population of metro nashville, there was one idiot that needed special handling. I think the cops did a fine job. He needed to be kicked in the nuts, but I can live with that omission.

There have been other cases, but no real decisions yet. Eventually someone is going to end up having to prove their gun is a pistol, at great expense.

So you would be ok with a LEO assaulting a suspect who was just sarcastic and annoying? Hmm.

[MikePapa1]

so, so you guys would not change the laws but think that no one should carry a weapon that "looks scary", some sort of system where we all just follow an unspoken agreement?

The law does need to be clarified. That being said anytime I see someone in camo walking through a park with an AK strapped to his chest, even I as a fervent advocate of the 2nd Amendment, am going to notice and be concerned. The Feds classify this as a pistol, fine it's a pistol. If it were a rifle, a full size AK, tell me the difference would be. I see none. If you are in a public park where hunting and shooting are illegal, what are you doing there with an AK? Personal protection? OK, the Police stopped him. While they were trying to determine whether the pistol was illegal (Now, how they were doing that is a mystery to me. How could they, by looking tell whether it was a full auto or a semi-auto?) he's demanding to have a supervisor come so he'd be detained longer.

I'm curious, Jonnin, how you think the Plaintiff here did anything for "rights," because I just don't see it.

[mikegideon]

There have been other cases, but no real decisions yet. Eventually someone is going to end up having to prove their gun is a pistol, at great expense.

So you would be ok with a LEO assaulting a suspect who was just sarcastic and annoying? Hmm.

Sarcastic and annoying? Jeez Louise

[Jonnin]

The law does need to be clarified. That being said anytime I see someone in camo walking through a park with an AK strapped to his chest, even I as a fervent advocate of the 2nd Amendment, am going to notice and be concerned. The Feds classify this as a pistol, fine it's a pistol. If it were a rifle, a full size AK, tell me the difference would be. I see none. If you are in a public park where hunting and shooting are illegal, what are you doing there with an AK? Personal protection? OK, the Police stopped him. While they were trying to determine whether the pistol was illegal (Now, how they were doing that is a mystery to me. How could they, by looking tell whether it was a full auto or a semi-auto?) he's demanding to have a supervisor come so he'd be detained longer.

I'm curious, Jonnin, how you think the Plaintiff here did anything for "rights," because I just don't see it.

I never said he did. I think he is hurting us same as the rest of you. I have never once said that this was anything other than an attention grab / lawsuit / asshattery stunt.

My question from the get go, which has more or less been avoided by everyone, is why it is ok to arrest him at gunpoint due to the way his weapon looks and after he had already cooperated by showing his HCP and allowing an examination of the weapon.

That is it. Period. I want to know why the "felony take down" was justified. Am I saying he deserves a bunch of money because his "rights" were violated? No, I agree with the sentiment of the judgement.

Pure and simple, I find it "odd" and am left with questions over the full bore swat team approach to stopping him a second time with guns drawn. That is it.

Side note, but I will answer:

there is NO significant difference between these guns and the respective rifle. They use the same mags, and the same ammo. Their barrels are shorter and the rounds lose energy, but they will still probably take a person down at 200 yards. The reduce velocity may prevent tumble in the .223s at least, so they could be a little less dangerous in that regard, it is not clear and would depend on the ammo used somewhat too.

I fully consider mine to be a mini AR, and that is in fact why I bought it: an AR is not legal on my permit, the pistol is, and so I purchased one on the old saying "better to have it and not need it..."

To be honest, if I ever really thought I would need that weapon, I would get in my car and leave for safer areas. But I could say the same thing about a .22 2 shot derringer.

Edited September 7, 2012 by Jonnin

[JayC]

And who would get sued, if haviung stopped him, not determined its legality, releasing him and he shoots up a McDonalds. Cops have to live in the real world.

Yeah, that is going to happen... You've got a guy with a known good HCP, he claims the firearm is a pistol... even if he's wrong, it's a misdemeanor with a $500 fine....

And we jump right to shooting someplace up as the excuse to hold somebody...

It's not REASONABLE to think that somebody who claims to be carrying a pistol, who is a known law abiding citizen is going to suddenly go on a killing rampage... You have the firearm information, you have his information... make the calls if it turns out the DA wants to have him charged, he's not going to be all that hard to find.

He could also be out to kill the Governor with that scary looking gun... or overthrow the government. I can play the what if game too... doesn't mean any of my what if's are reasonable...

Police departments have qualified immunity, if the officer acts in good faith then nobody is to blame (and while I might not agree with qualified immunity that is an entirely different discussion).

[strickj]

There have been other cases, but no real decisions yet. Eventually someone is going to end up having to prove their gun is a pistol, at great expense.

So you would be ok with a LEO assaulting a suspect who was just sarcastic and annoying? Hmm.

When did the cops assault him?

As others have said, it's not about the "scary looks" of the gun or the laws. It's the simple fact that he slung it around his neck in a park while wearing camo. It's just one of those things that you just can not explain. One of those "I know it when I see it" things. Kinda like a couple getting a little too frisky in a park. The moment it goes from affection to raunchy can only be defined by the appearance, the location and the situation. It might not be illegal for that couple to get a little handsie but that would probably get the popo called if they're in a park. While no one would think twice about seeing the same thing downtown.

Put the woman in a park and some scantily clad type outfit and that alone would probably be enough for the popo to be called.

If I came across him in a park under those conditions, I would be taking cover behind the nearest tree.

And although an AK pistol may be legal to carry, it may not be necessarily easily recognized as such by a regular Joe.

Hell, ten years ago I couldn't even recognize the difference between an AL pistol and rifle.

The cops did a good job. Douche bag's detainment is due to his own actions and for asking for a supervisor.

Edited September 7, 2012 by strickj

[JayC]

The law does need to be clarified. That being said anytime I see someone in camo walking through a park with an AK strapped to his chest, even I as a fervent advocate of the 2nd Amendment, am going to notice and be concerned. The Feds classify this as a pistol, fine it's a pistol. If it were a rifle, a full size AK, tell me the difference would be. I see none. If you are in a public park where hunting and shooting are illegal, what are you doing there with an AK? Personal protection? OK, the Police stopped him. While they were trying to determine whether the pistol was illegal (Now, how they were doing that is a mystery to me. How could they, by looking tell whether it was a full auto or a semi-auto?) he's demanding to have a supervisor come so he'd be detained longer.

I'm curious, Jonnin, how you think the Plaintiff here did anything for "rights," because I just don't see it.

Couple of clarifications... just to keep everybody honest.

1. He was wearing a M86 BDU (old style woodland bdu blouse) top as a jacket on a cooler day, he wasn't in all camo... I'm sure a number of TGO members own and from time to time wear a old military top as a heavy shirt or jacket while hiking.

2. He only 'demanded' to see a supervisor when the police attempted to make him sign a ticket charging him with a violation of the law. He refused and asked to see a supervisor... They didn't offer to let him go without signing a ticket before the supervisor was on site.

I'm not arguing for 'you know who' only pointing out that we should keep the fact straight on exactly what happened.

[Jonnin]

When did the cops assault him?

You missed a joke, i think. He said he the LEOs *should* have given him a swift kick in the nads for being a jerk, and I was replying in kind, but the exchange was all in jest. The LEOS absolutely DID NOT harm him in any way.

Its not about the police being called. I am 100% OK with that. Its not about detaining him either (though I have conceded the point, I still say 5 min of google would have answered the question for the LEOS).

See up a couple of posts to understand my complaint, I reduced it to a very simple question, "why the felony takedown after he had already cooperated?!".

Edited September 7, 2012 by Jonnin

[mikegideon]

You missed a joke, i think. He said he the LEOs *should* have given him a swift kick in the nads for being a jerk, and I was replying in kind, but the exchange was all in jest.

Come to think of it, he probably wouldn't have felt it anyway. :-)

[strickj]

I reduced it to a very simple question, "why the felony takedown after he had already cooperated?!".

I'll admit to not clicking any links in this thread. going off of memory here.

I did not know they did that. But at any rate, I feel it's perfectly acceptable for a cop to use such measures under that "I know it when I see it" circumstance.

If he was being difficult and/or passive aggressive, I could see officer safety concerns escalating until the point where they felt justified drawing weapons.

I was not there so I have no idea what his aggression level or body language was.

Edited September 7, 2012 by strickj

[MikePapa1]

My question from the get go, which has more or less been avoided by everyone, is why it is ok to arrest him at gunpoint due to the way his weapon looks and after he had already cooperated by showing his HCP and allowing an examination of the weapon.

That is it. Period. I want to know why the "felony take down" was justified. Am I saying he deserves a bunch of money because his "rights" were violated? No, I agree with the sentiment of the judgement.

Pure and simple, I find it "odd" and am left with questions over the full bore swat team approach to stopping him a second time with guns drawn. That is it.

OK, I'll answer your question.. Was a felony take down justified? I honestly don't know. Probably not. But the more operative question in my mind is, and the facts that helped form the basis of his lawsuit, was it unjustified? I have to say for me, it was not. Reasonable people might differ.

On your AR pistol, I agree. If you need to carry it for protection, I'd say your rights at that point are the least of your concerns. I have a HCP. I carry everyday everywhere I legally can. I take that right and responsibility seriously. But if I see a guy walking toward me with an AK strapped across his chest, it's going to give me pause and frankly, I'd probably put my hand on the grip of my pistol.

I do, occasionally wear a BDU blouse. That alone certainly isn't in any way suspicious. But if you look at the totality of the circumstances I believe the police acted both professionally and properly.

As to signing the ticket, I'll just say what I tell my clients: Never argue with the police on the side of the road. If you get a ticket you think is unjustified the place to argue about it is in court. I'd have given this Plaintiff, exactly the same advice.

[Jonnin]

I'll admit to not clicking any links in this thread. going off of memory here.

I did not know they did that. But at any rate, I feel it's perfectly acceptable for a cop to use such measures under that "I know it when I see it" circumstance.

If he was being difficult and/or passive aggressive, I could see officer safety concerns escalating until the point where they felt justified drawing weapons.

I was not there so I have no idea what his aggression level or body language was.

You really need to read it.

Here is the related passage quoted, but you may want to review it in context.

Chief Ranger Shane Petty, who did not believe the AK-47 was a handgun

given the description of it. Petty and Ward determined that Ward should undertake a

“felony take down†of Embody, disarm him and check the weapon.

[Jonnin]

OK, I'll answer your question.. Was a felony take down justified? I honestly don't know. Probably not. But the more operative question in my mind is, and the facts that helped form the basis of his lawsuit, was it unjustified? I have to say for me, it was not. Reasonable people might differ.

I can accept all that. And, had they not already happened to check him out once, I would even have been ok with the takedown just off the phone calls from the sheeples. As you said opinions vary, but to me, due to this specific incident where they had already talked to him once, I choose to call it unjustified (but not excessive enough to validate a payout/lawsuit over it, more of an internal investigation + rethink of procedure).

Edited September 7, 2012 by Jonnin

[strickj]

You really need to read it.

Here is the related passage quoted, but you may want to review it in context.

Chief Ranger Shane Petty, who did not believe the AK-47 was a handgun

given the description of it. Petty and Ward determined that Ward should undertake a

“felony take down†of Embody, disarm him and check the weapon.

Thanks. that wasn't included in the stories after en it happened.

I think Mike's answer was spot on:

was it unjustified?

[TMF]

And once again I'll pose this question, is it illegal to strap road flares to my chest and walk around?

Is it illegal to walk down the street with a broadsword?

Is it illegal to walk down the street in a full nude colored body suit?

Is it illegal to walk through a park and approach kids with offers of free candy?

I would say that all the things above are legal, but will attract attention of law enforcement and potentially get you detained. The law is not the problem. The police are not the problem. The problem is one useless turd making an issue where no issue exists.

[Jonnin]

And once again I'll pose this question, is it illegal to strap road flares to my chest and walk around?

Is it illegal to walk down the street with a broadsword?

Is it illegal to walk down the street in a full nude colored body suit?

Is it illegal to walk through a park and approach kids with offers of free candy?

I would say that all the things above are legal, but will attract attention of law enforcement and potentially get you detained. The law is not the problem. The police are not the problem. The problem is one useless turd making an issue where no issue exists.

If you insist:

I am not 100% up on this tangent of the law, but for the road flares; there is no permit that allows one to have explosives, so there is no pretext for being law abiding (as in the case of a pistol, where a permit exists). From there, lets call the road flares as some sort of idiotic "terrorist costume". As an old gamer, I used to go to chattacon. One year, a guy had comic/futuristic costume that involved some things marked radioactive. The bomb squad and everyone else were called because he left it in his car accidentally. As I recall, he was released with a warning that "a costume is no excuse" for inciting a distrubance, and that while they could have charged him with several things they chose not to do so given lack of intent. I suspect if you wore it out in public on purpose to create a disturbance, you would be treated even more harshly than the guy at the convention, who at least had a place to wear his costume and an excuse to be there doing what he was doing.

So, to some extent, strapping on your terrorist costume would indeed violate some codes, to the best of my guessing, but I am not a lawyer and cannot say with any certainty what exactly you might end up charged with for this stunt.

The same things goes for the broadsword, which also have caused a couple of disturbances at both chattacon and dragoncon. they were particularly frowned upon in atlanta. You can be charged with carrying too big a knife, going armed, or an number of things. I even asked about this point when I took my HCP and was told "its a handgun permit, not a weapons permit, you STILL cannot carry a big knife on it".

A nude body suit is legal all the time to my knowledge and people have done this. It will cause people to stop and point and all, and you might get a LEO to visit, but I doubt you would get more than a chuckle and a "move along or get cited for disturbing the peace" if you were being rowdy about it.

And so on. Some of these might get you any number of violations depending on the officer, circumstances, and so on. Some of them will just get you your 10 second blub in the local news. People do this stuff, some of it, and on occasion this results in minor brushes with the law.

/shrug you are looking for me to disagree but i do not. I agree with everything you said (except the various minor violations your examples may or may not have tripped). None of that was really my main point, which was about the procedure used (the felony takedown) and the circumstances behind it (already checked the permit and weapon, with full cooperation).

[Oh Shoot]

Yeah, that is going to happen... You've got a guy with a known good HCP, he claims the firearm is a pistol... even if he's wrong, it's a misdemeanor with a $500 fine....

Well, charge would be unlawful carry. In public. Class A 'meanor: up to $2500 and/or year in jail

- OS

[TMF]

/shrug you are looking for me to disagree but i do not. I agree with everything you said (except the various minor violations your examples may or may not have tripped). None of that was really my main point, which was about the procedure used (the felony takedown) and the circumstances behind it (already checked the permit and weapon, with full cooperation).

I guess I'm just not familiar with the "felony takedown" here. I was under the impression that he was detained, explained the item was legal, then demanded a supervisor. My father was a shift supervisor as an LEO and I'm aware that it is no immediate task to request his presence.

The point I was making with my post was context. There just isn't an appropriate context for carrying around an AK, legal or not. It will incite panic, which I believe to be his intent. It is much different than carrying around a holstered weapon. I don't see how you don't get that.

[Jonnin]

I guess I'm just not familiar with the "felony takedown" here. I was under the impression that he was detained, explained the item was legal, then demanded a supervisor. My father was a shift supervisor as an LEO and I'm aware that it is no immediate task to request his presence.

The point I was making with my post was context. There just isn't an appropriate context for carrying around an AK, legal or not. It will incite panic, which I believe to be his intent. It is much different than carrying around a holstered weapon. I don't see how you don't get that.

It was up there but the thread is getting long. In a quick nutshell, they stopped him twice. First time, guy checks permit and looks at gun, is not sure about pistolness of it but lets it go. Not long after two officers (same one and another, I think) decide to do a "felony takedown" of him to check the gun: this seems to mean "guns drawn" (they said that) and probably a 0 tolerance for any BS. He surrendered peacefully again, and had a nice time waiting on them to figure out how to classify the gun.

I totally agree it was no place for an AK. I would not have a problem with him getting told to take it home or get a 'disturbing the peace' violation or something: LEOS do that when there is someone being a pest. I totally agree as well that "in practice", it is very different from a holstered smaller pistol --- but in the "eyes of the law", it is no different. No argument there -- again, a dumb publicity stunt.

I will take this moment to say the LEOS did a pretty darn good job. Even with my concern about the procedure used, they still did their best to deal with a difficult individual in a questionable (potentially dangerous) situation. In times of stress, sometimes people make strange decisions and I get that too. I am just armchair quarterbacking here and saying the drawn weapons "shoot to kill" approach may not have been the best choice given the the earlier peaceful stop. I get all the rest of it just fine, and again, I am not defending this sort of behavior at all.