voldemort at it again

[TMF]

Ok, first I dismiss your flawed example... Your example is nothing like what happened.

A more apt example would be a man carrying an anti-union sign walking back and forth in front of the local union hall, then blaming him because the union thugs took the bait and beat him senseless. That because he dared do something perfectly legal it's somehow his fault for the over reaction and illegal actions by the other party? Now one can make the argument that the attack could have easily been foreseen, and that a prudent and smart man would avoid such activities... but it's not the mans fault that the union thugs over reacted and beat him up.

More importantly do we really want people working for us as police officers who can so easily be baited into violating the law and the constitution? Or do we want rational thinking officers who realize he's attempting to bait them into a trap, and instead go out of their way to avoid while still protecting the public.

Officers could have more easily followed him around and watched him until he broke the law, which would have cost the taxpayers a lot less money than we're going to spend on this incident (even without a possible lawsuit).

Negative. My example is NOT flawed one bit. The example I gave as somebody being a douchebag, yet doing something completely legal for the PURPOSE OF ELICITING A RESPONSE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A LAWSUIT. Protesting a place is not the same as doing something you know will elicit a response. The police didnt just show up to f*** with Voldemort. There were multiple calls to 911 by concerned citizens.

So I'll ask again, if everything he did was within the law, what "rights" on God's green Earth is he standing up for? The right to be a douchehammer? Mission accomplished. Please reference SteelHarps post regarding this idiot's behavior regarding the traffic light. If that doesn't tell you what his motives are for staging these run ins with police I can't help you. It is so transparent my 4 year old can figure it out.

[JayC]

IANAL, but I'm not sure they can use an administrative action as a reason to constrain his other rights and privileges under TN state law, because it was done without due process.

 

Now, I'll readily admit that the only reason Leonard didn't have due process was because he choose not to...  but it doesn't change the fact that no independent judge reviewed the case and found him to be a danger to society.

 

If you use that revocation to target him on the basis that he is somehow a greater danger to society than your average person, then I think that opens the department up to some legal liability.

 

But again IANAL so who knows...  I just think the officer saying he knew who Leonard was and that his permit was revoked for a specific reason is not to the advantage of the department in a civil or criminal case.

 

It was done without due process?  Really???

I wasn't aware that the HCP holder who refuses to avail  him/herself of the proscribed process constituted not receiving due process.

 

I must have missed that memo; can you send me a copy (and a copy of the latest TPS report)?  ;)

Edited July 31, 2013 by JayC

[Chucktshoes]

Negative. My example is NOT flawed one bit. The example I gave as somebody being a douchebag, yet doing something completely legal for the PURPOSE OF ELICITING A RESPONSE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A LAWSUIT. Protesting a place is not the same as doing something you know will elicit a response. The police didnt just show up to f*** with Voldemort. There were multiple calls to 911 by concerned citizens.

So I'll ask again, if everything he did was within the law, what "rights" on God's green Earth is he standing up for? The right to be a douchehammer? Mission accomplished. Please reference SteelHarps post regarding this idiot's behavior regarding the traffic light. If that doesn't tell you what his motives are for staging these run ins with police I can't help you. It is so transparent my 4 year old can figure it out.

It is actually terribly flawed. So flawed in fact I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better argument, but if you type with more caps it might make it more applicable to... something. The flaw is that your example describes examples of specific acts of aggression towards an individual. Voldemort actions, stupid and ignorant as they may be, were not specifically aggressive towards anyone, just generally inflammatory and of a nature designed to elicit response from LE.

ETA: I cannot believe you got me to defend that assnugget. I hope you are proud of yourself. Edited July 31, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[peejman]

I think it's funny that Douchetard came up with the molded kydex case to make it obvious as possible. His brain has serious defects.

 

 

I think it's pretty ingenious.  Can you think of a better way initiate the reaction he was looking for?

 

 

 

Ok, first I dismiss your flawed example...  Your example is nothing like what happened.

 

A more apt example would be a man carrying an anti-union sign walking back and forth in front of the local union hall, then blaming him because the union thugs took the bait and beat him senseless.  That because he dared do something perfectly legal it's somehow his fault for the over reaction and illegal actions by the other party?  Now one can make the argument that the attack could have easily been foreseen, and that a prudent and smart man would avoid such activities...  but it's not the mans fault that the union thugs over reacted and beat him up.

 

More importantly do we really want people working for us as police officers who can so easily be baited into violating the law and the constitution?  Or do we want rational thinking officers who realize he's attempting to bait them into a trap, and instead go out of their way to avoid  while still protecting the public.

 

Officers could have more easily followed him around and watched him until he broke the law, which would have cost the taxpayers a lot less money than we're going to spend on this incident (even without a possible lawsuit). 

 

 

While I see where you're going, a picket sign isn't a rifle.  Whether they should or not, the police will not react the same way to someone holding a picket sign as someone carrying a rifle.

[TMF]

It is actually terribly flawed. So flawed in fact I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and crap a better argument, but if you type with more caps it might make it more applicable to... something. The flaw is that your example describes examples of specific acts of aggression towards an individual. Voldemort actions, stupid and ignorant as they may be, were not specifically aggressive towards anyone, just generally inflammatory and of a nature designed to elicit response from LE.


ETA: I cannot believe you got me to defend that assnugget. I hope you are proud of yourself.

How is telling someone you banged their wife aggressive? Is it threatening in anyway? Is it illegal?

Point that I'm making is regarding the quest for a lawsuit. That is his goal. That is what drives him in every stunt he pulls. SteelHarp had an example of him creating a dangerous traffic condition in order to elicit a police response and roadside lawyer about some obscure law, in hopes he would be taken to jail so he could sue. That is the point I'm making. No matter what he does, those are his intentions, and intent is everything.

[JayC]

I would argue under the law that when carried legally they both are the same...  but that point is mute, the police stopping and asking Leonard questions is perfectly fine, but opening a locked container without a warrant, how do you justify that?

 

As for whether police officer would or wouldn't react the same to protest signs as the did with Leonard, I'd argue there is plenty of proof that they have in the past, but I don't want to sidetrack this discussion with those videos ;)

 

While I see where you're going, a picket sign isn't a rifle.  Whether they should or not, the police will not react the same way to someone holding a picket sign as someone carrying a rifle.

[mikegideon]

IANAL, but I'm not sure they can use an administrative action as a reason to constrain his other rights and privileges under TN state law, because it was done without due process.

 

Now, I'll readily admit that the only reason Leonard didn't have due process was because he choose not to...  but it doesn't change the fact that no independent judge reviewed the case and found him to be a danger to society.

 

If you use that revocation to target him on the basis that he is somehow a greater danger to society than your average person, then I think that opens the department up to some legal liability.

 

But again IANAL so who knows...  I just think the officer saying he knew who Leonard was and that his permit was revoked for a specific reason is not to the advantage of the department in a civil or criminal case.

 

You can bet money that the state's legal folks were involved in yanking his permit, including any recourse he may have had. I would think there was a lot less calculation when they yanked Yeager's permit. Of course, James was smart enough to get his back. I expected that outcome from the beginning. Obama himself couldn't get Lenny's permit back... for a lot of very good reasons.

[Chucktshoes]

How is telling someone you banged their wife aggressive? Is it threatening in anyway? Is it illegal?

Point that I'm making is regarding the quest for a lawsuit. That is his goal. That is what drives him in every stunt he pulls. SteelHarp had an example of him creating a dangerous traffic condition in order to elicit a police response and roadside lawyer about some obscure law, in hopes he would be taken to jail so he could sue. That is the point I'm making. No matter what he does, those are his intentions, and intent is everything.

I agree with everything in your second paragraph. The only thing I would add is that regardless of his intent, LE must be held accountable for their actions if those actions violate the law or his civil rights. One wrong does not excuse the other.

As far as your first paragraph, you're not really that obtuse, right?

[TMF]

As far as your first paragraph, you're not really that obtuse, right?

I'm not being obtuse, he was wearing body armor for crying out loud. What logical conclusions is one to draw from seeing a man wearing body armor with a rifle slung walking down the street in a populated area?

[Chucktshoes]

So you wouldn't view me walking up to you and telling you I banged your wife as an act of aggression? Cool. What's your wife's number?

[mikegideon]

So you wouldn't view me walking up to you and telling you I banged your wife as an act of aggression? Cool. What's your wife's number?

 

Damn Chucky. That has the potential to get a lot bloodier than the nut sizzlin' episode  :rofl:

[peejman]

I would argue under the law that when carried legally they both are the same...  but that point is mute, the police stopping and asking Leonard questions is perfectly fine, but opening a locked container without a warrant, how do you justify that?

 

As for whether police officer would or wouldn't react the same to protest signs as the did with Leonard, I'd argue there is plenty of proof that they have in the past, but I don't want to sidetrack this discussion with those videos ;)

 

My assumption is that would happen the same way any cop justifies opening a locked trunk when they smell weed in the car.... probable cause.  It doesn't matter that he says it's not loaded.  In God we trust, all others must have proof.  

[Chucktshoes]

Damn Chucky. That has the potential to get a lot bloodier than the nut sizzlin' episode :rofl:

It's pretty damn aggressive, wouldn't you say?

[mikegideon]

Reminds me of the little twerp at the DUI check point. Cop says, "Come back and talk to me after you get out of attorney school". :)  I think that cop still has his job.

[mikegideon]

It's pretty damn aggressive, wouldn't you say?

 

Yup.

[Chucktshoes]

Yup.

My point exactly.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think it's pretty ingenious.  Can you think of a better way initiate the reaction he was looking for?

 

 

 

 

 

While I see where you're going, a picket sign isn't a rifle.  Whether they should or not, the police will not react the same way to someone holding a picket sign as someone carrying a rifle.

But they are both symbolism, which elicits emotional responses from sheep. The argument is to get rid of all the

emotion that the symbolism causes. Remember, emotions are a poor substitute for reason. That doesn't mean I

am defending his actions because I suspect he is up to no good, anyway, but when you become emotionally charged

and don't allow reason to get involved in the process, you have succumbed to only authority and that's a poor excuse

for life.

 

It's that liberty being substituted for safety because fear rules, something Franklin or one of those guys wrote that

gets quoted all the time, ya know?

[Dustbuster]

I think it's pretty ingenious.  Can you think of a better way initiate the reaction he was looking for?

 

 

 

 

 

While I see where you're going, a picket sign isn't a rifle.  Whether they should or not, the police will not react the same way to someone holding a picket sign as someone carrying a rifle.

I think its hilarious that this guy gets the crowd charged up over something that "looks" like a weapon in a case.on a bad note it sucks that officer patrol time is spent responding to calls over him versus a real emergency situation,kudos for freedom of speech use,i think the guy is using an ill technique because hes not making a point that can be enjoyed by everyone....hes pissing too many reasonable people off.. another observation i have is that one man can raise a ruckus w a gun case getting the pd involved,but we cant get those that complain about drugs and thugs to ID any of the undesirables they complain about so they can be quasi eradicated

[DaveS]

I don't know, but what was the outcome of his past episodes with the law?

 

DaveS

Edited July 31, 2013 by DaveS

[RobertNashville]

IANAL, but I'm not sure they can use an administrative action as a reason to constrain his other rights and privileges under TN state law, because it was done without due process.

 

Now, I'll readily admit that the only reason Leonard didn't have due process was because he choose not to...  but it doesn't change the fact that no independent judge reviewed the case and found him to be a danger to society.

It was done with due process; precisely as the rules he (and we) agree to when we apply for and receive an HCP.

 

Claiming his freely made choice constitutes a lack of due process is like complaining that your cake didn't bake because you chose to not turn the oven on.

[monkeylizard]

My assumption is that would happen the same way any cop justifies opening a locked trunk when they smell weed in the car.... probable cause.  It doesn't matter that he says it's not loaded.  In God we trust, all others must have proof.  

 

Yeah, this is what I was wondering too. Can't the officers search his locked case without a warrant if they have probable cause? Ballentine's Law Dictionary defines that as a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true. I'd say the po-po had a reasonable amount of suspicion based on location, manner of dress (body armor), rifle-shaped case, and recent mass-shooting events. I suspect that most prudent and cautious people in this situation would believe that he's carrying a loaded rifle and is about to unleash a world of hurt on a group of people, creating probable cause to search the locked case.

 

Since one or more of them knew who they were dealing with, it might have been a bit more prudent to detain him while waiting on a warrant before searching it to save themselves some hassle from him later, but ISTM that they did have PC in this instance.

[JayC]

Locked containers are treated differently than cars according to SCOTUS, and they'd have to have a specific probable cause that the firearm in question was loaded...  Just thinking the gun might be load because it is a gun is not probable cause...  and since according to Leonard he immediately took the fifth amendment on being approached so there wouldn't be any statements that could be used as PC for the search...  

 

As a general rule they can not open locked containers based on probable cause unless there is an underlying exigent circumstance...  for example thinking a kidnap victim is being stored in a huge duffel bag.  I don't see any exigent circumstance that would apply here once they had possession of the case.

 

Also once they took possession of the case, the threat that Leonard might use it even if it was loaded was gone, so the exigent circumstance goes away.

 

My assumption is that would happen the same way any cop justifies opening a locked trunk when they smell weed in the car.... probable cause.  It doesn't matter that he says it's not loaded.  In God we trust, all others must have proof.  

Edited July 31, 2013 by JayC

[JayC]

Robert, due process requires a review by an independent judge...  there was no such review just a finding by a lawyer working for TDOS...  That does not equal due process as I understand the law...  Care to cite an example of an administrative process that doesn't allow you to present evidence, and isn't before a judge is considered due process under the law?

 

While he didn't take advantage of due process yet, I don't think it changes the fact that no judge has ruled he is a danger to society, only a lawyer working for the government, and I'm pretty sure that can't be used as the basis to further restrict unrelated rights and privileges.

 

I could be wrong...  I can't find a cite on topic, maybe you can?

 

It was done with due process; precisely as the rules he (and we) agree to when we apply for and receive an HCP.

 

Claiming his freely made choice constitutes a lack of due process is like complaining that your cake didn't bake because you chose to not turn the oven on.

 

[RobertNashville]

Robert, due process requires a review by an independent judge...  there was no such review just a finding by a lawyer working for TDOS...  That does not equal due process as I understand the law...  Care to cite an example of an administrative process that doesn't allow you to present evidence, and isn't before a judge is considered due process under the law?

 

While he didn't take advantage of due process yet, I don't think it changes the fact that no judge has ruled he is a danger to society, only a lawyer working for the government, and I'm pretty sure that can't be used as the basis to further restrict unrelated rights and privileges.

 

I could be wrong...  I can't find a cite on topic, maybe you can?

I don't know where you got this notion that a judge must be involved?  There is no such language in Constitution.  The Constitution, primarily under the 14th amendment, guarantees us due process, yes but due process, as a legal term is defined as a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property and that the law will will not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.

 

The process proscribed for revoking an HCP and seeking to have it reinstated most certainly meets that definition on its face. That he chose not to avail himself of the process is his problem and his problem alone; no one denied him due process except himself. I'm reasonably sure, had he followed the process, that he could have taken it to court at some point but it's up to him to take the appropriate actions so I don't really give a rat's ass that no judge has ruled because.

[JayC]

IANAL, so this is my laypersons understanding...  and there may very well be case law that contradicts my understanding...  

 

But we don't have trials in absentia in this country, so just because he didn't show up for a hearing that didn't even happen doesn't mean he can lose his other rights or privileges under the law.  To do that he has to be found guilty in a court where the entire proceeding fall under due process.  I'm not trying to claim that his HCP was revocation is somehow faulty (although I'm glad to argue that TDOS should not have the subjective ability to revoke a permit at another time).... 

 

What I'm saying is, I don't think they can use the finding of a single lawyer working for TDOS as probable cause to perform a search.  Or even RAS for a terry stop...  

 

I think it's unconstitutional to say "Leonard is performing this otherwise legal action, but because I know had his permit revoked for an unrelated reason I find probable cause to detain and search him". 

 

I think if he can prove that at the time of the arrest they knew who he was, and specifically targeted him for arrest based solely or in part on the permit being revoked, that is going to cause them some legal issues with the arrest and any possible future civil case.

 

And all of that probably doesn't matter because I think the search was completely illegal anyhow... but if he can bring forward evidence that he was targeted because of who he was, that would probably lend some weight to a 1983 lawsuit IMHO.

 

 

I don't know where you got this notion that a judge must be involved?  There is no such language in Constitution.  The Constitution, primarily under the 14th amendment, guarantees us due process, yes but due process, as a legal term is defined as a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one's life, liberty, or property and that the law will will not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious.

 

The process proscribed for revoking an HCP and seeking to have it reinstated most certainly meets that definition on its face. That he chose not to avail himself of the process is his problem and his problem alone; no one denied him due process except himself. I'm reasonably sure, had he followed the process, that he could have taken it to court at some point but it's up to him to take the appropriate actions so I don't really give a rat's ass that no judge has ruled because.