voldemort at it again

[JayC]

WARNING: this link is to a video Leonard made, if you find it offensive that he might make $0.01 off of you viewing this video, don't click the link :)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QScD986-UZE

 

In the comments he mentions that the paperwork for the silencer was in plain view locked inside the rifle case, if true that probably means the charges will be dropped, and the lawsuits will begin.

 

I don't see how the search was legal with this new information...  and I find it surprising that an officer would continue to question a detained suspect after them invoking their right to remain silent...  Isn't that police training 101, you have to stop asking them questions once they invoke?

[c.a.willard]

1:42 in  that video clearly explains his entire reason for doing this crap.

[Dane]

Does a case that is taped shut constitute a "locked" case? According to one of the documents from the police the lock only held the chamber shut.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DaveS]

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 ;)

How is it locked? Looks like it's just draped around it. It's not securing anything in my opinion. The guy is a pure jerk. All he had to do was cooperate, but then that would have been against his objective.

 

DaveS

Edited August 1, 2013 by DaveS

[JayC]

Yeah I agree, why even mention a 1983 lawsuit...  It's my opinion that he was lawsuit fishing, and just got lucky that they appear to have taken his bait.

 

1:42 in  that video clearly explains his entire reason for doing this crap.

[TripleDigitRide]

That video is titled "part II". Where's part 1?

[JayC]

Is a locked briefcase with a seam patched with duct tape locked or unlocked?  My reading of SCOTUS case law on locked containers is the intent of the owner that matters...  not how easy it would have been to defeat the case or the lock.

 

I'd tend to say locked, because it took them 1 or 2 minutes to 'rip' the case open enough to see it had a silencer on it, and they never got it open enough to verify there was not a round chambered according to the police.  We'll have to see what a judge says when the civil case is brought and the city asks for summary judgment.

 

Because, if what Leonard says is true that they had the paperwork in their hands before arresting him, there is no way this goes to criminal court.

 

Does a case that is taped shut constitute a "locked" case? According to one of the documents from the police the lock only held the chamber shut.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[JayC]

I have no clue, somebody higher up in the thread mentioned a video, and I figured some of us would want to see it...  that is the only video Leonard has posted on his youtube channel since his arrest - and no I don't have his channel bookmarked :)

 

Although I'm now hoping to find a dealer other than Leonard to purchase a EXP556 from ;)  So the trip to his youtube channel wasn't a total waste ;)

 

That video is titled "part II". Where's part 1?

[c.a.willard]

lenny can sue all he wants he wont win this law suit either.  I hope the ATF yanks this guys FFL.

[Oh Shoot]

How is it locked? Looks like it's just draped around it. It's not securing anything in my opinion. The guy is a pure jerk. All he had to do was cooperate, but then that would have been against his objective.

 

DaveS

 

The picture with the cable lock is from Lenny's website, it is not how the rifle was secured on his walk.

 

- OS

[DaveS]

The picture with the cable lock is from Lenny's website, it is not how the rifle was secured on his walk.

 

- OS

Right, but I'm trying to figure out how it is locking anything. Is it just for looks/effects? A prop maybe?

[Oh Shoot]

Right, but I'm trying to figure out how it is locking anything. Is it just for looks/effects? A prop maybe?

 

Who knows. It's Kwik.

 

- OS

[TMF]

A little over the top? Probably, but I think it illustrates my point pretty effectively that TMF's argument that saying that sort of thing isn't an aggressive act is complete bunk.

 

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. 

[DaveTN]

In the comments he mentions that the paperwork for the silencer was in plain view locked inside the rifle case, if true that probably means the charges will be dropped, and the lawsuits will begin.

 

I don't see how the search was legal with this new information...  and I find it surprising that an officer would continue to question a detained suspect after them invoking their right to remain silent...  Isn't that police training 101, you have to stop asking them questions once they invoke?

Nope, the cops never have to quit asking you questions. They simply risk using anything you say in court after you invoke. That really isn’t a concern in a case like this. What they will show with that, should this ever go to court is that he was asked numerous times if it was a weapon and if it was loaded.

 

Court isn’t held on the street; it’s held in courtrooms. Let him sue civilly; he isn’t going to stop until that happens anyway. In a civil case a jury will see all the forum posts he has made, all the bannings, all the videos, all the insane stuff on his website; he won’t get anything.

[TMF]

Court isn’t held on the street; it’s held in courtrooms. Let him sue civilly; he isn’t going to stop until that happens anyway. In a civil case a jury will see all the forum posts he has made, all the bannings, all the videos, all the insane stuff on his website; he won’t get anything.

 

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.

[DaveTN]

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.

He may have plenty of time to work on his case; I thought I heard them say on the news that he’s placed on administrative leave from his job after his arrest.

[TMF]

He may have plenty of time to work on his case; I thought I heard them say on the news that he’s placed on administrative leave from his job after his arrest.

 

Actions have consequences. 

[Chucktshoes]

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 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

Edited August 1, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[TMF]

[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.

[Chucktshoes]

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.

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. Edited August 1, 2013 by Chucktshoes

[RobertNashville]

Is a locked briefcase with a seam patched with duct tape locked or unlocked?  My reading of SCOTUS case law on locked containers is the intent of the owner that matters...  not how easy it would have been to defeat the case or the lock.

 

I'd tend to say locked, because it took them 1 or 2 minutes to 'rip' the case open enough to see it had a silencer on it, and they never got it open enough to verify there was not a round chambered according to the police.  We'll have to see what a judge says when the civil case is brought and the city asks for summary judgment.

 

Because, if what Leonard says is true that they had the paperwork in their hands before arresting him, there is no way this goes to criminal court.

Locked, taped doesn't matter...by his actions, lack of even the most basic of cooperation, his body armor and more; he provided all the probable cause they needed to open the case without waiting for a warrant.

[JayC]

On what grounds are they going to yank his FFL?  Unless he's convicted of a felony I don't see how they revoke his FFL.  Unlike the TN HCP the FFL is completely objective there is no subjective part.

 

lenny can sue all he wants he wont win this law suit either.  I hope the ATF yanks this guys FFL.

 

[TMF]

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.

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.

[JayC]

Robert,

 

They might very well have had probable cause for a warrant, but they didn't get a warrant...  And per SCOTUS rulings there are very few allowed exigent circumstances to search a locked container without a warrant.

 

Remember that probable cause is NOT an automatic warrant waiver in all cases...  For example probable cause can be used as exigent circumstance to search your vehicle without a warrant, but the exact same probable cause would not provide an exigent circumstance to search your home without a warrant.

 

Locked containers are special under current case law don't blame me, blame SCOTUS.

 

Locked, taped doesn't matter...by his actions, lack of even the most basic of cooperation, his body armor and more; he provided all the probable cause they needed to open the case without waiting for a warrant.

 

[Guest bluecanary25]

:popcorn: Been reading... lotsa good stuff.  Playing Devil's Advocate again.  Some observations:

Some have missed or ignored the news video of the interaction between the LEO and Leonard. (Channel 5  in Nashville)

If the News team had time to arrive and start recording, there was also time for backup officers to arrive.  Therefore the officer shown in both videos (News and Leonard's vid) was not alone. The backup officers, while not visible in the videos will have taken strategic positions. Lateral and/or posterior locations?

The News camera is behind Leonard and it clearly shows that it is not a firearm. It closely resembles a rifle but has no trigger, nor suggests any movable parts.  This object is also carried on Leonard's back not in his hands and held on by a strap. Backup officers would also see this.  ??Are these Japanese schoolgirls being exposed to something "longer than it's wide" for the first time or are they trained observers with exposure and experience with firearms?? Obviously they saw it was not a firearm.  Had it been an exposed firearm, I don't think it would have started as a Terry Stop.

(Did a quick search to define a Terry Stop, still looking into it.)  

FYI.. I have met many and have known a few Metro Officers and other LEOs.  Most have my respect. I am not attempting to put any LEO in a bad light.

I am holding my eyes open, trying to see what is developing in our world. So I stir the pot a bit, now and then....