voldemort at it again

[DaveTN]

Dave, I'll give you the RAS for the terry stop, clearly they had enough to detain him and chat....  I'm not sure about the PC to access a locked container to check the firearm...  how do you form specific probable cause that a firearm locked in a hard case (even one as crazy as the case he was carrying) was somehow in violation of the law?
 
I just don't see how they can make that leap...  My understanding is locked case means search warrant, I can't see any exigent circumstance that covers a locked case.
 
As for the officer in the video, he's wrong... A judge never ruled on the revocation of his permit, that was a bureaucrat at TDOS, and because Leonard failed to have a hearing on the matter it never went before an independent third party.
 
Again, my guess is they have a huge PC issue with opening a locked case without a warrant, I just don't see how they come up with it...  Also it doesn't work in the favor of the police that they knew exactly who they were dealing with when they opened the case, because his history is that he follows the law exactly, which would seem to downplay the risk the firearm was somehow loaded.

He will need to make a case that wrapping plastic around a gun and putting a lock on it makes it a case, or even if it does it was protected from search.

I will agree though, it appears they knew who they had and they should have just got a warrant. Or, they could have decided they weren’t they wasting any more time with this idiot and did what they had to do to get him off the street.

No cop in good conscience could let him walk away without checking that weapon. His HCP was revoked saying there was a likelihood of risk to the public, he was trying to make it clear to everyone that he was carrying a rifle, and he added the body armor for effect. There is no way I would have allowed him to continue if I were a cop.

This threat was real. I don’t think law enforcement is banned from challenging and stopping an open threat.

[TGO David]

I have purchased a number of guns and a silencer from him , very nice guy.

 

Nice guys don't go after people as vengefully as he's done to several over the years.  Nice guys don't post my HCP and my wife's HCP and my wife's birth certificate on their web pages and make sexually explicit remarks about my wife on their web site.

 

Leonard doesn't like me very much because I was one of the forum admins that booted him.  The feeling is mutual of course, but some people don't have class.

 

Maybe Brad Thor will offer to buy a new gun for whichever citizen finally smokes this clown during his next publicity stunt.  As has been said, sooner or later he's going to scare the right person and they're going to perceive him as a threat and end this bull#### for all of us.  But I'm sure Leonard has briefed his wife completely so that she will know precisely how to sue that person in civil court and try to provide the sort of life for her and their kids that he seemingly can't any other way.... so I hope they have a good lawyer.

 

Those of you who think he's a great guy and who support him financially through your firearms purchases have dozens of other choices on where to spend your money locally.  Why this guy?  Does something about his character resonate with you?

[Fourtyfive]

I knew nothing of his personal attack on you David and do not approve of it , I have purchased from him because he is closer than any other dealer to me and cheaper.

[JayC]

Dave,

 

This case was made from kydex, not thin plastic...  it would have made a hard case on the outside...  And it clearly was sturdy enough that they couldn't gain access to the firearm to check if it had a round chambered even after tearing the kydex apart.

 

Either way he had a clearly attempt to protect what was inside, and my understanding is, all that matters is Leonard attempted to 'protect' the item by locking it, not the quality of the material or lock.  If I take a cheap sack and place a lock on it, it's viewed in the eyes of the court the same as the most expensive briefcase with a lock.

 

More over, they had custody of the locked case, I can't see any reasonable exigent circumstance where the police have physically in their custody a locked case, and they have some reason to open it without a warrant.  I think they have a real problem with the search, and the arrest came from that search.

 

Also, the HCP revocation is like radiation in this case, I think they may open themselves up to greater liability trying to say because a permit was revoked without due process (remember it never went before a judge - because Leonard was an idiot), that somehow they can treat him differently under the law than somebody without a permit.

 

The bigger problem they're going to have is how he handled this encounter...  unlike in past cases where he got into sidewalk lawyering with the officers, the instant they stopped him he invoked the 5th amendment right to remain silent...  at least in the incidents before the officer could claim he was acting mentally unstable or 'not making sense', here they don't have anything other than a man carrying a locked firearm case walking around.

 

And I've repeatedly said the terry stop was good, stopping him and trying to have a conversation with him is perfectly legal.  A search of his person for officer safety is perfectly legal as well...  but I'm pretty sure that terry stops don't extend to locked cases.  And it's opening that locked case without a warrant that seems to make this encounter unconstitutional.

 

He will need to make a case that wrapping plastic around a gun and putting a lock on it makes it a case, or even if it does it was protected from search.

I will agree though, it appears they knew who they had and they should have just got a warrant. Or, they could have decided they weren’t they wasting any more time with this idiot and did what they had to do to get him off the street.

No cop in good conscience could let him walk away without checking that weapon. His HCP was revoked saying there was a likelihood of risk to the public, he was trying to make it clear to everyone that he was carrying a rifle, and he added the body armor for effect. There is no way I would have allowed him to continue if I were a cop.

This threat was real. I don’t think law enforcement is banned from challenging and stopping an open threat.

 

[monkeylizard]

:popcorn:   Enjoying the number of people that take pleasure in denouncing anyone that agrees with some of Embody's actions.  

Has anyone here met him?  I have.  I don't think he's a douchebag.  Just a bit more Radical than most here have the nerve to be, myself included. So I will play Devil's Advocate... This forum has some real sharp thinkers on here (not me!)

Technically he has the Right and has paid for the Privilege to engage his 2AR.  He has demonstrated the flaw in several Laws.

Can anyone point out what Law(s) or Codes that were broken at Radon Lake or Belle Meade?  Belle Meade changed their carry law after Embody... he followed their old Law to the letter.  Have to admit he is very thorough on being technically correct in following the Law.

So, please, take a moment and analyse WHAT he is questioning about some of our Laws, not how he is doing it.

He is NOT my hero.  But he does follow the Letter of the Law.

 

I don't disagree with what he's questioning about our laws. I really don't think very many of us do. How he does it is critically important.

 

Let's take Belle Meade for example. No, he didn't break a law. Yes, it resulted in an outdated law being officially stricken from the books. So what?

 

Real world impact: It was an unenforced law* so getting it removed from the books was just clerical work. It's not like he suddenly instituted Constitutional Carry in Belle Meade. What's worse is that it gives fodder to the local news. During this latest dust-up, WKRN wheeled out the old footage of his Belle Meade stop and said something to the effect of "Embody was arrested in 200X in Belle Meade for walking down the street with a gun in his hand." No mention of what the law was at the time, nor that his actions were perfectly legal. They don't need facts. They have a person they can paint as a lunatic gun owner. Three guesses what they might do with that.

 

He possibly could have accomplished the exact same thing by setting up a meeting with a BM councilmember and pointing out the antiquated law and asking them to bring it up in the next city council session to have it removed. You know....the normal way of having laws changed. But whether that particular law was removed or not is totally irrelevant because nobody does that except for him trying to prove his point. Keep that law, remove that law...it makes no difference to anyone.

 

*I've long heard that some TN towns have a law on their books stating that if a woman is driving a car, a man must walk in front of the car waving 2 red or orange flags to warn pedestrians and other motorists. It's like the BM law in that it's really old, it's unenforced, and nobody cares. I suppose some women's lib group could protest that law by doing exactly that and holding up traffic (follow the letter of the law) but it serves no purpose. Nobody does that and women aren't being cited for not having their "warning man" in front of them. So who cares? All it would do is make the women's lib group look like a bunch of crazy people if the media were so inclined to paint them that way. Guess who they like to paint as crazy people...Only one guess this time and it's not women's lib groups.

Edited July 31, 2013 by monkeylizard

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Like I said, I don't know him, and I don't feel one way or another towards him. My questions have always been

directed at events and actions by the current supporters of the 2nd Amendment and what will they do when the

situation causes them to change their course to preserve their right. Otherwise, don't read anything else into

my comments about Kwik because they may or may not be relevant.

 

What he did with you, David, is completely inappropriate behavior, and is a sign of a sick person, no doubt. I'd

be mad as Hell at him, also. There are definitely things going on with this guy that just doesn't jive.

[mikegideon]

Dave,

 

This case was made from kydex, not thin plastic...  it would have made a hard case on the outside...  And it clearly was sturdy enough that they couldn't gain access to the firearm to check if it had a round chambered even after tearing the kydex apart.

 

Either way he had a clearly attempt to protect what was inside, and my understanding is, all that matters is Leonard attempted to 'protect' the item by locking it, not the quality of the material or lock.  If I take a cheap sack and place a lock on it, it's viewed in the eyes of the court the same as the most expensive briefcase with a lock.

 

More over, they had custody of the locked case, I can't see any reasonable exigent circumstance where the police have physically in their custody a locked case, and they have some reason to open it without a warrant.  I think they have a real problem with the search, and the arrest came from that search.

 

Also, the HCP revocation is like radiation in this case, I think they may open themselves up to greater liability trying to say because a permit was revoked without due process (remember it never went before a judge - because Leonard was an idiot), that somehow they can treat him differently under the law than somebody without a permit.

 

The bigger problem they're going to have is how he handled this encounter...  unlike in past cases where he got into sidewalk lawyering with the officers, the instant they stopped him he invoked the 5th amendment right to remain silent...  at least in the incidents before the officer could claim he was acting mentally unstable or 'not making sense', here they don't have anything other than a man carrying a locked firearm case walking around.

 

And I've repeatedly said the terry stop was good, stopping him and trying to have a conversation with him is perfectly legal.  A search of his person for officer safety is perfectly legal as well...  but I'm pretty sure that terry stops don't extend to locked cases.  And it's opening that locked case without a warrant that seems to make this encounter unconstitutional.

 

Your analysis assumes that anybody with two brain cells to rub together can't see what this whole thing was about. Lenny may beat the charges, if they don't drop them. At that point, he's the loser. No way he's gonna win any damages. In the end, he'll be out time and money, and will get nothing in return except his splash in the media.

Edited July 31, 2013 by mikegideon

[JayC]

Mike, how does it matter what Leonard is about...  Did he force the police to do something that may have been illegal and unconstitutional?  No.  The simple truth is police officers and other 'public servants' need to be held to a higher standard because of the authority we give them to write and enforce the laws.

 

I personally feel we need to charge and bring to trial every unconstitutional action by public employees, and that we should enforce the maximum penalty whenever they're found guilty.  I know that is a crazy notion to hold people accountable for their unlawful actions no matter how "well intended" they may have been.

 

I don't see anyway Leonard gets convicted, I seriously doubt they'll even allow this case to be brought to trial.

 

And while I don't like the guy (yes I've met him in person as well), I hope he makes a pretty penny off of any illegal or unconstitutional actions by the police that day...

 

I realize I'm a crazy libertarian, but is it really wrong to expect the government to honor their written social contract with us all while robbing me of my money to pay for them?  Somedays I get so frustrated by all the gun loving sheeple on the Internet ;)

 

Mike, do me a favor and watch this video, it tells you why libertarians are so dangerous:)

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg 

 

Your analysis assumes that anybody with two brain cells to rub together can't see what this whole thing was about. Lenny may beat the charges, if they don't drop them. At that point, he's the loser. No way he's gonna win any damages. In the end, he'll be out time and money, and will get nothing in return except his splash in the media.

[Handsome Rob]

Isn't he just a Kardashian without the tits?

[mikegideon]

Mike, how does it matter what Leonard is about...  Did he force the police to do something that may have been illegal and unconstitutional?  No.  The simple truth is police officers and other 'public servants' need to be held to a higher standard because of the authority we give them to write and enforce the laws.

 

I personally feel we need to charge and bring to trial every unconstitutional action by public employees, and that we should enforce the maximum penalty whenever they're found guilty.  I know that is a crazy notion to hold people accountable for their unlawful actions no matter how "well intended" they may have been.

 

I don't see anyway Leonard gets convicted, I seriously doubt they'll even allow this case to be brought to trial.

 

And while I don't like the guy (yes I've met him in person as well), I hope he makes a pretty penny off of any illegal or unconstitutional actions by the police that day...

 

I realize I'm a crazy libertarian, but is it really wrong to expect the government to honor their written social contract with us all while robbing me of my money to pay for them?  Somedays I get so frustrated by all the gun loving sheeple on the Internet ;)

 

Mike, do me a favor and watch this video, it tells you why libertarians are so dangerous:)

 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg 

 

I have a whole lot of Libertarian in me. In this case, I would be just fine with them hitting Lenny between the eyes with a big black stick... 'cause he deserves it. I share your concerns about our constitutional rights too, but that shouldn't even come up in a conversation about Lenny. He's doing this for personal gain, and it's obvious to everybody. There won't be legions of lawyers showing up to debate both sides of the "Justice for Lenny" issue.

 

This little piece of theater is a sideshow, and won't generate anything meaningful. Lenny will wind up being bug juice on the windshield, again.

[mikegideon]

Isn't he just a Kardashian without the tits?

 

...or a brain

[TGO David]

I have a whole lot of Libertarian in me. In this case, I would be just fine with them hitting Lenny between the eyes with a big black stick... 'cause he deserves it. I share your concerns about our constitutional rights too, but that shouldn't even come up in a conversation about Lenny. He's doing this for personal gain, and it's obvious to everybody. There won't be legions of lawyers showing up to debate both sides of the "Justice for Lenny" issue.

 

This little piece of theater is a sideshow, and won't generate anything meaningful. Lenny will wind up being bug juice on the windshield, again.

 

His goal isn't to do anything meaningful for anyone other than himself.  He's hoping to make bank, not change laws.

[JAB]

Can anyone point out what Law(s) or Codes that were broken at Radon Lake or Belle Meade?  Belle Meade changed their carry law after Embody... he followed their old Law to the letter.  Have to admit he is very thorough on being technically correct in following the Law.

So, please, take a moment and analyse WHAT he is questioning about some of our Laws, not how he is doing it.

He is NOT my hero.  But he does follow the Letter of the Law.

 

Sometimes people do things to legitimately protest a situation in which rights or perceived rights are being violated.  Other times, however, people do things just to be provocative.  How about considering another example:

 

Ever seen footage of one of those 'Gay Pride' parades that are held in places like San Francisco?  I am not talking about people simply stating their pride or support like the parade in Knoxville that was held recently apparently did (based solely on the footage I saw of it on the news.)  Nope, I'm talking about parades featuring men wearing only leather thongs, possibly sporting handcuffs and ball gags, being lead down the street on a leash by some other, hairy dude in leather.

 

In the above example, the folks who are respectfully participating in a parade/demonstration of their pride or support for the community are simply exercising their rights.  I may or may not agree with their message but they are at least demonstrating in the 'right' way.  The dudes in leather leading their nearly nude, gay 'subs' bound and gagged on leashes down a public street may also not, technically, be doing anything illegal but they still appear to be more interested in being 'provocative' than in honestly working toward more public acceptance.  They are more interested in being 'in your face' than fostering any kind of positive change for their community.  It is possible that the former can change public opinion to be more in favor or accepting of their community.  The latter, however, is simply going to disgust most members of the public at large - perhaps even anger the public at large - and, rather than bringing about positive change, is more likely to foster a backlash against their community and only set their cause back.  Embody, then, is at best the firearm community's equivalent of that hairy dude in leather, leading his boyfriend on a leash around in public - and I have about as much use for one as I do for the other.

 

That is why I don't believe that Washington, Jefferson, etc. would be in support of his actions.  Our Founders didn't do things just to be provocative.  I don't believe they engaged in stupid stunts like Embody does.  Instead, they stated their case and, when the statement was ignored, they did something about it.  Really did something about it.  They didn't engage in childish, "Na na nuh boo boo!" crap and then act like they were doing it 'for the good of us all'.

Edited July 31, 2013 by JAB

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Interesting video, Jay.

[TMF]

What rights is he defending if everything he is doing is legal? Anyone got an answer for that?

I could walk around town telling every dude I see that I banged his wife last night as a way to exercise my free speech. Then, when one of them knocks me out I can sue them. Nothing I did was illegal, but then again, who said that it was? It would all be in poor taste and a generally douchey thing to do all in the name of making money in a subsequent lawsuit. This is what Voldemort is doing. Those of you comparing him to founding fathers are clearly allowing your dislike of authority to cloud your ability to use reason and logic.

HOW IS WHAT LEONARD DID ANY DIFFERENT THAN THAT SCENARIO I POSTED??? Edited July 31, 2013 by TMF

[mikegideon]

Interesting video, Jay.

 

Yes, it is. We could debate it for days. 

[nightrunner]

He did not have a simple case. Walking down the street with it, it appears for him to be carrying a firearm. No red flag sticking out of chamber visible to everyone to signify its unloaded. It also appeared to have a magazine inserted loaded or not you cant tell.

If nothing else they could get him with public disturbance.

There is a time and place for everything. Tell me when has it been commonplace since we have had cities in a civilized society, to carry a rifle through the downtown area of a city as large as Nashville? Never. Even in the old west around late 1800s, people didnt carry rifles openly in town, concealed pistols yes sometimes even open carry pistols but not rifles.

[RobertNashville]

Also, the HCP revocation is like radiation in this case, I think they may open themselves up to greater liability trying to say because a permit was revoked without due process (remember it never went before a judge - because Leonard was an idiot), that somehow they can treat him differently under the law than somebody without a permit.

 

 

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)?  ;)

[mikegideon]

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)?  ;)

 

Fact is, Lenny could have flinched the wrong way during his last stunt, and there would have been lead flying in downtown Nashville. That goes for a few of his other stunts. He truly is a danger to the public, and there is due process for that.

 

He deserved to lose his permit. The appeal process WAS available to him.

[RobertNashville]

Mike, how does it matter what Leonard is about...  Did he force the police to do something that may have been illegal and unconstitutional?  No.  The simple truth is police officers and other 'public servants' need to be held to a higher standard because of the authority we give them to write and enforce the laws.

 

I personally feel we need to charge and bring to trial every unconstitutional action by public employees, and that we should enforce the maximum penalty whenever they're found guilty.  I know that is a crazy notion to hold people accountable for their unlawful actions no matter how "well intended" they may have been.

 

I don't see anyway Leonard gets convicted, I seriously doubt they'll even allow this case to be brought to trial.

 

And while I don't like the guy (yes I've met him in person as well), I hope he makes a pretty penny off of any illegal or unconstitutional actions by the police that day...

 

I realize I'm a crazy libertarian, but is it really wrong to expect the government to honor their written social contract with us all while robbing me of my money to pay for them?  Somedays I get so frustrated by all the gun loving sheeple on the Internet ;)

This has nothing to do with "rights" or being or not being "libertarian/Libertarian".

 

In Tennessee we do not have the RIGHT to carry a firearm on our person in public AT ALL (we can argue all day about how bassackwards that is but that is the way it is at the moment; arguing about it isn't going to change that simple fact).

 

In Tennessee, we are ALLOWED to carry a loaded handgun on our person in public with a carry permit and whether we like it or not, as I understand the original legislation, the intent was that the handgun be CONCEALED (allowing "open carry" was put into the legislation to avoid charges such as "brandishing a weapon" if our concealed firearm became unconcealed inadvertently).

 

We are NEVER allowed to carry a loaded long gun on our person in public.

 

So, when someone carries a loaded handgun openly and/or carries what is almost certainly/obviously a rifle in plain view the police will stop you and questions you almost 100% of the time; especially if the person carrying does so on the sidewalk of a city the size of Nashville because doing so will result in multiple 911 calls and the police will and have an obligation to respond.

 

When they do respond they will and have every right to question the person to determine if that person has the legal authority to carry the weapon being carried in the manner in which it is being carried; most certainly when the weapon in question is or appears to be a rifle.

 

Assuming this goes to trial, a judge will decide if searching this so-called case was justified under probable cause/without a warrant.  Wthe as*h**e refused to answer even basic questions such as "is this a rifle and is it loaded" I believe the police then have sufficient probable cause to ascertain if the weapon is a weapon and if it's loaded and had they not done so, they wouldn't be doing their job.

Edited July 31, 2013 by RobertNashville

[mikegideon]

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.

[Garufa]

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.

 

You can have your very own for $500.  :rolleyes:

 

BTW, he is quoted at the Examiner as saying that he did in fact have the suppressor paperwork in the case.

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/controversial-gun-activist-arrested-with-silencer

Edited July 31, 2013 by Garufa

[JayC]

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). 

 

What rights is he defending if everything he is doing is legal? Anyone got an answer for that?

I could walk around town telling every dude I see that I banged his wife last night as a way to exercise my free speech. Then, when one of them knocks me out I can sue them. Nothing I did was illegal, but then again, who said that it was? It would all be in poor taste and a generally douchey thing to do all in the name of making money in a subsequent lawsuit. This is what Voldemort is doing. Those of you comparing him to founding fathers are clearly allowing your dislike of authority to cloud your ability to use reason and logic.

HOW IS WHAT LEONARD DID ANY DIFFERENT THAN THAT SCENARIO I POSTED???

 

[TripleDigitRide]

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.

You can have your very own for $500. :rolleyes:

BTW, he is quoted at the Examiner as saying that he did in fact have the suppressor paperwork in the case.

http://www.examiner.com/article/controversial-gun-activist-arrested-with-silencer

So he was detained by 10-15 LEOs at least several minutes prior to being detained for a second time? I'd be interested in hearing more about the initial encounter where it appears he was allowed to go about his business.

[mikegideon]

You can have your very own for $500.  :rolleyes:

 

 

No thanks. I have this one from before CTD went on my permanent shit list...