Firearms agitator still waiting to fight gun charge (Embody case)

[dcloudy777]

I have been on a jury that awarded damages. Lenny sure as hell doesn't want me on his.

And you, being a TGO member so presumably a "gun person" are probably 10 times more sympathetic to Lenny's cause than the average jury member.

[mikegideon]

And you, being a TGO member so presumably a "gun person" are probably 10 times more sympathetic to Lenny's cause than the average jury member.

 

Didn't think I even had to mention that part :)

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1184180" timestamp="1409267381"]And, I think it's worth a few bucks to shut that douchebag down. So far, it's working pretty well.[/quote] Even if it was 100% free, using the police and courts against someone [b]who broke no laws[/b] simply for being a douchebag who does things you don't like is unconscionable. I get it, I think he is a piece dogshit too, it is still wrong to use the government as a weapon against him. Even though I don't believe in what he is doing and won't stand with him, I will stand against what the government did here every single time. If they can maliciously prosecute him, what's to stop them from maliciously prosecuting anyone else? It disappoints me that you would let personal animus cause you to chuck things like the rule of law over the port.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="dcloudy777" post="1184182" timestamp="1409267496"]And you, being a TGO member so presumably a "gun person" are probably 10 times more sympathetic to Lenny's cause than the average jury member.[/quote] I would say that the general mood around this place says the exact opposite is true. Gun folks are much less sympathetic towards him because they feel he is personally harmful to them.

[mikegideon]

Even if it was 100% free, using the police and courts against someone who broke no laws simply for being a douchebag who does things you don't like is unconscionable. I get it, I think he is a piece dog#### too, it is still wrong to use the government as a weapon against him. Even though I don't believe in what he is doing and won't stand with him, I will stand against what the government did here every single time. If they can maliciously prosecute him, what's to stop them from maliciously prosecuting anyone else?

It disappoints me that you would let personal animus cause you to chuck things like the rule of law over the port.

 

We will just have to disagree on this one. What has it cost so far to police all his antics? The government didn't go after him. He went after them. I think it was perfectly fine to bitch slap him, since he is, in fact, a bitch.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1184188" timestamp="1409268435"]We will just have to disagree on this one. What has it cost so far to police all his antics? The government didn't go after him. He went after them. I think it was perfectly fine to bitch slap him, since he is, in fact, a bitch.[/quote] I think the real disconnect is that while you continue to focus on Lenny, my focus is on what the government did. Take Lenny out of the picture and imagine that the government maliciously prosecuted another person for being what they felt was a pain in the ass. Does that change things for you at all? The "who" is immaterial for me, it is the "what" of government action I take issue with. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DaveTN]

The government didn't go after him. He went after them.

And why I doubt he will get anything in a lawsuit. I wouldn’t give him a dime.

I will be curious to hear what the hospital says the reason for termination was. I doubt they fired him for getting arrested. I sure wouldn’t want a nut case for my nurse.

[Sam1]

which one of you guys on here was on the radio today trying to explain the situation when the commercial took over?  Think it was obvious the host wanted to leave a bunch of vagueness in the air for drama purposes and that's why you weren't held on till the next segment.

 

100% sure it was someone on here because there was talk about getting into an argument with Voldemort on the forum a few years back.

[Sam1]

I think the real disconnect is that while you continue to focus on Lenny, my focus is on what the government did. Take Lenny out of the picture and imagine that the government maliciously prosecuted another person for being what they felt was a pain in the ass. Does that change things for you at all? The "who" is immaterial for me, it is the "what" of government action I take issue with. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

You know it's also legal to wear a ninja suit with a backpack, creep around the building and stare in the windows of the federal courthouse in Nashville at 2:30am.  And just as I would agree that the ninja suit guy should be dealt with, Voldemort antagonizing the cops should be as well.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Sam1" post="1184197" timestamp="1409269886"]You know it's also legal to wear a ninja suit with a backpack, creep around the building and stare in the windows of the federal courthouse in Nashville at 2:30am. And just as I would agree that the ninja suit guy should be dealt with, Voldemort antagonizing the cops should be as well.[/quote] Liberty for me, but not thee? If it is legal, then how exactly do you suggest it "should be dealt with"? Using the government to "deal with" folks you don't like is a bad, bad road to go down. Remember, the government isn't very fond of us gun owners as a general rule. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[DaveTN]

I think the real disconnect is that while you continue to focus on Lenny, my focus is on what the government did. Take Lenny out of the picture and imagine that the government maliciously prosecuted another person for being what they felt was a pain in the ass. Does that change things for you at all? The "who" is immaterial for me, it is the "what" of government action I take issue with. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

When the Police see someone that has had their permit revoked for "material likelihood that he is a risk to the public" carrying a rifle downtown they need to stop him. His behavior may not be criminal but it is not normal. I think a civil jury would see it that way if it goes that far.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="DaveTN" post="1184200" timestamp="1409270286"]When the Police see someone that has had their permit revoked for "material likelihood that he is a risk to the public" carrying a rifle downtown they need to stop him. His behavior may not be criminal but it is not normal. I think a civil jury would see it that way if it goes that far.[/quote] They need to articulate why they are detaining him and when they determine that he has violated no laws, he should be left alone (not "allowed") to go on his way. He wasn't and that's the problem. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[Oh Shoot]

When the Police see someone that has had their permit revoked for "material likelihood that he is a risk to the public" carrying a rifle downtown they need to stop him. His behavior may not be criminal but it is not normal. I think a civil jury would see it that way if it goes that far.

 

I don't think the "stopping" him part is the issue. People are stopped and questioned frequently, they just aren't supposed to be arrested, let alone prosecuted for a year unless they broke a law. I don't blame the cops nearly as much as the DA and judge, though.

 

- OS

Edited August 29, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[hipower]

OH NO!! NOT AGAIN!

[mikegideon]

I think the real disconnect is that while you continue to focus on Lenny, my focus is on what the government did. Take Lenny out of the picture and imagine that the government maliciously prosecuted another person for being what they felt was a pain in the ass. Does that change things for you at all? The "who" is immaterial for me, it is the "what" of government action I take issue with. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

No, I continue to focus on that incident. Terrorizing the general public is an act that should bring on a legal public beating. So, i'm real disappointed they didn't beat the shit out of him with his own gun. He had his day in court, one that would have never happened if he didn't beg for it.

[bersaguy]

Better question... what 12 sane people would award him anything? And the verdict is, "you're lucky you didn't get your ass kicked".

How many people that 12 people on a  jury would give a woman 4 million dollars for dumping hot coffee from McDonalds on her own lap when she knew it was hot and it was marked Contents are Hot on the lid. Don't count this guy out yet.  There have been quite a few people have jury's give some pretty incredible money figures to over recent years for a lot less than this guy had done.   I bet Metro winds up settling out of court if he does sue rather than look like the fools they really were with this case.......jmho

[TripleDigitRide]

What I am curious about more so than the situation is that the filing states that the state trooper already had an incident with him at the supreme court earlier that same day.  I would love to get the specifics on that because if he was up there stirring up sh!t, then showed back up later in body armor and carrying a rifle, he's lucky he didn't get put out of his misery.

The trooper saw him walking around, questioned him, but didn't feel as if he had any reason to hold him. Voldermont then continued to walk towards the area of town where he was confronted for a second time. Voldermont was doing the same thing during both encounters; walking around.

[mikegideon]

I don't think the "stopping" him part is the issue. People are stopped and questioned frequently, they just aren't supposed to be arrested, let alone prosecuted for a year unless they broke a law. I don't blame the cops nearly as much as the DA and judge, though.

 

- OS

 

As they say in the South, oops.

[mikegideon]

How many people that 12 people on a  jury would give a woman 4 million dollars for dumping hot coffee from McDonalds on her own lap when she knew it was hot and it was marked Contents are Hot on the lid. Don't count this guy out yet.  There have been quite a few people have jury's give some pretty incredible money figures to over recent years for a lot less than this guy had done.   I bet Metro winds up settling out of court if he does sue rather than look like the fools they really were with this case.......jmho

 

How much you wanna bet? Box of 380? Sign me up.

 

BTW... the HOT warning came after the lawsuit, right?

Edited August 29, 2014 by mikegideon

[dcloudy777]

They need to articulate why they are detaining him and when they determine that he has violated no laws, he should be left alone (not "allowed") to go on his way. He wasn't and that's the problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Lenny's possession of the suppressor was against TN state law. His proper registration under NFA would have been a defense against prosecution (and likely against arrest) but he declined to show any evidence that he had it.

[mikegideon]

Lenny's possession of the suppressor was against TN state law. His proper registration under NFA would have been a defense against prosecution (and likely against arrest) but he declined to show any evidence that he had it.

 

I reckon the city's lawyers will be too dumb to bring up countless examples of Lenny trolling for a lawsuit. After all, he's kwikrnthem

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="Sam1" post="1184204" timestamp="1409270857"]Personal responsibility. 1st amendment says you can say what you want, cun t b!tch whore and slut are common words, so would you ever use them to speak about your wife, mother or daughter? No reason to get in a big debate over this, because you believe in the literal translation word for word and without regard to the intent.[/quote] You dodged my question, but that's ok. Regardless, I would say that the idea that men should be free from selective and malicious prosecution by the state is absolutely in line with not just the word, but the intent of the Founder's documents. Even a cursory skimming of their writings bears that truth out. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mikegideon]

You dodged my question, but that's ok. Regardless, I would say that the idea that men should be free from selective and malicious prosecution by the state is absolutely in line with not just the word, but the intent of the Founder's documents. Even a cursory skimming of their writings bears that truth out. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

James Madison would have kicked Lenny right square in the nuts. No reason to waste and founding energy on him.

[Garufa]

Lenny's possession of the suppressor was against TN state law. His proper registration under NFA would have been a defense against prosecution (and likely against arrest) but he declined to show any evidence that he had it.

 

Have you read the ruling?  It clearly explains that one does not have to produce the evidence, only "retain" it.  He in fact had the documentation in the "case" and the LEO's did in fact see it.  He just did not give it to them.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="dcloudy777" post="1184219" timestamp="1409271473"]Lenny's possession of the suppressor was against TN state law. His proper registration under NFA would have been a defense against prosecution (and likely against arrest) but he declined to show any evidence that he had it.[/quote] Check the judge's ruling again, he specifically covered that. State law says he had to retain the paperwork, he was under no obligation to show it to the officers. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD