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

[Sam1]

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.

 

The way I read it, it said he came up at the first contact point and recognized him because of an 'incident' earlier that day.  Then they released him, and got the supervisor involved and while he was heading to those buildings is when they picked him up during the second contact.

 

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1184209" timestamp="1409271106"]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 #### 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.[/quote] Then charge him for "terrorizing the public" not a bogus weapons charge. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[bersaguy]

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

 

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

Unless she ask for Ice Coffee which they did not offer at the time of the law suit common knowledge is you ask for coffee it will be hot.  And McDonalds has had the words Contents are hot on them for as long as I can remember........... :shrug: :shrug:

[K191145]

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

 

I can't understand why some people are okay with government or police violating someones civil and Constitutional rights only because they don't like them or like their behavior. That is disrespect for the Constitution plain and simple. It's okay until their rights are violated in some way or the other. They can't be a champion of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights unless they defend everyones rights, not just a selected few.

Edited August 29, 2014 by K191145

[mikegideon]

Then charge him for "terrorizing the public" not a bogus weapons charge. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

So, Lenny can plan one of these episodes for months, stressing the law to the limit to make it appear that he is doing something illegal, but they can't bend things to fit him? Doesn't intent mean anything? Damn, I miss the days when they could just hit you with a stick when you asked for it.

[Chucktshoes]

[quote name="mikegideon" post="1184237" timestamp="1409273182"]So, Lenny can plan one of these episodes for months, stressing the law to the limit to make it appear that he is doing something illegal, but they can't bend things to fit him? Doesn't intent mean anything? Damn, I miss the days when they could just hit you with a stick when you asked for it.[/quote] To put it simply, nope. Whose intent? Yours or Bloomberg's. The rule of law protects you and me just the same as it protects Lenny's ignorant ass. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[mikegideon]

I can't understand why some people are okay with government or police violating someones civil and Constitutional rights only because they don't like them or like their behavior. That is disrespect for the Constitution plain and simple. It's okay until their rights are violated in some way or the other. They can't be a champion of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights unless they defend everyones rights, not just a selected few.

 

Sorry, but this one doesn't worry me. They didn't pick on some innocent citizen.

[mikegideon]

To put it simply, nope. Whose intent? Yours or Bloomberg's. The rule of law protects you and me just the same as it protects Lenny's ignorant ass. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Yep. Not guilty. Have a nice day :)

[DaveTN]

Damn, I miss the days when they could just hit you with a stick when you asked for it.

[K191145]

Sorry, but this one doesn't worry me. They didn't pick on some innocent citizen.

 

If he didn't violate any law the he is INNOCENT.

[Sam1]

I can't understand why some people are okay with government or police violating someones civil and Constitutional rights only because they don't like them or like their behavior. That is disrespect for the Constitution plain and simple. It's okay until their rights are violated in some way or the other. They can't be a champion of the Constitution and Bill Of Rights unless they defend everyones rights, not just a selected few.

 

Here's why people try not to use the documents literally word for word 

 

 

The Federalists contended that a Bill of Rights was unnecessary because in their view the federal government possessed only limited powers that were expressly delegated to it by the Constitution. They believed that all powers not constitutionally delegated to the federal government were inherently reserved to the people and the states. Nowhere in the Constitution, the Federalists pointed out, is the federal government given the power to trample on individual liberties. The Federalists feared that if the Constitution were to include a Bill of Rights that protected certain liberties from government encroachment, an inference would be drawn that the federal government could exercise an implied power to regulate such liberties.

 

Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading Federalists, articulated this concern in The Federalist No. 84. Why should a Bill of Rights, Hamilton asked, "declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" For instance, Hamilton said it was unnecessary for a Bill of Rights to protect the Freedom of the Press when the federal government is not granted the power to regulate the press. A provision "against restraining the liberty of the press," Hamilton said, "afford[s] the clear implication that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government."

 

The fear of people not having the sense enough to determine intent of the constitution resulted in the creation of the BoR.

[Garufa]

If he didn't violate any law the he is INNOCENT.

 

Not exactly.  He violated the law of common decency, an intangible concept that is up there with these "natural rights" everyone keeps harping on.  Wasn't really a problem in the past when we actually had some semblance of a society in which people made a conscious effort not to disturb everyone else.  Now it's every person for themselves, screw everyone else.

[Sam1]

Not exactly.  He violated the law of common decency, an intangible concept that is up there with these "natural rights" everyone keeps harping on.  Wasn't really a problem in the past when we actually had some semblance of a society in which people made a conscious effort not to disturb everyone else.  Now it's every person for themselves, screw everyone else.

 

Exactly on point.

[dcloudy777]

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.

Yep, I read it. The charges were dismissed because the weapon was properly registered.

Sure, you don't have to show investigating officers your NFA paperwork. It just means that they have every legal right to take you to jail for a clear violation of state law.

Or are the cops supposed to just take your word for it?

[mikegideon]

Not exactly.  He violated the law of common decency, an intangible concept that is up there with these "natural rights" everyone keeps harping on.  Wasn't really a problem in the past when we actually had some semblance of a society in which people made a conscious effort not to disturb everyone else.  Now it's every person for themselves, screw everyone else.

 

:clap:

[Oh Shoot]

Yep, I read it. The charges were dismissed because the weapon was properly registered.

Sure, you don't have to show investigating officers your NFA paperwork. It just means that they have every legal right to take you to jail for a clear violation of state law.

Or are the cops supposed to just take your word for it?

 

Which is why I said I don't really blame the cops so much -- however, the judge at first one of the early hearings wouldn't even accept admission of his NFA documents ... that's where would seem the clear liability would begin, and the scores really change.

 

- OS

Edited August 29, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[K191145]

Yep, I read it. The charges were dismissed because the weapon was properly registered.

Sure, you don't have to show investigating officers your NFA paperwork. It just means that they have every legal right to take you to jail for a clear violation of state law.

Or are the cops supposed to just take your word for it?

 

Explain something here, you said,

you don't have to show investigating officers your NFA paperwork.

 

Then you said,

they have every legal right to take you to jail for a clear violation of state law

 

How does that work? If you don't have to show NFA paperwork the how is it a violation of state law?

 

Remember that a judge with a law degree ruled that Embody didn't violate any law.

[mikegideon]

Which is why I said I don't really blame the cops so much -- however, the judge at first hearing wouldn't even accept admission of his NFA documents ... that's where would seem the clear liability would begin, and the scores really change.

 

- OS

 

Is it the same "oops, you're an idiot, you're free to go" judge?

[K191145]

Which is why I said I don't really blame the cops so much -- however, the judge at first hearing wouldn't even accept admission of his NFA documents ... that's where would seem the clear liability would begin, and the scores really change.

 

- OS

 

Wouldn't the proper thing to do is, bring him in on suspicion of a crime, get a warrant to check his paperwork then release him after determining he violated no laws?

[dcloudy777]

Explain something here, you said,

 
Then you said,

 
How does that work? If you don't have to show NFA paperwork the how is it a violation of state law?
 
Remember that a judge with a law degree ruled that Embody didn't violate any law.

By the time the judge was ruling, the proper registration paperwork had been seen (presumably by the judge and others), and the proper registration of the suppressor had likely been confirmed with BATFE, therefor no state law had been violated. At the time of the arrest, however, Lenny declined to show any sort of evidence of his affirmative defense (proper registration).

With a clear law violation, and no evidence of any sort of an affirmative defense, of course a police officer has cause for arrest.

Note the conspicuous lack of any sort of admonishment of the arresting officers in the judge's ruling. The arrest was perfectly legitimate.

[56FordGuy]

Yep, I read it. The charges were dismissed because the weapon was properly registered.

Sure, you don't have to show investigating officers your NFA paperwork. It just means that they have every legal right to take you to jail for a clear violation of state law.

Or are the cops supposed to just take your word for it?

 

The NFA paperwork is a tax document; a tax stamp, as we all know. 

 

As I understand it, one is only required to provide tax documents to an IRS agent. 

[mikegideon]

Note the conspicuous lack of any sort of admonishment of the arresting officers in the judge's ruling. The arrest was perfectly legitimate.

 

:stick:    Oops. You're an idiot. You're free to go.  :rofl:

[dcloudy777]

The NFA paperwork is a tax document; a tax stamp, as we all know. 
 
As I understand it, one is only required to provide tax documents to an IRS agent.

Exactly. And the nice officer only has to have probable cause of you committing a crime to arrest you. See where this is going?

[K191145]

Exactly. And the nice officer only has to have probable cause of you committing a crime to arrest you. See where this is going?

 

I don't think anyone is saying they couldn't bring him in on probable cause, they should have got a judge to issue a warrant to check his paperwork then released him. Charging him with a crime was wrong.

[mikegideon]

I don't think anyone is saying they couldn't bring him in on probable cause, they should have got a judge to issue a warrant to check his paperwork then released him. Charging him with a crime was wrong.

 

Especially since Voldemort did nothing wrong, right?