federal lawsuit filed against radnor lake ranger unlawful arrest ak-47

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Thundar wrote:

Yeah, but the 1st ranger said he knew it was technically legal.

I think that will cost them buku $$$$

Not only did he say it was legal, but he let me go after checking my permit, and when he called the cops he told them they just wanted to talk to me and not to come with their emergency lights flashing. Then supposedly he follows me to the parking lot and doesn't see me threaten anyone and watches the other ranger point a shotgun in my face.

It doesn't look good for them. Maybe thedepartment of conservationhad a part in getting my handgun carry permit suspended by the department of safety...So, maybe add retaliation to the list for them as well. However, it isn't as nicely documented as the Belle Meade retaliation.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

complaint

answer to complaint

He has NO immunity, qualified or otherwise, under 1983 if violating your rights (2, 4, 5, 14th Amendments) under color of law. If the facts of the case are as you stated, you will win. The handcuff issue will be a point of contention, however. If you had laid the weapon down and were not in the proximate area of it, Terry does not apply beyond that point. If he knew you had a permit the only defense to his case is the question of the weapon being classified by BATFE as a 'pistol.' Once established that it was, you were falsely detained from that point on. Will be intersted in the outcome of this case and I hope you win significant exemplary damages. As I posted in the other thread, I DO NOT approve of many of your tactics. But you violated no laws and the fact that the cops don't like your actions doesn't make your constitutional rights any less deserving of being honored. I had to laugh at your weapon being "ready for action" or whatever the clown characterized it as on a sling. My .45 is always "ready for action" or I wouldn't carry it. Good luck.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

complaint

answer to complaint

If he knew you had a permit the only defense to his case is the question of the weapon being classified by BATFE as a 'pistol.' Once established that it was, you were falsely detained from that point on.

I don't think that is the case. To detain someone there must be a reasonable suspicion of a crime. How does the ranger have reasonable suspicion if they don't know the laws regarding handguns? Anything less than reasonable articulable suspicion is a hunch or a guess. If reasonable suspicion means all guns must be checked with the FBI then everyone carrying would be stopped. Have you seen the shoulder stock for a glock? Who is to say that every glock hasn't had this shoulder stock installed?

 

[codename_47]

imported post

The BOLO is a great thing, some officers may take it as a challenge, but I'll be willing to bet that when they see him they're going to weigh the prospect of his breaking the law against the prospect of being named in a law suit. Conveniently, they have even emphasized certain parts that they find to be important to their officers - -

I think the BOLO is a fantastic thing and a definite step in the right direction. Look, if you don't want to be harassed, there is only one way to do it: education. The cops are now educating other cops and they'll probably think twice about screwing with someone who is open carrying. You already see it in California with their memo's.

We can change the system and the attitude of cops.

One state at a time boys, one lawsuit at a time, one brave individual at a time.

Instead of the cops saying "yee haw, I'm onna arrest me somebody" they'll be saying"geez, let me leave that guy the F alone, he's probably going to sue me if I say anything to him"

That is the wayit should be.

 

[McX]

imported post

i took a quick look at the complaint that was filed, and is shown on this thread. maybe kwickr can use item number 5; damages, to get the court to order the reinstatement of his permit?
i'm not taking sides, nor advocating anything, i just feel realy bad for kwickru losing his permit is all. we gotta remember, kwick went out on a limb, big time, but then so did the first open carrier, extreme tests the limits, and maybe sets new limits. i have to respect kwick's efforts, whether i agree with them or not is irrelevant.
kwick i hope you get some justice, and your permit back. after all of this just maybe a normal boring open carry for you?

 

[deadpool2]

imported post

So what is brave about someone fishing for lawsuits... This is like someone crawling around in a parking lot and then screaming bloody murder when a car backs over him. I mean its not illegal to crawl in a parking lot is it? It seems his only defense..."its not illegal". Ok so it wasn't illegal thats why he wasn't charged criminally.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

GL8360 wrote:

So what is brave about someone fishing for lawsuits... This is like someone crawling around in a parking lot and then screaming bloody murder when a car backs over him. I mean its not illegal to crawl in a parking lot is it? It seems his only defense..."its not illegal". Ok so it wasn't illegal thats why he wasn't charged criminally.

I have to laugh at how many attempts there are to equate this act to something else, all of which ultimately fail in the end.

So how many laws do you know of requiring one to crawl around in a parking lot? Can you point one out to me please?

 

[deadpool2]

imported post

I'm just saying I believe he is fishing for lawsuits. According to himself and others he has been involved in multiple lawsuits in the past and has threatened several more...If it looks like a duck...

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

gutshot wrote:

If the police would obey the law the fisherman would have an empty net.

THIS, IN SPADES!

 

[caverat]

imported post

Fishing or not the cops over stepped and stomped on his rights they are wrong and he is right. They are now trying to bully him if by some bad turn of fate he loses the law suit we all lose!!! I for one hope he wins and puts them in there place and gets a big pile of cash too! Wish you the best of luck kwikrnu

 

[Iamthewitatron!!!]

imported post

--Deleted--

--Rules Violation--

 

[Fallschirjmäger]

imported post

Unfortunately .... increasing the size of one's font Does Not increase the authority of one's argument.

 

[slowfiveoh]

imported post

That was without a doubt, the worse attempt to troll on a forum I have seen in many, many years. I have a feeling he knew he wouldn't be able to make any sort of valid point, so he increased his font size to try and empower his vacuous statement.

Severe failure detected in response. Personal attacks noted by individual with inferior intellect and I.Q.

Attempt to substantiate argument credibility by going the "grammar historian" route, noted. Failure likewise achieved.

Angry troll requires reboot and debug.

Maybe just "boot"?

And nothing of value was gained by his commentary.

 

[Poonbaboon]

imported post

Iamthewitatron!!! wrote:

--Deleted--

--Rules Violation--

LMFAO!

 

[WCrawford]

imported post

gutshot wrote:

GL8360 wrote:

I'm just saying I believe he is fishing for lawsuits. According to himself and others he has been involved in multiple lawsuits in the past and has threatened several more...If it looks like a duck...

If the police would know, understand,and obey the law the fisherman would have an empty net.

Corrected for you.

 

[Jadon]

imported post

This forum (Tennessee) and every post made by Mr. Embody seem to always turn into a "bash" against Law Enforcement Officers. Looking back on the posts from those who are apposed with the methods in which Leonard Embody partakes, it's followed by a quit response by someone supporting him and commenting on how ridiculous the officers’ actions were.

Mr. Embody, with all due respect sir after watching the video of the Belle Meade incident it is clear to me (IMO) that you were a total smartass to the officers. They were responding to a complaint, tried to reason and your attitude was simply uncalled for. I don't know you and as an avid gun rights activist, I don't care to. You say you want to be left alone, yet you go out looking for confrontation with law enforcement. What is the goal here? To change laws? Make the public aware of their constitutional rights or simply sue every officer you come into contact with?

You have been banned from every other forum you post at except this one, and honestly I don't know why. Maybe it's the fact you have more support here, I truly don't know. There are ways to change/challenge laws in this great country and the way you go about it, isn't one of them. IMO you should feel ashamed of yourself Mr. Embody. Not only because of your some what childish actions in the eye of the public but for the way you treat every man and woman who decides to wear a badge and protect people just like you.

Paul Harvey puts it in great perspective for you and everyone else who has an issue with Law Enforcement (Link posted below). Just remember Mr. Embody, some day you may need the help of the same men and women that you choose to sue, because they are upholding the laws written by those NOT wearing a uniform.

If I had as much time on my hands that you apparently do, I would love to come witness your hearing on your permit revocation. I’m curious though, if you don’t get it back what comes next? Are you going to sue the judge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rliP7l0zwU8

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Jadon wrote:

This forum (Tennessee) and every post made by Mr. Embody seem to always turn into a "bash" against Law Enforcement Officers. Looking back on the posts from those who are apposed with the methods in which Leonard Embody partakes, it's followed by a quit response by someone supporting him and commenting on how ridiculous the officers’ actions were.

Mr. Embody, with all due respect sir after watching the video of the Belle Meade incident it is clear to me (IMO) that you were a total smartass to the officers. They were responding to a complaint, tried to reason and your attitude was simply uncalled for. I don't know you and as an avid gun rights activist, I don't care to. You say you want to be left alone, yet you go out looking for confrontation with law enforcement. What is the goal here? To change laws? Make the public aware of their constitutional rights or simply sue every officer you come into contact with?

You have been banned from every other forum you post at except this one, and honestly I don't know why. Maybe it's the fact you have more support here, I truly don't know. There are ways to change/challenge laws in this great country and the way you go about it, isn't one of them. IMO you should feel ashamed of yourself Mr. Embody. Not only because of your some what childish actions in the eye of the public but for the way you treat every man and woman who decides to wear a badge and protect people just like you.

Paul Harvey puts it in great perspective for you and everyone else who has an issue with Law Enforcement (Link posted below). Just remember Mr. Embody, some day you may need the help of the same men and women that you choose to sue, because they are upholding the laws written by those NOT wearing a uniform.

If I had as much time on my hands that you apparently do, I would love to come witness your hearing on your permit revocation. I’m curious though, if you don’t get it back what comes next? Are you going to sue the judge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rliP7l0zwU8

The person who called the police did not claim any illegal or dangerous activity. He states " I wasn't worried".

The police searched inside my pockets, by what authority? There was nothing in my pockets which could have been contrued to be a weapon.

The police called in the serial # to see if my handgun was stolen. Searches must be related to the stop.

The police lied and said open carry in the hand was not Belle Meade city law.

The police allowed people not wearing reflective vests to jog past while commenting that if I didn't have a vest they would write me a ticket.

I wasn't attracting attention to myself. I simply carried a handgun for self defense.

It is a fact that the Belle Meade cops have lied. Their letter states I caused a commotion in Costco. Blatent lie on their part. They have also misled the TNDPS by stating I was unsafe with a handgun in Belle Meade. Utterly false and they can't point point to a specific instance.

If I don't get my permit back I will appeal/sue.



Since you know all about me being banned on various web forums, tell me the specific reason I was banned on each. I am of the understanding I have the right to speak freely. If a forum wishes to ban me for political reasons that is fine, but the government cannot punish me for free speech. There are no threats made by me on any forum. In fact if you go to officer.com, tngunowners.com, or glocktalk.com (cop section) you will see posts which direct people to my house with maps, pictures of me, defamation of my character, and posts advocating my death.

 

[WCrawford]

imported post

Jadon wrote:

This forum (Tennessee) and every post made by Mr. Embody seem to always turn into a "bash" against Law Enforcement Officers. Looking back on the posts from those who are apposed with the methods in which Leonard Embody partakes, it's followed by a quit response by someone supporting him and commenting on how ridiculous the officers’ actions were.

Because some of us beleive that the officers' actions were rediculous. How can a person not see this, especially with the video of the Belle Meade incident. The responding officers illegally searched inside his pockets and clearly did not know the ordinances of their own city.

Mr. Embody, with all due respect sir after watching the video of the Belle Meade incident it is clear to me (IMO) that you were a total smartass to the officers. They were responding to a complaint, tried to reason and your attitude was simply uncalled for. I don't know you and as an avid gun rights activist, I don't care to. You say you want to be left alone, yet you go out looking for confrontation with law enforcement. What is the goal here? To change laws? Make the public aware of their constitutional rights or simply sue every officer you come into contact with?

And the officers blatantly violated his rights, lied to his face, and did not know the law. Given all this, he can act like an ass if he so chooses, noting illegal about that. Personally, Kwik should shut up in all dealing with police, and only give them the info he is required to give in accordance with the law.

You have been banned from every other forum you post at except this one, and honestly I don't know why. Maybe it's the fact you have more support here, I truly don't know. There are ways to change/challenge laws in this great country and the way you go about it, isn't one of them. IMO you should feel ashamed of yourself Mr. Embody. Not only because of your some what childish actions in the eye of the public but for the way you treat every man and woman who decides to wear a badge and protect people just like you.

And this as absolutely nothing to do with anything. If Kwik were to violate the rules here that would get anyone else banned, I'd expect him to be banned. That has not happened, nor do I believe the mods here would bann someone for some personal dislike, as it seemed to happen on other boards.

Paul Harvey puts it in great perspective for you and everyone else who has an issue with Law Enforcement (Link posted below). Just remember Mr. Embody, some day you may need the help of the same men and women that you choose to sue, because they are upholding the laws written by those NOT wearing a uniform.

Paul Harvey give an idealized version of police. I would bet that Randy Weaver would have a different opinion.

If I had as much time on my hands that you apparently do, I would love to come witness your hearing on your permit revocation. I’m curious though, if you don’t get it back what comes next? Are you going to sue the judge?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rliP7l0zwU8

My comments in red.

 

[Gunslinger]

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

complaint

answer to complaint

If he knew you had a permit the only defense to his case is the question of the weapon being classified by BATFE as a 'pistol.' Once established that it was, you were falsely detained from that point on.

I don't think that is the case. To detain someone there must be a reasonable suspicion of a crime. How does the ranger have reasonable suspicion if they don't know the laws regarding handguns? Anything less than reasonable articulable suspicion is a hunch or a guess. If reasonable suspicion means all guns must be checked with the FBI then everyone carrying would be stopped. Have you seen the shoulder stock for a glock? Who is to say that every glock hasn't had this shoulder stock installed?

An unusual weapon such as you carried is going to create confusion with the room temperature IQ'd cops. That is the crux of my statement and an arguable defense to your lawsuit. A shoulder stock on a Glock is an illegal weapon, unless you have a Federal license to carry a "short" rifle. You cannot have a stocked weapon of less than a 16" bbl under NFA regulation.

 

[kwikrnu]

imported post

Gunslinger wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

Gunslinger wrote:

kwikrnu wrote:

complaint

answer to complaint

If he knew you had a permit the only defense to his case is the question of the weapon being classified by BATFE as a 'pistol.' Once established that it was, you were falsely detained from that point on.

I don't think that is the case. To detain someone there must be a reasonable suspicion of a crime. How does the ranger have reasonable suspicion if they don't know the laws regarding handguns? Anything less than reasonable articulable suspicion is a hunch or a guess. If reasonable suspicion means all guns must be checked with the FBI then everyone carrying would be stopped. Have you seen the shoulder stock for a glock? Who is to say that every glock hasn't had this shoulder stock installed?

An unusual weapon such as you carried is going to create confusion with the room temperature IQ'd cops. That is the crux of my statement and an arguable defense to your lawsuit. A shoulder stock on a Glock is an illegal weapon, unless you have a Federal license to carry a "short" rifle. You cannot have a stocked weapon of less than a 16" bbl under NFA regulation.

Handguns are clearly defined in tennessee code.An officer making a stop should know the law before stopping someone with RAS for breaking said law. If they do not know the law governing a criminal act how can the have RAS? The point I make is that any handgun can be a nfa firearm. That does not mean cops can stop everyone carrying a handgun, unless they have RAS that the handgun is a nfa firearm.

It works the same for vehicle stops. Cops can't stop cars becuase they might be breaking the law. There needs to be a law the driver has broken or some regulation the vehicle is not meeting. The cop is tasked with knowing the law which is being broken. Any car may have a driver or passenger or cargo which is illegal, but until they have RAS they can't stop the car.