imported post
Jadon wrote:
To answer your question Slowfiveoh, no I’m not nor have I ever been an Officer of the law. I can honestly say I do not have what it takes to do what they (LEO’s) do. Sure there are (and as the inspiring message from Paul Harvey states) there are some that “abuse” the great power given to them by the governor of the state for which they so work.
Thank you for your honest answer. Based on your complete avoidance regarding the topic of what the officers actually did in your prior posts, I felt you may have had a personal connection, and my query was intended as such.
Jadon wrote:
However, it puzzles me that Leonard Embody seems to come across every “bad apple” out there. Which in turn raises the question; Who is the problem here?
The answer of which is extremely simple:
There is a stereotypical, "societal norm" that has been allowed to fester and grow in our society, and it is the right of every law abiding citizen to challenge these stereotypes as they apply to law.
It has been repeatedly espoused that, "Just because something is legal, doesn't mean it's smart!", which is a horrid "out" for somebody who does not want to spin the wheels in their hand to ascertain the entire situation. What has been patently avoided is that the exercising of a right, is simply put, an exercising of a right.
So long as Leonard does not break any laws, and is only seeking to exercise his rights, then you would have to be one hell of a hypocrite to not, at a minimum, support the underlying motif of his actions.
Which is in summary, the exercising of ones rights.
You can argue that the the pistol is an AK based Pistol. SO what? Can I regulate, impose, or otherwise dictate to you what is reasonable to carry? I would venture that the answer to that would be "No".
We put up with a lot in our lives, and the vast majority of us simply roll over, Jadon. Perhaps you like to turn the other cheek until there is no cheek left to turn, but frankly, I am all for an individual who has had enough, standing up for their rights, denying persecution, and doing so on a wholly legal, and harmless basis.
Frankly, as long as two claims on his "Reason for Revocation of Permit" are false (The threatening of two individuals, as claimed) then there is absolutely no other reason to violate his rights, or deny him the ability to exercise said rights, within the
full flexibility of the law!
Please take sincere note, that over the multitude of pages that Mr. Embody has shared his position, he has at no time threatened anybody, or conveyed any sort of illegal activity. Furthermore, as many nay-sayers have belittled him, there are plenty of supporters as well.
Sounds like the first Ranger had it right, and the second was on a power trip.
The analogy still sticks, that if he had gone "fishin for a law suit", his net would have come back empty if the officers had been aware of the law. That simple.
Jadon wrote:
Previous members (“trolls” or not) have asked the same question but always seem to get condescending responses from those that seem to support Leonard Embodys’ actions. You seem to be an avid supporter of Mr. Embody and his actions, thus comes the great debate within every forum he (Embody) starts.
No. Previous members have received answer they did not like, that may have hit a bit too close to home. Certainly there were trolls, and nobody was against them certainly posting their opinion,
however, personal attacks are just not warranted. You are also patently avoiding the many people who
have had very meaningful, respectable, and articulate conversations about the topic.
I am an avid supporter of any free man Jadon. I would not:
--Slander, spit, defile, or besmirch your name for choosing to carry ANY firearm in defense of yourself.
--Do the same for choosing to challenge the actions of a government body overreaching its authority.
--Make a big deal out of how you dress.
So do something for me here, so we can continue this meaningful discourse.
What question do you want to ask? Is it, "Why does society seem to have a problem on the whole with Leonard Embody?".
Oh, easy answer. They aren't aware of their rights or laws, and are mentally shaped by societal boundaries that truthfully are nothing but"comfort zones" for other people, and nothing more.
If it isn't that question, then please pose the question you want to ask me, and I will do my best to provide you an articulated, well thought out answer.
Jadon wrote:
By condescending I am referring to: “I fixed your horrible composition for you” and “What kind of seriously stupid question is that?”, there are a few more but I think that makes the point I’m getting at. Sure, you may not be coming out and calling people names but the damage is just the same. I think everyone is extremely clear on where you stand by now as you are usually first to have a quick rebuttal.
You know what Jadon? There are people here who repeatedly insult my, or other peoples intelligence by acting to speak on our, or my, behalf. This is just as vile and disrespectful, even more so, I would challenge, than anything I have ever said to anybody on this forum.
It is libel at its best!
I have never,
ever stated that I hate cops, and have repeatedly, adamantly positioned myself clearly with repeated statements, over, and over, and over again.
Forgive me for not posting a "Pro Police" thread ambiguously in an attempt to give my actual claims any merit on that particular topic.
So here, clearly, and for all to hear:
I do not hate Police Officers.
There.
Jadon wrote:
Lets look “outside” the box for a moment if you don’t mind. Mr. Embody has repeated on more than one occasion that the caller told the dispatcher “I wasn’t worried”. That’s fine, however if the caller simply passed Leonard (in his vehicle) isn’t it quite obvious that most people wouldn’t be as they (he) was no longer in contact with him?
Oh I love abstract thought! Ok, let's do this:
So you suppose that the caller may be involved with Mr. Embodys activities, but simultaneously express that he may have been removed far enough from the sight of Leonard carrying a firearm, that he is now expressing his relief at being out of any threatening range?
Then why use the term, "I wasn't worried."?
Have you listened to the call? I have.
He states, very calmly, that he simply thought it was unusual. Nothing more, nothing less.
In fact, I would venture a guess that the guy simply wasn't sure whether his method of carry was legal or not. However, that's unnecessary supposition.
It certainly is entertaining to dissect the scenario and analytically pick out every facet of the given facts, that we understand, from his encounters.
It is simply flat out "rash" to believe that his intentions are "bad" in nature.
Jadon wrote:
Also, who is to say that the caller wasn’t part of the act and called to initiate the confrontation for Mr. Embody? The fact is no one here other than Leonard knows the answer to that and IMO his word means nothing to me. No that is not a “bash” on him, I just don’t know him. That being said, who is to say his statements on his apparent record with the Nashville Police Department are true? What do we have to go by other than his word? Who here can honestly say “I know and have known Leonard Embody for quite some time and he would never tell a lie”? It’s puzzling to me that an individual with such a background of confrontation is never in the wrong. Who is to say that there were or were not witnesses to Leonards incidents at Costco or with his exparte? I for one would be very interested to see the complete reports of his incidents so that some questions would be answered. With that I have to ask you Mr. Embody, would you care to post them?
It is hard to justify, or otherwise discard the activities of the officers in the footage, and cold, hard evidence he (Leonard) has displayed. To dismiss the activities of officers who are obviously not in compliance with regulation, or law, is certainly the act of a partisan thought process.
By the same admission of ambiguity that you have for whether or not he is in the right, you should be able to admit, in tandem, that the lack of incriminating evidence on his behalf, and the substantiation he has shared with us regarding the treatment, and illegal stops directed towards him, that he has significantly more credibility in this matter.
Just a brief look at the list containing reasons for revocation of his permit, should display enormous insight into their real lack of any substantiation for revoking his permit.
Furthermore, I do not believe it should be puzzling to you whatsoever that an individual who has a "history of confrontation", should not be found in the wrong. Confrontation, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. Nor is being "confrontational".
There is senseless "confrontation", and then there is purposely directed, meaningful "confrontation".
On that same token, outside of law enforcement, and the two claims he vehemently denies about Costco and the other place, what activities or statements has Mr. Embody made towards ANY individual person on any of these forums.
Can you find me anything? Please, if you can find any (I highly think you will not), post these statements.
Jadon wrote:
The fact is, a man carrying a weapon in his hand down a busy street and having an AK style weapon (with an orange painted tip) slung over his shoulder in a busy park is outside the norm in other words that just isn’t something people expect to see on a daily basis. Sure, he was by all means apparently, in his legal right to carry such a weapon in his hand.
Can you please provide for me, and our audience which is no doubt reading this, what other wholly legal activities and constitutional rights you would like usurped on the basis of "unusual appearance"?
Can you please provide why it was appropriate, via well documented records, to state that he could legally carry the pistol and release him on his way, then ambush him in the parking lot from the business end of a 12-Gauge?
What about the attempt to cite him for a law he didn't even break? Was that acceptable?
What you and so many others are missing Jadon, is that "unusual" isn't what is contested here. Frankly, if you want to carry a .500 magnum, or a PLR as your sidearm, I have
no issues with this. If you do, that's great.
However, you cannot:
--Stop homosexuals from kissing in public.
--Stop people from exercising their 1st Amendment because you don't like their message (Unless you believe the "Patriot Act" is truly appropriate!).
-Etc. Etc. Etc.
"Unusual" does not allow for breach of individual rights, or detainment due to error in legal interpretation on behalf of the officer. they should have asked for his HCP (as the first ranger did) and sent him on his way (As the first ranger did).
Jadon wrote:
However, to do so just to have a confrontation with an officer obligated to respond and in turn use it to sue is IMO flat out ridiculous. I think it’s safe to say that you weren’t at either location (Belle Meade and the park) to enjoy a nice walk or exercise and you by all means would have not been satisfied if a LEO had not approached you.
He attempted regular channels to correct the issue, but let me back up and correct an enormous error with a part of your statement!
Police officers are
not required to respond to MWAG calls. In fact, police are
not required to protect you! (
Castle Rock vs. Gonzales)
I cannot answer the rest of your response, as that is obviously something Leonard must respond to.
However, surely you understand the basis of law that forms our government? Surely you understand that there is no authority derived, except that which comes from the people, or is expressly granted to the Federal Government via the U.S. Constitution, yes?
Leonard, You, ANYBODY is well within their rights to challenge illegal activity at the government level. If you can do so within the guidelines of the law, then why do anything illegal to right a wrong?
Jadon wrote:
Mr. Embody, are you truly a gun rights activist or just trying to ruin every man/woman sworn to protect you, life? Do you feel that your actions are truly the only way to “get things done”? You have complained that Belle Meade is using your posts within the many forums you use against you, thusaiding in the revocation of your carry permit. However, knowing this is part of the reason/problem you continue to fuel the fire. Why? What do you expect with you openly admit to carrying a weapon/ammunitionfor the sole purpose ofpenetrating body armor?
All of these questions only Leonard, can answer.
However, I would like to point out that his commentary on here, and on other forums has obviously been well calculated, and very well thought out.
That has simply been my observation, and yes, I have been following his activities since the beginning.
Jadon wrote:
I and many others will most likely never know what your true intentions are in all of this. I can say this sir, as a gun rights activist myself, you are only hurting those who so carry in true self defense.
More questions for Leonard.
To the second part of this particular comment, I would say that i absolutely do not agree. While most people opt for the tie-and-slacks route, with a SERPA'd Glock or XD, Leonard has opted to be more direct.
You are overtly concerned with stereotypes, and would absolutely deny this gentlemen his rights based on disagreement with his methodology, irregardless of its wholly legal, and assertive manner.
I think it is the constant concession, and verbalizing of supposed "Pro 2A advocates", who only cling to the portion of the 2A that fits their niche, that is truly harmful in the end, as it supports the antis idea of "reasonable gun regulation".
I just support the 2nd, without compromise.
Jadon wrote:
One day Leonard you may just have to call on one of those “lying SOB police officers” who will give no second thought to protecting your life, because that’s the oath they have taken. I just ask you to remember that while you spend your time thinking of how you plan your next social event with the purpose of attempting to ruin a hero's life.
Again, you are completely misconstruing the purpose of the police. Also, you seem to not understand that protecting ones self, is the responsibility of ones self.
There may indeed be a time where some criminal breaks into Leonards house (One of the other individuals on the many Pro-Firearm forums sending him death threats perhaps?), and he has to call the police in to mop up.
Can you please give me a viable example where a self-sufficient individual completely capable, and possessing the tools to defend himself would call the cops before taking action to protect themselves or their loved ones?
You show me a man who would keep his guns in the closet, and reach for his cell phone to call the nearest LEO instead of defending himself and his family, and I will show you a dead family.
For your information, I have sworn the same oath to defend and support the U.S. Constitution. I will uphold this oath until I die. For this oath to be meaningful, I had to be sure I knew the contents of it, otherwise it is an empty oath.
You would be surprised how many sailors, soldiers, airmen, marines, and yup, LEO's, couldn't even repeat any portion of the BoR.
I notice you refer to them all as "Heroes". I do have to say that it appears you immediately idolize them, and to me that is the sign of an embellished, or compromised thought process.
Taking up the task is noble, when one truly knows what it entails.
Putting on the badge, is heroic, when it is meaningful.
Enforcing the law and respecting individual rights is honorable, so long as that is what happens.
I would say we definitely do not see eye to eye, but nonetheless, thank you for your well thought out reply, without the use of condensation, oversized/colored text, abrupt remarks, or attempting to put words in my, or anybody elses mouth.
Have a great day!
Jason
Semper Paratus
