• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

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

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

I was emailed the links

I'm guessing this occured sometime Sunday 10-4-2009

tngunowners d7dun made the post and has a total of5 posts and is law enforcement 10-8-2009 4:43pm

"Sunday last, my wife and I were shopping at Costco in Nashville. As we were strolling the store, we noticed a very nice young family in front of us. The male was casually dressed, the wife was well dressed and quite pretty and their young child was as well behaved as it was dressed.

As they passed another shopper, she pointed and stared at them. At first, I couldn't see why? Upon getting closer, I could see that he was OCing and that was the reason for the concern.

Soon they were confronted professionally, politely and in a very low key way by a store employee. He explained that the store had received several comments of concern and asked if he was "An Officer"? He replied harshly that he was not and in Tennessee, with a CCW, he didn't have to be. Of course, he was right.

Although the store employee remained calm, polite and professional, the male responded in an arrogant and superior manner. Both were visibly upset and not pleased about the contact and they clearly said so. After all, they were right.

My wife and I simply walked past and continued our shopping. We did not hear the rest of the conversation. We encountered the family several times in the store and the male had covered the butt of his pistol with his shirt. Why? He was, after all, right! It was clear that they were still upset and both were still talking about the encounter and were just plain mad.

I guess the moral of the story is they had their family shopping Sunday interrupted and they were not enjoying themselves anymore. My wife and I (both legally armed and concealed) did not have the same experience and enjoyed our day together shopping without being bothered or having to explain ourselves.

Maybe the aggravation wasn't worth the concern and the confrontation and the spoiling of a family shopping outing? Who knows? Maybe it was to them? Certainly not to us.

As always, you must decide for yourself if it is worth it?"

tncivilsociety Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:21 pm

"Last Sunday I was at Costco, open carrying as usual. An employee asked if I was police. I told him no, but that I had a permit. I wasn't asked to leave the store and continiued shopping, but I did cover the gun. What's up with these idiot employees? If I were intent on robbing them I would have cased the place and found out who the managers with the keys were. I would have found out where to get the most cash. While I was doing this no one would know I was carrying a handgun. I wouldn't strap on a gun and walk around shopping with my family. Geez.

Mostly I shop at the Cool Springs location anyway."
 

WCrawford

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2007
Messages
592
Location
Nashville, Tennessee, United States
imported post

Costco had (and still has) a long standing corporate policy against the carry of firearms in their stores. I've know about their policy since 2005 when I still lived in KY (their Louisville area stores were posted at the time). The manager may or may not have posted in response to a single incident, multiple incidents, or coincidence. Has anyone bothered to ask?

EDIT: Thanks for finding the original posts, Kwik. You must have posted those as I was composing, so most of what I wrote was either in error (not the greatest memory in the world, here) or made redundant/irrelevant.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

My point is that Belle Meade has abused its power. They have alleged to the State that I did something which I didn't. They relied upon the internet when they should have drove 5 minutes to Costco and verified the account in person. Even if I had carried at Costco it wouldn't have been unlawful. It is no surprise, they have stated I was unsafe with my pistol in Belle Meade, but the actual witness says no such thing, video evidence shows I was not, and the law states I obeyed it. I can't find one instance in TNfrom 1871 to 1989 where anyone was shot accidentlywhile opencarrying an army or navy pistol. If it was so unsafe it shouldn't been law in the first place. The most unsafe act wascorporal Goins pulling back the hammer and pointing the gun at passing cars. This is clearly seen at 5:15 on the cop car video. Then again he was probably the only one professional enough the handle the firearm.
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
tncivilsociety Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:21 pm

"Last Sunday I was at Costco, open carrying as usual. An employee asked if I was police. I told him no, but that I had a permit. I wasn't asked to leave the store and continiued shopping, but I did cover the gun. What's up with these idiot employees? If I were intent on robbing them I would have cased the place and found out who the managers with the keys were. I would have found out where to get the most cash. While I was doing this no one would know I was carrying a handgun. I wouldn't strap on a gun and walk around shopping with my family. Geez.

Mostly I shop at the Cool Springs location anyway."
Did you author that post?
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

RussP wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:
tncivilsociety Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:21 pm

"Last Sunday I was at Costco, open carrying as usual. An employee asked if I was police. I told him no, but that I had a permit. I wasn't asked to leave the store and continiued shopping, but I did cover the gun. What's up with these idiot employees? If I were intent on robbing them I would have cased the place and found out who the managers with the keys were. I would have found out where to get the most cash. While I was doing this no one would know I was carrying a handgun. I wouldn't strap on a gun and walk around shopping with my family. Geez.

Mostly I shop at the Cool Springs location anyway."
Did you author that post?
When was the post on tncivilsociety written? When was the post on tngunowners written?

What location was given for the tncivilsociety post? What location was given for thetngunowners post?

What was asked of theopen carrierat Costco? Was hetold to leave?

Finally were any laws broken?

The tngunowners post was written before the tncivilsociety post.

The tncivilsociety post never disclosed a location.

The open carrier was never asked or told to leave.

It appears no laws were broken.
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
imported post

RussP wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:
I sold my 29. A 6" smith.44 magnumdoesn't have the velocity topenetrate ballistic vests criminals use.
Do these words sound familiar?

08-23-2009, 15:56
"I can't wait for a cop to arrest me because I open carried a handgun and someone called 911. It's almost happened twice but no cigar, yet. Maybe carrying a PLR-16 or AK pistol will change that."

08-25-2009, 11:55
"At some point I will be arrested for legally open carrying. I haven't met the right cop yet. Maybe I need to dress down or get a bigger handgun like a PLR-16. Don't worry, I'll post the details here. I am authorized to open carry in Tennessee."

10-01-2009, 10:49
"Open carry large 5" or bigger handgun like a .44 mag .460 .50ae .50s&w

Just curious if anyone regularly open carries a large 5" or longer barrel large caliber handgun. Or maybe even a rifle caliber handgun like 7.62x39 or 5.56 or 6.8spc or 6.5 grendal (not .22lr). If you do what has been your experience? I've been carrying a smith and wesson model 29-3 .44 magnum six inch barrel for about a week and have only been stopped once by a park ranger. I carry it because I can."
Same question...Do those posts sound familiar?
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
RussP wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:
tncivilsociety Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:21 pm

"Last Sunday I was at Costco, open carrying as usual. An employee asked if I was police. I told him no, but that I had a permit. I wasn't asked to leave the store and continiued shopping, but I did cover the gun. What's up with these idiot employees? If I were intent on robbing them I would have cased the place and found out who the managers with the keys were. I would have found out where to get the most cash. While I was doing this no one would know I was carrying a handgun. I wouldn't strap on a gun and walk around shopping with my family. Geez.

Mostly I shop at the Cool Springs location anyway."
Did you author that post?
When was the post on tncivilsociety written? When was the post on tngunowners written?

What location was given for the tncivilsociety post? What location was given for thetngunowners post?

What was asked of theopen carrierat Costco? Was hetold to leave?

Finally were any laws broken?

The tngunowners post was written before the tncivilsociety post.

The tncivilsociety post never disclosed a location.

The open carrier was never asked or told to leave.

It appears no laws were broken.
Did you author the quoted post?
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

RussP wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:
RussP wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:
tncivilsociety Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:21 pm

"Last Sunday I was at Costco, open carrying as usual. An employee asked if I was police. I told him no, but that I had a permit. I wasn't asked to leave the store and continiued shopping, but I did cover the gun. What's up with these idiot employees? If I were intent on robbing them I would have cased the place and found out who the managers with the keys were. I would have found out where to get the most cash. While I was doing this no one would know I was carrying a handgun. I wouldn't strap on a gun and walk around shopping with my family. Geez.

Mostly I shop at the Cool Springs location anyway."
Did you author that post?
When was the post on tncivilsociety written? When was the post on tngunowners written?

What location was given for the tncivilsociety post? What location was given for thetngunowners post?

What was asked of theopen carrierat Costco? Was hetold to leave?

Finally were any laws broken?

The tngunowners post was written before the tncivilsociety post.

The tncivilsociety post never disclosed a location.

The open carrier was never asked or told to leave.

It appears no laws were broken.
Did you author the quoted post?
Was a law broken at Costco?
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
RussP wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:
RussP wrote:
kwikrnu wrote:
tncivilsociety Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:21 pm

"Last Sunday I was at Costco, open carrying as usual. An employee asked if I was police. I told him no, but that I had a permit. I wasn't asked to leave the store and continiued shopping, but I did cover the gun. What's up with these idiot employees? If I were intent on robbing them I would have cased the place and found out who the managers with the keys were. I would have found out where to get the most cash. While I was doing this no one would know I was carrying a handgun. I wouldn't strap on a gun and walk around shopping with my family. Geez.

Mostly I shop at the Cool Springs location anyway."
Did you author that post?
When was the post on tncivilsociety written? When was the post on tngunowners written?

What location was given for the tncivilsociety post? What location was given for thetngunowners post?

What was asked of theopen carrierat Costco? Was hetold to leave?

Finally were any laws broken?

The tngunowners post was written before the tncivilsociety post.

The tncivilsociety post never disclosed a location.

The open carrier was never asked or told to leave.

It appears no laws were broken.
Did you author the quoted post?
Was a law broken at Costco?
Not according to your post about your incident.
 

kwikrnu

Banned
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
1,956
Location
Brentwood, Tennessee
imported post

RussP wrote:
Not according to your post about the incident.

Not according to the tncivilsociety post.

What about the tngunowners post? The one witnessed by a member of law enforcement who posted 5 times over the last 2 years.

Why is this an issue if no laws were broken?

If it had been me why would I deny the incident?
 

RussP

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2006
Messages
393
Location
Central Virginia
imported post

kwikrnu wrote:
RussP wrote:
Not according to your post about the incident.

Not according to the tncivilsociety post.

What about the tngunowners post? The one witnessed by a member of law enforcement who posted 5 times over the last 2 years.

Why is this an issue if no laws were broken?

If it had been me why would I deny the incident?
Did you author the tncivilsociety post? That is a real simple question. The answer is either "yes" or "no".

What about the posts about why you switched to the AK pistol? Are they your words?
 

sn8kbit

New member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:
...Welcome to the board sn8kbit and thanks for the insightful response. I only wish the majority of posters who were against Leonard were as articulate as some of the recent posters that have been on here. Then again, some of the recent ones have been kind of bad too. Guess you can't have yin without yang.
Gracias. Like I said earlier, there's a lot of beliefs, and it's hard to separate discussion of facts and emotion. A board having such a "hot bed" topic with various beliefs is bound to have a high signal to noise ratio.

First, I don't even know what TNSpeed is. Is this another forum? A racing site?
Yeah, that's it, and back during the initial Leonard posts, there was someone with your ID there.



In regards to your distinction about RAS and PC, I would have to say I do not see your statement as being correct, and here is why.

RAS requires attributable facts that would cause an officer to "suspect" based on said "facts" that a crime was being committed. To pursue RAS, you have to have a pretty solid basis, based on laws you are supposed to enforce, in order to stop and detain an individual.

Carrying an AK47 Pistol may have been validated as RAS (and depending on judge may be dismissed as such) if only the act were illegal in the first place. There should not be a situation allowed, where an officer is capable of declaring RAS on the basis of wholly legal activity.

This would present a rather ambiguous standard for RAS, and give it legal interpretation to be ambiguous. Our rights are set for a reason, and it is this very purpose that the "living, breathing" types pursue an "elasticity" of the Constitution. Nothing better than being able to skew, alter, or reinterpret laws to suit whatever definition they want to apply to it at the time, right?

Carry of a pistol is not Probable Cause, or RAS, nor does it warrant panic and alarm.

So long as Leonard wasn't waving it around all willy-nilly, there was no probable cause or RAS on this basis. There are in fact, highly descriptive, precise definitions that convey the legality of RAS and PC, and what is required in both scenarios for there to be justification of either.
I'll get back to this, I promise, long night, earlier morning coming up, and at my age I need all the beauty sleep I can get.
Furthermore, being that there is full, and complete legality behind the carry of the Navy Revolver, in the hand, nor could this activity, by itself prompt any reason for RAS or PC.
On this point I'll agree. However, as you've stated later in this post, we're in an entitlement society ( a rant for another day ) and that same society holds LEO responsible and liable if they do respond or don't and something happens. I agree to your earlier statements that LEO isn't required to do so, but due to the entitlement/litigous/quick-buck society we're in, often times departmental policies may require response. Simply put, LEOs are often damned if the do, damned if they don't. Makes a tough job even harder, yes? Again, the only issue I'd have against the Belle Meade PD in this is IF, as Leonard alleges, they went into his pockets.
It is imperative that we remember that there are specific procedures put in place that LEO's should, and must abide by. However, they are not "comfort police". They are "Law Enforcement".
Again, I'll put that back on Departmental Administrators serving an entitlement society. Most, if not all of the officers I know personally feel their hands tied when trying to do their actual job. Instead of being proactive, their forced to be reactive.
I hope this is a bit more informative.
It has, and I think we're somewhat close to the same page, just in a different language, with some minor differences in interpretation.

Oh and yeah, I hear the AR has been turned into one hell of a deer rifle! The new term "USR" (Universal Sporting Rifle) is seriously more fitting than the age-old lefty outcry of "assault weapon".
Check out the Wilson Combat 6.8 page. He seems to be a big fan of pig shooting (no pun intended!:lol:) and has some great pics.
Oh, and Leonard, I'm not getting involved in your classic run-a-round. That got old years ago. Let the guys not quite familiar with your misdirection answer question with question tactics, you know I ain't the one.
 

sn8kbit

New member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6
Location
, ,
imported post

Slow, sorry to get back to this late.

I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretation of "Reasonable Suspicion" as defined by Terry v. Ohio.

It is plainly stated that would a reasonable individual given the experience and knowledge at the time of the stop have reason under the given set of circumstances leading to the stop to suspect a crime is being commited, about to be commited, or has been commited. Terry also supports that force can be used to effect the stop/frisk (or now Terry Stop).

Suspicion cannot have fact. Fact absolves suspicion and becomes proof in one direction or the other. While Terry does not support "gut" feelings or "hunches" as "suspicion", suspicion is based on a totality of circumstances.

Take the stop of Terry in itself. They were out on a street (legal), pacing back and forth in front of a building (legal) two met and conversed (legal) and a third approched (legal) spoke (legal) and then ran off (again, legal). Those were the circumstances at the time that created reasonable suspicion on behalf of the detective that Terry's group was about to commit a crime, simply based on his knowledge and experience with the how the group was going about their action causing him to be suspicious. That's it. That's all. None of the group's actions were illegalup tothe point of the stop/frisknor was any fact present that there was illegal activity about to occur. Knowledge in hindsight is not applicable, as it's based on the totality of circumstances leading tothe stop.

Officer's have RAS to conduct a DUI traffic stop based simply on a couple of weaves by a driver. There is no factin that to justify or warrant RAS, it is based on knowledge of experience in a given set of circumstances to create the suspicion that the person may be driving under the influence. PC would be defined as the officer smelling alcohol upon initial contact with the driver.

In this thread you yourself are excercising RAS with Leonard with respect to the possibility of a lie regarding the Costco event. Example: based on your knowledge of the tenor of his posts, identification of the number of post counts on that board, similar posts in that nature, you have reasonable articulate suspicion that Leonard is lying, no? Is there fact? Is there proof? No. Is he? Unknown. Still does not disolveyour reasonble suspicionthat he may be, right?

Yes, it really is that simple. I've had to train employees on it, I've had to testify to it numerous times in court, to include Federal Court.

Please don't take the post as condescending. I have no doubt that you can research it through a reading of the decisions, I'm simply supporting my argument based on how I've personally had to apply it, and from that, instruct.

It would be unreasonable to expect officers to:

a: Have intimate and direct knowledge of each firearm manufactured to date and identify them immediately and correctly on sight and

b:Have the ability to visually and accurately measure barrel length upon immediate sight of any weapon. Rifle calibered gas or piston operated pistols especially considering the majority of the barrel, breech and bore are hidden by handguards, receivers and muzzle devices.

There are simply too many grey areas in the circumstances of this stop, from the deliberate misdirection through a visual lie to the weapon's true nature, Leonard's contradictory identification of the weapon (truthful, but contradictory to the visual lie), to the officer's reasonable experience with the AK-47 as more often than not, being a rifle. Therefore they had reasonable suspicion to believe that Leonard was commiting the crime of unlawful possession of a weapon. As stated before, we all know after the fact that the weapon is a pistol, and his carry of it is legal, yet it does not absolve, after the fact, initial RAS.

You may agree to disagree, and I'm good with that. But given the set of circumstances, there was more RAS in this stop than in the original Terry v. Ohio stop that set the precidence. I can bet though this is exactly how it will play out, we'll just have to wait I suppose. Either way, I'll shake your hand and buy you a cold one regardless.
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

sn8kbit wrote:
Slow, sorry to get back to this late.

I'm going to have to disagree with your interpretation of "Reasonable Suspicion" as defined by Terry v. Ohio.

It is plainly stated that would a reasonable individual given the experience and knowledge at the time of the stop have reason under the given set of circumstances leading to the stop to suspect a crime is being commited, about to be commited, or has been commited. Terry also supports that force can be used to effect the stop/frisk (or now Terry Stop).
No worries. Life is busy sometimes.

I have to vehemently disagree with you on the interpretation of Terry. None of what Leonard did was reason to believe that he may be about to, or currently is, in process of criminal activity.

I hate citing Wikipedia, I really do, but this is a wonderful interpretation:

"The Court assessed the reasonableness of the police activity here by comparing it to activity that would ordinarily require a warrant. “... in justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion.”"

sn8kbit wrote:
Suspicion cannot have fact. Fact absolves suspicion and becomes proof in one direction or the other. While Terry does not support "gut" feelings or "hunches" as "suspicion", suspicion is based on a totality of circumstances.
One must remember the entire translation of RAS. Honing in on a specific word does the legal interpretation no good whatsoever.

The full term includes "Reasonable Articulation". For one to "articulate" one must be able to state specifically what activities occurred in their presence (Facts of the encounter). It also states "reasonable", which means that there must not be open ambiguity to said articulate suspicion.

What collusion of facts would lead one in Leonards case, to believe he was a threat, or in violation of any laws?

Was it the peaceful interaction with the ranger?
Was it the camouflage clothes?
Was it the orange tip?
Was it the admission by the ranger that his activities were legal?

Would you allow general levity for law enforcement to utilize RAS ambiguously during their duties?

Would you allow for said levity to trump individual rights?

These are all very, VERY tricky questions.

sn8kbit wrote:
Take the stop of Terry in itself. They were out on a street (legal), pacing back and forth in front of a building (legal) two met and conversed (legal) and a third approched (legal) spoke (legal) and then ran off (again, legal). Those were the circumstances at the time that created reasonable suspicion on behalf of the detective that Terry's group was about to commit a crime, simply based on his knowledge and experience with the how the group was going about their action causing him to be suspicious. That's it. That's all. None of the group's actions were illegalup tothe point of the stop/frisknor was any fact present that there was illegal activity about to occur. Knowledge in hindsight is not applicable, as it's based on the totality of circumstances leading tothe stop.
You are missing something that is extremely pertinent in regards to Terry. I am hoping you didn't omit it intentionally.

During the observations of the detective, the individuals were seen repeatedly walking up to storefronts, and intently studying them, then retreating to what they thought was their hidden position.

This is seriously different from "simply walking up and down the street".

Also, I offer a challenge:

This is hypothetical, but consider the ramifications.

What if these guys had NO weapons hidden on them? What would have happened in Terry if this had been the case?

What if these individuals were as you state, simply walking up and down the street? Would you then advocate for detaining, and then frisking late night joggers?

I would wager a bet that you would have one devastating civil rights case, that would have resulted in that officer becoming permanently unemployed in his career field.

sn8kbit wrote:
Officer's have RAS to conduct a DUI traffic stop based simply on a couple of weaves by a driver. There is no factin that to justify or warrant RAS, it is based on knowledge of experience in a given set of circumstances to create the suspicion that the person may be driving under the influence. PC would be defined as the officer smelling alcohol upon initial contact with the driver.

Oh but of course is there is factual justification to pull said errant motorist over! If the motorist swerving or otherwise driving in an unsafe manner, were not drunk, the charge of reckless driving would still absolutely apply. In other words, a law has technically already been broken. An officer usually goes for the greater of 2 offenses, or may even decide to lump them together.

For the term to be applied as you would use it, you would have to state that Leonard was in possession of his pistol (car), and was also waving it about (operating it in a reckless manner). If that were the case, my response to this sequence of events would be a lot different, I can assure you that.

Mere possession of a "car", driving it down the road in a totally sane, rational and alert manner does not present RAS whatsoever.

sn8kbit wrote:
In this thread you yourself are excercising RAS with Leonard with respect to the possibility of a lie regarding the Costco event. Example: based on your knowledge of the tenor of his posts, identification of the number of post counts on that board, similar posts in that nature, you have reasonable articulate suspicion that Leonard is lying, no? Is there fact? Is there proof? No. Is he? Unknown. Still does not disolveyour reasonble suspicionthat he may be, right?
And yet I cannot justify violating his personal rights based on what he did or did not say.

While that post contains NO incriminating commentary whatsoever, I may "believe"that he posted it, and in the same breath my belief may in fact be completely wrong. However, I am not tasked to stop his posts, pull him to the side, and police as necessary. I am not a "Forum Enforcement Officer". Suspicious or not, there is no legal precedent being set by that post to encroach upon Leonards life.

The fact, as you would dismiss, is that there are cold, hard fingerprints that it may in fact be his post. That is a fact, on which I can articulate.

We get back to the "Reasonable Articulation" portion. ;)

sn8kbit wrote:
Yes, it really is that simple. I've had to train employees on it, I've had to testify to it numerous times in court, to include Federal Court.

Please don't take the post as condescending. I have no doubt that you can research it through a reading of the decisions, I'm simply supporting my argument based on how I've personally had to apply it, and from that, instruct.
Researching I have been for sure. :)

My interpretation, irregardless of your experience in court, is that RAS cannot trump Individual Rights, and must be sustainable and articulated on present facts. Not just gut feelings.

If you were to open up the interpretation of "RAS" to be so ambiguous to be interpreted as "A gut feeling", I will show you a late night video full of officers exercising said liberty.

I will call it, "Cops gone wild".


sn8kbit wrote:
It would be unreasonable to expect officers to:

a: Have intimate and direct knowledge of each firearm manufactured to date and identify them immediately and correctly on sight and

It would be unreasonable to expect citizens to:

a: Have express knowledge of all laws for which law enforcement may cite them, while stating "Ignorance is not an excuse, sir/ma'am".

sn8kbit wrote:
b:Have the ability to visually and accurately measure barrel length upon immediate sight of any weapon. Rifle calibered gas or piston operated pistols especially considering the majority of the barrel, breech and bore are hidden by handguards, receivers and muzzle devices.
I found it extremely unlikely, whatever jokes you may want to state about LEO's, that it takes 2.5 hours to apply a tape measure to a firearm to find an accurate measurement.

I also find it highly unlikely that they would attempt to cite somebody for a law they did not break, while supposedly attempting to determine whether the firearm was legal or not, by an inquiry to the BATFE.

That's just me. :D

sn8kbit wrote:
There are simply too many grey areas in the circumstances of this stop, from the deliberate misdirection through a visual lie to the weapon's true nature, Leonard's contradictory identification of the weapon (truthful, but contradictory to the visual lie), to the officer's reasonable experience with the AK-47 as more often than not, being a rifle. Therefore they had reasonable suspicion to believe that Leonard was commiting the crime of unlawful possession of a weapon. As stated before, we all know after the fact that the weapon is a pistol, and his carry of it is legal, yet it does not absolve, after the fact, initial RAS.
RAS must in the end be substantiated by fact. I believe I have articulated in a finite manner why I believe the stop was illegal.

All of the discussion about "grey area" does not change the applicability of individual inalienable rights, nor does it change the legality or accountability of action on behalf of law enforcement.

You state a visible misdirection by the orange tip, but any surprise or shock or supposed criminal intent goes flying out the window when you realize he told the ranger it was real.

At this point, it could not be construed as anything else.

sn8kbit wrote:
You may agree to disagree, and I'm good with that. But given the set of circumstances, there was more RAS in this stop than in the original Terry v. Ohio stop that set the precidence. I can bet though this is exactly how it will play out, we'll just have to wait I suppose. Either way, I'll shake your hand and buy you a cold one regardless.
We certainly disagree, and I am ok with that as well.

Regarding the Terry comment, you left out some rather extremely pertinent information as to the activities of the "guys walking back and forth" that certainly add facts to substantiate RAS.

Unfortunately, due to massive partying in Germany, I have elected to seriously minimize my alcohol intake. A cold, refreshing Pepsi would be outstanding though!

Have a great day Sn8k!

Good conversation!
 

slowfiveoh

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
1,415
Location
Richmond, VA
imported post

Grassroots wrote:
Wonderful post sn8kbit.

Oh, and the first ranger Leonard came into contact with as in fact NOT armed.
Simple question:

If there was an imminent threat that would have created what the ranger perceived was a "dangerous situation", why would he prolong his interactions by asking specific questions, to include exercising his authority in asking Leonard for his HCP?

You'd have to do a lot of bridge building I think, to justify the post-encounter actions.


EDIT:

I looked at the date variances in the posts Kwik brought to our attention, and there is certainly a problem with the dates lining up.

Were I paying attention to that (and I should have been), I would have noticed the variance. Anybody here could see it too.


Interesting...
 
Top