Mega Rant

imported post

RussP wrote:

Totality of Circumstances

Click to expand...

Totality of what? Here is the staement by Sexton;

"I found that Mr. Embody did carry a weapon in an unsafe manner(1), in an unsafe condition(2) and in a very hazardous location(3). Walking and/or jogging on Belle Meade Blvd is dangerous when one is paying strict attention to their immediate safety. While carrying a firearm that, in Mr. Embody's own descriptors(4), is dangerous and may discharge on a busy street is a very serious safety issue. Mr. Embody states that his purpose was to simply obey the law and carrying a firearm he is allowed to carry. Even though the action endangered Mr. Embody, any other person that was using the roadway for a walking/jogging track and the responding officers shows a clear and intentional disregard for the safety of others."

Taken from the letter written from Det. Sexton to Chief Eads of the Belle Meade police and given to the TNDPS.

1. "Unsafe manner" is only legal manner one may carry the handgun. City code 11-602 & TCA 39-17-1314(a).

2. Unsafe condition? I guess they are going to convince me that loaded handguns are unsafe? Maybe that is why the City tried to ban guns a few weeks ago.

3. Hazardous location? I wore reflective clothing. I walked as prescribed by law. I paid attention to traffic. If walking in Belle Meade is dangerous it should be prohibited.

4. I never stated the handgun was dangerous. Cpl. Goins was clearly putting me and others in danger and I commented on his actions. He pointed the gun in an unsafe direction and pulled the hammer back several times. It is on the video taken by the cops.



According to Sexton legally carrying a loaded gun on Belle Meade Blvd. is unsafe and dangerous.

imported post

why does the first page refuse to load?

imported post

old dog wrote:

why does the first page refuse to load?

Click to expand...

If you have dial-up it probably won't. I posted a lot of images.

imported post

kwikrnu wrote:

RussP wrote:

Totality of Circumstances

Click to expand...

Totality of what? Here is the staement by Sexton;...

Click to expand...

Circumstances, facts are always accompanied by circumstances which more or less influence the mind in forming a judgment. These points ought to be carefully examined, in order to form a correct opinion. The first question ought to be, is the fact possible ? If so, are there any circumstances which render it impossible, unbelievable?

A fact may have circumstances around it that extend out farther than may be obvious at first glance. When the total of all circumstances are considered, they will result in a more accurate opinion of the fact.

It is the big-picture, the picture which includes all the facts and circumstances.

imported post

i read some of the trash printed and exchanged about kwick. time and time again they site; could be, might be. have we grown to be a nation that harrasses individuals on and tramples their rights based on could be, might be? kwick and i know the answer to that question. get 'em quick, now you got their words on paper to persue them legally with.

imported post

RussP wrote:

It is the big-picture, the picture which includes all the facts and circumstances.

Click to expand...

The only "big picture" here is that this crap essentially means that people in TN can have be assaulted by government without the government bothering to pass a law prohibiting the undesired behavior.

I would say that anybody who approves deserves to have all their rights similarly abrogated without reason, but then I actually have standards I won't violate. As well as a sense of preserving liberty against nannying government.

imported post

McX wrote:

have we grown to be a nation that harrasses individuals on and tramples their rights based on could be, might be?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Thanks, in part, to the kinds of people who support what's being done to Leonard.

Thanks, you unmitigated pieces of shit.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

RussP wrote:

It is the big-picture, the picture which includes all the facts and circumstances.

Click to expand...

The only "big picture" here is that this crap essentially means that people in TN can have be assaulted by government without the government bothering to pass a law prohibiting the undesired behavior.

I would say that anybody who approves deserves to have all their rights similarly abrogated without reason, but then I actually have standards I won't violate. As well as a sense of preserving liberty against nannying government.

Click to expand...

That is a consequence of the situations Leonard created.

So you condone the abrogation of rights for people you disagree with or just do not like.

Glad you made that clear, but you seem to contradict yourself with the "preserving liberty" stance.

imported post

Gentlemen! Could we civily agree to disagree?

imported post

Very interesting postings. Good luck Kwik, I'd say you have a good chance of winning.

Officer Goins is very stupid to do what he did with the hand gun. It really grates on my nerves that a police officer is that ignorant of handgun safety.


I would subpoena officer Goins.

In court.....So tell me officer who is the real danger in this video, the lawfully armed citizen or the police officer who intentionally points a loaded gun at traffic?

imported post

RussP wrote:

So you condone the abrogation of rights for people you disagree with or just do not like.

Glad you made that clear, but you seem to contradict yourself with the "preserving liberty" stance.

Click to expand...

Nope. I didn't say that, and I don't think it.

I was ridiculing people who would take the stance which you incorrectly attribute to myself, in fact. Try actually reading this time. I'll give you a hint: it's called sarcasm.

I would say that anybody who approves deserves to have all their rights similarly abrogated without reason, but then I actually have standards I won't violate.

Click to expand...

Allow me to furnish the requisite dictionary definition you failed to learn when you, evidently, dropped out of first grade:

but |bət|
conjunction
1 used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned
• nevertheless; however : he stumbled but didn't fall | this is one principle, but it is not the only one.
• on the contrary; in contrast : I am clean but you are dirty | the problem is not that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a predatory way.

Click to expand...

RussP wrote:

That is a consequence of the situations Leonard created.

Click to expand...

This is impossible, unless Leonard had A: committed aggression or B: broken the law. Can you find an instance of either on his part?

No? I didn't think so. Put up or shut up, as they say.

imported post

-Walking through a park: Legal
-Wearing Camouflage: Legal
-Painting tip of firearm: Legal
-Carrying Navy/Army revolver in Bell Meade, in the hand: Legal
-Carrying AK47 based pistol: Legal
-Conversing on internet forums about experiences: Legal
-Asking where to procure AP rounds: Legal


Law Enforcement Officers, funny enough, enforce LAWS!

Even if you purposely point out that kwik did it in the hopes of casting the line out, and waiting for a nibble, you have to be stupid enough to bite the hook.

"Fishing for a lawsuit" is only successful if the fish are ignorant to law.


By creating a fantasy stipulation of, "the totality of the circumstances", you are seriously contributing to ambiguous law. Watch somebody long enough, and of course you can fabricate whatever you like, and try to force it upon others as their "intent". I go to school at nights. I bet my neighbors could fabricate an entire story off of me coming home very late at night all the time. "Totality of circumstances", right?

Yeah, Bull%$#@.

Regardless, I see no "totality of circumstances" that could be concocted against Leonard.

If a law abiding citizen, goes "fishing for a lawsuit", and you believe that is his/her intent, why would you immediately interact with said individual when they are acting in a completely legal manner?

That's right. You wouldn't.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

Nope. I didn't say that, and I don't think it.

I was ridiculing people who would take the stance which you incorrectly attribute to myself, in fact. Try actually reading this time. I'll give you a hint: it's called sarcasm.

I would say that anybody who approves deserves to have all their rights similarly abrogated without reason, but then I actually have standards I won't violate.

Click to expand...

Allow me to furnish the requisite dictionary definition you failed to learn when you, evidently, dropped out of first grade:

but |bət|
conjunction
1 used to introduce something contrasting with what has already been mentioned
• nevertheless; however : he stumbled but didn't fall | this is one principle, but it is not the only one.
• on the contrary; in contrast : I am clean but you are dirty | the problem is not that they are cutting down trees, but that they are doing it in a predatory way.

Click to expand...

This is impossible, unless Leonard had A: committed aggression or B: broken the law. Can you find an instance of either on his part?

No? I didn't think so. Put up or shut up, as they say.

Click to expand...

Impressive post, sir.

imported post

slowfiveoh wrote:

-Walking through a park: Legal
-Wearing Camouflage: Legal
-Painting tip of firearm: Legal
-Carrying Navy/Army revolver in Bell Meade, in the hand: Legal
-Carrying AK47 based pistol: Legal
-Conversing on internet forums about experiences: Legal
-Asking where to procure AP rounds: Legal


Law Enforcement Officers, funny enough, enforce LAWS!

Even if you purposely point out that kwik did it in the hopes of casting the line out, and waiting for a nibble, you have to be stupid enough to bite the hook.

"Fishing for a lawsuit" is only successful if the fish are ignorant to law.


By creating a fantasy stipulation of, "the totality of the circumstances", you are seriously contributing to ambiguous law. Watch somebody long enough, and of course you can fabricate whatever you like, and try to force it upon others as their "intent". I go to school at nights. I bet my neighbors could fabricate an entire story off of me coming home very late at night all the time. "Totality of circumstances", right?

Yeah, Bull%$#@.

Regardless, I see no "totality of circumstances" that could be concocted against Leonard.

If a law abiding citizen, goes "fishing for a lawsuit", and you believe that is his/her intent, why would you immediately interact with said individual when they are acting in a completely legal manner?

That's right. You wouldn't.

Click to expand...

You are 110% correct. Law enforcement in all encounters with Leonard Embody were 200% wrong in their actions. Leonard is a fine representative for the entire carry community and deserves only praise and honor for his actions. His sole intention is righting wrong. He cares not about the attention and notoriety. He could care less about financial remuneration. He deserves your unwavering, unquestioning trust and admiration. [/sarcasm]

Vulgarity and insults make you...never mind.

imported post

RussP wrote:

You are 110% correct. Law enforcement in all encounters with Leonard Embody were 200% wrong in their actions.

In this particular case, I am happy we agree. Regardless of your sarcastic intent.

Leonard is a fine representative for the entire carry community and deserves only praise and honor for his actions.

Individual rights, apply oddly enough to the individual. You do not have to like or dislike his methods so long as they were legal.

His sole intention is righting wrong. He cares not about the attention and notoriety. He could care less about financial remuneration. He deserves your unwavering, unquestioning trust and admiration. [/sarcasm]

He deserves individual equality.

Vulgarity and insults make you...never mind.

Click to expand...

Vulgarity? Hrmm saw that in there.

Insults? Where?

Empty, baseless accusation, is empty and baseless.

imported post

RussP wrote:

slowfiveoh wrote:

-Walking through a park: Legal
-Wearing Camouflage: Legal
-Painting tip of firearm: Legal
-Carrying Navy/Army revolver in Bell Meade, in the hand: Legal
-Carrying AK47 based pistol: Legal
-Conversing on internet forums about experiences: Legal
-Asking where to procure AP rounds: Legal


Law Enforcement Officers, funny enough, enforce LAWS!

Even if you purposely point out that kwik did it in the hopes of casting the line out, and waiting for a nibble, you have to be stupid enough to bite the hook.

"Fishing for a lawsuit" is only successful if the fish are ignorant to law.


By creating a fantasy stipulation of, "the totality of the circumstances", you are seriously contributing to ambiguous law. Watch somebody long enough, and of course you can fabricate whatever you like, and try to force it upon others as their "intent". I go to school at nights. I bet my neighbors could fabricate an entire story off of me coming home very late at night all the time. "Totality of circumstances", right?

Yeah, Bull%$#@.

Regardless, I see no "totality of circumstances" that could be concocted against Leonard.

If a law abiding citizen, goes "fishing for a lawsuit", and you believe that is his/her intent, why would you immediately interact with said individual when they are acting in a completely legal manner?

That's right. You wouldn't.

Click to expand...

You are 110% correct. Law enforcement in all encounters with Leonard Embody were 200% wrong in their actions. Leonard is a fine representative for the entire carry community and deserves only praise and honor for his actions. His sole intention is righting wrong. He cares not about the attention and notoriety. He could care less about financial remuneration. He deserves your unwavering, unquestioning trust and admiration. [/sarcasm]

Vulgarity and insults make you...never mind.

Click to expand...

LoL! Now this made me chuckle ever so slightly. Well said.

imported post

RussP wrote:

Impressive post, sir.

Click to expand...

Very good. This here is a fine example of sarcasm!

I'm pleased I was able to teach you something.

imported post

marshaul wrote:

RussP wrote:

Impressive post, sir.

Click to expand...

Very good. This here is a fine example of sarcasm!

I'm pleased I was able to teach you something.

Click to expand...

No sarcasm at all. I just didn't go into the type of impression it leaves.

imported post

How many threads does it take
Before people will cry?

How many posts must be made
Without telling a lie?

The answer my friends is blowing through the forum;
The answers are not without some lack of decorum.

The answer my friends is blowing through the forum;
Sometimes hearing less is better than more.

With apologies to Peter, Paul & Mary.

Why are we repeatedly bombarded by the same material. Is this being tried in the court of public opinion?

Yata hey

imported post

4 locked kwikrnu threads. I think that ties the Danbus record??:?

Hopefully we remain civil in this thread. When is the hearing date kwik?