M
McX
Guest
imported post
knock it off.
knock it off.
-
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.
-
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
- Thread starter kwikrnu
- Start date
RussP
Regular Member
imported post
Leonard, will you be under oath during the hearing, you know, that perjury thing...? Just curious not having been through one.
Leonard, will you be under oath during the hearing, you know, that perjury thing...? Just curious not having been through one.
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
RussP wrote:
RussP wrote:
It is a legal proceeding where the State has the burden of proof. It will all be under oath. Questions will be asked of the Belle Meade police and anyone else who testifies, I'm not accepting affidavits or hearsay. I'm supposed to be getting the witness and evidence lists soon...
M
McX
Guest
imported post
get 'em kwick! make em prove their case, waste their money, and make the naysayers look like damn fools!
get 'em kwick! make em prove their case, waste their money, and make the naysayers look like damn fools!
Grassroots
Regular Member
imported post
McX wrote:
McX wrote:
Wow...
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
I have been following this soap opera since kwik first started posting about the park incident here. I haven't followed it in detail reading every post or watching and listening to every recording like some others have but I have come to the following conclusions that are strictly my personal opinion about this whole deal.
I can't find anyplace where kwik has actually broken any laws but has fully violated the intent of the laws but not the letter of the law.
I really can''t find where any of the LEO have broken any laws or violated kwik's rights. Initially I may have sided with kwik on some of his actions but later postings have proven that in hindsight the LEO were correct in their initial judgements.
The person that refused to go through with he silencer sale was well within his rights to do so and did the right thing.
I think that the revoking of kwik's permit is a valid revocation especially now if not at the time of the revocation.
I think that kwik is mentally unstable and should not be allowed to even be around guns.
It sure appears to me that kwik seems to change his story evey time he tells it to the point that I don't know if he even knows what happened any more. I have tried to read some of his rebuttals and either he refuses to answer simple questions or slants his version to refelect a different occurance than what he posted earlier.
A good many years ago there were some congressmen that were caught up in some stings and there was quite a discussion in the media about the legality of entrapment. There is a difference between entrapment, baiting and whatever else you want to call it. What kwik was doing was strictly baiting to see if any LWO would bite. When he couldn't get anyone to bite he kept changing the bait until he finally found some that they would bite. I don't think that the bait was ilegal but should be in my opinion. The LEO bit but not near as hard as kwik hoped and to me never actually stepped over the line and not nearly as far as kwik's actions were.
I really don't know what his original intentions were but he is getting his moment of glory now that he has placed himself fully in the spotlight and it has become an obsession to him. There are a lot of people that take on similar obsessions about religion, animals or a myriad of other projects and lots of time we think of them as nuts.I don't know if kwik has reached that point but it sure appears to me that he has. All of this is my opinion and nothing more.
I have been following this soap opera since kwik first started posting about the park incident here. I haven't followed it in detail reading every post or watching and listening to every recording like some others have but I have come to the following conclusions that are strictly my personal opinion about this whole deal.
I can't find anyplace where kwik has actually broken any laws but has fully violated the intent of the laws but not the letter of the law.
I really can''t find where any of the LEO have broken any laws or violated kwik's rights. Initially I may have sided with kwik on some of his actions but later postings have proven that in hindsight the LEO were correct in their initial judgements.
The person that refused to go through with he silencer sale was well within his rights to do so and did the right thing.
I think that the revoking of kwik's permit is a valid revocation especially now if not at the time of the revocation.
I think that kwik is mentally unstable and should not be allowed to even be around guns.
It sure appears to me that kwik seems to change his story evey time he tells it to the point that I don't know if he even knows what happened any more. I have tried to read some of his rebuttals and either he refuses to answer simple questions or slants his version to refelect a different occurance than what he posted earlier.
A good many years ago there were some congressmen that were caught up in some stings and there was quite a discussion in the media about the legality of entrapment. There is a difference between entrapment, baiting and whatever else you want to call it. What kwik was doing was strictly baiting to see if any LWO would bite. When he couldn't get anyone to bite he kept changing the bait until he finally found some that they would bite. I don't think that the bait was ilegal but should be in my opinion. The LEO bit but not near as hard as kwik hoped and to me never actually stepped over the line and not nearly as far as kwik's actions were.
I really don't know what his original intentions were but he is getting his moment of glory now that he has placed himself fully in the spotlight and it has become an obsession to him. There are a lot of people that take on similar obsessions about religion, animals or a myriad of other projects and lots of time we think of them as nuts.I don't know if kwik has reached that point but it sure appears to me that he has. All of this is my opinion and nothing more.
kwikrnu
Banned
imported post
PT111 wrote:
The intent of the law is that those with handgun carry permits may carry open or concealed any handgun in a state park. It is the intent of the belle meade law to only allow an army or navy pistol carried openly in the hand. I have followed the clear intent of the law.
If you don't think that unlawful search of a persons pockets is illegal I can't help you.
If you think a police department can take a mans permit because they want to retaliate you are wrong.
I was sold a silencer and after the sale he changed his mind. I have done nothing illegal. It was a clear violation of the contract.
My story is the same today as it was yesterday. There is no change.
PT111 wrote:
The intent of the law is that those with handgun carry permits may carry open or concealed any handgun in a state park. It is the intent of the belle meade law to only allow an army or navy pistol carried openly in the hand. I have followed the clear intent of the law.
If you don't think that unlawful search of a persons pockets is illegal I can't help you.
If you think a police department can take a mans permit because they want to retaliate you are wrong.
I was sold a silencer and after the sale he changed his mind. I have done nothing illegal. It was a clear violation of the contract.
My story is the same today as it was yesterday. There is no change.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
PT111 wrote:
You're serious, aren't you?
So now laws means whatever we think they should mean?
PT111 wrote:
WTF?
You're serious, aren't you?
So now laws means whatever we think they should mean?
RussP
Regular Member
imported post
PT111 wrote:
He wanted to be arrested. He knew eventually he would be. He just didn't get there.
When he wasn't carrying his Model 29, he said maybe he could get arrested carrying a PLR-16 or an AK pistol.
When he wasn't arrested dressed in normal street clothes, he said maybe he needed to dress down.
When he couldn't get arrested, he said he hadn't met the right cop yet.
Finally he got his combo right and found the right cops.
PT111 wrote:
This is true by Leonard's own words.
He wanted to be arrested. He knew eventually he would be. He just didn't get there.
When he wasn't carrying his Model 29, he said maybe he could get arrested carrying a PLR-16 or an AK pistol.
When he wasn't arrested dressed in normal street clothes, he said maybe he needed to dress down.
When he couldn't get arrested, he said he hadn't met the right cop yet.
Finally he got his combo right and found the right cops.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
RussP wrote:
You can't bait the innocent.
If LEOs were doing their job properly, he could "bait" them until the cows come home, and it wouldn't have any result.
Until he aggresses or breaks the law, he is not at fault.
It's really that simple.
You know, if anything more people need to "bait" the cops, so that they might learn to follow the law even when it doesn't thrill them. :quirky
RussP wrote:
And..... so what?
You can't bait the innocent.
If LEOs were doing their job properly, he could "bait" them until the cows come home, and it wouldn't have any result.
Until he aggresses or breaks the law, he is not at fault.
It's really that simple.
You know, if anything more people need to "bait" the cops, so that they might learn to follow the law even when it doesn't thrill them. :quirky
RussP
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
Yes, unfortunately, some people do believe that.
RussP
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Okay, that's reasonable if both sides can use the same game plan.
marshaul wrote:
So you agree then it is perfectly legal and okay for law enforcement to bait citizens who carry firearms, and they should do it more often to weed out the bad carriers who might break the law when challenged.
Okay, that's reasonable if both sides can use the same game plan.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
RussP wrote:
The citizenry have an obligation to keep their public servants on their toes and in line.
The police have an obligation to respect the rights of citizens (which generally precludes entrapment).
Police have few rights while on-duty.
Completely different set of circumstances. Stop trying to pretend things need to go both ways.
RussP wrote:
Don't be ridiculous.
The citizenry have an obligation to keep their public servants on their toes and in line.
The police have an obligation to respect the rights of citizens (which generally precludes entrapment).
Police have few rights while on-duty.
Completely different set of circumstances. Stop trying to pretend things need to go both ways.
PT111
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
Yup, did you know that in SC it is ilegal for a plumber to carry a piece of pipe onto a school ground.
marshaul wrote:
Yup, did you know that in SC it is ilegal for a plumber to carry a piece of pipe onto a school ground.
slowfiveoh
Regular Member
imported post
Nothing has changed here. Even if people do not agree with kwik, they are incapable of admitting that their positions are nothing at all if not emotionally derived.
They sit here and tell us that the "universal common sense" has somehow been violated, and that adherence to law is not good enough. Now we must tap dance around what they feel is "common sense", as if their "common sense" were the only regulatory definition for law.
It's vile. It's disgusting.
More than that, it's completely and wholly ignorant.
If you have discontent with a law, learn to press your representatives for change, or grow the pair necessary to challenge the law outright. These are the appropriate vehicles to shuttle your "common sense" on. Willfully violating a citizens rights because what he/she is doing comes across to you as "odd", or "unusual" is a slippery slope, and one that will come back to bite you hard on the ass when someone elses "common sense" trumps yours.
Too uneducated to understand what you imply.
Too ignorant to care about the ramifications.
Too arrogant to admit wrong.
Although I have to admit that my personal favorite is the individual stating that in his opinion Leonard has "mental issues".
Why thank you Web M.D.! Your professional insight and diagnosis having never meant the patient is staggeringly awesome! As awesome as asserting that you can do so over the internet!
Nothing has changed here. Even if people do not agree with kwik, they are incapable of admitting that their positions are nothing at all if not emotionally derived.
They sit here and tell us that the "universal common sense" has somehow been violated, and that adherence to law is not good enough. Now we must tap dance around what they feel is "common sense", as if their "common sense" were the only regulatory definition for law.
It's vile. It's disgusting.
More than that, it's completely and wholly ignorant.
If you have discontent with a law, learn to press your representatives for change, or grow the pair necessary to challenge the law outright. These are the appropriate vehicles to shuttle your "common sense" on. Willfully violating a citizens rights because what he/she is doing comes across to you as "odd", or "unusual" is a slippery slope, and one that will come back to bite you hard on the ass when someone elses "common sense" trumps yours.
Too uneducated to understand what you imply.
Too ignorant to care about the ramifications.
Too arrogant to admit wrong.
Although I have to admit that my personal favorite is the individual stating that in his opinion Leonard has "mental issues".
Why thank you Web M.D.! Your professional insight and diagnosis having never meant the patient is staggeringly awesome! As awesome as asserting that you can do so over the internet!
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
imported post
PT111 wrote:
We were talking about a positive application of the law, now you bring up a negative one!
I'd be the last person to argue that a person *must* be convicted simply because his behavior meets the letter of a criminal law.
I'd also be the first person to demand that a person NOT be on the receiving end of punitive action by government UNTIL he has met at least the bare minimum standard of having actually broken a law.
This is how it's supposed to work: you cannot convict someone who hasn't broken a law, but you needn't convict everyone who has broken a law.
You're trying to turn that on its head, claiming that the silliness and inapplicability of one law justifies the lawless assault on the rights on privileges of a citizen.
The law is a minimum standard, not a guideline to be followed for presumed "intent".
slowfiveoh wrote:
PT111 wrote:
Now hold on just a New York minute!
We were talking about a positive application of the law, now you bring up a negative one!
I'd be the last person to argue that a person *must* be convicted simply because his behavior meets the letter of a criminal law.
I'd also be the first person to demand that a person NOT be on the receiving end of punitive action by government UNTIL he has met at least the bare minimum standard of having actually broken a law.
This is how it's supposed to work: you cannot convict someone who hasn't broken a law, but you needn't convict everyone who has broken a law.
You're trying to turn that on its head, claiming that the silliness and inapplicability of one law justifies the lawless assault on the rights on privileges of a citizen.
The law is a minimum standard, not a guideline to be followed for presumed "intent".
slowfiveoh wrote:
I'm going to go ahead and give the entirety of the quoted material here the old +100.
RussP
Regular Member
imported post
marshaul wrote:
marshaul wrote:
I am hardly pretending, and thank you for making my point so very clear.
RussP
Regular Member
imported post
slowfiveoh wrote:
slowfiveoh wrote:
Nope, no emotion in there at all...
imported post
Dangit, now I have a ton to go back through. While I've read the posts, I've got a ton to catch up with. Please allow a bit of leeway so I can get to it all. I may not get to all I can in this one post.
Don't sweat Wikipedia. I've had to reference back fairly quickly myself. Also, you'll have to forgive my misinterpretation of how you meant facts,so long as we agree that facts and circumstances are thesame, then we're singing off the same sheet of music.
I wouldn't necessarily as you put it, but the court did this very thing. It established a "lesser" arrest in effort to enable officers to not only react to criminal activity but to detect and prevent criminal activity. While the 4th Amendment protects from unreasonable search and unreasonable seizure, up until this decision there were no grounds for what could be consideredreasonable[/i]. I understand why you see it as such, and again, the dissenting Justice opinion supports you. He clearly stated it gave police judicial discretion, by placing reasonable suspicion before probable cause. Reading your subsequent post, I believe you're confusing the two.
To be blunt, it is exactly what you're concerned about, a "legal loophole" for officers to prevent crime, andas result,protects them from violation of rights. For the very reasons you argue against it, that's what it is. Hang on, I'll add to this in a bit.
I didn't leave anything out intentionally. It's a simplification of what they were doing. Could they have been shopping? The officer's experience is what led to his belief that they were "casing" places to rob. The officer's articulated description based on his experience was found to be reasonable, there by justifying the seizure of their persons (stop).
I'll answer your challenge by this, prior to the decision in Terry v. Ohio, you'd be absolutely correct (unless of course, in the suit precedence be set by finding the actions "reasonble"). Now, post Terry, the seizure would be ruled reasonable, and while he may have been sued, the stop or seizure of their persons would still be ruled reasonable, and not in violation of their rights. How could I explain it as such? It's the manner with which SCOTUS evaluated the case, and led to the precedent of Reasonable Articulate Suspicion. First item in review was "Was the seizure reasonable?" The seizure or stop, is a wholly individual act unto itself.
With the understanding that probably cause and reasonable articulate suspicion are two wholly and separate actions, I'll explain by example:
On what basis does an officer stop and request your permit? RAS. Articulable facts:
a) you are seen with a weapon holstered at your side.
b) the officers knows that a permit is required, and that no permit = crime.
The officer then takes action, based on RAS, and "seizes" you and investigates, by requesting your permit and ID. Believe it or not, the officer possessing your ID is termed "custodial arrest", or, you feel compelled to stay with the officer until your ID/permit is returned. It's the simplest example of "lesser arrest" as stated in Terry I can think of.
Now, you have a valid permit, returned your ID/permit, and released due to no probable cause. Now it does not invalidate the RAS, because the "seizure" was an action, and must be deemed reasonable or unreasonable. It was an action, it does not go away, be nullified, or anything else. Under your belief of what RAS is, each and every time an officer checks a validpermit, it's a violation of 4th Ammendment protection from unreasonable seizure. I have a feeling I'll be saying this a ton, but RAS applies to events causing the stop, nothing more. I've said it earlier, Hindsight or events after the stop donot apply.
Make sense? Here's more, and I pulled this from the secondary post you made further on (remember, I'm trying to keep up here! :shock
Again, RAS is not subject to hindsight. RAS applies to the circumstances (facts) that initiated action on the officer's part. It plays no part during the investigation. The stop or seizure in itself is an important action, again, it's either reasonable or unreasonable, you cannot void it, null it, invalidate it. Take it further, because you acurately defined "articulate" suspicion must also be defined, and it is definined as:
Suspicion is a sn8kbit wrote:
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.[/quote]
OK, now we're assuming facts not in evidence! Let me be a bit more clear in my statement. An officer has RAS to conduct a DUI traffic stop soley on the basis of a couple of weaves inside the lane. This is not a generalization, this is fact as I know in TN. Amazingly enough, it's been told to me that in Florida (where I now reside), where they are strict on DUI, and RAS to conduct a traffic stop based on one weave/touch of the line in the lane. Before you say it, I agree, it seems to me unreasonable, and I'm trying to verify that so I'll leave that as an alleged fact. Let me be quite clear: no other mitigating circumstances are required outside of the left to right weave inside the lane of traffic, and reckless driving need not apply here, as the weave was inside the lane, not crossing over.
I thinkyou're taking it out of context, it was an example of application of RAS, not RAS in this specific case. I outlined the RAS in this in the initial post, we're simply discussing it as it applies to every stop by a LEO. See comments in bold for simplicity in this.
Slow, I agree, it should not so vague. The dissenting opinion in Terry agrees with you. I don't think you're trying to put words into my mouth, but I've also stated RAS is not a "Gut Feeling". However, the articulated facts can indeed, and most often are, circumstancial. The thing is, you are indeed seeing those handful of officers abusing RAS. This board is full of posts in that regard. The youtube video you link in later replyis the opening for your Cops gone wild. Why? RAS for the stop.
Again, there were, has been, and still are concerns at how large the loophole RAS creates. Additionaly, the concerns of "slippery slope" you claim could happen does, because it is exactly as I describe, and causes you concern. You're exactly right, it can be, and sometimes is abused. It is what it is.
And, believe it or not, RAS by default protects an officer as in this instance, to the identification of the weapon due to the direct and intimate knowledge to the point of the initial stop.
As I read Leonard's allegations, the citation was being written, he requested a supervisor or magistrate, and upon supervior's arrival the ATF was contacted. My comprehension of Leonard's accounts was that the citation was written first, then the supervisor had the ATF called, not going on at the same time. Remember, after it was confirmed that it was indeed a pistol, Leonard states several officers stated they had no idea there was an AK47 pistol. At the time of the citation, the officers believed they had cause (not RAS, you cannot officially "arrest" on RAS, only "probable cause") that Leonard was in unlawful possesion of a weapon (as a longun/SBR).
More to come, I'm out of time at the moment and have to run a very small business. I'll try to explain further, but the gist in all of this is:
RAS justifies the stop, investigation ensues to establish PC. RAS cannot be changed by facts after the stop. RAS soley applies to actions/facts before the officer initiates stop.
Dangit, now I have a ton to go back through. While I've read the posts, I've got a ton to catch up with. Please allow a bit of leeway so I can get to it all. I may not get to all I can in this one post.
Don't sweat Wikipedia. I've had to reference back fairly quickly myself. Also, you'll have to forgive my misinterpretation of how you meant facts,so long as we agree that facts and circumstances are thesame, then we're singing off the same sheet of music.
I wouldn't necessarily as you put it, but the court did this very thing. It established a "lesser" arrest in effort to enable officers to not only react to criminal activity but to detect and prevent criminal activity. While the 4th Amendment protects from unreasonable search and unreasonable seizure, up until this decision there were no grounds for what could be consideredreasonable[/i]. I understand why you see it as such, and again, the dissenting Justice opinion supports you. He clearly stated it gave police judicial discretion, by placing reasonable suspicion before probable cause. Reading your subsequent post, I believe you're confusing the two.
To be blunt, it is exactly what you're concerned about, a "legal loophole" for officers to prevent crime, andas result,protects them from violation of rights. For the very reasons you argue against it, that's what it is. Hang on, I'll add to this in a bit.
I didn't leave anything out intentionally. It's a simplification of what they were doing. Could they have been shopping? The officer's experience is what led to his belief that they were "casing" places to rob. The officer's articulated description based on his experience was found to be reasonable, there by justifying the seizure of their persons (stop).
I'll answer your challenge by this, prior to the decision in Terry v. Ohio, you'd be absolutely correct (unless of course, in the suit precedence be set by finding the actions "reasonble"). Now, post Terry, the seizure would be ruled reasonable, and while he may have been sued, the stop or seizure of their persons would still be ruled reasonable, and not in violation of their rights. How could I explain it as such? It's the manner with which SCOTUS evaluated the case, and led to the precedent of Reasonable Articulate Suspicion. First item in review was "Was the seizure reasonable?" The seizure or stop, is a wholly individual act unto itself.
With the understanding that probably cause and reasonable articulate suspicion are two wholly and separate actions, I'll explain by example:
On what basis does an officer stop and request your permit? RAS. Articulable facts:
a) you are seen with a weapon holstered at your side.
b) the officers knows that a permit is required, and that no permit = crime.
The officer then takes action, based on RAS, and "seizes" you and investigates, by requesting your permit and ID. Believe it or not, the officer possessing your ID is termed "custodial arrest", or, you feel compelled to stay with the officer until your ID/permit is returned. It's the simplest example of "lesser arrest" as stated in Terry I can think of.
Now, you have a valid permit, returned your ID/permit, and released due to no probable cause. Now it does not invalidate the RAS, because the "seizure" was an action, and must be deemed reasonable or unreasonable. It was an action, it does not go away, be nullified, or anything else. Under your belief of what RAS is, each and every time an officer checks a validpermit, it's a violation of 4th Ammendment protection from unreasonable seizure. I have a feeling I'll be saying this a ton, but RAS applies to events causing the stop, nothing more. I've said it earlier, Hindsight or events after the stop donot apply.
Make sense? Here's more, and I pulled this from the secondary post you made further on (remember, I'm trying to keep up here! :shock
Again, RAS is not subject to hindsight. RAS applies to the circumstances (facts) that initiated action on the officer's part. It plays no part during the investigation. The stop or seizure in itself is an important action, again, it's either reasonable or unreasonable, you cannot void it, null it, invalidate it. Take it further, because you acurately defined "articulate" suspicion must also be defined, and it is definined as:
Suspicion is a sn8kbit wrote:
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.[/quote]
OK, now we're assuming facts not in evidence!
Let me be a bit more clear in my statement. An officer has RAS to conduct a DUI traffic stop soley on the basis of a couple of weaves inside the lane. This is not a generalization, this is fact as I know in TN. Amazingly enough, it's been told to me that in Florida (where I now reside), where they are strict on DUI, and RAS to conduct a traffic stop based on one weave/touch of the line in the lane. Before you say it, I agree, it seems to me unreasonable, and I'm trying to verify that so I'll leave that as an alleged fact. Let me be quite clear: no other mitigating circumstances are required outside of the left to right weave inside the lane of traffic, and reckless driving need not apply here, as the weave was inside the lane, not crossing over.I thinkyou're taking it out of context, it was an example of application of RAS, not RAS in this specific case. I outlined the RAS in this in the initial post, we're simply discussing it as it applies to every stop by a LEO. See comments in bold for simplicity in this.
sn8kbit wrote:
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".
Slow, I agree, it should not so vague. The dissenting opinion in Terry agrees with you. I don't think you're trying to put words into my mouth, but I've also stated RAS is not a "Gut Feeling". However, the articulated facts can indeed, and most often are, circumstancial. The thing is, you are indeed seeing those handful of officers abusing RAS. This board is full of posts in that regard. The youtube video you link in later replyis the opening for your Cops gone wild. Why? RAS for the stop.
Again, there were, has been, and still are concerns at how large the loophole RAS creates. Additionaly, the concerns of "slippery slope" you claim could happen does, because it is exactly as I describe, and causes you concern. You're exactly right, it can be, and sometimes is abused. It is what it is.
And, believe it or not, RAS by default protects an officer as in this instance, to the identification of the weapon due to the direct and intimate knowledge to the point of the initial stop.
As I read Leonard's allegations, the citation was being written, he requested a supervisor or magistrate, and upon supervior's arrival the ATF was contacted. My comprehension of Leonard's accounts was that the citation was written first, then the supervisor had the ATF called, not going on at the same time. Remember, after it was confirmed that it was indeed a pistol, Leonard states several officers stated they had no idea there was an AK47 pistol. At the time of the citation, the officers believed they had cause (not RAS, you cannot officially "arrest" on RAS, only "probable cause") that Leonard was in unlawful possesion of a weapon (as a longun/SBR).
More to come, I'm out of time at the moment and have to run a very small business. I'll try to explain further, but the gist in all of this is:
RAS justifies the stop, investigation ensues to establish PC. RAS cannot be changed by facts after the stop. RAS soley applies to actions/facts before the officer initiates stop.