Posted: 8/30/2012 10:07:39 AM EDT
|
I know many of you remember this guy. Thought this was a good outcome to his tomfoolery.
LINKY |
|
This article has a picture of Mr. Embody if anyone, like me, was wondering what he looked like.
Article/Picture |
As usual, you're the one that's wrong.
|
Quoted:
This guy is having financial troubles I believe, and he trying to get a civil suit to help himself out. He is a real winner that needs a swift kick in the ass. I also bet he is on this site or the sisters ak site. He's already been banned from this site, two or three times. Quite a few gun forums have banned him. I doubt "fiinancial troubles" were his motive, but greed was probably a factor. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This guy is having financial troubles I believe, and he trying to get a civil suit to help himself out. He is a real winner that needs a swift kick in the ass. I also bet he is on this site or the sisters ak site. He's already been banned from this site, two or three times. Quite a few gun forums have banned him. I doubt "fiinancial troubles" were his motive, but greed was probably a factor. The problem is the guy has his head up his 4th point of contact. I'm sure ATF was more than happy to approve his FFL and was thrilled when he got his SOT. He will screw up and ATF wont cut him any slack when he does. |
|
Well, he's back........ Sort of.
This idiot is apparently trying to get the SCOTUS to review his case. Read about it here... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember him being a troll, but legally speaking the court got this wrong. How? Any decision that embraces, adds further regulation, or reinforces the stupid gun control laws we already have violates the 2nd Amendment. He may have been a troll, but he was infact LEGALLY carrying. We need the LEO's in our state to behave appropriatly regarding our rights to carry. Unfortunatly many, yes in TN, are openly hostile to non LEO's carrying. I understand that their job is dangerous but MY rights should not be infringed or questioned simply because I have a gun. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I remember him being a troll, but legally speaking the court got this wrong. How? Any decision that embraces, adds further regulation, or reinforces the stupid gun control laws we already have violates the 2nd Amendment. He may have been a troll, but he was infact LEGALLY carrying. We need the LEO's in our state to behave appropriatly regarding our rights to carry. Unfortunatly many, yes in TN, are openly hostile to non LEO's carrying. I understand that their job is dangerous but MY rights should not be infringed or questioned simply because I have a gun. Maybe my memory is off, but I thought the entire basis of this case was that they violated his rights by detaining him, not that they were restricting his 2nd amendment rights (his 2nd amendment claim was against the state for pulling his permit, which is a separate case he has, or had, against the state). And by his own account of the incident, that he posted to arfcom and various other gun forums in the first few days after the incident, his own decisions contributed to his being detained as long as he was. They were going to write him a citation and let him go, but he refused to sign it and asked for a supervisor to be brought to the scene. He was told that it would take some time for a supervisor to get there, since it was a weekend afternoon, but he still insisted on talking to a supervisor. Seems likely that he would have had a stronger case (for violation of rights) if he had accepted the citation, since then he would have been officially charged with violating a gun control law, but he was apparently aiming for the lawsuit jackpot of being arrested and held in jail when there had been no crime. When they found out it was a legal handgun (they thought it was an SBR with the stock removed, and Embody even stated that they asked for his NFA paperwork), they gave him the gun back (mag removed and chamber empty) and let him go, which ruined his chances of a false imprisonment suit. This lawsuit was just his effort at salvaging what case he had for being detained, and the court didn't go for it. |
|
being detained is enough......gonna carry a badge in this state? Know the laws you are supposed to be enforcing.
If Im carrying open, which i rarely do, and an officer comes up and strikes up a conversation I would go right along with him as i am a friendly guy. If he asks to see my permit I would immediately place him in the Gestapo "Papers Please" category. We are The Patron State of Shooting Stuff and I think our carry laws shouold be more in our favor than they are. Also lets not forget that this appeal went to a DAMN YANKEE court. That was guaranteed to in the states favor up there in yankee land. Is there not an Appeals Court down south that could have handled this? I bet that judge was fucking Obama appointee and pre-disposed to think ill of firearms and pro govt anyways 
|
| In this particular case, it looks like they knew the law. The problem was that they saw what appeared to be an AK-47 with an 11.5 inch barrel and the stock removed, being carried slung across the chest, and their minds said "SBR" (which is not legal to carry with the permit) instead of "handgun". |
|
Quoted:
In this particular case, it looks like they knew the law. The problem was that they saw what appeared to be an AK-47 with an 11.5 inch barrel and the stock removed, being carried slung across the chest, and their minds said "SBR" (which is not legal to carry with the permit) instead of "handgun". Then they should have been properly trained to identify what constitutes a handgun. Thats their problem not mine. Im placing my self into the situation and thinking about how I would have felt after being detained for hours and told i was being cited by some cop that doesnt even know that I am within my rights. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
In this particular case, it looks like they knew the law. The problem was that they saw what appeared to be an AK-47 with an 11.5 inch barrel and the stock removed, being carried slung across the chest, and their minds said "SBR" (which is not legal to carry with the permit) instead of "handgun". Then they should have been properly trained to identify what constitutes a handgun. Thats their problem not mine. Im placing my self into the situation and thinking about how I would have felt after being detained for hours and told i was being cited by some cop that doesnt even know that I am within my rights. He was detained because they tried to issue a citation that would require him to show up in court and explain to the judge that it was a pistol, and he refused to accept the citation and insisted that they bring a supervisor to the scene (on a weekend afternoon). This was after he painted the muzzle orange, to make it look like an airsoft, then told the park ranger it was a real gun, when the ranger asked if it was an airsoft. From the pictures shown in the news, shortly after the incident, it looked like a high quality airsoft. If he had accepted the citation, he probably would not have been detained any longer than the amount of time a driver is held up for a speeding ticket. Officers have posted the statement on arfcom, several times, that many people talk themselves into a ticket. In this case, the guy was trying to talk himself into an arrest, so that he could sue for false arrest/imprisonment. The officers took the bait he was offering, but not far enough to make the case he was aiming for. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In this particular case, it looks like they knew the law. The problem was that they saw what appeared to be an AK-47 with an 11.5 inch barrel and the stock removed, being carried slung across the chest, and their minds said "SBR" (which is not legal to carry with the permit) instead of "handgun". Then they should have been properly trained to identify what constitutes a handgun. Thats their problem not mine. Im placing my self into the situation and thinking about how I would have felt after being detained for hours and told i was being cited by some cop that doesnt even know that I am within my rights. He was detained because they tried to issue a citation that would require him to show up in court and explain to the judge that it was a pistol, and he refused to accept the citation and insisted that they bring a supervisor to the scene (on a weekend afternoon). This was after he painted the muzzle orange, to make it look like an airsoft, then told the park ranger it was a real gun, when the ranger asked if it was an airsoft. From the pictures shown in the news, shortly after the incident, it looked like a high quality airsoft. If he had accepted the citation, he probably would not have been detained any longer than the amount of time a driver is held up for a speeding ticket. Officers have posted the statement on arfcom, several times, that many people talk themselves into a ticket. In this case, the guy was trying to talk himself into an arrest, so that he could sue for false arrest/imprisonment. The officers took the bait he was offering, but not far enough to make the case he was aiming for. I wouldnt have accepted the citation either. They need to get their hands off their dicks and do a fucking job. I dont care if its a weekend, there is always a supervisor on shift somewhere. And the fact that "crazy dude with an ak in the park" cant get a supervisor ASAP just further proves the point that the officers were inept. Guns are not the problem. If those officers thought he was a threat they should have just stayed in the park and watched and just allowed him to do his thing. If at any point he had of escalated the situation by breaking the law then they take him into custody. I really dont play the "we need to check you out" game. It's nobodies fucking business what i'm doing if im keeping to myself and not breaking any laws. |