TN state park OC trouble

[aikidoka]

I'm not sure which is worse, this guy thinking he is being helpful or the media not realizing one can legally acquire ak pistols.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No statute violated, yet the man was Criminally Confined, Intimidated and had firearms pointed at him.

God speed to his lawsuit. The police cannot be allowed to get away with this.

Let's hope it's a big fat check for him.

 

[theweakerbrother]

No statute violated, yet the man was Criminally Confined, Intimidated and had firearms pointed at him.

God speed to his lawsuit. The police cannot be allowed to get away with this.

Let's hope it's a big fat check for him.

I doubt he will sue and if he does, I doubt he'll win.

Nothing trumps modern irrationality like the safety card.
!
He had a gun pointed at him for HIS safety!

 

[cce1302]

I have no problem with him carrying that pistol. Wherever he wants. Whenever he wants. Open or concealed.

I did just see that he painted the tip of the barrel orange. Now that is stupid. Bad idea. That I don't like at all.

 

[Roadie]

Regardless of how I feel about how he expressed his Rights, this is a PERFECT example of how the News spins their stories to make them more interesting, and ignores facts.

 

[Walter Zoomie]

...a sawed of AK47 with a pistol grip...

Run for the hills!

Still...whatever it is, dude is a tool for bumping around the park with it.

 

[2cool9031]

He did over do it....he was well with in his rights...But that starts negative reactions from non-gun owners. He was just grandstanding...looking for attention.

 

[public servant]

Run for the hills!

Still...whatever it is, dude is a tool for bumping around the park with it.

He did over do it....he was well with in his rights...But that starts negative reactions from non-gun owners. He was just grandstanding...looking for attention.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He did over do it....he was well with in his rights...But that starts negative reactions from non-gun owners. He was just grandstanding...looking for attention.

As an intellectual exercise:

Assume the year is 1959 and not 2009. An African-American is at a park in the South.

Hikers see an African-American who is well within his rights walking about, but grandstanding by having the audacity to be Black where people can see him even though it is legal to be Black in public. Hikers are afraid and call the police.

How is this any different?

Is it not better to educate the bigots rather than keep all the African-Americans inside???

 

[samot]

As an intellectual exercise:

Assume the year is 1959 and not 2009. An African-American is at a park in the South.

Hikers see an African-American who is well within his rights walking about, but grandstanding by having the audacity to be Black where people can see him even though it is legal to be Black in public. Hikers are afraid and call the police.

How is this any different?

Is it not better to educate the bigots rather than keep all the African-Americans inside???

+1000

 

[Kirk Freeman]

+1000

But, but he's wanting attention by being Black in public!

What a cowboy!

 

[dburkhead]

As an intellectual exercise:

Assume the year is 1959 and not 2009. An African-American is at a park in the South.

Hikers see an African-American who is well within his rights walking about, but grandstanding by having the audacity to be Black where people can see him even though it is legal to be Black in public. Hikers are afraid and call the police.

How is this any different?

Is it not better to educate the bigots rather than keep all the African-Americans inside???

"Grandstanding"? Here's a nice variety:

1955 Rosa Parks
1960 The parents of Ruby Bridges
1963 Martin Luther King, Jr.
1969 Stonewall resistance to police raid and the subsequent riots.

And many others.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[cce1302]

There is nothing inherently dangerous about a man walking in the park, regardless of his skin color. There MAY be something amiss with a man in military fatigues in a public park carrying an AK pistol on a sling, which may be unusual behavior, depending on what kind of park, the manner of carry, is the person fiddling with the gun and mumbling to himself, etc. Since this "event" was planned by the AK toter, I'm sure he did everything in his power to get the attention of the police.

Police have a duty to investigate unusual behavior, as it can indicate a crime about to occur. It's probably legal to stand on the roof of a high rise building with a scoped deer rifle, sweeping the public park below with binoculars, but it may be something to be looked into.

Anyone who thinks anything positive will come out of dressing like Rambo and bopping around a public park with a slung AK pistol is not seeing the big picture. I'm not saying that he doesn't have a right to do so. I'm saying that he's putting a negative light on gun owners.

If he really wanted to freak people out (he obviously did), he should have worn a turban.

If he had been wearing a turban, one of two things would have happened:
A) we never would have heard of him
II) MSNBC would write stories about how he likes to play basketball, and post headlines that say how honest and good he is.

 

[dburkhead]

There is nothing inherently dangerous about a man walking in the park, regardless of his skin color.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about a man walking in the park regardless of skin color, clothing worn, or legal weapons carried.

There MAY be something amiss with a man in military fatigues in a public park carrying an AK pistol on a sling, which may be unusual behavior, depending on what kind of park, the manner of carry, is the person fiddling with the gun and mumbling to himself, etc.

And all of the same things can be said about a "person of color" as well. If. If. If. If.

Since this "event" was planned by the AK toter, I'm sure he did everything in his power to get the attention of the police.

You can prove anything if you get to make up your "data" which, so far as I can see, is what you've done here.

Police have a duty to investigate unusual behavior, as it can indicate a crime about to occur.

From whence does this duty come? Where do the police get a "duty" to point guns at people who are not doing anything illegal simply because they think something might happen later?

The police have a duty to enforce the law--and protecting the rights of the innocent is the pinnacle of that duty. It's not called the Bill of "suggestions to follow when convenient."

It's probably legal to stand on the roof of a high rise building with a scoped deer rifle, sweeping the public park below with binoculars, but it may be something to be looked into.

I don't know about that. Unless the person doing so is the owner of the building you've probably got trespassing at the least.

And, incidentally, in this case all you've got is that he was carrying a scary-looking gun. If there was more directly suspicious activity involved, it's kind of strange that the anti-gun, anti-freedom media outlets don't seem to have any such facts to report. Of course, they don't have to report any such facts when there are plenty of people who will be happy to invent them.

Anyone who thinks anything positive will come out of dressing like Rambo and bopping around a public park with a slung AK pistol is not seeing the big picture.

And anybody who thought that anything positive would come out of refusing to move to the back of the bus and defying custom and regulation is not seeing the big picture, right?

Or maybe the parents who responded to a call and sent their daughter to a school where she had to be surrounded by security guards to and from school, where she had to eat lunch by herself, and so on, and so on, and so on weren't seeing "the big picture" when they thought something positive would come out of that?

I'm not saying that he doesn't have a right to do so. I'm saying that he's putting a negative light on gun owners.

And you're not? What you are doing here is justifying the antis. We don't need antis when supposedly pro-gun folk go around making their arguments for them.

If he really wanted to freak people out (he obviously did), he should have worn a turban.

And so we have mind reading and criticizing people for things they didn't do.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There is nothing inherently dangerous about a man walking in the park, regardless of his skin color.

You certainly may think that way now, but in 1959 that was not the case, especially in the South.

We now have federal civil rights laws to prosecute police who stop people just for being a certain race just like we need civil rights laws to prosecute police for stopping gun owners for obeying the law.

The bottom line is that the man was obeying the law and the police pointed guns at him. This was not a consensual stop, it was an arrest without any probable cause whatsoever.

This thuggish police behaviour must be stopped.

 

[Clay]

Here is a news article about the incident:

Man with AK-47-style gun detained in Nashville park, then let go | theleafchronicle.com | The Leaf Chronicle

Notice the picture of the Draco AK47 pistol...... it has the muzzle nut painted orange!

I guess this guy (Leonard Embody) has been banned from numerous gun related websites due to his behavior. He was recently banned from theakforum.net due to asking about painting the muzzle nut on his AK orange to simulate a toy gun! What a freakin nut job.

 

[theweakerbrother]

But, but he's wanting attention by being Black in public!

What a cowboy!

Out of rep. How about a high five instead?

 

[samot]

Maybe if he wouldve carried a different pistol he wouldnt of caught so much flak from the rollers!!!!!
Maybe it would of been better if he carried one like this.

It doesnt have that AK ora about it

 

[slackerisme]

Anyone else notice how the news lady looks like an Ewok? Not judging, just saying.