-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Poor choice of words. You MEANT to say "get a rush from". "Getting a rise from" refers to well...something rising. However, you are still incorrect, I know what an adreneline dump feels like and yet yesterday I had nothing like that when I was pointing my pistol at the badguy. In order to remain calm and maintain control I need to push beyond that kind of stuff. Save the adreneline dumps for times when I'm fighting someone and need the extra boost. Again, poor choice of words.
welcome to the discussion, 007. Sure, I wasn't there, and didn't observe the details of what went down, but isn't it customary for reports to say "allegedly did this or that" when there are allegations of illegal activity, such as threatening someone? Why would they intentionally leave that out? to protect this guy carrying the scary handgun? Maybe they just forgot to mention that. Newspapers and TV anchors routinely leave out details that make a story more sensational.
Do you use Krylon orange paint for your guns, or some other brand?
Are you smoking crack, or just marijuana today?
shooter521
Certified Glock Nut
Do you use Krylon orange paint for your guns, or some other brand?
OK, we've already had two Mods in here asking folks to take a breather and back off on the cheap shots and personal attacks. I guess I'll be number 3. If you discuss the issue like adults, you will be treated as such. Bicker and call names like children, and you will be treated like children.
Thank you.
No. 1) Just because he's carried there before doesn't automatically make all his actions in this situation legal. Admittedly it doesn't say he's carried that particular firearm in the park before.
No. 2) Yep stopped. LTCH or whatever TN has was shown. Officer either knew firearm was legal or didn't care to verify. No problems there.
No. 3) Can you cite your source that the second officer was informed by the first. I didn't see that in any of the articles I read. If he was informed by the first I was unaware of that.
No. 4) Again please cite your reference. If I were that second officer just speaking with someone previously doesn't make them automatically law abiding at all future encounters. Again it doesn't say he had carried that particular firearm before.
No. 5) Anything from BATFE paperwork wise takes MONTHS why would you think 2.5 hours unreasonable considering what govt agency you're dealing with, for the officer to contact BATFE and verify that this firearm was indeed registered as a pistol and legal to carry.
Your last paragrah) You don't know at first glance who is a threat and who's not. Thats why I believe the officer did what he did, verified that all his current actions were legal. Man was carrying what appears to be an AK 47 style whatever, on a sling. An easily accessable firearm that may or may not be legal at this point with unknown intent. Had it been any other easily discernable HOLSTERED pistol I would think the actions of the LE would have been drastically different.
Last edited:
This is one of my main problems. I feel like police officers believe they are the only one's serving their community. Now, we all know some of the terrible things cops have to see, the idiots they have to deal with, and their compensation for their job isn't the best, but don't we all work our rears off every day? I'm also a fair person and I serve my community, mostly by paying taxes so that police officers can have a job. I think we all have a big problem when our "public servants" try to become "public defenders" which almost always turns into a parental-type ruling system. We aren't children. I don't like the fact that one of my employees can stop me, point a gun at me for 2.5 hours, then say "Okay...I guess you weren't doing anything wrong. Go home, load your gun when you get home, because I just took all of your ammunition out of the magazine." Does anyone else get to do that? If I see someone walking around doing something legal, do I get to hold them at gun-point until I feel safe, secure, and appeased? But, as Bill of Rights already said, it is the law. Police officers get to point guns at people doing nothing wrong. We all have our own job descriptions, I guess. My biggest questions is, why did the second police officer detain him for that long? I think that's what we're all so mad about. It was uncalled for and shouldn't have happened. I understand why one cop's actions do not reflect all cops in general, what I don't understand is why most cops defend the stupid one's poor choices.
No. 5) Anything from BATFE paperwork wise takes MONTHS why would you think 2.5 hours unreasonable considering what govt agency you're dealing with, for the officer to contact BATFE and verify that this firearm was indeed registered as a pistol and legal to carry.
You don't need BATFE paperwork for a pistol. The man paid, in time, for the officer's misidentification of the firearm. After 2.5 hours, you'd think the cop would take another look at the pistol and say "oh, it's a pistol."
You don't need BATFE paperwork for a pistol. The man paid, in time, for the officer's misidentification of the firearm. After 2.5 hours, you'd think the cop would take another look at the pistol and say "oh, it's a pistol."
I know you don't need BATFE paperwork for a pistol. I should have written "verify that the firearm was NOT a rifle or SBR" instead of "verify that it was registered as a pistol".
What I was trying to get across was the officer (and this is assumed by me) either:
A) Didn't know it was a pistol and called someone who would know (BATFE) and it took a little time (2.5 hrs)
or
B) The officer knew but didn't care and wanted this dude to waste 2.5 hours of his time for acting like an asshat in the officers mind.
Before joining INGO I had no idea what the legal differences were that determined whether a firearm was a rifle, pistol, shotgun, or muzzleloader. I thought all AK's would be rifles, regardless of barrel length, stock or no stock . Maybe thats what this officer thought as well. You can't expect LEO's to memorize every single law in their jurisdiction verbatim and be able to tell without a doubt wether a law is being broken or not at first glance.
I'd still like to see sources cited for questions 3 and 4.
I am NOT one of your employee's just as I am NOT self employed (I pay the same taxes). However, I do work for the City of Indianapolis but it is not the same as working for any one person. I assure you we do not go around looking for law-abiding people to point our guns at. As to why the second officer did what he did...I have no idea. NONE of us here know why. We can guess or make assumptions but that is the extent of it. We (fellow LEO's) require a bit more than an article to bad mouth a fellow LEO. Why is that? Well I can tell your from first hand knowledge that little that is written about LEO's in the paper is 100% accurate. I ahve even been present when the reportrs are given the information and when I watch it/read about it...it is all wrong. Unfortunately I was on a run that made national news. Geez you want to talk about people wanting blood from us and another city agency as a result. I was a bit upset when people come to me assuming I (or the other officer) did something wrong and that we were the bad guys. We did everything right and to the best of our ability and the news twisted it horrorbly. So NO I do not like taking news stories involving LEO's at face value. I know that in many instances there are details that the newsies leave out thinking they are not important but in reality could make a big difference in how the story is perceived. I have no idea if this is the case in this instance and so that is why I am holding off my judgement. Frankly, you guys don't need my help finding any faults...there are more than enough people here doing just that.
Well Denny347 has been attempting to do so. Although he said something about "devil's advocate" which means "saying things he does not mean." And I have no time to discuss things with those who say things they do not mean.
Our rights protect not only reasonably exercises of those rights, but also extreme exercises of those rights. Many people use their rights is ways I find totally offensive and damaging to my rights, but I do support their ability to say and do those things. Two great examples come to mind. First are those people who protect homosexuals and carry inflammatory signs. Those people are exercising their freedom of speech in promotion of their religious beliefs. I think its disgusting and makes all Christians look bad, but it is their right. Second, are KKK members assembling on the town square. Again, their actions and beliefs are inexcusable, but their right to put them forth I cannot argue with and would defend.
In discussing this TN fellows actions, we often don't make clear that we support his right to do so, but disagree with the action. Would I do it, no. Would others do it, no. Does it mean it shouldn't be done, no. Our rights go so far as to protect those persons who do actions solely for bad intent, solely for personal appeasement, solely for political gain, and many other varied reasons.
It is precisely because we all draw the line on reasonable behavior differently that we must support the rights of those who decide to exercise their rights on fringes of acceptable behavior. The extremes are protected so that one day when society has progressed so far away from the "middle" and you're now in the extreme, you will be protected.
What really hurts us as gun owners is our inability to articulate the distinction between supporting the ability to exercise extreme rights and the wisdom in exercising that right in the manner chosen. Just as I despise the thoughts and beliefs of the KKK, I fully support their right to assemble and espouse their hatred to the public.
In discussing this TN fellows actions, we often don't make clear that we support his right to do so, but disagree with the action. Would I do it, no. Would others do it, no. Does it mean it shouldn't be done, no. Our rights go so far as to protect those persons who do actions solely for bad intent, solely for personal appeasement, solely for political gain, and many other varied reasons.
It is precisely because we all draw the line on reasonable behavior differently that we must support the rights of those who decide to exercise their rights on fringes of acceptable behavior. The extremes are protected so that one day when society has progressed so far away from the "middle" and you're now in the extreme, you will be protected.
What really hurts us as gun owners is our inability to articulate the distinction between supporting the ability to exercise extreme rights and the wisdom in exercising that right in the manner chosen. Just as I despise the thoughts and beliefs of the KKK, I fully support their right to assemble and espouse their hatred to the public.
Actually, no, Denny clearly said that he's giving no opinion of what the officers in TN did. He simply said that there are times when he may have to use force up to and including pointing a firearm at someone whose need to be shot has not yet been determined.
This is not saying anything he doesn't mean. The only "devil's advocate" I saw was in an attempt to give a perspective most of us don't have. I, for one, appreciate his and other officers' doing so.
No one is defending the actions of the TN LEOs. Attacking one (or all) LEO(s) for the misdeeds of some is like what the Bloomington H-T and the Indy Star recently did to LTCH holders-demonizing all for the actions of a very few.
Blessings,
Bill
sure he said that in post #103, shortly after giving quite a few examples in his previous posts of why he thought that he would do the same thing as they did.
read post #103 in this thread again. He specifically stated that he was playing devil's advocate.
No one is attacking all LEOs. We're only attacking the ones in Tennessee who pull their gun on a scary looking pistol without any report of evidence of wrongdoing.
I am NOT one of your employee's just as I am NOT self employed (I pay the same taxes). However, I do work for the City of Indianapolis but it is not the same as working for any one person. I assure you we do not go around looking for law-abiding people to point our guns at. As to why the second officer did what he did...I have no idea. NONE of us here know why. We can guess or make assumptions but that is the extent of it. We (fellow LEO's) require a bit more than an article to bad mouth a fellow LEO. Why is that? Well I can tell your from first hand knowledge that little that is written about LEO's in the paper is 100% accurate. I ahve even been present when the reportrs are given the information and when I watch it/read about it...it is all wrong. Unfortunately I was on a run that made national news. Geez you want to talk about people wanting blood from us and another city agency as a result. I was a bit upset when people come to me assuming I (or the other officer) did something wrong and that we were the bad guys. We did everything right and to the best of our ability and the news twisted it horrorbly. So NO I do not like taking news stories involving LEO's at face value. I know that in many instances there are details that the newsies leave out thinking they are not important but in reality could make a big difference in how the story is perceived. I have no idea if this is the case in this instance and so that is why I am holding off my judgement. Frankly, you guys don't need my help finding any faults...there are more than enough people here doing just that.
One of the great values Denny brings to this forum is a thoughtful LEO perspective.
I am hard on the LEO profession simply because they are our employees (collectively, of course) and because we bestow great power to them. That power should invite a lot of scrutiny, making a thick skin a requirement for the job. They deserve our thanks, limited by the knowledge that they stood in line to get the job. I'll say the same thing about my 11 years of military service. When I've been thanked it's nice and it's appreciated, but I always say that I got everything out of my service that I put in to it - more even - and therefore it doesn't make me anything special.
When we hear of a guy being detained for carrying legally, we in the passionate gun-owner community rightly perk up our ears and start looking for what went wrong - as we should. What Denny and some other thoughtful LEOs (not all, some are knee-jerk in their defense of their brothers) do for this forum is to point out the things we might not think about, and also the rock and hard place into which we force our LEOs. Imagine the outcry if the cops had seen this guy and didn't even question him, and then he had shot up the park. Heads would roll. Now, I'm not saying he should have been detained for hours, but I do think his appearance could reasonably have justified some police contact. Perhaps - since we don't know for sure - perhaps that contact provided justification for his detention. We don't know quite yet, which again, is what Denny points out.
All that said, I've heard enough from some LEOs on this and other sites to believe that there is a an LEO contingent out there who might stop and detain this guy for less than what we would consider to be justifiable reasons. That's why an incident like this deserves a lot of scrutiny.
Cops have it tough. I wouldn't want the job, but then, I didn't compete for it against hundreds of other applicants. Part of the job is to deal with the second-guessing and monday-morning-quarterbacking.
I for one am glad to see Denny mixing it up instead of getting irritated and moving on. We can benefit from his insights as we continue to ask tough questions, argue, and make high demands of our LEOs.
TN LEO's handled it as well as could be expected.
Aight. I'll do this because I don't think the TN LEO's were that out of line if at all. That being said if you can't handle civil debate don't bother replying to this.
I'll defend the TN LEO's in this case.
I'll do so issue by issue with you if you like.
There were reports. Sheeple made MWAG reports about him. Was he wrong? No but they reported him thinking he was.
"A man carrying an AK-47-style semiautomatic pistol was detained at Radnor Lake State Park on Sunday after startled hikers complained to park rangers."
Source:Associated Press Man with AK-47-style gun detained in Nashville park, then let go | theleafchronicle.com | The Leaf Chronicle
Know one knows if the ranger who approached him with the shotgun drawn "KNEW" that the firearm that Leonard Embody was carrying was indeed a pistol and legal for him to be carrying.
Source : State Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Tisha Calabrese-Benton said Embody was detained by park police because his weapon looked like a rifle.
Man With AK-47-Style Gun In Park Detained, Let Go - NewsChannel 5.com - Nashville, Tennessee -
These are (presumably) Embody's own words:
"I think they handled it as well as could be expected."
Source : detained in a TN State Park for 2.5 hours nearly arrested because cops don't know definition pistol - Tennessee - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum
Aight. I'll do this because I don't think the TN LEO's were that out of line if at all. That being said if you can't handle civil debate don't bother replying to this.
I'll defend the TN LEO's in this case.
I'll do so issue by issue with you if you like.
There were reports. Sheeple made MWAG reports about him. Was he wrong? No but they reported him thinking he was.
"A man carrying an AK-47-style semiautomatic pistol was detained at Radnor Lake State Park on Sunday after startled hikers complained to park rangers."
Source:Associated Press Man with AK-47-style gun detained in Nashville park, then let go | theleafchronicle.com | The Leaf Chronicle
Know one knows if the ranger who approached him with the shotgun drawn "KNEW" that the firearm that Leonard Embody was carrying was indeed a pistol and legal for him to be carrying.
Source : State Department of Environment and Conservation spokeswoman Tisha Calabrese-Benton said Embody was detained by park police because his weapon looked like a rifle.
Man With AK-47-Style Gun In Park Detained, Let Go - NewsChannel 5.com - Nashville, Tennessee -
These are (presumably) Embody's own words:
"I think they handled it as well as could be expected."
Source : detained in a TN State Park for 2.5 hours nearly arrested because cops don't know definition pistol - Tennessee - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum
Not sure but I believe carrying a loaded rifle in the park would be illegal because of this:
39-17-1311. Carrying weapons on public parks, playgrounds, civic centers and other public recreational buildings and grounds. —
All firearms used to be against the law and it was amended to allow permit holders to possess a "handgun". So I would presume the possession of a rifle there would still be illegal.
(Presumably) Embody's own words:
"They tried to charge me with 39-17-1311 which prohibits rifles in parks."
Source: (this isn't fact just someone, presumably Embody's, thoughts on opencarry.org) detained in a TN State Park for 2.5 hours nearly arrested because cops don't know definition pistol - Tennessee - Stories From The States - OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum
Heres what allowed him to carry the pistol: (the ammendment to 39-17-1311)
http://state.tn.us/sos/acts/106/pub/pc0428.pdf
From: Tennessee State Parks: Policies (Not a perfect .gov source but spells it out the rules (law?) in plain english)
Firearms, traps and other weapons
Exceptions to weapons prohibition provided below.
In park, natural, and historical areas the use of traps, seines, handthrown spears, nets (except landing nets), firearms (including air and gas powered pistols and rifles), blow guns, bows and arrows or crossbows, and any other implements designed to discharge missiles in the air or under the water which are capable of destroying animal life is prohibited. The possession of such objects or implements is prohibited unless they are unloaded and adequately cased, or broken down or otherwise packed in such a way as to prevent their use while in the park areas.
- Exception 1: Shooters may use recreational target shooting ranges available for skeet, trap and bow and arrow target shooting within a park area as long as these weapons are properly cased when not on the range.
- Exception 2: Authorized Federal, State, County and City law enforcement officers may carry firearms in the performance of their official duties.
- Exception 3: Persons using park area facilities while participating in authorized open or managed hunts within the park areas or beyond, may use and possess firearms under the specific rules and regulations pertaining to the authorized hunt and only in the authorized hunting zones or compartments.
- Exception 4: While State Parks' rules and regulations prohibit firearm possession and use, Public Chapter 428 of 2009 created an exception in state firearms law that allows individuals with a valid "carry permit" under TCA § 39-17-1351 to carry a handgun within the boundaries of all state parks. While this new law makes an exception for possession, it does not make exception to the use of a firearm. Discharging a weapon in non-designated areas of our parks is still an offense. If a permit holder fires a weapon in self-defense, the holder bears the burden of proof to avoid potential charges under "prohibited firearm use."
"I am NOT one of your employee's"
This was really the only line in your reply that I don't agree with. Because you are my (an IN and US tax payer) employee. If you aren't working for the citizens, then can I ask you, who do you believe you are working for? Not to mention the fact that we (tax payers) pay for your entire paycheck.
As far as the rest of your reply goes, I couldn't agree more. We all saw how the idiots at the news channel messed up everything about the story. They called it a sawed off assault rifle and said he was suing the department, when he said he was not. It was obviously also not an AK47 assault rifle with a sawed off barrel "to accommodate TN law". If they can mess up that much information over such a short story I don't trust them to get anything right. I can imagine some of the false information news organizations have said about your profession. I don't think they leave the facts out because they deem them unimportant though. I think they leave the facts out because it makes for a more interesting story. Then more people watch or read their stupid story that turned out to be completely wrong.
This was really the only line in your reply that I don't agree with. Because you are my (an IN and US tax payer) employee. If you aren't working for the citizens, then can I ask you, who do you believe you are working for? Not to mention the fact that we (tax payers) pay for your entire paycheck.
As far as the rest of your reply goes, I couldn't agree more. We all saw how the idiots at the news channel messed up everything about the story. They called it a sawed off assault rifle and said he was suing the department, when he said he was not. It was obviously also not an AK47 assault rifle with a sawed off barrel "to accommodate TN law". If they can mess up that much information over such a short story I don't trust them to get anything right. I can imagine some of the false information news organizations have said about your profession. I don't think they leave the facts out because they deem them unimportant though. I think they leave the facts out because it makes for a more interesting story. Then more people watch or read their stupid story that turned out to be completely wrong.
Yes I do agree with almost everything in this. I do work for all of us (fellow citizens including myself and even those who do not pay taxes) but I was trying to make the point that I do not work for you as a person much like an employee works for a boss. I agree 100% that I work for the citizens and derive my LE powers from the same. However, the difference is that I do not take orders from my fellow citizens like an employee does with their boss. Some people believe that (not here, but in general) and I do tire of hearing the "You will do this or that becuse I pay your salary" line. Ugh Other than that, we are on the same page.
Site Supporter
Members online
- Doug28450
- gpasp101
- BigMoose
- Jin
- Lefty Lawless
- sixGuns
- wtfd661
- sp3worker
- cubby
- Godbybe
- UNCLE HARLEY
- DoggyDaddy
- Ingomike
- ancjr
- HKFaninCarmel
- mondoreli
- Brian Ski
- edwea
- Simon6101
- Ford Truck
- sadclownwp
- EPeter213
- indyjohn
- kjdoski
- will56
- Hoosier Carry
- brchixwing
- Glock22
- wildcatfan
- KG1
- Revdev86
- 10mm
- knutty
- dwagner3701
- COOPADUP
- markiemark
- Keith_Indy
- indyblue
- gdun67
- Wolfhound
- OD*
- Ascank001
- Butch627
- steelhead
- adam
- Miketodd
- wtburnette
- hans1911
- Tryin'
- Bigdee06