TN state park OC trouble

[dburkhead]

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.

The business analogy, IMO, would go something like this:

The Citizens are the stockholders. The Mayor, city-county council, et al are the board of directors, upper management, and so on.

 

[antsi]

Another thought on this - a lot of people have been criticizing the 2.5 hours duration of detention. I think to some extent the guy may have brought this on himself.

It is a bit disingenuous to go out and pull a stunt like this, knowing he is going to attract a lot of attention, and then complain about how he attracted a lot of attention.

If his object is to go have a walk in the park and be able to defend himself, then he's best advised to carry in a way that is widely recognized as legal (or not recognized at all).

If his object is to go out and make what amounts to a political demonstration by carrying in a way that is guaranteed to attract attention and test everyone's knowledge of what's legal and what isn't, then fine - that's a legitimate thing to do. But if he's doing this, he should realize that he is engaged in a form of political action and he shouldn't complain that he was inconvenienced while taking a simple everyday walk in the park.

 

[Denny347]

The business analogy, IMO, would go something like this:

The Citizens are the stockholders. The Mayor, city-county council, et al are the board of directors, upper management, and so on.

Ugh, never very good in my business 101 class. Guess thats why I'm a cop.

 

[dustjunky2000]

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

OMG WANT!!!!

 

[Kirk Freeman]

widely recognized as legal

Ahhh, so ignorance of the law is now a defense?

Maybe this defense only applies to the police?

Bottom line: police pointed firearms and arrested a man that was obeying the law.

It should at least give one pause and a nice fat federal lawsuit as well.

 

[Wesley929]

Ahhh, so ignorance of the law is now a defense?

Maybe this defense only applies to the police?

Bottom line: police pointed firearms and arrested a man that was obeying the law.

It should at least give one pause and a nice fat federal lawsuit as well.

I believe you are mistaken sir.
The officers were not ignorant of the law at all. We don't know if the only reason he drew his gun was because of how the AK looked but lets assume it was since, by embody's own admission, he's carried (unknown firearm) there before and the ranger that drew on him has seen his permit before. That implies that the ranger who drew on him has seen him in the park before with a firearm, saw his permit, and let him go without any issues.

"This particular ranger has seen me before and has asked to see my TN handgun carry permit." (referring to the ranger who drew a shotgun)
Source: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum50/35503-2.html

We're still assuming the only reason the ranger drew was because of how the firearm looked since there has been no evidence to the contrary. If that is true, I believe the only fault of the ranger, if any whatsoever, is that he couldn't tell Embody's Ak 47 pistol was actually a pistol from an unknown distance when he (alledgedly only person claiming this is Embody although I do think it is true) pointed a shotgun at him.

(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 -) I Posted This Previously


He was never arrested. He did not sign the citation for arrest. He spoke with the supervisor and was released.

(Presumably Embody's own words)
"I also told him if they were going to arrest me to just take me in front of the magistrate right away."
"They released the handcuffs, and gave me back my magazine, ammo, and pistol."
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


I don't understand why you are so adamantly bashing the particular LEO's in this incident. If you're going to take Embody at his word that the ranger "jumped out with a shotgun pointed at me" then I'd think you should also take him at his word that "The only unfortunate thing that has happened is that I was held longer than was necesary."

Why should Embody get a fat lawsuit? No evidence that he was injured. His weapon AND AMMO were returned to him when he was released. He wasn't falsely arrested, there is no evidence of police brutality. What reasons would you possibly sue for? The man was carrying what looked to be an AK 47 rifle slung in front of him. He was dressed in a military issue camo jacket. We don't know what the ranger was told about him prior to rolling up. He was drawn upon, disarmed, detained for 2.5 hours (some at his own request) and then released. The only thing it cost him was 2.5 hours of his time. If it were up to me, which its not, at the absolute most I'd give him 2.5 hours wage but only if he missed work because of it. I think he'll be lucky if he even gets an informal verbal apology.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

We don't know if the only reason he drew his gun was because of how the AK looked but lets assume it was since, by embody's own admission, he's carried (unknown firearm) there before and the ranger that drew on him has seen his permit before.

It matters not. The arrestee was not doing anything that would give rise to a fair probability of a crime.

He was never arrested.

No, he was arrested. As the Supreme Court has held, when police officers point guns at you this is a deprivation of your liberty as you have guns in your face, you are thus under arrest.

I don't understand why you are so adamantly bashing the particular LEO's in this incident.

No bashing, simply pointing out that the police are endangering lives by pointing guns at people who are not violating the law and merely exercising their civil rights.

The South has a history of violating an individual's civil rights. It must not be allowed to continue.

Why should Embody get a fat lawsuit? No evidence that he was injured.

Because his civil rights were violated by being unreasonably seized.

His injury is the violation of his civil right to be free from unreasonable ssizure as §1983 makes clear.

The only thing it cost him was 2.5 hours of his time

It cost him his civil rights. That's an enormous injury to many of us.

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[Wesley929]

It matters not. The arrestee was not doing anything that would give rise to a fair probability of a crime.

The officer thought it was a rifle which possession of such in a TN state park would be a crime.

No, he was arrested. As the Supreme Court has held, when police officers point guns at you this is a deprivation of your liberty as you have guns in your face, you are thus under arrest.

Can you post a link.
I personally still do not consider what happened to Embody an arrest. If you post a link to your source I will read it and get back with you.

No bashing, simply pointing out that the police are endangering lives by pointing guns at people who are not violating the law and merely exercising their civil rights.

Ok bashing was a poorly chosen word. How about "Stongly opinionated against their actions."
It was perceived that he was violating the law. I didn't say he actually was. Only that the officer thought he was. Once determined that he was not violating the law everything was back to normal. Gun and ammo returned and he was released.
Just like the cops seizing a baggy of powdered sugar thinking its cocaine, or getting pulled over because your vehicle matched the description of a stolen one.

The South has a history of violating an individual's civil rights. It must not be allowed to continue.

Many geographical areas have history of things. The generalized geographical location is irrelevant. The laws and the enforcement of them in that exact area for this situation is what we're discussing.


Because his civil rights were violated by being unreasonably seized.

Who determines "unreasonable". (probably in that piece of legislation you dind't link too.) I don't see anything wrong with it and think it was reasonable.

His injury is the violation of his civil right to be free from unreasonable ssizure as §1983 makes clear.


It cost him his civil rights. That's an enormous injury to many of us.

I think this is the piece of legislation you are citing let me know if I'm incorrcect.

US CODE: Title 42,1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights

 

[cce1302]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I've read, carrying a rifle would be illegal in that park. From a distance, or even up close, an AK pistol could reasonably construed to be a rifle by a non-expert in firearms identification, given the fact that it shoots rifle bullets, has a magazine forward of the trigger guard, has an unusually long barrel for a pistol, etc. Seems like fair probability of a crime being committed to me...at least reasonable suspicion sufficient for a detention.

Is it unreasonable to expect that a pistol (as defined by the ATF) be identified (by those who are paid to recognize such things) by it's barrel length of less than 16 inches, and lack of buttstock instead of those attributes that you mentioned that are often shared by pistols and rifles?

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[45Guy]

Moron OC AK pistol in TN park

Clearly this is the type of guy this guy is hurting our ability to keep our second amendment rights and giving the liberals a huge amount of fodder to use in their efforts to eliminate our individual rights. If I knew this clown, I would take him behind the barn and strongly instill in him the errors of his ways.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

reasonable suspicion sufficient for a detention

Again, this was NOT a detention. Pointing guns at a human being is an arrest.

 

[Wesley929]

Again, this was NOT a detention. Pointing guns at a human being is an arrest.

CITE YOUR SOURCE with a link please.

Your statement means nothing to anyone without sources. Your reputation on this forum is very respectable which is why I'm not flat out disagreeing with you and only asking you to cite the source of your information. You may very well be much more knowledgable on the subject than others and myself but how is anyone supposed to know if you don't cite your source.

(Presumably Embody's own words)
"I don't like being detained by cops, but as I understand and have understood from 39-17-1351 detention is legal."
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

I'm still researching the wording of 39-17-1351 and will source exact wording when I find it.
Found it:
(t) Any law enforcement officer of this state or of any county or municipality may, within the realm of the officer's lawful jurisdiction and when the officer is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties, disarm a permit holder at any time when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the permit holder, officer or other individual or individuals. The officer shall return the handgun to the permit holder before discharging the permit holder from the scene when the officer has determined that the permit holder is not a threat to the officer, to the permit holder, or other individual or individuals provided that the permit holder has not violated any provision of this section and provided the permit holder has not committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the permit holder.

Source: Legal Resources

 

[samot]

One little part, like a forward grip, would have changed the AK pistol into an SBR.

Wrong!!! pretty sure Foward grip alone would make it an AOW... its pretty obvious, to me at least, without a stock & having a short barrel = PISTOL

 

[Agent 007]

.

 

[samot]

From a distance, or even up close, an AK pistol could reasonably construed to be a rifle by a non-expert in firearms identification, "

maybe the LEOs should be educated then, because the way you put it , ignorance of the law doesnt apply to LEOs. They were ignorant of the FACT he had a pistol

 

[Wesley929]

maybe the LEOs should be educated then, because the way you put it , ignorance of the law doesnt apply to LEOs. They were ignorant of the FACT he had a pistol

There is a HUGE difference between ignorance, lack of knowledge, and lack of proof.

The root word of ignorance is IGNORE. The officers did not ignore the fact that he had an object resembling a firearm (not known to be a pistol yet). It received quite a bit of attention actually. They did not ignore the law that pistols are legal to carry in the park (as soon as it was verified that it was a pistol it was returned and he was released.)
They thought it was a rifle. Just because Embody said it was a pistol to the first ranger doesn't mean it was (officers are routinely lied to). After verifying that the firearm indeed was a pistol Embody had his pistol and ammo returned to him and was released.

I've sourced all of the information above in my previous posts in this thread.

 

[samot]

There is a HUGE difference between ignorance, lack of knowledge, and lack of proof.

Not if your a civilian, all three can land you in the pokey, but if an LEO lacks proof, lacks knowledge, or is ignorant of the law it just costs the civilian time until the LEOs "figure it out "

 

[hoosiertriangle]

So if a hundred police offices are patrolling the forest, may each of the 100 police offers stop, detain, and investigate this man for over two hours until all 100 individual officers have obtained the facts? Would you find this to acceptable behavior?

There is a HUGE difference between ignorance, lack of knowledge, and lack of proof.

The root word of ignorance is IGNORE. The officers did not ignore the fact that he had an object resembling a firearm (not known to be a pistol yet). It received quite a bit of attention actually. They did not ignore the law that pistols are legal to carry in the park (as soon as it was verified that it was a pistol it was returned and he was released.)
They thought it was a rifle. Just because Embody said it was a pistol to the first ranger doesn't mean it was (officers are routinely lied to). After verifying that the firearm indeed was a pistol Embody had his pistol and ammo returned to him and was released.

I've sourced all of the information above in my previous posts in this thread.