Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
All The Open Carry Folks wanted a court decision......
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="henschman" data-source="post: 1889479" data-attributes="member: 4235"><p>Well I hope to god the Supreme Court doesn't take this on cert. It is a very poorly set up test case. To have the best chance of a positive outcome, a test case needs to be set up very carefully with a sympathetic defendant -- which Mr. Embody is decidedly not. Glocktogo is right -- he sounds like a pure attention seeker, rather than someone who is actually trying to advance the cause of liberty through a test case. If that was his intent, he went about it in a very poor manner by introducing extra BS that could create reasonable suspicion and make him less sympathetic, like the camo, orange flash hider, and choosing a gun that is so close to the legal length limit. </p><p></p><p>Personally I actually agree that there was RS present here, but not for the reason the Court said... to me, the facts all add up to a reasonable person thinking that the guy is a nut-job, and I think there would be reasonable suspicion that he is about to shoot the place up, which was obviously the worry of the people who called the cops. Also, in this situation, the disarmament could be justified by RS that he is armed and dangerous, since there are actually facts that would tend to support a belief that he is more dangerous than your average lawfully carrying gun owner. It is actually very similar to the situation in the original <em>Terry v. Ohio</em> case, in which a cop saw a guy with a trench coat with a big bulge under it loitering around a convenience store entrance, and the Court found that it was justified to stop him due to reasonable suspicion that he was about to rob the place, and that he was justified in frisking and disarming him based on a reasonable suspicion that he was both armed and dangerous. </p><p></p><p>The RS might be dispelled quickly enough by talking to the guy, once it becomes obvious that he is an activist who is hoping to provoke a police response, but even after releasing him I would still think it would be prudent to have some officers watching him with weapons in hand as long as he stays out in public, ready to drop him if he starts to draw a bead on anybody or whatnot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="henschman, post: 1889479, member: 4235"] Well I hope to god the Supreme Court doesn't take this on cert. It is a very poorly set up test case. To have the best chance of a positive outcome, a test case needs to be set up very carefully with a sympathetic defendant -- which Mr. Embody is decidedly not. Glocktogo is right -- he sounds like a pure attention seeker, rather than someone who is actually trying to advance the cause of liberty through a test case. If that was his intent, he went about it in a very poor manner by introducing extra BS that could create reasonable suspicion and make him less sympathetic, like the camo, orange flash hider, and choosing a gun that is so close to the legal length limit. Personally I actually agree that there was RS present here, but not for the reason the Court said... to me, the facts all add up to a reasonable person thinking that the guy is a nut-job, and I think there would be reasonable suspicion that he is about to shoot the place up, which was obviously the worry of the people who called the cops. Also, in this situation, the disarmament could be justified by RS that he is armed and dangerous, since there are actually facts that would tend to support a belief that he is more dangerous than your average lawfully carrying gun owner. It is actually very similar to the situation in the original [I]Terry v. Ohio[/I] case, in which a cop saw a guy with a trench coat with a big bulge under it loitering around a convenience store entrance, and the Court found that it was justified to stop him due to reasonable suspicion that he was about to rob the place, and that he was justified in frisking and disarming him based on a reasonable suspicion that he was both armed and dangerous. The RS might be dispelled quickly enough by talking to the guy, once it becomes obvious that he is an activist who is hoping to provoke a police response, but even after releasing him I would still think it would be prudent to have some officers watching him with weapons in hand as long as he stays out in public, ready to drop him if he starts to draw a bead on anybody or whatnot. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
All The Open Carry Folks wanted a court decision......
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
