“Idiots”
From the not helpful files, Leonard Embody comments:
I recently bought a bullet proof vest to protect me from idiots who would shoot law abiding citizens.
Well, I tend to avoid being placed in such situations by, say, not walking through parks with AK-47s. YMMV.
December 15th, 2011 at 1:09 pm
So many responses to this one, so little time…
December 15th, 2011 at 1:45 pm
With “friends” like these…
December 15th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
He ain’t a friend.
His own statements paint him as an anti-gun troll trying to cause problems.
He is either a complete nincompoop, or a brave anti-gun person.
I’ll have to go with nincompoop, for now.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
That post was a result of Wizard PC saying that he had the legal right to kill him according to Tennessee law which is complete bullshit of course. Even in Tennessee you have to be breaking a law in order to be killed.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
I doubt that the vest is “bullet proof.” Does it have ceramic inserts?
December 15th, 2011 at 2:13 pm
John, I suggest you go back and read THE ACTUAL LAW which I posted.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I did.. If the cops cannot find a reason to legally kill him then you most certainly cannot…
December 15th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
By the way. Is that how you propose to handle all those you disagree with? By trying to find a legal way to kill them? Perhaps I should watch my back lest I violate your de facto laws…
December 15th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
How many people here think that Murdering Embody was legally justified??? Just because you object to a mans LEGAL methods does not mean you have the right to kill him in cold blood… The park rangers and the cops all agreed he was within his legal rights.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:40 pm
I think you could debate this one till the cows come home.They should have atleast used rubber bullets on his face.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:45 pm
Yeah, it’s like talking to a wall. It’s really hard for someone who isn’t a reasonable person to understand what a reasonable person thinks.
And apparently calling someone who disagrees with you a murderer is a good tactic in some places. The things you learn on the internet.
December 15th, 2011 at 2:50 pm
Who here thinks they could have legally murdered Embody??? I only see one taker…
December 15th, 2011 at 3:29 pm
If it’s legal it ain’t murder, John.
Funny thing about “murder”. It’s a legal term, it turns out. Means a very specific sort of unlawful killing.
And if it’s legally justified it’s not legally murder. You might decide it’s morally “murder”, in the non-legal sense and call it that, but nobody else is obliged to agree with your judgment, and can just as plausibly say it’s not morally murder at all.
So all you have there is “I say it’s murder”. Which is, you know, not real convincing on its face; making an argument to support that moral judgment would help.
(Over there in that other thread, Wizard said “The standard is whether a reasonable person would be afraid for their life” (speaking of when you can lawfully shoot in self defense).
Contra claims made above, here, that is absolutely correct as per the Tennessee Code, though it doesn’t use those words.
TN Code 39-11-611: “[…] a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury;
(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.”
If a reasonable person is afraid for his life, that satisfies A, B, and C quite handily.
Those could be satisfied without a reasonable person being in fear of his life (such as merely being in fear of serious injury), but I see no way that a reasonable man, in honest fear for his life, would not be legally justified under that statute.
The only remaining question is whether or not his presence in such a condition would cause a reasonable person to be in fear of him acting in a way that would endanger the reasonable person’s life.
It is not obvious that the answer must be no, despite it also being legal to dress like that and carry that gun like that, in themselves.)
December 15th, 2011 at 4:47 pm
…all y’all are forgetting that the wearing of a bullet-resistant vest simply makes the sniper shoot at your HEAD, and that is the message to take home from this strange thread.
December 15th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
So you are saying sigi when a man who is not breaking the law is gunned down by a man who “ASSumed” he is there is no recourse?? Try that in court and see what happens. I could see it now. I was afraid of an nonspecific threat that could possibly happen because a man looked scary according to all the Hollywood movies I watch… That is what a pathetic argument sounds like. Being scary is not against the law too bad we have to say the same for Cowardice….
Supposedly we mock police that shoot first and ask questions later. Lets try not being like that.. We don’t want the Bradys to be right do we???
December 15th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
As a former defensive back, I always focus on the beltline when I’m stressed. It’s the lowest, most stable mass, and won’t lie to you about which direction your opponent is going. I suspect if I ever got into a fracas involving gunplay that it is this region of my opponent that would be in the most danger, simply out of instinct.
I’m not aware of much in the way of civilian body armor that is designed for a magazine’s worth of Hydra-Shoks or Gold Dots aimed at the pelvic girdle.
I suppose I should get more training so that I learn to shoot center mass of the chest like everyone else, but I suspect it will be a hard habit to break.
Good luck with that body armor, bub.
December 15th, 2011 at 5:26 pm
Is his suit not the very essence of Libertarianism? It’s all about me?
I would think Mr. Embody would be applauded here.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:21 pm
You are dead on Shootin buddy. You would think that if there were libertarians here.. Fact is they are just bombastic posers. Some people pretend to be libertarians because they delusionally think it is cool. Others live it.
December 15th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
As I said in the previous thread, if I see someone wearing body armor and a fully-packed chest rig toting an AR-15, I will view him/her as a potential active shooter, and respond accordingly. And I say that as someone with firmly-established open carry “creds”.
December 15th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
Linoge that sounds like you want to pull a Jose Guerena…
December 15th, 2011 at 7:28 pm
John Smith, and its perfectly legal to carry a great big sign that says “This is a holdup” into a bank. That doesn’t mean I’m not going to draw on that person either.
December 15th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Wow. Just wow. That pathetic attempt at an analogy is such a massive pile of suck and fail it would almost be insulting to all of the trolls of the intertubes to call it trolling… but, sadly, that is, indeed, the most accurate word to describe it.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Hmm, what happens the next time Linoge sees a SWAT team deploy?
December 15th, 2011 at 8:24 pm
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r226/kwikrnu/iiiaresizedwithsilencer.jpg
Open carry of a handgun with an attached silencer, wearing a chest rig and a ballistic vest is lawful. I’d rather not wear a vest, but with so many idiots out there intent on murder I have no other choice.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Embody is to “Open Carry” what the Westboro Baptists are to “Free Speech”.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:32 pm
8/9 justices sided with westboro…
December 15th, 2011 at 8:35 pm
Yep, Embody, you just keep telling yourself that.
And by the way, that comment only confirms the opinion floating around that you are just out trying to make a buck in the same sick way as Westboro.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:37 pm
I wouldn’t have a case if cops hadn’t deprived me of fundamental civil rights.
December 15th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
I back away quickly and get the hell out of Dodge, which falls under the “respond accordingly” heading.
Boy, the trolls sure are eager to make baseless assumptions and insinuations tonight!
December 15th, 2011 at 9:06 pm
Linoge you ASSume you would be able to do anything to stop a rifle armed, body armor equipped lawfully equipped citizen….. Ironically if you drew down and he shot you he too would be justified because you were trying to murder him if we go by the Wizard Pc logic…
December 15th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
The difference between me and quite a few other posters simple.
I advocate shooting once a person has proven themselves to be a criminal.
The others advocate shooting a person because they might be a criminal.
December 15th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
25.SPQR Says:
December 15th, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Embody is to “Open Carry” what the Westboro Baptists are to “Free Speech”.
SPQR wins!
Listen, son, we are trying to help you. We are advocates of allowing citizens to carry guns to protect themselves and their loved ones. But you are truly screwing up the way civilization works. If popular support skews away from OC, then laws will be enacted that make it illegal. Don’t scare people. I don’t care if you humming the Mission Impossible theme and carrying an airsoft gun, you are looking to get hurt acting like that and you damn well know it. OC with a handgun. Let the people in your community get used to it. Let them acclimate to OC. Don’t just go grocery shopping at WalMart with an AK and act like you own the moral high-ground when security overreacts.
December 15th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
You are correct sid. Time needs to be given for adaption. Of course that is not what the discussions have been about on these articles. It is about whether if you saw Embody could you legally shoot him because he looks scary…
December 15th, 2011 at 9:28 pm
Open carry is not a new idea in Tennessee. From 1871 to 1989 open carry in the hand was the only exception for the carry of a handgun. Open carry is a long standing tradition in Tennessee. People have been prosecuted for concealing handguns in Tennessee. Honorable men open carry. 🙂
Senator Henry thinks open carry of the army or navy in the hand is honorable.
December 15th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
Ah, so now comes the armchair mall-ninja-ing. I assumed no such thing, John, because I said no such thing. In fact, you and the rest of your troll buddies are the only folks assuming anything in this thread.
In fact, it seems to be a relatively consistent bug amongst Embody and his facilitators that they are physically incapable of comprehending basic, written English. Do we need to start employing monosyllabic words?
December 15th, 2011 at 9:40 pm
It says a lot when people can only criticize my language capabilities and not my application of the rule of law… Golf clap to you linoge for your sparkling gesture of trying to humiliate me.. Your superior mockery impresses me and others no doubt…
December 15th, 2011 at 10:10 pm
Like Bob Owens I like to fixate on the pelvic area. Go ahead, protect that. 🙂
December 15th, 2011 at 11:24 pm
You can look, but don’t touch, I’m not into that.
December 16th, 2011 at 4:30 am
Mr Embody please stop shitting on the second amendment for your personal amusement.
December 16th, 2011 at 8:58 am
I’m exercising th 2A, Alan Gura and the SAF have shit on it.
December 16th, 2011 at 10:28 am
I think they have forced places to expand its coverage. After 100 years of bad progressive law, we need to unravel and work it back.
All of us.
But, you cant go jumping way ahead of the line of scrimmage, it only makes you get a penalty.
December 16th, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Embody: When the state of Tennessee passes a law banning OC in parks because of this incident, I will always think of you, nincompoop.
Do me a favor, and stop being on my side. Go join the victim-disarmament crowd. You have done a lot for them already.
December 16th, 2011 at 5:19 pm
The SAF and Alan Gura are the victim disarmament crowd. You sound as if you need to join them.
December 16th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
I think this thread is handling this incident all wrong.
We should be encouraging “kwikrnu” to strut publicly around more often in his battle-rattle with his “disguised” rifle.
My guess is that were he to take very many more such outings, he would end up with a toe-tag, then that would be the end of the issue with him, wouldn’t it?
December 17th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Rivrdog, well the Westboro Baptist business model does require heirs with standing to sue in those circumstances …