kwikrnu lost his lawsuit against State of TN Unconstitutionality of HCP law

[Ponch]

It is as easy to find people who will testify that they reasonabley understand it to refer to a class of firearms that include pistols. Next?

You honestly don't understand how the law works in this regard. It doesn't matter that other reasonable people would do differently. The law exonerates you is some reasonable people would do the same. That's it. There are always more than one reasonable option. All you have to do is pick one of the reasonable choices available to you, and the law can't touch you.

You argue that it was reasonable to believe Embody. Sure it was! That's fine. But it doesn't matter, because it was also reasonable to disbelieve him. So disbelieving him was reasonable. Was it the best choice? Who knows--but it was a reasonable choice, so the rangers are protected.

Yet it is entirely valid to agree that the frame of an AK-style firearm can be either a pistol or a rifle. It isn't limited to one or the other.

Doesn't matter. It's equally reasonable to suspect that the Draco is an NFA weapon, since it is superficially indistinguishable from one. It would be inaccurate, and not the best choice, but that doesn't matter: all the rangers need to do is make A reasonable choice.

Then it is entirely as valid to infer that the statement "it is an AK-47" was not referring to a rifle, as "people lie."

That's correct. So the rangers could have believed it was a pistol and disbelieved that "AK-47" refers to a rifle, and been perfectly reasonable. They could also disbelieve that it was a pistol and believe that "AK-47" does refer to a rifle, and be equally reasonable. Which means they can pick whichever of those options they like, and you can't complain: either way they are acting reasonably. And since they picked A reasonable option, they're covered.

Why do you keep arguing that they had other reasonable options? We know they did. The whole point of the "reasonable man" test is that we realize there are always multiple options. And as long as you pick one of the reasonable ones, others aren't allowed to second-guess you.

So, which unsupported (at the incident time) do you claim is not acceptable?

BOTH! The rangers can take their pick, and you can't touch them. Since both are reasonable, they can pick the one they prefer. It's entirely up to the ranger. They're covered whichever way they go. Do you get it?

Yet you are willing to accept that LE should believe ONE of his statement, yet not believe the other. :banghead:

I don't give a damn which one they believe. Either way they're acting reasonably. So when they say, "I believed X and disbelieved Y," they're in the clear: they acted reasonably. If they said instead, "I disbelieved X and believed Y," they're still in the clear: they still acted reasonably. They're free to believe whichever bits they like. There simply is no wrong answer here, which is why they can't be sued successfully, unless a good lawyer flimflams a gullible jury.

This is the problem. I understand that the two statements may seem to be mutually exclusive at the onset. So do you. I also accept that the reasonable person test can provide EITHER outcome. You do not.

I do understand it: IT'S MY ENTIRE POINT. Since either decision was reasonable, you can't fault the rangers for the one they decided to pick. That's how the "reasonable man" test works.

Why are you having so much trouble grasping this?

 

[wrightme]

Of course! And it would be unreasonable to believe things they tell you: this forum is rife with examples of cops giving misinformation they believed or simply lying.



It doesn't seem like you understand how the law works. It doesn't matter that a different reasonable person would do differently than you, as long as some reasonable people would do the same as you. It's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve Embody, so legally the rangers can't be blamed for disbelieving him, period. It's also reasonable to suspect the Draco is an NFA weapon, since it's superficially indistinguishable from an NFA weapon, so legally the rangers can't be blamed for suspecting it.

The reasonable man test has nothing to do with being right, or making the very best choice, or anything else. If the entire situation were reversed, and the rangers accepted Embody's explanation and let him go, they would be legally protected by the reasonable man test--even if it WAS an NFA weapon and Embody then mowed down a crowd on full-auto. They would be protected by having acted reasonably despite being dead wrong.

Some reasonable men would believe him; some reasonable men would not. Accusing them of civil or criminal wrongdoing in that case is a non-starter, because they did what a reasonable man would do. They had a choice to believe him or not, and either way the "reasonable man" standard protects them, because both choices were reasonable.

Yet you seem fine with accusing a citizen of wrongdoing based upon the statements of a citizen, solely because a citizen might lie.

Why are you willing to only accept the view of LE?

 

[wrightme]

You honestly don't understand how the law works in this regard. It doesn't matter that other reasonable people would do differently. The law exonerates you is some reasonable people would do the same. That's it. There are always more than one reasonable option. All you have to do is pick one of the reasonable choices available to you, and the law can't touch you.?

As I mentioned, it is both ways. you only want it one way.

The portion in bold has not been a position I hold.

As for the "it doesn't matter that other reasonable people would do it differently," look at your next statement.
"The law exonerates you if some reasonable people would do the same." That applies to Kwik also, NOT just to the LE.

The point is, you are focused on Kwik being wrong, as opposed to giving HIM the benefit of the same tests which you are willing to apply to LE.

 

[Ponch]

Yet you seem fine with accusing a citizen of wrongdoing based upon the statements of a citizen, solely because a citizen might lie.

No, I'm not accusing anyone of wrongdoing. I'm saying the rangers were acting reasonably in suspecting wrongdoing, and they would have been acting reasonably had they not suspected it. They would be acting reasonably either way. And that's enough to constitute reasonable suspicion.

It's pretty important for everyone, but especially gun owners, to understand how reasonable suspicion works. If you have a suspicion, you can articulate why you have it, and what you articulate is reasonable, then you have reasonable articulable suspicion. You do NOT need to have proof; you do NOT need to give anyone the benefit of the doubt; you do NOT need a "preponderance of the evidence"; you do NOT need your suspicion to be more than 50% likely. You ONLY need to have a reasonable reason that you can articulate.

What's coming through in this thread is that people really don't understand how low that bar is. It doesn't matter whether the cop is right or wrong. It doesn't matter whether there's a likelier explanation. It doesn't matter whether his suspicion is the MOST reasonable conclusion. It doesn't require proof or even evidence. It doesn't even require probable cause. All it has to do is be reasonable and articulable.

 

[Grapeshot]

It was suggested and ignored that this be taken to PM - is thread lock your goal?

 

[Ponch]

As I mentioned, it is both ways. you only want it one way.

You seem to think that when a cop says, "You may be committing a crime," that it's a defense to reply, "Oh ho! But I may NOT be committing a crime!"

That's now how it works. The law allows the LEO to detain someone if he has reasonable, articulable suspicion. You don't seem to understand what that means. Citizens do not have an equal and opposite right not to be detained if there's a reasonable chance they're not doing anything wrong. There's no such thing as "benefit of the doubt" here: if the LEO has a suspicion, and it's reasonable, and he can articulate it, he can stop you. It doesn't matter whether another explanation is even more reasonable. It doesn't matter whether his suspicion is true. He doesn't need proof, and he doesn't need a preponderance of the evidence.

This is not a matter of opinion. How RAS works is a matter of established fact you can go look up.

"The law exonerates you if some reasonable people would do the same." That applies to Kwik also, NOT just to the LE.

Embody isn't even on trial, so he doesn't need to be exonerated. You're really confused. Embody is accusing the cops of improperly stopping him. He has to prove them guilty; the accused is always presumed innocent. Embody is not accused of anything in the first place: the rangers let him go without even charging him.

The point is, you are focused on Kwik being wrong, as opposed to giving HIM the benefit of the same tests which you are willing to apply to LE.

Embody is the accuser. The accuser doesn't get benefit of the doubt, and he doesn't need benefit of the doubt.

 

[wrightme]

It was suggested and ignored that this be taken to PM - is thread lock your goal?

Frankly, I do not care either way. Is it your intent to moderate the discussion into a direction of your choice?

 

[wrightme]

You seem to think that when a cop says, "You may be committing a crime," that it's a defense to reply, "Oh ho! But I may NOT be committing a crime!"

That's now how it works. The law allows the LEO to detain someone if he has reasonable, articulable suspicion. You don't seem to understand what that means. .

You seem to purposely claim that i do not understand the specifics, or the law. You are wrong.

You keep forgetting ONE specific, that even Kwik is "innocent until proven guilty." In his exchange, you keep pointing to ONE statement of his, alleging that it is correct, and ONE other statement of his, alleging that it isn't (in the eyes of a "reasonable" person). In this specific, it HAS been shown that the "reasonable person" might view it either way. it isn't just the ONE way you choose to deny Kwik's argument.


As for kwik needing to prove there are guilty, Yes. But, to have his stop be lawful, you must also make the test. You are stubbornly ignoring that specific.

But, i do see that you are completely decided, no matter what others say. Why is that?

 

[JamesCanby]

It was suggested and ignored that this be taken to PM - is thread lock your goal?

Like so many threads in here, this one reminds me of the classic Star Trek episode, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."

ETA: http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Let_That_Be_Your_Last_Battlefield_(episode)

Time to lock the thread...

 

[wrightme]

Like so many threads in here, this one reminds me of the classic Star Trek episode, "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."

Time to lock the thread...

To those not interested in reading or partakiing in this exchange, there has never been ANY requirement for you to either read or post in it. Can you not ignore the topics you do not desire to read?