Posted on 08/10/2019 12:55:54 PM PDT by old-ager
I’ve received a lot of requests to comment on the recent arrest of a man who walked into a Springfield MO Walmart carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, and packing over 100 rounds of ammunition (all that according to news reports, of course). The man was held by gunpoint by another patron of the store, an off-duty firefighter, and turned over to responding Springfield police a few minutes later.
The most common question sent my way is whether the patron who held the rifle-armed man at gunpoint did so unlawfully—what was the patron’s legal justification for threatening deadly force against the rifle-armed man, given that purportedly there’s no specific Missouri law against shopping at Walmart while armed with a rifle, wearing body armor, and armed with lots of ammo?
(Excerpt) Read more at lawofselfdefense.com ...
From the article”
“In short, anyone who is exercising their Second Amendment rights on the basis of MUAH RAHTS!!!11!!!” and in such a way that the actual and reasonably foreseeable effect is to undermine generalized political support for the Second Amendment is no genuine friend of the Second Amendment. They are, rather, engaged in self-serving, attention-grabbing behavior that is detrimental to the Second Amendment. They are no ally of the Second Amendment, and no friend of mine.”
It was a stupid thing to do.
Thanks for sharing this informative article.
Good article!
Like Plugs Biden, Andreychenko isn’t playing with a full deck either.
Good info on the aspects of this case. Note that nowhere were firearms laws mentioned. The gist of this case is did Andreychencko INTEND to scare people? As stated, a jury will have to figure that out.
Golly, I saw a bedraggled, hairy, dirty biker looking man in another Walmart yesterday, not 70 miles from Springfield, and this guy was carry a big knife and a 1911 openly. He had at least 21 rounds on him too.... Should I have called the law? No, the assumption had to be that he intended no harm was being reasonable in his conduct and certainly not intending to deliver a terroristic threat...
I think these similar examples will be presented to the jury and they will have to determine if a clean cut but camo’ed guy with a rifle hanging freely in front of him ( slung, not in his hands) and body armor ( I was wearing concealed armor and a 1911 and a fighting knife when I witnessed the gent I described). What will the outcome be? We shall see, in about a year or two most likely..,
Regarding the good CCW citizen ( won’t call him a Fireman as he was not doing his job, just like if I was the CCW guy, would the press call me a retired combat infantryman/Sapper / firearms instructor or just a middle aged guy with a CCW?) will he walk away w/o issue? If Andreychenko is convicted, probably, if acquitted, maybe not- civilly at least.
Open carry is BLING (and stupid) ... it helps nothing except the false ego of the doer.
I live in Springfield, where this event took place. I’ve very often seen open carriers in Wal-Marts. I pretty much agree with you calling it bling, though I never objected to it. Now, because of this event I suspect a lot of open carriers will start concealing. A silver lining perhaps.
It mentions the intentional scare factor so that brings in the Walmart manager who pulled the fire alarm and yelled for everyone to get out.
The guy was videoing himself so that would tell the prosecutors and jury his intent.
That was NOT body armor.
It was a basic molle vest. Most likely a cheap airsoft vest.
What an idiotic comment.
His defense.....
I’m dumber than Forrest Gump, but I paid for this gun and all this gear myself. I needed something from Walmart and was just making sure that I could protect myself in the event that a guy came in shooting like in El Paso. Sorry if I scared anyone. I won’t do it again, I promise.
Case closed.
I doubt a jury would see it that way. He’d have a better chance with a bench trial. He has an excellent attorney. This is a VERY pro-2A town but he pissed off a lot of people.
I was at the gas pump that day wonderong why a man was on his knees with cops and fire trucks.
The fire trucks confused me. Being right after the murder spree on el paso.. I high tailed it home.
Open praying is BLING (and stupid) ... it helps nothing except the false ego of the doer.
Women not covering their faces is BLING (and stupid) ... it helps nothing except the false ego of the doer.
Driving a convertible with the top down is BLING (and stupid) ... it helps nothing except the false ego of the doer.
Wearing an NFL team jersey is BLING (and stupid) ... it helps nothing except the false ego of the doer.
Wearing a ball cap to cover thinning hair is BLING (and stupid) ... it helps nothing except the false ego of the doer.
Open carry of a copy of the Constitution is BLING (and stupid) ... it helps nothing except the false ego of the doer.
I hadn’t looked close, but saw one bad pic where I thought that might have been the case. Thanks.
I’m a huge 2A fan. I even think felons who have completed their parole/probation should have all their 2A rights restored.
And I think the states have it exactly backwards. Concealed carry should require no permit. Open carry should require a permit.
I liken it to the 1A right to possess erotica (porno). You want to look at dirty pictures, and carry them around with you? Well then, go right ahead. That’s your right. But you don’t - or shouldn’t - have the right to pin those dirty pictures on your shirt, then go walking around stores, parks, etc.
Did he have the rifle in his hands or slung over his back?
If in hands, it’s brandishing.
We will be able to open carry when guns are designed the way Steve Jobs made computers attractive for women with the iphone. Until then the gun culture will fight a counter current risking alienating people the way mainframe computers or command line dos machines intimidated, bored and annoyed women, relegating it to a cryptic male hobby
Thanks. The article DOES mention Missouri self-defense law, especially where it analyzes whether the concealed guy responded legally. The analysis is based on Missouri and common law that the response can be justified if he reasonably _thought_ there was a threat of deadly force.
The article also completely decouples the legality of the rifle carrier’s actions and those of the concealed handgun carrier.
Legality of response not tied to legality or illegality of the initial action! (perception of threat — see above)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.