MO: Armed man arrested at Walmart.

[03Lightningrocks]

Andreychenko "referred to the action as a social experiment on how his second amendment right would be respected in a public area." Both his sister and wife stated that they knew about his intent ahead of this event and refused to participate in the juvenile act.

https://www.kspr.com/content/news/Suspe ... 44771.html

There we have it. Pretty stupid considering the timing.

[flechero]

I wonder how he [the idiot in question] would have reacted if I adorned body armor a ski mask and had a long gun at the ready, Pistol OC'd and went to his door to borrow a cup of sugar... in the name of a social experiment, of course

He'd be justifying the shoot about now.

His mother must have sniffed glue while pregnant... or he really is mentally defective.

[Excaliber]

As I predicted, more sober analysis is suggesting that no laws were actually broken (remembering that stupidity itself isn't illegal) and he may very well walk when the DA thinks this one over. Details here.

[03Lightningrocks]

He is lucky he did not get himself shot but it sure reads like he will walk. I think what he did was stupid but if he was within his rights and legal I can't say much else about it.

[C-dub]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9685741/w ... n-el-paso/

Being refered to as a gun nut.

It still doesn't mention his real intentions.

And there is the problem. Technically he did nothing wrong except maybe if the da wants to charge him with disturbing the peace or something similar. It’s a fine line between stupidity and criminality. I am REALLY surprised the guy didn’t wind up ventilated! If he had been I wouldn’t have lost sleep over societies loss to the greater good. Certainly not helping calm the situation any.

As to the question up post I am 99.9 percent sure I would have ran and gotten me and my family out of there.

The arrested him for making a terroristic threat, but as of yet has not been officially charged. Below is the lowest level charge:

574.125. Making a terrorist threat, third degree — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the third degree if he or she, with criminal negligence with regard to the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly:

(1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or

(2) Communicates a knowingly false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or

(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.

2. The offense of making a terrorist threat in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.

As for the guy drawing on him, the threat was perceived by the people in the store, and the manager evacuated the store by pulling the fire alarm. The off-duty firefighter had every reason to believe the threat was there and valid, and would be justified in threatening use of deadly force by drawing down on the guy.

How long ago was that written? That is so vague that it could apply to any snowflake hyperventilating at the sight of a MAGA hat. Never mind a legally carried firearm secure in its holster. Or an NRA shirt. Wow

[SQLGeek]

What he may end up doing is convincing Walmart to ban open carry and if he's really unlucky, convincing Missouri to change their state laws to ban open carry.

[oljames3]

574.125. Making a terrorist threat, third degree — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the third degree if he or she, with criminal negligence with regard to the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly:

(1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or

(2) Communicates a knowingly false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or

(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.

2. The offense of making a terrorist threat in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.

3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.

As for the guy drawing on him, the threat was perceived by the people in the store, and the manager evacuated the store by pulling the fire alarm. The off-duty firefighter had every reason to believe the threat was there and valid, and would be justified in threatening use of deadly force by drawing down on the guy.

How long ago was that written? That is so vague that it could apply to any snowflake hyperventilating at the sight of a MAGA hat. Never mind a legally carried firearm secure in its holster. Or an NRA shirt. Wow

574.125 refers to Missouri Revised Statutes. It was effective 1/1/17. http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.a ... =29830&hl=

[The Annoyed Man]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9685741/w ... n-el-paso/

Being refered to as a gun nut.

It still doesn't mention his real intentions.

And there is the problem. Technically he did nothing wrong except maybe if the da wants to charge him with disturbing the peace or something similar. It’s a fine line between stupidity and criminality. I am REALLY surprised the guy didn’t wind up ventilated! If he had been I wouldn’t have lost sleep over societies loss to the greater good. Certainly not helping calm the situation any.

As to the question up post I am 99.9 percent sure I would have ran and gotten me and my family out of there.

Slung on his back would have been FAR better. Slung on the front, muzzle down, makes the rifle that much quicker to get into action. That’s why soldiers sling them that way when anticipating possible contact with an enemy. So it is a more aggressive posture than slung behind. And technically, he DID commit a violation under Missouri law by terrifying 10 or more people. I can understand, although I’m not sure I’d believe, the argument that it wasn’t his intent to terrify anyone. I suspicion that, just as with Texas law, the controlling factor isn’t the suspects's intent, it’s the reactions of observers....over which the suspect has no control.

Also, he didn’t just video-record himself during the event. I’ve read more than one report saying that he was also recording other people's reactions to what he was doing. In other words, he was getting his jollies from his little stunt. That pretty much makes his terrorizing look pretty intentional.

[Paladin]

Also, he didn’t just video-record himself during the event. I’ve read more than one report saying that he was also recording other people's reactions to what he was doing. In other words, he was getting his jollies from his little stunt. That pretty much makes his terrorizing look pretty intentional.

I'd say its safe to say that it was intentional. And, like the Ohio shooting was probably carried out by a anti-2nd Amendment radical with association to ANTIFA and socialism.

The fact that these things are happening in such a rapid fashion implies coordination to "start anarchy"

[K.Mooneyham]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9685741/w ... n-el-paso/

Being refered to as a gun nut.

It still doesn't mention his real intentions.

And there is the problem. Technically he did nothing wrong except maybe if the da wants to charge him with disturbing the peace or something similar. It’s a fine line between stupidity and criminality. I am REALLY surprised the guy didn’t wind up ventilated! If he had been I wouldn’t have lost sleep over societies loss to the greater good. Certainly not helping calm the situation any.

As to the question up post I am 99.9 percent sure I would have ran and gotten me and my family out of there.

Slung on his back would have been FAR better. Slung on the front, muzzle down, makes the rifle that much quicker to get into action. That’s why soldiers sling them that way when anticipating possible contact with an enemy. So it is a more aggressive posture than slung behind. And technically, he DID commit a violation under Missouri law by terrifying 10 or more people. I can understand, although I’m not sure I’d believe, the argument that it wasn’t his intent to terrify anyone. I suspicion that, just as with Texas law, the controlling factor isn’t the suspects's intent, it’s the reactions of observers....over which the suspect has no control.

Also, he didn’t just video-record himself during the event. I’ve read more than one report saying that he was also recording other people's reactions to what he was doing. In other words, he was getting his jollies from his little stunt. That pretty much makes his terrorizing look pretty intentional.

Yes, sir, to me it was his own personal conduct that will be his undoing. Now, if he had no body armor, no videoing, and the rifle had been slung, unloaded, over his back as you mentioned, maybe a different story. I could envision someone not wanting to leave their rifle in their vehicle if they had a reasonable thought that it might be stolen. There was nothing reasonable about his conduct, especially in light of current events. The sad part is the negative effect it will have on open carry done in a proper manner.

[The Annoyed Man]

Also, he didn’t just video-record himself during the event. I’ve read more than one report saying that he was also recording other people's reactions to what he was doing. In other words, he was getting his jollies from his little stunt. That pretty much makes his terrorizing look pretty intentional.

I'd say its safe to say that it was intentional. And, like the Ohio shooting was probably carried out by a anti-2nd Amendment radical with association to ANTIFA and socialism.

The fact that these things are happening in such a rapid fashion implies coordination to "start anarchy"

It may well be the case. It’s hard for me to say with any certainty that the multiple shootings or stunts like this guy's are a coordinated conspiracy, or merely copycat crimes. But given both the facts that it’s not impossible, and the fact that well placed elites on both sides of the aisle seem to be above the law and persecution, it’s certainly not hard to believe that it’s possible.

[Grayling813]

I consider myself to be a reasonable person. Thus, based upon the mass shooting events of the previous few days, my reasonable mind would have concluded that acting in such a manner in order to conduct a "social medial experiment" could likely result in getting myself shot multiple times by law enforcement or a freaked out concealed carrying citizen.

This world would be better off without social media....