Off-Duty Firefighter Stops Armed Man at Springfield, Mo Walmart

[Cowcatcher]

And the system failed.

"Dmitriy Andreychenko is facing a terrorist threat charge for the incident" - even though he made no threatening moves, nor did he disobey any laws.

I don't understand why gun owners are ok with this. That 1911/Glock/whatever on your belt could easily trigger another "hero" to pull a fire alarm and call the cops.

It's a dangerous precedent IMO.

I agree that based on what I know of the situation that he shouldn't face charges. He shouldn't have been arrested and really shouldn't have been held at gunpoint. But I also think he was looking for confrontation. Is that illegal? Idk. I've been following your side and the other side on this thread Mac and I agree with both sides.

 

[MacFromOK]

I agree that based on what I know of the situation that he shouldn't face charges. He shouldn't have been arrested and really shouldn't have been held at gunpoint. But I also think he was looking for confrontation. Is that illegal? Idk. I've been following your side and the other side on this thread Mac and I agree with both sides.

How could you prove someone is "looking" for a confrontation? Based on his actions, he didn't seem to be. I don't remember any mass shooters that were pushing a shopping cart.

I don't mean to have a "side," other than defending the right to lawfully carry a firearm, and I thought we were all on that side.

I'm certainly not defending his judgement. What he did was dumber than a stump IMO, but it doesn't appear to be illegal.

 

[Tanis143]

And the system failed.

"Dmitriy Andreychenko is facing a terrorist threat charge for the incident" - even though he made no threatening moves, nor did he disobey any laws.

I don't understand why gun owners are ok with this. That 1911/Glock/whatever on your belt could easily trigger another "hero" to pull a fire alarm and call the cops.

It's a dangerous precedent IMO.

There is a major difference from a single sidearm on a belt of an otherwise normally dressed person from a guy wearing body armor, multiple AR mags and an AR style firearm slung around his chest. Is it legal? For now, yes. However, a few days after a mass shooting I could see the terrorist threat angle. Of course he will probably get the charges dismissed because there was no intent to terrorize that could be proved in court (remember, charges filed does not equal guilty). More than likely the DA is throwing this at the guy to make him think twice about what he did.

 

[Cowcatcher]

How could you prove someone is "looking" for a confrontation? Based on his actions, he didn't seem to be. I don't remember any mass shooters that were pushing a shopping cart.

I don't mean to have a "side," other than defending the right to lawfully carry a firearm, and I thought we were all on that side.

I'm certainly not defending his judgement. What he did was dumber than a stump IMO, but it doesn't appear to be illegal.

I say he was looking for confrontation because I read he was filming himself and I read that he said he went there to see if Walmart honored the 2A.

 

[MacFromOK]

There is a major difference from a single sidearm on a belt of an otherwise normally dressed person from a guy wearing body armor, multiple AR mags and an AR style firearm slung around his chest.

I'm not so sure the anti-gun crowd would agree. And they'd likely be the ones to start pulling fire alarms willy-nilly.

Again... I don't agree with his actions.

 

[MacFromOK]

I say he was looking for confrontation because I read he was filming himself and I read that he said he went there to see if Walmart honored the 2A.

So if he wore a Glock on his belt with the same intention... he'd still be looking for confrontation?

 

[Cowcatcher]

So if he wore a Glock on his belt with the same intention... he'd still be looking for confrontation?

Yes he would be in this case.

 

[MacFromOK]

Yes he would be in this case.

Huh. I thought perhaps he was hoping to NOT find confrontation.

Alrighty then.

 

[Tanis143]

Huh. I thought perhaps he was hoping to NOT find confrontation.

Alrighty then.

The fact he had his phone out video taping gives the biggest hint at his intentions. I see people open carry in wally world all the time and they are not walking around recording everything. Dressed as he was, recording everything, its plainly clear he was looking for a confrontation so he can "audit" the police.

 

[Cowcatcher]

Huh. I thought perhaps he was hoping to NOT find confrontation.

Alrighty then.

You lost me Mac.
My thoughts are, if you go out with your gun/guns on, a camera rolling and you have the mindset to see if you and your rights are welcome at whatever place you go, you are looking for confrontation.

Yes the AR will probably increase your chances. Just like the other gear he chose to wear.

By confrontation I don't mean a gun fight. I think he was looking for an argument about whether he was legally able to do what he was doing or not.