• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case

Spartacus FPV said:
You make it a habit of attacking armed and armored people?



Of what?
Click to expand...

§574.115. Making a terrorist threat, first degree — penalty

A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the first degree if such person, with the purpose of frightening ten or more people or causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly:

…

(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.
 
Fishking said:
I'd like to know what the threats where they they are claiming.
Click to expand...

It seems the kid must not have realized that what he was doing could get him killed. Michael Brown must not have known that assaulting a police officer and continuing to ignore commands to stop would get him shot. These kids just don't have good sense and such foolishness sometimes gets them killed.
 
Grand Mal said:
Has the guy been charged then? Last I read he hadn't. If he isn't charged, or even if he is, it sounds like the guy who detained him is guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.
Click to expand...

In a civilized society, bad is not good and good is not bad. The kid acted stupidly, causing reasonable people to see him as a possible threat. Police officers MUST neutralize every potentially threatening situation before investigating whether the apparent threat was real or not.
 
trouble13 said:
I hate to say this but im not seeing what law the guy broke.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The law of common sense and good judgment was broken in half by the stupid kid. He forced police to have to come to defense of innocent people naturally fearful the kid posed a real danger. Did the kid pose a real danger by looking like a mass murdering assassin in Walmart just days after a mass-murdering assassin mowed down shoppers in cold blood in Walmart just days before? Yes the kid did cause the appearance of a threat and that had to be neutralized by the police before assessing the level of threat he actually posed. The police would have been soundly condemned for not responding to the threat as long as the kid was not shooting anyone. Why would the police ignore the calls for help just because the kid had not begun shooting anyone?
 
He definitely and knowingly did this:

with the purpose of frightening ten or more people or causing the evacuation
Click to expand...

Maybe he can run some new 'experiments' in jail, cause that's where he should go.
 
trouble13 said:
They arrested him first and later figured out what to charge him with. It has not been reported anywhere that he made any threats.

Minus the threats what if his defense is that due to the current climate he feels unsafe to go out in public unarmed and unprotected. The guy went to an extreme with it but im not sure theres any law preventing him from doing that.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I don't understand why leftists don't think the police should have showed up to make sure the guy was not a real threat.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
I hope they find him guilty......
Click to expand...
If he did not make any threats what law did he violate? Your response seems more emotional than rational.

This guy did everyone a service in that he has drawn attention to a bit of a dilemma in our laws. What do we do about a guy who does something like what he did but with intent to harm but without violating good peoples right to arm themselves?

He has put gun rights advocates in a difficult position.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
He picked a Walmart a few days after a mass shooting at a Walmart for his 'experiment'? And he had body armor on?

Bull, this guy showed up looking for trouble..
Click to expand...
Of course he did. Is he any worse than the people who hid behind their first amendment right to intimidate mitch McConnell?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Common Sense 1 said:
For anyone who has questions about the charges read this link:

Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case

Mr. Andrew Branca goes into great detail!
Click to expand...
interesting read, but woefully inadequate as a justification for the charge.

He literally dismisses the 10th amendment as being a real right. Thats rather extreme.

His argument is not a legal one but rather an emotional one. I get the emotional reaction but where is the legal justification?

I also have a problem with him thinking it should be left up to a jury to decide when technically this guy did not break any laws. Good luck finding an impartial jury and good luck on the state not out spending this guy in legal fees in order to expand the governments authority o er individuals.





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
marke said:
The law of common sense and good judgment was broken in half by the stupid kid. He forced police to have to come to defense of innocent people naturally fearful the kid posed a real danger. Did the kid pose a real danger by looking like a mass murdering assassin in Walmart just days after a mass-murdering assassin mowed down shoppers in cold blood in Walmart just days before? Yes the kid did cause the appearance of a threat and that had to be neutralized by the police before assessing the level of threat he actually posed. The police would have been soundly condemned for not responding to the threat as long as the kid was not shooting anyone. Why would the police ignore the calls for help just because the kid had not begun shooting anyone?
Click to expand...
I dont dispute most of your post. However i do think the police are guility of overreach here. Just for a moment strip the details away and look at what he is being charged with. They are saying because he looked scary that they have the authority to arrest and charge you with the crime of being scary. That gives me great pause.

Imo what the police should of done was took him to a mental hospital for evaluation. Deyermine if the guy poses a threat to himself or others there by professionals.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
marke said:
I don't understand why leftists don't think the police should have showed up to make sure the guy was not a real threat.
Click to expand...
Im not a leftist and i absolutely think the police should of responded and diffused the situtation. Thats their job.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
interesting read, but woefully inadequate as a justification for the charge.

He literally dismisses the 10th amendment as being a real right. Thats rather extreme.

His argument is not a legal one but rather an emotional one. I get the emotional reaction but where is the legal justification?

I also have a problem with him thinking it should be left up to a jury to decide when technically this guy did not break any laws. Good luck finding an impartial jury and good luck on the state not out spending this guy in legal fees in order to expand the governments authority o er individuals.





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No you are just 100% incorrect! He has been charged and will be found guilty!
And then he will get just what he deserves..... Did you read the law he has been charged with violating?


§574.115. Making a terrorist threat, first degree — penalty

A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the first degree if such person, with the purpose of frightening ten or more people or causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly:

…

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


People were running for their lives out of the Walmart and a lot more than 10......
Sorry he is more than guilty.
 
Grand Mal said:
I asked if he had been charged. Do you know?
Click to expand...

Yes he has.

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A man has been charged with a felony for allegedly walking through a Missouri Walmart store with a body armor and a loaded rifle.

Dmitriy N. Andreychenko, 20, of Springfield was charged Friday with making a terrorist threat in the second-degree. That's a felony punishable by up to four years in prison. He is being held in the Greene County Jail.

Springfield, Missouri, Walmart armed man ID'd, charged with felony
 
trouble13 said:
Of course he did. Is he any worse than the people who hid behind their first amendment right to intimidate mitch McConnell?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

McConnell has nothing to do with this crime!
 
Common Sense 1 said:
Yes he has.

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. – A man has been charged with a felony for allegedly walking through a Missouri Walmart store with a body armor and a loaded rifle.

Dmitriy N. Andreychenko, 20, of Springfield was charged Friday with making a terrorist threat in the second-degree. That's a felony punishable by up to four years in prison. He is being held in the Greene County Jail.

Springfield, Missouri, Walmart armed man ID'd, charged with felony
Click to expand...

Okay. I guess that lets off the other guy who detained him at gun point.
Kind of makes one wonder what's the use of having the right to carry a weapon and wear body armor if doing so breaks another law though. It's going to put the prosecutor in a tough position. I wonder how many times this charge has been heard in court.
 
Grand Mal said:
Okay. I guess that lets off the other guy who detained him at gun point.
Kind of makes one wonder what's the use of having the right to carry a weapon and wear body armor if doing so breaks another law though. It's going to put the prosecutor in a tough position. I wonder how many times this charge has been heard in court.
Click to expand...

I would say look at the totality of the situation. What just happened days ago and look at what the suspect did at Walmart.
If a gun owner showed up wearing a pistol I don't think there would have been a problem. But showing up like the suspect did?
Why would someone do that? Anyway he will have his day in court to make his case. A jury will decide....
 
Common Sense 1 said:
No you are just 100% incorrect! He has been charged and will be found guilty!
And then he will get just what he deserves..... Did you read the law he has been charged with violating?


§574.115. Making a terrorist threat, first degree — penalty

A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the first degree if such person, with the purpose of frightening ten or more people or causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly:

…

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


People were running for their lives out of the Walmart and a lot more than 10......
Sorry he is more than guilty.
Click to expand...
I dont dispute that people were frightened by his apperance. I am of the opinion that both the msnager and the forefighter both did the right thing.

That said the law you quoted says you have to have the purpose to scare people, IE intent. I have not seen evidence that he display such intent. The way you are interpting the law most of the media and entertainers could be charged with terorism.

Is an escape artist intentionally terrorizing his audience or a horror movie production intentionally tertorizing their audiences. The answer is they are but they are not breaking the law snymore than this guy was.

How about when people forms mobs in political protest out in public. Do we charge them as terrorists.

Walmart has a right to tell him to leave. The police have a right to question him. At the end of the day he is a flaming pile of excrement but he isnt a criminal.

The reason people panicked is because of their stigmas about guns. He didnt cause the panic. His argument could be that he feels intimidated being out in public unarmed, in light of the recent events.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
SenorXm/Sirius said:
He picked a Walmart a few days after a mass shooting at a Walmart for his 'experiment'? And he had body armor on?

Bull, this guy showed up looking for trouble..
Click to expand...

Yep. If the firefighter had simply walked up and shot him in the head instead of detaining him, he'd be hailed as a hero for stopping a mass shooting, no questions asked. You don't get much more stupid than this kid.
 
trouble13 said:
I dont dispute most of your post. However i do think the police are guility of overreach here. Just for a moment strip the details away and look at what he is being charged with. They are saying because he looked scary that they have the authority to arrest and charge you with the crime of being scary. That gives me great pause.

Imo what the police should of done was took him to a mental hospital for evaluation. Deyermine if the guy poses a threat to himself or others there by professionals.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

If the police charged him with breaking a non-existent law then the police were obviously wrong for doing that. Otherwise the police seemed to have done the right thing.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
I am really surprised that this guy did not end up dead pulling a stunt like this?
If found guilty he will lose his 2nd amendment right forever!! I hope that happens.
This was dangerous and very reckless stunt given the timing of the other Walmart shooting.



Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case

Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case


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?

Before we get to that, a few more relevant factual details.

That man with the rifle has been identified by Springfield police as 20-year-old Dmitriy N. Andreychenko (insert Russian interference comments here), and he was arrested on a first degree charge of making terrorist threats, presumably under Missouri statute §574.115 Making a terroristic threat, first degree.

This is a class D felony under Missouri law, good for seven years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Naturally, conviction on this (or any other) felony charge would strip Mr. Andreychenko of his gun rights forever.
Click to expand...

Which cause is this Dmitriy N. Andreychenko trying to stand for? Against gun violence or for 2nd amendment rights? He didn't think things through...Mebe he thinks he's still in Russia...
 
Common Sense 1 said:
I am really surprised that this guy did not end up dead pulling a stunt like this?
If found guilty he will lose his 2nd amendment right forever!! I hope that happens.
This was dangerous and very reckless stunt given the timing of the other Walmart shooting.



Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case

Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case


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?

Before we get to that, a few more relevant factual details.

That man with the rifle has been identified by Springfield police as 20-year-old Dmitriy N. Andreychenko (insert Russian interference comments here), and he was arrested on a first degree charge of making terrorist threats, presumably under Missouri statute §574.115 Making a terroristic threat, first degree.

This is a class D felony under Missouri law, good for seven years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Naturally, conviction on this (or any other) felony charge would strip Mr. Andreychenko of his gun rights forever.
Click to expand...

He should


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
marke said:
If the police charged him with breaking a non-existent law then the police were obviously wrong for doing that. Otherwise the police seemed to have done the right thing.
Click to expand...
In fairness to the police i have not seen the charging document so there may be something i am unaware of.

So far i have not seen any evidence. When the story first broke it was reported that police officers said they were taking him into custody snd would figure out what to charge him with. Thats a red flag in itself but given the circumstances i can understand where they were coming from.

Now that they have charged him its look like overreach to me. Its very strained reasoning to charge him with domestic terrorism for excercising his lawful rights and not actually threatening anyone. Are people now legally responsible for how others feel?

If we are going down that road i can think of a lot of protestors and media heads that should also be charged.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
cabse5 said:
Which cause is this Dmitriy N. Andreychenko trying to stand for? Against gun violence or for 2nd amendment rights? He didn't think things through...Mebe he thinks he's still in Russia...
Click to expand...
Maybe it wasn't a political statement and he just wanted to protect himself against mass shooters. The media keeps selling the false narrative that they are on the rise. Maybe they terrorized him into arming himself.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom