• 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

Common Sense 1

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
18,626
Reaction score
13,542
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
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.
 
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.

There's some delicious irony, one for the books!
 
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.

I'd like to know what the threats where they they are claiming.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
I hate to say this but im not seeing what law the guy broke.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
I hate to say this but im not seeing what law the guy broke.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

he was arrested on a first degree charge of making terrorist threats, presumably under Missouri statute §574.115 Making a terroristic threat, first degree.
 
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.

he was arrested on a first degree charge of making terrorist threats, presumably under Missouri statute §574.115 Making a terroristic threat, first degree.
 
he was arrested on a first degree charge of making terrorist threats, presumably under Missouri statute §574.115 Making a terroristic threat, first degree.

I asked if he had been charged. Do you know?
 
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.

Terroristic threat? What threat was made?
 
he was arrested on a first degree charge of making terrorist threats, presumably under Missouri statute §574.115 Making a terroristic threat, first degree.
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
 
I asked if he had been charged. Do you know?

The only way they can arrest you is if you are charged for something so yes, he was charged.
 
They arrested him first and later figured out what to charge him with.

To arrest someone you have to charge them. Otherwise it is just being detained. So no, they didn't arrest him first and charge him later, they obviously charged him right away.
 
The only way they can arrest you is if you are charged for something so yes, he was charged.

That is not true. You can be detained for up to 72 hours without being charged. If they still have not been charged after 72 hours their lawyer can obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the court instructing the police to bring the them before the court so that a judge may decide if they're being lawfully held.
 
That is not true. You can be detained for up to 72 hours without being charged. If they still have not been charged after 72 hours their lawyer can obtain a writ of habeas corpus from the court instructing the police to bring the them before the court so that a judge may decide if they're being lawfully held.

Hence the word detained instead of arrested. The article said he was arrested so that means charges.
 
Hence the word detained instead of arrested. The article said he was arrested so that means charges.

Same meaning. If you are detained you can also consider yourself arrested, and visa versa. It does not mean you are charged, yet.
 
I'd like to know what the threats where they they are claiming.

You come near me in a store wearing body armor and carrying a rifle, and if I can I will pepper spray you or hit you in the knees with a baseball bat. Not for threatening me, but for being too stupid to be out in public.
 
The only way they can arrest you is if you are charged for something so yes, he was charged.

No, many people are arrested and released and not charged.
I don't say he wasn't charged, just that I haven't read it.
 
Was he speaking russian while he was supposedly making these threats?

What happens when one legal gun owner encounters another legal gun owner on the street? Thankfully the firefighter, unlike our police, didn't shoot the guy dead. Now we have a legal finger pointing battle about whose rights were stepped on.
 
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.

Just to crash some ideas in your op, anything ending with enko is almost always a ukrainian name not a russian name, I am an expert in neither russian nor ukrainian languages, however watching every news report with politicians and normal people from ukrain with many ending in enko seems to me to signify it is a ukrainian thing for a name rather than russian or belarussian. First names like dmitry are common across the slavic world as wel.
 
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

I hope they find him guilty......
 
You come near me in a store wearing body armor and carrying a rifle, and if I can I will pepper spray you or hit you in the knees with a baseball bat. Not for threatening me, but for being too stupid to be out in public.

You make it a habit of attacking armed and armored people?

I hope they find him guilty......

Of what?
 
20-year-old Dmitriy N. Andreychenko



*sigh*….there's dumb, and then there is "Please, for the love of humanity, dont ever breed" dumb.
 
What a dumbass. "Hey, hon, I'm heading to the walmarts with my turbo boomstick to do me a little second amendment experiment."

Derp
 
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..
 
§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.
 
Back
Top Bottom