Armed off-duty firefighter halts armed suspect at Walmart

a reply to: Identified

When you set in motion the need for a police response when not needed, some of it is should be on you.

a reply to: roadgravel

It appears the other driver pulled out in front of the officer

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: Identified

When you set in motion the need for a police response when not needed, some of it is should be on you.

Not to mention it's one thing when someone calls the cops for something minor and they send one or two officers vs every officer in the immediate area while swat is likely gearing up.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

I'm not discussing the guy at Walmart. What he did whether legal or smart or whatever is independent of the police response.

It has gotten out of hand in the US that police can do just about anything as so long as they are "responding" to something. We have countless examples of the police responding, hitting with a motor vehicle, shooting and even killing innocent people and then charging the person they were responding to for the death. This is ridiculous! No one at Walmart, no matter what they did, is responsible for that accident. Using the butterfly effect is a slippery slope.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Doesn't matter! I'm not sure if you understand what the doppler effect is but it is nearly impossible to hear a cop car approaching at high speed. The cop hit her then. He is responsible for his driving and not understanding that physics applies even to him.

I don't want this thread to turn into police response I just found it odd that granny being hit was somehow even important as if anyone at Walmart was responsible.

a reply to: roadgravel

What do you mean when you set in motion? You mean when someone else arbitrarily decides to call the police? Or do you mean when the firefighter decided he was scared of someone with armor and and held him at gunpoint?

So, if your neighbor calls the cops on you for something small, or stupid or that you didn't even do and someone dies as a result of that response then it is on you?

Try thinking without inserting "police" into this and explain how that makes sense.

a reply to: Identified

I’ve been driving vehicles with lights and sirens for a hot minute, so I’m a wee bit familiar with how it all works.

a reply to: Identified

So, if your neighbor calls the cops on you for something small, or stupid or that you didn't even do and someone dies as a result of that response then it is on you?

Not the same. He did do something alarming to the public. In your case the person didn't do anything, someone else did.

I though you dropped this.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Identified

I’ve been driving vehicles with lights and sirens for a hot minute, so I’m a wee bit familiar with how it all works.

I'd imagine this situation in particular had officers driving at their absolute threshold given current events, people on edge, even Walmart in question.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Good. Then you were not surprised someone might have pulled out in front even if he did have his sirens and lights on. Physics applies even to police. All in a day's work.

Sorry to say but in most states as long as the guy wasn't pointing the weapon at someone or threatening people he was completely within the law to do what he did and the guy who detained him just opened himself up for a lot of trouble.

Being able to "Open Carry" is allowed in most states though I don't really agree with it.

I agree though that this is ill-timed and certainly not the place to make an open carry statement

a reply to: roadgravel

Whether someone did something "wrong" or not doesn't change the facts of the police response.

We also don't even know if anyone at Walmart did anything wrong or illegal. He may have just been stupid and stupid isn't a crime. Could be the firefighter actually committed the crime here. Would be be responsible for the police response that injured someone?

I never said I dropped this. I said I didn't want this thread to turn into this topic but I am responding to posts to me.

The guy sounds Russian. Obviously up to no good!

Police in Missouri identified the armed suspect that entered a Springfield Walmart on Thursday as 20-year-old Dmitriy Nickolayvich Andreychenko, who was reportedly stopped at gunpoint by a former firefighter before being taken into custody by police.

What did the video show though from an open carry stand point? It just confirms to me how dumb open carry is. By wearing all of that crap, he became a victim. Had this been some 15 year old gang banger, he would have himself a free firearm and armor. Concealed is the only logical way to me. Reaction is always slower and you are on the loosing end if someone decides to get you because it will be on their terms. These idiot open carriers are in no way prepared to actually defend themselves with the very things they so whine about protecting.

a reply to: TheGreatWork

Open carry depending on where you're at can be fine, context and self awareness is key though. If you're out in Montana, Wyoming, Texas ect. and you're in ranching cloths, no one will think a thing of it.

If you're in a Walmart weeks after a mass shooting going out of your way to fit "the profile"... You're going to get a reaction.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: TheGreatWork

Open carry depending on where you're at can be fine, context and self awareness is key though. If you're out in Montana, Wyoming, Texas ect. and you're in ranching cloths, no one will think a thing of it.

If you're in a Walmart weeks after a mass shooting going out of your way to fit "the profile"... You're going to get a reaction.

Well yea that is true. And open carry with a bunch of people like at a rally is okay I think, but walking around alone like that in a major populated retard zone seems to make you a potential target to criminals and police.

a reply to: TheGreatWork

It's incredible how much negative attention you avoid purely by going out of your way to have good intentions and not be a dick.

If you do that right there, you can do pretty close to whatever you want.

a reply to: Identified

Surprised at that? No. Surprised at your comments? Yes, but then again not really. We agree that physics apply but disagree on a few other things.

1) sticking with “physics apply”: that’s why we use lights. Understanding that sirens may not be enough, we throw lights all over marked units, which was what this officer was driving, to enhance visibility. Light moves faster than sound, and vehicles, so we use both. Physics and such.

2) your comment that this collision is the officer’s fault. How you could possibly know that unless you’re one of the troopers involved in the investigation escapes me. If he was driving within the applicable laws and policy then he’s no more at fault than you would be if you were driving within the applicable laws and somebody pulled out of a parking lot in front of you.

3) our willingness to assign blame based off a bare minimum of information. I like having as much information as possible before coming to a conclusion. Evidently you’re in the “cop involved in something? Cop’s fault.” camp. If it turns out the officer was driving without due care, I’m more than willing to lay the blame at his feet. I reckon if the reverse turns out to be the case, you can’t say the same.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Do we even know if the officer was running full lights? Do we know if he came around a bend, or over a hill? Do we know the speed? Do we know his speed in relation to the usual speed of the road? Because all that applies for lights to be effective and even then they still aren't a magic wand for clearing a street.

That said it's completely possible the cop was in no way at fault, as in, a normal driver would have seen him in time before turning, but no matter it certainly wasn't anyone at Walmart's fault. And let's be honest, do you think if the cop was at fault they will be quick to admit it if they can blame it on someone else and save themselves the bad press and lawsuit?

Oh I'm willing to admit it was someone on the road's fault which may not have been the cop's. I will never admit it is was someone at Walmart's fault. I'm in the camp of personal responsibility whether you wear a badge or not.

a reply to: Metallicus

What's the source for that story? I hadn't seen that one.

If true, and this puke is a Russian national, they better be looking into him as a terrorist or foreign agent trying to create unrest and fear (aka: terrorism)!

This would be just like something Russia might try to pull to destabilize this country's democracy.

Maybe they need to take this guy to Guantanamo for some R&R!