It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Armed off-duty firefighter halts armed suspect at Walmart

page: 4
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: MrRCflying

I think what the kid did was horribly stupid, and if he gets punished (as long as it's not heinous), this shouldn't be the hill to die on for pro gun rights people.

What the kid did was irresponsible given recent events, and just brings negative attention on the issue. I'd be willing to bet many people would have had the same reaction as the former firefighter, though I've already stated I think he could have handled things differently to insulate himself.


Irresponsible and stupid, yes. Illegal? If he did not threaten anyone, then no crime was committed. He was exercising his open carry rights within the state. Walmart could have asked him to leave if they have a no firearms policy. Above and over that, if he truly did not threaten anyone, it was an illegal arrest, and hope he fights it.

I wonder if it was mostly about how he was dressed. Is it illegal to dress in camo? What if he was dressed in a rainbow T-shirt? Would it have gone down differently? My guess is they would just say he was "scared, and wanted to protect himself".

Black guns "bad". Now wearing camo "bad"".




posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I hope that's all they are doing. He should stay quiet, don't show his video, assuming he wasn't live streaming, and let the open carry law speak for him.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

You and I would be closer to agreement on this if the timing was different.

The kid went out of his way to test the waters. I think the body armor and the filming it gives good indication of that. It looks like he put a lot of effort into fitting the bill.

If he did this just to get a reaction in light of recent events, I think that could qualify as malice for disturbing the peace... They do a class 1 misdemeanor and have a jury to cover their bases.

With the charge they hit him with, unless they're holding back evidence, than I'm closer to agreement with you. I'm always about protecting rights, but this kid is hurting that cause.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

That is starting to "red flag" for me as well that now wearing camo or even body armor (what if someone mistakes a motorcycle tortoise for armor?) might scare someone and could lead to arrest or someone shooting me in defense.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I hope that's all they are doing. He should stay quiet, don't show his video, assuming he wasn't live streaming, and let the open carry law speak for him.




That video is probably his only saving grace, all it would take is a couple of spooked witnesses to paint a picture the video may otherwise show differently.

That said, it's hard for me to feel sorry for him. What he did was idiotic. He could have been more responsible, still open carried, and avoided all of this. Instead, he's bringing negative attention to an already heated debate.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Missouri statute:

574.115.
1. 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:
(1)Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(2) Communicates a 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 first degree is a class D felony.
3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.


Looks like it will be an uphill fight to make the charges stick if he did not make any verbal or physical threats.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

The one thing hinging on this is if he didn't legally have these guns. But then again that's sort of sticky because police didn't have a reason to ask him if he legally owned the guns if he wasn't doing anything illegal to begin with.

This is a legal mess actually. He didn't do anyone any favors if he was a 2nd Am Auditor.

Assuming all he did was walk around and video.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying


Looks like it will be an uphill fight to make the charges stick if he did not make any verbal or physical threats.


Going off of the facts we know, I'd agree.

The government really needs to be able to prove without a shadow of doubt that terrorism is the intent of the accused. They've really been throwing that term recklessly lately.... In fact, I even commented in the thread suggesting that Trump might label ANTIFA a terrorist organization that this could be the next course in the tit for tat, gun owners.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: MrRCflying


Looks like it will be an uphill fight to make the charges stick if he did not make any verbal or physical threats.


Going off of the facts we know, I'd agree.

The government really needs to be able to prove without a shadow of doubt that terrorism is the intent of the accused. They've really been throwing that term recklessly lately.... In fact, I even commented in the thread suggesting that Trump might label ANTIFA a terrorist organization that this could be the next course in the tit for tat, gun owners.


A lot of terms being thrown around since the latest shootings. Most of them used improperly.

I think it would all come down to Walmart security video, and the video he took. If he made no threats, I can't see a case against him. If anything he would have a case against the "firefighter" and illegal arrest.

The thing is, are they going to abide by the laws as written? Or will they try to make an example of him?



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

Ha looks like one of those ambiguous knee-jerk laws they can Willy nilly be applied whenever they feel like it.

Also looks like the same law can be used as a defense for him or even the former FF.


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



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

Just saw a man on TV being interviewed and he said the Walmart worker ran up to him saying get out and evacuate and he didn't know why because he didn't even smell smoke. The reporter said that the man arrested evacuated along with everyone else out an emergency exit.

So maybe a Walmart employee freaked out here first.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

They might have picked a trumped up charge to scare him into a plea deal and set an example.... They would still have to have some decent evidence or his lawyer would probably advise him to fight it.

If I had to take a shot in the dark, my guess is he made some questionable remarks or posts on social media in the days prior to the event. With kids like this, 19 and either the balls or entitlement enough to try and do this, or the stupidity... Usually there is social media posts to get some attention, which is what I imagine his intent was.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
And.... He wasn't even wearing scary camo either!

www.buzzfeednews.com...

And he posted:


"It's official. I hate Walmart. Apparently they won't sell Rifle and shotgun ammo if your under 21," the alleged post said. "'New policy' However I can walk into the store with a loaded .40 and nobody says anything. What a joke."



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 02:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Identified
a reply to: MrRCflying

Ha looks like one of those ambiguous knee-jerk laws they can Willy nilly be applied whenever they feel like it.

Also looks like the same law can be used as a defense for him or even the former FF.


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


Bingo! I think claiming number 3 would be his best bet. However, it should not even NEED to be done. If he did not threaten anyone, he was simply exercising his open carry rights. No matter how he was dressed.

If someone feels fear just seeing a gun, does that trump the rights of the person carrying the gun in a lawful manner? Common sense says no, but recent history has shown that, in the US at least, emotions trump common sense.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying


If someone feels fear just seeing a gun, does that trump the rights of the person carrying the gun in a lawful manner? Common sense says no, but recent history has shown that, in the US at least, emotions trump common sense.


Even worse - emotions = common sense for most now.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MrRCflying

They will try to use his dress and fire arm as the communication method. Not saying it is proper.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MrRCflying

They will try to use his dress and fire arm as the communication method. Not saying it is proper.


That how undercover cops dress.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: PraetorianAZ

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: MrRCflying

They will try to use his dress and fire arm as the communication method. Not saying it is proper.


That how undercover cops dress.


That how poor at their job undercover cops dress.



posted on Aug, 9 2019 @ 08:26 PM
link   


In a separate interview with Andreychenko's wife, Angelice, she told investigators Andreychenko had told her of his plan to walk into Walmart with a gun, and that she told him it was not a smart idea; that people would take him seriously due to recent mass shootings.

She told investigators that Andreychenko said he wanted to see if Walmart would respect his second amendment rights. Angelice referred to Andreychenko's actions as those of an immature boy.

Anastasia Andreychenko, the suspect’s sister, said she received a call from him just after 3 p.m. on Thursday. Andreychenko asked her if she would videotape him going into the Walmart with a gun, and that he referred to the action as a social experiment on how his second amendment right would be respected in a public area. Anastasia told him it was a bad idea, and that she did not want to help him take video.

Link


Angelice referred to Andreychenko's actions as those of an immature boy.

So that's what they call it now, immature.

edit on 8/9/2019 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 10 2019 @ 08:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel


In a separate interview with Andreychenko's wife, Angelice, she told investigators Andreychenko had told her of his plan to walk into Walmart with a gun, and that she told him it was not a smart idea; that people would take him seriously due to recent mass shootings.

She told investigators that Andreychenko said he wanted to see if Walmart would respect his second amendment rights. Angelice referred to Andreychenko's actions as those of an immature boy.

Anastasia Andreychenko, the suspect’s sister, said she received a call from him just after 3 p.m. on Thursday. Andreychenko asked her if she would videotape him going into the Walmart with a gun, and that he referred to the action as a social experiment on how his second amendment right would be respected in a public area. Anastasia told him it was a bad idea, and that she did not want to help him take video.

Link


Angelice referred to Andreychenko's actions as those of an immature boy.

So that's what they call it now, immature.


Immature? Probably... But again if no verbal or physical threats were made, what law was broken? It is a legal carry state. So he was legally carrying. Was it the way he was dressed? So now it is OK to brandish a firearm at him, and arrest him because of his looks?

Not smart, I agree, but as far as I can see no laws were actually broken. I hope he gets off scott free and presses charges against the former firefighter for brandishing, and the LEO for false arrest.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join