- Joined
- Jul 8, 2016
- Messages
- 18,842
- Reaction score
- 13,777
- 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.
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.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
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.
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.
They arrested him first and later figured out what to charge him with. It has not been reported anywhere that he made any threats.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?
They arrested him first and later figured out what to charge him with.
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.
Hence the word detained instead of arrested. The article said he was arrested so that means charges.
I'd like to know what the threats where they they are claiming.
The only way they can arrest you is if you are charged for something so yes, he was charged.
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.
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
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.
I hope they find him guilty......
20-year-old Dmitriy N. Andreychenko
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?