National Man decides to open carry an AR at a WalMart in Missouri today...

[ilikegunspdx]

So you can read his mind? It's not like the government can legally publish a list of acceptable attire. Would the rifle alone have been OK? What if it was slung over his shoulder? What if he only wore the pouches but didn't have a weapon? Would a mask have made it worse? What if there were a dozen people doing it instead of one? How can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew in advance he would spark a panic rather than a gun rights debate?

"He should have known better" is not an acceptable legal standard. The guy was pushing a shopping cart and narrating a video; I could just as easily argue that everyone "should" have known that meant he wasn't a threat because those actions are inconsistent with any known mass shooter.

MO has a tough road to hoe to prove terrorism, especially if he pre-published a video stating his intent was to provoke "discussion" on gun rights and has the video from the store showing he didn't threaten anyone. A terrorism law that would allow a conviction probably fails the first amendment test and will be headed for federal review.

Free speech case law has long established that you can go right up to the line of threatening violence as long as you don't actually do it or directly advocate it. For example: it's legal to publish the home address, phone number, and all other private information you can find about any public official you like along with a statement like "this guy's address was so easy to find, I'm surprised no one has paid him a visit" or "I encourage you to call, write, or visit senator X in person at his home to let him know your opinion on his voting record." The implication is clear, but it's protected speech. Likewise, saying "I think all cops should die" is OK as long as you aren't clearly attempting to induce someone to actually kill them.

It was an exercise in free speech and open carry. We can agree that it may have been counterproductive, but it's no more a crime than the Black Panthers in CA in the 60's or people hanging out around polling stations open carrying in the last few elections, or a bunch of armed people sitting in the gallery of the WA legislature a year or two ago. Jesus, we let crowds of mask wearing, club wielding antifa take over entire city blocks and don't arrest them until they use their weapons (sometimes not even then).

Was it in poor taste, sure, but a country that bends the rules to find a way to imprison someone just because they didn't like what they did is not a country of laws. Public outrage is not an acceptable reason to jail someone in America. Honoring someone's right to express themselves, even when you find the form of expression detestable, is the mark of a freedom lover and patriot.

This is not some issue of "attire". He said he could walk into Walmart with a loaded gun after saying he was mad at Walmart for not selling him ammo cuz he was underage.

To say he would not know it would cause a panic would be quite ridiculous after what has happened recently.

Go ahead and defend this dimitry guy. That is exactly what he wants and it also tells the next idiot that he can do it to and he will get attention and support.

And such support for idiots like him from other gun owners makes it that much easier for anti-gun poeple to paint all gun owners with the same brush.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

You guys are missing it completely. You can stand there and say that all day long, and to a certain degree I agree with you, but when it's as egregious as what this guy did, darn right you will be held responsible for what other people think. That's a fact whether you like it or not.

It's all about logic and reason, nothing emotional about it. If you go out of your way to frighten and panic people, you will be held to account for that, and rightly so. You can look down your nose at the average "sheep" and how they might be scared at the sight of a gun, but that doesn't change the fact that most people will be concerned to one degree or another.

When you're discretely open carrying a handgun on your belt around town, especially in a rural community, not many people will be concerned or even notice. You're going to have the occasional namby-pamby who is scared at the mere sight, but tough luck for them. A "reasonable person" would not have reason to panic at the sight of someone legally open-carrying like that.

Going through Walmart in full battle-rattle is a completely different story. You cannot say that any reasonable person would not be seriously concerned at seeing that. If you do something like that then you darn well ARE responsible for the general panic and lack of mental well-being in others. As in legally responsible, and that's a fact.

It blows me away that you guys are so stuck on defending open carry that you'll defend it to this degree. You're making your defenses out of ignorance of the law. It's not about open-carry. It's about deliberately causing a panic, just like yelling fire in a crowded theater.

Exactly. Or yelling the word bomb in an airport.

There is a responsibility in being a gun owner. When idiots like this dimetry guy purposely go out of the way to use their guns to scare poeple just so he can either prove a point, or get attention, or try to get back at Walmart is wrong. Punishing him tells the next person they can't do that either.

I just hope there are no copycats of this guy. If it keeps going like this there is no question that gun laws will be changed in a big way. It's just reality that when there is a big public outcry and political will there will be a change. The NFA of 1934 happened this way as did the anti-gun laws of other countries like England. Why do poeple defend this kid and give anti-gun poeple more fuel in their tank?

 

[Talos32]

This is not some issue of "attire". He said he could walk into Walmart with a loaded gun after saying he was mad at Walmart for not selling him ammo cuz he was underage.

To say he would not know it would cause a panic would be quite ridiculous after what has happened recently.

Go ahead and defend this dimitry guy. That is exactly what he wants and it also tells the next idiot that he can do it to and he will get attention and support.

And such support for idiots like him from other gun owners makes it that much easier for anti-gun poeple to paint all gun owners with the same brush.

I think you may be confused. I wasn't defending him, merely saying I don't think what he did was illegal.

The problem with any "with the intent to..." crime is that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the person was thinking. Not "common sense" or what a "reasonable person" would think. Only what that specific person was intending.

Do you purport to have evidence that proves his intent was to cause a panic, at the standard which would be illegal in MO? I would love to hear it.

All we have is that he wanted to make a statement about Walmart and their policies and what he actually did- which apparently did not include directly or overtly threatening anyone. He obeyed all the commands of the police and did not fight back against the armed citizen who detained him (possibly illegally). Sounds like a political protestor to me. Being provocative or in poor taste is not a crime.

 

[Member 5605]

EDITED: sorry guys. I was getting too worked up on this thread. I'm bowing out of this one, and apologize to anyone I offended. We'll just have to disagree, and that's fine. To each their own.

Understood.

Appreciate the insight!

And with @ilikegunspdx, there is a difference between yelling bomb and dressing one way.

Based upon the dress and attire, we should be patting down all Muslims because there are some who are terrorists.

Don't get ME wrong here, I don't approve much of the guys actions, I'm saying there is a line legally that needs to be crossed and this idiot didn't do it. He played within the boundaries, albeit with poor taste and timing, it was still within the law.

What if he was FaceTiming his Mother for groceries or talking to his cousin out of state on his phone and not recording himself? While they are perceived as the same thing, his focus would be different.

Please keep in mind I'm defending his legal actions, not his moral ones.

 

[Glock10MM]

Douche bags like this guy will be the cause of more anti gun laws, lock him up for being stupid in public.

 

[Talos32]

Douche bags like this guy will be the cause of more anti gun laws, lock him up for being stupid in public.

Well, the Black Panthers parading with rifles and shotguns got the open carry of unloaded longarms outlawed in CA. Provocative acts are designed to cause controversy.

Something tells me that any legislative fallout from this guy is the least of our worries.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I think you may be confused. I wasn't defending him, merely saying I don't think what he did was illegal.

The problem with any "with the intent to..." crime is that you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt what the person was thinking. Not "common sense" or what a "reasonable person" would think. Only what that specific person was intending.

Do you purport to have evidence that proves his intent was to cause a panic, at the standard which would be illegal in MO? I would love to hear it.

All we have is that he wanted to make a statement about Walmart and their policies and what he actually did- which apparently did not include directly or overtly threatening anyone. He obeyed all the commands of the police and did not fight back against the armed citizen who detained him (possibly illegally). Sounds like a political protestor to me. Being provocative or in poor taste is not a crime.

I don't know about the laws of MO, but the guys who do know said:

"The consequences he faces are not a reflection of how Missouri -- an open carry state -- respects the Second Amendment, prosecuting attorney Dan Patterson said in a statement.

"Missouri protects the right to open carry a firearm, but that right does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner, endangering other citizens," Patterson said. "As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously explained, 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man ... falsely shouting fire in a theater, causing a panic.'"

Police Lt. Mike Lucas said he did indeed cause a panic."

- Also their state motto fits pretty well I think: "Let the good (or safety) of the people be the supreme (or highest) law"

 

[bentoncity]

Oops..stupid tablet

 

[Dungannon]

Douche bags like this guy will be the cause of more anti gun laws ...

This. Public attitudes towards guns can be plotted on a bell curve. There are the fierce 2a defenders at one end, 2a abolishers at the other end, and the biggest portion of the population on the continuum in between. When we defend stupidity, simply between it is technically legal, those mildly pro-gun or neutral will more readily accept [and vote for] politicians and initiatives that advance further restrictions.

Defend the 2a, and be glad if this self-absorbed and immature man-child spends some nights in jail and a ton of money on lawyers to get out.

 

[Boboclown]

Saw a guy in Home Depot the other day, wearing a kilt and open carrying a pistol. My pistol stayed concealed.

Typically I would avoid looking at a kilt wearer's pistol.

 

[Talos32]

I don't know about the laws of MO, but the guys who do know said:

"The consequences he faces are not a reflection of how Missouri -- an open carry state -- respects the Second Amendment, prosecuting attorney Dan Patterson said in a statement.

"Missouri protects the right to open carry a firearm, but that right does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner, endangering other citizens," Patterson said. "As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously explained, 'The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man ... falsely shouting fire in a theater, causing a panic.'"

Police Lt. Mike Lucas said he did indeed cause a panic.

Also their state motto fits pretty well I think: "Let the good (or safety) of the people be the supreme (or highest) law"

So that's a "no" then.

A press release from the prosecutor means nothing-of course they are going to say he's guilty of something if they charge him. Find me one from anywhere that says "We're not sure this guy committed a crime, but I think what he did was wrong so we decided to charge him with something and see if it sticks." (The reality a lot of the time) and I'll send you a $100 bill.

Frankly, I have no idea why they are legally allowed to give press releases or press conferences to begin with. The state is supposed to be a dispassionate actor in criminal law, pursuing the truth and justice. All any employee of the government should be allowed to say regarding any crime until a conviction is obtained is: "We believe a crime was committed and we are investigating and prosecuting in accordance with the laws of the United States." The only thing having an authority figure stand up on the news and say that a person is guilty can possibly do is prejudice the public and the jury pool against the accused.

The old "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example is missapplied here. A better example would be walking in acting completely normally while wearing a fire retardant suit and carrying a gas can. Would that be enough for you to say someone should be jailed? It's an implied threat at best, and using that logic, every instance of open carry or off color remark could be considered the same and open to the same charges.

 

[Boboclown]

It's not. I find it interesting that gun owners are quick to jump on someone's legal rights, effectively normalizing taking of rights. To do so, is to be the anti-gunner we oppose.

I mean, we also vote away our rights slowly justifying that we're at least not doing it instantly, can't be a surprise. While the guy is an idiot, the only thing he should be charged with is any law he broke, if any. Nothing else. We can't go around making up a charge unless the person actually did it.

If we imprisoned people based on stupidity and not legality, then what use is law when you can just say they should be in prison.

 

[bentoncity]

you will be held responsible for what other people think. It's all about logic and reason, nothing emotional about it.

Really? Seriously? Let's review that aspect..outer fringes but let's just go with the flow for a few moments..

1. Other people think It's OK to having sex with minors.
   A. & I'm to blame and responsible?
2. Other people think It's OK to having sex with animals.
   A. & I'm to blame and responsible?
3. Other people think It's OK to murder people needlessly.
   A. & I'm to blame and responsible?
4. Other people thinks it's OK to drive drunk & kill innocent kids & parents.
   A. & I'm to blame and responsible?
5. And the list could go one forever....

I'm sorry here my friend, but there's absolutely no way in hell I can condone nor accept your premise here. I'm afraid your 'logic & reason" are apparently beyond 'My Logic & Reasoning!'. In spite of our differing views, keep your convictions. They're yours & no one can take them from you. This is still America & you have the right under the 1st to speak it.

Dan

 

[Talos32]

This. Public attitudes towards guns can be plotted on a bell curve. There are the fierce 2a defenders at one end, 2a abolishers at the other end, and the biggest portion of the population on the continuum in between. When we defend stupidity, simply between it is technically legal, those mildly pro-gun or neutral will more readily accept [and vote for] politicians and initiatives that advance further restrictions.

Defend the 2a, and be glad if this self-absorbed and immature man-child spends some nights in jail and a ton of money on lawyers to get out.

Is there a difference between "technically legal" and "legal?"

I would say that line of thinking is poison to a nation built on laws- it's either legal or not. Full stop. Laws can be changed, but until they are, that is the final word.

This line of thinking is why a WA State Patrolman once told me that if you refuse to allow a roadside search of your car without a warrant or probable cause, they will concoct a reason to detain you and impound your car in retaliation. And this guy was a pretty decent "everyman" type that I generally got along with. They apparently view the 4th amendment as only "technically legal."

 

[CLT65]

Ignore list updated

 

[Dungannon]

Is there a difference between "technically legal" and "legal?"

The difference is visible when someone guilty as hell gets off on a technicality. Argue semantics all you want, you know perfectly well what I was driving at.

 

[bentoncity]

Ignore list updated

No surprise when one has has zero validation to support their position. (or is unwilling to...)

Dan

 

[Talos32]

If we imprisoned people based on stupidity and not legality, then what use is law when you can just say they should be in prison.

1000 times this! As much hate as the ACLU gets, there is a reason they take cases like the jerks screaming obscenities at military funerals to protest abortion (they won that BTW). If we don't fight even harder to defend fringe cases you will see a regression to the mean in what is legal across the board.

There is constant pressure to "do something" so everyday more becomes illegal and these types of sensational provocative fringe cases serve to define the hard limits on the law. If you want to define legality on a case by case basis rather than overaching principles, what you can legally do will end up defined as only what is acceptable to the most boring whitebread liberal studies graduate soccer mom.

 

[Talos32]

The difference is visible when someone guilty as hell gets off on a technicality. Argue semantics all you want, you know perfectly well what I was driving at.

So we're back to what is he guilty of? And what exactly is the technicality here?

You say he was deliberately causing a panic, and I say it was a poor taste attempt at a political statement against Walmart and possibly gun laws- which apparently his pre-event social media posts back up.

One is legal and the other is not, and the difference is based entirely on his state of mind and intent- something neither of us knows and the prosecutor is going to have a devil of a time trying to prove.

That's not a technicalty. A technicality is when a search that discovers the murder weapon is excluded from evidence because the judge forgot to sign the warrant.

What's at issue here is whether or not it's OK to stretch the definition of "terrorism" beyond the previously established legal limits to cover objectionable behavior that is not otherwise illegal. The question is only at issue due to transitory public outrage that will subside long before the repercussions of such a "creative" application of the law. I say no.

 

[Dungannon]

Dumb bunny won't be charged for carrying a gun, as that is legal. But they will find a way to prosecute him.

The terrorist threat charge covers an act which "recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation" of a building, or "knowingly causes a false belief or fear... that a condition exists involving danger to life."

Mr Andreychenko is being held on a $10,000 bond, and will not be allowed to possess a firearm if he does make bail.