Copycat Walmart shootings this week, or other potential shootings

[johndoe3]

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9685741/w ... n-el-paso/

There are a slew of copycat Walmart shooting incidents taking place across the USA this week, copying the El Paso, TX shooting, or other asshattery. Although the statistical odds of any of you being present when a Walmart copycat shooting takes place or potential shooting incident is very low, the reason for my post is to highlight what the media is not covering--all the Walmart incidents taking place. If you go to Walmart, consider being armed with concealed carry. There is no need to fear going to a Walmart, go if you want to; but concealed carry when doing so right now is good advice.

1. Thursday -- Springfield, MO Walmart
man wearing body armor, military fatigues, AR-15 with 100 rounds of ammo. An off-duty fireman concealed carrying, held the potential shooter at gunpoint until police arrived.

2. Wednesday -- Port St Lucie, FL Walmart, ~7pm
guy asked a clerk for anything they might have that he could use to kill 200 people, had gun

3. Wednesday -- Washington Walmart
man with gun walked in and threatened to open fire

4. Wednesday -- Livermore, CA Walmart
man shot dead in the parking lot, ~4am

5. Tuesday -- Baton Rouge LA Walmart
argument in the service line between 2 customers resulted in both drawing guns.

[poikilotrm]

Were any of them Republicans or libertarians?

And numbers 4 and 5 were just regular Walmart crime.

[johndoe3]

https://lawofselfdefense.com/understand ... mor-event/

Self-defense lawyer (author of the Law of Self-Defense book and website) has a blog posting discussing the possible fate of the Springfield, MO Walmart armed person arrested Thursday. It's a response to many who've asked him whether the armed Walmart arrestee wasn't guilt of any crime, since he was just exercising his 2nd Amendment rights and hadn't shot anyone? And if so, was the good-samaritan Fireman who held him at gunpoint guilty of some crime?

That man with the rifle has been identified by Springfield police as Dmitriy N. Andreychenko (insert Russian interference comments here), 20 years old, and he was arrested on a charge of making a terrorist threat, first degree, presumably under Missouri statute §574.115 Making a terroristic threat, first degree. (Featured image is booking photo.)

This is a class D felony under Missouri law, good for seven years in prison and $10,000 fine. Naturally, conviction on this (or any other) felony charge would strip Mr. Andreychenko of his gun rights forever.

The full text of §574.115 can be viewed at the link above, but the relevant portion in this instance is almost certainly:

§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.

Ultimately, the article states that a jury will decide his fate on the charge of Making a Terroristic Threat. Meanwhile Mr Andreychenko has stated for his defense that "he was conducting a sociological experiment".

On the legality of the Fireman holding him at gunpoint...

Reasonable Perception, Not Actual Threat, Controls

Why? Because what determines the legality of the firefighter’s threat of force is his reasonable perception of the circumstances. That is, if the firefighter reasonably perceived that Andreychenko presented an imminent threat of deadly force harm to innocents, taking him at gunpoint to neutralize that threat would be perfectly lawful. And that’s true regardless of whether Andreychenko actually presented, or intended to present, such a threat.

Further, it doesn’t matter what you, gentle reader, or I think of the reasonableness of the firefighter’s perception of Andreychenko. None of us will be the ultimate deciders of the reasonableness of the firefighter’s perception, and thus the lawfulness of the fire fighter’s conduct.

Ultimately the only opinion on this that matters is that of a prospective jury, the body to whom the prosecutor must sell a narrative of guilt, and in the interim that of the prosecutor who is gauging how a jury is likely to perceive these facts.

IMHO, the Fireman will not be charged at all, he's considered a hero by most people; and any reasonable person would see his actions as appropriate given the circumstances.

[a_canadian]

This guy's just hilarious. His wife (yes folks, even people this stupid can get married) and his sister both tried to dissuade him from engaging in such a blatantly stupid and virtually suicidal experiment, and yet he did it anyway. This is one case where I have to side with the women. I mean, open carry is one thing, but wearing a damn plate carrier and a bunch of mags and a 'scary black rifle' to a Walmart in the same week as a mass slaughter in another Walmart? How stupid can you get!? There's legal, and there are Constitutional rights, and those things are important, but then there's this little thing called (probably should be renamed, considering how rare it's becoming) common sense. Dude plainly had none of that.