Springfield (MO) Walmart Rifle/Body Armor Event is NOT a Second Amendment Case
The Second Amendment is not a waiver against being held responsible for otherwise criminal conduct.
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.
The full text of §574.115 can be viewed at the link above, but the relevant portion in this instance is almost certainly the following:
§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.
Was Firefighter’s Threat of Deadly Force Unlawful?
In order to understand how the law is likely to apply in this case, it’s also important to understand that for legal purposes the conduct of each of the main characters involved—Andreychenko on the one hand and the firefighter on the other—are not dependent upon each other. They are, of course, related to each other—presumably, the firefighter would not have taken Andreychenko at gunpoint but for Andreychenko’s conduct in showing up to Walmart as he did—but they are not controlling on each other.
What I mean by that is this: whether the firefighter’s conduct was lawful (or unlawful) is not a function of whether Andreychenko’s conduct was lawful (or unlawful). It is not necessary that Andreychenko was committing any crime whatever in order for the firefighter taking him at gunpoint to do so lawfully.
So anyone arguing that the firefighter taking Andreychenko at gunpoint must have been unlawful because Andreychenko was “simply exercising his Second Amendment rights” is rather missing the point. The firefighter pointing a gun at Andreychenko could well be perfectly lawful even if it’s true that Andreychenko was committing no crime at all.
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 of 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.
Is it likely that a jury—fully aware that just days prior to this Missouri event a mass shooter with a rifle had walked into a Walmart in Texas and murdered a bunch of people in a mass attack—would perceive as wildly unreasonable the firefighter’s perception that Andreychenko armed with a rifle and body armor and more than a hundred rounds of ammunition while walking into a Walmart in Missouri was an imminent deadly force threat?
Especially when the fire fighter’s perception was shared by other witnesses of Andreychenko’s conduct? Especially when the consequence of the firefighter’s actions was not the death of Andreychenko, but merely holding Andreychenko at gunpoint for approximately three minutes until police arrived to take over the matter?
When balancing the dangers posed by holding Andreychenko at gunpoint for perhaps three minutes until police arrived, on the one hand, and the concern that Andreychenko could have been a copycat mass murderer, on the other hand, how would you expect a jury to weigh those two risks?
Remember, it matters not at all that the firefighter’s perception of Andreychenk was actually correct. It only matters if it was reasonable under the circumstances.
Were I a prosecutor contemplating charging that firefighter with having committed an unlawful threat of force against Andreychenko, aware of the defense argument just described that would be raised against any such charge, as well as the likely political perception of bringing such a charge under the current circumstances, the decision to not do so would be an easy one.
Second Amendment Does Not Excuse Unlawful Conduct
In addition, the fact that Andreychenko may have caused such a reasonable perception of an imminent deadly force threat while carrying a firearm does not excuse that conduct, if the conduct is otherwise unlawful. The Second Amendment is not a waiver against being held responsible for otherwise criminal conduct.
Robbing a bank is not lawful just because the robber used a gun and was “simply exercising his Second Amendment rights.” Similarly, committing a terroristic threat is not lawful just because the person doing so is armed with a rifle and claiming to be “simply exercising his Second Amendment rights.”
It may be helpful to do a thought experiment in which we strip guns out of the picture entirely. If a man had walked into a Texas Walmart carrying cans labeled “fertilizer” and “diesel fuel,” combined the two in the middle of the floor, and ignited the combination to blow up the building and kill lots of people, and then a few days later a similarly equipped man had walked into a Missouri Walmart, would it be wildly unreasonable for observers to reasonably perceive a similar outcome?
Even in the absence of a specific law against carrying fertilizer and diesel fuel into a store? Even in the absence of the second man having any actual intent to blow the second store up?
More succinctly: This Missouri Walmart case is not a “gun rights” matter, and anyone who thinks it is a “gun rights” simply hasn’t thought the matter through.
Assessing the Criminality of Andreychenko’s Conduct
What about the criminal charge of terroristic threatening brought against Andreychenko? Is it a reasonable charge under the circumstances? Is it likely he could be convicted of this charge?
I’ve heard some argue that there’s “no evidence” that Andreychenko intended to harm anyone, that he was “simply exercising his Second Amendment rights,” and that for all we know his intent was perfectly lawful. OK, let’s take a look at that.
For discussion purposes, I’ll distill the charge against Andreychenko as: “with the purpose of frightening ten or more people [he] knowingly caused a false belief or fear that . . . a condition exists involving danger to life.”
But how, you might wonder, are we supposed to know what Andreychenko’s “purpose” was, absent him confessing that intent? After all, we don’t have a brain scanning machine that can definitively tell us his intent in walking into that Walmart carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, and carrying some 100 rounds of ammunition. Doesn’t that mean there’s “reasonable doubt” that he intended to commit the crime of terroristic threatening?
Well, no. While it’s true that we don’t have a brain scanning machine to apply to Andreychenko, it’s also true that we’ve never had a brain scanning machine to apply to any criminal defendant, and yet people get convicted all the time based on their criminal intent.
And how do we determine their criminal intent absent such a brain scanning machine, at least in the absence of their own confession of their intent? We make reasonable inferences from their conduct and the circumstances. Ultimately, of course, it is a jury making that reasonable inference.
Was Andreychenko’s intent in carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, and having 100 rounds of ammo on his person to “go shopping at Walmart?” That seems unlikely, given that millions upon millions of people shop at Walmart, without feeling the need to bring a rifle, body armor, and ammunition.
Was Andreychenko’s intent in carrying a rifle, wearing body armor, and having 100 rounds of ammo on his person to “exercise his Second Amendment rights?” Really? There are over a 100 million gun owners in America, including Second Amendment absolutists like myself who believe all pre-emptive gun laws applied to law-abiding, mentally-sound American citizens to be facially unconstitutional, and who exercise our Second Amendment rights every single day, and yet have never felt the need to carry a rifle into a Walmart while wearing body armor.
But Andrew, I can hear people saying, sure, carrying a rifle into Walmart while wearing body armor may be unusual, but that doesn’t make it illegal.
I would suggest it does if such conduct is reasonably foreseeable to “cause a fear that a condition exists involving danger to life,” the feared condition being a copycat rifle-armed mass murdered in a Walmart, mere days after such an event having actually occurred, which is precisely why society creates laws such as Missouri’s terroristic threatening statute.
Remember, it doesn’t matter what Andreychenko’s intent actually was, it only matters what a jury is likely to infer that Andreychenko’s intent was.
There are places in which gearing up with a rifle and body armor and ammunition would not be reasonably expected to cause a fear of immediate danger to life. A military or police exercise. A competitive rifle match. A shooting range. One’s own home. In the presence of an active threat or natural disaster against which a rifle and body armor and plenty of ammunition would be a rational and prudent defensive action.
While shopping at Walmart? Not so much.
And if there does not appear to be a reasonable basis for gearing up with a rifle, body armor, and ammunition, it should not be surprising if observers perceive that there may be an unreasonable basis for doing so, an unlawful basis, a life-threatening basis—and that’s especially the case if a mass shooting under similar circumstances and at great loss to innocent life has just occurred.
Second Amendment: With “Friends” Like This …
Even if we were to give Andreychenko the benefit of the doubt and assume that his intent in “shopping” at Walmart armed with a rifle and wearing body armor, days after a mass shooting at another Walmart under similar circumstances, was 100% well-intentioned, defending this conduct on Second Amendment grounds is politically foolish, and catastrophically so.
Just because some conduct is lawful doesn’t mean it’s smart, and if one’s self-claimed mission is support of the Second Amendment, exercising that right in such a way that your conduct can be reasonably be expected to scare the heck out of normal people out in public—each of whom has exactly the same vote that you have—is politically idiotic.
I’ve written about this at length before, particularly with respect to the folks who used to (maybe still do?) gather at Starbucks while geared up with long guns, such as in this post from more than five years ago: Op-Ed: “Open Carry” Activists Score Yet Another Own Goal (5/21/14)
In short, anyone who is exercising their Second Amendment rights on the basis of MUAH RAHTS!!!” and in such a way that the actual and reasonably foreseeable effect is to undermine generalized political support for the Second Amendment is no genuine friend of the Second Amendment. They are, rather, engaged in self-serving, attention-grabbing behavior that is detrimental to the Second Amendment. They are no ally of the Second Amendment, and no friend of mine.
The Tenth Amendment states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Although the Tenth Amendment is explicitly intended to constrain the Federal government, in favor of the States, in our modern society it is effectively a dead Amendment, with essentially no political or legal effect whatever. Was the Tenth Amendment repealed? Nope. It’s still on the books. It is simply impotent, for the very practical reason that today’s society has chosen for it to be impotent.
The same precise fate awaits the Second Amendment if it suffers a comparable loss in generalized political support. I urge all true Second Amendment supporters to conduct themselves in a manner that increases, rather than decreases, generalized political support for our gun rights.
My advice is that you exercise your Second Amendment rights responsibly, like adults who both demand that right and accept the responsibilities that come with it, rather than as self-serving adult-children who want rights without responsibility. Because if the second path is chosen, the others in society will strip that right away, without hesitation.
–Andrew
NEW! Law of Self Defense “Defense of Property” Course
For those of you interested in this kind of use-of-force legal content, as well as insight and analysis into how such laws are actually applied by the criminal justice system, I’d like to let you know that Law of Self Defense (that’s me) has just launched our newest instruction course on “Defense of Property.”
In this course we cover the practical legal privileges and constraints for the use of force in defense of your home, your business, your vehicle, your pets, and more, with all the legalese translated into plain English, and while providing the most relevant defense of property law of all 50 states.
Even better, during this launch (only through Monday, August 12!), we’re offering this course at half the usual price (so, less than $50), AND we’re adding as a free bonus of your choice of any of our State-specific self-defense law courses (usually $100 by itself).
You can learn more about our new “Defense of Property” course, and take advantage of this launch sale (but only through Monday!), by clicking here: Law of Self Defense “Defense of Property” Course.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
www.lawofselfdefense.com
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Absent evidence, what I as a layman cannot know is whether or not he would become the next mass killer.
As a juror I would look at any statement he might put forward in his defense in askance.
Having little to no other information on which to bace my judgment, seeing a person enter a store as described, my first thought would be “take cover we have a madman on our hands!!”
Two comments:
1. The firefighter did the right thing.
2. I am sick of these “Open Carry” nuts pulling stunts like these.
Are you sure he was an “open carry nut”? I have not seen any evidence yet, that absent the firefighter, he would not have been the next mass killer.
I’ll grant you that he could just be a nut.
Thought question for you. Why wuold an open carry proponent do this in MO which is already an open carry state?
To “raise consciousness”. Like Andrew wrote, they are NOT helping their cause by scaring people.
To raise whose consciences? To what end in a state that is one of the most 2A freindly states in the nation. Not saying your wrong, just asking what evidence is there that he wasn’t going to shoot up the place.
So, the biggest chickenshit in the crowd determines the legal extent of civil rights?
Obviously not. So we have to invoke the fictional “reasonable person.”
That’s all the “open carry” nuts are trying to do; fine-tune the ideas that “reasonable persons” have.
This is not really all that extreme a program. Otherwise we’re well on the way to a society in which anyone spotted with a gun is assumed by the crowd—and, more importantly, by the polics—to be a horrible danger requiring instant action.
I’ve seen quite a few guns carried, but never any which were obvious dangers. But, I’m not a dumb millennial from California, so my ideas of what’s perfectly normal are different. And, I’d hope, more “reasonable.”
Reasonable is just that, reasonable based upon the normal practices of a society. That applies to carrying a firearm as well as any other activity.
Wearing a speedo to a formal church wedding is not illegal. However reasonable members of society view it as highly unusual and therefor, unreasonable. displaying a firearm is not illegal in a lot of places, Pennsylvania for instance. However, public display, open carry if you prefer, is simply not done in most cities, except by uniformed security and law enforcement officers and 2A activists wanting to make a point. Almost all such carry is done concealed. So, when a non-uniformed person openly carries in say Harrisburg, people notice, because it is unusual. And, as this unusual behavior involves a deadly weapon, there is a reason concern, not necessarily a fear that this person may represent a danger of violent attack. See how it works?
You are both wrong and right. Wrong that the reasonable person is fictional. Wrong that the most “chickenshit” person in a crowd determines the limits of our civil rights. You are right that our civil rights can have and are being eroded. Given events in recent weeks walking into a store dressed as if you were going into battle is not reasonable by any standard.
At best it demonstrates a narscistic cry for attention and a devorce from common sense. If he had walked in carrying a .357 magnum dressed in common street close who would have given him more than a second look. Exercising your rights requires you also exercise responsibility.
I open carry all the time, including in a Walmart last week after the El Paso shooting (and will do so tomorrow when I do my grocery shopping at the local Walmart, where about two years ago two other “gun nuts” stopped a shooter in the parking lot by pasting him dead – the lethal shot coming from a pastor’s gun). AFAIK, I have never frightened anyone there or elsewhere (excepting one crazy lady on a park trail, who claimed to be in fear of me while going out of her way to antagonize and berate me – actions not consistent with her claim of fear). I believe most people don’t notice. Many of those who do give me words of support, ask questions about my gun, or simply give me a smile and a thumbs up.
And I resent being called a “nut” for doing nothing more than exercising my rights. Americans have been conditioned to fear firearms and those who own them by several decades of MSM propaganda and misinformation. (The shooting of Tamir Rice can be blamed for this hysteria, which induced a person to call the police even though he believed the gun Tamir had was a toy. This would not have happened without the above-mentioned conditioning.) The only way to break this conditioning is to make people realize how many of their friends and neighbors are armed, and the only way to do that is to make of the firearm and visible political statement. I am not waiting for newspapers to run a daily headline “Yesterday 100 Million Gun Owners Killed No One.”
If you’re a Christian, you would probably not appreciate being called a nut for exercising your rights to your beliefs. I expect the same kind of respect.
This is the same as yelling fire in a crowded theater to raise awareness of fire safety.
The other question is if the open carry was lawful, how could the mere presence of a weapon constitute a terroristic threat? That or any other weapon was allowed to be PRESENT; had he brandished it, unslung it, etc. I can see it, but the lawful presence of a weapon is not a threat.
He was carrying the weapon at low ready.
That amounts to brandishing, especially with body armor and an openly carried sidearm.
If the firefighter had simply given him two in the chest and one in the head with zero warning, and I were on the grand jury, I would no-bill the fireman.
If he was carrying at low ready, this charge is justified.
Slung on his back or shoulder, it wouldn’t.
Where are you finding this? Link?
Great write up, as usual
I totally agree with your analysis. In NY- the firefighter would likely be in jail with no bail, but, that’s NY….
But the law- “§574.115. Making a terrorist threat, first degree — penalty
(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.”
appears to be unconstitutionally vague. Mass evacuations frequently happen due to precautionary principle- people think there’s a condition involving danger to life, when there isn’t, and evacuation starts. “I smell gas!” is a common cause of false evacuations.
So, open carry is legal on paper, but not in practice. Got it. Remind me to never hire you as my attorney.
No, the possession of the rifle was legal. However, if the firearm is carried in such a manner that would be likely to place a reasonable man in fear of potential violent attack and the carrier knew this or should have known this, being a reasonable man, this use is illegal. And, the 2nd Amendment only bars restrictions on owning and possessing personal weapons, including firearms. Governments are free to place reasonable restrictions on the use of those weapons.
Now, given the recent incidents involving shootings in stores, Walmart in particular, the rifle carrier either displayed his weapon and acted in the manner in which he did in order to generate a reasonable fear among others, or he should have known ot would have that effect. He can always fall back on the incompetent boob defense and claim abysmal stupidity. But, from reports of his later statements to police he was attempting to generate just such a response.
In light of the past few years of federal law enforcements apparent disregard of citizens rights, even of those running for president, and the “suicide” of Jeffrey Epstein I would not be surprised if Mr. Andreychenko was not wearing what might become common dress if the swamp is not drained of the criminal element operating under the color of law enforcement. I pray I’m wrong.
The legal guild has certainly failed us.
Good article, Mr. Branca.
The rifle carrier not only entered the store DISPLAYED a high capacity semi-automatic rifle, he was VISIBLY clad in a tactical bullet resistant vest and was asking a clerk for ammunition to kill a large number of people. This behavior alone would generate a well reasoned fear of pending use of deadly force by the individual. It does not rise to legally justifying the actual use of deadly force, but it most likely justifies the threatened use of deadly force. The detention of the rifle toting man, under these circumstances, is a bit more problematical. But, also probably justifiable. The biggest problem that the person making the detention has, is what to do if the rifle toting man simply ignores hm and walks away.
However, IMHO the individual states have no more power to restrict the ownership and possession of firearms than does the federal government and that is limited to control of ingress to high security facilities. The language of the 2nd Amendment, which contains no exceptions to the prohibition against infringement [regulation] on the ownership and possession of weapons by the individual, was essentially applied to the states in 1868 by the ratification of the 14th Amendment. Again, it is my opinion that any law which restricts an adult, who is free to move about in society, from owning or possessing a firearm or other personal weapon, is unconstitutional. This includes laws requiring background checks.
I find no evidence that the suspect “was asking a clerk for ammunition to kill a large number of people.”
Near as I can tell, the suspect barely said a word to anyone.
My bad. The person who was asking a Walmart clerk for ammo to kill 200 people was at a store in Florida on the same day. It appeared in an ABC report on the Missouri incident.
But wasn’t there a mass shooting at a Wal-Mart?
Wouldn’t it seem prudent to take common sense defensive measures if one were to visit one of their stores?
I try to stay out of them.
My suspicion is that if this idiot had leveled his rifle at the firefighter he (the idiot) would have received a lesson in the meaning of the 2A.
“This Missouri Walmart case is not a “gun rights” matter, and anyone who thinks it is a “gun rights” simply hasn’t thought the matter through.”
Actually, I have thought it through and explored the matter here:
Strolling Through Walmart with a Rifle & 100 Rounds of Ammo Might be Reckless, but is it a Crime?
Yet, without violent threats, manifestos, or actions in an open-carry state like Missouri, did the suspect really break the law? Or is he simply an overzealous gun-rights advocate attempting to make a point?
Whether or not the carrier’s actions rose to a violation of law is something that the criminal justice system will have to work out. Depending upon his exact actions and his intentions, this could go either way.
Now was it stupid? Yeah. pretty much. One of the problems with open carry, in general, is that it makes a person a target for criminal attack. If a person wishes to arm himself, all that he has to do is to walk up behind the person, hit him over the head, take the person’s visible firearms and, if desirable, kill him and walk off. If this carrier walks in on an armed robbery in progress, he is liable to be shot immediately to reduce his risk to the criminal. Both scenarios have happened in the past to open carriers. Then of course, there is the problem where the carrier, knowing that he is no threat to anyone, mistakenly assumes that the person, with whom he is dealing, knows this as well. People are very dangerous when scared. This often ends with the carrier being injured or killed.
Activists are always more of a danger to society than they are a benefit. That is because they need to push the envelope to make their point. This often results in unintended negative consequences. And, of course, the activists always whine the loudest over these unintended consequences.
I really dislike open carry. That’s just me and others can do whatever the heck they want but if someone walks into my local WalMart carrying a rifle, handgun and wearing body armor, I’m going to follow them at a discrete distance because that’s not normal behavior. It’s hard enough to educate people without the nutcases coming out of the woodwork and making our jobs harder.
the firefighter gets a pass–he MAY have prevented a lethal incident from occurring–how was the guy displaying the weapon? did he have it slung behind his back? was he carrying it at port arms? this is a walmart, not a gunstore/shooting range–the firefighter had only a few seconds to decide and he opted to threaten and hold the other guy for the cavalry–would thank the guy myself for being aware–he didn’t overreact, he contained the situation till the professionals arrived
What would be helpful is seeing security footage of the incident. All Walmart’s have numerous security cameras. Not that it would change the outcome but it might very well change the arguement.
If I heard correctly, the fear created was sufficient that Walmart employees immediately pulled the fire alarm and customers evacuated… including the man with the rifle and body armor. The firefighter in question held him at gunpoint outside the Walmart subsequent to this.
Under the circumstances, with the FBI having barely finished telling America to be on guard for copycat killers, I have difficulty faulting the responses.
Shadow, you don’t even need the security tapes because apparently this guy was recording himself the whole time,
I’ve heard the suspect has claimed this was a social experiment. He should not be surprised that the result of his experiment is a criminal charge because Walmart is not his property, nor is it a public place. It is a large but private place of business.
The most repeated comment I’ve heard about him is that (fools) like this make life harder for all responsible gun owners, especially those practicing concealed carry. They have my sympathy. This loser does not.
Open carry isn’t legal in CA, so openly carrying a rifle into a Walmart here would certainly cause panic amongst the populace, whether it were menacingly brandished or not.
Some years ago I attended a Gun Rights Policy Conference in Phoenix, AZ, where open carry is legal. That took place at a very nice Radisson Hotel; upon arriving in the lobby there, at first I didn’t notice- but about half the men there were openly carrying holstered guns. To a Californian, this was quite exciting; but to Arizonans it was commonplace.
At that Conference I got to examine a lot of different people’s handguns; and one discussion group was about rifles, which many had brought, usually in gun cases but not always. No one batted an eye.
However, the circumstances in the case we’re discussing are very different, as Mr. Branca has pointed out so carefully. If there had been a mass shooting in a hotel just before that Gun Rights meeting, I very much doubt that it would have taken place; if it had, I’m pretty sure that most people would’ve been very discreet about showing their weapons, and been very careful not to alarm anyone, knowing that after such a tragedy people are on edge.
That’s the point: when people are upset & fearful, doing a stunt like “simply exercising his second amendment rights” by wearing body armor & carrying a loaded rifle is a stupid thing to do. It’s almost guaranteed to frighten a lot of people, who rightly or wrongly will assume that this guy’s a copycat murderer. They wouldn’t want to take a chance on guessing wrong, it may mean their death!
Now if that very same guy, wearing ordinary clothing without body armor, had gone into that store with a discreet holstered pistol (probably like the fireman was wearing,) probably no one would’ve even noticed. So this man was stupid; his stupidity could well have got him shot dead, but for the calm & patience of the fireman.
As R.A. Heinlein said, “Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.” Maybe next time he’ll get his Darwin Award!
Hope the open carry advocates read this.Just because it’s “legal” doesn’t make it ml politically smart or tactically smart. If you are open carrying, you are the first target. If you don’t see it coming and get him first, you’ll be the first casualty…
“Just because it’s ‘legal’ to donate to Donald Trump’s campaign doesn’t make it politically smart or tactically smart.”
Sounds like a familiar argument………
I would also not be surprised that some of these are anti-gun, trying to stir up angst to get more gun control enacted.
A few thoughts on this incident. Southern Missouri and northern Arkansas received refugees from Bosnia who follow an ideology and religion that some followers believe justifies the use of terror. A couple of years ago several propane tanks were stolen and there were reports of two or three men going to several Walmarts in western and central Missouri (one of the purchases may have been in northern Arkansas) purchasing large quantities of prepaid cell phones. While I don’t remember the incidents being resolved, some law enforcement members said this could have been a dry run for a future attack. All things considered, this is an area where I suspect a terror attack is probably on the minds of many people.
As far as the Russian connection, my first thought was one of the countries to the south of Russia which use Russian style names and are predominately Muslim. I don’t believe his name would be a consideration in what happened in the Walmart because I don’t think anyone would have known it. Now, if he spoke with a strong accent that would another matter.
Mr. Andreychenko almost took first prize in the MO Darwin Awards. This episode is the perfect example of why that just because you can do something it doesn’t mean you should or have to do that something.
Personally I don’t truly understand his motivation. This action is not helping advance the cause of law abiding citizens as responsible, emotionally mature individuals. Maybe several weeks after a mass shooting with prior buy in from local LE and that particular store I could see conducting a ‘sociology’ experiment. As is oh heck no.
Congrats to the firefighter. Used self discipline and training. Demonstrating what a good guy with a gun can do. Prevent what seemed like a huge threat, not firing a shot. Excellent display of emotional maturity and grasp of the tactical and legal situation that the use of a firearm can bring. Before you say it IMHO unholstering a weapon is ‘using’ it.