Springfield MO/ active shooter threat, detains man with oarmor, rifle & over 100 rds

[Baldanders]

Social mores are a "thing."

The idea that mores would ever shift enough to make brandishing the equivalent of an infantryman's loadout socially acceptable is delusional. AFAIK, the most that has ever been acceptable in any culture is the equivalent of a sidearm, e.g. : rapiers and smallswords in renaissance Europe.

Argue rights all you want, aint happenin'.

[TGS]

Nothing in the PC statement indicates the OCer *intended* to cause panic (in fact, it says the opposite):

No, it doesn't. Reading comprehension. The affidavit reports that the subject stated he did not know that people would react the way they did to him; that's not the finding of the officer.

His claim obviously doesn't pass the sniff test. He can claim ignorance all he wants, but the other information in the affidavit (witness statements about his planning and the fact he was recording himself) are being used as evidence that he did intend to incite a reaction.

[Stephanie B]

I disagree. He never threatened to cause an incident to threaten life. He didn't say he was going to yell "fire" in the theater or pull the fire alarm. He didn't say he was going to run around with a fake bomb vest yelling allah akbar.

He said he was going to livestream a walk in his walmart while open carrying a semiautomatic rifle - as is his right. He wasn't waving the rifle around in a threatening manner, he wasn't running, he wasn't saying anything threatening. He surely expected looks & reactions, but he never communicated a desire or expectation that doing so would cause injury or even an evacuation.

With all due respect: Horseshit. A reasonable person would have understood that walking into a Walmart wearing tactical gear and carrying an AR, a few days after two mass shootings, would likely cause panic.

I’ll bet that a jury will also see it that way.

[blues]

With all due respect: Horseshit. A reasonable person would have understood that walking into a Walmart wearing tactical gear and carrying an AR would, a few days after two mass shootings, would likely cause panic.

I’ll bet that a jury will also see it that way.

If it gets to a jury then his thought experiment into the 2A and how people would react to his behavior will be complete.

(I doubt that competent counsel will let it get that far.)

Dumbass.

[HCM]

I disagree. He never threatened to cause an incident to threaten life. He didn't say he was going to yell "fire" in the theater or pull the fire alarm. He didn't say he was going to run around with a fake bomb vest yelling allah akbar.

He said he was going to livestream a walk in his walmart while open carrying a semiautomatic rifle - as is his right. He wasn't waving the rifle around in a threatening manner, he wasn't running, he wasn't saying anything threatening. He surely expected looks & reactions, but he never communicated a desire or expectation that doing so would cause injury or even an evacuation.

You can disagree all you want but it dosent make you correct. The DA, whose opinion matters, agrees and if this guy is dumb enough to go to trial a jury will agree too.

Threats do not have to be words. Actions can be a threat. Read the statute again. Particularly the part that includes “implied threats”

That his behavior was not “more” threatening is why he is still alive vs being shot. That doesn’t make it ok.

You speak like someone with no real world experience with violent people or the criminal justice system.
Dude is done.

You have people commenting here with decades of experience in the criminal justice system, and not just LE. You might consider that a clue.

If you want to open carry a rifle with a plate carrier as a normal thing Somalia and the tribal regions if Pakistan are nice thus time of year.

[HCM]

With all due respect: Horseshit. A reasonable person would have understood that walking into a Walmart wearing tactical gear and carrying an AR, a few days after two mass shootings, would likely cause panic.

I’ll bet that a jury will also see it that way.

Along those lines if you can’t convince a bunch gun nerds his actions were reasonable good luck with “regular people.”

[Trooper224]

I disagree. He never threatened to cause an incident to threaten life. He didn't say he was going to yell "fire" in the theater or pull the fire alarm. He didn't say he was going to run around with a fake bomb vest yelling allah akbar.

He said he was going to livestream a walk in his walmart while open carrying a semiautomatic rifle - as is his right. He wasn't waving the rifle around in a threatening manner, he wasn't running, he wasn't saying anything threatening. He surely expected looks & reactions, but he never communicated a desire or expectation that doing so would cause injury or even an evacuation.

If your plan is to be the resident shithouse lawyer you've picked the wrong place for that.

[Trooper224]

Social mores are a "thing."

The idea that mores would ever shift enough to make brandishing the equivalent of an infantryman's loadout socially acceptable is delusional. AFAIK, the most that has ever been acceptable in any culture is the equivalent of a sidearm, e.g. : rapiers and smallswords in renaissance Europe.

Argue rights all you want, aint happenin'.

Personally, I have no desire to live in a society where this kind of jocked up ass hattery is the cultural norm.

[Stephanie B]

If it gets to a jury then his thought experiment into the 2A and how people would react to his behavior will be complete.

(I doubt that competent counsel will let it get that far.)

Dumbass.

Yeah. Plead out to misdemeanor breach of the peace/disorderly conduct.

[whomever]

FWIW, Andrew Branca's thoughts on the legal issues (of both the guy with the rifle and the firefighter who detained him):

https://lawofselfdefense.com/underst...y-armor-event/