Firearms Iinstuctor
Regular Member
I would disagree the store manager cause the alarm and scared people.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OCer stopped at Springfield Walmart with gun, 100 rds of ammo
- Thread starter BB62
- Start date
I would disagree the store manager cause the alarm and scared people.
OC for ME
Regular Member
Class D felony.
Sure. Of course. But isn't a crime a crime?
KBCraig
Regular Member
No. That's why speeding isn't a capital offense.
Speeding is a crime?
There was no panic until the idiot manager pulled a firealarm.
The firefighter who apparently thinks he is 007 is extremely lucky he was not quite legally shot in SD for pulling a gun on a citizen doing a completely legal act.
Personally I hope after the charges are tossed out the guy bankrupts the city police dept, the arresting officers , the idiot twins , firefighter and store manager.
The firefighter who apparently thinks he is 007 is extremely lucky he was not quite legally shot in SD for pulling a gun on a citizen doing a completely legal act.
Personally I hope after the charges are tossed out the guy bankrupts the city police dept, the arresting officers , the idiot twins , firefighter and store manager.
JTHunter2
Regular Member
Ghost - it is unlikely they will drop the charges but I hold out hope that this guy gets a good lawyer and he prevails. THEN this "Russkie" (??) can go after the city, county, and the fire-fighter.
Unfortunately, Wal-mart's "pockets" are too deep for him to be able to prevail against them.
Unfortunately, Wal-mart's "pockets" are too deep for him to be able to prevail against them.
Vitaeus
Regular Member
1st He is an idiot, legal, but an idiot
2nd hopefully he gets a good lawyer, since this would be a horrible precedent to allow
3rd Firefighter might just have been doing his best with limited information, but no immediate threat should not involve drawing your firearm, let alone pointing at someone else.
4th damn, I miss having time for Open Carry
2nd hopefully he gets a good lawyer, since this would be a horrible precedent to allow
3rd Firefighter might just have been doing his best with limited information, but no immediate threat should not involve drawing your firearm, let alone pointing at someone else.
4th damn, I miss having time for Open Carry
OC for ME
Regular Member
There is a glaring lack of evidence that the Walmart patrons were as worked up about the armed citizen as the Walmart manager and the firefighter apparently were.
Precedent has been set...please note the charge filed.
The firefighter violated RSMo 571.030.1(4), he must be tested under RSMo 563.026/031, the firefighter should be tested under RSMo 563.051. Charge the firefighter under RSMo 565.050/090, RSMo 571.015. The firefighter thinking he knew MO weapons/use of force statutes is not the same as he knowing MO weapons/use of force statutes. Ignorance is no excuse...though, Springfield will not charge the firefighter, just as prosecutors/cops will not charge a 911 caller who calls cops on a OCer.
The citizen did not violate any MO statutes, hence Springfield not charging him with weapons offenses.
Edit for clarity.
Precedent has been set...please note the charge filed.
The firefighter violated RSMo 571.030.1(4), he must be tested under RSMo 563.026/031, the firefighter should be tested under RSMo 563.051. Charge the firefighter under RSMo 565.050/090, RSMo 571.015. The firefighter thinking he knew MO weapons/use of force statutes is not the same as he knowing MO weapons/use of force statutes. Ignorance is no excuse...though, Springfield will not charge the firefighter, just as prosecutors/cops will not charge a 911 caller who calls cops on a OCer.
The citizen did not violate any MO statutes, hence Springfield not charging him with weapons offenses.
Edit for clarity.
Last edited:
will this go to a jury?
First who are you referring to, fireman or idiot or manager?
Personally doubt much will come out as the heat dies down and everything will be capitulated out!
2A audit guy
Hard to say. The statute they are trying to use requires intent.
Hard to prove . And missing in this instance
I guessing that if the anti gun county prosecutor goes to court the charge will be dismissed unless it's a liberal anti gun judge.
BB62
Accomplished Advocate
Based on what I know at the moment, I agree.
The thing everyone seems to keep missing in the rush to pile on the carrier is HE didn't cause the panic.
It's a given very few shoppers could even have known he was there.
The idiot manager did that by initiating a bogus fire alarm.
And the carrier came out along with the rest of the patrons only to assaulted with a deadly weapin by Wyat Earp the firefighter.
The guy had every right to carry and dress as he pleased. All the manager needed to do if he wanted him gone was to tell him to leave the store.
The wrong person got charged in this situation. The manager and the firefighter are the only ones who broke any law.
It's a given very few shoppers could even have known he was there.
The idiot manager did that by initiating a bogus fire alarm.
And the carrier came out along with the rest of the patrons only to assaulted with a deadly weapin by Wyat Earp the firefighter.
The guy had every right to carry and dress as he pleased. All the manager needed to do if he wanted him gone was to tell him to leave the store.
The wrong person got charged in this situation. The manager and the firefighter are the only ones who broke any law.
OC for ME
Regular Member
oooohh ooohhh oohhhhh!!!! this is the first EVER real life scenaio of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater!!!!!
OC for ME
Regular Member
A local cop, Springfield, analogized to that very situation to justify the charge filed.
We-the-People
Regular Member
Well it's been a while since I've been here to OC.ORG and I see the butters are still an ever present problem.
So let's see here...... We have a law biding citizen walking into a national chain store with an official policy of "if it's legal you're welcome" and a manager in said store apparently not liking that policy who decides to perform a terrorist act and scare more than 10 people by "yelling fire" and causing a panic.
We have an off duty government agent (in the firefighter) who commits a number of felonies including assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, menacing/brandishing/disorderly (dependent upon MO's specific laws).
We have an on duty government agent in a supervisory role (police supervisor) intimating that he and/or his minions might well have executed the law abiding citizen and that he's lucky they didn't.
And then we have the media trying their darndest to spin this with statements like "the armed man fled the store" rather than, when he heard the fire alarm the law abiding citizen exited the store as is normally done after hearing such an alarm.
And finally.....the BUTTERS here who support the second amendment......... BUT only when exercised in a way they approve.
Bottom line, the man did nothing illegal. The terrorist threat charges are to try to save their legal arses as they has ZIP on which to actually charge the man. Their firefighter hero buddy on the other hand committed crimes as well as the WalMart manager, the responding police, and every individual that (reportedly) called in an "active shooter".
Oh and that official police report that is supposedly a "probable cause statement" and purports to list crimes committed.......unless I missed it (and I went over it three times)......there were ZERO crimes listed. Just a lot of statements that clearly don't coincide with the otherwise stated charge of terrorist threats as the PC statement repeatedly states that the subjects intent was to see how the manager of that WalMart respected his 2A.....which a reasonable man would not have expected any problems in a chain store that has nationally recognized lawful open carry.
So let's see here...... We have a law biding citizen walking into a national chain store with an official policy of "if it's legal you're welcome" and a manager in said store apparently not liking that policy who decides to perform a terrorist act and scare more than 10 people by "yelling fire" and causing a panic.
We have an off duty government agent (in the firefighter) who commits a number of felonies including assault with a deadly weapon, kidnapping, menacing/brandishing/disorderly (dependent upon MO's specific laws).
We have an on duty government agent in a supervisory role (police supervisor) intimating that he and/or his minions might well have executed the law abiding citizen and that he's lucky they didn't.
And then we have the media trying their darndest to spin this with statements like "the armed man fled the store" rather than, when he heard the fire alarm the law abiding citizen exited the store as is normally done after hearing such an alarm.
And finally.....the BUTTERS here who support the second amendment......... BUT only when exercised in a way they approve.
Bottom line, the man did nothing illegal. The terrorist threat charges are to try to save their legal arses as they has ZIP on which to actually charge the man. Their firefighter hero buddy on the other hand committed crimes as well as the WalMart manager, the responding police, and every individual that (reportedly) called in an "active shooter".
Oh and that official police report that is supposedly a "probable cause statement" and purports to list crimes committed.......unless I missed it (and I went over it three times)......there were ZERO crimes listed. Just a lot of statements that clearly don't coincide with the otherwise stated charge of terrorist threats as the PC statement repeatedly states that the subjects intent was to see how the manager of that WalMart respected his 2A.....which a reasonable man would not have expected any problems in a chain store that has nationally recognized lawful open carry.