Springfield Toon Was a 'Rumper.

[jaF0]

August 8, 2019 at 8:17 PM EDT - Updated August 9 at 6:21 PM

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. (KYTV) - Police released the name of a heavily armed man arrested after officers responded to an active shooter scare at a southwest Springfield Walmart Neighborhood Market.

A probable cause statement released by the Springfield Police Department outlined new details surrounding an altercation with an armed man inside a south Springfield Walmart, on Thursday, including a statement from the suspect that he wanted to see if his second amendment rights would be respected.

Dmitriy Andreychenko, 20, told investigators that he pulled into the Walmart parking lot and started to record himself with his phone. He grabbed his body armor from the trunk, along with his rifle, and put them on.

From there, Andreychenko told investigators that he grabbed a shopping cart and made his way into the store, curious to see if anyone would stop him and tell him to leave. "I wanted to know if that [sic] Walmart honored the second amendment," said Andreychenko.

Andreychenko said his intentions were to buy grocery bags, and that he didn’t intend for anyone to have a negative response. He said the rifle had a loaded magazine, but no round in the chamber, and that he also had a handgun on his right hip, which was loaded with one round in the chamber.

https://www.fox19.com/2019/08/09/of...unds-ammunition-south-springfield-mo-walmart/

 

[Kantarii]

Thank God for Amazon.

 

[FineWhine]

https://www.fox19.com/2019/08/09/of...unds-ammunition-south-springfield-mo-walmart/

correct, he follows the law, as the state is an open carry state https://www.newsweek.com/missouri-o...00-rounds-ammunition-arrested-walmart-1453480

 

[magicalmoments]

What's more important here?
The nutters right to bare arms according to the law;
Or everyone else's right to go about their lawful business without being made to feel threatened and fearful for their own and their families lives?

I hold the view that any individual right under the law can only be valid up to the point that it starts infringing on other peoples individual rights under the law. If their is a conflict in this then the will of the majority should be applied.

About the only other place in the world with the level of freedom this nutter wants is Afghanistan where it seems any adult male is free to carry arms openly in public. It seems the deplorables are keen to make the USA as free as one of the most war torn shitholes in the world.

 

[Conager]

What's more important here?
The nutters right to bare arms according to the law;
Or everyone else's right to go about their lawful business without being made to feel threatened and fearful for their own and their families lives?

I hold the view that any individual right under the law can only be valid up to the point that it starts infringing on other peoples individual rights under the law. If their is a conflict in this then the will of the majority should be applied.

About the only other place in the world with the level of freedom this nutter wants is Afghanistan where it seems any adult male is free to carry arms openly in public. It seems the deplorables are keen to make the USA as free as one of the most war torn shitholes in the world.

I don't think it matters whether he's wearing a long-sleeve shirt under a tactical vest or not. ~grin~

He's an idiot, though. Just because you can do something legally doesn't mean you should. Causing other people what would be pretty reasonable fear given the way the media has stoked it lately and the recent frequency is unconscionable. The reason you cannot yell fire in a theater is because the ensuing panic could cause injuries or deaths.

An interesting aside here is we were just told by all of the usual anti-gun nuts that an armed citizen would just get shot by other armed citizens and we just had that not happened here. A civilian, who happened to be an off-duty fiireman identified a potential threat neutralized the potential threat and did so without actually pulling the trigger.

Nothing about his job would have trained him to be mindful of such things as covering your Target and being mindful of your back stop but he would have learned a lot about how Kelis are going to identify potential targets in a high threat, uncertain environment. Mostly so he doesn't get shot by friendly fire.

It's more likely that human beings with a gun in their hand who are not psychopaths are air to the side of caution then pulling the trigger. This is why I favor more armed citizens who are comfortable doing so carrying, including ex-felons, and doing so concealed in a gentlemanly fashion.

 

[jaF0]

An interesting aside here is we were just told by all of the usual anti-gun nuts that an armed citizen would just get shot by other armed citizens and we just had that not happened here. A civilian, who happened to be an off-duty fiireman identified a potential threat neutralized the potential threat and did so without actually pulling the trigger.

And how do you think that would have played out had the guy been there to do harm instead of prance around like a circus clown?

 

[suurfer]

Anti-gun nuts?
Hyped media accounts of more than 20 School shootings just this year?

 

[jaF0]

Andreychenko, Andrejchenko or Andreichenko (Russian: Андрейченко) is a Russian gender-neutral surname.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreichenko

I say we send him back to Russia.

 

[bellisarius]

I don't think it matters whether he's wearing a long-sleeve shirt under a tactical vest or not. ~grin~

He's an idiot, though. Just because you can do something legally doesn't mean you should. Causing other people what would be pretty reasonable fear given the way the media has stoked it lately and the recent frequency is unconscionable. The reason you cannot yell fire in a theater is because the ensuing panic could cause injuries or deaths.

An interesting aside here is we were just told by all of the usual anti-gun nuts that an armed citizen would just get shot by other armed citizens and we just had that not happened here. A civilian, who happened to be an off-duty fiireman identified a potential threat neutralized the potential threat and did so without actually pulling the trigger.

Nothing about his job would have trained him to be mindful of such things as covering your Target and being mindful of your back stop but he would have learned a lot about how Kelis are going to identify potential targets in a high threat, uncertain environment. Mostly so he doesn't get shot by friendly fire.

It's more likely that human beings with a gun in their hand who are not psychopaths are air to the side of caution then pulling the trigger. This is why I favor more armed citizens who are comfortable doing so carrying, including ex-felons, and doing so concealed in a gentlemanly fashion.

Exactly. He got his 15 min. of fame though. I wonder if he'll think it was worth it a year from now?

 

[Conager]

Anti-gun nuts?
Hyped media accounts of more than 20 School shootings just this year?

Yes.

.

Andreychenko, Andrejchenko or Andreichenko (Russian: Андрейченко) is a Russian gender-neutral surname.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreichenko

I say we send him back to Russia.

You sound like a white supremacist.

 

[bigsly]

Very interesting case. A "test", he no doubt had pondered what might happen. Can't see the "terrorist" charge sticking for long since no such thing ever happened. About the only law applicable here is maybe disturbing the peace, although that was due only to others' actions, not his.

 

[Conager]

And how do you think that would have played out had the guy been there to do harm instead of prance around like a circus clown?

He would have gotten a couple, depending on how soon that he encountered the armed citizen, whether he had a handgun or a rifle, then he would have been shot by the armed citizen, or realizing that an armed citizen was present, he would have shot himself.

The rifle would have gotten him identified and stopped sooner than an easily concealed handgun would have.

 

[bigsly]

Btw, OP: where in the article did it mention anything about Trump or the tester's position on Trump? Or, was that just you putting your emotional, fake news, propaganda slant on the thread title?

 

[Conager]

Very interesting case. A "test", he no doubt had pondered what might happen. Can't see the "terrorist" charge sticking for long since no such thing ever happened. About the only law applicable here is maybe disturbing the peace, although that was due only to others' actions, not his.

Depending on what kind of statements that he made. The concept of yelling fire in a crowded theater is a bit of a slippery slope. You got to have some idea that the intent of the person was to cause a panic, and that the ensuing and intense panic ended up causing actual harm to people.

I don't know what the relevant statutes actually say but I would assume that there is some kind of test of what a reasonable person would say do or think based on what other people said or did. All of it I lease objective of course.

If someone had been hurt in this incident regardless of what the law says at some point he would have been railroaded into something that I wouldn't necessarily feel bad that he was.

 

[Conager]

Btw, OP: where in the article did it mention anything about Trump or the tester's position on Trump? Or, was that just you putting your emotional, fake news, propaganda slant on the thread title?

All incidents involving a firearm are met with maximum media attention and conservative blame us the default assumption. Unless the shooter is black or a card-carrying member of the CPUSA, in which case it is not newsworthy.

Incidents where the shooter is mislabeled as conservative are not worth updating as further facts become known, if the person has no political affiliation or is anti-conservative.

 

[suurfer]

Yes.

In theory, outsiders shouldn't pontificate on American politics (like I, sean and butters do here) because it isn't their country.

But this is everybody's problem, innocent people and kids are being shot like sitting ducks.
--When Amnesty International issues a travel warning to the US and talks about
'human rights' violations, you realize it's serious.

What's frustrating about your, BotBoy, or even AJ, HA, RG or Ish's posts is that you offer only sarcasm and memes ("authoritarian left", "freedom by Constitution"), blame (of mental health professionals or the FBI for not picking it up in time)
but no real solution.

magicalmoment's was a good argument.

 

[Conager]

In theory, outsiders shouldn't pontificate on American politics (like I, sean and butters do here) because it isn't their country.

But this is everybody's problem, innocent people and kids are being shot like sitting ducks.
--When Amnesty International issues a travel warning to the US and talks about
'human rights' violations, you realize it's serious.

What's frustrating about your, BotBoy, or even AJ, HA, RG or Ish's posts is that you offer only sarcasm and memes ("authoritarian left", "freedom by Constitution"), blame (of mental health professionals or the FBI for not picking it up in time)
but no real solution.

magicalmoment's was a good argument.

Nothing wrong with informed outsiders having opinions and expressing them. Misinformed ones don't really help anything but they are so ubiquitous I don't really worry about them.

 

[suurfer]

Andreychenko, Andrejchenko or Andreichenko (Russian: Андрейченко) is a Russian gender-neutral surname.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreichenko

I say we send him back to Russia.

My interpretation is of a typical immature 20 year old, looking for instagram fame.

But if he did it for other reasons as a pro-gunner, I can't get his logic because it backfired.
Speaking of Russians:
Most international news sites that I saw used the incident to highlight how crazy out of control the gun problem is in the US. People scattering away in panic if they see such a thing, or if someone pops a balloon in the mall (like magicalmoments said).

https://www.rt.com/usa/466118-walmart-armed-man-arrested/

 

[bigsly]

Depending on what kind of statements that he made. The concept of yelling fire in a crowded theater is a bit of a slippery slope. You got to have some idea that the intent of the person was to cause a panic, and that the ensuing and intense panic ended up causing actual harm to people.

I don't know what the relevant statutes actually say but I would assume that there is some kind of test of what a reasonable person would say do or think based on what other people said or did. All of it I lease objective of course.

If someone had been hurt in this incident regardless of what the law says at some point he would have been railroaded into something that I wouldn't necessarily feel bad that he was.

Afaik, he did nothing illegal, he made no threats nor threatening moves against anyone. If anyone would've been hurt, it'd be because of their actions, not his. How can anyone be constitutionally persecuted if what they do is legal, regardless if others' actions injure themselves and/or others? If stupid was a crime, at least half of the nation would still be locked up.

 

[SpeareChucker]

https://hotair.com/archives/jazz-shaw/2019/08/10/missouri-walmart-gun-guy-will-probably-walk/


Little, or no chance that any serious charges will be filed.

He wasn't there with the intention of shooting anybody.


You may whine now...