Good article. Thanks.
MO - Off-duty firefighter stops man armed w/ 100 rounds of ammo at S Springfield Walmart, 8 Aug 2019
- Thread starter Gardenista
- Start date
Good article. Thanks.
The link worked fine for me.
NPR.org.
Again, this is just for the sake of conversation, so don't think I am trying to be argumentative. Just a debate....
So, if the cops think he wasn't there to kill anyone, and he said he was carrying to protect himself, wouldn't he be making you safer from someone else that could have gone there to kill people?
Wasn't everyone safer?
Laughing
Rarely Speechless
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 15,584
- Reaction score
- 60,778
Headline here should read Homeowner Protects Family from Intruder During Home Invasion
but instead fits the narrative:
Off-duty St. Louis officer shoots intruder after Facebook argument
JMHO YMMV
but instead fits the narrative:
Off-duty St. Louis officer shoots intruder after Facebook argument
JMHO YMMV
MOO he changed these peoples world.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.w...d-amendment-rights-police-say/?outputType=amp
"While Andreychenko did not fire at anyone, according to police, a Battlefield City officer and another driver “suffered severe injuries” in a crash as the officer rushed to the scene with emergency lights and sirens. Both people were taken to the emergency room."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.w...d-amendment-rights-police-say/?outputType=amp
"While Andreychenko did not fire at anyone, according to police, a Battlefield City officer and another driver “suffered severe injuries” in a crash as the officer rushed to the scene with emergency lights and sirens. Both people were taken to the emergency room."
MOO obviously justified, terrifying experience for them.
Just another article, with a bit of info on his hate for Walmart. Click the link in the article to get more information about Walmart's policy that made him mad.
Sounds to me like there was in fact a risk he might have shot a WM manager if questioned, impeded or asked to leave.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...i-walmart-gun-panic-body-armor-shooting-scare
Sounds to me like there was in fact a risk he might have shot a WM manager if questioned, impeded or asked to leave.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bu...i-walmart-gun-panic-body-armor-shooting-scare
Warwick7
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2018
- Messages
- 10,356
- Reaction score
- 116,770
I heard that too thru the grapevine. But I can't find a link.
Laughing
Rarely Speechless
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 15,584
- Reaction score
- 60,778
Logically, the arrest would clear the citizen. The citizen's actions were justified according to LE.
JMHO YMMV
MOO in Missouri the citizen has several ways to, and reasons to arrest and has strong support for citizen arrest.
A couple of lawful reasons here.
Citizen believes that:
A felony was committed.
That the person was going to escape after committing a crime.
That the person committed breach of the peace by presenting a threat.
I understand that LE wants to build their case by stating things like an officer crashed on his way to Walmart, however.....
If I smell smoke outside of my house and I call the fire department and they crash the fire truck on the way, and it ends up being nothing but my neighbors having a campfire roasting marshmallows, is that my fault?
I'd love to hear those 911 calls. Here's a quote from the link posted below.
Police were called about a possible active shooter, and the store manager pulled a fire alarm and told people to evacuate, Springfield police Lt. Mike Lucas said.
Active shooter?
Perhaps the caller is to blame for the crash?
Perhaps the manager is responsible for the panic?
Man in body armor and armed with rifle sparks panic at Walmart in Missouri
Correction:
It's not that if a citizen believes. It's that the perp IS committing a felony, and not just any felony, a class A felony.
It's not if the person was going to escape after committing a crime, it's if the person is trying to escape from custody, in the presence of law enforcement, or if a person is trying to escape by use of deadly force.
None of that applies here.
2013 Missouri Revised Statutes :: TITLE XXXVIII CRIMES AND PUNISHMENT; PEACE OFFICERS AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS :: Chapter 563 Defense of Justification :: Section 563.051 Private person's use of force in making an arrest.
It's not up to LE to determine of the citizens actions were justified. It's up to the courts.
If this guy is found not guilty, I wouldn't be too surprised to see not only the city sued, but also the ex-fireman, who will be all on his own without the backing of the city.
He's no longer a fireman. Firemen are not law enforcement.
It's sad to say, but this "Hero" may end up regretting pulling that gun.
If the charges are dropped before he goes before the judge, (which I doubt. I believe they are going to want to set an example no matter how dirty they have to play) then he can file a law suit against both the city and the fireman.
Here is the one I am using.
Missouri's law for citizen's arrest.
Updated 2016 and current as of 2018. Breach of the peace.
Andrechenkyo was certainly aware that he would appear threatening, his wife told him so.
» Missouri Laws 563.051 – Private person’s use of force in making an arrestLawServer
This is the same statute I posted. Again, nothing in the statute applies here.
Maybe Andrechenkyo was aware that he would appear threatening, however, it's up to the state to prove he was. His wife's opinion means nothing.
If you are driving your car at 65 mph, and the speed limit is 65, and you have a passenger that has never been in a car that has gone over 30 mph, and they think that you are going too fast for their safety, and feel their life is being threatened, are you a terrorist because they told you that? Have you broken any laws?
Just to add. Andreychenko told the police that he did not expect the people in Missouri to act the way they did.
Here's a quote from the link below.
He also said he did not expect people in Missouri to react they way they did. "I understand if we were somewhere else like New York or California, people would freak out."
Rifle-Carrying Man Faces Terrorism Charge After Causing Panic At Walmart In Missouri
Here's a quote from the link below.
He also said he did not expect people in Missouri to react they way they did. "I understand if we were somewhere else like New York or California, people would freak out."
Rifle-Carrying Man Faces Terrorism Charge After Causing Panic At Walmart In Missouri
Andrecheynko is awaiting his charges if any. From there possibly a jury will decide on the charges. Often they take youth into account regarding bad judgement.
The citizen was a good guy with a gun, hope he isn't made to regret intervening on a breach of the peace, which was his right to do.
Breach of the peace? He had no right to intervene if no law was broken. I agree, He probably is a good guy with good intentions.
He wasn't charged with violating any disorderly conduct law.
Here's the list. If you were to pick one, which would you pick?
Remember, that gun wasn't shouldered, it's legal to carry, and he told police that he was surprised that people acted the way they did.
Missouri Disorderly Conduct Laws - FindLaw
Knocking on a hotel door of sleeping guests to annoy them would be considered "breaching the peace" in some states. Are you saying you have the right to pull a gun on them?
neesaki
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 16,098
- Reaction score
- 49,851
Even if, it is still threatening and a form of terrorism, IMO.