MO - Off-duty firefighter stops man armed w/ 100 rounds of ammo at S Springfield Walmart, 8 Aug 2019

[Boxer]

This idiot still has his job?? What does he do for a living? In my opinion, he is a huge liability for any employer.

Truck driver. Has anyone seen if he is a citizen?

 

[Boxer]

Andreychenko doesn't have to prove he wasn't going to do more. It's up to the prosecution to prove that he was.

MOO. That he was going into an crowded place with an assault weapon, with the intent to create conflict is factual.

 

[Rocky1]

Sure they can. They could easily test this guy when they tossed him in jail. The used that kind of charge to arrest the friend of the Dayton shooter who only purchased a BPV and ammo for the killer. Of course, that guy was black, so that probably has a lot to do with it. If you're white, you probably don't get drug tested and arrested.

Here's a quote from the article below.

According to this article, Kollie was arrested because he lied on a federal form about whether or not he used drugs, not because he was drug tested after arrested.

If you are arrested for a motor vehicle offence, or a drug related offence, then yes they'll drug test you in jail, but in most cases, drug testing is a condition of probation, or after you are incarserated in prison.
After reading this article, it appears that Kollie admitted to not only smoking pot, but taking mushrooms and acid as well.
I'll bet seeing as he was arrested for lying about using drugs, he was drug tested before the ink was dry from taking his fingerprints They'd want evidence of that.

Feds: Dayton Gunman's Friend Helped Hide Body Armor And Ammo From Shooter's Parents

 

[Rocky1]

MOO. That he was going into an crowded place with an assault weapon, with the intent to create conflict is factual.

Who said it's factual?
He claims all he was doing was exercising his second amendment right, and that he was surprised that the people acted the way they did.

 

[Boxer]

Who said it's factual?
He claims all he was doing was exercising his second amendment right, and that he was surprised that the people acted the way they did.

His intent to find resistance to his weapon.

Do you think that Walmart should ban guns because of this?

 

[Betty P]

Here's the link again to the news release, probable cause statement, etc. from the Greene County Prosecutor's Office about the incident. It describes the event differently than is sometimes portrayed in the news media, claiming he was acting recklessly in the store. The prosecutor was well aware of Andreychenko's right to carry the arms, but felt his behavior warranted arrest and that if he wanted to exercise that right, he should have done so in a more responsible manner.

In the felony complaint, they allege he knowingly communicated an implied a threat to the people inside of Walmart.

DMITRIY N. ANDREYCHENKO

 

[Betty P]

Here's a quote from the article below.

According to this article, Kollie was arrested because he lied on a federal form about whether or not he used drugs, not because he was drug tested after arrested.

If you are arrested for a motor vehicle offence, or a drug related offence, then yes they'll drug test you in jail, but in most cases, drug testing is a condition of probation, or after you are incarserated in prison.
After reading this article, it appears that Kollie admitted to not only smoking pot, but taking mushrooms and acid as well.
I'll bet seeing as he was arrested for lying about using drugs, he was drug tested before the ink was dry from taking his fingerprints They'd want evidence of that.

Feds: Dayton Gunman's Friend Helped Hide Body Armor And Ammo From Shooter's Parents

Well, that's the officer's word, we'll see how Kollie's case works out.

OTOH, when someone is brandishing loaded weapons in a Walmart store, and where purchase of those weapons is contingent upon the owner not using drugs, drug testing should always be done. It should apply just as it does for testing someone who is pulled over for DUI or driving erratically. No different.

 

[gitana1]

So your opinion is that what the fireman did was out of line?

No. I'm not sure how you got that from what I said.

 

[gitana1]

He not only may get off, but he can sue the fireman in a civil action. He may also have a case against the city for unlawful detainment. We'll have to wait and see if he asked the cop if he was being detained. We know he was detained, because he was arrested, but was he legally detained? If he asked the cop and he said yes, but he did nothing illegal, nor planned to, it's going to get dicey.

He can try but he's going to lose that kind of lawsuit IMO.

 

[gitana1]

The reality is that Walmart can post signs stating "no guns allowed," but, up until the law is changed, it really doesn't matter how fed up the public is.
You hit the nail on the head. A security guard or innocent shopper doesn't know the difference, and if this happened a month ago before El Paso, maybe it wouldn't be such an issue?
I watched a video on You Tube where 4 girls walked into a Walmart a few years ago, and they all had guns holstered in Missouri. The cops never arrested them.

Were they wearing full body armor and saying weird things to people, though?

I think context matters.

Don't get me wrong- I think he's got a good chance to prevail in the criminal case.
Dismissal or possible acquittal.

However, I think the reason for the arrest was a valid one.

 

[gitana1]

It is interesting, I agree.
Here's a video from a man that did the same thing this guy did, but in an airport in Ga.
Do you think if we had a shooter last week that shot up an airport, and this guy tried this now, that he'd be arrested and charged with terrorism?
What's the difference between this guy and Andreychenko? IMO a week of public fear.

I think the difference is body armor, behavior and speech. But you're abolsutely right - the timing was key in the arrest and charges.

The question will be whether the context also makes what he wore and how he acted a terroristic threat in light of the recent shootings. Does that make the timing of his behavior constitute a terroristic threat? Do you know what I mean? Like would the legal system consider that he knew it would cause chaos and fear due to the timing and thus it constituted the inference of a threat?

We shall see.

 

[Boxer]

I think the difference is body armor, behavior and speech. But you're abolsutely right - the timing was key in the arrest and charges.

The question will be whether the context also makes what he wore and how he acted a terroristic threat in light of the recent shootings. Does that make the timing of his behavior constitute a terroristic threat? Do you know what I mean? Like would the legal system consider that he knew it would cause chaos and fear due to the timing and thus it constituted the inference of a threat?

We shall see.

It is interesting. Outcomes matter.

 

[gitana1]

Sure they can. They could easily test this guy when they tossed him in jail. The used that kind of charge to arrest the friend of the Dayton shooter who only purchased a BPV and ammo for the killer. Of course, that guy was black, so that probably has a lot to do with it. If you're white, you probably don't get drug tested and arrested.

They can't. They need a subpoena.

 

[gitana1]

Who said it's factual?
He claims all he was doing was exercising his second amendment right, and that he was surprised that the people acted the way they did.

Good point. I think it's pretty evident he wanted to cause a ruckus but how knows? Maybe he will claim he was terrified due to shootings so he decided to show up in body armor and armed to protect himself and anyone else who might become a victim.

I think that might be contrary to statements he's made about being peeved he can open carry but can't buy a gun until age 21 though.

 

[gitana1]

Here's the link again to the news release, probable cause statement, etc. from the Greene County Prosecutor's Office about the incident. It describes the event differently than is sometimes portrayed in the news media, claiming he was acting recklessly in the store. The prosecutor was well aware of Andreychenko's right to carry the arms, but felt his behavior warranted arrest and that if he wanted to exercise that right, he should have done so in a more responsible manner.

In the felony complaint, they allege he knowingly communicated an implied a threat to the people inside of Walmart.

DMITRIY N. ANDREYCHENKO

I don't see that he said anything threatening in the store.

He seems like one of those ship stirring 1st amendment auditors or sovereign citizens.

I think he's getting away way this stunt. The complaint doesn't allege anything illegal on its face. He had a reason that he stated for doing what he did and he didn't say he wanted to scare people. In fact, he stupidly "didn't think" people would react the way they did.

 

[Gardenista]

Interview with suspect at the link. ETA, just watched--he seems like a nice kid

Man charged with making terrorist threat at Springfield Walmart says why he did it

 

[thebedbug]

If security guards or cops had blown this guy away - I would've nominated him for a Darwin Award and given the cop/guard a medal. This guy is an idiot and is lucky to be alive.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Interview with suspect at the link. ETA, just watched--he seems like a nice kid

Man charged with making terrorist threat at Springfield Walmart says why he did it

Thanks for link. I didn’t realize he called Wal-mart, to see if it was ok to open carry a long gun in their store. He’s not a U S citizen, he can be deported if convicted.

 

[Gardenista]

Thanks for link. I didn’t realize he called Wal-mart, to see if it was ok to open carry a long gun in their store.

Me either and WM confirmed it's allowed in their statement to the news station. As long as everything backs up what he says, I think the charges should be dropped.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

Truck driver. Has anyone seen if he is a citizen?

He was born in the Ukraine and moved to the US at the age of 2. He is not a US citizen.