Charges In Springfield Walmart Scare

[Weetabix]

Heavy sigh. He's an idiot. But he didn't break any laws that I can see. I kind of figured this was the story when I first heard about it.

I'm hoping he gets out of his trouble, but that his trouble dampens the other idiots.

[randy]

Even if the conduct of rifle guy is found to have been lawful, it does not necessarily follow that conduct of CCW guy was unlawful. It is only necessary for his action to have been reasonable. Under the circumstances, good luck convincing a jury (whether civil or criminal I think would make no difference) it was not.

+1. Given what had happened across the country in the preceding week, would you take the chance that this was an idiot vs a copy cat wannabe? The fact that the CCW holder did not drop the idiot on the spot demonstrates restraint and works towards showing a reasonable response given the totality of the circumstances.

From a legal standpoint, I don't see how this is much different than that black guy in Arkansas that was adjusting his concealed carry pistol when that stupid, inbred hillbilly tackled him and held him in a chokehold until the police arrived. If you recall, it's the hillbilly that was arrested and convicted of a felony.

The difference is that the CCW holder in that case was not causing a ruckus and was minding his own business when the GFW "hillbilly" assaulted him because he doesn't like the fact that citizens can carry firearm and wanted to prove a point

In this case, they arrested the wrong person.

Yeahhhh no. You might be able to make a case they shouldn't have arrested the OC idiot, but IMHO the CCW showed restraint and acted reasonably based on the information I have at this time. (side note, when I last at looked at CNN's website, they strangely never mention who it was that detained and held the guy until the cops got on scene. Doesn't fit the narrative you know.)

Unfortunately, due to his actions, we may see some new laws that we don't like come out of this.

Which is almost always the result of aggressive Open Carry "but mah Rights!" types LARPing in public with long guns. I'm more of it's usually stupidity than conspiracy but these clowns? Gotta wonder sometimes what their agenda really is. I swear this is a perfect example of my .mil days when I'd ask people "Are you KGB or GRU? Because you sure as hell ain't on our side!"

[randy]

An interesting take:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/s ... QPQie49HBM

Heh, I didn't read the linked article until after I had posted my comments above.

[Greg]

An interesting take:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/s ... QPQie49HBM

Heh, I didn't read the linked article until after I had posted my comments above.

Pending more information, provisionally, this is a load of shit.
His whole line of argument is giving the snowflakes veto power over what is 'reasonable' for other people to do. If you do anything to frighten the sheep you go to jail. Let the precedent stand we'll all be in jail in a jiffy.

Do you like the new red flag laws? Same deal.

To me it comes down to, was he brandishing, or was it slung? I have yet to see what Mr Russian terroristic threat guy was doing with the rifle.

If it was slung, Mr CCW hero goes to jail and deserves it. It the rifle was brandished then Mr Open Carry guy gets the felony conviction and loses his gun rights.

I'd like to see some more objective standard here than 'some sheeple got nervous'. If we go by that standard we're all done.

[Netpackrat]

Some of it is certainly shit, but not the basic point that the legal question is not necessarily an either/or proposition. Both actors may ultimately be found not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, though it isn't looking so good for rifle guy. As I said, in a logical world, if rifle guy sticks to his story and they can't come up with any witnesses to say he planned anything other than to prove a point or exercise his rights, they should have a difficult time proving that his purpose was to threaten. That's not the likely outcome because we don't live in a logical world.

[Weetabix]

Some of it is certainly shit, but not the basic point that the legal question is not necessarily an either/or proposition. Both actors may ultimately be found not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, though it isn't looking so good for rifle guy. As I said, in a logical world, if rifle guy sticks to his story and they can't come up with any witnesses to say he planned anything other than to prove a point or exercise his rights, they should have a difficult time proving that his purpose was to threaten. That's not the likely outcome because we don't live in a logical world.

Sounds like his wife and sister backed him up on his story. Maybe that will do it for him. Never can tell with a jury, though.

[Greg]

Some of it is certainly shit, but not the basic point that the legal question is not necessarily an either/or proposition. Both actors may ultimately be found not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, though it isn't looking so good for rifle guy. As I said, in a logical world, if rifle guy sticks to his story and they can't come up with any witnesses to say he planned anything other than to prove a point or exercise his rights, they should have a difficult time proving that his purpose was to threaten. That's not the likely outcome because we don't live in a logical world.

Not necessarily either or. The problem is allowing a sliding scale of what's 'reasonable'. I guaranty that will be abused.

1st Amendment doesn't protect yelling 'fire' in a movie theater. We're headed toward the 1st Amendment not protecting farting in a movie theater, because it makes someone uncomfortable.

ISTR there are already brandishing laws in place in MO.

What was he doing with the rifle?

[skb12172]

An interesting take:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/s ... QPQie49HBM

Heh, I didn't read the linked article until after I had posted my comments above.

Pending more information, provisionally, this is a load of shit.
His whole line of argument is giving the snowflakes veto power over what is 'reasonable' for other people to do. If you do anything to frighten the sheep you go to jail. Let the precedent stand we'll all be in jail in a jiffy.

Do you like the new red flag laws? Same deal.

To me it comes down to, was he brandishing, or was it slung? I have yet to see what Mr Russian terroristic threat guy was doing with the rifle.

If it was slung, Mr CCW hero goes to jail and deserves it. It the rifle was brandished then Mr Open Carry guy gets the felony conviction and loses his gun rights.

I'd like to see some more objective standard here than 'some sheeple got nervous'. If we go by that standard we're all done.

It was slung. Loaded magazine inserted, but no round chambered. Sidearm holstered with loaded magazine and a round chambered.

Good Citizen CCW holder is a retired fireman. I still think the motherfucker should have been the one arrested.

[skb12172]

Some of it is certainly shit, but not the basic point that the legal question is not necessarily an either/or proposition. Both actors may ultimately be found not guilty of any criminal wrongdoing, though it isn't looking so good for rifle guy. As I said, in a logical world, if rifle guy sticks to his story and they can't come up with any witnesses to say he planned anything other than to prove a point or exercise his rights, they should have a difficult time proving that his purpose was to threaten. That's not the likely outcome because we don't live in a logical world.

Sounds like his wife and sister backed him up on his story. Maybe that will do it for him. Never can tell with a jury, though.

They still kind of threw him under the bus, though. If I were him, I would be shopping for a divorce lawyer when this was done.

[Jered]

Didn't we just have a mass shooting at a Wal-Mart?

Yeah. If I'm on CCW guy's jury, I'm voting 'Not Guilty.'