Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge - Page 2

Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge

This is a discussion on Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; What a messed up ordeal. Both the "offense" and the result. Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk...

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 122
Like Tree203Likes

Thread: Walmart "Terrorist" sentenced after pleading to a lesser charge

  1. #16
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    20,633
    What a messed up ordeal. Both the "offense" and the result.



    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  2. #17
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by maxwell97 View Post
    "Instead, the firefighter held the man at gunpoint for no reason other than ignorance and fear, not for any threatening acts or words."

    If you don't see how his acts were threatening, I'm not sure how to explain it to you.
    Whatís so threatening about a guy walking through the store with a grocery cart?

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinRohrer View Post
    Short answer: By his actions of wearing multiple, visible weapons that are known to be use in public, mass shootings while walking into a brand of store recently subjected to such shootings; thus making it appear to reasonable people that he is about to commit mayhem to others.

    The guy has a screw loose, makes sane gun owners look like kooks, and does not have the maturity and/or reason to own weapons.
    Do people feel the same way when they see a police officer with a vest on, a Glock on his hip and an AR in the car?
    baren likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array entertainment72's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    521
    If ya don't see how this maroon hurt gun rights more than he hurt gun rights, you're in the same category as these knuckleheads.
    Attached Images  
    StripesDude and scottync like this.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    879
    Seems to me there is a lot of...

    -I am offended by what that guy did so I'll join the anti gun folks in condemning someone who exercised his right to bear arms in a law abiding way. Including even if the guy called and got permission first!-

    .... going on in what is supposed to be a pro gun rights forum.

    In my not so popular opinion a true supporter of rights is someone who is willing to stand up for the lawful exercising of a right, regardless of what that right may be, even when they don't agree with who, when, where, and especially how or why, that right was lawfully exercised.

    Then there is this:
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

    The words above reportedly originated with an English author named Evelyn Beatrice Hall in 1906.

    That could be reworded to say:
    I disapprove of what gun you carried, how you carried it, and where you carried it but I will defend to the death your right to legally carry your gun where and how you want regardless of what I think of your choice of guns, your choice of where, your reasons,... or even what I might think of you personally.

    Link to above Evelyn Beatrice Hall quote:
    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/01/defend-say/
    jmf552, Havok, johndp1911 and 1 others like this.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  6. #20
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    20,633
    If I'm anywhere other than a LE facility and I see cops carrying long guns, I'm getting as far away as possible, as quicky as possible.

    If I see a non uniformed person carrying a long gun and tac gear at Walmart my interest is going to be very piqued and I'm picking where on their head I'm going to shoot them while making my exit plan.

    Even more so of it is just after a mass shooting of a Walmart. Copy cats are a thing.

    Now that being said, in this case parties went a little too far, but I have a hard time calling their actions unreasonable instead of unwise.



    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  7. #21
    Distinguished Member Array CAS_Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Seems to me there is a lot of...

    In my not so popular opinion a true supporter of rights is someone who is willing to stand up for the lawful exercising of a right, regardless of what that right may be, even when they don't agree with who, when, where, and especially how or why, that right was lawfully exercised.
    He was charged with, and plead guilty to, knowingly causing a false report to be made to the Springfield Police Department. He his guilty of a misdemeanor. That fact is not debatable, but it is subject to rationalizing the unfairness of his choice to plead guilty.

    How do they justify the charge? This social scientist is on record as having planned this out and executed it as a "social experiment". After hearing the details, he was advised by wiser souls that it was an experiment with potentially bad consequences. In social experiments, you have a reasonable idea of possible outcomes. One of the most obvious outcomes in an experiment like this, at Walmart, given the recent events at Walmart, even to this guy, would include a likely call to police from those that were not made aware that it was all just a way to expose the injustices inherent in the system. You can't scoff at the reaction, when he knew ahead of time that this was exactly one of the most likely reactions.

    That it was his experiment, knowing a very likely result being a police report.......well, he is not innocent, as evidenced by the guilty plea. And to many ardent 2A/gun rights advocates, this was not gun rights issue - even if some other ardent 2A and gun rights advocates think it is.

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,370
    It was about him having his RTKABA violated for legally carrying guns. How is that not a gun rights issue, on the face of it? You can legal-weasel-word it all you want, but that's what it is. He was pressured to plead guilty to something because they overcharged him to begin with, he could not afford to fight it and they had to get some sort of conviction on him to not look like the government idiots they are. Anyone who can't see that is not seeing how gun rights can be ebbed away on all sorts of reasonable-sounding rationales.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  9. #23
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    20,633
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    It was about him having his RTKABA violated for legally carrying guns. How is that not a gun rights issue, on the face of it? You can legal-weasel-word it all you want, but that's what it is. He was pressured to plead guilty to something because they overcharged him to begin with, he could not afford to fight it and they had to get some sort of conviction on him to not look like the government idiots they are. Anyone who can't see that is not seeing how gun rights can be ebbed away on all sorts of reasonable-sounding rationales.
    You're not wrong, but this is a prime example of discretion being the better part of valor.

    Dude went there intentionally to make a statement with his guns. He chose poorly and now he and the RKBA community have to face the consequences of his poorly thought out actions.



    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by CAS_Shooter View Post
    Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Seems to me there is a lot of...

    In my not so popular opinion a true supporter of rights is someone who is willing to stand up for the lawful exercising of a right, regardless of what that right may be, even when they don't agree with who, when, where, and especially how or why, that right was lawfully exercised.
    He was charged with, and plead guilty to, knowingly causing a false report to be made to the Springfield Police Department. He his guilty of a misdemeanor. That fact is not debatable, but it is subject to rationalizing the unfairness of his choice to plead guilty.
    Pleading to a lesser charge to avoid being charged with a larger charge doesn't mean someone is guilty of anything. It merely means cutting one's losses when faced with a no win situation.

    Quote Originally Posted by CAS_Shooter View Post
    How do they justify the charge? This social scientist is on record as having planned this out and executed it as a "social experiment". After hearing the details, he was advised by wiser souls that it was an experiment with potentially bad consequences. In social experiments, you have a reasonable idea of possible outcomes. One of the most obvious outcomes in an experiment like this, at Walmart, given the recent events at Walmart, even to this guy, would include a likely call to police from those that were not made aware that it was all just a way to expose the injustices inherent in the system. You can't scoff at the reaction, when he knew ahead of time that this was exactly one of the most likely reactions.

    That it was his experiment, knowing a very likely result being a police report.......well, he is not innocent, as evidenced by the guilty plea. And to many ardent 2A/gun rights advocates, this was not gun rights issue - even if some other ardent 2A and gun rights advocates think it is.
    How the authorities justified the charge of being responsible for someone else calling the cops because they were scared or offended (or perhaps a manager decided he had better cover his butt for giving permission) isn't what is important. What is important is how far some folks in the gun community are willing to go to justify the guy being charged (or forced to plead to a lesser charge) with a BS charge resulting from not violating any laws just because they were offended by his actions.

    The discussions generated from this Wal Mart incident on gun forums has shown me just how few folks understand the concept of:

    I don't agree with how, when, where, why, or what with, you legally exercise your rights but I will defend your right to do it simply because it is your right.

    But there are quite a few in the gun community who are willing to join with the anti gunners condemning those who exercise rights in ways that are not popular and are not considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" never understanding it is the anti gunners who are defining what is "reasonable" and deciding what is not "acceptable". And sadly, these discussions show just how many in the gun community are more concerned with offending the anti gunners than they are of defending the right itself.
    Novarider, johndp1911 and baren like this.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by entertainment72 View Post
    If ya don't see how this maroon hurt gun rights more than he hurt gun rights, you're in the same category as these knuckleheads.
    After this picture was taken, open carry became legal. Your post is a fail.
    Bikenut, johndp1911 and baren like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  12. #26
    JD
    JD is online now
    Administrator
    Array JD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central Iowa
    Posts
    20,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Pleading to a lesser charge to avoid being charged with a larger charge doesn't mean someone is guilty of anything. It merely means cutting one's losses when faced with a no win situation.


    How the authorities justified the charge of being responsible for someone else calling the cops because they were scared or offended (or perhaps a manager decided he had better cover his butt for giving permission) isn't what is important. What is important is how far some folks in the gun community are willing to go to justify the guy being charged (or forced to plead to a lesser charge) with a BS charge resulting from not violating any laws just because they were offended by his actions.

    The discussions generated from this Wal Mart incident on gun forums has shown me just how few folks understand the concept of:

    I don't agree with how, when, where, why, or what with, you legally exercise your rights but I will defend your right to do it simply because it is your right.

    But there are quite a few in the gun community who are willing to join with the anti gunners condemning those who exercise rights in ways that are not popular and are not considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" never understanding it is the anti gunners who are defining what is "reasonable" and deciding what is not "acceptable". And sadly, these discussions show just how many in the gun community are more concerned with offending the anti gunners than they are of defending the right itself.
    The argument against the "casual" open carrying of long guns is almost universally upheld in the firearms community.

    Even the almighty OpenCarry.org evangelicals are against the practice.

    That's kind of a clue

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

  13. #27
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    879
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    The argument against the "casual" open carrying of long guns is almost universally upheld in the firearms community.

    Even the almighty OpenCarry.org evangelicals are against the practice.

    That's kind of a clue

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Yes it is a "clue" that even many within the gun community are against the lawful exercising of the right to bear arms just because they think only the "arms" that don't scare of offend are "reasonable" and "acceptable".

    There isn't anything in the 2nd Amendment that says "shall not be infringed except for the arms that some folks think other people don't need to carry."
    johndp1911 and baren like this.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array jmf552's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    6,370
    Look, everyone is admitting him carrying the way he did was not smart. We got that. I'm not sure why anyone is still arguing that. The question was, was it illegal. It clearly was not under MO law.

    Unless people are trying to argue that "the right of the people TKABA shall not be infringed, unless a lot of people spontaneously think it's stupid." 2A doesn't say that.
    Attack Squadron 65 "Tigers", USS Eisenhower '80 - '83, peackeeping w/Iran, Libya, Lebanon and E. Europe

  15. #29
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,719
    Quote Originally Posted by JD View Post
    The argument against the "casual" open carrying of long guns is almost universally upheld in the firearms community.

    Even the almighty OpenCarry.org evangelicals are against the practice.

    That's kind of a clue

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Well in that case, letís just reword 2A to say that people only have the right to bear some arms, in some places, at some times.

    That website is geared towards open carrying handguns. I can understand their logic there for being handgun focused, however, they are not suggesting people should be prevented from carrying long guns. That being said, if there were two groups, one group that is fighting for open carry of handguns and long guns, and another fighting only for open carrying handguns, my money would be going to the one that also supports long guns. This is not a clue as you suggest.
    Bikenut, johndp1911 and baren like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  16. #30
    Distinguished Member Array CAS_Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,606
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    It was about him having his RTKABA violated for legally carrying guns. How is that not a gun rights issue....

    Executing his self proclaimed social experiment moved this from an issue of carry rights to, unfortunately for him, pretty much what he knew his experiment would produce. His game ended up with a guilty plea of a non firearm offense. Many have carried quietly and successfully in the very same Walmart. No gun rights issues there. Move along. He let his self absorbed I'll show them need to prove a point lead him from an exercise of 2A to other legal matters, one of which he plead guilty to.

    If we steer away from the legal weaseling and only focus on facts. He was charged and plead guilty to a misdemeanor, which was unrelated to any right to carry law. He is still free to carry. That others have carried openly in Walmart and not suffered this outcome suggests that the delta between the two is the issue, not gun rights.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •