Defensive Carry banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 122 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,092 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The guy who walked into a Walmart Neighborhood Market plead guilty to a lesser charge, one that the MANAGER of the Market actually committed. Two years of probation for NOT committing a crime. I'm extremely surprised, especially given his attorney's reputation for turning the tables on child sexual abuse victims. Also, it seems the previous report of an off-duty firefighter physically assaulting the man was incorrect. Instead, the firefighter held the man at gunpoint for no reason other than ignorance and fear, not for any threatening acts or words.

https://www.ktts.com/2019/11/01/man-who-walked-into-springfield-walmart-armed-with-rifle-pleads-guilty-to-lesser-charge/

The man "knowingly causing a false report to be made to the Springfield Police Department on August 8, 2019." so, how did he cause a false report to be filed? Just HOW did he knowingly cause the manager to lie, claiming an active shooting in progress? How did he knowingly cause the manager to illegally pull the fire alarm? How did he knowingly cause that firefighter to illegally hold him at gunpoint?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,856 Posts
Sounds like they were desperate to charge him with “something”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,856 Posts
Yeah, well...

"Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

That little fiasco sure qualifies.
If any one of us were swatted all because we are a gun owner the liberals would chant the same thing, even if we, like this guy didn’t break a law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,191 Posts
"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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,759 Posts
The guy who walked into a Walmart Neighborhood Market plead guilty to a lesser charge, one that the MANAGER of the Market actually committed. Two years of probation for NOT committing a crime. I'm extremely surprised, especially given his attorney's reputation for turning the tables on child sexual abuse victims. Also, it seems the previous report of an off-duty firefighter physically assaulting the man was incorrect. Instead, the firefighter held the man at gunpoint for no reason other than ignorance and fear, not for any threatening acts or words.

https://www.ktts.com/2019/11/01/man-who-walked-into-springfield-walmart-armed-with-rifle-pleads-guilty-to-lesser-charge/

The man "knowingly causing a false report to be made to the Springfield Police Department on August 8, 2019." so, how did he cause a false report to be filed? Just HOW did he knowingly cause the manager to lie, claiming an active shooting in progress? How did he knowingly cause the manager to illegally pull the fire alarm? How did he knowingly cause that firefighter to illegally hold him at gunpoint?
I say this with a great deal of sorrow, but there are many places today where the term "justice for all" has little to no meaning.

People commit a felony assault on a LEO and the judge lets them walk. Someone gets 15 years for less than an ounce of MJ. Another gets probation for almost killing their spouse and children in a violent assault. Still another commits 2nd degree murder and gets 2 years with time off for good behavior. "High profile" people seem to be able to commit any crime, up to and including premeditated murder, with nary a wink from the "justice system."

Most of us know all about the almost unbelievable levels of incompetence, stupidity, and bias in virtually every media source, and yet we continually practice being judge, jury, and executioner in every case we see based on nothing more than a news report from someone with either an agenda or a 3rd grade education. That is, until something which regularly draws sneering comments actually happens to us. Then we beg for mercy and a fair trial.

No rhyme...no reason.

All signs that we owe ancient Rome a huge apology.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Let us remember the guy called that Wal Mart and asked if he could open carry there. The manager said yes. Hence the guy actually had Wal Mart's permission to open carry there. And since openly carrying a long gun is legal he not only did not break any laws but had permission.

Yet the guy who carried the gun is arrested, convicted, and vilified by the gun community while the manager who gave his permission is given a pass and the firefighter who held the guy at gunpoint for breaking no laws is hailed as a hero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: baren and dp1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
33,960 Posts
Let us remember the guy called that Wal Mart and asked if he could open carry there. The manager said yes. Hence the guy actually had Wal Mart's permission to open carry there. And since openly carrying a long gun is legal he not only did not break any laws but had permission.

Yet the guy who carried the gun is arrested, convicted, and vilified by the gun community while the manager who gave his permission is given a pass and the firefighter who held the guy at gunpoint for breaking no laws is hailed as a hero.
He is vilified because he sought confrontation and got it, and in doing so possibly undid years of efforts by the pro-gun community. There is plenty of blame to toss around on this incident, but your "victim" intentionally brought this onto himself. If he feels he has been unjustly prosecuted, there are avenues of relief he can seek.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Let us remember the guy called that Wal Mart and asked if he could open carry there. The manager said yes. Hence the guy actually had Wal Mart's permission to open carry there. And since openly carrying a long gun is legal he not only did not break any laws but had permission.

Yet the guy who carried the gun is arrested, convicted, and vilified by the gun community while the manager who gave his permission is given a pass and the firefighter who held the guy at gunpoint for breaking no laws is hailed as a hero.
He is vilified because he sought confrontation and got it, and in doing so possibly undid years of efforts by the pro-gun community. There is plenty of blame to toss around on this incident, but your "victim" intentionally brought this onto himself. If he feels he has been unjustly prosecuted, there are avenues of relief he can seek.
I rest my case.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
952 Posts
The man "knowingly causing a false report to be made to the Springfield Police Department on August 8, 2019." so, how did he cause a false report to be filed? Just HOW did he knowingly cause the manager to lie, claiming an active shooting in progress? How did he knowingly cause the manager to illegally pull the fire alarm? How did he knowingly cause that firefighter to illegally hold him at gunpoint?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
I am not saying this guy was smart. But he was in compliance with MO law and Walmart policy. He even called Walmart and talked to a manager before he came and asked if he could open carry in the store and was told yes. Being dumb and violating a law are two different things. A couple of weeks later, two guys open carried into another Walmart in MO, the police were called and the police told Walmart they were in compliance and there was nothing they could be charged with. So what people are saying on this thread is it's OK that there can some arbitrary, made-up on the spot, cut-off for what you can OC, a cut-off that is not in the law, but is purely subjective. FWIW, when we have VCDL Lobby Day there are about 50 people open carrying ARs at the State Capital and in the Legislative Office Building! Last Lobby Day, it made some snowflake break down in tears, but the police just watched because no law had been violated.

So people on this site are agreeing that being "triggered" by legal OC is purely subjective and if someone is triggered the person OC'ing should be criminally liable. People should be careful what they wish for. Because once you start painting outside the lines of the law, whether it's about something you agree with or not, you are on a slippery slope. In this incident, it was an AR. And what are we saying? "Who needs an AR in Walmart?" Maybe the next time, it will just be a big handgun. Maybe later it will be any OC. Who cares if OC is legal? If it seems stupid and snowflake-triggering, we support criminal sanctions? I can't believe what I'm reading.

Then you have other people here who support Red Flag laws. I am not sure this is pro-gun site anymore.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,856 Posts
"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.
What’s so threatening about a guy walking through the store with a grocery cart?

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?
 
  • Like
Reactions: baren

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,100 Posts
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/
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
21,033 Posts
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
 
1 - 20 of 122 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top