Man arrested for thinking the Constitution is still in effect

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 88
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
you do know that ar-15 are used in less than 1% of murders right?  I know people think they are scary looking but there's a much greater chance of being killed with many other things.
I only used the ar-15 because you brought it up as the example. I'm happy to replace it with any other firearm

so your only objections are to ar-15's and the body armor?
if he was just wearing the camo and had an opened carried handgun that would be acceptable?
The other objection would be how the AR-15 is carried ie strapped to the front rather than slung over the shoulder

If by camo you mean body armour, then it wouldn't be acceptable to me because the body armour in tandem with the handgun still screams to me that the person is ready for a fight. And my next thought would be, what fight is that person ready for in a Walmart if it's not the one he's about to create?
--> @dustryder
well people are scared by the ar, this has been proven time and again when pictures of a .223 with a wood stock is show next to an ar, even though they fire the same round and accept the same magazines, the black rifle is scary, if it has wood it's not, this is not a logical or rational judgement.

people carry for their own personal protection or the protection of others, I mean isn't that what the wanna be cop retired firefighter thought he was doing?  Why can't someone wear body armor for extra protection?  Cops and military wear it for that purpose so why can't a citizen?

no by camo I mean camo clothing which is what he was wearing also, thus my question about replacing the camo clothing with a business suit.  If a person in a business suit with a black vest aka plate carrier was how this guy looked do you think the reactions would have been the same?

--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Ok, but discussing the ar-15 isn't relevant here

We aren't discussing open carry in general. We aren't discussing body armour. This situation is a package deal. If you want to open carry, go ahead. If you want to wear body armour go ahead. If your actions do not disturb or harm others, knock yourself out. But this person does not have the right to terrorize other people simply by invoking the 2a and evidently the law agrees with me.

I have no idea what their reaction would've been. A business suit isn't typically what a shooter would wear and combat armour/a firearm isn't typically what a businessman would go shopping in. However ultimately I'd hope that people would still recognise that someone who is combat ready does not belong in a Walmart unless that person intends for there to be combat and that their lives are worth more than the groceries that they are carrying

--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Fancy continuing to file pathetic cry baby posts when you don't have any valid arguments, some would consider that the epitome of childishness.
This is literally one of those 'asking for it' scenarios. If someone were to walk into Walmart with a fucking assault rifle and I was the floor manager, that bastard is not walking out there uncuffed and unembarassed that's for damn sure.

Who the HELL will go shop there again?! Second Amendment is about vsing the government, not a Walmart shopper.
--> @dustryder
isn't it about ar-15?  isn't that one of the main reasons he looked so scary?  I'm under the impression that you found him threatening because of the ar-15 even without the body armor or am I mistaken?
what makes someone "combat ready"?
I don't see camo clothing as being very useful in Walmart
doing something you can legally do can't be considered terrorizing others afaik
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
isn't it about ar-15?  isn't that one of the main reasons he looked so scary?  I'm under the impression that you found him threatening because of the ar-15 even without the body armor or am I mistaken?
Not at all. I wasn't even aware that the dude specifically had an AR-15. I doubt most people are able to identify specific gun models at a distance so it's irrelevant to this conversation

what makes someone "combat ready"?
When your attire and gear are more suitable for combat than for typical civilian activity I suppose

I don't see camo clothing as being very useful in Walmart
Did you have a point here?

doing something you can legally do can't be considered terrorizing others afaik
That's why it wasn't something he could legally do. I cited the relevant law earlier
--> @dustryder
yes but you sited the concealed carry law I sited the open carry law, as I said before he was not arrested for illegally carrying any sort of gun or wearing body armor.
He was not charged with a gun crime specifically but rather
"Missouri protects the right to open carry a firearm, but that right does not allow an individual to act in a reckless and criminal manner, endangering other citizens," Patterson said.

"All we know is the fact that he walked in here heavily armed with body armor on, in military fatigues and caused a great amount of panic inside the store.

that's what I was talking about when I said camo

KY3 reports as of Friday afternoon, the Greene County, Mo. prosecutor hasn't filed formal charges in the case.

well isn't that interesting

For instance, even someone who holds a valid conceal-carry endorsement and is openly carrying a gun can run afoul of the law "if the firearm is intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense."
carrying and pushing a shopping cart is considered "intentionally displayed in an angry or threatening manner?  Oh he we filming himself also.

I would urge you to go back and read my links and post on that state's open carry laws.  I don't believe he actually broke any laws.


--> @RationalMadman
people often have the legal right to be stupid, this is a classic example of that.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Wrong. The store has the legal right to tell you what you can and can't bring into it, I know the law better than you.
--> @RationalMadman
lol I never said the store didn't have that right, but at that point they didn't tell him, nor had any signs to indicate gun prohibition like other "gun free zones" have posted.
you obviously didn't read or understand that state's open carry laws.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
I did. I also understand you right wingers forget your love for private business' freedom to accept or reject customers need, when it suits you. You say not to force a baker to make a cake for a gay couple, even though that's blatant homophobia, meanwhile kicking a guy out for potentially causing a PTSD customer to break out in a panic-induced act or causing severe stress to all customers regardless and scarring some to have a genuine phobia (unlike homophobia) of the store is apparently not reason enough to kick him off private property and deny service. 

Your wing are fucking hypocrites and not at all reasonable ones at that.

--> @RationalMadman
clearly there seems to be some comprehension difficulty with you and leftest in general.  A store has the right to keep or ban people from bringing guns into their stores, this is common knowledge so you are just arguing with yourself, enjoy.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
Enjoy conceding and fuck off with your propaganda.
--> @RationalMadman
concede to what?  lol
you call laws you don't understand propaganda?  are you a socialist/communist?  sounds like it.
--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
are you a socialist/communist?
The confusion of the wingnut is hilarious.


--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
It looks like what he's actually being charged with is 574.120 RSMo

--> @dustryder
The lawyers are going to have a field day with the 3rd provision.
--> @Greyparrot
No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.
You mean this? His purpose wasn't to prevent harm, it was to test whether walmart would honour the second amendment. Apart from this he wasn't acting in good faith. Even if we pretend he was ignorant of the panic he would cause, his family/girlfriend advised him otherwise. He acted far beyond the scope of what he claimed was his objective.

--> @dustryder
The wording of intent and good faith is open to extreme interpretation.
--> @Greyparrot
However the wording of "purpose to prevent harm" is not.

Shall we just drop this topic and reconvene when the outcome of this silly boy's fate has been decided?
--> @dustryder
However the wording of "purpose to prevent harm" is not.
body armor does not harm it prevents harm so we can set that aside.

the purpose of open carry or concealed is to prevent harm to one's self or others.  If his secondary purpose was to see what would happen, so what.  Many things have dual or many purposes wouldn't you agree?



--> @TheDredPriateRoberts
This particular clause is pretty unambiguous. If his reason for causing terror was in a good faith attempt to prevent harm, he is protected. There was no harm for him to prevent so he is not protected by this clause.      
--> @dustryder
There was no harm for him to prevent so he is not protected by this clause.      

dude seriously?  How can you prevent harm unless you are prepared to do so?  Was there not harm in a Walmart already once?  I mean I'm not even a lawyer and I can debunk whatever charges they MIGHT file based on what I know.  Afaik the D.A. hasn't actually filed anything yet and that could very well be there is not case here.
--> @dustryder
We both know that if any one of these Right-Wingers were in the store or had a relative or friend in the store who was genuinely terrified, they'd finally see how much it can cause psychologically. It's about perspective.

Right-Wing lack perspective of empathy, Left-Wing lack perspective of people without empathy.

I guess we're the bad guys eh?

Inb4 rants about empathising with a fetus and not caring about it being impoverished and abused after it's born.