Man arrested for thinking the Constitution is still in effect

Author: dylancatlow

Posts

Total: 88
#31
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Snoopy
wow that's a dangerous precedent, imagine organize antifa p.o.s.s organizing to do just that and get people killed, again he had nothing in his hands but a shopping cart, a civil suit will be easy.

Have you ever been around something like this?  Its not necessarily even that he is threatening himself, but when someone is armed like that out of context, anyone would reasonably assume its for a proximate reason, that a foreseeable threat is in their vicinity.

the constitution isn't based on feelings in that way, again he seems to be within his rights so whatever you may "feel" is irrelevant, leave the area, stay home.

#32
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
wow that's a dangerous precedent, imagine organize antifa p.o.s.s organizing to do just that and get people killed, again he had nothing in his hands but a shopping cart, a civil suit will be easy.

Have you ever been around something like this?  Its not necessarily even that he is threatening himself, but when someone is armed like that out of context, anyone would reasonably assume its for a proximate reason, that a foreseeable threat is in their vicinity.

the constitution isn't based on feelings in that way, again he seems to be within his rights so whatever you may "feel" is irrelevant, leave the area, stay home.

Okay, there are actually two things I have down.  One, (Post 27) is about whether it was reasonable to draw a firearm, and detain the man, so it doesn't make sense for the police to press charges on the ex-firefighter (civil suit would be different) 

The other which you appear to be responding to is relevant to whether it was a reasonable reaction to evacuate Walmart, and also reasonable to press charges against the guy who was the source of the commotion.

#33
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
This country ahs fallen to anarcharcy just as Oppenhier predicted, watch Oliver Stone's History of America


#34
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
I should probably say, since you are talking about a legal precedent, that I'm just talking about the charges.  I have not been referring to any rulings.
#35
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Snoopy
Okay, there are actually two things I have down.  One, (Post 27) is about whether it was reasonable to draw a firearm, and detain the man, so it doesn't make sense for the police to press charges on the ex-firefighter (civil suit would be different) 

The other which you appear to be responding to is relevant to whether it was a reasonable reaction to evacuate Walmart, and also reasonable to press charges against the guy who was the source of the commotion. 
charges don't mean anything, charges are levied then dropped or the defendant is found not guilty.  Just because charges were filed doesn't really mean much.  False arrest is a real thing.

Do you think it's reasonable for police to stop a person legally open carrying?  The Supreme court doesn't seem to think so.  Again if what he was doing was legal then there was no reason for the fireman to do anything at all.

their laws I posted are pretty clear, you can open carry a long gun which he was doing, you seem to say he was doing something illegal or threatening yet you haven't said what that is.  Since yet again the law seems to allow what he did that can't be the excuse.  If you are advocating reacting to how someone looks, how they dress etc that is legal....well you may want to rethink that.



#36
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
did he do that?  can you describe what he did that fits angry or threatening manner?  pushing a shopping cart doesn't seem to fit imo
I suppose it depends. Do you commonly have people walking around shops in combat armour and bearing a gun in the US? Because if you don't, the next most probable expectation is likely to be a shootout.

I imagine the prospect of being shot is threatening to most people.
#37
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
I suppose it depends. Do you commonly have people walking around shops in combat armour and bearing a gun in the US? Because if you don't, the next most probable expectation is likely to be a shootout.

I imagine the prospect of being shot is threatening to most people.
whether it's common or not is irrelevant, if what he was doing was legal and within his rights then that is that case closed.  
does anyone who carries a gun give you the prospect of being shot?  if not does it depend on what they look like?  or what is the criteria we should go by?


#38
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
whether it's common or not is irrelevant, if what he was doing was legal and within his rights then that is that case closed.  
Of course it's relevant. It's the determining factor as to whether people justifiably felt threatened which is the basis of whether he broke a law or not. Imagine if everyone in Walmart wore combat armour and carried a gun. If someone walked in who also wore combat armour and carried a gun, I imagine no one would bat an eye. In which case, he wouldn't have broken any law.

I take it from your reaction that no, this is not the case. It is indeed threatening for most people when someone walks into walmart wearing combat armour and carrying a gun. Hence, case closed. People were justifiably threatened and what he did was against that particular law.

does anyone who carries a gun give you the prospect of being shot?  if not does it depend on what they look like?  or what is the criteria we should go by?
I mean an obvious criteria is setting. If I were at a gun show, I would expect to see people carrying guns around. Combat armour might be a bit excessive sure but I probably wouldn't notice it too much.

Now at the opposite end of the spectrum, if I were chaperoning at a childrens party I would be extremely concerned if I saw a person walk into the event wearing a combat vest and carrying a gun because that person invariably is there to cause either panic or harm.
#39
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,971
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
Feelings are not an excuse from the law, neither is ignorance.
#40
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
the law defines what is threatening not personal feelings.  From the little they have released or that I heard, law enforcement has not said that carrying how, what and where he did was illegal in that state nor was wearing the body armor.  But instead they claimed something he did, his actions is what got him arrested.  If that's the case the store video will show one way or the other if he was actually acting in a threatening manner.
If I see some black guy who I think looks like a gang member can I draw on him in a store?  He makes me feel threatened after all......you see the issue with feelings?
#41
Snoopy
Snoopy's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,320
2
2
4
Snoopy's avatar
Snoopy
2
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Okay, there are actually two things I have down.  One, (Post 27) is about whether it was reasonable to draw a firearm, and detain the man, so it doesn't make sense for the police to press charges on the ex-firefighter (civil suit would be different) 

The other which you appear to be responding to is relevant to whether it was a reasonable reaction to evacuate Walmart, and also reasonable to press charges against the guy who was the source of the commotion. 
charges don't mean anything, charges are levied then dropped or the defendant is found not guilty.  Just because charges were filed doesn't really mean much.  False arrest is a real thing.

Do you think it's reasonable for police to stop a person legally open carrying?  The Supreme court doesn't seem to think so.  Again if what he was doing was legal then there was no reason for the fireman to do anything at all.

their laws I posted are pretty clear, you can open carry a long gun which he was doing, you seem to say he was doing something illegal or threatening yet you haven't said what that is.  Since yet again the law seems to allow what he did that can't be the excuse.  If you are advocating reacting to how someone looks, how they dress etc that is legal....well you may want to rethink that.

  When you run through all of the circumstances in context and the order that they occurred everything seems like there could be a reasonable explanation in how people reacted.  I doubt anyone is going to be convicted of a crime from this incident based on what I've heard and in humble admission that I don't have all of the information.  I can't see much reason to be honest in speculating how everything will turn out and implicating the constitution, so its more of a societal thing, assumption of responsibility and a matter of identifying potential safety hazards to me.  I can say that the young man was acting foolishly, and I imagine if I were in his position I'd come to consider myself fortunate not to have been handled initially by the Springfield police just informed by dispatch.

I think its reasonable for police to approach someone who is open carrying, which pretty much is a "stop" if you can relate to that sort of thing.  I've been profiled and picked out in unusual circumstances, questioned, and I happen to value that service and think they should be in the habit of talking quite a bit with people in their community.
#42
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@Snoopy
what he did was dumb and I wish he hadn't have done it.
if we didn't speculate then you may as well close this site down really, it's fun to do.
again you can't pull a gun on someone willy nilly you better have a dam good reason which isn't just because someone looks scary.
yes police can approach whom ever they wish and anyone has the right to now talk to them and walk away if they are not being lawfully detained, again lots of videos on the subject.
you may find value in the stop and ask/frisk but I see that as the beginnings of a police state, no thanks.

Fourth Circuit Finds That Carrying A Firearm In An Open-Carry State Does Not Create Reasonable Suspicion And Provides Thorough Analysis Of The "Free To Leave" Standard Of Seizure

#43
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
No I don't see the issue. That's why I added in the word justifiably. There's no reason to suspect that a black man who walks into a store is going to harm you, because in the vast majority of cases a black man walking into a store indicates that the man wishes to go shopping.

#44
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The guy in walmart was quite entitled to walk in there with his assault weapon and start shooting. Hoorah for idiots in walmart and anyone who tried to prevent him would be guilty of impinging his constitutional right, the right to murder. Blame the victims, if they weren't there then there would be no victims.
#45
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
you don't understand and have no comprehension of what rights actually are so I dismiss your words typed in ignorance.
#46
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
And scurrying away in defeat he whimpers back over his shoulder yeah but what are you and the rest of the kiddies roar with laughter
#47
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
and in an open carry state the vast majority of people who open carry do not commit crimes either they just want a chance to defend themselves if the situation arises, you see same thing.

let me ask you if any or all of these examples you would view the same way as the guy we are talking about

guy wearing a business suit with an ar-15 on his back also wearing the armor and a handgun at his side

same as above but without the ar-15

ar-15, hand gun no armor

ar-15 only

handgun and armor

handgun only
#48
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
I said you have been dismissed, you may leave now, good day to you sir.
#49
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
and in an open carry state the vast majority of people who open carry do not commit crimes either they just want a chance to defend themselves if the situation arises, you see same thing.
Great. But we aren't talking about people who open carry in general. We are talking about people who open carry, who wear bodyarmour and who enter into public spaces. The vast majority of open carries do not do this.

let me ask you if any or all of these examples you would view the same way as the guy we are talking about
Personally, I view any scenario in which the person has an AR-15 strapped to his front, or is wearing combat armour and is armed who walks into a walmart as similar situations. Being armed and wearing combat armour or having the AR-15 strapped to the chest is a strong indicator that the person is either primed for violence or has chosen to wear such gear despite knowing that people will perceive it as you being primed for violence. Either the person is crazy or stupid but neither makes a good combination with guns.

Of course the caveat here is that I don't represent American consensus, nor does it represent all places in America.  
#50
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
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.
there's no argument about what he did was extremely stupid and unhelpful.
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?
#51
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@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?
#52
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@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?

#53
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@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

#54
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@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.
#55
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
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.
#56
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@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
#57
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@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
#58
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@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.


#59
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
people often have the legal right to be stupid, this is a classic example of that.
#60
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@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.