Man arrested for thinking the Constitution is still in effect

Author: dylancatlow

Posts

Total: 88
#61
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@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.
#62
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@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.

#63
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@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.
#64
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Enjoy conceding and fuck off with your propaganda.
#65
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
concede to what?  lol
you call laws you don't understand propaganda?  are you a socialist/communist?  sounds like it.
#66
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
are you a socialist/communist?
The confusion of the wingnut is hilarious.


#67
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It looks like what he's actually being charged with is 574.120 RSMo

#68
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
The lawyers are going to have a field day with the 3rd provision.
#69
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@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.

#70
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,972
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@dustryder
The wording of intent and good faith is open to extreme interpretation.
#71
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@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?
#72
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@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?



#73
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@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.      
#74
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@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.
#75
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@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.


#76
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Perhaps you should be a lawyer then. You seem to take issue with these laws.

The fact remains. There was no situation in which justified him terrorizing people.

It's really as simple as that
#77
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
again pushing a shopping cart is not terrorizing

has that Walmart posted signs or said that firearms are not allowed?

so was he "terrorizing" or not in good faith to prevent harm?  because the latter hasn't been mentioned yet.

he wasn't brandishing or saying anything to anyone, pushing a shopping cart and filming, his hands were full and occupied hardly a threat.

if anything pulling the alarm freaked out people more than was needed.  They could have asked him to leave over the intercom which he is obligated by law to do.

#78
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
You are on private fucking property. Walmart doesn't need to put up a sign telling idiots not to carry an assault rifle. It's their property, you're a guest. In fact he wasnt even a guest, he was a parasite leeching off of their good will and naivety of thinking that not putting up a sign telling you that if you walk around with a damn assault rifle, you're basically saying "shoot me before I get the chance". This mentally unhinged "Constitution lover" clearly thought that fighting government tyranny is best done by scaring the absolute shit out of security, general staff and customers alike in a shopping mall that has in no way at all oppressed him or others in the past.

#79
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Look, obviously we just have a different understanding of what might be terrorising to an average person.

Me, I think if you're unprepared to see a person who is combat ready in a place you would not expect to see such a person and it just so happens that such a person is correlated with mass shooting events, you would probably feel terrorized.

#80
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
read the laws I have desire to explain them on an elementary grade level so you can understand them.
#81
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
That's because you think on that level, not because I do.
#82
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
In fact, this is the sheer limit of displeasure I am willing to have with someone before I hit the block button. There, that felt good.

#83
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
you are describing being scared, yes I would have been scared, nervous seeing him, however that doesn't mean he's breaking the law.  I would feel the same if there was a group of people with gang tattoos but if they aren't breaking the law they aren't terrorizing.  

intent and prosecuting attorney's decision
#84
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
I would feel safer with a gang than with a guy who may have a terrorist agenda and see me as collateral. If the gang was suddenly face to face with a rival gang, then I'd be very afraid as well as I'd definitely be seen as collateral, indeed, but they'd usually let the neutrals run first with a head start. 
#85
dustryder
dustryder's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 1,080
3
2
4
dustryder's avatar
dustryder
3
2
4
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The act of terrorizing isn't predicated on law. You can terrorize someone in an anarchic state. What matters is how the laws of a particular state has defined a terrorist threat

In this specific instance

A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the second degree if he or she recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation
This part is absolutely undeniable as he caused an evacuation of the Walmart because he disregarded the impact and perception of his gear and attire.

and knowingly:
(3)  Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.
This part is also absolutely undeniable. Because as we have discussed, his gear and attire created a condition which prompted false fear in regards to the possibility of him being a shooter
#86
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@dylancatlow
The man recklessly caused a panic for no legitimate purpose. He was not within his rights to do that.
#87
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Death23
Exactly.

#88
TheDredPriateRoberts
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,383
3
3
6
TheDredPriateRoberts's avatar
TheDredPriateRoberts
3
3
6
-->
@dustryder
This part is absolutely undeniable as he caused an evacuation of the Walmart because he disregarded the impact and perception of his gear and attire.
ok that's interesting and that would the the argument for the government, however the evacuation was cause by the manager pulling the alarm so this would be very interesting to follow though I don't think it will get much coverage and there won't be those kinds of detail.

so basically you are saying it's not so much his actions but how he looked is what cause the alarm to be pulled and everything else that transpired, that's interesting, I don't know how that will work given the freedom of expression and what not, it's a very interesting tangle.  He made not threatening gestures or acts physically, but the argument is the perception of the manage or whom ever pulled the alarm.
Here's the thing.  People call the cops on people who are legally carrying, lots of videos about that but again that's legal.  In Missouri it's legal to carry what he did as he did so that shouldn't cause a panic, that's not a defense or a reason in itself to call the police.  It will come down to all of it as you pointed out with the body armor etc.
I don't know if that's sufficient to file charges or that he would be found guilty by a jury because of expression etc.  Wish I could really get the details and follow it, though it probably won't go anywhere.