The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
There we have it. Pretty stupid considering the timing.JDstar wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2019 5:40 am Andreychenko "referred to the action as a social experiment on how his second amendment right would be respected in a public area." Both his sister and wife stated that they knew about his intent ahead of this event and refused to participate in the juvenile act.
https://www.kspr.com/content/news/Suspe ... 44771.html
How long ago was that written? That is so vague that it could apply to any snowflake hyperventilating at the sight of a MAGA hat. Never mind a legally carried firearm secure in its holster. Or an NRA shirt. WowKeith B wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:07 pmThe arrested him for making a terroristic threat, but as of yet has not been officially charged. Below is the lowest level charge:Syntyr wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:50 pmAnd there is the problem. Technically he did nothing wrong except maybe if the da wants to charge him with disturbing the peace or something similar. It’s a fine line between stupidity and criminality. I am REALLY surprised the guy didn’t wind up ventilated! If he had been I wouldn’t have lost sleep over societies loss to the greater good. Certainly not helping calm the situation any.03Lightningrocks wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:30 pmIt still doesn't mention his real intentions.philip964 wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:16 pm https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9685741/w ... n-el-paso/
Being refered to as a gun nut.
As to the question up post I am 99.9 percent sure I would have ran and gotten me and my family out of there.
As for the guy drawing on him, the threat was perceived by the people in the store, and the manager evacuated the store by pulling the fire alarm. The off-duty firefighter had every reason to believe the threat was there and valid, and would be justified in threatening use of deadly force by drawing down on the guy.574.125. Making a terrorist threat, third degree — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the third degree if he or she, with criminal negligence with regard to the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly:
(1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(2) Communicates a knowingly false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.
2. The offense of making a terrorist threat in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.
574.125 refers to Missouri Revised Statutes. It was effective 1/1/17. http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.a ... =29830&hl=C-dub wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:29 pmHow long ago was that written? That is so vague that it could apply to any snowflake hyperventilating at the sight of a MAGA hat. Never mind a legally carried firearm secure in its holster. Or an NRA shirt. WowKeith B wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 9:07 pmAs for the guy drawing on him, the threat was perceived by the people in the store, and the manager evacuated the store by pulling the fire alarm. The off-duty firefighter had every reason to believe the threat was there and valid, and would be justified in threatening use of deadly force by drawing down on the guy.574.125. Making a terrorist threat, third degree — penalty. — 1. A person commits the offense of making a terrorist threat in the third degree if he or she, with criminal negligence with regard to the risk of causing the evacuation, quarantine or closure of any portion of a building, inhabitable structure, place of assembly or facility of transportation, knowingly:
(1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(2) Communicates a knowingly false report of an incident or condition involving danger to life; or
(3) Causes a false belief or fear that an incident has occurred or that a condition exists involving danger to life.
2. The offense of making a terrorist threat in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor.
3. No offense is committed under this section by a person acting in good faith with the purpose to prevent harm.
Slung on his back would have been FAR better. Slung on the front, muzzle down, makes the rifle that much quicker to get into action. That’s why soldiers sling them that way when anticipating possible contact with an enemy. So it is a more aggressive posture than slung behind. And technically, he DID commit a violation under Missouri law by terrifying 10 or more people. I can understand, although I’m not sure I’d believe, the argument that it wasn’t his intent to terrify anyone. I suspicion that, just as with Texas law, the controlling factor isn’t the suspects's intent, it’s the reactions of observers....over which the suspect has no control.Syntyr wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:50 pmAnd there is the problem. Technically he did nothing wrong except maybe if the da wants to charge him with disturbing the peace or something similar. It’s a fine line between stupidity and criminality. I am REALLY surprised the guy didn’t wind up ventilated! If he had been I wouldn’t have lost sleep over societies loss to the greater good. Certainly not helping calm the situation any.03Lightningrocks wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:30 pmIt still doesn't mention his real intentions.philip964 wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:16 pm https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9685741/w ... n-el-paso/
Being refered to as a gun nut.
As to the question up post I am 99.9 percent sure I would have ran and gotten me and my family out of there.
I'd say its safe to say that it was intentional. And, like the Ohio shooting was probably carried out by a anti-2nd Amendment radical with association to ANTIFA and socialism.The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:03 am Also, he didn’t just video-record himself during the event. I’ve read more than one report saying that he was also recording other people's reactions to what he was doing. In other words, he was getting his jollies from his little stunt. That pretty much makes his terrorizing look pretty intentional.
Yes, sir, to me it was his own personal conduct that will be his undoing. Now, if he had no body armor, no videoing, and the rifle had been slung, unloaded, over his back as you mentioned, maybe a different story. I could envision someone not wanting to leave their rifle in their vehicle if they had a reasonable thought that it might be stolen. There was nothing reasonable about his conduct, especially in light of current events. The sad part is the negative effect it will have on open carry done in a proper manner.The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:03 amSlung on his back would have been FAR better. Slung on the front, muzzle down, makes the rifle that much quicker to get into action. That’s why soldiers sling them that way when anticipating possible contact with an enemy. So it is a more aggressive posture than slung behind. And technically, he DID commit a violation under Missouri law by terrifying 10 or more people. I can understand, although I’m not sure I’d believe, the argument that it wasn’t his intent to terrify anyone. I suspicion that, just as with Texas law, the controlling factor isn’t the suspects's intent, it’s the reactions of observers....over which the suspect has no control.Syntyr wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:50 pmAnd there is the problem. Technically he did nothing wrong except maybe if the da wants to charge him with disturbing the peace or something similar. It’s a fine line between stupidity and criminality. I am REALLY surprised the guy didn’t wind up ventilated! If he had been I wouldn’t have lost sleep over societies loss to the greater good. Certainly not helping calm the situation any.03Lightningrocks wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:30 pmIt still doesn't mention his real intentions.philip964 wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:16 pm https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9685741/w ... n-el-paso/
Being refered to as a gun nut.
As to the question up post I am 99.9 percent sure I would have ran and gotten me and my family out of there.
Also, he didn’t just video-record himself during the event. I’ve read more than one report saying that he was also recording other people's reactions to what he was doing. In other words, he was getting his jollies from his little stunt. That pretty much makes his terrorizing look pretty intentional.
It may well be the case. It’s hard for me to say with any certainty that the multiple shootings or stunts like this guy's are a coordinated conspiracy, or merely copycat crimes. But given both the facts that it’s not impossible, and the fact that well placed elites on both sides of the aisle seem to be above the law and persecution, it’s certainly not hard to believe that it’s possible.Paladin wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:23 amI'd say its safe to say that it was intentional. And, like the Ohio shooting was probably carried out by a anti-2nd Amendment radical with association to ANTIFA and socialism.The Annoyed Man wrote: Mon Aug 12, 2019 11:03 am Also, he didn’t just video-record himself during the event. I’ve read more than one report saying that he was also recording other people's reactions to what he was doing. In other words, he was getting his jollies from his little stunt. That pretty much makes his terrorizing look pretty intentional.
The fact that these things are happening in such a rapid fashion implies coordination to "start anarchy"