Man Arrested For Walking Into Walmart (with weapons)

[The Chuck]

Can I ask something?

If I am reasonably sure that an emergency is taking place, and I arrest the person who I reasonably believe to be the cause of said emergency, is this illegal?

NOPE. In a citizens arrest, you HAVE to be right, or it’s false arrest

^ It's all convoluted. Also I dug up the Citizen's arrest segment of Missouri law.

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.a ... =29223&hl=

[Vassenor]

Can I ask something?

If I am reasonably sure that an emergency is taking place, and I arrest the person who I reasonably believe to be the cause of said emergency, is this illegal?

NOPE. In a citizens arrest, you HAVE to be right, or it’s false arrest

Just because you insist that the individual was 100% in the right from your omniscient position does not make that so to the people on the ground.

[The Two Jerseys]

Yes, they committed false arrest.

The firefighter didn't arrest anybody, so how could the arrest he didn't do be considered false?

He pulled a gun and detained the guy when no crime had been committed. False arrest.

[The Chuck]

Yes, they committed false arrest.

The firefighter didn't arrest anybody, so how could the arrest he didn't do be considered false?

Actually, it would be better in court if he went with attempting to commit a citizen's arrest. If he didn't, it would be brandishing a weapon and a couple other felony violations (No, the guy at walmart did not brandish his rifle because he did not point it at anyone (yes, Missouri laws are convoluted but God damn if I don't love them)) and could get taken down hard by a good lawyer.

[The Chuck]

NOPE. In a citizens arrest, you HAVE to be right, or it’s false arrest

Just because you insist that the individual was 100% in the right from your omniscient position does not make that so to the people on the ground.

Vasse, please don't get your knickers in a twist.

The firefighter didn't arrest anybody, so how could the arrest he didn't do be considered false?

He pulled a gun and detained the guy when no crime had been committed. False arrest.

Jersey, I love you brother but this one is up in the air atm.

It all depends on how the court rules on the case. Of course this will be a hot topic but I honestly don't believe any of the main people involved (Kid with rifle, manager who pulled the alarm, and fireman who pulled his gun) are at fault individually. The kid was a smart ass and followed state law, the manager reacted reasonably to what could have been perceived as a threat, and the fireman reacted to what he assumed was a threat with the alarm/etc.

[Ifreann]

Because the alarm puller made a terroristic threat.

Exactly the firefighter should be arrested he held the kid at gunpoint

Excuse me, "kid"? Andreychenko is 20.

---

So where was the fire?

Why does there need to be a fire?

Firefighters are only allowed to point guns at fires, everyone knows that.

[Galloism]

The firefighter didn't arrest anybody, so how could the arrest he didn't do be considered false?

He pulled a gun and detained the guy when no crime had been committed. False arrest.

Incidentally, because of the way the law is written, they almost had to charge the guy in question with something or they had to arrest the firefighter.

2. A private person acting on his or her own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force to arrest or prevent the escape of a person whom such private person reasonably believes has committed an offense, and who in fact has committed such offense, when the private person's actions are immediately necessary to arrest the offender or prevent his or her escape from custody.

Underlining is mine.

That’s why I think they’ll try to tag him with some offense in a plea, no matter how minor, to protect the firefighter from criminal or civil liability.

[Estanglia]

NOPE. In a citizens arrest, you HAVE to be right, or it’s false arrest

^ It's all convoluted. Also I dug up the Citizen's arrest segment of Missouri law.

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.a ... =29223&hl=

So, if I am 100% convinced that someone is committing (or has committed) a crime, and it turns out that they didn't, I've falsely arrested someone.

Could that be punished?

[The Chuck]

He pulled a gun and detained the guy when no crime had been committed. False arrest.

Incidentally, because of the way the law is written, they almost had to charge the guy in question with something or they had to arrest the firefighter.

2. A private person acting on his or her own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force to arrest or prevent the escape of a person whom such private person reasonably believes has committed an offense, and who in fact has committed such offense, when the private person's actions are immediately necessary to arrest the offender or prevent his or her escape from custody.

Underlining is mine.

That’s why I think they’ll try to tag him with some offense in a plea, no matter how minor, to protect the firefighter from criminal or civil liability.

Ding ding ding, we've got a winner over here. But yes, this is essentially how it will play out. Though it would be interesting to see if good ol Governor Mike Parsons steps in.

[The Chuck]

^ It's all convoluted. Also I dug up the Citizen's arrest segment of Missouri law.

http://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.a ... =29223&hl=

So, if I am 100% convinced that someone is committing (or has committed) a crime, and it turns out that they didn't, I've falsely arrested someone?

Could that be punished?

Yes it can and will be enforced.

[Galloism]

Incidentally, because of the way the law is written, they almost had to charge the guy in question with something or they had to arrest the firefighter.



Underlining is mine.

That’s why I think they’ll try to tag him with some offense in a plea, no matter how minor, to protect the firefighter from criminal or civil liability.

Ding ding ding, we've got a winner over here. But yes, this is essentially how it will play out. Though it would be interesting to see if good ol Governor Mike Parsons steps in.

“Disorderly conduct” is my prediction.

[The Two Jerseys]

Just because you insist that the individual was 100% in the right from your omniscient position does not make that so to the people on the ground.

Vasse, please don't get your knickers in a twist.

He pulled a gun and detained the guy when no crime had been committed. False arrest.

Jersey, I love you brother but this one is up in the air atm.

It all depends on how the court rules on the case. Of course this will be a hot topic but I honestly don't believe any of the main people involved (Kid with rifle, manager who pulled the alarm, and fireman who pulled his gun) are at fault individually. The kid was a smart ass and followed state law, the manager reacted reasonably to what could have been perceived as a threat, and the fireman reacted to what he assumed was a threat with the alarm/etc.

Like I said: DA should just call a mulligan and drop the whole thing.

Firefighters are only allowed to point guns at fires, everyone knows that.

[Estanglia]

He pulled a gun and detained the guy when no crime had been committed. False arrest.

Incidentally, because of the way the law is written, they almost had to charge the guy in question with something or they had to arrest the firefighter.

2. A private person acting on his or her own account may, subject to the limitations of subsection 3 of this section, use physical force to arrest or prevent the escape of a person whom such private person reasonably believes has committed an offense, and who in fact has committed such offense, when the private person's actions are immediately necessary to arrest the offender or prevent his or her escape from custody.

Underlining is mine.

That’s why I think they’ll try to tag him with some offense in a plea, no matter how minor, to protect the firefighter from criminal or civil liability.

God this situation is dumb.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

That is not a threat though. A stupid reason to walk into a store with a gun, but not a threat.

Notice the use of the term "express or implied threat" - the threat doesn't have to be an explicit statement, just a reasonable belief from your conduct. Like, say, walking into a Walmart tooled up for battle less than a week after another Walmart was the site of a mass shooting.

I doubt that a court in an open carry state is going to interpret exercising such rights as an "implied threat." Hell, his intent was not to threaten, but to see if people and the store were turning away from the second amendment. If he has committed anything (and I have my doubts), he has probably committed (3).

[Vassenor]

Incidentally, because of the way the law is written, they almost had to charge the guy in question with something or they had to arrest the firefighter.



Underlining is mine.

That’s why I think they’ll try to tag him with some offense in a plea, no matter how minor, to protect the firefighter from criminal or civil liability.

God this situation is dumb.

That's what happens when someone decides inciting panic as a social experiment is a good idea.

[The Two Jerseys]

Incidentally, because of the way the law is written, they almost had to charge the guy in question with something or they had to arrest the firefighter.



Underlining is mine.

That’s why I think they’ll try to tag him with some offense in a plea, no matter how minor, to protect the firefighter from criminal or civil liability.

God this situation is dumb.

[The Chuck]

That is not a threat though. A stupid reason to walk into a store with a gun, but not a threat.

Notice the use of the term "express or implied threat" - the threat doesn't have to be an explicit statement, just a reasonable belief from your conduct. Like, say, walking into a Walmart tooled up for battle less than a week after another Walmart was the site of a mass shooting.

Don't forget Vasse but Walmarts (especially around these parts) have a whole outdoors section with a gun area and everything.

[Salus Maior]

He’s now claiming it was a social experiment

Well, now I definitely have no sympathy for him.

[Kowani]

Notice the use of the term "express or implied threat" - the threat doesn't have to be an explicit statement, just a reasonable belief from your conduct. Like, say, walking into a Walmart tooled up for battle less than a week after another Walmart was the site of a mass shooting.

Don't forget Vasse but Walmarts (especially around these parts) have a whole outdoors section with a gun area and everything.

Sure. But carrying the rifle in a front sling and wearing fucking body armor makes you seem a bit on the mass shooty bang bang side.

[Vassenor]

Also it's interesting how all that stuff about "responsible gun owners" goes out the window when the chips are down.

[Ifreann]

Notice the use of the term "express or implied threat" - the threat doesn't have to be an explicit statement, just a reasonable belief from your conduct. Like, say, walking into a Walmart tooled up for battle less than a week after another Walmart was the site of a mass shooting.

I doubt that a court in an open carry state is going to interpret exercising such rights as an "implied threat." Hell, his intent was not to threaten, but to see if people and the store were turning away from the second amendment. If he has committed anything (and I have my doubts), he has probably committed (3).

I don't think that him testing if he'd get kicked out is mutually exclusive with him threatening people. After all, Andreychenko wasn't just openly carrying, just innocently shopping with a pistol on his hip or a rifle on his back. He seems to have been deliberately trying to look like a mass shooter as part of his "Ooooh, but I'm just bearing arms, y u mad" thing.

[Mexar]

The guy might not have broken any laws, but he was still an idiot.

[Ikania]

And the Terroristic Threats offence in the state of Missouri includes implied threats as well as express ones, so he doesn't need to be shouting about how he's going to shoot the place up.

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 and knowingly:

(1) Communicates an express or implied threat to cause an incident or condition involving danger to life; or

(2) Communicates a 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.

Obviously the dude is stupid for walking into a Walmart with a loaded gun and expecting people not to be scared. But this specific part: "if he or she recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation" is pretty much the kicker. He clearly had no qualms about possibly causing a panic in the wake of weekly mass shootings, the most recent at a Walmart under similar circumstances. It's just plain stupid on his part, and clearly illegal.

[Vassenor]

And the Terroristic Threats offence in the state of Missouri includes implied threats as well as express ones, so he doesn't need to be shouting about how he's going to shoot the place up.

Obviously the dude is stupid for walking into a Walmart with a loaded gun and expecting people not to be scared. But this specific part: "if he or she recklessly disregards the risk of causing the evacuation" is pretty much the kicker. He clearly had no qualms about possibly causing a panic in the wake of weekly mass shootings, the most recent at a Walmart under similar circumstances. It's just plain stupid on his part, and clearly illegal.

It was specifically a social experiment to see how people would react to him doing that.

[Galloism]

I doubt that a court in an open carry state is going to interpret exercising such rights as an "implied threat." Hell, his intent was not to threaten, but to see if people and the store were turning away from the second amendment. If he has committed anything (and I have my doubts), he has probably committed (3).

I don't think that him testing if he'd get kicked out is mutually exclusive with him threatening people. After all, Andreychenko wasn't just openly carrying, just innocently shopping with a pistol on his hip or a rifle on his back. He seems to have been deliberately trying to look like a mass shooter as part of his "Ooooh, but I'm just bearing arms, y u mad" thing.

He definitely blew his cover.

He should have been like “hey totes, I’m just afraid of mass shooters in the wake of what happened, so I wore body armor. Why are you persecuting me for taking reasonable precautions?”