Man Arrested For Walking Into Walmart (with weapons)

[Antityranicals]

Carrying a firearm is not a threat. Pointing it at someone would be, but he didn't do that.

Terroristic Threats in the state of Missouri includes implied threat, which would seem to be the case here.

I think that most people who carry weapons do so for self-defense, and any rational person realizes that this is by far the most likely possibility. There isn't even an implied threat, as anyone looking candidly at this situation, without regard to recent events in El Paso, would not conclude a motivation of terror.

[Fartsniffage]

Terroristic Threats in the state of Missouri includes implied threat, which would seem to be the case here.

I think that most people who carry weapons do so for self-defense, and any rational person realizes that this is by far the most likely possibility. There isn't even an implied threat, as anyone looking candidly at this situation, without regard to recent events in El Paso, would not conclude a motivation of terror.

But El Paso did happen. So the implied threat is there. Like I keep saying, the guy was super dumb and if he ends up with a charge then I won't lose any sleep.

[Galloism]

Still doesn't warrant an arrest.

I'm... undecided on the question of arrest. Under the circumstances, an arrest *might* be warranted in order to ascertain that he wasn't a copycat or a threat.

He should not be prosecuted, however. As I said before, if the State thinks it's fine that people live in fear and uncertainty, they shouldn't then turn around and prosecute someone for causing fear and uncertainty while following the laws.

A temporary detainment is probably appropriate in this circumstance, especially since he had multiple weapons AND body armor. I mean, the police temporarily detain people if we see them weave a little bit back and forth in their lane to make sure they aren't drunk. This is probably rising to that level at a bare minimum.

Yeah, weaving back and forth inside your lane is a perfectly legal act, but it's foolish, because it makes people think you're drunk, and the police will stop you to find out.

[Telconi]

I think that most people who carry weapons do so for self-defense, and any rational person realizes that this is by far the most likely possibility. There isn't even an implied threat, as anyone looking candidly at this situation, without regard to recent events in El Paso, would not conclude a motivation of terror.

But El Paso did happen. So the implied threat is there. Like I keep saying, the guy was super dumb and if he ends up with a charge then I won't lose any sleep.

Implied threats are an asinine concept.

[Cekoviu]

Terroristic Threats in the state of Missouri includes implied threat, which would seem to be the case here.

The other day I walked past a police officer who was had a taser on his belt.

Clearly I'm the victim of police brutality.

That's not at all what she's saying and you know that.

[Fartsniffage]

But El Paso did happen. So the implied threat is there. Like I keep saying, the guy was super dumb and if he ends up with a charge then I won't lose any sleep.

Implied threats are an asinine concept.

Perhaps. But they are part of the law when this guy did what he did.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Yeah, a person walking in with weapons like that is just very threatening, and it always will be. You don’t know who that person is, with firepower to end your life in an instant. Especially with all the mass shootings. This man deserves no pity, really, and I fully understand the reaction. It’s not illegal, but it bloody well should be. The freedom to bear arms should not mean a freedom to mak everyone reasonably fear for their lives.

If the defence is that no round was chambered... how could these people have known?

[The Two Jerseys]

The other day I walked past a police officer who was had a taser on his belt.

Clearly I'm the victim of police brutality.

That's not at all what she's saying and you know that.

You read minds now?

[Telconi]

The other day I walked past a police officer who was had a taser on his belt.

Clearly I'm the victim of police brutality.

That's not at all what she's saying and you know that.

How is it different?

[Telconi]

Yeah, a person walking in with weapons like that is just very threatening, and it always will be. You don’t know who that person is, with firepower to end your life in an instant. Especially with all the mass shootings. This man deserves no pity, really, and I fully understand the reaction. It’s not illegal, but it bloody well should be. The freedom to bear arms should not mean a freedom to mak everyone reasonably fear for their lives.

If the defence is that no round was chambered... how could these people have known?

Such fear is hardly reasonable.

[Chernoslavia]

The other day I walked past a police officer who was had a taser on his belt.

Clearly I'm the victim of police brutality.

That's not at all what she's saying and you know that.

He's still wrong. also that pretty much follows the same logic.

[Chernoslavia]

Yeah, a person walking in with weapons like that is just very threatening, and it always will be. You don’t know who that person is, with firepower to end your life in an instant. Especially with all the mass shootings. This man deserves no pity, really, and I fully understand the reaction. It’s not illegal, but it bloody well should be. The freedom to bear arms should not mean a freedom to mak everyone reasonably fear for their lives.

If the defence is that no round was chambered... how could these people have known?

So imprison someone for thinking what they might do?

[Vassenor]

Yeah, a person walking in with weapons like that is just very threatening, and it always will be. You don’t know who that person is, with firepower to end your life in an instant. Especially with all the mass shootings. This man deserves no pity, really, and I fully understand the reaction. It’s not illegal, but it bloody well should be. The freedom to bear arms should not mean a freedom to mak everyone reasonably fear for their lives.

If the defence is that no round was chambered... how could these people have known?

Humans clearly are supposed to have X-ray eyes.

[Chernoslavia]

Yeah, a person walking in with weapons like that is just very threatening, and it always will be. You don’t know who that person is, with firepower to end your life in an instant. Especially with all the mass shootings. This man deserves no pity, really, and I fully understand the reaction. It’s not illegal, but it bloody well should be. The freedom to bear arms should not mean a freedom to mak everyone reasonably fear for their lives.

If the defence is that no round was chambered... how could these people have known?

Humans clearly are supposed to have X-ray eyes.

So yes, imprison someone for thinking what they might do despite not breaking any laws.

[Gravlen]

I'm... undecided on the question of arrest. Under the circumstances, an arrest *might* be warranted in order to ascertain that he wasn't a copycat or a threat.

He should not be prosecuted, however. As I said before, if the State thinks it's fine that people live in fear and uncertainty, they shouldn't then turn around and prosecute someone for causing fear and uncertainty while following the laws.

A temporary detainment is probably appropriate in this circumstance, especially since he had multiple weapons AND body armor. I mean, the police temporarily detain people if we see them weave a little bit back and forth in their lane to make sure they aren't drunk. This is probably rising to that level at a bare minimum.

Yeah, weaving back and forth inside your lane is a perfectly legal act, but it's foolish, because it makes people think you're drunk, and the police will stop you to find out.

Good comparison. I'm sold on the idea that a temporary detainment was warranted under the circumstances.

[Cekoviu]

That's not at all what she's saying and you know that.

You read minds now?

It's an acquired skill.

[Necroghastia]

Yeah, a person walking in with weapons like that is just very threatening, and it always will be. You don’t know who that person is, with firepower to end your life in an instant. Especially with all the mass shootings. This man deserves no pity, really, and I fully understand the reaction. It’s not illegal, but it bloody well should be. The freedom to bear arms should not mean a freedom to mak everyone reasonably fear for their lives.

If the defence is that no round was chambered... how could these people have known?

Such fear is hardly reasonable.

Bull. We've been through so many mass shootings recently, it would be stupid not to suspect something was up.

[Kaztropol]

unless things have changed radically, afaik body armour is heavy, uncomfortable, and in August is hot enough to make you sweat all over the place.

Which makes anyone who is not a police officer (or soldier) walking about wearing it to be somewhat suspicious looking. Just like anyone walking around in summer wearing a very thick or padded coat. They look suspicious in the context of recent incidents.


Apparently both this man's wife, and his sister, told him this was a dumb idea. Though, being monumentally stupid is not against the law.

[Telconi]

Such fear is hardly reasonable.

Bull. We've been through so many mass shootings recently, it would be stupid not to suspect something was up.

"So many" is a rediculous assertion, fearing a man with a rifle because mass shootings is like me having people with cell phones arrested because batteries can explode and cause fires.

[The Emerald Legion]

I think that most people who carry weapons do so for self-defense, and any rational person realizes that this is by far the most likely possibility. There isn't even an implied threat, as anyone looking candidly at this situation, without regard to recent events in El Paso, would not conclude a motivation of terror.

But El Paso did happen. So the implied threat is there. Like I keep saying, the guy was super dumb and if he ends up with a charge then I won't lose any sleep.

As did 9/11, are you saying that we should arrest anyone resembling the perpetrators for the implied terroristic threat?

[Fartsniffage]

But El Paso did happen. So the implied threat is there. Like I keep saying, the guy was super dumb and if he ends up with a charge then I won't lose any sleep.

As did 9/11, are you saying that we should arrest anyone resembling the perpetrators for the implied terroristic threat?

If they're on a plane carrying box cutters then yes.

[Israeli Empiratic Commonwealth]

Originally I thought he was arrested rightfully, because I thought he had motives to shoot. As I have been reading I wish I could change my vote to "Yes". I believe if it is legal to carry a firearm openly and he didn't hurt anyone this was perfectly legal and he was wrongfully arrested.

[Vassenor]

Originally I thought he was arrested rightfully, because I thought he had motives to shoot. As I have been reading I wish I could change my vote to "Yes". I believe if it is legal to carry a firearm openly and he didn't hurt anyone this was perfectly legal and he was wrongfully arrested.

Doesn't have to hurt anyone for his conduct to constitute terroristic threats.

[Caliphate of Harlem]

The harsh response was a way of making a statement. Open carry states do not want to look like they’re being soft on gun control, especially in today’s political climate. In all likelihood they’ll drop the charges once the media frenzy dies down and the sharks find another carcass to chew on.

[Estanglia]

Originally I thought he was arrested rightfully, because I thought he had motives to shoot. As I have been reading I wish I could change my vote to "Yes". I believe if it is legal to carry a firearm openly and he didn't hurt anyone this was perfectly legal and he was wrongfully arrested.

Doesn't have to hurt anyone for his conduct to constitute terroristic threats.

How was it a terroristic threat?