Good Guy (former firefighter) with Gun Stops Armed Man in Missouri Walmart

Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me put it this way ... what do you think would happen if this happens 20x more this year ?

You're not doing any gun owners any favors by unnecessarily scaring the sheeple ...

At some point, it normalizes the behavior. I'm not advocating for this, but the rationale behind pushing the limits of what is conventionally accepted is to normalize greater liberty. The homosexual activists have long practiced this to great effect. Two men kissing in a Walmart would have caused an uproar and criminal charges in the not so distant past. Today, people routinely push their carts past such a scene and ignore it as none of their business as well as they can. I have no doubt there are some open carry activists who dream of normalizing OC in the same way. I tend to agree with boom boom however, that this man was more likely delighting in baiting reactionists, and drawing attention to himself rather than any purpose or cause beyond his own self-involvement.

A good indication of how political versus how selfish his motives actually were would be how well prepared his legal defense is. If he's done this without any preparation for the legal consequences and is just hoping an awesome lawyer pops out of thin air like a fairy godmother to advocate for his cause, it's a fairly good indication that he foolishly sought attention rather than shrewdly took the opportunity to advocate his cause.
 
Texas10mm: I'm not saying bow to the shepple, I'm saying don't be a raging troll, who is quite literally asking to get shot. If a pro 2A board is having a discussion largely centered around how lucky this guy was not to be shot, with a secondary of "hmm is that legal", he was a fool. Sorry any other take on it is burying you head in the sand, screaming "gun rights!" If we don't police our own, the government will be happy to do so.

But allowing random citizens to tell us when we cant legally carry, where it's presumably legal, because they are scared seems a lot like losing open carry already.

A random citizen didn't say a dang thing. A good-guy-with-a-gun (our major talking point for WHY gun free zones are a bad idea) decided this guy was a problem up to point of drawing down on him. If that firefighter had pulled the trigger we would be having a thread discussing about how he had saved lives, it was great that he had a gun, etc. When in the heck did we decided that getting as close to being an active shooter as you possibly can without pulling the trigger or engaging in an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (most states penal codes consider pointing a firearm at someone to be aggravated assault with a deadly weapon) was okay?!

IF YOUR OWN PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO SHOOT YOU BECAUSE OF YOUR ACTIONS, YOU ARE DOING SOMETHING VERY WRONG!
 
IF this guy was just one of those idiots you see on YT open carrying an AR to gain attention, AND it's legal to do so where he was at, then I am for his ability to do so.

I really dont care about folks "feelings" in this regard, or more specifically in regards to do things that are legal. Way too many soft creatures nowadays.


It's coming to the point where the same thing will end up happening to someone OC a G19 or 1911. Maybe more folks would care then, maybe not.

It's a sad state society is currently in.
 
And regardless of the outcome in court, we lose.
1 ccw guy (and all of us) is viewed as wannabe cop who accosted a law abiding guy...not good
2. Foolish guy give reason for more gun free zones to avoid this.....again not good
3. Ccw guy wins and sets precedent that if a law abiding person scares you with his legal gun, you can run him over and make a citizens arrest....again not good
4. Wild wild west argument again against both guys...not good.
5. "Even popular gun forums say that he shouldn't have been open carrying legally," "common sense gun laws". Again no good outcome

It's all not good. This one sucks

When in the heck did we decided that getting as close to being an active shooter as you possibly can without pulling the trigger or engaging in an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon (most states penal codes consider pointing a firearm at someone to be aggravated assault with a deadly weapon) was okay?!

I didnt see anywhere that he pointed it at anyone. I already said that if he threatened anyone or pointed it then it was a different matter entirely. All the reports I've read said it was slung low ready and he was talking to his phone the whole time (which takes a free hand) When did we decide that legally carrying a gun makes us "as close as possible to being an active shooter?

And the guy may well have been a hero and stopped a terrible event. I just dont know. And I think we would be better off if we never hear from this one again honestly.

I wasnt there. Just going by reports. Im not defending either argument. Idk But either way it sucks and I'm out.
 
Last edited:
Under the stress of this and other recent events, I do not know how the "fireman" did not pull the trigger. Some of us have had some reasonable degree of training and others have had none, but that's a difficult scenario in any case. I doubt the man would have been prosecuted if he had fired, but I would not have wanted to trade places with him post-event.
 
but I would not have wanted to trade places with him post-event.

Absolutely agree. 100%
If he shot then seen the guys video and he was only advocating (albeit in a dumb way) or If he hadnt shot and the other guy had.....either way it would be terrible in hindsight. Luckily it didnt go that far at least.
 
One more thing ... it's not about his right to carry.

It's about his right to carry a semi-auto rifle, with body armor, with military clothing, in a Walmart, days after the El Paso incident.

FIRE!

Many here are arguing that it only becomes illegal when he points the weapon at someone. Please Take a step back and think objectively.
 
Sometimes there’s not a law against something because we just can’t believe someone would be dumb enough to do it. Then this guy comes along. So now there will likely be a push for laws against this so that when another idiot does it he can be prosecuted heavily. So we can thank him for a bit more of our freedoms being whittled away. Thanks, buddy.
 
I didnt see anywhere that he pointed it at anyone. I already said that if he threatened anyone or pointed it then it was a different matter entirely. All the reports I've read said it was slung low ready and he was talking to his phone the whole time (which takes a free hand) When did we decide that legally carrying a gun makes us "as close as possible to being an active shooter?

As I said "as close to being an active shooter as you possibly can without pulling the trigger or engaging in an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon." He didn't point it, so it wasn't agg aslt w/ DW.

Also he wasn't legally carrying a gun, as cited above in post #17 he was engaged in the offense of Terroristic Threat as defined under the Missouri penal code . If we really want to play this game, the shooters in Ohio and El Paso were both legally opening carrying up until the moment they pulled the trigger or aimed them at someone who had a reasonable belief they were about to be shot. Do we really want to tell people that? This yahoo decided to bring that fact front and center in the media.

It amazes me that were are even having a discussion that someone acting in this manner was anything other than a fool. He committed a criminal act with a gun, he almost got shot, and he decided to parade the whole open carry issue in front of the nation days after two mass shootings 14 months from a major national election where guns rights are going to be a major issue. Does anyone else have a better term for him or his actions than fool and foolish that is PG?
 
Missouri doesn’t prohibit open carry apparently and some can get permits for it.

What does this mean?

If it’s not prohibited why would one need a permit?
 
I'd love to hear what this guy's thinking was on this. Pro 2A and pro open carry? Anti 2A and anti open carry by drawing attention to the fact that everything he was doing was currently legal? I wonder if we'll ever see the video he was making on his phone?

Edit: I guess we know now. Got interrupted while typing and by the time I posted the other posts were up.
 
Suppose a person had a very lifelike doll the size of a toddler with an internal sound device and was dangling it over the edge of a balcony several stories above ground, all the while shaking it and yelling that the "child" is a worthless piece of @#$% and similar, while the sound device was emitting screams of terror. Do we accept this because it's not a real child?
 
I find it interesting that nearly every mainstream article I’ve read talks about the off-duty fireman who held him at gunpoint. Almost taking your eyes off the fact that this was nothing more than a private citizen with a CCW. Firemen don’t carry guns as part of their job. Might as well have said “off-duty Nordstrom tie salesman” or “off-duty loan officer”. I think the media forgot that part.
 
...I've not read anywhere that this guy said anything except to his phone. And nothing about a threat. If I'm doing nothing illegal and I dont threaten, who decides I'm a threat? A random former fireman? ...

The guy in who shot up Walmart in El Paso similarly did not express a threat, until the point when he shouldered his gun and started shooting...

Ask yourself this, if you are at Walmart with your family and an unknown person comes in, decked out in tactical gear including body armor, carrying an AR-15, not pointed at you but in 'low ready' position, what would your reaction be? This is such non-normative behavior that it would scare the bejeezus out of 99.9% of the regular population, probably any time but especially this close after a mass shooting involving that exact same scenario.

The logical contortionism taking place to justify such outrageously inappropriate behavior is stunning. And to additionally put blame on the firefighter who stuck out his neck to protect people from a very real potential threat is beyond the pale.

What the AR15 toting mall-ninja guy did is the kind of cr@p that will quickly generate no-open-carry laws and essentially ruin that option for everybody else. He is not helping the 2A cause and if there is not already a law against such behavior - guess what - there soon will be, up to and including bans on open carry if this kind of stupidity is allowed to go on unchecked.
 
Keep in mind that shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater is precedent, not statute. Precedents can be overturned, just the same as many people today hope to overcome the precedent of Roe v. Wade. It's not set in stone and really the only way to overturn it is begun by crossing the line. What's more, the actual precedent that we're referring to here is a unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court in Schenck versus the United States which had nothing to do with shouting fire in a theater, but with distributing flyers in opposition to the draft during WWI in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. Needless to say, the very precedent for which Oliver Wendel Holmes penned his fire-in-a-movie-theater justification for regulating freedom of speech would be overturned today. Indeed, it was mostly overturned in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. So while there have been real incidents of people falsely shouting fire in a theater, Holmes's opinion here was intended as an analogy to justify suppressing what he considered harmful sedition, and frankly it sucked. Using the same justification to suppress 2nd Amendment liberties is no different.

While the idea of the government lawfully regulating time, manner, and place of free speech persists, most of the analogs for the 2nd Amendment are grievous.
 
Last edited:
I likely would have ran from him at minimum. Really bad PR for gun owners.

Does anybody know how OC works on private property in MO? If i come to your door with a shotgun in my hands...?

So stupid at best and a potential shooter that didn't follow through at worst.
 
So stupid at best...

If that was a crime, who would run the Country?

I think idiots thrive for the same reason drunk drivers are always the ones that survive the crash they caused.
 
"Many here are arguing that it only becomes illegal when he points the weapon at someone. Please Take a step back and think objectively."

I think the question is more subjective than objective. It apparently did not come to it, but at what point might the "fireman", or any CCW, have felt a lethal threat? I would like to think I had the mental fortitude to wait, but I ain't sure. It would also depend on whether I was alone or in a position of defending others.
No doubt, this will create a s**t-storm for the future.
 
What he did was ILLEGAL. Go read post 17 for the relevant statute. They evacuated the store, and CCW holder felt the need to draw down on the subject. It meets every element of the offense, and he was arrested and charged for it. Him pointing the rifle or not was irrelevant he had already committed an offense by his actions.
 
I live is Springfield. This guy was an idiot for sure, but if the kid didn't do anything illegal, the firefighter could and should be charged with brandishing a firearm on a law abiding citizen. You cant just go holding someone at gunpoint that hasn't broken the law. The kid is being charged with a class E felony, a new felony for Missouri which is the lowest felony possible. ess than a DWI. I think they just had to try to charge him with something since everybody is on high alert. I expect them to not find him guilty of anything but poor choices.

You do not need a permit to ccw or open carry in Missouri.
 
Why are so many not looking at the statute?

574.120. Making a terrorist threat, second degree — penalty. — 1. 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

The reasonable person standard would apply, and it won't be hard to get 12 reasonable jurors to believe that he was causing an incident. He did everything 574.120 said he had to in order to be guilty. Defending this half wit is nonsensical.

The Fox News article shows a booking photo, but we don't know what he was arrested for, or the disposition. Is he a prohibited person? Will that change opinions of him if we find out he has convictions for other stupid felonies he thought it'd be fun to play with?

I suspect that the sympathy he is getting here is because he made himself out as the Second Amendment Compliance Officer. I mean, he's one of us. The problem is that NOBODY knew he was the Self Appointed Second Amendment Compliance Officer when he entered the Walmart in the wake of 2 mass shootings, looking exactly as news reports described the mass shooters. His same defenders, had he been a mass shooter, would be going on about how they would have "stepped up and taken him out." Sorry, but its nonsense. The man who stopped him had every reason to believe that this idiot, and he is an idiot was a mass shooter hunting for targets. Don't want to have someone pull their concealed weapon and point it at you then don't walk around the Walmart trying to provoke an incident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top