lionking
Member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,107
Agreed he just helped some regular people who may have been on the fence to decide to favor banning the gun.
Good Guy (former firefighter) with Gun Stops Armed Man in Missouri Walmart
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Agreed he just helped some regular people who may have been on the fence to decide to favor banning the gun.
Holmes's regret was over how remote the actual dangers of the pamphletting were and how (over-)seriously he took the dangers. He never said, "oh, and go ahead and shout fire in a theater, too."
Nor can you say "Give me all your money or else" to a bank teller. You can say that to a friend as you sit together drinking a beer and not commit a crime. But say the same words to a bank teller and get ready for criminal charges. Context matters.
I'm allowed to swing my fist around. Right up until you come close enough to me to get whacked... then it is battery. Carrying a rifle isn't something that is "either legal or isn't," as you mistakenly asserted earlier. Context matters.
What this walking hershey's squirt did was reckless and calculated to cause panic. He deliberately communicated a threat.
Nor can you say "Give me all your money or else" to a bank teller. You can say that to a friend as you sit together drinking a beer and not commit a crime. But say the same words to a bank teller and get ready for criminal charges. Context matters.
I'm allowed to swing my fist around. Right up until you come close enough to me to get whacked... then it is battery. Carrying a rifle isn't something that is "either legal or isn't," as you mistakenly asserted earlier. Context matters.
What this walking hershey's squirt did was reckless and calculated to cause panic. He deliberately communicated a threat.
So evidently the war caused Holmes to believe the dangers were not as remote as they were, but that they were "clear and present." In retrospect, he saw how remote the actual dangers were. Similarly, the events in El Paso and Dayton caused some to see the danger in Missouri as clear and present, but in retrospect, we can see how remote the danger was when all those people were visiting Starbucks with their AR's and guns-n-coffee stickers.
No, in retrospect this Wal-Mart clown's actions were obviously a communicated threat. He was trying to freak people out. He succeeded. The threat was more than clear and present - IT OCCURRED. The risk is that he cause a panic... AND HE DID.
Last edited:
The whole background behind Schenk is that a guy (believe that he was a Socialist Wobblie (IWW member)) was part of a group mailing out pamphlets to urge new recruits to desert during WWI. Eugene Debs, as in Debs v. United States, was also caught up in a violation of the rather draconian Espionage Act of 1917 (elements of which are still law today.). This is also conflated with Gitlow v. NY which was a post war case dealing with NY's criminal anarchy law (garden variety Communism today) by participating in writing a manifesto modeled on the infamous Communist Manifesto. Gitlow argued since his actions other than speech were not actually attempting a violent overthrow of the government, that they were protected. In all three cases, the Supreme Court declared that a right to free speech existed but not for these particular defendants. The clear and present danger test is still around in modified form along with the bad tendency test--Brandenburg is an example of the first, and Chaplinksy with its fighting words is an example of the latter free speech test. So far, that is why hate speech per se, is still considered protected speech as a content category but not necessarily when coupled with actions--as an element of a hate crime for example that involves actions plus speech.
In this case, from the facts so far which could change, it appears that the individual in question did a series of actions that could be easily construed by a judge and jury to constitute violating MO law that combats terror. Thus, the MO law is content neutral, which unlike RAV v. St. Paul, addresses anyone's ACTIONS that could constitute elements of a crime and any resulting affect on speech is incidental. Thus, it is facially constitutional. Then the court will have to deal with whether it was unconstitutionally applied in the defendant's case. This is what separates the accused's actions from a garden variety protest, even one with firearms.
FWIW, Georgia used to have a quaint law called a public gathering law that banned firearms (despite allowing open carry) from a "public gathering" including political functions. One of the reasons that the state legislature eventually changed it was the vague definition of public gathering could include peaceful protests protected by the First Amendment and could have been applied to even meetings among friends that were legally armed but in combination would constitute an illegal "public gathering". Needless to say, it was applied when the local authorities wanted it applied and not when they did.
Thus, it was aimed at restricting some speech in practice that was not in accord with the public and the law was just vague enough to pass GA constitutional muster for years. Unfortunately, many of those individuals charged under the law were African Americans seeking to protect their lives, property, and their political rights who justly did not feel safe without having arms to protect themselves.
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/geo...on-the-bloody-legacy-of-the-camilla-massacre/
wally
Member
Funny. our local news reported the incident, but left out the fact that the heroic off-duty firefighter had a gun.
Demi-human
maybe likes firearms a little bit…
It is hard when we are all correct.
There is no good in this, thus, it is bad.
Like a heart broken father, he must receive the whip.
There need not be new law. There is only interpretation for the current issue.
His action were callous, selfish and cruel, and for nothing more than his own pleasure. He is no hero.
We still need judges.
A law for every situation is called oppression.
May whoever he was be forgot.
Stay calm. Press on.
Smile, though it's hard...
There is no good in this, thus, it is bad.
Like a heart broken father, he must receive the whip.
There need not be new law. There is only interpretation for the current issue.
His action were callous, selfish and cruel, and for nothing more than his own pleasure. He is no hero.
We still need judges.
A law for every situation is called oppression.
May whoever he was be forgot.
Stay calm. Press on.
Smile, though it's hard...
Interesting enough, I took this picture in Walmart today. I had to pick up some last minute school supplies for the kiddo and got in line behind him. We both had conversations with supervisor as she was trying to get people sorted for available cashiers. (Mine was concealed though.)
No panic, none likely noticed at all.
If this guy was hell bent on going out in public dressed like Rambo and wanting to make a point, he would have made a much better statement and showing if he had just stood at the front door of walmart nodding to people as they entered.
When asked his intentions, he might have said something like, I'm an armed citizen exercising my rights, and I'm on the lookout for people who might try what went on recently at another walmart.
He may have been asked to leave, but he would have done the 2A, and all of us a lot better than he did.
When asked his intentions, he might have said something like, I'm an armed citizen exercising my rights, and I'm on the lookout for people who might try what went on recently at another walmart.
He may have been asked to leave, but he would have done the 2A, and all of us a lot better than he did.
He would have done everyone a lot better had he just stayed home.
Ignition Override
Member
Did the Walmart fool carry the gun in his hands, or was it Slung/Strapped to his body, "carried", as with our handguns?
Nobody seems to actually know...…more than hearsay……. In a photo where he holds up his hands, the rifle is slung vertically, very close to his body.
Nobody seems to actually know...…more than hearsay……. In a photo where he holds up his hands, the rifle is slung vertically, very close to his body.
Annd another fool:
Florida man arrested for alleged threat involving AR-15: ‘Don’t go to Walmart next week’
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-man-walmart-threat
Florida man arrested for alleged threat involving AR-15: ‘Don’t go to Walmart next week’
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-man-walmart-threat
Blue Brick
Member
I would have looked at him and kept shopping. He is a looney tune, but I would have not felt threatened. I might even talked to him to make sure the safety was on.
Blue Brick
Member
The fire fighter should be charged. He is not a hero. He could have made it worse.
Blue Brick
Member
Everyone involved in this incident was wrong including the comments of the police.
Kid was reckless.
Firefighter should not have pulled his gun.
Wal-Mart should not have pulled fire alarm.
The officer should have kept his mouth shut. Police arrest, they don't file charges.
Kid was reckless.
Firefighter should not have pulled his gun.
Wal-Mart should not have pulled fire alarm.
The officer should have kept his mouth shut. Police arrest, they don't file charges.
I don't see the body armor, AFAIK he was supposed to be wearing it.
If he is, where can I get some of that ?
You didn't actually expect the media to get it right did ya? Heck just today I read the TX Walmart shooter used an AR.
I do not know the answer, but besides the picture where it is slung, we know from reports that he was pushing a shopping cart and recording video of himself with his cell phone. If those reports are correct, it seems like his hands were full of other things, and the rifle may have been hanging from the sling.
Ignition Override
Member
tarosean: I was aware of the apparent arrest photo when asking the question.
labnoti: If it was held onto his body with a tight sling in the store, this should have made a difference, no matter how stupid his timing.
labnoti: If it was held onto his body with a tight sling in the store, this should have made a difference, no matter how stupid his timing.
Last edited:
crestoncowboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,307
Ive said the same thing since the start. Not many agreed. But I said my piece.
That too
I'm not sure what difference it could make in this man's case since I'm lacking most of the details.
What I would say, without respect to any specific case, is that it is probably inappropriate to draw a weapon on a man who has a slung rifle or holstered handgun who isn't menacing and making verbal threats. I think we can all agree that it would be ill-advised to draw on the man with the blue shirt pictured above, or the guy in the Starbucks line with a slung rifle. THR has that sticky thread ""Brandishing", and "When Can I Draw"? that details this better than I will here, but generally speaking, we would be best advised not to draw unless the situation justifies deadly force. Seeing a man with a slung rifle does not by itself justify deadly force, and in most cases it does not justify drawing. I am stopping short of trying the man who drew his gun because there is ample evidence that he may have been justified in doing so. It's more than I can say given what I know. That same "When Can I Draw" thread I referenced mentions several other conditions in which drawing can be legally justified in some states. The questions with regard to this specific case are not for us to try here on THR.
We should not be alarmed by non-violent OC activists in such a way that we perceive the need to draw or fire upon them, however foolish their actions may appear to us. The fact that this one made his appearance very similar to mass shooters in very recent memory made things very difficult for people on the scene to discern the difference. The activist will almost certainly pay a heavy consequence for this. The take-away for us is that we can expect this kind of difficulty as part of reality and that we're well-advised not to engage in vigilantism or try to be a hero. Really, we may be best off if we don't get involved in anything unless we're absolutely sure we have no choice.
What I would say, without respect to any specific case, is that it is probably inappropriate to draw a weapon on a man who has a slung rifle or holstered handgun who isn't menacing and making verbal threats. I think we can all agree that it would be ill-advised to draw on the man with the blue shirt pictured above, or the guy in the Starbucks line with a slung rifle. THR has that sticky thread ""Brandishing", and "When Can I Draw"? that details this better than I will here, but generally speaking, we would be best advised not to draw unless the situation justifies deadly force. Seeing a man with a slung rifle does not by itself justify deadly force, and in most cases it does not justify drawing. I am stopping short of trying the man who drew his gun because there is ample evidence that he may have been justified in doing so. It's more than I can say given what I know. That same "When Can I Draw" thread I referenced mentions several other conditions in which drawing can be legally justified in some states. The questions with regard to this specific case are not for us to try here on THR.
We should not be alarmed by non-violent OC activists in such a way that we perceive the need to draw or fire upon them, however foolish their actions may appear to us. The fact that this one made his appearance very similar to mass shooters in very recent memory made things very difficult for people on the scene to discern the difference. The activist will almost certainly pay a heavy consequence for this. The take-away for us is that we can expect this kind of difficulty as part of reality and that we're well-advised not to engage in vigilantism or try to be a hero. Really, we may be best off if we don't get involved in anything unless we're absolutely sure we have no choice.
crestoncowboy
Member
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2011
- Messages
- 3,307
I agree with you completely and you and I seem to be more on the same page here than many. Maybe the wrong page maybe not. We also have to factor in that the walmart manager had pulled a fire alarm and there was almost certainly a lot of panic and uncertainty. I would not have wanted to be in his situation.
The now retired trooper who taught my cc class years ago told us all the laws and when we could get involved. He then told us that he would recommend not getting involved in most cases even when it was legal He explained how if one saw a male jump on a female and was holding her or struggling and you stepped in, the man could certainly be a plainclothes officer. And now your in a world of crap. He gave many examples and he got me to thinking more on the matter
Unless he said or wrote something they don't have anything on him. Comrade Dimitry certainly showed us where we can stick our precious rights. Unfortunately shoppers panicked someone called police and his rights went out the door. We now have to think of others before we say or do something unless we want to find ourselves in unpleasant situation.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
