Man Arrested for Being Armed at Missouri Walmart. Was he wrong?

On the afternoon on August 8th, 2019 Dmitriy N. Andreychenko walked from the parking lot into a Walmart in Springfield Missouri, while wearing a tactical vest with magazine pouches, and an AR style rifle attached to a sling hanging barrel down in front of him. He recorded himself on his own cellphone walking through the store, while pushing a shopping cart.

News reports from various sources say that people seeing this began to panic and run from the store. The store manager pulled the fire alarm in an attempt to get people to leave the store itself. After the alarm was pulled Dmitriy N. Andreychenko left the store and was confronted by a armed citizen who held him at gun point until police arrived and took him into custody.

from Green County Jail

On August 9th the County Prosecutor charged Dmitriy N. Andreychenko with felony for making a “terrorist threat”:

Greene County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Patterson announces that Dimitriy N. Andreychenko, 20 years old, of Springfield, Missouri, has been charged today with making a terrorist threat in the second degree for events which occurred yesterday, August 8, 2019, at the Walmart Neighborhood Market located at 3150 W. Republic St., Springfield, Missouri.

You can read the entire Press Release and charging document here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/165aTb5POOhehqqrSEjfWiyu_jDwi7iV8/view

Now this of course happened just after the El Paso Texas Walmart mass murder. And Dmitriy N. Andreychenko told police investigators that he was arming himself because he wanted to be safe at the Walmart. Maybe in fear of a copy cat mass murderer, or like he also said, to see if Walmart honored his 2nd Amendment right.

Now this is where things get a bit sticky for many people. What this young man did is legal in Missouri. The following is from USCCA law summary for Missouri: “Open carry and concealed carry are legal in Missouri for anyone 19 years or older who can legally possess a firearm, with or without a concealed carry permit (CCP). However local authorities, such as the city of Blair, can restrict open carry, but a concealed carry permit holder is not restricted from open carry in any location where concealed carry is permitted.”

Now is where I would like the input from the firearms community and especially those who are staunch supporters of the 2nd Amendment. While what this man did was legal and within his rights, was it something that you support or would have done yourself? Was it within his rights, but poor timing? Was he just stupid? Was he well within his rights and should have been left alone? Did the previous mass murder in another state and location warrant the reaction that he got from the Walmart in Missouri?

I have to be honest that I am still trying to figure out how I feel about this one. First what he did was legal in his state. Plus I support the 2nd Amendment. How would I have reacted had I seen this happening? Should he have been charged with a felony like he was? Should the “good citizen” who held him at gun point be charged for doing so since no crime was being committed?

This event also strikes up a really good topic of conversation that I have seen talked about before and needs discussion again. While something may be legal and you may be entitled to do it at the time and place, is it a good idea to do so? Can doing something that is within your rights and legal be a poor idea?

I honestly am torn by this one. On one hand I think that if it is legal and within your rights, you should be allowed to do it without fear of arrest of reprisal from others. On the other hand I do not want to cause others to panic out of ignorance or fear.

So I ask you, the reader what do you think? What do you think should have happened or should happen to this young man?

Personally I do not think the charge they used will stand up in court and think charges will either be dropped before trial or he will be found not guilty. But then again stranger things have happened. Would I have done what he did? No of course not, I do not want to cause people to panic out of ignorance, nor do I want to chance being shot by another armed citizen or police officer out of mistake. But if I was trying to prove a point and raise public awareness I might do something like it in Florida by taking part in a open carry fishing march or such.

SO WHAT DO YOU THINK? Stupid thing to do? Poor Timing? Well within his rights and OK to do so? What are your thoughts?

Advertisements

Background Checks and Red Flag laws and more laws would not have stopped Texas or Ohio Murderers.

So now that a bit more information on the murderers in those two incidents is coming out it is time to point a few minor things that those who are shouting “we must do something” and “it’s all President Trumps fault” fail to see or want to have pointed out since it will contradict their point of view.

So now that a bit more information on the murderers in those two incidents is coming out it is time to point a few minor things that those who are shouting “we must do something” and “it’s all President Trumps fault” fail to see or want to have pointed out since it will contradict their point of view.

First, there has been a cry for universal background checks for a couple of years. After every mass murder that uses a firearm, there is a cry for “universal background checks”. But what many who are for them don’t want to be said and will try and shout down anyone that dares to bring it up is that many of the mass murderers passed background checks to get the very firearms they used. The most recent two shootings, one in El Paso Texas and the other in Dayton Ohio both passed background checks. So what good would UBC’s do then if mass murderers with obvious questionable backgrounds can still pass them? When put that way kind of sounds stupid doesn’t it?

Then there are the “Red Flag” laws that everyone is touting as part of a possible solution. The only problem is not all of these laws are created equally. Some states, like my own of Florida, have already enacted these types of laws and guess what? They have found they are abused and were not thought out very well. Many states laws do not have any kind of due process written into them. You know that pesky thing called your right to due process under the law. Sound familiar? Anytime that the Government wants to take away a persons property or right (owning and possessing a firearm is both of those) they should have to go before a Judge, and have a chance to defend themselves in a court of law. Our system was founded on that very principle. Circumventing that now for firearms can and will lead to further infringements. Don’t get in an argument with a vindictive ex-spouse or such, all they need do is call the police, tell them you own guns and made threats. No need to substantiate it and prove it, you have to prove you did not. Isn’t that twisted around from what our system is supposed to be like?

And for those crying that we have to do something. Why? The Murder rate is actually down by >40% since 1993. People are waking up all across this great country and realizing that self-defense and defense of your family is your responsibility, not the government. The last three mass murders, Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton all took place in or as people exited a gun-free zone. Read this excerpt from the El Paso murderer’s supposed manifesto and you see that they (the mass murderers) think about this:


Attack low-security targets. Even though you might out gun a security guard or police man, they likely beat you in armor, training and numbers. Do not throw away your life on an unnecessarily dangerous target. If a target seems too hot, live to fight another day.


So what would have stopped him? More security? More police in the area? Why do you think they do not attack police stations or federal buildings or other hardened targets? Because the chances of being shot before they can cause much carnage is greater. People wonder why no one in Texas was carrying (big state for carry rights and laws) but all one need do is look at the Walmart and the demographics of the area and you will see why. The Walmart was a posted “gun-free zone” and in Texas, if posted properly with 30.05, 30.06 and 30.07 signs, it makes legal carry in the establishment illegal. So again law-abiding citizens are disarmed, and the mass murderer could care less and murdered 22 people, AND NOT ONE WAS LEGALLY ALLOWED TO DEFEND THEMSELVES! Does that not sound wrong to you? Obviously, it worked in the murderers’ favor.

And last of course is blaming the current President for these shootings. People say it is his “message” that caused the murderers to go out and kill (even though the murderer in Texas made it clear it was not) like he ordered them to go out and kill people. If this is the case why did he post tweets in support of certain specific Democratic candidates before the murderers? Shouldn’t we blame them then instead? Of course not. You don’t blame the actions of a psychopath or sociopath on others. You blame the person themselves.

So let’s just stick to the facts. We now have a mass murderer who clearly said that they pick “low-security targets” that have little chance of them being confronted or engaged by armed resistance. Maybe we should listen to him and use that against the next one? Self-defense and defense of your family is your responsibility and not the governments. Police (I was one for 38+ years) only come when called. You have to be alive to call them. And why do you call them? Because they bring firearms to the scene to confront the armed attacker. Would it not be better to not have to wait and be at the mercy of these deranged individuals? When most mass murders are over in minutes and it takes law enforcement minutes to get there, what do you do in the meantime? Hide and hope not to die? Sorry, not in my nature.

So I guess what it all boils down to is the cry from those wanting something done, and something is done now, just what do you propose that would have stopped any one of the last 10 or 20 mass murderers over the past couple of years? Please give us a solution or idea. Since Murder is already illegal and carries the stiffest of penalties in some places (death) and that does not seem to stop them, please don’t propose a law that only disarms more law-abiding citizens. Let’s hear some concrete thought out helpful ideas and stop playing the blame game, blaming President Trump, blaming guns, blaming poor mental health screening, but not blaming the real root causes. Those are for another article.

Why do we “need” AR-15 rifles or any other firearm?

Recently during a very one-sided debate, I was shouted at and asked why I “needed” an AR-15 or other rifles like that. I was also told that only the police and government should have those types of firearms.

Those comments made me shiver. The fact that people who are discussing basic Constitutional rights do not know what the basis of a right is, and why we should not allow them to be restricted or removed anymore than they are.

The first question as to why I “need” an AR-15 or other firearm is one of the core reasons for the 2nd Amendment. I do not ‘need” anything. I have the “right” to peacefully and lawfully possess an AR-15 or other firearm because it’s my choice. A “right” is just that, I can exercise it if I want to or not. Just like I can exercise my right to free speech or not. I can choose to be silent if I do not want to use that right, but if I do, as I am here, then there is nothing that should stop me if I am not harming anyone. Just as my right to own firearms is just that, my right, and should not be restricted if I am not harming anyone unlawfully. That’s why it’s a right and not a “need”.

And when they asked why I thought I should have them and not just the police and government, I almost fell out of my chair. Did they not know basic history? Our forefathers went to war to divest themselves of a government that was trying to do just that, remove arms from the citizens to make ruling over them easier. Of the numerous countries where the removal of the ability of the citizens to defend themselves, especially against a government that became tyrannical, dictatorial or worse, resulted in millions dying at the hands of that very government should have been enough. Then there is the minor issue of the police only having the guns. Having been one for 35 years, I am here to tell you police cannot protect you all the time. You are not able to rely on the few police officers out there that might just be lucky enough to be around the corner and arrive in the nick of time to save you. And the minor issue that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled it is not the duty of the police to protect you as an individual. So, if not theirs than who’s is it? It’s yours!

So when you ask why does someone need an Ar-15, we don’t need them. We have the right to have them. We don’t need them, unless of course we do to defend our family or country, from the government itself. Then it may be to late since some want them all removed because of the actions of a few murderers. And please don’t use that old worn out, you can never defeat the US Military with AR-15’s. I don’t expect a lot of military folks would go along with orders to attack or harm US Citizens. But that just is coming form a U.S. Army veteran. Had I been ordered to do so I would have simply refused.

So good luck with your arguments we don’t need these firearms. No we have the right to have them and until such a time as that right is repealed (that’s another topic) you have no right to tell me, a law abiding U.S. Citizen, that I don’t. As a side note, of the Bill of Rights, which ones have the words “shall not be infringed” in them? And why? Maybe because our forefathers had seen just that, a government trying to infringe on the citizens it was supposed to serve not rule?