Terrorist Threat for MO Walmart Open Carry Rejected by Prosecutor

Ammoland ^ | 14 August, 2019 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

The Green County Prosecutor in Missouri refused to charge Dmitriy Andreychenco with terrorist threat in the first degree. The charge was made in the 2nd degree. Dmitriy was open carrying in a Walmart

U.S.A. –-(Ammoland.com)- At about 4:10 p.m. on 8 August, 2019 Dmitriy Andreychenco parked in the parking lot of the Walmart Neighborhood Market in Springfield, Missouri. He took an tactical ballistic vest out of the car, put it on, and slung a AR type rifle. He walked into the store. He was open carrying and testing his Second Amendment rights, as confirmed by his wife and his sister. He had his phone in his hand and was recording himself as he pushed a cart through the store. He never pointed the firearm at anyone or made any verbal or written threat. The Walmart manager stated he heard an employee say that Dmitriy was coming into the store with the vest and the rifle. He observed Dmitriy walking in the store aisles. He told an employee to pull the fire alarm in order to get people to evacuate the store.

Dmitriy evacuated the store with the rest of the customers. As he left the store, another armed citizen pointed a gun at him and held him for police.

The police took Dmitry into custody without incident. A video shows him acting calmly and carefully following police commands. Police quickly determined he was not a threat, as the store manager had assumed.

[imardmd1]

If that was the case, Walmart would, I would expect, have to have notices posted for anyone coming in from the street or the parking lot. D you know if the parking lot is posted for no firearms?

[imardmd1]

Well, that is one unhappy possibility when the public is not well-informed and neurotic. That’s always a chance one takes with open carry, eh/ Wasn’t so in the days when our frontier was opening up, and the need to keep a gun within easy reach wasn’t even discussed.

[imardmd1]

Consequences go with it. If one is willing to endure the outcome, one still has the liberty to do so, eh? Up to the point of being declared disorderly, that is. That iswhat freedom is. Other folks have the freedom to react negatively, within the law. You probably already know that these things have a way of sorting themselves out, in a free society.

The lad in question is finding that out, I think.