The relevant statute appears to be:
Missouri does not prohibit the open carrying of firearms, but does prohibit exhibiting “any weapon readily capable of lethal use” in an angry or threatening manner in the presence of one or more persons. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.030.1(4).
How could a reasonable person (I know, I know) not deem this “threatening.”
“It was only a joke” is a constant refuge of these sorts of self-entitled scoundrels.
Here’s a piece about the guy Kearbey replaced: http://www.semissourian.com/story/2163849.html I’ll go out on a limb and say that not only will this dipshit get convicted of the crime, the clerk in question has a pretty solid civil suit.
Being white, he was not simply shot for threatening another person with a presumably loaded weapon.
I hope they at the very least get him for a transparently stupid lie to the police.
And it looks like they have the same attorney: http://www.semissourian.com/story/2205323.html
Good point, nor was he fleeing a scene unarmed. If only his skin was a shade darker…
POPLAR BLUFF, Mo. – Jeremy Grable, superintendent of the Poplar Bluff Street Department, has been suspended without pay following his arrest on felony charges of first degree assault and armed criminal action.
^ he shot a woman in the chest, something about a child custody dispute which implies, not surprisingly, it was a domestic violence situation
And if the clerk would have pulled a handgun and shot the dumbass . . . . . it would have been justified.
“Fortunately the Second Amendment gives you quite a bit of protection,” Moore said.
No. No, it doesn’t. It doesn’t allow you to assault or terrorize innocent people. It doesn’t even guarantee the right to hug guns. Unless you’re in a well regulated militia. You need a new attorney, Idiot Kearbey.
“Tease”? You mean, “threaten and intimidate,” right?
Libruls aren’t really human, are they? The way these right-wing gun-fuckers think saddens me to no end.
So I guess this means that any citizen who sees this whisky tango fuck out on the street can assume he is dangerous and might mean you harm? I guess then it’s OK to “stand your ground?” Idiots like this ought to follow their idiot world view to its logical conclusion.
If it was a short-barreled shotgun, it is, I believe, a violation of the federal National Firearms Act, which carries a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years in federal prison.
Responsible gun owners…
…until that time they’re not…
He’s lucky she didn’t pull out a handgun and blow his fucking head off.
This isn’t a Second Amendment issue and I’m thrilled to see the police treat this seriously. The behavior is outrageous and if true, Kearbey needs to held to account.
“asked if the female clerk was scared.”
“Kearbey told the troopers he never threatened anyone with the gun.”
Sorry, but you don’t ask that question unless your intent is to threaten and intimidate. He should be charged accordingly.
Of course, instead, he’ll get off on these slap on the wrist charges, claim martyrdom on behalf of freedumb and then be made Mayor next election.
Now , if the female clerk got a shotgun and TEASED him … ?
Even if you take his claim at face value, it’s just one more example of a “responsible” gun owner treating a lethal firearm like a toy.
““A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed””"
Where does that permit threating a person with a shotgun?