Mall shooting..... what if...

[jrdudas]

Not sure this is the right forum for this question, but it may be the closest. 

My question is about yesterday's mall shooting where 9 nine people were murdered.  If there happened to be a shopper in the area who was also a CCW and was carrying at the time of the shootings, what is their approved response.  Should they try to stop the shooter or must they be personally threatened before they can take action?  I could make an arguement that stopping the shooter could save many lives.

I have this same question about the repeated school shootings.  I understand that the unarmed should try to put as much space between themselves and the shooter, but what about someone who can take the shot and end the situation.  Where do they stand legally?

Seems to me that if these wacko shooters knew that they could go done quickly they might rethink their action.  I used to teach electronics to adult students and during a break-time conversation I posed the question; "why do the school shootings take place in mostly upscale suburban schools".  The response was that many students in the inner-city schools are carrying, and the shooter knows that he will probably only get off one shot before he goes down.

What do you think?

JR
   

[Graybeard]

As to legallity of it that varies by where you are. I have no clue about Omaha. Here in Bama we have a castle doctrine law so yes it would have been legal to take him out.

Would it have prevented this one? Nope. He took his own life so he went there with full intention of dying so it would not have prevented him but might have cut short the number of folks he took with him.

[GRIMJIM]

There was a gunman at a school and a couple of students went out to their trucks and got guns and apprehended the shooter. Sorry don't remember which school or anything, but they probably saved a few lives. I'm sure some one here has a better memory than me and can fill in the particulars. I don't believe they shot him though.

Like greybeard said you can't stop some one who's willing to die anyway, I think they call it suicide by police.

[XD9]

Here in Kentucky, it would have been perfectly legal to shoot the shooter at the mall and no charges would have been brought against you.  You are allowed to protect yourself, others, and even property or someone else's property that you have been charged with watching.  Kentucky's gun laws are very friendly toward those carrying CCW.

I had a few questions myself last week about a couple of laws so I actually sat down and read through every word of the "Kentucky Revised Statues" dealing with gun laws.  Now, I know exactly what is legal and what isn't.  Everyone should do this with their own state's laws every once in a while to stay current.  I hope I never have to use my CCW, but if I do, I definitely don't want to find out afterwards that I wasn't within my legal rights to use it.

[30-06man]

He was shooting at random people. He was a threat to everyone you didn't know who he was going to shoot next. If he was doing that and I was there I don't care what the dems say I am defending myself. Like Graybeard said he was suicidal and was mad at everyone so he posed a threat to me and people around me by just firing into random groups of people.

[Mikey]

There is a very interesting bit of insight about people intent on committing suicide by police, or intent on committing mass murder.  Can this be prevented - oh yes it can. 

If some alert individual were to have seen this fella get out of his car and suspect he was carrying a gun and about to commit major mayhem, you can interdict them and totally disrupt their plans and halt the effort before it even begins. 

These people plan these actions out in fairly specific detail.  If anything goes wrong with the plan, any interruption at all, most of the time the plans are scraped and they stop what they are doing. 

This guy got to the 'high point', both his emotions and his plan when he got to the third floor without being stopped or questioned and brought the gun to bear.  If someone had seen him in the parking lot and yelled about a man with a gun or called 911, or if someone had seen him get out of his vehicle and suspected he was carrying a gun with some intent and called 911 or attempted to intervene, it probably would have stopped right there.  If the cops had been there and had seen him it would have stopped right there.

If a citizen with a ccw or an armed off duty cop had stopped him in the parking lot it would have stopped right there.

If one of us had seen this fella get out of his vehicle and stuff a long gun under his coat and we were carrying, we could have stopped it right there - and most often without a shot being fired.

When someone decides to kill themselves, or arrange it so someone else does the job for them, their entire plan is built on a very fragile basis and any interruption or interdiction by another, before the high point in that plan is reached, most often brings the plan to a dead halt.  The reality of the suicidal mind ain't hollywood.

Yes, it could have been prevented if someone had been able to see what was happening and take the necessary action. 

Grimjim - I remember that incident.  I don't think the guy was shot but he was stopped and this is a good example of what I just mentioned.  The prospective shooter was armed and ready, but when he was interrupted by others, he was stopped.  Regrettably the media won't highlight the fact that the two heros in that situation took up arms to prevent another slaughter - I guess the media is too frightened of the armed citizen to ever print what is important.  Mikey.

[Chilachuck]

IIRC, the two students with guns were off duty cops, and it was a law school. They stopped the guy in the parking lot, not inside, "so it doesn't count", according to the gun grabbers.

Yeah, security should have spotted the rifle and called it in before he started shooting.

If anyone wants to find out if they could have shot the bad guy without getting into legal trouble, research the buzz words "defense of third party". It's going to vary, a lot, by jurisdiction and by District Attorney.

[30-06man]

What would you do if you were security and all you had was a can of mace and  were being paid minimum wage? If they would arm the security then something could have been done. For what I see they couldn't have done anything. They are basically there to stop shop lifters and people who get into fights.

[PartsMan]

If I was in that situation I would not give the law a single thought.
I would gladly shoot him and spend jail time to save multiple lives.

[30-06man]

If I would have seen someone walking into a mall with a gun I would have pulled it out there and not shot but at least try to stop them. I would shoot if they did pull out the gun.

[scout34]

I have seen on several blogs that the mall was a "gun free zone", though I cannot verify. 

Most people, not being used to seeing an actual gun being carried by someone in their presence, experience cognitive dissonance when they do see it happen.  They cannot imagine doing such a thing and thus cannot imagine anyone else doing it either.  When they DO see something of that nature there is a moment of disbelief..."Did I just see that?  That can't be happening here!  It's not allowed!"  Most people will ask someone else for confirmation of what they have just seen.  "Did you just see that?" 

Now faced with a doubtful situation in which they have no experience they do not know what to do.  This is not a fight or flight situation yet so they have not resorted to instinct, and most people will not risk the derision or ridicule they think that they will be subjected to if they are wrong about what they have seen.

Once the individual starts shooting, fight or flight takes over, depending on your training for this situation.  Your average gun enthusiast would recognize an AK front sight post sticking out under someones sweatshirt and would be able to recognize the implications of such a concealed weapon and could possibly do something.  Since this took place in a gun free zone a CCW would not be an option.  The best chance of success would be before the shooter had a chance to bring the weapon out of concealment, as trying to take out a rifle wielding  wacko while unarmed is faced with a very low chance of success.

Subduing the shooter physically depends on many more factors such as fitness level and age, knowledge of hand to hand techniques and confidence in using them, and whether you have someone there to cover your back, or someone you need to protect.  Suppose that you are a very fit black belt there with your spouse and see aforementioned shooter en route to his selected position.  Immediately recogniziing the gravity of the situation you tell your spouse that there is a shooter and to call 911.  You then move to take them out.  Unfortunately, to the people around you it looks like you have just started a fight for no reason.

Most folks never even think that it can happen to them, much less what they would do if they found themselves in that situation.  To them the only option is to run and hide when the killing starts.  In this case they were lucky that the shooter was an untrained wack job with a short fuse, acting alone, and bent more on self destruction than causing damage.  A team of three jihadists, trained for the task would likely have hunted down those hiding behind the clothing racks and in the dressing rooms and would have had plenty of time to do it.  Any response by LEOs would by it's very nature have been piecemeal and disorganized until an organized assault could have been mounted.

I don't go to places where I am not allowed to carry if i can avoid it.  But if I have to, I always have a plan and maintain situational awareness.

[Chilachuck]

A poster in a blog I stumbled over says that Omaha now has the same laws as the state and allows concealed carry, but malls and stores are allowed to prohibit guns.

That mall has some signs up saying guns are not allowed. The poster said the signs were small, and he did not know if all the entrances had them, he was going to check and get back to the blog later.

[XD9]

What would you do if you were security and all you had was a can of mace and  were being paid minimum wage? If they would arm the security then something could have been done. For what I see they couldn't have done anything. They are basically there to stop shop lifters and people who get into fights.

I agree that security guards should be able to carry firearms.  However, I think there should be extensive training with them first.  Probably don't want your average "rent-a-cop" to carry.  The security guard where I work has nothing...not even pepper spray, mace, etc.  This is his full time job and he is a police officer part time on the weekends.  I never understood why the person charged with protecting the place where I work cannot defend himself or anyone else with a weapon.  I don't know what the plan is if an angry employee comes in gun slinging...

[Gregory]

Here's an interesting read on the subject:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315563,00.html

[44 Man]

I think that any state that allows or declares 'gun free zones' should also allow all persons harmed by someone with a gun to sue the owners of the property that posted the signs.  After all, if they are posting that you cannot legally protect your life when you are on their property, then they should have to be responsible to protect you
or financially responsible for your injuries.  I know that this will not save any lives, but maybe if these people knew that were legally responsible when they post a 'no guns' sign, they would think twice before putting one up.  Most business owners would not knowingly step into that kind of high liability situation.  44 Man

[30-06man]

What would you do if you were security and all you had was a can of mace and  were being paid minimum wage? If they would arm the security then something could have been done. For what I see they couldn't have done anything. They are basically there to stop shop lifters and people who get into fights.

I agree that security guards should be able to carry firearms.  However, I think there should be extensive training with them first.  Probably don't want your average "rent-a-cop" to carry.  The security guard where I work has nothing...not even pepper spray, mace, etc.  This is his full time job and he is a police officer part time on the weekends.  I never understood why the person charged with protecting the place where I work cannot defend himself or anyone else with a weapon.  I don't know what the plan is if an angry employee comes in gun slinging...

Why not offer it as overtime for cops. They don't make much and it would be a bonus. No rent a cop should be able to carry a firearms until he is well trained. If they were not then a person like this could become one and cause problems. Offer it to cops is overtime would be very good I think.

[darrell8937]

As to the legality of shoot don't shoot, direct threat to others or myself, castle doctrine, stand your ground, etc. All anyone can do is what they believe is right for the situation. You wont have time to debate such things. I would rather serve time with my head high than live with what I could have done to save a life. Yes this is simplistic, but realistic! Good men know the answers to these questions, They are embedded in your heart and faith. Only the greasy lawyers and ambitious prosecutors mess things up! They will one day have to explain their position as well.

[sui generis]

In Ohio -

1.  it is a misdemeanor 4 (30 days/$250) to enter while armed an area privately (as opposed to a statutory no-carry zone, which carries a higher penalty) posted as a prohibited zone.

2.  the code permitting concealed carry specifically provides that the owner of private property incurs no liability whether they post or do not post signs prohibiting weapons.

The gun-grabbers don't think that armed citizens can ever make a difference and they are doing their very best to insure they're never proved wrong.

[Chilachuck]

Below is a link to a blog with several posts on the subject as it's right in his back yard. This first one is by a guy that was very near the killer when he started shooting. Another further down mentions that the total elapsed time was about one minute. Estimated shots fired, about 12. 13 casualties, 8 KIA and 5 WIA.

<http://joemerchant24.blogspot.com/2007/12/firsthand-account-of-von-maur-shooting.html>

The blogger also shows pictures where the "No guns" signs /used/ to be. Nothing there but screw holes now.

[Cheesehead]

I have heard of restaurants offering free, eat in meals to armed, uniformed police. I would do this if I was a restaurateur in a mall or anywhere.

Cheese

[williamlayton]

There is some good rational thinking here and a number of well written thoughts.
I will see If I can screw up the trend--- .
Let's consider the law--laws--rules, if you want.
The law in the bible didn't do anything--prevent--it just gives penalty.
Laws don't--do not--can't prevent.
If laws could prevent then this would not have happened, and, in that same vein of thought--there would be no crime.
I agree, very much with scout, on many thoughts.
I also go back too a time when I ignored laws myownself. I carried concealed when it was not legal to do so.
What was/is the difference?
I have/had no intent to be felonious. My object is to protect myownself should it be necessary.
What am I advocating??
I think I am advocating the oldest creed I know---be prepared---why be legally dead when you can be illegally alive.
I never was caught--and most folks, with any sense, will not be caught--even when bent on destruction.
Blessings
 

[Cheesehead]

Law is  "noun"

Force is a "verb"

Law without force is impudent.

Cheese

[williamlayton]

YUP!
Blessings

[scout34]

You can see the difference between someone that had a plan and people who did not in this latest shooting in CO.

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/09/sunday-horror-church-shootings-in-colorado-gunman-reportedly-killed-by-armed-female-church-security-staffer/

(sorry about the long link)

These folks had gotten organized a long time ago.  They recognized that they would be an inviting target to any would be jihadist or wacko-martyr, and organized ARMED volunteer security teams.  When they heard about what had happened 65 miles to their north, they decided to enact their preplanned security plans. 

The military calls this Threatcon, with a level from A through D.  A is increased awareness from a generalized threat, while D means an imminent threat.  Call in condition Orange, or Defcon, or whatever.  These folks had a plan for upgrading their defensive posture, and had it in place on the outside chance that something would happen at their church.  Smart move.

This joker shows up wearing body armor and a kevlar helmet and starts shooting, but is quickly put down by a motivated volunteer with a CCW.  Welcome to the militia.  More details at the above link.

The point is that these folks took the general threat seriously.  They realized long ago that it COULD happen to them.  That is the most important part of the equation.  Once you embrace this reality, you can begin to change your behaviors to meet this threat to your existence.

[Chilachuck]

I mostly agree, but there were a few differences.

The mall shooter fired off 12 to 15 rounds, and hit 13 people (including himself), pretty close to one for one. All the action was over in about one minute. I'd think people made themselves scarce pretty fast, and they had lots of cover and concealment.

The church shooter fired off about 40 rounds at the church, wounding 3 and killing 3 (including himself). No word how many shots fired at the training center. Church had just let out, and I'd guess people had less to hide behind. He was in a position to kill a lot more than he did, but aparently did a lot of missing. About 6 shots per hit.

The mall shooter was more skilled and much deadlier than the church shooter, thankfully he did not find a place with more targets.

I'm glad the churches are starting to arm. There's many historical examples of people hitting their enemies while they are in church, including blocking the doors and setting the place on fire.

[hawk78]

I live in Wisconsin where concealed carry is illegal to any civilian, but open carry is legal except 1000' from a school, businesses that post"NO GUNS", in vehicles, and Gov't buildings.  Now because concealed carry is illegal and people don't know their rights to open carry, the general public here which is mostly "anti-gun except when hunting" goes nuts when they see a gun.  I will take the other side and say, IF this happened in my state and you drew down on a man getting out of a car who then loaded a gun, rifle or not, then you drew down on a citizen LEGALLY exercising his right to bear arms.  It's illegal at the point where he brandishes the gun in a threatening manner.  While a long gun may be overkill for defending yourself in public and I admit doesn't look right, it is perfectly legal, here anyway.  Hell if signs aren't posted, you CAN walk around the mall with it.  The sad part is that most of the people I know, gun-owners even, do not know they can open carry.   

Jrdudas had it right, if these people KNEW there were multiple people 'packing' around them, then they wouldn't try it there.  The fact is that there isn't enough money to have trained, armed security or cops everywhere, and you shouldn't have to take the chance that there will be.  Knowing that everyone around you is a mother, father, son, daughter, to someone is enough for me to know how I would face the situation.  I think a conviction would be hard to get when everyone knows you saved lives.  And gun-free places take no business of mine. 

 
   

[torpedoman]

You mean you pay attention to those gun free zone signs? There is a reason it is called "concealed" carry.

[georgeld]

What bugs me the most is Uncle Sam training so many of us to be killers.

Then forbids any carrying of any kind on VA property.
Just today while waiting on Dad I read a sign by the elevators that said:

"No firearms, 1yr/$1000 penalty for anyone convicted of carrying any firearm
on govm property. All LEO's are to check with the front desk and declare their
status and whether armed, or unarmed under the same penalty".

Sure hope no one ever notice's mine!! At the local clinic I keep it, at the va hosp
I leave it in the car but, sure don't feel comfortable with all the whacko's that might
start something.

[SHOOTALL]

The idea of saving life is the most important thing involved here .
That being the case one must realize that any law enforcement people arriving would only know a GUN MAN was on site .
You with a gun shooting someone may appear to be that gun man . If you find yourself in such a situation you are in an almost no win situation . It is the stuff hero's are made from . In reality you must commit to the fact you may loose your life to save others . I hope if ever i end up with the choice i am brave enough to do the job ! And if ever i sit on a jury hearing such a case my vote will be not guilty !
We live under laws , we gave up freedom to do so . We expect society to protect us ( which it often fails at doing ). One freedom we must retain is self defense .

[Chilachuck]

There's some good reasons for forbidding carry at hospitals, and they are easy to overlook because the "Oh, Icky" attitude of the medical professionals is so flamboyantly silly.

Those magnetic resonator things can rip a handgun off your body (if you don't get yanked over to the machine yourself) and it takes most of a work shift to shut it down enough to get the gun loose. I don't know how long it takes to run it up again.

Lots of people are afflicted with barely controlled terror or fear in hospitals. Patients and next of kin snap all the time.

Gun fire involves fire. Not something people want around oxygen. (I never understood why smoking was allowed in hospitals.)

I'm sure someone can come up with more.