Shooting at Portland Mall, 3 Dead!

A gunman wielding a stolen semi-automatic rifle and several fully loaded magazines opens fire inside a shopping mall teeming with as many as 10,000 people.


Yet, only two people are killed and one wounded. Sheer luck, or were authorities and mall officials well prepared?


Probably a bit of both, say law-enforcement and security experts, some of whom credit new police tactics and better security training at schools and public venues for helping to minimize the casualties at the Clackamas Town Center near Portland, Ore.


"I want to say that we were well-prepared for this incident because we had practice in active shooter techniques at the Clackamas Town Center this past year for this type of situation," Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts said at a news conference Wednesday.


It's not known what prompted the Tuesday afternoon attack. The sheriff said only that the shooter, identified as Jacob Tyler Roberts, 22, of Portland, appeared to be on "a mission" to kill.


But he added that the first officers arrived about one minute after the first 911 calls and immediately separated into teams to head into the mall.


"Law enforcement has learned from past tragedies throughout this country that we can't wait for SWAT teams, and teams need to deploy immediately," Roberts said. "So we trained and equipped each of our individual officers to form up in teams as they arrive and move immediately into engaging the threat, wherever it might be."

That's a tactic that many law-enforcement agencies began instituting in the aftermath of the April 1999 massacre at Columbine High School, where two young gunmen, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, shot to death 12 students and a teacher and injured 21 others before killing themselves.


At Columbine, law enforcement followed traditional tactics of surrounding the building and waiting for more heavily armed units to arrive. Crucial minutes ticked away, during which Harris and Klebold killed and wounded more people.


Many agencies now train their officers to go after an "active shooter" immediately rather than wait for tactical squads.


That rapid-deployment response is exactly what happened in the mass shooting at an Aurora, Colo., theater on July 12 that left a dozen people dead. Aurora police got the first call at 12:39 a.m. Seven minutes later, suspect James Eagan Holmes was arrested.


"Ever since Columbine, there's been a paradigm shift," said Mark Lomax, executive director of the National Tactical Officers Association.




http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...ince-columbine?lite&google_editors_picks=true
 
Disillusioned said:
The phrase "well aimed" isn't indicative of "mass shootings" by their very nature. A person walks into a crowded area and starts firing, who he's aiming at doesn't matter, there's a lot of targets. It's rather akin to a person throwing a rock with the intention of hitting the ground in front of him. A semi automatic can be fired as fast as you pull the trigger until you're out of ammunition. That's the reason soldiers carry guns instead of knives into combat. If knives and swords were still as deadly as guns, you would see the marines actually use those fancy swords they're so fond of.
Click to expand...
In a 16 year career as a soldier I never fired a direct fire shot in battle.
Indirect/surpression fire( often on auto) yes, but to ensure maximum effectiveness I would use my trusty bayonet.
I also kept a kukurhi on my person.
In a crowded area a knife would be far more effective.
In a mall, a movie theatre.
The killer could kill without people being alerted to his existence by the noise of gunfire.
A recent knife attack in China saw a nut job kill 38 victims with a knife.
 
007 said:
In a 16 year career as a soldier I never fired a direct fire shot in battle.
Click to expand...

I believe you.

In 1776, Americans issued a "shoot-on-sight" order against English interlopers, didn't they?
 
Dixie said:
No. Because, there is no negligence on part of the mall in prohibiting firearms on the premises. They simply did not "allow" the perpetrator to bring a firearm into the mall. We can assume that, had security been aware that he was bringing a firearm into the mall, (against the posted warning not to do so), action would have been taken to prohibit him from entering said mall with the firearm. If you could prove that they were, in fact, aware he had a firearm, and "allowed" him to enter anyway, in disregard of their posted warning, then perhaps you would have a 'negligence' case. I doubt you can prove such a thing.

Law enforcement has established a law against driving under the influence of alcohol. It is against the law in every state. If someone drives under the influence, it doesn't mean law enforcement is "allowing" them to do so. If they kill somebody, law enforcement is not liable for negligence. Now, if a law enforcement officer were to pull this guy over and find him intoxicated, and they "allow" him to continue operating the vehicle, THEN he kills someone, perhaps you have a case of negligence on part of law enforcement. It is unreasonable to expect law enforcement to prevent anyone from ever operating a motor vehicle under the influence, or protect others from what harm he may cause in doing so.
Click to expand...
your biggest mistake here is comparing law enforcement to private enterprise. we all know law enforcement has no liability or responsibility to provide protection to any single individual, so your comparison fails.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, this is the basis of your presumption. You want to presume that had the mall not prohibited firearms, the presence of firearms in the mall would have protected the safety of the people in the mall. While that might be the case, it is far from guaranteed, and there are just as many safety risks in allowing firearms in the mall.
Click to expand...
you're still confused or trying to change my argument based on your failure. I have consistently said that my possession of a firearm increases MY safety, not the safety of everyone, which is the issue at hand.
 
Well, this shooter really got screwed over. It didn't take long for the little bastard to have the spotlight and media buzz launched to the other side of the country by an even bigger pussy.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
your biggest mistake here is comparing law enforcement to private enterprise. we all know law enforcement has no liability or responsibility to provide protection to any single individual, so your comparison fails.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the mall is not liable here, and we will see as time goes by, the mall will not be held liable in a court of law. You can insist you are right and I am wrong, but at the end of the day, I will be proven correct. Law enforcement does have a responsibility to protect, that is what they do. That does not mean they are liable. The mall also has a responsibility to provide a reasonably safe environment, and they are not liable for unreasonable acts.

SmarterthanYou said:
you're still confused or trying to change my argument based on your failure. I have consistently said that my possession of a firearm increases MY safety, not the safety of everyone, which is the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

I've not failed, and I am not confused. Your possession of a firearm might increase your safety, but the safety of the gunman who did this shooting was also increased by his possession of a firearm, was it not? The issue is the responsibility for safety of the people in the mall, not you as an individual. Allowing you to carry a firearm in the mall is no different than allowing this gunman to carry a firearm into the mall, the difference is found in the actions of the individual, that is who was liable here.

The "issue" you raised was the liability of the mall to protect the patrons and ensure their safety, and allowing anyone in the mall to have a gun, simply does not do that. There is a risk to safety in the presence of a loaded firearm, which doesn't exist if no firearm is present. This doesn't matter if you are trained, untrained, crazy, sane, member of law enforcement or security, or a innocent bystander.

Second point: You are not necessarily safer carrying a firearm. It is possible for someone to take your firearm away and shoot you with it, you could have dropped your gun and it discharge, killing you instantly, your firearm could explode in your face when you fire it, or you could have drawn your firearm and have it jam, leaving you defenseless against counter-attack. A thousand different things could happen, you have no way of guaranteeing the possession of a firearm on your person, would always ensure your safety. You are assuming that it would, and for the most part, I do agree that someone who has a gun is safer, but that isn't always a "good" thing... the perpetrator of this crime had a gun, his personal safety was increased, but that wasn't a good thing.
 
Dixie said:
Sorry, but the mall is not liable here, and we will see as time goes by, the mall will not be held liable in a court of law. You can insist you are right and I am wrong, but at the end of the day, I will be proven correct. Law enforcement does have a responsibility to protect, that is what they do. That does not mean they are liable. The mall also has a responsibility to provide a reasonably safe environment, and they are not liable for unreasonable acts.
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.



Dixie said:
I've not failed, and I am not confused. Your possession of a firearm might increase your safety, but the safety of the gunman who did this shooting was also increased by his possession of a firearm, was it not? The issue is the responsibility for safety of the people in the mall, not you as an individual.
Click to expand...
If that is the issue, then why isn't the mall liable for that failure? this is how you fail.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and this here should be dixies biggest clue that he's wrong, with you agreeing with him.
Click to expand...

You know, I hate that I am seemingly on the "wrong side" of this issue, because I am an avid pro-gun rights person who believes strongly in our 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. I own a small arsenal of firearms and a ton of ammo, and I seldom go anywhere without a gun. I oppose any and all bans on guns, and I'm a proud member of the NRA. That doesn't change the facts here, or make the mall liable. I'm sorry, really I am, I wish I could take your side on this, but I don't think you are correct. I do believe there are places where firearms should be prohibited to protect large numbers of people, malls or sporting events, etc.

Even back in the days of the wild wild west, many saloons had "no guns" policies, you checked your gun at the door. Why? Because people can't be shot with guns that aren't present. Why did they do this? Because people were being shot on a daily basis in the saloon. Did it work? Yes, for the most part it did. Did it always work to ensure the 100% absolute safety of everyone at all times? No, because nothing will EVER do that.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

If that is the issue, then why isn't the mall liable for that failure? this is how you fail.
Click to expand...

A "Constitutional Duty" is extremely different than a "responsibility."

YOU FAIL!
 
Dixie said:
A "Constitutional Duty" is extremely different than a "responsibility."

YOU FAIL!
Click to expand...
how else does a government entity get detailed a responsibility if it's not in the constitution? responsibility would necessarily imply liability, and the government does not claim any liability when they fail to provide protection.
 
The issue is the responsibility for safety of the people in the mall...

If that is the issue, then why isn't the mall liable for that failure? this is how you fail.
Click to expand...

Because, as you pointed out, your possessing a firearm protects YOU, not the people in the mall.

You can keep on repeating that I have "failed" here, but you look like a real jackass. I've not failed at anything.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
how else does a government entity get detailed a responsibility if it's not in the constitution? responsibility would necessarily imply liability, and the government does not claim any liability when they fail to provide protection.
Click to expand...

You are trying to make "responsibility" mean "liability" and they are two entirely different things. A lifeguard has a "responsibility" at the pool, to ensure rules are obeyed and to try and help people who become distressed, they are not "liable" if someone drowns in the pool.
 
Dixie said:
Because, as you pointed out, your possessing a firearm protects YOU, not the people in the mall.

You can keep on repeating that I have "failed" here, but you look like a real jackass. I've not failed at anything.
Click to expand...
you've failed in any type of explanation as to how the mall provides safety for it's customers by prohibiting weapons, yet not providing security against people who bring weapons.
 
Jarod said:
okay, I stand corrected... Rarely and you have to go all tge way for Asia. And it's not 18 children!
Click to expand...

That was 5 minutes on Google. The fact that it is in Asia highlights the fact that the tool is not the problem. I'm not a carpenter just because I have a hammer. I'm not a race car driver if I have a turbo charger in my car. It is my intent in my heart that makes me something. And the problem you and everyone else wants to gloss over is that there are people who want to kill other people. That's the problem, not how they choose to do it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you've failed in any type of explanation as to how the mall provides safety for it's customers by prohibiting weapons, yet not providing security against people who bring weapons.
Click to expand...

Ughh.. you are becoming tiresome to me. I have explained it to your stupid ass several times now. The mall is NOT required or expected to GUARANTEE your complete and absolute safety under any and all possible circumstances. NO FUCKING BODY CAN DO THAT, MORON!

The mall is expected to provide REASONABLE security measures to protect your safety, and that would include disallowing firearms on the premises, because firearms can discharge and kill people, even when they are not intended to do so. This mall DID provide security, and I am pretty sure, security did not knowingly "allow" this perpetrator to enter the premises with a firearm. If you have any evidence to the contrary, perhaps there is a case for negligence, but absent that, you don't have such a case here. They posted signs prohibiting firearms, and someone disobeyed the prohibition. Again, had they NOT had such a sign posted, or they had knowingly and willingly "allowed" firearms on the premises, perhaps they could be held liable for the events that happened.

You are making a NONSENSICAL argument here. IF WE APPLIED YOUR STANDARDS, then every retail business in America would close their doors tomorrow, and every person employed in America in any position where they were in any way "responsible" for others, would quit their jobs, because NO ONE would want to assume such liability. You are just fucking INSANE with this, there is no other way to put it.

Lay the crack pipe down, bud!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top