Gunman Kills Five People at Trolley Square
Police Identify 3 Navy Yard Victims
The Blood Dancers will soon be out in force. And you can bet they won't be encouraging more people to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones from the monsters among us.
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
http://ak.imgfarm.com/images/ap/APTOPIX_Utah_Shooting.sff_UTDP104_20070213014735.jpg
The Associated Press apparently feels it necessary to show the dead bodies of the victims. Not for voyeurism or propagandistic purposes, oh no! The media would never do that. (sarcasm)
According to a witness the mall was posted against concealed carry. It appears an off duty police officer from Ogden was the one that took the shooter down. I would verify these statements before quoting them. Thanks
I would bet the mall had signs up preventing concealed carry.
Now, do the families of the dead and wounded get to sue the mall for supplying such a target rich environment?
Will mention be made of the fact that this murderous kid could not legally have a CCW,thereby once again, proving that the criminal doesn't care about the law. And that those who do must hide or die? Will mention be made that should there have been unfettered access to the mall by legally armed citizens the killer most probably would not have killed and injured nearly so many people waiting on the police to arrive?
This next statement is only half sarcastic. Do we know for sure he wasn't egged on by anti-gunners who needed a deranged shooter to further their agenda? Seems awful damned convenient, again, doesn't it?
There always seems to be a convenient atrocity when the anti-gunners start losing ground. We can go months without one, then make 100% correct predictions regarding the occurrence of one or more when Brady and their bunch are on the wane.
what kind of anti-depressants was he on? Same ones as the columbine killers?
As for the pics, not surprising, what is however is that they managed to miss the antis doing their dance around the bodies.
If I were related to a victim I sure as hell would be suing the mall...maybe this could get a nice legal precedent set up in the courts to help counter the disarmament zones. Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if like the "rape school" the law was written in such a way to protect the infringers.
How quickly could this have ended if someone, (non-violent), but willing to break a few rules would have been armed? A trespass charge is better then death.
Besides, ONLY 5 dead! We will be told this was another success of gun control. "Just be glad the crazy asshole couldn't get his hands on full auto..." or some such BS.
Meanwhile, sane, healthy, non-violent, men cowered defenselessly in bathroom stalls and broom closets. The academic disconnect -- "why won't he just talk about his problems..." "society needs more social services..." blah, blah.
If I wasn't armed, (fat chance), I would like to believe I would have attacked this mother@$%@ with a shoe. If I was armed, (with many more like me), it would have been over with the leveling of the shotgun, (likely it would still end with a trip to jail and charges as well... but that's just our legal system adopting academic hair brain theories into practice).
Contrary to what gun fearing wuzzies would like to believe, even a civilized society occasionally requires extremely violent brute force.
Either you're ready to return fire, or you're ready to be killed. What are you ready for?
I didn't feel like looking this up so I'm sure I'm scrambling the quote.
"Better love hath no man than he lay down his life for his brother."
Armed or not no one gets to attack others until they get through me.
That is the spirit I see in the hearts of all who are willing to take up the burden of concealed carry. They just hope to survive being brave.
I know we all love to see the "Only Ones" stories but in this case the off-duty cop was the "only one" allowed to carry and he performed with honor.
I'd appreciate it if we can keep track of this story. If some legal bottom-feeder goes after the cop for doing the right thing I want to hear of it. Perhaps we can even provide something toward his defense (if his department doesn't do the right thing).
Not all cops are bad. Most are really good people who support the Constitution. When one performs with honor we should be as quick with our praise for him as we are with scorn for his less honorable associates.
"SALT LAKE CITY, Feb. 13 The man who went on a shooting spree in a Salt Lake City shopping mall, killing five people, was identified Tuesday as an 18-year-old Bosnian refugee."
I will leave you to your own conclusions.
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/30338.html
possibly another source pointing to that.
http://powdertracks.blogspot.com/
Wasn't there a muslim terrorist who wanted to plant grenades around in malls a couple months back?
How did this guy get the gun(s)?
More appropriately, as a refugee, CAN you get a gun legally?
If only bigjuggs slutpants had managed not to die would this be much more publicized? If he was an American white boy?
I'd say watch you ass just in case it wasn't an isolated case.
Someone asked somewhere a while back why the left in this country supports the terrorists. Because they oppose natural law, just as the left does. What they fail to realize is they are slitting their own throats.
I'd also like to throw out this question here. With the REAL ID coming next year, which without it you can't open a bank account, board an airplane, enter a federal building. What effect will it have on purchasing a gun? 4473's are fed documents, aren't they? Just a thought.
Before reading the bit about his being a Bosnian refugee, I was sure Hairy Hobbit was right on the money. Ritalin and other such drugs seem to pop up in basically all of these cases.
Now that we find out his name is "Suleiman", it's something else.
He's probably a Muslim, and whether that has anything to do with it or not is beside the point. In the cases where the shooter is a white male, the press runs their photo, interviews their family, and delves deeply into what part of the white-male-dom caused the outrage. Now that he's a muslim, they'll basically never print his name, They'll show us no photographs, and they will DEFINITELY not mention his religion.
He was a Muslim refugee from Bosnia.
And Hyunchback, I agree, that cop did good, but I don't want to depend on another man to rescue me. But, credit where it's due, he acted bravely. Still, I'll bet if you confided in him that you were carrying without a permit he'd take you down rather than let you exercise your unalienable right unmolested. Until that changes, I can't agree with your assertion that most "support the Constitution."
I left a message for a blogger from Salt Lake City, to see if he can get out to Trolley Square and take a picture of the sign prohbiting concelaed carry that an earlier comment above alluded to. If one does exist, that picture would be worth a thousand words.
Anyone have contacts in that area?
I talk to a guy from SLC on a message board, but can't get a hold of him right now. Let you know if I hear anything back.
There were warnings that were given well over a month ago that such things would occur. There were documents found in terrorist hideouts detailing plans of attacks on high-density American public areas, (malls, sports arena's, etc.). Right then and there, our government, (if it were operating for the benefit of the people, as was intended). Should have encouraged ALL American citizens to be armed and alert. That was the staus quo all the way upto the late 1800's. The government used to SUPPLY ARMS and AMMUNITION to the people that were deficient. And, we had armed civilian defense patrols on our coasts even as late as during WWII.
To put it as plain and sumple as is possible;
OUR GOVERNMENT HAS, AND CONTINUES TO BETRAY WE THE PEOPLE..
Trolley was closed all day Tuesday; it just opened this morning.
Check here for corroboration on signs at Trolley:
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5223644
""How many people left their firearms home Monday night because they were afraid of violating a rule," he said, referring to the signs at Trolley Square prohibiting firearms."
One of the people on your blogroll is living in SLC: http://arepublicifyoucankeepit.blogspot.com/; he may have more on-the-spot info.
Yep, it is official. The goblin was a Muslim.
Less than 24 hours after the shooting and already the FBI has decided that "there is nothing to see here, move along folks, a Muslim shooting up an American mall is not a terrorist activity, so move along now, we will let you know if there is anything to worry about".
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5226238
I am unaware of precisely what the penalty would be in ignoring a NO-Guns sign in that particular venue. Texas laws, for example, make it a misdemeanor, but here in Florida all a representative of a business can do is ask you to leave if you are found carrying on their property. As an active participant in local ranges, clubs, and organizations, I do not know of one person who pays attention to such admittedly rare signs, and I'd make a stab in the dark wild guess that were something similar to happen nearby, there would be no shortage of armed men doing their level best to take such a madman down.
It's far better to ask forgiveness rather than permission, particularly when your life might be on the line.I do wholeheartedly agree that the law enforcement officer in question would very likely have turned on a concealed-carrier, and addressed such a breech to the fullest extent of the law. It is more than obvious that enforcing the law, however repugnant the law might be, takes precedence over saving a life or coming to the aid of constabulary in danger.
I talked with the general manager of the mall and she confirmed that it is there posted policy to not allow weapons, concealed or otherwise, onto the property. They are not backed by Utah law, but they get around that by asking you to leave if you have a weapon and if you won't leave the charge you with trespassing.
Brass
There is no law against telling an off color joke, asking a woman for a date, hanging risque pictures in your locker or your workspace, or telling ethnic jokes or any number of other behaviors. Yet a complainant can sue the employer for big bucks for allowing a "hostile workplace".
If that is established law and it is, this is perfect example deserving of a stare decisis ruling.
I suspect that complainants will be barred from bringing lawsuits or that such lawsuits will be summarily dismissed in re Trolley Square serving up of helpless victims.
If I am correct in this prediction I would like to see an attorney for a plaintiff ask this question. "How is it that someone can sue an employer for allowing a "hostile workplace" where that plaintiff can be insulted or believe themselves to be, yet that same plaintiff or plaintiff's family cannot sue a retailer for demanding a "hostile marketplace" where he can be killed or has been killed?"
The mall flew in the face of the intent of the law and people died. Had they not done so, I cannot see where they would have had any liability, though I am sure some jackleg lawyer would try to say so.
In this situation, I would wager in a civil lawsuit, where only the preponderance of evidence is necessary to prove an allegation, that it would not be too difficult for a good lawyer to show the mall has liability and at least 70% of the casualties could have been prevented if they hadn't required their customers to be helpless.
Post a Comment