Even though he did a objectively "good" thing, he still broke the rules of conduct for the mall and could have potentially created an even more dangerous situation for the other people present.

... or another "good guy with a gun" if he mistook him for the shooter.

or probably even sued for anything. Even so, the notion that a "good guy with a gun" is the remedy for a bad guy with a gun is patently ridiculous, for the reason you stated, plus the fact that the GGWAG doesn't prevent the BGWAG from killing people; he just prevents him from killing as many as he wanted. In this case the BGWAG killed three people before the GGWAG shot him. If nobody had a gun nobody would be dead.

THIS.

The malls policy and any no gun signs they had have no force of law in Indiana. Worst they could do is ban him from the property for violating their policy. Unless a state specifically gives the signs legal weight, the only that that happens if you get caught carrying a gun on a property that doesn't allow it by their policy is being asked to leave and a trespass charge if you refuse.

If he didn't violate an actual law, he can't be prosecuted for anything.

By bringing the gun into the mall, just a policy. However that doesn't mean he couldn't be charged with something. Brandishing, reckless endangerment, manslaughter are just a few ideas that come immediately to mind.

to plead the defense of others as a defense to the charge, and I have no doubt this defense would succeed in this case.

I am not considering the likelihood of a conviction but whether or not he should face charges.

they won't charge in the first place. I would be amazed if the guy is charged, not only because he has a more than plausible defense but because the blowback would be enormous. Like it or not - and I don't like it that even "good" people are wandering around malls with weapons - the guy saved some unknown number of lives. He will not be prosecuted.

Is approximately zero. What should happen in most people's minds vs what does happen are usually very different

In Texas for example they have a specific requirement known as a 30.06 based on the statute number. If a poster sign meets the requirements, it has the force of law and violating it will result in charges.

Other states, like Indiana, the signs represent policy, not law. A person may ignore them until they are asked to leave by the property owner or a delegate. If they do not comply at that point then they are illegally trespassing.

but unless that policy also violates a particular law, the only thing they can do if someone violates the policy is throw them out. If the policy violator refuses to leave, they can then be charged with trespassing but that's it.

Unless the state specifically says a violation of a property's gun policy is a crime, then the policy holds no legal weight. The only recourse is a trespass charge, and only after the person is notified to that they must leave. Texas, oddly enough, makes it a misdemeanor to carry a gun into an establishment that has the proper signage posted.

Not liking guns and having horrible thoughts about the things that COULD HAVE but DID NOT happen, as this person apparently was reasonably well trained and handled the situation well, is not an excuse to find ways to charge the person who killed the mass shooter.

The guy brought a gun in where guns are not allowed by the mall's rules, but even that is not a violation of any state law. So fine, the mall can ban him. Regardless, he did a good deed, and likely saved a number of people, and he did it well. You say "thank you" to him. You also can say "thank you, but you violated the same rule as the murderer you shot, so under our rules we don't want you back here again," if it's more important to you to enforce the mall rule than it is to appreciate the outcome.

Looking for ways to charge this guy is just as much an abuse of prosecutorial power as it would be to try to prosecute a bunch of BLM protestors for littering because the cops started firing tear gas and some of them dropped signs as they went down and tried to flee. It's fundamentally unjust.

What if this person had been unarmed, and instead had cracked the shooter over the head with a chair? Smashed him with a newly purchased baseball bat that a customer had dropped? Same dead shooter, same hero who kept more people from being killed or injured. I'm sure the mall's rules also forbid fighting, which that would have been. Still want the guy to get prosecuted for anything and everything if he'd used a chair instead? It's absolutely foolish to make the distinction.

A cop would not have been prosecuted for shooting the shooter, whether for "endangerment" or "manslaughter" or any other such nonsense. The guy who intervened may have had as much, or even more, training and know-how than a cop. Either way, he took care of it well, possibly as well or better than a cop. Once again, the ONLY way you prosecute this guy is if you just hate guns so much that you want to throw common sense and justice to the four winds, so that you can make an example of him just for having a gun.

I imagine that killing someone would change your life quite a bit from then on

They interview them and turn them into gods.

brings penalties against the good guy who heroically took down the shooter and saved who knows how many lives, it would make them look terrible. I don't see them doing this.

Whatever Simon Property says I guess. I suppose they can ban him.

If money was the only thing that stood between my wife, or my children's lives or death, with all legal possibilities exhausted, I would take it any way possible, including armed robbery, and I would just have to accept the judgement of others after the fact. If that makes me a bad man, so be it.

I still say proactive is the way to go in both scenarios. Universal health care and ban assault weapons.

Mall actions. Ban for life suspended.

The question is what should the consequences be?

Regardless what I think of the hypothetical robber's motive, he will be charged with a felony.

Here in the real world we have someone who probably saved lives. But he did something wrong prior to that. Should there be a consequence?

who stopped a massacre in progress. If the mall wishes to issue a trespass warning to the individual, that is within their rights.
Certainly suggesting felony charges against person is ridiculous. What felony?

If you, or perhaps one of your children, were one of the people hiding under the tables, would you have preferred the second shooter leave the mall and leave the murderer unmolested to continue his rampage? Would you have been happy to wait for the police to arrive? That could be a hell of sacrifice for principle Sometimes dogma can cloud judgement.

that the man carried a concealed weapon in violation of mall policy. Some seem to be more outraged over his action.

However, in the real world, we should be happy that the man committed misdemeanor trespass, and as a result of his crime, he stopped a mass murder. All such judgements should be weighed not only on the legal scales of justice, but with some deference to the nature of the outcome. In my simple, personal judgement, I find no fault in the outcome and only wish that he had been able to stop the terrorist one death sooner. If that makes me a bad Democrat or an impure liberal, I will wear the scarlet "G."

The facts of life and law, in our country today, that in most places firearms are legal and present in civilian hands. You don't have to like it, but you do have to face the facts. It is up to the people whether we take a more restrictive approach to firearms ownership, as our other, and possibly more civilized, Democratic neighbors have. I would prefer that there had been no guns in that mall or any other mall on any given day, but wishing it does not make it so.

Skimming over the laws in question I do not see anything he could reasonably be charged with

The article says this was a rule of a private property owner. No criminal charges would be applicable.

As I indicated above, there are many charges that could be considered for opening fire in a mall.

While he can say it was self-defense and defense of others, that is not a get out of jail free card. People acting in self-defense may often face charges. I posted a week or so ago about an NYC shop owner who is being charged with murder for stabbing a man to death. It was all caught on video and clearly showed the deceased was the aggressor, yet that did not prevent the DA from charging second degree murder.

for charging the shop clerk, and the Indiana prosecutor would be an idiot if he charges this guy.

good news!

I bet these two would prosecute someone who shot a burglar in their own house.

20% have selected a choice that includes criminal charges...

If security at the mall is lax enough to allow one guy with a gun, it is lax enough to allow more. Blame one, blame all.

Tighten security, stop letting ANYONE with guns in there, no matter what their intentions. Of course, someone MIGHT have thought of that beforehand.........

Malls have to many access points to control, it would be impossible to enforce. Even if the insane expense of putting that into place did happen the shooter would target the bar/restaurant across the street.

Or the choke point where entry would have to take place.

are allowed on mall property!

Period.

But good thing he did.

Way too many guns!

I will leave it open but after 24 hrs the results are intriguing.

62 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited

Felony charges 1 (2%)

Misdemeanor charges 4 (6%)

He should be fined 0 (0%)

Banned from the mall for life 7 (11%)

Revocation of right to own/carry guns 14 (23%)

Civil lawsuits 0 (0%)

Several of above plus felony charges 0 (0%)

Several of above plus misdemeanor charges 7 (11%)

Nothing, his actions were within the law 29 (47%)

2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.

It was mall rules he broke. Also, there will be a lot more bad stories than good stories if people can just carry guns anywhere.

1. Kyle Rittenhouse straw-purchased an MSSA in a state where he didn't live, using his Pandemic relief check. He used it to kill 2 men and main another. What happened to him? Nothing. What happened to his buddy who straw-purchased the MSSA? Nothing. What happened to the straw-purchaser's father, who stored the gun and allowed a child to take it on a vigilante patrol? Nothing.

2. Elizabeth Hokoana brought a handgun on to the University of Washington's campus, where guns are banned, for a Milo Yiannopolous speech on 1/20/17 (yes, the day America died). When her husband started Bear-Spraying the faces of protestors, a "medic" named Josh Dukes took it away from him. Ms. Hokoana then shot Dukes point-blank in the intestines. What happened to her? Nothing. Jury Nullification. Did UW ban her from Campus? No. They never said a word.

He should be banned from the mall for life, but he won't be. That policy is just words on paper. Nothing happens if you wave the bloody flag of Self-Defense.

Man-At-Arms told his daughter Teela to stay home. Well, she didn't, and winds up saving him, He-Man, and others from Skeletor. While he was thrilled to be rescued, he still punished her for disobeying him. She couldn't understand why.

They're driving around, maybe smoking some weed (but not the driver, who is the designated driver).

OMG! Right of front of them, through no fault of their own, the driver of an oncoming car has a medical emergency and crashes into a utility pole. The other car is full of children. It catches on fire. The high school kids think not of themselves, but of saving the lives of others. Everyone gets out alive. The high school kids have evidence of smoking weed all over the inside of their car.

DU: lock them up!!!

Me: are you crazy?