Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jirel

(2,043 posts)
34. That's a dumb thing to do, though.
Mon Jul 18, 2022, 03:55 PM
Jul 2022

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.

What should happen to the shooter? [View all] sarisataka Jul 2022 OP
At least banned from the mall Mad_Machine76 Jul 2022 #1
He could have killed a bystander ... Novara Jul 2022 #4
Exactly Mad_Machine76 Jul 2022 #5
He could have, but he didn't, so he can't be prosecuted Ocelot II Jul 2022 #9
"If nobody had a gun nobody would be dead." Novara Jul 2022 #16
Legally, nothing DetroitLegalBeagle Jul 2022 #2
This. -NT- ruet Jul 2022 #32
He violated the property owner's policy, but did he violate a law or ordinance? Ocelot II Jul 2022 #3
He did not violate a law sarisataka Jul 2022 #7
Most states allow someone charged with homicide Ocelot II Jul 2022 #10
Yes, at this point sarisataka Jul 2022 #14
If a prosecutor thinks a potential defendant has a very strong defense Ocelot II Jul 2022 #15
I agree the likelihood of charges sarisataka Jul 2022 #20
Isn't it the law that establishments have the right to set policy? Kaleva Jul 2022 #13
It depends on the specific state sarisataka Jul 2022 #17
Thanks. Im not familiar with Indiana law. Kaleva Jul 2022 #25
They can set policy for what goes on in their premises, Ocelot II Jul 2022 #18
They can, but their policies are pretty meaningless DetroitLegalBeagle Jul 2022 #19
That's a dumb thing to do, though. Jirel Jul 2022 #34
Wish I could rec this post n/t SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2022 #42
Nobody ever follows up on these good guys guns who kill people Walleye Jul 2022 #6
Fox News does. GoodRaisin Jul 2022 #12
If Simon Properties pinkstarburst Jul 2022 #8
Criminally nothing. discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2022 #11
What do you do to the husband who robs bank to pay for wife's life saving surgery aeromanKC Jul 2022 #21
I will say this, Chainfire Jul 2022 #23
Agree aeromanKC Jul 2022 #28
Actions have consequences sarisataka Jul 2022 #24
Apparently there is no Indiana law that says you must obey the sign Kaleva Jul 2022 #26
I simply can not bring myself to suggest any sanctions against a person Chainfire Jul 2022 #22
I have seen quite a few posts upset sarisataka Jul 2022 #27
And, I understand that. Chainfire Jul 2022 #29
I believe it would only be misdemeanor trespass if he was asked to leave and refused Amishman Jul 2022 #33
Why did you include felony and misdemeanor? brooklynite Jul 2022 #30
For the sake of being thorough sarisataka Jul 2022 #31
The NY prosecutor is an idiot SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2022 #36
Charges dropped brooklynite Jul 2022 #51
Just read that earlier today SickOfTheOnePct Jul 2022 #52
2 people actually picked that choice Polybius Jul 2022 #46
And as of the time I'm posting this sarisataka Jul 2022 #35
Nothing. DFW Jul 2022 #37
Completely impossible Lurker Deluxe Jul 2022 #38
It appears the hero broke the mall rules, No Firearms or Illegal Weapons Emile Jul 2022 #39
That appears to be correct sarisataka Jul 2022 #40
There are no heroes in this situation. The Grand Illuminist Jul 2022 #41
Yup Polybius Jul 2022 #47
I long for the day where we don't need heroes with guns. Emile Jul 2022 #53
My thanks to all who answered this poll sarisataka Jul 2022 #43
Banned from the mall mvd Jul 2022 #44
Let's review 2 incidents where "hero" shooters violated laws/policies. maxsolomon Jul 2022 #45
Reminds me of an episode of Masters of the Universe around 1983 Polybius Jul 2022 #48
This, at OSHA, is what is referred to as a "de minimis violation." mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2022 #49
Analogy: some kids decide to ditch high shool. mahatmakanejeeves Jul 2022 #50
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»What should happen to the...»Reply #34