A couple of interesting twists to this story:
The as yet to be publicly identified individual that shot the teen was a legal CCW holder; the mall has a no weapons policy (at least on the inside), so the shooter was apparently in violation of that policy as he was leaving the mall heading towards his vehicle. The teen reportedly pulled a weapon, so he also may have been in violation of the policy (though it’s not been reported if he actually entered the mall, or was just in the parking lot), and he would not have been a legal weapon holder at 16.
This raises an interesting liability question in my mind. Had the legal CCW holder followed the rules and not been carrying, and been hurt/killed in the incident, what would be the mall’s responsibility? While it is the right of the mall owner’s to have a no-weapons policy, that policy also gives them near total responsibility to provide protection since they are limiting and individual’s self-protection options.
This is very interesting. The site has changed its story from when I previously posted until now. You can verify this just by looking at the content the that was posted here and the content that is now the link.
The previous link content mentioned no gun from the perps. And I mentioned in my previous post their previous content seemed dishonest.