Posted on 07/19/2022 5:44:01 AM PDT by Lazamataz
The good Samaritan who shot and killed the gunman who opened fire in the Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana on Sunday afternoon reportedly broke the property's policy against weapons.
The suspected shooter entered the mall on Sunday carrying a rifle and multiple magazines and opened fire in the food court, killing at least three and injuring three before he was shot to death. Greenwood Police Chief Jim Ison said the suspected shooter was killed by a "good Samaritan with a handgun."
The mall is owned by Simon Property Group, and the group's code of conduct, last updated in April of 2020, lists "No weapons" as number three.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
That is correct and should be repeated.
Just a little detail the leftscum at NewWeak left out, eh?
They DO have the ability to ask local LEO to inquire of each visitor to enforce the policy but that would be a private contract.
This would present a conflict of interest for any LEO that wants to be paid under the contract with the private entity.
I’ve always believed the extension of those laws into private property has no place in a free society.
Well said.
> I’m glad my ignorant post prompted your succinct, proper viewpoints. Thanks. <
You’re welcome. But your post was not ignorant. No one can be expected to know everything. And that’s one nice thing about Free Republic. If you post something incorrect, someone will probably come by along and gently correct you.
You might possibly also get a few rude insults. That’s happened to me more than once. Those rude folks are of course way out of line. FR is place to converse, and perhaps learn something new. It’s not a schoolyard where little kids trade insults.
(end of rant)
Your business is not the same as a mall. And I'll bet you don't really enforce that rule. If the police enter your facility do you disarm them? If not, why not?
If you have a factory, or some other kind of business not generally open to the public you can make all kinds of rules that are not possible in a public mall. You can require everybody to wear a certain uniform, or cut their hair a certain way. But a mall owner can't say nobody is allowed in my mall if they have a certain hairstyle or type of clothes.
I carry in all sorts of public places where I am not suppose to.
Yes, I outright flout the "people can make what ever requirements they like for you to be in their stores" whine of the rightwing because it is not true.
And I am NOT going to be the person crying on TV because I could not defend mine.
I refuse.
Yes this is true in a few of the communist states like NY.
Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.
That is incorrect as a matter of law. There are a variety of situations where some constitutional rights are limited in some ways when someone is visiting a business, but many other rights remain totally intact.
As one simple example, you can't just decide to discriminate based on race, or religion because somebody is in your place of business. You can't say, sorry, I don't serve people of your religion because somebody is wearing clothing that indicates their religion when they enter your restaurant.
While you contend that your employees lack First Amendment protection when they are doing your company's business that is not legally correct. Try telling an employee they can't look at the Bible, or say a prayer to themselves during the work day, and then get ready to write some checks to your newly hired lawyers.
The three who lost their lives should sue the Mall and its occupants for wrongful death - the reason the shooter chose the Mall is because of the idiotic sign (he believed it was gun free). That constitutes negligent homicide on the owner’s of the Mall in my opinion.
The local AMC theater posted signs that do not comply with Texas Penal Code Sec 30.06 prohibiting concealed carry. The letters were not block letters at least one inch high.
I saw the sign and thought concealed carry holders are trained that the sign must be of very exacting design. If not, it doesn’t exist. A snowflake wouldn’t know that. We both were safer in the theater.
EC
Um, nope. That’s wrong on so many levels I won’t bother addressing fully.
Now do employers have the right to fire someone if they say things they don’t like? Sure. Ask someone to leave? Sure.
But private places of business are not their own counties. For example, a cop cannot violate your Constitutional rights because he arrests you in a private business. For another example, you cannot kick someone out of your business due to race. Also there is a big difference between employees and customers.
You are sort of right to the extent a private business is not directly controlled by the Constitution unless they are a “state actor.”
The only place in the US where your Constitutional rights don’t apply is foreign embassies because they are technically foreign soil.
A life long friend of mine called me about this issue and suggested he was coming around to supporting a ban on “Assault Rifles”. I first explained what an assault rifle was and then explained to him what AR stood for (Armalite Rifle). He said nobody NEEDS that type of weapon.
Well, according to that logic, nobody NEEDS a Camaro, Mustang, Corvette or Challenger either. Those cars are not practical. Since we want the government to decide what we NEED instead of an open market, we should also regulate housing? Nobody NEEDS a $1 million dollar home. Nobody NEEDS Alcohol, or expensive clothing. Nobody NEEDS too much money. Where should we expect the government to stop deciding what we need?
Wait, are you suggesting the you support Communism? I am happy to report, that my life long friend quickly agreed with me and thanked me for a new perspective. LOL!
Good job.
I rarely go to the DUmpster anymore. Checked out your link. Agree with you. Blood boiling.
Now I need a shower. Maybe with bleach.
The Good Samaritan will be charged. I know the mindset of leftists. This is perfect case for them to make a point
Nope. He's already been exonerated by local police and FBI. Indiana Law shields him from legal action against him. It's a justifiable homicide. No law was broken.
And the "no gun" policy at the mall is not legally enforceable or criminal unless he was previously asked to leave and violated a misdemeanor trespass code by remaining on the property.
Correct. Repeating:
A business that opens to the public has no authority to deny someone their inalienable right to keep and bear arms any more than they’d have to deny entrance to someone based on their sex, race, or religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.