'Good Samaritan' Who Killed Mall Shooter Broke Property Rules Against Guns

NewsWEAK ^ | 7/18/2022 | Emma Meyer

[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.

[FLT-bird]

[MayflowerMadam]

I interviewed for Simon Property Group in FL about 30 years ago. Extensive testing. Bizarre interview panel and questions. In my head I’m hearing, “Cult! Run!”. I couldn’t get out of there fast enough.

I didn’t get the job because I wasn’t “like the rest of us”. Thank God!

[TomGuy]

The gunman, didn’t he break some rules by having and shooting his gun? And, isn’t it usually frowned on to shoot and kill potential customers in a mall?

[These anti-gun nuts are nuts. They are insane.]

[FLT-bird]

Its their property. They can make whatever “rule” they like. If you break their “rules” they can ask you to leave.

If you then refuse to leave, that is misdemeanor trespassing.

But carrying into a business that proclaims itself “gun free”? That’s not illegal. Their rule or policy is a mere suggestion. Treat it as such. I do.

[bigfootbob]

Let’s say what a communist would say if the roles were reversed…the “no guns rule” are merely a suggestion.

Yes, truly evil people proudly wear the DimocRAT badge.

[jughandle]

I might be wrong but the shooter violated that rule too in addition to committing murder, which to newsweak seems inconsequential.

[anton]

Sometimes local and state law incorporates private designations of “gun free” zones as violations of the state or local law.

[1Old Pro]

the group's code of conduct, last updated in April of 2020, lists "No weapons" as number three

Well I see speed limit signs post max speed 55, and nobody is going as slow as 55mph.

[ScottinVA]

So... had he followed the “rules,” the numbers of dead would’ve been in the dozens. WTF is the matter with these damned people?

[Houserino]

The left has always loved big body counts in these things to push their agenda.

Nothing new at all.

[Travis McGee]

So did the would-be mass-murderer. In any case, a person desiring to commit a mass murder will not be deterred by a sign. In fact, he'll be encouraged to attack a "disarmed victim zone.

[Tenacious 1]

I’m actually HOPING the 22 year old didn’t have a permit when he shot the guy and was carrying only because the laws were changed.

Local news is reporting that he was legal "under the new Constitutional Carry law." National news is suggesting he had a concealed carry license. Local sheriff complimented the kids proficiency, accuracy and tactical acumen in a press conference.

[ontap]

I pay no attention to do not carry signs in places of commerce....my right to carry is not up to merchants. If they discover I am carrying and ask me to leave I would consent...I would also tell them I will not be back!!!!

[Flick Lives]

the subtext is Newsweek wants to quash the narrative that a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun. Newsweek wanted *more* dead to push for gun confiscation.

[V_TWIN]

Gun free zones be damned.

All they are are potential killing zones.

I CCW everywhere now just because of a potential scenario like this and if I go into a place that says no guns they’re gonna have to catch me and kick me out.

Always better to have and not need than to need and not have.

[Psalm 73]

I always carry in malls even though most have signage declaring no guns allowed.

It's not a law, only a property rule - so they tell you to leave and/or ban you from ever coming back.
Big deal.

[Alberta's Child]

Someone thinks the mall's rules supersede rights enumerated in the Constitution and recently clarified and affirmed by SCOTUS?

Your constitutional rights end when you are in someone else’s place of business.

None of my employees ever had First Amendment protection when they were doing company business, for example.

[1Old Pro]

It's not a law, only a property rule

In most states, but I fear Hochul is making it law in NYS.

[Levy78]

If you want your blood to boil, read this thread from DU. F’ing commie scum…

https://democraticunderground.com/100216941759

[Leaning Right]

> Someone thinks the mall’s rules supersede rights enumerated in the Constitution and recently clarified and affirmed by SCOTUS? <

Yes, the mall’s rules do supersede the rights enumerated in the Constitution. Here’s why. The Bill of Rights protects you against government overreach. It does not protect you when you are on private property.

Here’s an example. The 1A confirms your right to free speech. So you could stand in a public park all day long, and tell passersby how terrible Ford cars are. No government agent can interfere with you.

But you cannot do the same thing while at a Ford dealership. That’s private property, and Ford can make it own rules there. No bashing of Ford products! If you don’t like those rules, don’t go to the dealership.