Teen Gunman kills 5 in Utah mall

[Garys]

link
That article makes no mention of his religion, just his nationality.

Suliman is a fairly common Muslim name. Sulijman or Sulejman is a Bosnian variation there off. The President of Bosnia and Herzegovina is Sulijman Tihic.

Where did you find that? I just looked in the Herald online an couldn't find it anywhere. Got a link?

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5218821

The Herald article was on Page 14 and was only a short blurb. Probably a wire service report. No name and not many details.

Gary

 

[Reptile]

No CCW allowed in this mall!

I just heard on Cam and Company (the 2nd Amendment show on NRA.org) that this mall has signs that say no guns allowed.

Gotta love those signs. They attract criminals because the criminals know that no law abiding citizen would carry guns there.

Fortunately, the gunman met his end at the hands of an off duty cop who was carrying a gun.

The people shot didn't stand a chance because they were unarmed.



Reptile

 

[drgrant]

I thought Philly had a fairly strict policy on issuing CCW permits. Anyone know what the story is for sure?

They used to, but the state forced the corrupt mayor street to issue
permits. (eg, state level preemption).

Philadelphia is one of the last places on the face of the earth that I would
want to be involved in anything involving the police or the court
system. The mayor is corrupt to the core and it all flows dowhill from
there. There is a lawyer on sigforum who -almost- drew on a bum that
accosted him with a knife. The bum had priors on him for assault and also
had a warrant out on him, but the city still tried to grill the shit out of
Tom (the lawyer) over the event. Eventually he was acquitted but
philly PD still has all his guns and never reissued him his carry permit.

IMO Philly is right up there with ShitCaGo and Meninostan on the
"corruption" meter. Thank god that it doesnt constitute the bulk
of the political pull in PA, otherwise that state would be a ban-fest
like NJ is.

-Mike

 

[calsdad]

This is a glaring misstatement of the law of self-defense in Massachusetts. If someone else, a family member, friend, or stranger, is facing an imminent deadly force attack, was not the initial aggressor, and cannot retreat or save himself with less than lethal force, you have a right to step into his shoes and defend him with lethal force of your own.

When the deadly force threat ends, you must cease your use of lethal force.

This situation requires great caution, because if the guy you are defending actually started the fight, and you step in on his side, you could be walking into a slew of criminal charges.

Darius Arbabi

Thanks for the clarification. So if an incident like this happened in MA - and hypothetical LTC-A holder was say in one of the stores in said mall with wife shopping - and there were other persons in that store, and the shooter started walking around gunning people down - then the LTC-A holder (we are assuming he/she is carrying at the time) would be within their rights to fire on the shooter if they tried to enter that store ( that contains the LTC-A holder and other unarmed individuals) ??

Does MA law unequivocally allow carrying in public places such as a shopping malls? I have never seen any signs anywhere except maybe a public building that say "No Guns" like this Utah mall allegedly did.

 

[drgrant]

Does MA law unequivocally allow carrying in public places such as a shopping malls? I have never seen any signs anywhere except maybe a public building that say "No Guns" like this Utah mall allegedly did.

Pretty much. There is no "binding signage" in MA, unless it's on a piece of
property thats already prohibited by the letter of the law. Utah might
have binding signage, but you would have to research it a bit to see
if the signage present there even really meant anything. (I know in TX
for instance, if the sign doesnt meet very specific requirements, it doesn't
mean anything. )

Note: I believe MA typically has the "trespass standard" which means that if you are
found carrying a gun, and the owner kicks you out, if you do not leave you can be
arrested. This isn't any different, though, than you bringing a dog into the mall
when it says "no pets allowed" and them kicking you out for it.


-Mike

 

[oldbaldguy]

I also heard that the shooter in Utah was muslim. It was on talk radio last evening. This idea of defending someone other than yourself is a risky idea. We all know that if your not personally threatened, your defense in court will be tough to say the least. This is probably a lousy thing to say but most of those people may be anti-gun, the same type that will comprise the jury.

 

[Garys]

I also heard that the shooter in Utah was muslim. It was on talk radio last evening. This idea of defending someone other than yourself is a risky idea. We all know that if your not personally threatened, your defense in court will be tough to say the least. This is probably a lousy thing to say but most of those people may be anti-gun, the same type that will comprise the jury.

Which is why we have lawyers. Often it's not the facts, but how the facts are framed that makes the decision. To me, the obvious answer in a case like we are discussing is that the guy was shooting randomly and I was in fear for my life that I would be his next victim. There was no where for me to run..."

As other people have pointed out, juries often apply a bit of common sense, even if they aren't supposed to.

Gary

 

[depicts]

While the off duty cop being credited with stopping the shooters progress was a law enforcement officer, he was lucky to be carring a firearm.

If the signs didn't prevent firearms in the mall, there may have been other civilians with CCW who could have helped stop him even sooner.

I think this story from this morning's Boston Globe shows what one CCW can do to help the public in a situation like this.






Member Center | Log Out
Today's Globe Local Opinion Magazine Education NECN Special reports Obituaries Traffic | Weather | Mobile

Home > News > Nation

Off-duty policeman helped halt rampage
He traded gunfire with shooter who killed 5 in Utah
By Paul Foy, Associated Press | February 14, 2007

SALT LAKE CITY -- An off-duty police officer having an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife was credited yesterday with helping stop a rampage in a crowded shopping mall by an 18-year-old gunman who killed five people before he was cut down.

Breaking News Alerts A day after the shooting, investigators struggled to figure out why Sulejmen Talovic, a Bosnian refugee wearing a trench coat, opened fire on shoppers with a supremely calm look on his face.

The teenager wanted to "to kill a large number of people," Police Chief Chris Burbank said.

Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived, Burbank said. "There is no question that his quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people."

Talovic had a backpack full of ammunition, a shotgun, and a .38-caliber pistol, police said. Investigators knew little about Talovic, except than he lived in Salt Lake City , the police chief said. He was enrolled in numerous city schools before withdrawing in 2004, the school district said.

Talovic drove to the Trolley Square shopping center and immediately killed two people, then a third victim as he came through a door, Burbank said.

He shot five people in a gift shop.

Four people remained hospitalized yesterday: two in critical condition, two in serious condition.

Outside the mall, candles and flowers were left as memorials to the victims: Jeffrey Walker, 52, Vanessa Quinn, 29, Kirsten Hinkley, 15, Teresa Ellis, 29, and Brad Frantz, 24.

© Copyright 2007 Globe Newspaper Company.


All Globe stories since 2003 are now FREE

 

[Thor67]

Utah does have a "binding signage" clause in their carry laws. No LEGAL carry in places that are posted.

Datius, in MA is there a so called "duty to retreat" in places that aren't your home?

Personally, if I'm faced with a guy like this one, duty to retreat or not, I'd get my family to safety first, and return fire 2nd to try and save as many other lives as possible. Good luck having the cops get a conviction. I would think they wouldn't press the issue though - at least in this case.

I was seeing yesterady that the shooter was definitely a Muslim. He has a history of run in's with the cops. Don't know if the motive was to take out infidels. Sounds like he may simply have been a troubled kid who had seen too much in Bosnia. Funny, I don't feel real sorry for him though.

 

[number9]

So who can tell me the religion of the a**h*** in Pennsylvania that killed some of his co-workers?

 

[calsdad]

I also heard that the shooter in Utah was muslim. It was on talk radio last evening. This idea of defending someone other than yourself is a risky idea. We all know that if your not personally threatened, your defense in court will be tough to say the least. This is probably a lousy thing to say but most of those people may be anti-gun, the same type that will comprise the jury.

Which is why I said "in the store". I would imagine that the legal standard for drawing and firing on a shooter out in the open mall space is different than say drawing and shooting in a more enclosed area - such as one of the stores within the mall. If you were within one of the stores - and you stayed within that store - and there were other people also within that store I would hope that the law would be on your side if you fired at the shooter. Granted - most every mall I have been in the stores themselves have a back exit - but that is the point, if you are carrying and have the fortitude to do so - you could potentially protect this exit point for other innocent bystanders - and allow them to get out. Again if the shooter entered that confined space of the store - you only have two ways out - thru the mall entrance and thru the back exit. If you can't make it to either one then you are effectively trapped by the shooter - and I can't imagine shooting back in this scenario would not be justified.

Hunting around the main mall space for the shooter is another case entirely.

I would think the grey area comes when you the LTC holder is inside a store - and trapped outside in the mall area is an innocent victim who is about to be shot - do you engage the shooter - or do you let that victim die?

The cynical side of me says let the person die - and then when you are asked why you did it say " because the law said I had to". I would imagine that would create quite a shitstorm.

The reality is I don't know if I could stand by and let that happen if I thought I had a chance to save the person. From the legal standpoint however it sounds like I could be in a world of hurt if I did so.

 

[drgrant]

Utah does have a "binding signage" clause in their carry laws. No LEGAL carry in places that are posted.

Now that I look, it appears that this is NOT true.

"What about private business, can they post signs prohibiting someone from carrying a gun into their business even though the person may have a firearm permit? Naturally, private property owners may apply what ever restrictions they want, whether or not these restrictions violates ones personal rights is for the civil courts to decide. But the only statutory restriction on a permit holder is secured areas such as airports and federal
buildings."

At least this is what packing and handgunlaw.us say about Utah- info
pulled from their state's firearms FAQ. I don't see anything else on the issue, so I would venture a guess that Utah is a "tresspass standard" state
is like MA... with the exception of:

It is unlawful for a person with a firearm permit to carry a concealed firearm in the following locations:
· Any secure area in which firearms are prohibited and notice of the prohibition is posted
· A secure area of an airport
· Any courthouse, courtroom, mental health facility or correctional facility that may provide by rule that no firearm
may be transported, sold, given, or possessed upon the facility. At least one notice shall be prominently displayed at each entrance to a secure area in which a dangerous weapon, firearm, or explosive is restricted

See Also:
76-10-530. Trespass with a firearm in a house of worship or private residence -- Notice -- Penalty.

It appears the ONLY "private" entities allowed to post binding signage
are either people who operate churches or private residence owners. There
is no provision for binding signage on other kinds of private property.

-Mike

 

[Thor67]

Yes, Mike is correct. I poorly read a Utah CCW FAQ.

http://bci.utah.gov/CFP/CFPFAQ/CFPFAQ.html

 

[KMaurer]

I just heard on Cam and Company (the 2nd Amendment show on NRA.org) that this mall has signs that say no guns allowed.

Any signs posted there were meaningless for both criminals and law-abiding gun owners. Utah law only limits carry in a few situations:

Restricted areas include, but are not limited to:
1. Airports secure areas
2. Court secure areas
3. Jail secure areas
4. Post Offices
5. National Parks and monuments
6. Federal Buildings
7. Correctional and Mental Health Facilities
8. A house of worship or private residence if notice is given (verbal/posted sign)
9. Any area designated secure or otherwise prohibited by State or Federal Law.

Note the absence of schools, colleges and universities on this list, as well as malls.

Ken

 

[Fooped]

I'm beginning to think that the only way that the sheeple will finally understand our point, is if a large number of them are put in a "fight back or die" scenario. Obviously, I'm not advocating that this actually occurs, but the only way they'll change their minds is by necessity.

I'm quite sure that the survivors of the Utah mall attack are for the most part re-evaluating their stance on the RKBA, and CCW (if they weren't proponents already).

Society is getting soft, and it makes me sick.

 

[Cross-X]

Here is a link to a video taken by a customer in the mall during the shooting. Scary stuff!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8dbc5_4507

 

[Xak]

I wonder if he was just a nut job or a muslim terrorist. I bet the media would never report it correctly if it turns out the latter.

Just like Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammad. That was never portrayed by the media as another gift from the religion of peace, when that's exactly all it was.

 

[Xak]

Ha! Finally someone else who is paying attention! :

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54293

 

[number9]

.

 

[KMaurer]

The impression I get from people with more information says that the kid was a real Muslim to about the same extent that Teddy Kennedy is practicing Catholic. His family moved here when he was a little kid, and none of them seem to be involved in the local Muslim community to any degree. The following was posted by a local on David Hardy's Arms and the Law blog:

I live in the Salt Lake area, and have followed the story closely on the local news.

First, the shooter was a Bosnian Muslim. That's true. He came to this country nine years ago, when he was nine. He's a high school drop-out. He enrolled in several local schools, but didn't stick with any for long.

The local Muslim community hasn't said a lot, but they have said that the family has not been a participant in the Muslim community. They haven't been part of any of the local mosques. The Muslim and Bosnian community have expressed deep regret for the pain and suffering. The shooter's family seems in shock, and heartbroken.

My estimate is that this was just a sad, lonely kid who happened to be Muslim.

One of the heroes of the day was a civilian, who had presence of mind enough to run around to all the shops on the upper level, and tell them to pull down their shutters, turn off their lights, and get into the back. He encountered an off-duty Ogden policeman, told him what was going on, and then deliberately drew the shooter's fire while the policeman got into position to engage the shooter.

The other hero is the police officer. He and his pregnant wife had finished their Valentine's dinner, and she had stopped to visit a rest room. When he understood the situation, he sent his wife (a dispatcher) back to the restuarant, with instructions to get herself and the other customers out of harm's way, and to call 911 with a description of what he was wearing.

He then went down to the level where the shooter was, did what he could to clear the area of civilians, and made a contact with a SLC PD officer, and the two went after the shooter. The Ogden officer was the first to find the shooter, and started exchanging fire with him, using his Kimber .45.

When the officer opened fire, he became the sole object of the shooter's attention, and no other people were shot. Apparently, fire was still being exchanged when the SWAT team entered the scene. Witnesses heard the command to drop the gun, then many rounds as the shooter apparently refused to comply. It seems redundant to cuff him at this point, but that is what they did.

The Ogden officer gave a short TV interview, and came across as a very modest, capable, fine officer. I was very impressed with him. He knew exactly what to do, and did it perfectly, and at great personal risk.

The major lesson of the incident is that one person, well trained, and on the scene with a weapon makes all the difference. In the first three minutes, the shooter killed five people and wounded four. My guess is that that brave officer who put himself in harm's way probably saved about that many more, because it was an additional three minutes before police were there in force.

The officer did note that his magazine holds eight rounds, and that he was starting to be a little worried after he had expended six of them, and had only two left. Could there be a new, double stack model in his future?

Ken

 

[drgrant]

As much as we'd all love to blame the "scourge of islam" on this
one, I have to agree with Ken on this. We'll never really know
what his real motivations were, unless he left a note behind or
something. (FWIW, I think islam is mostly dumb, but this is
america, and people have the right to practice whatever religion
they want. )

I think while anti-american islamic sentiment could very well have
been a likely factor, I doubt this attack was an act of "organized
terrorism"; eg, like this kid got funded by AQ to go and do it. It's
also impossible to prove that he was doing it for religious reasons.

Savage was talking about this last night on his show.... and although
one wants to "connect the dots", evidence seems sort of
weak that this is anything other than some random lone gunman
thing.

Since "terorrism" is a pretty vague term- you could still say the
kid is a terrorist of some sort; it is kind of hard to articulate, though,
that what he did was mainly formented out of religious hate.

The other thing conspiciously absent, is there doesnt seem to be
any reports of him going "allah akbar" or any of that other monkey
pumping crap that radical islamists tend to do when they kill
"infidels". (if you watch any of those terrorist video clips, the prayer
and all that crap seems to be a recurring theme among most of these
terrorists. )

If it really was religiously motivated; you figure this guy would have
tried to "stamp" it that way; eg, in terms of trying to frighten people
at large. If that was his goal, he certainly failed in doing so, as most of
the rest of the world just think's this kid is just another guy that went off
the deep end.

-Mike

 

[dwarven1]

It's starting to sound like he was just a kid who went went nuts and wanted to take as many people with him as he could. And he happened to be a Muslim.

I don't think I could ever understand WHY people do things like that. It's just beyond me. If I ever DID contemplate suicide, I don't think I'd be planning to take anyone with me.

 

[Garys]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54286

Terrorism not ruled out. Or in for that matter.

Gary

 

[Admin]

I don't agree with him just happening to be muslim.

 

[number9]

I don't agree with him just happening to be muslim.

Why not? Not everything is a conspiracy, or motivated by religion. Like the guy in Penn. that shot up the office

 

[Jose]

.

Go ahead. Tell us how we are wrong in suspecting muslim terrorism in this one.

 

[Jose]

So who can tell me the religion of the a**h*** in Pennsylvania that killed some of his co-workers?

When the perponderance of terrorism against the US is commited by muslims, it is reasonable to suspect hatred inspired by religion when a muslim starts whacking Americans for no reason.

 

[Jose]

Wow, those no-guns-at-work policies sure do prevent workplace violence.