Gunman Kills Eight, Then Kills Himself, at Omaha Shopping Mall

[Minneapolis Security]

What I was thinking as well, though he might have been on duty as well, working narcotics. How do people expect you to buy dope from a biker gang (for example) if you're clean cut and have a military style haircut?

3 years ago when I went to instructor school there was a guy who worked with a local inter-agency Anti Drug Task Force. We called him Jesus because that's who he looked like with the Goatee and long hair lol.

If he was an undercover officer, he isn't anymore! I don't see how you can be "undercover" and then show up in swat gear and smile for the camera, and then go back and work "undercover".

Its kinda like virginity, you can't get it back.

[OccamsRazor]

Maybe theses mall management companies will finally be sued, and forced to arm the mall security officers.

Armed, professionally trained officers, onsite could have stopped or limited the carnage.

Tell that to an 'expert' on mall security:

Don Greene, a former FBI agent who has written a book on mall security...Should these private security guards be armed? "Absolutely not," said Greene. Greene said if a security officer were to pull a gun on an armed individual in a mall, it could result in "the gunfight at the 'OK corral,' and then we might have 23 people killed instead of eight."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/mall.security/index.html

[Minneapolis Security]

You are a smart man, because I couldn't possibly agree more.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/12232621.html

Entering Von Maur's in the Westroads Mall, Hawkins promptly drew the attention of security officers.

"Mall security actually spotted Mr. Hawkins upon entry. He was under surveillance at that time, just based on his actions," Police Chief Thomas Warren said Thursday.

But the officers were unarmed, Warren said. "Mall security did not have a chance to intervene."

Spotted by mall security upon entry........but the officers were unarmed.....

When will these "gun free zone" blissninies learn?

[Black Caesar]

If he was an undercover officer, he isn't anymore! I don't see how you can be "undercover" and then show up in swat gear and smile for the camera, and then go back and work "undercover".

Its kinda like virginity, you can't get it back.

In a Mass Casualty shooting incident everyone goes (especially when you have a smallish department of only 200 officers) and the consequences be damned. It's not something you think about, and you sure as heck don't say "but I can't let no one see my face, so I'll let my brother officers handle this SHTF situation while I stay back". Sure it might prevent him from going back to what he was doing, so what?

And if he's a Narcotics Officer like I suspect, he'd have his ready gear in his trunk ready to go.

What we're saying is that there are loads of reasons why a police officer would look like that. Look at the numerous photos from this incident, you don't see anyone else who looks like that guy, that to me points to a special assignment officer of some type.

[FireEMSPolice]

Tell that to an 'expert' on mall security:



http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/mal...ity/index.html

Expert? Sounds like a dumbass to me.

[Minneapolis Security]

Expert? Sounds like a dumbass to me.

I agree, a dumbass 1st class!

[OccamsRazor]

Expert? Sounds like a dumbass to me.

I agree, a dumbass 1st class!

That's why I named him what I did in the quote.

While I continue to fervently hope that someone, somewhere will finally get it, the fact that signs won't stop people who don't want to be stopped, and criminals, by job description, don't obey laws, will continue to kill innocent people.

Federal employees I work with were discussing this incident today, and the general consensus was "I'm glad I wasn't there! I pray I'll never be caught in that sort of thing!"

I wish I had been. 8 may have been 6, or 3, or maybe even none. Sure, it's a risk to intentionally put yourself in harm's way, but could you live with it, knowing you may have been able to stop someone from committing a massacre, or even saving one person?

Prepare yourself and get some sort of training, or cower in a fitting room, waiting to be shot.

Die on your knees, crying and praying, or die on your feet, aiming and firing. I've made my choice.

[DeputyJ]

OccamsRazor wrote, "I wish I had been. 8 may have been 6, or 3, or maybe even none. Sure, it's a risk to intentionally put yourself in harm's way, but could you live with it, knowing you may have been able to stop someone from committing a massacre, or even saving one person?"

You sir, according to Lt. Col. Grossman, are a sheepdog. Infact, I believe most of the individuals on this site are sheepdogs (I am too). Our job is to protect the sheep from the wolves (for those of you who don't know the reference about sheepdogs, do a google search and type the words Lt. Col. Grossman, sheepdogs, trust me it's worth the read).

Stay Safe.

[OccamsRazor]

Just a few quotes for the masses, then off to bed.

"Fight back! Whenever you are offered violence, fight back! The aggressor does not fear the law, so he must be taught to fear you. Whatever the risk, and at whatever the cost, fight back!"

and

"There are no victims, only volunteers. You volunteer by looking uncertain and afraid. You volunteer by being, as grass-eaters invariably are, unprepared to confront the hazards of life."

[N. A. Corbier]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/06/mal...ity/index.html

Don Greene, a former FBI agent who has written a book on mall security...Should these private security guards be armed? "Absolutely not," said Greene. Greene said if a security officer were to pull a gun on an armed individual in a mall, it could result in "the gunfight at the 'OK corral,' and then we might have 23 people killed instead of eight."

Lets see if I can expand on this... Here we go:

The police officer has 600-900 hours of training, so therefore his armed response is justified. The security guard has "minimal" firearms training, coupled with the fact he is not a police officer, simply means that an untrained wannabe cop will kill innocent people by shooting it out (and of course missing, after all, barney fife can't hit the broad side of a barn) with the suspect.

The only thing the mall security guard should do is call 911, then flee the scene immediately so the shooter does not become provoked by the uniformed presence.

In fact, the mall security guards should not be wearing police-like uniforms, as this may provoke a shooter into engaging in aggression. They should be wearing soft uniforms which make them look like the customer service representatives they should be.

Only a trained police officer should be called upon to engage in a shootout with an armed man. While sometimes citizens, lawfully carrying concealed may do this, we cannot advocate vigilantism, and strongly suggest that all malls have 'no weapons signs.' Even worse would be having armed mall security guards, with such low hiring standards and low training requirements, attempting to do the police's job.

Did I regurgitate the current prevailing thought enough?

[DarkMetalWolf]

The one thing I have found interesting, is there have been several shootings this year by nineteen year-olds. How odd, was there something in the water in 87 and 88? Besides long, big and mullet hair styles?

I also find it interesting how society see things. It does not matter if you were the best marksman in the world, if you are a security officer you are an untrained baboon. However, if you are the worst shot in the world, and because I requal with several peace officers here in Ca., I know just how bad of a shot most of them are, keeping in mind the average Police Officer empties two mags when two or three rounds would have done the job......opps getting off my point sorry. You can be the worst shot in the world and be a Police Officer and you are the TRAINED professional. This is just an assnine way of thinking. While in the core at Guard school at MCB QUANTICO VA, I out shot 90% of the FBI people. So the whole Don Greene thing.....yep what a crock!

[ESI AGENT]

Like I said before it's all about perception. People make rules to benifit their own group. In social psychology it's called "Social cateorization" The us-versus-them. Heres a simple way of understanding human behavior: Everything we do we do to either gain plaeasure or avoid pain. That said their is always a payoff to human behavior. When one groups gets to make up the rules it's to benifit them usually under the tital of the protection of society because those people are not capable of doing what we do theirfore they would cause more problems then benifits. In L.A. the real reason we don't get CCW's is because it create compatition for certain groups off duty income. This being said this group is more interested in serving themselves then the safety of the public. I often here public service persons saying "Oh their just private persons" This was said at a course I took a few years ago.My response was this: The highest paid positions in the world are those held by private persons! The best univerities in the country are private sector. AT one of the shooting schools I attend certain people wanted the school to be POST certified the owners response was: Negative, IM not droping my standards to meet post. Now I have lot's of friends who are in law enforcement and are good shooters but these are the guys who love what they do and are hard chargin individuals and one most be objective and find out who your dealing with and not just apply self serving titles. BE SAFE

[bigshotceo]

I won't deny that one of the reasons the police have taken actions push regulation of security guards has been to protect their own interests; after all, in some areas paid duties provides a significant amount of an officer's income, and by presenting themselves as far better trained (which in many cases is actually true) it helps maintain their current status/salary levels.

That being said, however, I really don't think that we can blame much of what's wrong with the security industry with the police. After all, the police didn't start going around 20 years ago and convincing companies to fire their well-paid, well-trained in-house staff and replace them with contract workers. The police don't tell companies that they can only give their guards three days of training, or can only have one guard on site when there really should be three, etc...

I think that when the police do show concern about the actions of security companies it's often for two reasons:

1) The police are concerned about the company exploiting the guards and are worried about the guard's safety. Many police know that the guards are facing dangers that they aren't prepared for, and they worry that it's a matter of the company exploiting them (by taking advantage of inexperienced workers, threatening to give them negative police references, etc...).

2) A person doing things they aren't trained for puts the public at risk. Take in point the recent car chase involving security guards. The police weren't primarily concerned about the fact that the guards pursued, but that they did it at unsafe speeds, ran red lights, etc...

Also, if a person is not properly trained with a weapon (and trained in other important stuff, like verbal communication, too) they pose a risk. That doesn't mean that they're bat**** crazy and are going to randomly shooting/clubbing people, but there's still the possibility that they will not be able to recognize if the situation they're in warrants its use. As well, they are likely concerned that the item could be used against the guard or others (remember, the police are probably more concerned about the guard's safety).

[Minneapolis Security]

I won't deny that one of the reasons the police have taken actions push regulation of security guards has been to protect their own interests; after all, in some areas paid duties provides a significant amount of an officer's income, and by presenting themselves as far better trained (which in many cases is actually true) it helps maintain their current status/salary levels.

That being said, however, I really don't think that we can blame much of what's wrong with the security industry with the police. After all, the police didn't start going around 20 years ago and convincing companies to fire their well-paid, well-trained in-house staff and replace them with contract workers. The police don't tell companies that they can only give their guards three days of training, or can only have one guard on site when there really should be three, etc...

I think that when the police do show concern about the actions of security companies it's often for two reasons:

1) The police are concerned about the company exploiting the guards and are worried about the guard's safety. Many police know that the guards are facing dangers that they aren't prepared for, and they worry that it's a matter of the company exploiting them (by taking advantage of inexperienced workers, threatening to give them negative police references, etc...).

2) A person doing things they aren't trained for puts the public at risk. Take in point the recent car chase involving security guards. The police weren't primarily concerned about the fact that the guards pursued, but that they did it at unsafe speeds, ran red lights, etc...

Also, if a person is not properly trained with a weapon (and trained in other important stuff, like verbal communication, too) they pose a risk. That doesn't mean that they're bat**** crazy and are going to randomly shooting/clubbing people, but there's still the possibility that they will not be able to recognize if the situation they're in warrants its use. As well, they are likely concerned that the item could be used against the guard or others (remember, the police are probably more concerned about the guard's safety).

I'm all for requiring higher standards for security officers, I would like to see a two tier system. Licensed and unlicensed security officers.

Licensed officers would be armed and go through extensive training and background checks (not just a fingerprint/name search).

Unlicensed would be of the observe and report type.

I think this would be a real help to the industry as well, more credibility and better bill rates at least for licensed officers.

[davis002]

911 tapes released in Omaha mall shooting

http://kstp.com/article/stories/S278681.shtml?cat=1&v=1