ISIS terrorist attack at Minnesota mall

The woman in front of me at the grocery store wrote a check, slowing everything down. I think a spokesman for the Islamic State will be claiming her actions as another strike for Islam, too.

Well hopefully there will always be an off duty cop close by since everyone in a mall is disarmed by the signs except those deemed responcable to carray a gun.

1 profiling may save your life
2 even an "official" fits into #1, why would someone in uniform have a knife in his hand?
3 so, Whatcha gonna do?

BTW, if making a shot like that freaks you out, training and range time might be something to concider.

Good on the off duty LEO.


This is the reason I get range time at least once a week.

Hope the victims (and their families) recover quickly... Noted that the outcome was a pretty good one and the intervening individual should be properly recognized and commended publicly for his service. Now if that state's leaders would just learn to speak clearly and plainly about this kind of issue... Wait, isn't there an election coming where plain speaking is one of the factors involved?

At any rate the shooting officer gets an attaboy from this corner (far away Florida).

This is not the first time a terrorist has asked about a victim's religious beliefs before attacking them.

If a stranger asks you if you are a Muslim, you should be be watching their hands, jumping to a heightened awareness condition, and preparing to defend and/or exit the area quickly.

ACP said:

2) most mall shoppers are unarmed, apparently.

Click to expand...

That mall is a gun-free zone, according to Breitbart. (See http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/18/mall-mass-stabbing-occurred-gun-free-zone/). Note that the article is silent as to whether off-duty or retired cops are also required to disarm before entering.

Exactly - and the rule about guns includes weapons in general. Weasel language from the liability minded corporate owners.

So the takeaway is that a cop who willfully violates their policy but stops an attacker is ok, but someone who is otherwise outed should be persecuted and asked to leave the establishment?

Where do you stand on that?

Can we even discuss it here? I know it can and will be elsewhere, and what I do. Do we place a rigid adherence to the shifting sands of "case" law or exercise our inalienable right?

In these days of political correctness I would have every expectation of seeing an article or editorial in the MSM expressing outrage over the officer's deliberate flounting of the mall owners property rights to deny guns there, and even language supporting the deserved attack on oppressors of Islam who support open indecencies in that Mall that are violations of Sharia law. Or whatever. All in the name of diversity.

So, you decide - do you ignore the sign, or not? The responding officer DID. We can jump thru legalistic interpretation for another ten pages debating it, but the final decision is this: Would you prefer to have your gun on you shopping as an attacker comes at you with a bloody knife, or not?

There are some here who would say YOU are in the wrong just as much as the attacker. All based on an adherence to their interpretation of law.

Does common sense even come into it? I will say that when it comes down to the final choice, there are a lot of people who would impose their interpretation of what the law says on you, but they will defend their special privileges. Apparently the law allows them, but not you.

We have that thread running now - it's about CCW and 50 state reciprocity under LEOSA retired carry regardless of where, which includes NYC. They can, you can't.

Basically because of signs and taking the law before common sense, we got a lot of people cut and stabbed before we came to the "good samaritan" who was exercising either special privilege - or who defiantly ignored the signs and rules.

Food for thought, pretty much, as a discussion of carry past those signs is largely out of the question here, as amply demonstrated in the past.

My rule of thumb. No metal detector, I'm carrying.

Good points Tirod. Here in NH there's not much barrier to carrying (thanks to the Free State Project NH doesn't have many weapon laws... e.g. we threw away the sharp-object laws entirely), but most other places are doing their best to disarm the law-abiding.

If the penalty doesn't reach felony status or involve metal detectors I will carry. I have different feelings about individuals dwelling but those are changing.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The officer was a competitive shooter, etc.

Incidents like this take the sails out of the usual blather about unchambered carry or the first round being a blank.

Be competent and cut the crap. If you are not competent enough not to shoot yourself, maybe you should carry a big stick.

If someone doesn't want my gun on their private property, I either leave the gun home or don't go on their private property. That's how rights work.

There's actually much more. I'm guessing we'll hear more over time but the officer, Jason Falconer, is much more than a part time officer and former C of P in a small town department.

He is a firearms instructor, owns a training range called Tactical Advantage and teaches response skills to the LE community and students at St Cloud State University.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/19/health/jason-falconer-minnesota-mall-stabbing-trnd/index.html

In keeping with the sub forum ST&T...

Locally we have heard a few items early on that may or may not make it to the national news.

Local authorities commented soon after the attacks about several issues that caught my attention.

In their praise of the off duty officer who stopped the attacks it was said that after initially confronting the assailant and ordering him to the ground the assailant began to comply, then changed his mind and began to charge at the officer. It was reported that the assailant "quickly closed the 50 foot gap that separated them". The officer fired, the assailant fell and proceeded to get up at least three more times before finally stopping for good.

Training? OK for stationary targets, but sometimes they close the gap toward you quickly and get up again and again.

Over here we're very thankful that a well trained individual knew what to do and did it.

That mall is a gun-free zone, according to Breitbart. (See http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...gun-free-zone/). Note that the article is silent as to whether off-duty or retired cops are also required to disarm before entering.

Click to expand...

I would be very interested in the answer to this as well. If the officer was violating mall policy, or state law, I would imagine bringing that up would be very embarrassing for those who make the rules.

A little more info on the good guy:
http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...all-terrorist-uspsa-competitor-3-gun-shooter/

I have never heard of that site before.

It looks like an off duty MN cop is okay to carry anywhere:

https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/bca/bca-divisions/administrative/pages/permit-to-carry-faq.aspx

Tirod said:

Exactly - and the rule about guns includes weapons in general. Weasel language from the liability minded corporate owners.

So the takeaway is that a cop who willfully violates their policy but stops an attacker is ok, but someone who is otherwise outed should be persecuted and asked to leave the establishment?

Where do you stand on that?

Can we even discuss it here? I know it can and will be elsewhere, and what I do. Do we place a rigid adherence to the shifting sands of "case" law or exercise our inalienable right?

In these days of political correctness I would have every expectation of seeing an article or editorial in the MSM expressing outrage over the officer's deliberate flounting of the mall owners property rights to deny guns there, and even language supporting the deserved attack on oppressors of Islam who support open indecencies in that Mall that are violations of Sharia law. Or whatever. All in the name of diversity.

So, you decide - do you ignore the sign, or not? The responding officer DID. We can jump thru legalistic interpretation for another ten pages debating it, but the final decision is this: Would you prefer to have your gun on you shopping as an attacker comes at you with a bloody knife, or not?

There are some here who would say YOU are in the wrong just as much as the attacker. All based on an adherence to their interpretation of law.

Does common sense even come into it? I will say that when it comes down to the final choice, there are a lot of people who would impose their interpretation of what the law says on you, but they will defend their special privileges. Apparently the law allows them, but not you.

We have that thread running now - it's about CCW and 50 state reciprocity under LEOSA retired carry regardless of where, which includes NYC. They can, you can't.

Basically because of signs and taking the law before common sense, we got a lot of people cut and stabbed before we came to the "good samaritan" who was exercising either special privilege - or who defiantly ignored the signs and rules.

Food for thought, pretty much, as a discussion of carry past those signs is largely out of the question here, as amply demonstrated in the past.

Click to expand...

In MN, LEO's are considered 'on duty' 24/7 re carry. They can carry anywhere, anytime. Darn, RX-79G beat me to it.

It also sounds like the cop approached and announced himself - he wasn't just attacked.

While guns are a great answer, they are not the only answer. Far too few people realize this or realize it in a crisis. They are generally not situationally aware nor do they have any idea of what they would do in a crisis. In all places, a shopping mall if full of things that can be used for improvised weapons to stop such a person.

Being without a gun should not mean being defenseless.

This attack went on for 5 minutes or so, more than enough time for somebody to have tried to stop him other than the cop.

RX-79G said:

The woman in front of me at the grocery store wrote a check, slowing everything down. I think a spokesman for the Islamic State will be claiming her actions as another strike for Islam, too.

Click to expand...

We know this scumbag visited the Middle East before becoming radicalized. Haven't you noticed how many young people are indocrinated by Islam and ISIS?