breaking news, Salt Lake City shooting

I salute the off duty officer

and the on duty officers. I for one would contribute a few bucks to send this guy on a new Valentines date. Some people never get past an incident like this because of the super-charged intensity mixed with the emotion of having his wife there, etc. He may never have another good night's sleep. I would like to make a show of support.

Does anybody on the board know of something being done in this respect? You can count me in. It would be difficult to organize from out of state but I'll do something on my own if nothing else is in place.

I commend your intent, griz. He has already received many public accolades, clear up to Governor Huntsman. He's firmly entrenched in the "hero" category and is destined to receive much recognition for it.

He did things out of the ordinary...for a reason

Officer Hammond, the Ogden City police officer that was the off duty cop at the mall, was interviewed today on The Early Show. Here is a link to the interview.

Here is an article from FoxNews.com

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,251864,00.html

Off-Duty Officer Prevented Massacre in Salt Lake City Mall Shooting Spree, Police Say

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

SALT LAKE CITY —

An off-duty police officer credited with helping stop a deadly shooting rampage at a Utah shopping mall said his experience helped him react quickly to confront the gunman.

Kenneth K. Hammond, who was at the mall for an early Valentine's Day dinner with his wife, said he first thought the sound of gunfire was construction noise but drew his gun and told his wife to call the police when he realized what was happening.

"I've been in situations before where I've had to chase a guy who was pointing a gun at me," Hammond, 33, said Tuesday.

Investigators were still trying to figure out why Sulejmen Talovic, an 18-year-old Bosnian immigrant, opened fire Monday on shoppers, killing five and injuring four others.

Hammond, who fired on Talovic, is being credited with drawing the gunman's attention until other officers could reach the scene. Talovic was killed, although it was unclear which officer fired the fatal shot, police said.

"I feel like I was there and did what I had to do," Hammond said.

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

Talovic's aunt, Ajka Onerovic, emerged briefly from the family's house to say relatives had no idea why the young man attacked so many strangers. She said the family moved to Utah from Bosnia.

"He was a such a good boy. I don't know what happened," she told Salt Lake City television station KSL.

Talovic drove to the Trolley Square shopping center — a century-old former trolley barn with winding hallways, brick floors and wrought-iron balconies — and immediately killed two people, then a third as he came through a door, Burbank said. Five other people were then shot in a gift shop, he said.

Four people who were wounded remained hospitalized Tuesday, two in critical condition, two in serious.

One of the wounded shoppers, Shawn Munns, 34, was alone outside the mall after a meal with his wife and two stepchildren when Talovic blasted him with a shotgun, according to sister-in-law Jodie Sparrow.

With dozens of pellets embedded in his side, Munns staggered into a restaurant and warned diners about the gunman, Sparrow said.

Outside the mall, candles and flowers were left as memorials to those killed.

The state Senate wants to honor Hammond, said his boss, Police Chief Jon Greiner, who is also a state senator.

Hammond said Tuesday he didn't feel like a hero.

"We were there for a reason. I had my gun on me for a reason. We decided to eat dessert, which we never do, for a reason," Hammond said. "Everything happened for a reason."

Hmmm. Sounds like he had that SG loaded with birdshot.

Biker

I agree with the birdshot assessment. One survivor said on radio he credited his "bulk" with absorbing "dozens" of pellets he's going to be carrying the rest of his life.

An uncordinated response by several concealed weapons owners could have led to an even more disasterous situation here. What identifies the baddies from the goodies? If you saw someone braced against a store doorway firing inwards would you shoot that individual?

This matter was covered in our CHL class. It was suggested that, unfortunately, point defence of your local area may be your best option. The possibility of being shot by responding officers was also considered. I frankly don't think that standing up with your wallet and pistol in view is going to help much in an adrenalin pumped situation.

I would think that stopping an obvious recognizable threat is valid. Running into a firefight in civilian clothes, gun drawn, is possibly going to prove fatal. I do not see a good answer.

What Shooter503 said. . . as much as I would want to "run over and help out," I want to get shot by the po-po's much less . . .

Does anyone want to bet whether that Ogden officer will EVER leave home without a sidearm AND at least one additional magazine?

shooter503 said:

An uncordinated [sic] response by several concealed weapons owners could have led to an even more disasterous [sic] situation here. What identifies the baddies from the goodies? If you saw someone braced against a store doorway firing inwards would you shoot that individual?

Click to expand...

shooter503 brings up a valid point. In this thread we have been discussing the apparent lack of CCWs in this situation, and yet would you want to get involved in "hunting down" this psycho? Perhaps defending your area and family and/or friends is the best answer. Yes, it leaves the psycho loose but knowing that LEOs are going to be responding en masse should give you reason to pause. If you "go hunting" and you saw a person "firing inwards," as suggested by shooter503, if that person was armed with a pistol rather than a shotgun, how would you know that wasn't another CCW after the shooter? How would the responding LEOs know you are a legitimate CCW holder trying to quell the violence?

Sticky situation, this.

Can anyone validate whether or not Trolley Square allows CCH in their mall, or if Utah law prevents it?

This is an easy one for me: CCW's are meant for personal self defense, personal meaning "imminent and immediate danger to yourself or others".


If you are a civilian and are not being shot at or having a badguy point weapon at you, you are not in imminent and immediate danger.

So therefore, you shouldn't have your weapon out if the badguy isn't an immediate threat. If he's shooting up the food court and you're down at the GAP 200 feet away, run away.

a CCW *never* allows you to "hunt down" or "go looking" for a badguy. At that point, it is vigilante justice.

If a CCW carrier had been in Trolley Square, they should have either stayed hidden or ran away, UNLESS the shooter came towards them and the people around them. In that case, repel the attack.

That is what I believe. Until I have a badge, my CCW's only purpose is to stop bullets that are imminently and immediately going to be flying at ME, my WIFE, or my CHILD. Other than that, I'm not a superhero or a pretend-cop.

Trolley Square etc.

Utah law does not prohibit CCW at Trolley Square or any other mall. Some say there are "No Gun" signs in/around Trolley, but I have never seen one, actually I don't think I've ever seen a "No Gun" sign anywhere in Utah but the local hospital. That said, if I've ever seen such a sign I guess I have just ignored it. I carry every where in UT, except where prohibited bt Federal Law.

Can anyone validate whether or not Trolley Square allows CCH in their mall, or if Utah law prevents it?

Click to expand...

There are some signs posted at Trolley Square saying no guns allowed. Unknown if these are from individual stores, or the mall itself.

However under Utah law, the signs have no legal binding authority, and are worth the paper they're printed on.

But as I pointed out to the legislature last night:

"How many people left their firearms home Monday night because they were afraid of violating a rule,"

Click to expand...

-me in the Salt Lake Tribune 2/14/07

You guys can disucss the tactics of retreating or not to death. But the answer really is that it depends. Every situation is fluid and dynamic, and you have to act accordingly. The same thing applies to the responding officers.

So don't What If yourself into a corner where there is no escape. Game these things out in your head beforehand according to your skill/knowledge/training, and plan accordingly.

Should you retreat, attack? Depends on you, your surroundings, your scenario, etc. These situation suck. Deal with that, and know that there probably isn't a right answer, just answers.

There's a big chance of confusion, but in this situation, the guy with the shotgun (not a CCW weapon), who is not in any sort of uniform, in fact in a stereotypical "mass shooter" trenchcoat, walking in the open, firing first at one fleeing, apparently unarmed person and then another, maybe into folks already down, is probably not going to be a "good guy".

You can use a little common sense. Remember, as the guy on the scene you will have the best chance to see what's actually happening, while it's happening. Like this off-duty cop, he was the only responder for the first minutes, that is the most likely scenario for any CCW holder, there just aren't that many armed people in any one place at any time.

As far as being shot by responding officers or other CCW's, that there is a problem. I would suggest that dressing like a stereotypical "upstanding" citizen (vs. unseasonable trenchcoats or all camo or the like) and using cover and, once you've engaged, continuously yelling cop-like stuff like "drop your weapon" and "call 911", should help anyone responding tag you with "good guy" right off the bat. Again, at least you won't be the trenchcoat guy, in the open, with the long gun.

Also, as soon as you see or hear uniforms, if you are behind cover, you should be able to secure the gun a bit in some safety and start yelling "help! police!" and "he's over there", "he has a shotgun", that sort of thing, again, you're the helpful guy who isn't sluicing down running civvies yelling "die m-f".

Misidentification is possible and even likely, but it isn't so much a given that it should stop someone from acting if they feel the duty. As CCW's we have to use our brains and take a second to orient ourselves to the fight if we respond to the guns.

Hammond killed 18-year-old Sulejmen Talovic, the gunman at Trolley Square mall Monday night...
"...shot five people inside the store. Talovic then reportedly encountered two more people before the off-duty officer was able to track him down and distract him...

Click to expand...

Distract him??? I'll say! Man takes his distraction seriously. A hero, no doubt.

Our own Moderator, Correia, Testifies

In Utah Legislature following Trolley Square Mall tragedy

http://www.sltrib.com/search/ci_5223644

Trolley Square: Gun-rights debate gets drawn into aftermath
By Christopher Smart and Sheena McFarland
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

Controversial legislation restricting concealed weapons on state college campuses became a flash point Tuesday as emotion over Monday night's Trolley Square shooting boiled over during public comment on the bill.
SB251, which passed out of a Senate committee Tuesday, would allow dorm residents to choose a roommate who does not carry a concealed weapons permit and would give universities and colleges the right to restrict concealed weapons in faculty offices.
But such rules may have caused the high number of deaths at Trolley Square, argued Larry Correia, chief financial officer of Fuzzy Bunny Movie Guns store in Draper.
"How many people left their firearms home Monday night because they were afraid of violating a rule," he said, referring to the signs at Trolley Square prohibiting firearms.
Stuart White, a gun owner from Spanish Fork, agreed.
"[Monday] night, a concealed weapons permit holder came to the defense of defenseless residents, but what are the chances an off-duty officer will be around?" he asked, choking back tears and adding that students should be given the right to carry concealed weapons on campus.
To carry or not to carry? Which philosophy would have made a difference?
The debate between gun-control advocates and gun-rights supporters is a familiar aftermath to any outburst of gun violence in America.
In the wake of Monday's murderous rampage at Trolley Square, those questions are again confronting law-abiding members of a sometimes violent society.
"When things like this happen, some think maybe we ought to have no guns in society, and some think everyone should have one," said Steve Gunn, board member of Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. "It all depends on your perspective."
It appears as though off-duty Ogden police Officer Kenneth Hammond, who carried a concealed weapon, stopped the killing spree, said Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Shooting Sports Council.
Aposhian noted that it is impossible to know whether a concealed-weapon holder could make a difference in every violent confrontation.
"But we do know what happens when there is no one with a concealed weapon in these situations: people die."
Aposhian spent Monday fielding telephone calls from individuals and groups seeking information on concealed-weapons permits.
''You won't hear the gun-rights community say, 'Everyone needs to get a gun permit.' That wouldn't be right,'' Aposhian said. "But people who never before desired a firearm now want to get a permit. These are moms and dads."
Those on the other side of the debate, however, say more guns make us less safe.
"I'm not comfortable arming our entire country for protection - that's a paranoid notion," said Gary Sackett, a Gun Violence Prevention Center board member.
"You can't protect against every madman with a firearm or a hand grenade. That sort of thing is going to happen from time to time."
Homicide and suicide rates in countries where gun ownership is restricted - like Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom - are a fraction of the U.S. rate, Sackett said.
"If we arm everybody, we are a lost society. And most Western countries have figured that out."
But gun advocate Charles Hardy said that concealed weapon holders aren't "Rambo wannabes" and would flee rather than shoot it out. But in a situation like the one at Trolley Square, it could give a victim "a fighting chance," rather than being a "sitting duck."
Hardy, the public policy director for Gun Owners of Utah, said a concealed-weapon permit is "something every adult needs to consider."
For Dee Rowland, chairwoman of the Gun Violence Prevention Center, however, that statement is "absurd." ''Even my 9-year-old grandson said, 'How could that help?' ''

Click to expand...

I don't know if the anger is coming through as I type this, but only 10% of us with CCW can be bothered to actually carry. I'm imaging that this will change that.

Click to expand...

We can certainly hope, but the pessimistic side of me thinks that we'll see a spike in people who carry for a week or so, and then it will probably settle back down to 10%. I honestly hope I'm wrong, though.

As a matter of fact, Larry, I've been pretty befuddled by the fact that my close friends, Jaren, Chase, and Mac (I think you taught Jaren and Chase) almost never carry. Chase carries most, which is about 50% of the time.

Some people won't wake up until it is too late to do so.

:banghead:

Wes

Agreed Wes, agreed. And it makes me sad.

I taught 300 people in 2006. I don't know how many of those actually turned their paperwork in. Figure 275 I'm guessing. Of that, figure 10% is actually carrying a gun regularly. So about 27 people.

And you want to know the biggest single reason why people with permits don't carry?

BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR A COMPANY WITH A NO GUNS AT WORK POLICY.

So they leave their guns home when they go to work. Then they go run errands after work. They may carry their guns if they come home first, strap up, and then go out.

But more often than not, because of their company policy, and fear of losing their jobs, they get in the habit of being unarmed.

No guns at work policies are responsible for more deaths than just the ones that occur at work.

qlajlu, we tried. There were 24 of us that testified against the U last night. See my other thread in L&P, and go hammer your senators.

For Dee Rowland, chairwoman of the Gun Violence Prevention Center, however, that statement is "absurd." ''Even my 9-year-old grandson said, 'How could that help?' ''

Click to expand...

How 'bout, "Um, Grandson, you stop the bad man who is killing people." Way to pass the "victim" torch grandma.

"I'm not comfortable arming our entire country for protection - that's a paranoid notion," said Gary Sackett, a Gun Violence Prevention Center board member.
"You can't protect against every madman with a firearm or a hand grenade. That sort of thing is going to happen from time to time."

Click to expand...

So to appease Sackett's comfort level a certain # of people are just gonna have to be victims. How pleasant.

And you want to know the biggest single reason why people with permits don't carry?

BECAUSE THEY WORK FOR A COMPANY WITH A NO GUNS AT WORK POLICY.

So they leave their guns home when they go to work. Then they go run errands after work. They may carry their guns if they come home first, strap up, and then go out.

Click to expand...

Add me in there <sigh>. In my case it's because I work in a neighboring non-state (washington DC) that won't permit guns AND in a secured Federal building that won't allow guns. I suppose the sheer number of armed secret service guys on other floors should make me feel better...but they don't commute on the metro with me after dark so somehow it just doesn't help

"I'm not comfortable arming our entire country for protection - that's a paranoid notion," said Gary Sackett, a Gun Violence Prevention Center board member.

Click to expand...

Ummm, so what about
-Seatbelts
-Crash helmets
-Smoke detectors
and the list of safety items goes on. Must be paranoia because I've never needed any of that stuff so must be that it (sarcasm on) "never happens" (sarcasm off) just like criminals "never" assault anybody.

Homicide and suicide rates in countries where gun ownership is restricted - like Japan, Canada and the United Kingdom - are a fraction of the U.S. rate, Sackett said.

Click to expand...

and Sackett needs to check his facts because this statement is wrong.

"If we arm everybody, we are a lost society. And most Western countries have figured that out."

Click to expand...

This is the statement I can't figure out. "Lost"? Lost to what? Lost where? What exactly does this statement mean? I think my head is going to explode.

Hardy, the public policy director for Gun Owners of Utah, said a concealed-weapon permit is "something every adult needs to consider."
For Dee Rowland, chairwoman of the Gun Violence Prevention Center, however, that statement is "absurd." ''Even my 9-year-old grandson said, 'How could that help?' ''

Click to expand...

Riiiiight, because a 9 year old has so much world experience and understanding that we should listen to their opinions just like we should let them drive and drink and vote and run for office and.....

shooter503 said:

An uncordinated response by several concealed weapons owners could have led to an even more disasterous situation here. What identifies the baddies from the goodies? If you saw someone braced against a store doorway firing inwards would you shoot that individual?

Click to expand...

The odds of "an uncordinated response by several CCW holders" is pretty slim. CCW holders are relatively thin on the ground. For example, in Michigan about 2% of the population has a Concealed Pistol License. The number that actually carry is probably only a small percentage of that. (Based on the number of my students who tell me they don't plan to carry routinely)

That means the a decision to NOT engage the bad guy just because "There might be some other CCW holder around and I might get misidentified" is a bad decision based on a false assumption.

shooter503 said:

I would think that stopping an obvious recognizable threat is valid. Running into a firefight in civilian clothes, gun drawn, is possibly going to prove fatal. I do not see a good answer.

Click to expand...

Funny thing, the cop in this instance was "off duty" and wearing normal clothes. What he did PRECISELY fits the description of "Running towards the firefight in civilian clothes, gun drawn."

Granted, off duty cops have badges and we don't, but there is a big difference between a wallet badge and being in full uniform.

I will agree that a CCW holder who intervenes the way this off-duty cop did is running a risk of getting misidentified and shot by responding officers. Off-duty and especially undercover cops do sometimes get shot by uniformed officers after being mistaken for bad guys. There are ways to reduce that risk though and, if you aware of that risk, you can work to reduce the odds of that misidentification happening in the first place.

Sean Dempsey said:

This is an easy one for me: CCW's are meant for personal self defense, personal meaning "imminent and immediate danger to yourself or others".

Click to expand...

What is it about shoppers being actively shot, right now, that makes it NOT "an immediate danger to yourself or *others.* Granted, the gunman isn't shooting at you right now, but he is shooting at *other* innocent people.

The threat is an "imminent and immediate" danger to innocent people. There are provisions in most (all?) state laws that allows the use of deadly force to protect the life of an innocent person other than yourself.

Sean Dempsy said:

If you are a civilian and are not being shot at or having a badguy point weapon at you, you are not in imminent and immediate danger.

Click to expand...

You may not be in danger, right that second, but other innocent people are in "imminent and immediate" danger of being killed. As I said, in most instances, you are allowed to use deadly force to protect the life of an innocent person. It doesn't have to be *just* your own life.

So therefore, you shouldn't have your weapon out if the badguy isn't an immediate threat. If he's shooting up the food court and you're down at the GAP 200 feet away, run away.

Click to expand...

That is one possible response. It is *NOT* the only allowable response though, which is what you seem to be saying. Is it the *best* response? It depends. Can you live with yourself afterwards if you knew that innocent people were being killed nearby, and you had the power to help, and chose not to do so?

Granted, the decision to intervene opens you up to all sorts of risks. Everything from being shot by the bad guy, to being shot by responding officers, to possible criminal or civil legal problems down the road. For me, the additional risk to my family would be a big reason *not* to get involved. It's one thing to risk my own life, it's another to submit my family to greater risk by chosing to get involved.

No one can make that choice for you. There are good arguments that can be made for intervening to save the life of other innocent people and for not intervening to reduce the risk to yourself and your family. I want say what you "should" or "shouldn't" do. Just don't try to say that one choice is always right and the other is always wrong.

a CCW *never* allows you to "hunt down" or "go looking" for a badguy. At that point, it is vigilante justice.

Click to expand...

BS! Defending the lives of other innocent people is NOT "vigilante justice." If you think that, you obviously don't understand either what the law allows or the terms you are throwing around.

If a CCW carrier had been in Trolley Square, they should have either stayed hidden or ran away, UNLESS the shooter came towards them and the people around them. In that case, repel the attack.

Click to expand...

That is a legitimate response. It would probably be the safest choice of action for the CCW holder. It is *not* the only response though and may or may not be the *best* response in the circumstance.

That is what I believe. Until I have a badge, my CCW's only purpose is to stop bullets that are imminently and immediately going to be flying at ME, my WIFE, or my CHILD. Other than that, I'm not a superhero or a pretend-cop.

Click to expand...

Hey, I got no problem with that. That is a perfectly valid decision for you to make. Just don't think that it is *only* decision available.

I agree that we aren't cops. We have no obligation to "seek out trouble" and stop the bad guy the way the cops have to do. However, if innocent people are being killed nearby, right now, and I have the ability to stop it, the decision to intervene does not make me a "superhero" or "pretend cop." It just means I'm someone with a conscience who can't stand by in that situation and let innocent people die without trying to help.

There is a big difference between a CCW holder who pulls his gun in the local "Stop 'N Rob," gas station because a bad guy produced a knife and threatened the clerk and a CCW holder who intervenes in an "active shooter" situation.

Yep, there are risk. In the Texas courthouse shooting, Mark Wilson tried to intervene, and got killed by the bad guy. The cops credit him with saving several lives though. Fair tradeoff? Only he knows.

There is a big difference between a CCW holder who pulls his gun in the local "Stop 'N Rob," gas station because a bad guy produced a knife and threatened the clerk and a CCW holder who intervenes in an "active shooter" situation.

Click to expand...

I can agree with with you are saying. I was probably speaking more from a situational construct in my head. If I had been there with my family, my primary mission in life is to ensure my 1 year old son someday becomes a fine upstanding CW carrying adult. If the shooter is across the mall, I'd get my family as safe as possible before considering engaging the badguy.

If the shooter starts shooting as we're 20 feet away, then I'm going to do my best to put all 5 Gold Dot hollow points in his vitals as fast as possible. And after that if I need, I'll use my j-frame as a club. And after that, I'll consider carrying something with more shots than a 5-shot snub.

I can agree with with you are saying. I was probably speaking more from a situational construct in my head. If I had been there with my family, my primary mission in life is to ensure my 1 year old son someday becomes a fine upstanding CW carrying adult. If the shooter is across the mall, I'd get my family as safe as possible before considering engaging the badguy.

If the shooter starts shooting as we're 20 feet away, then I'm going to do my best to put all 5 Gold Dot hollow points in his vitals as fast as possible. And after that if I need, I'll use my j-frame as a club. And after that, I'll consider carrying something with more shots than a 5-shot snub.

Click to expand...

I agree that family comes first. For me, it would make a difference if I was there alone or if my wife was with me.

I just re-read my post and it comes off as a little more confrontational then I intended. No offense is intended and I apologize if any is perceived.

You know, I was carrying my J-frame .38 the day this happened (not at work, though I do keep it in the car while there). When I read about it, I was disturbed. And I went to my safe and got out a bigger gun, which I carried the last couple of days. And made sure my wife's gun was where she could get it.

I'll probably go back to the J-frame most of the time, though. Maybe I'll compromise and carry both.

I miss Utah. I grew up there. It makes me sad to see an incident like this there.

I was wondering when the statement, "He was such a good boy" would come up. This is probably one of those situations where the mother did not even know the kid.
I was just reading about a study on mall secuity, and the proposals to increase the secuity.
One was metal detectors. These would not help at all in this case.
Also they suggested guard dogs at the entrances, arned guards at the entrances. etc.
There is some very interesting reading on this link.
I have been thinking about what the consequesces would be if a person had to engage an armed attacker, say like in this particular situation. Some very good comments and debate on this subject.

SEAN DEMPSEY - "If the shooter starts shooting as we're 20 feet away, then I'm going to do my best to put all 5 Gold Dot hollow points in his vitals as fast as possible. And after that if I need, I'll use my j-frame as a club."

You don't carry an extra speedloader, or speed strip" for your .38??????????

Not smart.

So many CCW carriers say, "Ahh, if I can't shoot my way out of it with five or six rounds, I'll just scoot on outta there!" Uh huh. Sometimes, you can't scoot. You might be in a position where you have to stay and fight. There is no such thing as the optimum self defense situation.

I know a man who engaged two guys using his S&W 36 .38 Sp. They had shotguns. He put one down, then ran outta ammo as he, like you, carried no extra ammo. The second thug then proceeded to casually blow off the head of the man's three year old daughter.

Feces happens.

In my opinion, anyone - off duty peace officer or civilian -- who CCWs, who does not carry at least one extra magazine or speedloader, is indeed, foolish.

L.W.