Greenwood mall shooting

[Slow Hand]

Their argument is that if the mall wants to prohibit guns, then they are personally responsible for the safety of their patrons. I agree. I hope Simon goes broke over this.

Not gonna happen.

 

[xwing]

So, does this mean that the families of homicide victims can sue teh city of Indy, IMPD, Et all if they are ‘kilt in da streets’? What a crock. Yes, it was a horrible thing that happened but how do you blame the mall For what some rando psycho does?

You can sue anyone for anything. But you probably won't win. IMO the victims don't have a particularly strong case, but Simon will settle anyway due to publicity. Sueing them for the "anti-gun" signs should be a good reason, but legally such suits have rarely (if ever) succeeded.

Sent this as a suggested correction:

Replace: " The gunman was eventually shot and killed by then-22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, a legally armed citizen visiting the mall."

With: "The gunman was shot and killed in 15 seconds by then-22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken, a legally armed citizen visiting the mall."

Edit: if anybody (or everybody) wants to send the above suggested correction to Fox 59, go for it!!

Sent! Always fun filling the inboxes of news outlets when they make mistakes. Although IMO Fox59 has been somewhat evenhanded in their reporting (much better than most news outlets).

 

[PistolBob]

Does Simon still own/operate the Greenwood Mall?

 

[jsx1043]

Not gonna happen.

There’s a good possibility that it might do some damage. Simon has already sold off Circle Centre, its flagship property right next to its global headquarters. They are hurting with low attendance and revenue and don’t even have the majority share of contract in their own state anymore.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Their argument is that if the mall wants to prohibit guns, then they are personally responsible for the safety of their patrons. I agree. I hope Simon goes broke over this.

If they allow guns are they personally responsible for the safety of patrons? At what point does a store, somewhere you voluntarily go, assume responsibility for your personal safety from the actions of someone not under the control of the store? If they allow guns are they responsible for safe gun handling on the premise, and if I'm injured by a UD can I sue the store?

 

[bobzilla]

If they allow guns are they personally responsible for the safety of patrons? At what point does a store, somewhere you voluntarily go, assume responsibility for your personal safety from the actions of someone not under the control of the store? If they allow guns are they responsible for safe gun handling on the premise, and if I'm injured by a UD can I sue the store?

If they just don’t allow people in their buildings it’ll be fine.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If they allow guns are they personally responsible for the safety of patrons? At what point does a store, somewhere you voluntarily go, assume responsibility for your personal safety from the actions of someone not under the control of the store? If they allow guns are they responsible for safe gun handling on the premise, and if I'm injured by a UD can I sue the store?

I'd say at that point they'd be no more responsible than any other public place. But when they actively (albeit with no "teeth" to the action) seek to disarm people then they should bear responsibility for maintaining security.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Does Simon still own/operate the Greenwood Mall?

Yes, I believe they do.

 

[jsx1043]

I'd say at that point they'd be no more responsible than any other public place. But when they actively (albeit with no "teeth" to the action) seek to disarm people then they should bear responsibility for maintaining security.

I’d say this is where the slippery slope of freedom vs. security takes an even further nosedive. If litigation and case law becomes the precedent on the current trajectory, then it will become commonplace for private entities to require security screening and disarmament before entry, as the rule these days is erring on the side of security rather than freedom.

As currently discussed in the mall K9 thread and now the FedEx van camera thread, while these measures are not full, 100% governmental intrusion/Constitutional violations, they are only a hair’s width away and are definitely beyond the pale of what the Founders intended. We as a society have become complacent and comfortable with degradation of our rights and liberties, and we are paying the price.

 

[dudley0]

I do not feel that Simon should hold any responsibility. I am against their no gun rule but it is probably pushed by insurance more than anything.

On the very rare occasion that I go to a mall in Indiana I am still carrying.

When you are forced to not carry, like I was in Ohio last month, I feel it is a little different. I didn't have to go to the conference, but I did have to leave my gun in the vehicle the entire time because of a little sign on the door of the hotel. I will be pressing hard for the next one to be in Indiana. I won't have to travel as far and I know the rules of this state.

 

[DD15CBUS]

Mall has added a mall cop rotating that was not there before, after this. I have not changed my habits when it comes to carrying in the mall, as it has no legal standing unless they ask me to leave and I refuse, at which point they could trespass me

 

[jamil]

I do not feel that Simon should hold any responsibility. I am against their no gun rule but it is probably pushed by insurance more than anything.

On the very rare occasion that I go to a mall in Indiana I am still carrying.

When you are forced to not carry, like I was in Ohio last month, I feel it is a little different. I didn't have to go to the conference, but I did have to leave my gun in the vehicle the entire time because of a little sign on the door of the hotel. I will be pressing hard for the next one to be in Indiana. I won't have to travel as far and I know the rules of this state.

I agree with this to a point. It's their property. If they enforced it strictly, I'd say then they're denying the right of people to protect themselves. They assume that responsibility/liability.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I agree with this to a point. It's their property. If they enforced it strictly, I'd say then they're denying the right of people to protect themselves. They assume that responsibility/liability.

Do they assume liability for people who carry guns and injure someone by allowing it? Are they liable for you if they allow guns but an active shooter kills you anyway, which is what happened to some of the folks in this scenario? I get the emotion, but I don't get the logic of making a property owner liable for the actions of someone not associated with the property, or simply making them choose which risks to allow and which to deny.

You *choose* to engage with the property. It is not mandatory to enter Simon properties for any aspect of your life. The risk is yours to assume knowing the rules of entry. If you feel you can't protect yourself adequately with their rules and choose to follow them, are you not being negligent by going and playing by those rules? Personal responsibility and all that?

 

[foszoe]

You *choose* to engage with the property. It is not mandatory to enter Simon properties for any aspect of your life. The risk is yours to assume knowing the rules of entry. If you feel you can't protect yourself adequately with their rules and choose to follow them, are you not being negligent by going and playing by those rules? Personal responsibility and all that?

I don't want anyone on my property, but I still carry a liability umbrella because you never know who will one day do something stupid.

I wish personal responsibility was a legal definition instead of a common sense one.

 

[actaeon277]

Do they assume liability for people who carry guns and injure someone by allowing it? Are they liable for you if they allow guns but an active shooter kills you anyway, which is what happened to some of the folks in this scenario? I get the emotion, but I don't get the logic of making a property owner liable for the actions of someone not associated with the property, or simply making them choose which risks to allow and which to deny.

You *choose* to engage with the property. It is not mandatory to enter Simon properties for any aspect of your life. The risk is yours to assume knowing the rules of entry. If you feel you can't protect yourself adequately with their rules and choose to follow them, are you not being negligent by going and playing by those rules? Personal responsibility and all that?

Just me, but would say the gun person is responsible for lawsuits etc if they "do bad".

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Just me, but would say the gun person is responsible for lawsuits etc if they "do bad".

Me too. In either instance. It's not the mall's doing.

 

[nonobaddog]

Legal rule - sue the party with the most money.

 

[jamil]

Do they assume liability for people who carry guns and injure someone by allowing it? Are they liable for you if they allow guns but an active shooter kills you anyway, which is what happened to some of the folks in this scenario? I get the emotion, but I don't get the logic of making a property owner liable for the actions of someone not associated with the property, or simply making them choose which risks to allow and which to deny.

You *choose* to engage with the property. It is not mandatory to enter Simon properties for any aspect of your life. The risk is yours to assume knowing the rules of entry. If you feel you can't protect yourself adequately with their rules and choose to follow them, are you not being negligent by going and playing by those rules? Personal responsibility and all that?

Your second paragraph explains my answer to the first. Simon is in no way liable for this or any shooting. They're not really enforcing the no guns policy now or ever. Obviously. Because the good guy who stopped the shooter had a gun too.

Anyone can conceal carry into malls even though there's a sign on the door. What's the worst they can do? They catch you with a gun, they tell you to leave. And if you don't they trespass you. So if I go to the mall I'm taking the same risk as when I go anywhere in public. I accept that risk. I can't possibly have a logical reason to hold a business liable for failing to protect me, when the sign on the door is effectively meaningless.

Okay, so now what if they enforce it? We're talking about metal detectors now, increased security present, and restricted entry. We're talking about locking it down like a courthouse. What if someone slips through with a firearm? The difference when a business locks things down like that, there's an expectation of safety. I think they should deliver on the expectation, or not lock it down. That's the only point I made about that. I think it's fine like it is. They can have their policy, put their sign up on the entries, and satisfy the insurance companies. And shoppers will CC in the mall, and nobody cares.

 

[jamil]

Just me, but would say the gun person is responsible for lawsuits etc if they "do bad".

The "bad" gun owner is not just liable for damages. It's not against the law to carry in a mall. It's not against the law to violate mall policies. It's against the law to intentionally harm people with firearms. So if we want to talk about people taking personal responsibility, absolutely it goes both ways. You take responsibility for the risks you take while going about your day in public. But that doesn't mean that you hold sole responsibility. People that actually cause harm to people, negligently or maliciously, are responsible.

 

[nonobaddog]

Your second paragraph explains my answer to the first. Simon is in no way liable for this or any shooting. They're not really enforcing the no guns policy now or ever. Obviously. Because the good guy who stopped the shooter had a gun too.

Anyone can conceal carry into malls even though there's a sign on the door. What's the worst they can do? They catch you with a gun, they tell you to leave. And if you don't they trespass you. So if I go to the mall I'm taking the same risk as when I go anywhere in public. I accept that risk. I can't possibly have a logical reason to hold a business liable for failing to protect me, when the sign on the door is effectively meaningless.

Okay, so now what if they enforce it? We're talking about metal detectors now, increased security present, and restricted entry. We're talking about locking it down like a courthouse. What if someone slips through with a firearm? The difference when a business locks things down like that, there's an expectation of safety. I think they should deliver on the expectation, or not lock it down. That's the only point I made about that. I think it's fine like it is. They can have their policy, put their sign up on the entries, and satisfy the insurance companies. And shoppers will CC in the mall, and nobody cares.

I think the signs do a couple of bad things though.
1 - They might make some people not carry in the mall and therefore reduce their defensive capabilities and safety.
2 - They might encourage a mall shooter to pick this mall believing it is a softer target.