View Full Version : Shooter in Portland, Oregon
According to Fox, a shit bag just shot up a mall in Portland, OR. He was supposed to be using an AR, Body armor and Camo. No link yet.
Dammit "reasonable" gun control legislation in 3....2....
UrbanWolf
12-11-2012, 18:53
What happened to human decency?
The news is claiming over 60 rounds fired, multiple people down, suspect has been "neutralized".
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-Town-Center-shots-fired-183076991.html
DSB OUTDOORS
12-11-2012, 18:58
Tis the season for great big Assholes. Falalala- lalalalaa. [Rant2]
brokenscout
12-11-2012, 19:02
Every shooting is with an "AR". lol.Body armor LBE. Time to go dig some holes[shithitsfan][dig]
http://www.9news.com/news/article/304497/339/Person-opens-fire-at-mall-near-Portland-Ore-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge
Damnit! You guys beat me by 10 minutes! Shooter is no longer a threat because his gun jammed or something but they are still live in a standoff in the mall. Give this douche a Xmas present loaded with 9mm up his ass!
I've probobly had 1 jam in 12 years of firing ar type of weapons. I just don't get it
jerrymrc
12-11-2012, 19:13
Why anyone would want to shoot up the Clackamas Clown center is beyond me. And yes, that is what it has been called for years. [Flower]
Dammit "reasonable" gun control legislation in 3....2....
Tragic.
All these shootings should be the poster child for pushing more CCW holders, not more gun control legislation.
Dammit "reasonable" gun control legislation in 3....2....
yup.....
rockhound
12-11-2012, 19:33
so true,
isn't any gun that is being fired in your direction an "assault weapon" if you are shooting at me I am being assaulted.
Tragic.
All these shootings should be the poster child for pushing more CCW holders, not more gun control legislation.
Not just more CCW holders but more places to legally carry. I'll bet that mall is a "Gun Free" zone just like the Aurora theater was. It being a "Gun Free" is one of the reasons the shooters picked it as their killing field.
clublights
12-11-2012, 19:44
Where did you hear it was an AR ?
Every report I've read ( with the exception of CNN.. to whom every gun is an assault rifle ... )
The rest of all said just rifle .
Where did you hear it was an AR ?
Every report I've read ( with the exception of CNN.. to whom every gun is an assault rifle ... )
The rest of all said just rifle .
Fox has been calling it an AR15 since around 4 when I first saw the report.
palepainter
12-11-2012, 19:51
What the hell is a magazine clip? I have heard that twice now with this incident.
clublights
12-11-2012, 19:55
Fox has been calling it an AR15 since around 4 when I first saw the report.
The local stations in OR are just saying rifle still
I saw Fox news call it an AR15 and said gunman dropped a fully loaded 30 round magazine.
JM Ver. 2.0
12-11-2012, 21:08
I've probobly had 1 jam in 12 years of firing ar type of weapons. I just don't get it
Wolf or Tulammo. Steel cased... Ya know...
dwalker460
12-11-2012, 21:19
Wolf or Tulammo. Steel cased... Ya know...
Word! Good thing these geniuses buy the cheapest shit they can get thier hands on
JMBD2112
12-11-2012, 21:31
more catalyst for the dummycraps....er democrats
BPTactical
12-11-2012, 21:55
Dammit "reasonable" gun control legislation in 3....2....
Bingo.
Anybody who still feels that we won't see any changes to firearms regulation is delusional.
mahabali
12-11-2012, 22:14
Word! Good thing these geniuses buy the cheapest shit they can get thier hands on
No kidding.
ChadAmberg
12-11-2012, 22:16
Funny, I've not seen anyone comment anywhere on the "white mask" the shooter was wearing. I'm wondering what the chances are that it ends up being one of those Anonymous anarchist Guy Fawkes masks.
http://catholicbandita.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/anonymous.jpg
We're already hearing "body armor". Considering people (and Bob Costas) still think that the James Holmes wore body armor, I wonder when the truth will come out on that point.
One of the articles I read called this "the latest in a string of shooting rampages throughout the country, the latest being (Aurora)..." I was thinking - other than Aurora, which rampages are they thinking of? Are they counting the NYC thing, which was basically your standard murder of which there are hundreds in NYC every year until the cops opened fire on a busy street and hit 10 people? I'm trying to figure out the rest of this "string of shooting rampages".
alan0269
12-11-2012, 22:37
Let's remember what happened, and think about how thankful we should all be for the people we have in our lives that we love and care for. Prayers out to those those that were injured or killed and their friends and families. This is going to make Christmas, Hannukah, or whatever holiday people are celebrating this time of year, for many years to come.
Media has a field day with endless speculation and calls for useless legislation to save the children.
The shooter gets their warped sense of fame and attention.
Politicians get to strut around looking like they are doing something useful.
The surface of the true problem is never scratched.
This is getting old.
lead_magnet
12-12-2012, 02:27
http://www.9news.com/news/article/304497/339/Person-opens-fire-at-mall-near-Portland-Ore-?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cbc%7Clarge
Damnit! You guys beat me by 10 minutes! Shooter is no longer a threat because his gun jammed or something but they are still live in a standoff in the mall. Give this douche a Xmas present loaded with 9mm up his ass!
Wait wait wait! They never said AR, they said "assault weapon" ... oh wait, it jammed? You're right, must be an AR.
BAZINGA!!!
MATT02GT
12-12-2012, 03:33
This is tragic for sure, and my toughts go out to the innocent victims and their family/friends. But I tottaly agree, all the more reason to push ccw permits but unfortuntley it will be quite the opposite.
More CCWs won't do any good as long as there are places that don't allow an armed public. This shooting and the Aurora theater shootings are both gun free zones. These crazies are sane enough to know to only go to where there aren't any guns.
MATT02GT
12-12-2012, 05:14
Yea thats kind of a fine line law from what Ive researched.... Seems like the most they can ask you to do is leave, unless its a government building
Kraven251
12-12-2012, 09:05
While at one point in my life I was pretty sure I understood why there were gun free zones and the legal maneuvering behind it, when I see a Gun Free zone, I am fairly certain they are just not getting my business. The cost of doing business with these places is simply too high.
Things are going to get bumpy and unpleasant.
Concealed is concealed, unless its a school or govt. building.
PugnacAutMortem
12-12-2012, 09:37
Read a comment somewhere that said something to the effect of "I really wish there would have been a CCW permit holder there...then there would have been more victims"
I've never wanted to punch somebody through the internet so much in my entire life.
buffalobo
12-12-2012, 09:46
Media: "Another shooting rampage"
Another step on the path...
Kraven251
12-12-2012, 09:51
Read a comment somewhere that said something to the effect of "I really wish there would have been a CCW permit holder there...then there would have been more victims"
I've never wanted to punch somebody through the internet so much in my entire life.
But that is the problem with the perception. You have police officers that draw their weapons that barely qualify and end up shooting bystanders in NY. You have the same problem with the CCW community, there are people that get a CCW and don't practice, don't practice under stress, or think they are Harry fucking Callahan.
I have not come across anyone in this forum community with that mindset or that attitude, but it is the general perception of the public. Did you know that many of the statistics that are calculated for firearm deaths in violent crime also include the numbers for the criminals that were killed by responsible citizens defending themselves. It doesn't list x% of these deaths were because someone emptied a magazine into a scumbag.
It is the perception of the public, it is the ignorance of the public. It is the responsibility of the responsible gun owner to help educate the ignorant masses, and for the firearms community to stress education and training for those that own firearms. We are a responsible group of firearm enthusiasts, not everyone is the same.
PugnacAutMortem
12-12-2012, 09:58
But that is the problem with the perception. You have police officers that draw their weapons that barely qualify and end up shooting bystanders in NY. You have the same problem with the CCW community, there are people that get a CCW and don't practice, don't practice under stress, or think they are Harry fucking Callahan.
I have not come across anyone in this forum community with that mindset or that attitude, but it is the general perception of the public. Did you know that many of the statistics that are calculated for firearm deaths in violent crime also include the numbers for the criminals that were killed by responsible citizens defending themselves. It doesn't list x% of these deaths were because someone emptied a magazine into a scumbag.
It is the perception of the public, it is the ignorance of the public. It is the responsibility of the responsible gun owner to help educate the ignorant masses, and for the firearms community to stress education and training for those that own firearms. We are a responsible group of firearm enthusiasts, not everyone is the same.
See the perception is not going to change...because even if a CHP holder would be in the right place at the right time, drop the guy with one shot and have no other collateral damage...the media would bury that story. Hell, even if they went to the potential shooter's apartment and found plans to blow up a stadium full of people, they would still not tout the CCW shooter as the hero we all would know him/her to be. I'm not saying we shouldn't try in our communities, but the type of media coverage that is really necessary to change perceptions is impossible in this day and age.
Funny, I've not seen anyone comment anywhere on the "white mask" the shooter was wearing. I'm wondering what the chances are that it ends up being one of those Anonymous anarchist Guy Fawkes masks.
I heard on 850 this morning it was a "Michael" mask, a la "Halloween."
Well that was a short lived story.. no longer in the headlines. Not enough people died.
SuperiorDG
12-12-2012, 13:16
PORTLAND, Ore. — The gunman who killed two people and himself in a shooting rampage at an Oregon mall was 22 years old and used a stolen rifle from someone he knew, authorities said Wednesday.
Jacob Tyler Roberts had armed himself with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and had several fully loaded magazines when he arrived at a Portland mall on Tuesday, said Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts.
Read more: Police: Oregon mall shooter identified; used stolen rifle - The Denver Post (http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22176682/police-oregon-mall-shooter-didnt-know-2-he#ixzz2ErnGmDcU) http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_22176682/police-oregon-mall-shooter-didnt-know-2-he#ixzz2ErnGmDcU
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse
patrick0685
12-12-2012, 13:25
it sucks for the dude who got it stolen but at least they cant complain the system didnt work
Singlestack
12-13-2012, 07:48
The stupid media has this narrative that these kind of nutjobs all wear body armor, and therefore no responsible CCW holder could possibly neutralize them. From an LA times story a few minutes ago: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-oregon-rampage-20121212,0,44941.story
"The man entered the Clackamas Town Center, a popular suburban mall several miles from downtown Portland, on Tuesday afternoon. He was wearing a hockey-style mask and a protective vest and began firing with an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle, stolen from someone the suspect knew, police said. There were also several magazines of ammunition".
This doesn't say "body armor" specifically, but gives that impression to the unknowing masses. From other accounts I understand he was wearing a cheap tactical vest, and some witnesses identified that as body armor. Those things wouldn't stop a .22.
Singlestack
Yea thats kind of a fine line law from what Ive researched.... Seems like the most they can ask you to do is leave, unless its a government building
They are MOST LIKELY to just ask to you leave, but it is trespassing and they can call the cops to write you a ticket.
PugnacAutMortem
12-13-2012, 09:32
They are MOST LIKELY to just ask to you leave, but it is trespassing and they can call the cops to write you a ticket.
It is only trespassing if you do not leave. Since you are not doing anything illegal you can't get a ticket. Now if they don't ask you to leave and call the cops...the cops will just tell you to leave (hopefully).
I got stuck listening to Piers Morgan last night on CNN.. I about puked listening to this blow hard talk.
They are MOST LIKELY to just ask to you leave, but it is trespassing and they can call the cops to write you a ticket.
Blatantly wrong.
It is only trespassing if you do not leave. Since you are not doing anything illegal you can't get a ticket. Now if they don't ask you to leave and call the cops...the cops will just tell you to leave (hopefully).
This ^
Happened already. A theater patron (foolishly) exposed his carry or otherwise compromised his concealment and the establishment called the cops who unjustifiably arrested the guy but later set him free and apologized when someone smarter than the responding officers pointed out their ignorant fuck up. NOTE: this is not a rant or dig on LEO's in general, whom I sincerely respect and appreciate unless they individually prove otherwise, just this particular pair of fuckups in this particular instance.
Media actual has someone sensible as thier "firearms" expert.
http://www.opb.org/news/article/qa-firearms-expert-takes-questions/
Well done.
However, I would be cautious using terms like "very, or highly modifiable" around media folks.
Blatantly wrong.
This ^
Happened already. A theater patron (foolishly) exposed his carry or otherwise compromised his concealment and the establishment called the cops who unjustifiably arrested the guy but later set him free and apologized when someone smarter than the responding officers pointed out their ignorant fuck up. NOTE: this is not a rant or dig on LEO's in general, whom I sincerely respect and appreciate unless they individually prove otherwise, just this particular pair of fuckups in this particular instance.
Not to side-track the thread, but I looked this up, because it's not what I have learned. Apparently, it's a topic of some debate.
My research shows that entering private property which is posted is criminal trespass. The owner does not have to tell you to leave and then call the cops if you don't. The owner can call the cops right away. Whether or not you will be arrested, charged, and prosecuted is a different question. Please raise your wallet if you'd like to be the test case.
What I've heard is that if the owner asks you to leave, do so. Promptly. If the owner calls the cops, stay, get out your cell phone, and take pictures of the entry and any signs which may or may not be posted. What you really don't want to have happen is the owner to call the cops, then go put up a sign while you wait.
Note that in the James Mapes case, the theater into which he open carried was not posted. The simple reason that all charges were dropped against him is that he did not violate any laws.
PugnacAutMortem
12-13-2012, 13:07
Not to side-track the thread, but I looked this up, because it's not what I have learned. Apparently, it's a topic of some debate.
My research shows that entering private property which is posted is criminal trespass. The owner does not have to tell you to leave and then call the cops if you don't. The owner can call the cops right away. Whether or not you will be arrested, charged, and prosecuted is a different question. Please raise your wallet if you'd like to be the test case.
What I've heard is that if the owner asks you to leave, do so. Promptly. If the owner calls the cops, stay, get out your cell phone, and take pictures of the entry and any signs which may or may not be posted. What you really don't want to have happen is the owner to call the cops, then go put up a sign while you wait.
Note that in the James Mapes case, the theater into which he open carried was not posted. The simple reason that all charges were dropped against him is that he did not violate any laws.
I would be curious to see your sources for this.
I would be curious to see your sources for this.
Wouldn't we all.
I would be curious to see your sources for this.
Wouldn't we all.
To address the easy one first, the Westword article has the clearest coverage that the theater is NOT posted:
http://blogs.westword.com/latestword/2012/08/james_mapes_gun_theater_charge_dismissed.php
Mapes was not arrested for or charged with trespassing, so that case has zero bearing on the topic at hand.
Regarding the broader question of "do 'no gun' signs have the force of law?", your Google probably works as well as mine does. Again, do you want to be the test case? Do you want to see if you get a nice cop who just tells you to leave and tells the owner to chill out, or a cop having a bad day who tosses you in the back of the cruiser? Do you want to be the guy whose attorney is arguing with the DA that you would have been happy to leave if you had been asked to do so?
Keep in mind, the owner may not come talk to to you first. If your weapon is spotted, he may just step into the backroom and dial 911 "MWAG". The first you hear of the concern may be the police putting you up against the wall. As the cop marches you out to the curb, past the sign that says, "No weapons allowed", do you want to try to tell him why the sign didn't apply to you?
Per CRS:
From www.handgunlaw.us:
Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?
“NO”
C.R.S. 18-4-201 As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Premises" means any real estate and all improvements erected thereon.www.handgunlaw.us 5
(2) "Separate building" means each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or
occupied.
(3) A person "enters unlawfully" or "remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when the person is not
licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her intent, enters or
remains in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless
the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him or her by the owner
of the premises or some other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building that is
only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building that is
not open to the public. Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters
or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a
manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is
personally communicated to the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless
notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards
or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private
land or the forbidden part of the land. In the case of a designated access road not otherwise posted, said
notice shall be posted at the entrance to private land and shall be substantially as follows: "ENTERING
PRIVATE PROPERTYREMAIN ON ROADS".
"No Guns" signs do not have force of law in Colorado. You can be asked to leave, and if you refuse, you may be charged with 3rd Degree Trespass, a misdemeanor. Which is not to say that the cops can't ruin your day by disarming you, taking you into custody, charging you with disturbing the peace, menacing, etc. Even though the charges don't hold water, they could still conceivably make your life miserable and/or expensive (Mapes). all of that being said, concealed means concealed.
PugnacAutMortem
12-13-2012, 13:51
Regarding the broader question of "do 'no gun' signs have the force of law?", your Google probably works as well as mine does.
No...I think mine must work better. The 1st thing that pops up is the handgunlaws.us website that TFogger quoted. It clearly states that your "research" is incorrect. Which is why I wanted to see your sources. Thanks for being a smartass though.
No...I think mine must work better. The 1st thing that pops up is the handgunlaws.us website that TFogger quoted. It clearly states that your "research" is incorrect. Which is why I wanted to see your sources. Thanks for being a smartass though.
Per CRS:
From www.handgunlaw.us: (http://www.handgunlaw.us/)
"No Guns" signs do not have force of law in Colorado. You can be asked to leave, and if you refuse, you may be charged with 3rd Degree Trespass, a misdemeanor. Which is not to say that the cops can't ruin your day by disarming you, taking you into custody, charging you with disturbing the peace, menacing, etc. Even though the charges don't hold water, they could still conceivably make your life miserable and/or expensive (Mapes). all of that being said, concealed means concealed.
handgunlaw.us is a great site, and I did find that one. However, their answer is an interpretation. Is it the correct interpretation? Again - do you want to be the test case?
Again, remember the property owner might not ask you to leave. They might just call the cops. Do you want to roll the dice on that?
Of the other top results on Google, the CSSA site is less supportive of your position:
http://www.cssa.org/page.php?12
"How the owner of property chooses to deal with unwanted armed encroachers is entirely his call--he can merely ask the offender to leave, or he can call the police and make a criminal complaint, or he can do BOTH."
Note this opinion is from someone actually in Colorado, with a more focused interest in Colorado law, rather than someone who keeps up a national site with info on 50 states in their spare time.
Most of the other stuff is people talking, like you and I, that don't have a legal background or real information. In this case, handgunlaw.us has made an interpretation of the law that is clearly contrary to the intent of the authors. When the law was written, it was intended that a private property owner have the right to bar armed citizens from his property. I like handgunlaw.us, and appreciate the contribution they have made, but I reserve the right to recognize when they are making an interpretation of the law that might cost me substantial time, hassle, and money if they are wrong.
Per CRS:
From www.handgunlaw.us: (http://www.handgunlaw.us:)
Do “No Gun Signs” Have the Force of Law?
“NO”
C.R.S. 18-4-201 As used in this article, unless the context otherwise requires:
(1) "Premises" means any real estate and all improvements erected thereon.www.handgunlaw.us (http://www.handgunlaw.us) 5
(2) "Separate building" means each unit of a building consisting of two or more units separately secured or
occupied.
(3) A person "enters unlawfully" or "remains unlawfully" in or upon premises when the person is not
licensed, invited, or otherwise privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his or her intent, enters or
remains in or upon premises that are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless
the person defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him or her by the owner
of the premises or some other authorized person. A license or privilege to enter or remain in a building that is
only partly open to the public is not a license or privilege to enter or remain in that part of the building that is
not open to the public. Except as is otherwise provided in section 33-6-116 (1), C.R.S., a person who enters
or remains upon unimproved and apparently unused land that is neither fenced nor otherwise enclosed in a
manner designed to exclude intruders does so with license and privilege unless notice against trespass is
personally communicated to the person by the owner of the land or some other authorized person or unless
notice forbidding entry is given by posting with signs at intervals of not more than four hundred forty yards
or, if there is a readily identifiable entrance to the land, by posting with signs at such entrance to the private
land or the forbidden part of the land. In the case of a designated access road not otherwise posted, said
notice shall be posted at the entrance to private land and shall be substantially as follows: "ENTERING
PRIVATE PROPERTYREMAIN ON ROADS".
"No Guns" signs do not have force of law in Colorado. You can be asked to leave, and if you refuse, you may be charged with 3rd Degree Trespass, a misdemeanor. Which is not to say that the cops can't ruin your day by disarming you, taking you into custody, charging you with disturbing the peace, menacing, etc. Even though the charges don't hold water, they could still conceivably make your life miserable and/or expensive (Mapes). all of that being said, concealed means concealed.
This ^
I don't go anywhere locally without my carry, and it is always fairly deep concealed and no print or show allowed. Hell, I even carry it into the doc's office when I know I'm going to have to drop trou. Sadly, my work travel takes me directly to/through anti-gun regions so I can't even check one when I travel, but that doesn't mean I go completely unarmed. Even if I can't check a bag with an EDC knife I can carry at destination, there's always a sharp pointy object within reach.
HoneyBadger
12-13-2012, 18:51
In other news, FoxNews is flipping retarded... I just saw it for about 10 minutes during lunch today and the whole 10 minutes, they just had a stock photo of a scary-looking AR-15 on the left side of the screen, with the creepy mugshot of the shooter on the right side of the screen while they [presumably] discussed the need for "common sense" gun laws (for the children).
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.